Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Trista Rodriguez, Petitioner v. Nationwide Homes, Inc., et al.

No.

Ucio

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

T(\S{Z*.J iZ0drIgQ,

--------PETITIONER

,

-

:

-

I

(Your Name)

vs.

- -_

-J

/

-

flOioiW tCj fkY)1IS I ')L

om Tt

RESPOND ES-._

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

1° DEC 19 20$

O(Th

Cr

Cg

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(Your Name)

mtLituy

PV-e

(Address)

A-i- 3(&-?'LtO

(City, State, Zip Code)

1Lcy -aftQ!419.

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

o

K

+0

o4 +

LO

Oh2r flit

\vis

ptvp0S OO_

tVtdQy1c p(o)Q

okriO-LS

hQ

co+i±ic_i

w vtckt

0cLctrd5

k, 15

UI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLEOF AUTHORITIES CITED......................................................................................iii

OPINIONSBELOW............................................................................................................. I

JURISDICTION.................................................................................................................... I

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...................................2

STATEMENTOF THE CASE...............................................................................................2

Landlord Liability ...............................................................................................6

Case within a Case ............................................................................................8

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT............................................................................. 3

CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................11

INDEX TO APPENDICES

A decision of the United States Court of Appeals

A decision of the United States District Court

A decision of the United State Courts Denying Discretionary Review

VERIFICATIONCERTIFICATE .............................................................................................II

NOTIFICATIONPREFERENCE ...........................................................................................11

ORALARGUMENT...............................................................................................................12

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................................14

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE .................................................................................................14

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ..........................................................................15

PATTERNS OF INTERROGATORIES ..................................................................................16,19

EXHIBITS..............................................................................................................................20

Secretary of State and Accessor Office Tax Info 2016 and 2018

Pictures

STATUTES AND RULES

45 U.S.C. § 56............................................................................................................

28 U.S.C., chapter 171- Federal Torts Claim Act .......................................................I

Article Ill, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution ...............................................................2

Rule17(a) ...................................................................................................................2

UnderRule 15(c) ........................................................................................................3

Under Rule 4(a)(4)(A) ..................................................................................................3, 12

FedR. Civ P. 8(a) .........................................................................................................3

Americans with Disabilities Act ADA .............................................................................3

Rule20(a) .....................................................................................................................3

FEDERAL QUESTION 28 U.S.0 § 1331 .....................................................................4

Rule

............................................................................................................................4

Rooker-Feldman ...........................................................................................................4

FTC Standard (1980; codified in 1994, 15 U.S.0 § 45(n))(f)) ........................................6

UDAPstatue violation ....................................................................................................6

42 U.S. Code § 3612 ......................................................................................................6

Federal Consumer Protection Act ...................................................................................6

FederalFair Housing Act .................................................................................................6

24 CFR § 203.673 Habitability .........................................................................................6

28 U.S.0 5001 PERSONAL INJURY ...............................................................................7

Title 5. Art. 10. Rental Purchase Agreement Act § 5-10-103, 5-10-105. Part 6 5-10-601 1

.

I.R.C7201 ......................................................................................................................7

C.R.S. § 38-12-501-511.....................................................................................................8

51 U.S. Code § 20137........................................................................................................9

42U.S.C.3617 ..............................................................................................................9

Title 13-Art 20 Part 6 § 13-20-602(1)-(4), 6A C.R.S. (1987).[3] ........................................10

Attorney's Fees- Awards Act of 1976 ................................................................................11

42 U.S.C. §1988 Public Health and Welfare ....................................................................II

42 U.S.C. §1983, Depravation of Civil Rights ...................................................................11

Landlord Tenant Act ULTRA remedies sec. 4.107 provisions of 27-1-220 ........................11

Under Good Funds Law TCA47-32-101 ........................................................................11

DR1-102(A)(4) ...................................................................................................................11

STATUTES AND RULES

Continued

-

C.R.C.P. 241.1(b) .............................................................................................................11

11

ABA Standards 4.42 *350

Rule12(c) .........................................................................................................................12

