Constitutional and Civil Rights

1. Real Estate Agent(s) Refuse to Communicate Buyers Offer(s) to Seller(s). Is it a
violation of rights protected by the constitution, civil rights and/or an act of religious
discrimination when one or more real estate agents refuse to present a buyer 's offer
because one or more of the buyer 's Section Q contingencies includes specifications
based upon, and/or arising from, their required religious beliefs and practices? See
Context of Questions Item 1 for description of specific events.

2. Real Estate Agent Says Vacant Lot is Not Available for Sale, NOT Saleable When
the Lot is, in Fact, Available for Sale and Saleable. Is it a violation of rights protected by
the constitution, civil rights and/or an act of religious discrimination when a real estate
agent tells a buyer that a vacant lot is not available for sale and can not be bought when
the vacant lot actually is available for sale and can be bought? See Context of Questions
Item 2 for description of specific events.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

3. Did HUD err, abuse its discretion, act arbitrarily and/or capriciously or otherwise
act and/or decide improperly when it decided that HUD did not have subject matter
jurisdiction in the 703018 complaint [Appendix C. 1 ]?; and

4. Did HUD otherwise err, abuse its discretion, act arbitrarily and/or capriciously or
otherwise act and/or decide improperly while considering the events Plaintiff reported in
HUD Inquiry No. 703018?

District Court

5. Did the district court FAIL in its obligation to properly, justly, impartially,
REASONABLY construe Plaintiff's claims and allegations, presented pro se with indigent
IFP application, before dismissing the case with no order for service of process
[Appendix B.2.4J?

6. The district court says the IFP granted complaint was somehow "deficient "
[Appendix B.2.1; Appendix B.2.2; Appendix B.2.3; Appendix B.2.4], but did not
specifically state the "deficiency ", thus:

(a) was there actually a "deficiency " in this pro se IFP granted complaint that could
not be excused by way of liberally construing pro se Plaintiff claims, allegations, filings
and form of presentation with the good faith latitude normally afforded to pro se IFP
Plaintiffs?; and

(b) did the district court err, abuse its discretion, act arbitrarily and/or capriciously or
otherwise act improperly when it FAILED to specifically describe the alleged "deficiency "
in Plaintiff's IFP granted complaint while also insisting that Plaintiff "amend " and refile
the complaint multiple times [Appendix B.2.1; Appendix B.2.2; Appendix B.3.1; Appendix
B.3.4; Appendix B.3.7]; and also, within its order(s), instructing Plaintiff to cease
referring to evidence within her Complaint?! [Appendix B.2.2]-, and

(c) if any "deficiency " existed, was the "deficiency " caused by the district court 's
instructions to cease referring to evidence?! [Appen

Whether real estate agents' refusal to communicate buyers' offers based on religious contingencies constitutes a violation of constitutional or civil rights