Upload
lynhi
View
217
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
-------
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
______ _
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document Number of
Releasable in Full:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product·
Withhold Entirely:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product:.
Common Interest in
ca Q fore ism1ssecf
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
to
www.ncfc.oni
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Worden, Jeanine M
From: Garcia, Michelle T Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1 54 PM To: Pelletier, Joseph A; Ray, Eileen F; Wylie, James W; Jones, Erica M; Wills, Charlene S;
Valles, Jeanine M; Chang, Jason C; Scruggs, David R; Ratterman, Colin J Cc: Worden, Jeanine M Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!
Magner (disparate Impact !hasuPf'�courttwilll5ea - -------- - - - - --- - - - --
---Original Message-
From: Pennington, Kathleen M Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1 :11 PM To: Branch, Chandra; Garcia, Michelle T; Lippincott, Alexandria; McEachin, Onjll; Pennington, Kathleen M; Posner, Michael B; Stegman, Melissa Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!
Yippee!!!
----Original Message--From: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:10 PM To: Pennington, Kathleen M; Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!
In case you hadn't heard.
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 01:04 PM To: Ladd, Christine (CFPB); Ficklin, Patrice (CFPB) Subject: Magner being dismissed!
National Consumer Law Center(r) Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 510
Washin 36
Sen: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:28 AM Advocates _PLUS
Subject: Unbelievable (Good) News
1
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.The City of St. Paul, MN, has given up In the Magner case pending In the United StatesSupreme Court and fs withdrawing its petition (whew).Disparate impact litigation under the FHA lives another day!
National Consumer Law Center
7 Winthrop Square, 4th Fr.Boston, MA 02110
--------
______ _
-----
-------
___ _
----
Exemptions: _______ _
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document
Releasable in Full:
Withhold Entirely:
Number of
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in Lit:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Joseph
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.Pelletier, A
From: Sent: To:
Cc: Subject:
Garcia, Michelle T Friday, February 10, 2012 1 :54 PM Pelletier, Joseph A; Ray, Eileen F; Wylie, James W; Jones, Erica M; Wills, Charlene S; Valles, Jeanine M; Chang, Jason C; Scruggs, David R; Ratterman, Colin J Worden, Jeanine M FW: Magner being dismissed!
-----Original Message----
From: Pennington, Kathleen M
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:11 PM
To: Branch, Chandra; Garcia, Michelle T; Lippincott, Alexandria; McEachin, Onjil; Pennington,
Kathleen M; Posner, Michael B; Stegman, Melissa
Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!
Yippee Ill
-----Original Message----
From:
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:10 PM
To: Pennington, Kathleen M; Aronowitz, Michelle
Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed I
In case you hadn't heard.
----- Original Message ----
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 01:04 PM
To: Ladd, Christine (Cf PB); Ficklin, Patrice (CFPB)
Subject: Magner being dismissed I
www.nclc.org
�Jibject
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.Washington, DC 20036
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:28 AM
To:Advocates_PLUS
__ _ Unbe!Jeva {Good) N - - - -- - -
The City of St. Paul, MN, has given up in the Magner case pending in the United States
Supreme Court and is withdrawing its petition (whew).
Disparate impact litigation under the FHA lives another dayl
National Consumer Law Center
7 Winthrop Square, 4th Fl.
Boston, MA 02110
---------,.----
--------
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
Exemptions: _______ _
-----
-------
----
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document
Releasable in Full:
Number of
Withhold Entirely:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Timothy. lambert(IOcfpb. gov [mail Timothy. [email protected]]
Messa •& ............ , ......
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.Posner, Michael B
From: Pennington, Kathleen M Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1 :11 PM To: Branch, Chandra; Garcia, Michelle T; Lippincott, Alexandria; McEachin, Onjil; Pennington,
Kathleen M; Posner, Michael B; Stegman, Melissa Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!
Yippee! 11
From: to: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:10 PM To: Pennington, Kathleen M; Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!
In case you hadn't heard.
----- Original
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 01:04 PM To: Ladd, Christine (CFPB)j Ficklin, Patrice (CFPB) Subject: Magner being dismissed!