Rule39...............................................................................................................................12

FRCP33...........................................................................................................................12

CASF I AW

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) ......................................................2

Davis v. L. L. Cohen & Co., 268 U.S. 638 (1925) ....................................................................2

Roland v. McMonagle, No. 12 Civv, 6331, 2014 WL 2861433, at *1(SDN Y. 2014) ...............2

Meadows Mobil Home Park v. Rodriguez, Case No 16CV272 (Feb. 12, 2016) ......................3

Bieros v. Nicola, 839 F.Supp. 332, 334 (E.D.Pa. 1993) .........................................................4

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)........................................................................5

Mellon v. Arkansas Land & Lumber Co., 275 U.S. 460 (1928)................................................5

Carpenter v Donohoe 388 P.2d 399 (Colo 1964)....................................................................5

Loughrin v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4Th 1188........................................................6

Turner v Lyon 189 Cob. 234, 539 P.2d 1241 (1975)...............................................................7

Estate of Patterson v. Fulton—DeKalb Hosp.

Auth., 233 Ga.App. 706, 708(2) (505 S.E.2d 232)(1998).........................................................7

Hilton Hotels Corp. and Hilton Hawaiian Village L. L. C., v.

Wimberly, Allison, Tong & Goo, Inc., et al., No. 03-1-1613-08 (Hawaii Cir. Ct., 1st Cir.) ........7

Riss v. Air Rental, Inc., 315 P.2d 820 (1957.) ..........................................................................8

Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corp. (D. C. Cir. 1972) 463 F 2d 853 150 App. D.C. 17............8

Mishkin v. Young 107 P.3d 393 (Cob. 2005) ...........................................................................8

Edwards v. Habib (D. C. Cir. 1968) supra, 397 F 2d 687, 690-696) ...........................................9

CASE LAW

-

Continued

People v. Lowe Colo 616 P2d 118 (1980)................................................................................10

Daly v. Lininger, 87 Cob. 401, 405, 288 P 633, 636 (1930.)...................................................10

People v. Broadhurst, 803 P2d 478 (1990) ...........................................................................10

People v. LaSalle, 848 P2d 348, 350 (Cob. 1993)..................................................................11

No. OS CA Jo

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITIONER

-

TRISTAA RODRIGUEZ

VS.

NATIONWIDE HOMES INC.,

THE MEADOWS PARK, TAMMYAKERS

RESPONDENT(S)

-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

OPINIONS BELOW

Reported by USCA Order and Judgment as to [15] Notice of Appeal filed by

Trista Rodriguez: We affirm the district courts dismissing Ms. Rodriguez amended complaint

without prejudice and deny her motion to proceed. No. 18-1306

JURISDICTION

The USCA filed order and judgment on November 27, 2018. A timely petition was denied

and a copy of the order is attached hereto as Appendix A and Decision of the USDC as

Appendix B. For cases from state courts: The highest state court denied an extension of time to

file the petition for a writ of certiorari on March 27, 2017. A copy of that decision appears as

Appendix C Writ of Certiorari case No: 2016SC756.

Jurisdiction requirements consent for general jurisdiction invoked under 45 U.S.C. § 56.

Personal jurisdiction Rodriguez has maintained a minimum contact with the state by continuous

attempts to file an independent separate civil lawsuit, "exhaustion of remedies. "Subject matter

jurisdiction with regards to NHI under 28 U.S.C., Chapter 171- Federal Torts Claim Act, this case

has not been properly reviewed or explicitly decided by another court and is not barred.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that, "The judicial Power shall extend

to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Laws of the United States."

See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

The "irreducible constitutional minimum"

for establishing standing is that a "plaintiff

must have suffered an 'injury in fact," by

sustaining an "actual or imminent" harm that

is "concrete and particularized."

