Posted For: Elephant In The Room
Nationwide — Sandra Black, a 62-year-old African American retired disabled grandmother from Marion, Indiana has sued what she calls “malicious racist landlords” for their attempted frivolous eviction in Indiana state court. She is also suing them for removing her from her apartment due to discrimination.
See the state court docket online at Hunters Run Apartments v Sandra Black, Case No: 27D03-1706-PL-000014.
See also Sandra Black’s 100-million-dollar federal lawsuit dock in Ft. Wayne, Indiana’s Northern District Federal Court online at Black v Friedrichsen et AL 1:19-cv-00307-TLS.
Mrs. Black introduces the unprecedented subject matter of special damages she termed EMBEDDED LAW, (reparations type payout for all African Americans). She seeks $100 million dollars to be split between herself and the entire Black race as determined by a jury. Her argument is that it is unconstitutional to treat Blacks equally to minorities due to their special damages of slavery, modern-day racism, and deprivation of land and government of their very own (no rights to sovereignty of nationality).
Mrs. Black alleges that no other American race of over 40 million people lives utterly devalued of human rights by society without escape as do the Black American. This subject matter is the first discussion ever in history that blacks must receive financial compensation for their damage and will force corporations to do much more to stop managers from harming people of color.
Mrs. Black claims that she was ordered by the court to keep her views on racism to herself! She claims that she was ordered to accept Jim Crow-type law that places a black person who is overwhelmingly in the right by the evidence… falsely in the wrong to save whites with little to no evidence to back their claim. By law, a judge is required to be impartial. Black alleges that the judge should be charged with a hate crime for her actions against Black in court.
A Brief Synopsis of Sandra Black’s Alleged Court Experience:
1. She alleges that the Judge fabricated evidence to support whites; harmful to Black, and refused to “remove the lie” then ordered Black gagged from mentioning the magistrate’s actions in court litigation.
2. Mrs. Black motioned the court for the case to be dismissed so that she could have a chance at a fair judge… motion to dismiss was denied.
3. She alleges that the Judge sanctioned Sandra for asking the court to compel white defendants to cooperate with discovery. A Black victim must pay white culprits! She alleges she was sanctioned for going against whites in court.
4. As the caption states, Black alleges that mostly all, if not ALL of Black’s pleadings were intentionally taken out of context, ignored, and dismissed.
5. Mrs. Black alleges she was court-ordered in writing to appear in person (forced to drive out of town to court, loss of time and money) while the wealthier white defendants may appear in person or by phone.
6. Mrs. Black alleges that worst of all, the senior judge and appellate court joined in a conspiracy to allow racism in American courts, supporting the magistrate judge to judicially lynch a black litigant.
To their misfortune, Mrs. Black alleges that both the defendants and judges had absolutely no clue that their “Karen” crusade against her is not against a typical Black person. Her resume includes being an HBCU graduate of Tuskegee University with a BS degree in chemical engineering, decades of experience maneuvering through racism, an expert on world religions, African history, the creation/origins of humanity, author of several books, and the wife of an African Shaman.
She is the court-appointed guardian raising four grandchildren all alone, and she once resided in Ghana, Africa for 5 years. Her diverse background established her as a force unprecedented in setting financial restitution for African Americans.
The court and Sandra Black are at a stalemate. Neither can move forward without the other being defeated, therefore the court refuses to respond to her litigation and she refuses to accept the Jim Crow order moving forward to trial. She alleges that it is now up to the public to decide if Jim Crow is allowable in our courts today.