National Consumer Law Center(r) 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:28 AM To: Advocates PLUS
t: Unbelievable News
the ited tates
- J National Consumer Law Center
-------
______ _
-----
Attorney-Client: _ _ _ __ _ _
----
Exemptions: ____ _ _ _ _
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document
Releasable in Full:
Number of
Privileges:
Withhold Entirely:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Ray,
Timothy.Lambert@cfpb. gov [mailto:Timothy. Lambert@cfpb. gov]
-- --Sent:
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Eileen F
From: Garcia, Michelle T Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1 :54 PM To: Pelletier, Joseph A; Ray, Eileen F; Wylie, James W; Jones, Erica M; Wills, Charlene S; Valles,
Jeanine M; Chang, Jason C; Scruggs, David R; Ratterman, Colin J Cc: Worden, Jeanine M Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!
Magner ( will be dismissed.
-----Original Message----
From: Pennington, Kathleen M Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:11 PM To: Branch, Chandra; Garcia, Michelle T; Lippincott, Alexandria; McEachin, Onjil; Pennington, Kathleen M; Posner, Michael B; Stegman, Melissa Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!
Yippee! I I
-----Original Message----From: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:10 PM To: Pennington, Kathleen M; Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!
In case you hadn't heard.
Original Message
Friday, February 10, 2012 01:04 PM To: Ladd, Christine (CFPB); Ficklin, Patrice (CFPB) Subject: Magner being dismissed!
........ National Consumer Law
1001 te 510
Washington, DC 20036
2012 11:
) News
z
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.The City of St. Paul, MN, has given up in the Magner case pending in the United StatesSupreme Court and is withdrawing its petition (whew).Disparate impact litigation under the FHA lives another dayl
--
National Consumer Law Center
7 Winthrop Square, 4th Fl.
Boston, MA 02110
t
hh
-------
,_,,.,.,,,.."'c•o• ·-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
Other: ·----------
Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
Deliberative
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in Lit: ----
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document
Releasable in Full:
Number of
Privileges:
Wit old
Privileges:
Deliberative
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Tuesday,
_____ . ---Orlginat-Massar·�-
you telephone-or
Worden, Jeanine M
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
L
From: Worden, Jeanine M Sent: January 31, 2012 9:26 AM To: Subject: RE: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher
Thanks - that's quite a list of amici!
· From: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:25 PM To: Aronowitz, Michell e; Worden, Jeanine M Subject: Former HUD Officals Amlcus Brief is attached - Magner v. Galfagher
Emery Cell i Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefell er Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NV 10019
www.ecbalaw.com
This electronic message transmission contains information from the I aw firm of Emery Cell i Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the Intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this Information is prohibited. If have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by by electronic mail
mediately.
-------
Attorney-Client: _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___ _
Exemptions: _______ _
Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
Privileges:
Deliberative Process: -----
Deliberative Process: -----
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document Number:------- Number of l Releasable in Full:
Attorney Work Product:.
Common Interest in
Withhold
Privileges:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Other:-----����-�
t.p_!su:�r@dEL_ examEJesJ!:tat wouldJa1Lwit�.Aef.4eftt::tl"e7-tlm:fitfT1trachman delightful
- --··k·now.
[mailto:[email protected]]
www.ei:;:balaw.com
prohiblte eceived telephone-or
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Worden, Jeanine M
From: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:53 AM To: Worden, Jeanine M Subject: RE: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher
Very cool group of people to work with - Kim Kendrick really stepped ..... ··· ·-· was to get to
1 .. And it was a pleasure to brief Cisneros and discuss policy implications. All around great experienced - compressed into 3 short weeks (will tell you that story later).
---Original Message--From: Worden, Jeanine M Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:26 AM To: Subject: RE: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher
Thanks -- that's quite a list of amici!
---Original Messa e----From: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:25 PM To: Aronowitz, Michelle; Worden, Jeanine M Subject: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10019
fax: 212. 763.5001
This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information Is this electronic transmission
error, please notify us by by electronic mail Immediately.
------- __ ___ _
------J�--
-----
-------
___ _
______ _ --------
-----
-------
----
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document Number: Number of Pages: } Releasable in Full:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Withhold Entirely: Exemptions:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
l I a
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Worden, Jeanine M
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Monday, January 30, 2012 5:25 P Aronowitz, Michelle; Worden, Jeanine M Former HUD Officals Arnicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher Arnicus Brief (00102562).PDF
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10019
fax: 212. 763.5001
www.ecbalaw.com
This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephon- or by electronic mail
'mmediately.