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Issues presented for review (1 of 3) NHI fraudulent business practices (a)

misrepresentation (b) non-disclosure (C) gross negligence are the specific cause of the personal

injury a civil wrong for which courts impose liability. (2 of 3) Attorney Akers misconduct (a)

provided false information (b) abuse of power by coercing, and maintaining actions known to be

groundless. Whereas a favorable decision was obtain by fraud, attorney malpractice, and is

upheld with bias state procedural laws. (3 of 3) Defendants unconscionably acted to "willfully

diminish" essential services. Attorney Rupp's frivolous filing to gain possession of the home NHI

otherwise were not entitled to for unlawful reason such as personal gain. NHI harassment and

intimidation see Exhibit (B) Threats. NHI as corporate defendants they should expect litigation

until the court resolves it.

Rodriguez comes before this court generally asserting a "separate and independent"

claim. This is a "new proceeding" as defined in see Davis v. L. L. Cohen & Co., 268 U.S. 638

(1925). Applying only some of the legal theory; this has been particularly confusing to the courts

as it "arose out of" the same conduct, transaction or occurrence attempted to be set out in the

original pleading. Also relevant is the amendment of Rule 17(a). NHI is the real party of interest.

Flexibility in pleading See, Roland v. McMonagle, No. 12 Civv, 6331, 2014 WL 2861433, at

*1(SDNY 2014).'

2

Rule 5(c) knowledge that if not for a mistake precluding NHI they should have been sued.

Failure, to consider, or understand a distinction between two cases, as they are similar but not

identical. Evidence necessary to proving NHI caused injury to Rodriguez is different from proving

culpability and collusion by third parties in the past eviction case. The MP eviction state

proceeding and the lawsuit against NHI are two separate cases. The state's decision is not the

cause of the personal injury. The plaintiff does not ask the courts to rehear the state eviction

proceedings. Meadows Mobil Home Park v. Rodriguez, No 16CV272 (Feb. 12, 2016).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Reasons to grant the appeal, Under Rule 4(a)(4)(A) allows forAppeal as of Right.

Furthermore, this brief satisfies Amended Brief deficiencies, it is "clear and plain" in compliance

with Fed R. Civ P. 8(a) provides: (1) 'Who' Rodriguez the plaintiff is a disabled mother of three

children, and suffers health challenges from Hodgkin's lymphoma chemo and radiation

treatments. She has protection under Americans with Disabilities Act ADA, See Exhibit (C) SSI

Verification Letter rights guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution. The names of all

parties appear in the caption of the case there are no additional parties; the alternative

defendants with respect to the same transactions and occurrences in compliance with

Rule 20(a) the courts whose judgments Rodriguez seeks to have this Court review are not a

party. (2) 'What' Rodriguez entered into several illegal contracts First, with MP involving real

property and Second personal property with NHI the Landlord of the property who sold her an

uninhabitable home. Those actions are the specific cause of a personal injury. NHI and

mentioned defendants who individually and jointly violated Rodriguez's civil rights and caused

harm to the plaintiff. (3) 'Where' 4825 Astrozon Blvd. Colorado Springs, CO 80904. (4) 'When'

move-in date was July 1, 2013 move-out July 4, 2015. (5) 'Demand Relief money damages,

injunction order, assurances, and discontinuances.

3

FEDERAL QUESTION 28 U.S.0 § 1331

It is asked for the courts to determine when taken for lawfulness purpose does

the evidence prove Rodriguez's Constitutional and Civil Right were violated by the

defendants resulting in injury?

ERROR OF THE COURT

The courts' could have established the state proceedings as a separate case and

exercise jurisdiction over the other civil action tort claims. USDC are divested Of jurisdiction only

on appeal and not an independent claim; such as this, creates inconsistency in the ruling and

calls for "fair and equal" treatment. USDC ruled on June 28, 2018 order a dismissal without

prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8 and the Rooker -Feldman doctrine is narrowly applied.

On November 27, 2018 The United States Court of Appeal Tenth Circuit upheld the ruling is

"unjust, harmful and creates helplessness." Preclusion to how the Amended Brief was drafted,

and a misinterpretation of legal issues raised; as a pro se litigant Rodriguez is entitled to some

latitude. See Bieros v. Nicola 839 F.Supp. 332,334 (E.D.Pa. 1993).

