On September 23, 2025, during my annual Housing Choice Voucher recertification with the New Ulm Economic Development Authority (NUEDA), I experienced a deliberate attempt to deny me my rights—and a striking display of racial bias in action. What unfolded was not merely bureaucratic neglect, but a calculated effort to undermine me as a Black participant in a federally funded program.
The Trick and the Refusal
When I asked for a copy of a form—a document to which I am legally entitled—the housing specialist refused. She had already coaxed me into signing the very form by misrepresenting its nature: she claimed it was mandatory, when in fact it was not. She then told me I didn’t need to worry about that form because “that’s not the form for criminals,” and insisted the only form I need to be concerned about is the one that authorizes the federally contracted HA to exchange information about me to the police and is required.
"The racist from recertification who intentionally refused my federal right to have a copy of a form I requested, after she tricked me into signing it on the computer where I could not see the form by telling me that it was something that it wasn't and that it was mandatory, when it wasn't. And then refusing to print me a copy that I could read, so that I can be sure I didn't sign something that I didn't want to—for my own legitimate reason that I did not explain to her and that I'm not listing here because when you're in a situation where no right that you have is respected by law enforcement everything that attackers know, heard or think about you will be weaponized to cause harm and I'm dealing with enough harm so I have to be extremely careful about the information that I share."
She created this whole unnecessary thing and hostile exchange by refusing to provide me a copy of the form and telling me what she thinks I need to read instead, after implying that I do not have to be worried about that form because that's not the form for "criminals" and the form "that we have to release information to the police is required."
So because I'm black, I'm a criminal and I'm worried about criminality and I'm a slave who must do, sign and have what she tells me to do, sign and take — not what federal regulation and program policy allows or what I request knowing my rights as a program participant. I have to be hiding something rather than concerned that criminal actors would be hiding something from me. Besides that, its totally standard to ask for a copy of a form; not a big deal at all—but these people are so vicious in their crippling economic attacks' against me that even asking for a copy of a form becomes a war. It's unjustifiable insanity.
In that moment, she made it clear: because I am Black, I am presumed a criminal, someone who must surrender my rights without question or resistance. She treated me as though I had no standing to know what federal regulation says, no voice to demand documents, no power to refuse. It was not me, the program participant—she positioned herself as the owner of my person, when she took my rights and mandated herself (not the housing authority and not HUD) as the only truth and authority. This is called forcing "outcomes" but those outcomes are attributed solely to the actions of the victims, not the racist criminals who are producing these outcomes by acting outside of the legal capacity of their employment position. Not mention, the constant undertone threat of retaliation for doing anything other than performing as instructed to the satisfaction of these individuals—business, law, reality, the tasks at hand never come into play with them. It always becomes a personal show of their amusement, abusing the access and authority which employment give them to attack people they could not otherwise have any leverage to harm.
Meanwhile the only person in violation of the law and clearly unbothered with any concern of having to face accountability for that criminality is her—during and after this exchange. Typical. These people employed in Minnesota's public services, in this case the federally contracted New Ulm Economic Development Agency (EDA) funded to eliminate slums and "protect me" as a renter, are criminal and cause harm.
In actuality, this woman ought to be fired for violating my Data Privacy Rights, Providing false information in the course of her duties and refusing my federal right to access the information in my HUD file with the agency. This is quite possibly, the only way that this Housing Authority would not put another participant what they put me through and take seriously the moral obligation to deliver services with respect and dignity. It's so simple to ensure this doesn't happen again—but will Minnesota do so when most of the public services employee's that I have encountered over more than thirty years share this criminals ideologies and behaviors.
She Broke the Law, Not Me
What she did was not an oversight; it was a violation. By tricking me into signing a document under false pretenses, refusing to give me a copy, and drawing a distinction between “criminals” and “participants,” she acted in clear defiance of program rules and federal right-to-know policies. Meanwhile, she displayed not an ounce of fear that she would have to face accountability for her misconduct.
This is sadly typical of many people employed in public services here in Minnesota—especially those working in state‑contracted housing authorities like NUEDA. They receive funding to work at eliminating slums and “protecting tenants,” but too often they become the very agents of harm, wielding power without oversight to marginalize vulnerable participants.
My Innocence and Disability of Short Term Memory Loss Used Against Me, I didn't Check To Make Sure She Told The Truth About What She Pulled From The Printer—Partly Because I Was Distracted by Another Employee Kellie Roe Asking Me If Needed Repairs from 2024 That NUEDA Refused To Respond To Had Magically Resolved Themselves
When I call to talk to the technician and request the form I asked for while I made the trip through three cities to have resolved while I was there in person—again, now that I am home without resolve for an issue this woman created, rather than the one she told me I needed—and I specifically told her I do not want that form—it served no purpose for me it just says for the HA collects and uses people's information. I have had a Housing Choice Voucher since the year 2000, I know how HUD is authorized to collect and share information. I evidently don't have a problem with any of that, I've agreed to it for more than two decades.