_____ _,,___
______ _
-----
-------
___ _
Exemptions: _______ _
-----
-------
___ _
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document
Releasable in Full:
Number of
Withhold Entirely:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Tanyna
nm'1"'0'"
rar•ff'\!1i'inf Ul;:\l,,IU;:\U!
"'"""'","'"' ints:>nrls:;tt If you are not the
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Domino, L
From: Sent: on ay, April 18, 2011 3:09 PM To: Kanovsky, Helen R Cc: Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: Disparate impact: HUD regulation and Supreme Court cert petition Attachments: Magner.pdf
Importance: High
Helen:
Before you and [tum our attention to Passover (l have two flourless chocolate rolls and eggplant parmagiana still to make), I wanted to express my interest in HUD's ongoing consideration of a Fair Housing Act disparate impact rule. Many of us in the civil rights community have long thought that such a rule would provide some protection from a Supreme Court that may be poised to do away with disparate impact analysis altogether.
Now that the Supreme Court has called for a response to the cert petition in Magner v. Gallagher (see attached), many of us are quite nervous about the prospects. My firm is meeting internally tomoITow morning, and I know
.we will be discussing the importance of the HUD rule. Not just any rule, but one that appropriately reflects the very high public defendant's burden in such a case, and one that does not overly burden a plaintiff in a case involving a private defendant.
Can we visit about this when the holiday is over?
Reiman, Dane & Colfax, P LLC 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600 .c. 20036-2456
FAX: 2021728-0848 E-mail: Website: www.relmanlaw.com Admitted in the District of Columbia and Virginia
NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments lo it contain confidential or information from the law firm of Dane & Colfax PLLC, This information is for the use of the intended If you are not the intended
that any or the of any action reliance on the and that the documents should be returned to this firm
information from the law firm This for the use of the intended
YOU are notified that any or the of any action in reliance on the contained is and that the documents should be returned to this firm If you have received this email in error, notify us email
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------
-------
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
----
_ _____ _ Exemptions: _______ _
-----
-------
___ _
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document Number: Number of 1 Releasable in Full:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Withhold Entirely:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Tanyna
Best,•••
a 2 SI
www.naacpldf.org
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Domino, L
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Monday, January 30, 2012 4:09 PM Kanovsky, Helen R; Aronowitz, Michelle Magner v. Gallagher - LOF amicus brief USSC 10-1032 bsac NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, lnc .. pdf
Helen and Michelle,
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 1444 I Street NW, 10th floor Washington, DC 20005
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information and is/are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
-------
-------
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
----
______ _ Exemptions: _______ _
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
----
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document Number: Number of
Releasable in Full:
Privileges:
Withhold Entirely:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in Lit:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Tanyna
distribution! a I If
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Domino, L
From: Sent: To: Subject:
Aronowitz, Michelle Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:36 PM Lester, Elton J FW: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher
You'll recognize the case of characters.
From: Sent: Mon ay, January 30, 2012 5:25 PM To: Aronowitz, Michelle; Worden, Jeanine M Subject: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief Is attached - Magner v. Gallagher
Amicus Brief )0102562).PO
Emery Celll Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza; 20th Floor New York, NY 10019
fax: 212.763.5001
www.ecbalaw.com
This electronic message transmission contains Information from the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the Intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, or use of the contents of this Information ls prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission In error, pleas notify us by telephone by electronic mail immediately.
