Whether the Rooker-Feldman and Mootness Doctrines and the Anti-Injunction Act apply to this unlawful tenant eviction case from Section 8 HUD-VASH HCV and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) federally subsidized housing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . Neither the Rooker-Feldman nor Mootness doctrines nor the Anti-Injunction Act apply to the facts of this unlawful tenant eviction case from HUD Section 8 and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) federally subsidized housing based on the Public Husing Authority's secret emails (APP.F:) to the state court judge with no hearings or trial in state court. | This is a case of a retired disabled veteran being evicted from his Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) apartment community under two (2) federally subsidized housing programs, LIHTC under 26 USC § 42 [Extended Low Income Housing Agreement (ELIHA) recorded in the public records and therefore a land use restriction] and Section 8 HUD-Veterans Administration Supported Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8 HUD-VASH HCV) under 24 CFR 982.552 and HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: Revised Implementation of the HUD-VA_ Supportive Housing Program, 77 FR 17086 [Docket FR-5596-N-01] (March 23, 2012), each of which independently adopted the HUD Tenancy Addendum, HUD-51641-A, which mandates the same "No-Cause Eviction Protection," evidence of good cause for eviction and lease non-renewal and a due process hearing or trial before eviction. The recorded ELIHA, the HUD Tenancy Addendum, HUD-51641-A, and these federal subsidy programs: provide for the tenant's right of enforcement: 24 CFR 982.308(a) and ((2), 24 CFR 982.456(b)(2) and 24 CFR 982.552. F : The tenant's Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals here follows and the questions presented are: NEITHER THE ROOKER-FELDMAN NOR MOOTNESS DOCTRINES NOR THE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS UNLAWFUL TENANT EVICTION CASE FROM SECTION 8 HUD-VASH HCV AND LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC) FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING _ Whether the Rooker-Feldman and Mootness Doctrines and the Anti-Injunction Act apply, with no discovery in state or federal court, to a tenant in Section 8 HUD-VASH _HCV and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) federally subsidized housing mandating "No-Cause Eviction Protection" who was forcefully evicted in state court in retaliation for his advocating for safer and healthier living conditions as a result of the Public Housing Authority's conclusionary non-renewal notice with no evidence of "good cause," legally insufficient complaint, "fake" lease, and secret emails to the state judge _ with no due process mandated hearings or trial resulting in an ex parte non-final Default Final Judgment for Removal which is currently on appeal in state court? CONTINUING LIVE CONTROVERSY AND IRREPARABLE HARM TO SECTION 8 HUD-VASH HCV AND LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC) TENANT Whether live controversy and irreparable harm to the Section 8 HUD-VASH HCV and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) tenant continues when in further retaliation and relying upon the non-final Default Final Judgment for Removal from state court which is currently on appeal, the Public Housing Authority failed to utilize due process mandated _ practices and procedures as required by HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: ii Revised Implementation of the HUD-VA Supportive Housing Program, 77 FR 17086 [Docket FR-5596-N-01] (March 23, 2012), to then permanently terminate the tenant's Section 8 HUD-VASH HCV, thereby depriving him of his voucher and affordable housing? iii