Whether the signing of Form HUD-9548 establishes privity and constitutes a violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA)

QUESTION PRESENTED Regarding the defendant’s own language in the below linked Conciliation Agreement between US Department of Housing and Urban Development and Wells Fargo, N.A. . (U.S. District Court (USDC) Doc 24 — Pg 80 and Pg 86, Exhibit 1 of the District Court filing): “A cash offer from an investor or nonprofit organization to purchase an REO property shall not be considered a better offer if the offer is for the same or a lesser amount than an offer by an owner occupant who is purchasing the REO property with cash or with financing.” AND Consequences of Breach “The parties understand that if HUD has reasonable cause to believe that Respondent has breached this Agreement, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General of the United States to commence a civil action in the appropriate U.S. District Court, pursuant to 810(c) and 814(b)(2) of the Act” The forms put in place for auction participants to comply with the guidelines of the public conciliation agreement mentioned above based on federal law and the documents Wells Fargo and HUD submit to citizens, customers and bidders read: “The undersigned understands that any misrepresentations made on this form as to the agreed to provisions may be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment, or both, under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 1010.” “Respondent acknowledges that it is unlawful to retaliate against any person because that person has made a complaint, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in a proceeding under the Act and that any such act of retaliation constitutes a material breach of this Agreement and a violation of the Act.” 2013 Conciliation Agreement Paragraph 16, UUSDC Doc 24 — Pg 76, Exhibit 1) i an Fi Question: whether the signing of Form HUD-9548, (Wells Fargo’s version being the “Owner Occupancy Certification Form” stating “criminal and/or civil liability”) establishes privity and the failure to supply a form/contract is a violation of Fair Housing Act (FHA). Quoting the Supreme Court: “Since lending and housing policies are deeply interconnected with "economic and social life," the Court said that "[a] violation of the FHA may ... ‘be expected to cause ripples of harm to flow’ far beyond the defendant's misconduct." Id. (quoting Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 534, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983))” 5i36.pdf A central exception to the requirement of privity is that an intended third-party beneficiary can sue for breach of contract. In other words, the requirement of Wells Fargo and HUDs duty to enforce Wells Fargo’s agreement is that prospective buyers agree in writing and or receive a form to sign which complies with the agreement. In this point alone, the case should be reversed in part not withstanding other aspects of law such as the bid-rigging that was clearly and factually supported with empirical evidence and could have easily been decided correctly in the lower court. My understanding as plaintiff is that Certiorari comes from a Latin phrase that means “to be more fully informed” as such informing the Court expeditiously about related decisions such as Bank of America Corp. Et Al. v. City of Miami, Florida, The Supreme Court has communicated with the 11th Circuit and ruled that cities can sue banks, all else being equal, this should logically imply that individuals can bring actions against banks as well. The City of Miami filed suit against Bank of ii one A 4 , America and Wells Fargo and permitted any “aggrieved person” civil damages. This : case only differs in that further specific and detailed auction requirements were contractually required of the defendants in the transaction of real estate and both , fraud and bid-rigging were involved in the violation of those contracts which arise / , from the Act. Similarly, The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in United States v. Brewbaker, th