-------
-------
-----
-------
___ _
_ _ _ __ _ _ Exemptions: _______ _
-----
-------
___ _
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
\Document Number: Number of
Releasable in Full:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Withhold Entirely:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Att0111fY Work Product:
Common Interest in
Ga (Mif1D olapubHc
<http://minnesota.publicradio.org/abouUpeople/mpr people display.php?aut
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/02/10/saint-paul-problem-propertieslawsuit-goes-to-trial/
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Worden, Jeanine M
From: Sent: To:
Subject:
Popowich, Janice (CRT) [[email protected]) Frida , F'ebruary 10, 2012 2:44 PM
Lynn M; Pratt, Sara K; News update on Magner v. ag er - . Paul dropping Supreme Court appeal -Landlords' suit against St. Paul over 'problem properties' going to trial
.r<:l iC>J . .. . ... ..... ·· ·· · .... · ·· · ···· . . . . . . . . . ... ..... ... . .. .. ... ... .. . ... . .... ... ... ... ··· · · .... .. .. · ·· · · .. . ... · ··· · ····· · · · · . . . . . . . . ... ... · ··· ·· · · · ·· ···· ···· · ·· ··· ·· · · ·· ·· · · · · ····· ·· ·· · · · ··· · · · .
Landlords' suit against St. Paul over 'problem properties' going to trial
by Curtis Gilbert id=123> ,
Minnesota Public Radio
February 10, 2012
St. Paul, Minn. - The city of St. Paul announced Friday it will drop its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and go to trial against a group of landlords that sued the city over its aggressive housing code enforcement.
--------
__ _ _ _ _ _
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
--------
-----
-------
----
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document
Releasable in Full:
Number of
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Withhold Entirely: Exemptions:
Tanyna
as
n "
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Domino, L
From: Mincberg, Elliot M Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11 :22 AM To: Kanovsky, Helen R; Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: FW: Disparate Impact -- Magner v. Gallagher: WSJ Editorial: "The St. Paul Stall"
FYI
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:20 AM To: Mincberg, Elliot M Subject: Fw: Disparate Impact -- Magner v. Gallagher: WSJ Editorial: "The St. Paul Stall"
Fyi
\Vall Street Journal - Editorial - 03 APR 12
The St. Paul Stall
The city clams up about its Supreme Court switcheroo. When St. Paul, Minnesota withdrew its lending discrimination case from the Supreme Court in February, the mayor's office explained that "a victory could substantially undermine important civil rights enforcement throughout the nation." But now that a House oversight panel is looking into the decision, city officials aren't so chatty.
ln a February 27 letter, Representative Patrick McHenry asked Mayor Christopher Coleman to answer some questions. Why did St. Paul withdraw 1Vfagner v. Gallagher, which would have allowed the Court to judge for the first time the legality of using disparate-impact analysis under the 1968 Fair Housing Act? Why did the city, which questioned the use of statistics to determine discrimination, change its How much
<lid it on
discriminatory intent" and without a Supreme Court finding "the
Agreement
www.tijrcprints.com
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.ln a March 30 follow-up, Mr. McHenry and oversight Chairman Darrell Issa told St. Paul they intend "to examine the nature and extent of this federal int1uence, as well as the consequences for federal law enforcement actions under the Fair Housing Act." The letter noted the city can't claim attorney-client privilege "because Congress recognizes only executive privilege." Late yesterday a spokesman for St. Paul's mayor said the city "has no desire to be at odds" with the committee.
The House is right to ask if Justice or other federal agencies coerced St. Paul into withdrawing its case to avoid a ruling that would shut down Mr. Perez's political agenda. The city has until April 12 to answer or the committee may issue a subpoena to force a response.
on page A l4 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The St. Paul Stall.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jom.'S Reprints at l-800-843-0008 or visit
-------
-------
-----
-------
___ _
______ _ Exemptions: _______ _
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document Number: Number of
Releasable in Full:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Withhold Entirely:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Kanovsky,
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Helen R
From: Sent: To:
Mincberg, Elliot M Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11 :22 AM Kanevsky, Helen R; Aronowitz, Michelle
Subject: FW: Disparate Impact - Magner v. Gallagher: WSJ Editorial: "The St. Paul Stall"
FYI
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:20 AM To: Mlncberg, Elliot M Subject: Fw: Disparate Impact -- Magner v. Gallagher: WSJ Editorial: "The St. Paul Stall"
Fyi
From: Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2 12 11:15 AM
Ex 6 Subject: Disparate Impact -- Magner v. Gallagher: WSJ Editorial: ''The St. Paul Stall"
Wall Street Journal - Editorial- 03 APR 12
The St. Paul Stall
The city clams up about its Supreme Court switcheroo. When St. Paul, Minnesota withdrew its lending discrimination case from the Supreme Court in February, the mayor's office explained that "a victory could substantially undermine important civil rights enforcement throughout the nation." But now that a House oversight panel is looking into the decision, city officials aren't so chatty.
In a February 27 letter, Representative Patrick McHenry asked Mayor Christopher Coleman to answer some questions. Why did St. Paul withdraw JWagner v. Gallagher, which would have allowed the Court to judge for the first time the legality of using disparate-impact analysis under the 1968 Fair Housing Act? Why did the city, which first questioned the use of statistics to determine discrimination, change its views? How much taxpayer money did it spend on the
the committee granted, but on did
not require a ofdiscriminatory intent" and without a Supreme Court finding "the enforcement actions. . will remain uncertain."
Agreement
www.uireprints.com
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.In a March 30 follow-up, Mr. McHenry and oversight Chairman Darrell Issa told St. Paul they intend "to examine the nature and extent of this federal influence, as well as the consequences for federal law enforcement actions under the Fair Housing Act." The letter noted the city can't claim attorney-client privilege "because Congress recognizes only executive privilege." Late yesterday a spokesman for St. Paul's mayor said the city "has no desire to be at odds" with the committee.
The House is right to ask if Justice or other federal agencies coerced St. Paul into withdrawing its case to avoid a ruling that would shut down Mr. Perez's political agenda. The city has until April 12 to answer or the committee may issue a subpoena to force a response.
appeared April 3, 2012, on page A14 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The St. Paul StaU.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is fur your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
-------
-------
-----
-------
___ _
------- --------
-----
Attorney-Client: ______ _ ___ _
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document Number: Number of 1 Releasable in Full:
Releasable in
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney-Client:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Withhold Entirely: Exemptions:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
of
Kanovsky,
www.naacpldf.org
Helen R
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
From: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:09 PM To: Kanovsky, Helen R; Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: Magner v. Gallagher - L DF amicus brief Attachments: USSC 10-1032 bsac NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc .. pdf
Helen and Michelle,
e interested in a copy of the amicus brief that LDF filed today in Magner v. Gallagher. It is
Best, •
Counsel to the Director of Litigation NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 1444 I Street NW, 10th floor Washington, DC 20005
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information and is/are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
------- __ ____ _
-------
-----Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _ ----
----------�
______ _ Exemptions: _______ _
-----Attorney-Client: ______ _
___ _
__________________ __ _
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
Document Number: Number of Pages: ';) Releasable in Full:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in Lit:
Other:
Withhold Entirely:
Privileges:
Deliberative Process:
Attorney Work Product:
Common Interest in
Originator Document:
Kanovsky,
n"'n"'"" '"""'"'"
nrnrnrn'f ... tl
ror•1n1.anr
1mrnec:t1ate1v
Helen R
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.
From: Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:09 PM To: Kanovsky, Helen R Cc: Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: Disparate impact: HUD regulation and Supreme Court cert petition Attachments: Magner.pdf
Importance: High
Helen:
Before you and I turn our attention to Passover (I have two flourless chocolate rolls and ege,11>lant parmagiana still to make), I wanted to express my interest in HUD's ongoing consideration of a Fair Housing Act disparate impact rule. Many of us in the civil rights community have long thought that such a rule would provide some protection from a Supreme Court that may be poised to do away with disparate impact analysis a ltogether.
Now that the Supreme Court has called for a response to the cert petition in Magner v. Gallagher {see attached), many of us are quite nervous about the prospects. My firm is meeting internally tomorrow morning, and [ know we will be discussing the importance of the HUD rule. Not just any rule, but one that appropriately retlects the very high public defendant's burden in such a case, and one that docs not overly burden a plaintiff in a case involving a private defendant.
Can we visit about this when the holiday is over?
.- ' Reiman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036-2456
FAX: 2021728-0848
Website: www.relmanlaw.com Admitted in the District of Columbia and Virginia
NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments to it contain confidential or legally privileged information from the law firm of Reiman, Dane & Colfax PLLC. This information is for the use of !he intended If you are not the intended
that any or the of any action in reliance on the and that the documents should be returned to this firm
from the law firm If you are not the
you are !hat any any action in reliance on the the contained information is should be returned to this firm If you have received this email in error,