Issues presented are not actually brought up at all, and facts of the case are not accurate;

decisions are based on speculation and conjecture. The "common core" error is a continued

refusal to hear this case as an "independent and separate" claim; it is not intermittently

intertwined. Conflict arises out of the interpretation of jurisdictional mandates, a disadvantage

particularly when a deliberate disregard of evidence, or the requirements of fairness and due

process egregiously deprives Rodriguez of her right to present her testimony in her defense.

Reason in- part why the lawsuit was not filed (1 of 3) a systematic refusal denying a pro

se litigate accesses to the system and consideration of factual evidence to prove this case.

See Exhibit Returned Claims (D) Rodriguez's right to sue for such relief is dependent upon it.

4

Whereas the tremendous amount of time, effort, and money spent are sincere attempts to

file a "separate and independent" lawsuit that was not given a "full and fair opportunity" to be

heard. The outcome of systematic dismissals has been unaltered despite paying attorney costs,

and courts' filing fees. "To dismiss without fair consideration of the evidence is a substantial

showing of the denial of constitutional right." Cited Miller-El v.Cockrell, 537 U.S.322,336 (2003)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Affirmative defense, failure to consider "relate back" for overlooked unsupported findings;

of such matter, this court may resolve questions of conflicting evidence that would otherwise be

left uncertain. See Exhibit (E) Court Certified with Summons and Complaint.

The appellant in error has attempted to reconcile the state's judgment, bona fide error

through the state courts unsuccessfully that does not constitute an "absence of mistake."

Rodriguez simply asks the courts to "relate back" to information in the state proceedings that is

provided for the sole purpose of establishing relevance and validity of evidence of collusion by

the defendants in the state ruling resulting in an error. To deny "relate back" is to defeat unjustly

Rodriguez opportunity to prove her case. See Mellon v. Arkansas Land & Lumber Co., 275 U.S.

460 (1928).

(a) LANDLORD LIABILITY

NHI violation of non-compliance with health and safety codes strict standards a seller has

the duty to sell homes that do not cause harm. See Carpenter v Donohoe 388 P.2d 399 (Cob

1964). See Exhibit (F) Home Inspection Report: Ameri Dry Mold Remediation Estimation, RTC

and Filed Complaints: Code Enforcement (Report #1503127 April 27, 2015) Dora, Attorney

General, HUD, CO Housing Dept. No Action Taken.

NHI (1) Misrepresentation: See Exhibit (G) Lease Agreement (a) home is said to be in

"good condition" is a false representation it was a 100% total loss of intended use and peaceful

5

enjoyment. (b) Illegal and unfair contract lease provisions to waive or forgo tenants' rights is

prohibited. (c) Lease agreement has a discrepancy of terms in the purchase amount, when

calculated, it is $3,874.92 over the said agreed to amount, hidden fees shows intent to defraud.

(2) Non-Disclosure FTC Standard (1980; codified in 1994, 15 U.S.0 § 45(n))(f)) known

health and safety hazardous conditions, UDAP statue violation "unfair and deceptive act." failure

to disclose pre-existing conditions lacking of proper heating, electricity, poor air quality from

water degradation of the property by actionable concealment consists of (a) the concealment of

a material existing fact, that in good conscience should be disclosed (b) "knowledge of' and (c)

"concealment resulting in damage." Fraudulent concealment is reckless endangerment involving

children and has a public impact. Enforcement under 42 U.S. Code § 3612 NHI has committed

two or more discriminatory housing practices during the last seven years "actively resells" the

home. See Exhibit (H) Tenant History prior tenant water restoration receipt from 2011, former

tenant 2016 notarized declarative statement, and current tenant provided text message and

picture confirms visible uncured property damage; subsequently other will suffer. Seller has the

"duty to disclose" and may not be waived see Loughrin v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal. App.

4Th

1188.

