Whether the Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to reasonably accommodate a disabled resident's request for a fence to protect their autistic child from wandering and drowning, even when the housing provider's rules prohibit such fences

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) is a policy enacted by : Congress to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair . housing throughout the United States. (42 U.S. Code §3601(et seq.)) By outlawing individual acts of discrimination, you will foster integration. The 1968 FHA was enacted when racially discriminatory rules, laws, covenants, etc. were blatant and overt. It would be another 20 years before families and the disabled would gain protection under the Acts. Like all things in life, discriminatory acts evolve. Now, intentional discriminatory and retaliatory acts exist in a continuum of subtlety and are cloaked in ordinarily : permissible actions; but when actions are applied in a disparate manner or as a result of an unfavored but protected activity—without any legitimate reason—those acts are no longer permissible. The disparate treatment is proof of discriminatory animus. When housing-providers ignore, disregard, dismiss the disabled, it is intentional discrimination and when inaction deprives the disabled from equal housing, they are liable for violating the FHA. To determine indirect, pretextual discrimination, the Courts must apply the elements and burdens of proof properly and : consider the entirety of all the circumstances of the alleged discriminatory acts. This Court has held that the language of the FHA prohibiting discrimination in housing is “broad and inclusive,” (Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972)) (City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (1995)) and requires a “broad and liberal construction,” but sometimes too broad and liberal interpretation and application may frustrate rather than promote justice and not serve to effectuate the plain and clear language of the FHA. This Court must provide clear direction to provide equal ; Justice under the law. Victims of discrimination should not be revictimized by State Courts when they issue erroneous decisions because they are not bound by the federal precedent and fail to properly apply elements of FHA discrimination ii claims or dismiss a victim’s complaint because the pro se party is unable to navigate the complicated rules and procedures of appeal. The case below illustrates the injustice that occurs when the victim is denied their choice of law because the Respondent files a retaliatory lawsuit in a : respected “Corporation Court” with little to no experience and scant to nil FHA binding case law. This Court must make it clear that housing providers cannot ignore requests and avoid liability for their discriminatory actions by bullying the disabled and cannot hide their discriminatory acts in pretextual claims of settlement negotiations. It is clear, for 8 years, Petitioner (“Vester”}) requested reasonable and necessary accommodations from Respondents, Henlopen Landing Homeowners Association (“HLHA”) for variances from §8.2.12 of HLHA’s “Declaration” to install a . 6ft-fence enclosing their garage side-door to protect and prevent their autistic 6 year-old son (“ZV”)—who frequently eloped undetected from the home—from drowning (again) in the adjacent community stormwater-ponds and to provide a safe outdoor play area without fear that ZV would dart into ‘ the street. It is clear, for 8 years, Respondents (“Henlopen Landing Homeowners Association” (“HLHA”) and its property management company, Premier Property and Pool Management, ZV is autistic and had “special-needs” but ignored, failed to respond and refused Vester’s multiple requests to fence-in her garage sidedoor and never affirmatively approved the requested height of the fence without ever requesting further information or 1 The Vesters and their four children, a biracial family (Russell is AfricanAmerican and JaKara is Caucasian), moved to HLHA in January 2011 because of the proximity to the Sussex Autism Consortium their 5 y/o autistic son (“ZV”) would attend school. 2“Fences...shall be prohibited within the front-yard area of the lots a