# Newell *False Claims Act qui tam case against the City of Saint Paul, declined by the United States in February 2012 and named in a March 8, 2012 DOJ internal email.* Newell refers to *United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul*, a False Claims Act qui tam suit filed in May 2009. The relator, Fredrick Newell, alleged that the [[City of St. Paul]] obtained approximately $62 million in HUD grants from 2003 to 2009 by falsely certifying compliance with [[Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act]] of 1968.[^1] The United States declined to intervene in February 2012. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal on August 28, 2013 (No. 12-3894) on "original source" grounds.[^1] A Department of Justice internal email dated March 8, 2012, reproduced in Senator Chuck Grassley's correspondence, reads: "Government declined to intervene in Newell, and has agreed to decline to intervene in Ellis, in exchange for defendants withdrawal of cert. petition in Gallagher case."[^2] The dossier places the declination in the same month that the City's Supreme Court case *Magner* was dismissed.[^1] A row in the project's Ramsey County history table, dated February 14, 2012, records that Saint Paul stipulated to dismissal that month.[^3] On April 15, 2013, a joint congressional staff report alleged that DOJ agreed to decline intervention in two qui tam cases against Saint Paul in exchange for the City withdrawing *Magner* from the Supreme Court.[^4] House Oversight Democrats reached the opposite conclusion and found that "Mr. Perez and other Department officials acted professionally."[^6] The pack contains no Office of Inspector General finding on the matter.[^7] ## Who - **Relator:** Fredrick Newell.[^1] - **Defendant:** the City of Saint Paul.[^1] - **Named in the joint staff report:** Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. Mayor [[Christopher Coleman]], whom the report names as having accepted the arrangement. Sara Grewing, Saint Paul City Attorney. [[David Lillehaug]], Saint Paul's outside counsel, who according to the report negotiated with Perez.[^4] - **Authors of the report:** House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, and Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Chuck Grassley.[^4] - **Minority:** House Oversight Democrats, who submitted an ethics statement by Prof. Stephen Gillers.[^6] ## What The qui tam complaint alleged that the City falsely certified compliance with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 in order to receive HUD grants. It put those grants at approximately $62 million over 2003–2009.[^1] The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal on "original source" grounds. That ruling did not reach the merits of the certification allegations.[^1] The March 8, 2012 email names three matters: - *Newell*, in which the government had declined to intervene. - *[[Ellis]]*, in which the government had agreed to decline to intervene. - *[[Gallagher]]*, in which the email records the withdrawal of a certiorari petition.[^2] No public docket number for *Ellis v. City of St. Paul* is recoverable. Its existence rests on the congressional record and the quoted email.[^7] ## When - **May 2009:** *Newell* qui tam complaint filed.[^1] - **February 2012:** United States declines to intervene in *Newell*. The dossier records *Magner* as dismissed the same month.[^1] The history table dates Saint Paul's stipulation to dismissal to February 14, 2012.[^3] - **March 8, 2012:** DOJ internal email records the declination in *Newell* and the agreement to decline in *Ellis*.[^2] - **April 15, 2013:** Joint staff report released, 64 pages.[^4] - **May 7, 2013:** Joint subcommittee hearing held in Rayburn 2154 (Serial Nos. 113-23 and 113-6).[^5] - **August 28, 2013:** Eighth Circuit affirms dismissal, No. 12-3894.[^1] ## How The joint staff report is titled *Department of Justice's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez Manipulated Justice and Ignored the Rule of Law* (see [[DOJ's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul]]). It alleges that:[^4] - Perez instructed career attorneys to omit any discussion of *Magner* from the declination memoranda. - Career staff described the situation as "weirdness" and "ridiculous." - Newell was reduced to a "bargaining chip." The dossier records the report's findings as contested.[^4] The May 7, 2013 hearing was titled *DOJ's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: A Whistleblower's Perspective*. Its witnesses included Newell, Sen. Grassley and Sen. Isakson.