(3). Gross Negligence intentionally failing to cure hazardous conditions, after a "good

faith" complaint was given and it was "made known" of the uninhabitable conditions on February

11, 2015. When attempting to execute Marini rights to repair and deduct, contractors are

unwilling to do so at the request of a tenant but require specific consent by the Landlord.

Rodriguez opened a TCF Escrow Account to ensure the "proper steps were taken."

Protection under The Federal Consumer Protection Act, Federal Fair Housing Act.

24 CFR § 203.673 Habitability.

28 U.S.0 5001 PERSONAL INJURY

NHI (1 of 5) "Exorbitant down payment" retention causes "extreme financial hardship."

NWI "willful and wrongful" refusal to return down payment has caused Rodriguez to be indigent.

See Exhibit (I) Receipt. Under Title 5. Art. 1 0. Rental Purchase Agreement Act Sec. § 5-10-103,

Sec. 5-10-105. Part 6 Limitations on Charges. Sec. 5-10-601. A lessor may contract for and

-

receive an initial nonrefundable fee not to exceed $10.00 per contract. See Exhibit (J) 7 Day

Demands for rental history and a return of the cash down payment made on June 28, 2015.

NHI waives any rights 900+ day retention, as they have not provided any written statements in a

timely manner, the burden of proof as to include, such as evidence to the contrary of normal wear

and tear by conduct or behavior. Turner v Lyon 189 Cob. 234, 539 P.2d 1241 (1975).

(2 of 5) Harm due to uninhabitable home long-term toxic mold exposure See Exhibit (K)

Medical Evidence confirms a "positive allergic" reaction to 'Cladosporium/ Hormodendrum' a

specific mold identified by a culture taken from the mentioned property's bathroom ceiling. See

Exhibit (L) Armor Mold Report concludes a "possible" cause in petitioner's exasperated health

conditions would be sufficient if it is supplemented by probative non-expert testimony on

causation. See Estate of Patterson v. Fulton—Dekaib Hosp. Auth., 233 Ga.App. 706, 708(2) (505

S.E.2d 232)(1998). Whereas, expert pathology analysis it is "generally" accept that long-term

exposure increases risks for adverse health effects. See Hilton Hotels Corp. and Hilton Hawaiian

Village, L.L.C., v. Wimberly, Allison, Tong & Goo, Inc., et al., No. 03-1-1613-08

(Hawaii Cir. Ct., 1st Cir.) Health and safety code violation (3 of 5) repair expenses.

See Exhibit (M) Receipts (4 of 4) Protection under I.R.C. § 7201 Element of the offense NHI

through the county Accessors Office "willfully" added owner "CIO Trista Rodriguez" in 2017 to

mentioned property whose schedule number is 93100-06-938. NHI Intent to Defraud Attempt at

Tax Evasion by transferring financial responsible for property taxes "Failure" to Report Truthfully."

See Appendix

7

(4 of 5) Dealings with attorney Tammy Akers dishonest misconduct. Rodriguez by the

preponderance of evidence she is entitled to relief upon establishing the grounds by clear strong

and satisfactory proof.' standards.' See Riss v. Air Rental, Inc., 315 P2d 820 (1957.)

MP LIABILITY

If the landlord failed to make timely repairs a tenant has the right to be released from a

lease without further obligation. See C.R.S. § 38-12-501-511. MP waives any right to collect rent

they did not provide a lawful basis for their eviction, the court lacks evidence and proper

jurisdiction to uphold the ruling. Retaliatory eviction see Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corp.

(D.C.Cir.1972) 463 F2d 853 150 App.D.C. 17. Security Deposit belongs to the tenant violation

"Wrongful Withholding" as defined in Mishkin v. Young 107 P.3d 393 (Cob. 2005) MP is liable

treble the amount total is $1,335.00. See Exhibit (N) Lease with Receipt

(b) CLAIM AGAINST ATTORNEY AKERS

"Case within a Case" Akers was hired on June 30, 2015, by Rodriguez. See Exhibit (0)

Engagement Letter agrees to First, dismiss MP case for improper service See Exhibit (P)

Simplified Answers. Second, file a separate complaint against NHI the landlord. See Exhibit (Q)

Notarized Complaint. Akers Breach of Fiduciary Duty, ethical violation issues raised (a) False

Claim Act. See Exhibit (R) Faxed Proof is dark, unclear, and contains no NSF Check #1180.

Akers stated it to be the said grounds for the "stipulated judgment consisted of a check that had

never been cured," is erroneous. See Exhibit (5) Check #1180 Rent Payment Cleared on April 7,

2015. See Exhibit (T)Akers Email dated February 11, 2015. Akers, "Looks like we have pretty

good proof for Aprils 2015 rent payment." Rental history receipts prove lot rent/house payments

are paid in full and on time See Exhibit (U) Money Order Rent Receipts and Equity Paid. (b)

Dishonest Misconduct questions Akers lack of ethical duty to enforce state and federal law.

Ei

A settlement was reached after 7 months off the record in private chambers that neither

addressed (a) improper service calls for dismissal or (b) the uninhabitable home. Further

Rodriguez's telephonic hearing request was deemed moot. Akers action abridging Rodriguez's

First Amendment right to litigate as defined in see Edwards v. Habib (D.C.Cir. 1968) supra, 397

E2d 687, 690-696); Protection from misconduct under 51 U.S. Code § 20137. Rodriguez was

unwillingly persuaded by force, a false claim made to maintain actions known to be groundless.

Reason in- part why the lawsuit was not filed (2 of 3) "Willfully and wrongfully" Akers

(c) abuse of power by way of interference and coercing refusal to return Rodriguez's case

original files for more than 156 days barring Rodriguez her right to appeal. This intentional abuse

of power caused real undue "pain and anguish" from the total loss of safe stable housing adding

unnecessary delay, court costs from proceedings with known factual errors. Rodriguez living in

CA See Exhibit (V) Vehicle Insurance at the time driving to CO to obtain See Exhibit

(W) CO SSI Letter required from Akers; as she did not keep her word to mail the time sensitive

letter that served to determine continued SSI eligibility or "timely" return her files.

Protection under 42 U.S.C. § 3617

which makes it unlawful: "to coerce, intimidate,

threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or

any right granted or protected."

enjoyment of, or

...

Reason in-part why the lawsuit was not filed (3 of 3) neglect "willfully failing" to file despite

Rodriguez's See Exhibit (X) TCF Escrow Account showing available funds at the time and Akers

was given access to the account agreeing to either pay monies into the courts' registry if

necessary to proceed with a hearing and to file NHI complaint. See Exhibit (T) Emails. Akers

scheduled appointment date and time to file the lawsuit July 8,2015 11A.M.. Akers agreeing to do

so, but repeatedly, claiming delay. Despite her own written admission, Akers denied she had

agreed to file a lawsuit on Rodriguez's behalf in her OARC investigative response. In

Compliance with Title 13-Art 20 Part 6 § 13-20-602(1)-(4), 6A C.R.S. (1987).[3] Requires a

Certificate for Review Request was made on August 24, 2016, See Exhibit (Y) OARC Jill

Fernandez Report and Akers Fax Response December 20, 2016; has been submitted as an

essential part of the pleadings evidence gathered from OARC admission statements discloses a

conflict on a material issue of fact. Submitted under Rule 10(c) Form of Pleadings Adoption by

Reference; Exhibits: "A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the

pleading for all purposes."

To determine that the attorney shall be liable to their client for any damage sustained by

neglect of duty Federal Rules of Evidence strongly favor admission. See Exhibit (T) Akers Email

Written Admission. See People v. Lowe Colo 616 P2d 118 (1980). Claims with admitted

professional negligence do not require expert testimony. See Exhibit (Z) Non-Expert Public

Testimony raise questions to Akers tenancies. See Daly v. Lininger, 87 Cob. 401, 405, 288 P

633, 636 (1930.) Failure to preserve constitutional rights or act in the interest of justice.

