August 1, 2007 Certiorari Petition

United States Supreme Court Case Number 07-121:
Leslie V. Matlaw v. [United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois] Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole (Petition for Certiorari to Review the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' May 3 Decision in Seymour v. Hug, ReMax, Cendant Mobility, et al. [Appeal of Matlaw], 485 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2007)).

After representing the Plaintiff for several years in federal court (as well as previously, within HUD's administrative investigation) on her claims of Defendants' allegedly race-based Refusal-to-Sell / Refusal-to-Deal / Intimidation, Interference, Coercion and Harassment for assertion of her fair housing rights (all prohibited by the federal Fair Housing Act), the Parties finally agreed to settle all claims. Yet resolution of two terms (Confidentiality, Apportionment of part of the settlement monies to Plaintiff's children) proved increasingly complex. All Parties moved to enforce Settlement; in response, the Magistrate summarily concluded that Plaintiff and her Counsel had been "less than honest" and that we had intentionally misled Defendants, the District Court, and another (Probate) Court overseeing Plaintiff's children's interests in a separate matter. That sua sponte ruling issued without prior notice of the Court's intent to issue findings of actual fraud and to adjudicate disputed terms of the Settlement Agreement (just days prior, the Court had denied a motion for evidentiary hearing on these issues).

Despite our full, immediate compliance to address every action deemed to be suspect, the District Court issued a series of Orders impugning my integrity and conduct. Once the Final Settlement Order issued (which resolved all claims of my Client and Defendants and terminated their interests in any further litigation), I appealed the Orders asserting that I had acted improperly. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, citing unique-to-the-7th-Circuit caselaw asserting Congress did not intend for 28 USC Section 1291 (the statute conferring appellate jurisdiction) to allow attorneys' claims of stigmatic injury. Other Circuits construing this very issue conclude otherwise. In light of demonstrably-resultant harm (to represented Parties' lawyers, the Parties themselves, and other Courts which are not-infrequently-required to address allegations about an attorney's integrity as a threshold procedural issue), I petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari seeking to resolve this Circuit split.

The case is docketed for the Court's substantive examination of whether it should be accepted for discretionary review in the 2008 Term. My Certiorari Petition, which is believed to raise issues of significant public concern, can be viewed at the LINK shown.

Breaking News in White v. HUD!

August 23, 2007: Settlement Imminent for Consolidated Appeals of HUD's Decisions upon Remand

After HUD requested Secretarial Reconsideration of OALJ's "Notices" asserting a "Lack of Jurisdiction" to issue a Final Order after the Seventh Circuit reversed (see "Do Your Job," below) Leslie Matlaw filed appeals of two separate Orders issued by the HUD Secretary and its Chief ALJ. These appeals assert that the Orders were not issued in conformity with the regulations and statutory guidelines, and are thus subject to collateral attack. The Seventh Circuit's Rule 33 Settlement Conference on August 28th on the now-consolidated cases will be attended by Leslie Matlaw (for Appellant Sheila White); appearing on behalf of ALJ Liberty and HUD Secretary Alfonso Jackson will be Christopher Wang, who argued the underlying liability appeal, as detailed below. In this case of first impressionn, Ms. White filed an Initial Jurisdictional Memorandum (this document is normally submitted with the Opening Brief but the thorny issues required immediate fuller explication). Shortly afterward, the Seventh Circuit Ordered further jurisdictional briefing be filed by August 31st.

HUD's Orders may indeed be valid, but absent the requisite judicial imprimatur, the Orders at issue could be without effect, thereby scuttling all of the Complaining Parties' achievements to date (among them, OALJ's watershed Damages award of $12,000, the highest to date issued in any HUD adjudication of otherwise-exempt discriminatory statements).

See the National fair Housing Advocate Online's Coverage detailing the issues posed [ http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pageid=3681 ],

Review the LINK to Sheila White's Initial Jurisdictional Memorandum, and

Watch for updates on Ms. White's Award's enforceability and the federal Courts' pronouncements of the mandatory procedures HUD must follow in remanded cases!

____________________________________________________________________

May 29, 2007: Single Mom tells Adminsitrative Law Judge and HUD Secretary: "Do Your Job"

In what is believed to be the first such case filed under the Fair Housing Act, a civil rights victim has filed suit in federal court, seeking issuance of the extraordinary Writ of Mandamus for HUD’s continuous failure of enforcement.

Mandamus is an infrequently-utilized common-law remedy (now codified in several statutes, among them, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 85 [Action to Compel an Officer of the United States to perform his duty]). Complainant Sheila White first filed her fair housing complaint with HUD in the Fall of 1998, when a landlord explicitly refused to show her an apartment because she is a single mother. HUD took three years to investigate the case, finally issuing its Charge of Discrimination in May of 2001, but instead of promptly concluding the Administrative Hearing process within six months as the statute and regulations require, now-retired HUD Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Andretta presided over the case for 999 days before issuing his Initial Decision dismissing Ms. White’s claims of having been subjected to discriminatory statements and intimidation, harassment, and retaliation for having lawfully asserted her civil rights through the administrative process.

The HUD Secretary declined to modify or reverse ALJ Andretta’s Initial Ruling, which became final by operation of law January 3, 2004. After securing the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s unanimous reversal on the facts early in February of this year, Ms. White contacted HUD several times, seeking its cooperation in filing a Motion with HUD’s Office of Administrative Law Judges to Issue a Final Ruling on her Damages and the Government's Civil Penalty.

But despite her fair housing rights having been upheld by the Court of Appeals, the Government continues to oppose her efforts. Christopher C. Wang, Counsel for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Section (who vigorously opposed her appeal on the grounds that the landlord’s refusal was "ambiguous" and "not clearly attributable" despite the landlord’s own admission to the HUD investigator that she had, in fact, refused Ms. White because she had two children ("but no husband") has since argued to the Seventh Circuit that Ms. White should not be allowed to recoup the substantial cost of her appeal.

And last week, HUD’s Chief Administrative Law Judge Arthur A. Liberty ruled that HUD "lacked jurisdiction" to issue a Final Order, the last remaining step in Sheila White’s eight-year quest at HUD so that she can gain relief for the landlord’s strict liability discriminatory statements which "indicated disfavor for her familial status because her statements would allow an 'ordinary listener' to infer she had a preference against White due to her familial status." White v. HUD Secretary, 475 F. 3d 898, 908 (7th Cir. 2007).

Upon confirming that her Counsel had filed the Mandamus Petition naming Judge Liberty and HUD’s Secretary Alfonso Jackson, Sheila White responded, "When the lawyers came out of Judge Andretta’s chambers [at the Hearing], I heard him say, 'I've got real cases to work on, let’s get this over with.' I remember telling my lawyer when we rode down the elevator, 'I’ll go before Congress if I have to – HUD has been brushing me off to the side since Day One."

Ms. White’s Counsel has also filed a Motion before the Seventh Circuit advising of HUD’s failure to enforce the remand. For further information, see documents filed in Sheila White v. Chief ALJ Liberty and HUD Sec'y Jackson, Case Number 07-CV-2944 (N. Dist. Ill.) and White v. HUD Secretary, 475 F. 3d 898 (7th Cir. 2007) or contact Ms. White’s Counsel, Leslie V. Matlaw, P.C. at 312-804-3527.

(Excerpted from 5/29/07 edition of The National Fair Housing Advocate Online)http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=releases_chicago_052907