[^5] Members of the [[House Oversight]] committee's Democratic minority issued a memorandum after reviewing more than 3,500 pages and conducting six interviews. The memorandum concluded that "Mr. Perez and other Department officials acted professionally." It described the investigation as part of "a broader political campaign to undermine the legal safeguards against discrimination."[^6] The March 8, 2012 email, written inside the Department, records the two declinations as made "in exchange for" the certiorari withdrawal. The minority memorandum and the email stand side by side in the record.[^2][^6] No DOJ [[Office of Inspector General]] report on the *Magner*, *Newell* or *Ellis* matter was located. The March 2013 OIG report cited in the same period concerns the Voting Section and does not address this matter.[^7] ## How much The dossier records four dollar figures, each attributed to the report or hearing:[^4][^1] | Figure | What it measures | Source | |---|---|---| | Approximately $62 million | HUD grants named in the qui tam complaint (2003–2009) | Complaint, per the dossier | | More than $62 million | HUD funds allegedly falsely certified | Report | | $86 million | DOJ Civil Fraud Section's own valuation of *Newell* | Report | | As much as $200 million | Potential recovery forgone | Report and hearing announcement | These figures measure different quantities and are not competing counts of one total.[^4] ## In the at-issue record The project's at-issue catalogue lists the March 8, 2012 email as Pair 3 of "Tier I — The Doctrinal Spine" (AI-Ramsey-003). It rests on congressional record and report sources from grassley.senate.gov and oversight.house.gov.[^2] The project anchors the pair to a May 2026 White House presidential action.[^8] The project's stated reason is that "a False Claims Act case traded for a litigation posture is the integrity failure the order names." That reason is the project's own linkage, not a statement in the order or in any court record.[^8] ## Notes [^1]: *Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier* (2026-09-02), §V.c, "The underlying qui tam" (validated dossier section; its source note [21] is not carried in the pack) — establishes the May 2009 filing, the approximately $62 million / 2003–2009 HUD allegation, the Section 3 predicate, the February 2012 declination and *Magner* timing, and the Eighth Circuit affirmance of August 28, 2013, No. 12-3894. No URL in `allowed_urls`. [^2]: U.S. Department of Justice, internal email (March 8, 2012), as reproduced in Senator Grassley's correspondence; quoted in *Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier* §V.c [20] and at-issue row AI-Ramsey-003 — establishes the text of the email. No URL in `allowed_urls`. [^3]: Project table, *Companion to RAMSEY_COUNTY_COMPLETE_HISTORY_2026-09-02.md*, row HE-0216 (Feb 14, 2012) — establishes Saint Paul's stipulation to dismissal and the same-month declination in *Newell*. No URL in `allowed_urls`. [^4]: Issa, Goodlatte and Grassley, *Department of Justice's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez Manipulated Justice and Ignored the Rule of Law* (April 15, 2013), as summarized in *Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier* §V.c [5][6] — establishes the report's allegations, the persons it names, and the $200 million, $86 million and $62 million figures. No URL in `allowed_urls`. [^5]: House joint subcommittee hearing, *DOJ's Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: A Whistleblower's Perspective* (May 7, 2013), Serial Nos. 113-23 and 113-6, as summarized in *Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier* §V.c [22] — establishes the date, venue and witnesses. No URL in `allowed_urls`. [^6]: House Oversight Democrats, minority memorandum, as summarized in *Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier* §V.c [23] — establishes the minority's review and conclusions. No URL in `allowed_urls`. [^7]: *Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier* §V.c, negative finding [24]; [6][20] — establishes that no DOJ OIG report on the matter was located and that no public docket for *Ellis* is recoverable. No URL in `allowed_urls`. [^8]: The White House, presidential action (May 2026), cited as the anchor of at-issue pair AI-Ramsey-003 — establishes the project's anchoring document; the rationale is the project's. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/05/restoring-integrity-to-americas-financial-system/