Dishonesty See, People v. Broadhurst, 803 P.2d 478 (1990)

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

NHI (1) Actual damages injury by exorbitant down payment of $9,315.00 and 21 months

-

@$445.00, plus 1 month @$435.00 equity paid total is $9,335.00 additional $9,345.00 paid to

MP cause "extreme financial hardship." (2) Injuries from uninhabitable home such as toxic mold

long-term exposure. Medical evidence "allergic" reaction and suffering related noxious smell

unpaid medical expenses total $2,060.10 See Appendix. (3) property damage approximate

-

repair expenses $3,802.85 (4) Contract Damages NHI was asked to file a claim and their

-

refusal to honor homeowners insurance covenants by "failure to file" an insurance claim with

their said provider American Modern Insurance hazardous conditions requires them to "act

10

promptly and properly." See Exhibit (AA) Court Cost Receipts. (5) Reasonable Court Cost

Approximate Total $1,330.78 and $ 250.00 for Attorney's Fees- Awards Act of 1976, and 42

U.S.C. §1988 which provides that attorney's fees may be awarded to the prevailing party (other

than the U.S.) in "any action to enforce" a provision of 42 U.S.C. §1983, inter alia,

"Anyone who, under color of state statute,

regulation or custom deprives another of any rights, privileges,

or immunities "secured by the Constitution and laws"

shall be liable to the injured party."

(6) Punitive Damages for NHI and defendants outright deceptive conduct.

-

Landlord Tenant Act ULTRA remedies sec. 4.107 provisions of 27-1-220 to include "punitive

damages" severe emotional distress suffered from reprehensibility acts. (7) Consequential

damages consideration for See Exhibit (AA) moving expenses, Acellus educational cost,

-

truancy letter reason for private schooling. Asking a minimum of $1,000.00 per violation @8%

interest approximately $150,000.00 total money damages or for a proper assessment of

allowable money damages it's left to the discretion of the Court.

REQUESTING SPECIFIC RELIEF

(1) Under Good Funds Law, TCA § 47-32-101 N H I must immediately render the total

amount as required by law. (2) Rent abatement total sum asking three times the actual damages

for loss resulting from a conversion of property is recoverable. (3) Administrative enforcement,

injunctions, cease and desist order to restrain NHl that they shall not be allowed to rent the

mentioned property until it is in compliance with state and federal laws. (4) ABA 4.42. Ethical

Standards DR1 -1 02(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,

deceit, or misrepresentation. C.R.C.P. 241.1(b) based upon Federal statutory, as well as

Constitutional rights. Akers knowingly deceives her client and causes injury to the client. See

People v. LaSalle, 848 P 2d 348, 350 (Cob. 1993)

11

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986 & Supp. 1992) prescribe a period *350 of

suspension for misconduct is generally appropriate when:(a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform

services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or (b) a lawyer engages in a

pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Grounds for such relief under

Rule 12(c) allows for a decision on the merits of the claims, such as when the parties have not

disputed the facts in the pleadings.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE the court may determine "good grounds" to support Rodriguez who

pleaded a legally cognizable claim in accord. Compelling a fair and just ruling in favor of her (1)

Grant Appeal under RuIe4(a)(4)(A)Appeal as of Right. (2) Grant Motion to proceed in forma

pauperis Rule 39. (3) Require an answer to relevant issues litigated or other responsive defense

claims, and granting under FRCP 33 interrogatories. (4) Render an impartial review, and

meaningful opportunity for facts to prove the case.

Respectfully, submitted December

Trista Rodriguez ( çL

2018

JUSTIN MCALPIN

NOTARY PUBLIC

STATE OF COLORADO

NOTARY ID 20174044940

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 30, 2021

k Vk45Notary

VERIFICATION

I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of United States

that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this date December\, 2018

NOTIFICATION PREFERENCE

Submitting a written request for notification preference to be by email:

tr.tylajade@gmail.com

Forwarding address: 973 Matthews Ave Ozark, AL 36360. #

12