next objects that her complaint contains “general allegations” establishing a presumption of unlawful activity. PL’s Mot. for Relief, at 5. This argument, however, rebuts a non-existent charge of inadequate factual pleading. It is orthogonal to the issues critical to granting relief: the presence of extraordinary circumstances and the posture of the court’s prior opinion, which disposed of the complaint based on the failure to satisfy a prerequisite to suit. As a last resort, the plaintiff argues that exhausting administrative remedies would have been futile because the defendant made no “substantive” remedies available. PL’s Mot. for Relief at 6. But the plaintiff has already raised this defense, and the court has already examined and dismissed it. See Mem. Op. (July 19, 2007) at 7-8 (<HOLDING>). In any event, it (like the plaintiffs other
holding that plaintiffs assertion that the irs had articulated a very clear position on the issue which it has demonstrated it would be unwilling to reconsider did not excuse her failure to exhaust remedies holding that the plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies and it does not matter that the plaintiff was using state law as the vehicle to press her assertion holding that because the fha explicitly provides that an aggrieved party does not need to exhaust parallel administrative remedies provided through hud before commencing a federal action it would seem logical that if an aggrieved party does not need to exhaust hud remedies before filing a federal action he or she should not have to exhaust local remedies holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief