Should the First Circuit Court have applied the doctrine of equitable tolling regarding Appellant's tardy brief and heard the merits of the case with full consideration of extraordinary circumstances and evidence presenting in this case of on-going discrimination prohibited by Congressional Intent and established case law upheld by the United States Supreme Court and the federal circuits?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented for review are: 1. Should the First Circuit Court have applied the doctrine of equitable tolling regarding Appellant’s tardy brief and heard the merits of the case with full consideration of extraordinary circumstances and evidence presenting in this case of on-going : : discrimination prohibited by Congressional Intent ‘ and established case law upheld by the United States Supreme Court and the federal circuits? 2. Does Congress, the FHA, and well established precedent law held by the Supreme Court of the United States and federal circuit courts permit a plaintiff’s case to be dismissed by a federal district court for failure to state a claim when the Complaint by a pro-se litigant and African American female is not thread bare and exceeds the minima requirements of Article III of the Constitution to retain jurisdiction of the Court? 8. Is discrimination prohibited by the FHA, the Civil ; Rights Act of 1866, and violation of Congressional . Intent, and the Constitution of the United States : of America established when the MDC, Appellate Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, . and Barnstable Probate Court award attorneys’ fees to Respondents? : 4. Whether violation of Congressional Intent and ° FHA Sections 42 U.S.C. § 3617 and 24 C.FR. § 600.100 apply to this case in light of Respondents’ acts and the processing of this case in the MDC, Probate and Appeals Court? ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued 5. Whether Congressional Intent and FHA Sections . 42 U.S.C. § 3617 and 24 C.F.R. § 600.100 apply to this case when the Appeals Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Appeals Court,” awards attorneys’ fees to certain Respondents ruling Appellant’s appeal as ‘frivolous’? 6. Whether the federal FHA amended may be expanded in its scope in the interest of the public to establish urgently needed national uniformity— ° protections for heirs properties owned as cotenants in common sold by partition of the court, and protection of due process rights afforded all citizens of the United States while under warrant of sale by the court?