I responded, "I want the Authorization to Release Information which you had me sign, that is not a HUD Release of Information, the one that we just had the conversation about." —which she then said she’d go get from the printer—It was not it.
When I got home, it was the one she instructed me to take in, based on her personal entitlement and white privilege, weaponized through abuse of her employment role, which authorizes her to make decisions that would be harmful to me if I do anything to upset her without her having to justify the harmful decision she authored by regulation—as they all do—because no one is enforcing the law for the protection of Black participants here.
Heather Bregel, an offender herself, answered the phone and says, “She’s not available. I can help you with whatever you need.” I told Heather I was simply wanting a copy of the Authorization to Release Information that I asked the technician for during the recertification. She asked me for an email. I put "403 HUD" in the subject because I obviously have to maintain my own records (for protection) when the system is criminal.
Heather, who had no idea what took place until I called for the copy of the document—and no information about what took place in the recertification meeting because she wasn't present—and I didn’t go into detail when I asked her for a copy of the form, because I wasn’t expecting that an absolutely standard assertion of federal rights to a copy of a form would turn into a ridiculous, unwarranted war funded by taxpayer money.
But this is the constant plausible-deniability form of racism running the Jim Crow North which is Minnesota—seemingly small slights that actually cause majorly injurious financial, emotional, medical, and social repercussions on their victims that never heal because the law is not enforced, they're never made whole—so it just becomes one setback, loss and injury on top of another for Black Minnesotans and their families, because they're all operating in this same fashion in all Minnesota's government offices and institutions. There is not observation of rights to begin with, or legal enforcement of repair when rights are violated.
It's so simple what is going on here; its not restricted to slavery and policies from centuries ago—but the victims experiencing what's going on behind closed are not at the table to provide that insight in formal capacity therefore the taxpayers don't know—only the criminals and the victims and the criminals and their social workers (who accept its just the way it is) are the only ones allowed to have a formal public narrative. So there you have it.
This results in a 90% racial wealth gap— that the public is then told to throw welfare money at—so these same criminals can get federal dollars and steal the money back without consequence, when these are the criminals creating the financial disparities for victims to need welfare in the first place—because already established regulations, policies, and laws were not enforced for them. It is a systematic cycle internal to the agencies and institutions that has nothing to do with the participants beyond victimhood due to the void of legal outlets enforcing the law so that it stops.
Just follow the law. Just enforce regulation when a victim reports that the law is violated. And it all goes away. What's hard about that and why has everything but that been explored?
The Ancient Minnesota Tradition of Plausible Deniability and Systemic Cover Ups
But no—Heather Bregel automatically does what plausible deniability does: she silences my assertion of rights by claiming that my rights were not violated, and she preemptively provides a protective alibi for the criminal in case formal complaint is filed. This results in a plainly worded email adding to the ongoing hostile environment with NUEDA, which should not even exist. Why is okay to constantly attack me in spaces where I should be protected?
I have a right to my rights—to assert my rights, to question my rights, to make self-determined decisions about my situation within my rights. Not to be sentenced to do what people tell me to do just because they’re acting on white privilege—as if I am a slave.
And notice: the advice given to me, and the confines put on me, were all targeted at harming me—or there would not have been a back-and-forth of self-advocacy, against my assigned housing advocate because I don’t want to be harmed in the first place. It's always "harm yourself" or you will be harmed by greater harms on my recommendation—WTF Minnesota; when are you going to stop this abuse?
And I have the right to services with dignity.
Look at all this damned work that is being created for an unpaid, disabled woman by the system that is receiving payroll to legally protect her—just so she can keep her head above legal battles that they’re creating. It’s pervasively incredible.
They’re paying these people who are causing trouble, and I am having to overcome all odds to fix the trouble they create for free. I’m not being paid for these emails, this work, or that meeting—but they are.
I’ve followed all the rules; they’ve broken them. But the consequences are—and will be—all blamed on me and hurt only me. And taxpayers will pay for the injuries by funding crisis and welfare programs that do not need to be as big and costly as they are—if the criminality eradicated.
The regulations, policies and criminal justice system are all already there to accomplish them—the employee's aren't abiding by them.
This, in and of itself, is a perfect demonstration of the Minnesota Paradox in operation.
Communication and documentation exchange from this incident
.png)
.png)
%20(2).png)
Post a Comment