"Drive-By" ADA Lawsuits Shake Down Small Business Owners In California

The US of A has laws on the books known as American Disabilities Act (ADA) that mandates public businesses be accessible to people with disabilities. The law is well-intentioned and usually well implemented. However, this did not stop some vexatiously litigious people from abuising the court system and filing frivolous "drive-by" ADA lawsuits against small business owners who can't afford to fight the issue out in court, esp. during pandemic times. 

One such litigant is Potter Handy LLP, who also operates under the title "Center for Disability Access". They supposedly represented clients complained about businesses in both SF Bay Area and Greater LA Metro Area that allegedly violated ADA guidelines. Potter Handy LLP were filing up to 3 lawsuits A DAY in California's Federal District courts right up to April 2022, when they were sued by District Attorneys of both San Francisco and Los Angeles for violating California's Unfair Competition Act. 

While the civil lawsuit by the two district attorneys were dismissed in August 2022, Potter Handy LLP has mostly stopped filing lawsuits as several of the Federal judges handling the filed cases found that many of the presented facts do not add up. The pattern seems clear: there was no demand or notice of violation or request to correct before a lawsuit was filed, and the target is often (thought not always) a mom-and-pop shop (which does not have the resources of a corporate store, nor would they have lawyers on retainer to fight such).  The lawsuit claimed the plaintiff personally encountered "unlawful barriers" often something like "door handles", narrow paths, lack of ramps, inadequate handicapped parking markings, and so on. 

Most cases were settled for between 10K to 20K. 

According to a tally by Bay City News, 3142 cases (or more) in the last four years of ADA lawsuits filed in its own district handled by Potter Handy have been "resolved". And it's known that Potter Handy handled thousands of other cases in other California districts. 

Several Federal Judges have questioned whether the plaintiffs in the Potter Handy ADA cases have been truthful. One judge found that Brian Whittaker, one of Potter Handy's most prolific litigants, "traveled to Redwood City (California) for the purpose of finding business establishments to sue", not because he was visiting the area 2-3 times a month allegedly to relocate from LA. And Whittaker had sued HUNDREDS of businesses in the area. When questioned, he could not name any of the businesses despite suing and settling with hundreds of them. Note that one of the ADA claim requirements is intent to return to the business (and thus, need the barriers removed). 

Another judge, handling some of Whittaker's cases, pointed out that Whittaker took a one-day trip to San Francisco from LA, spend 2 hours moving about "to dine" or "to shop", returned home, and filed 34 lawsuits based on his experience on that one day trip to SF. This judge has also ordered the plaintiff in other Potter Handy cases before him to file additional affidavits, under penalty of perjury, for further details, and accused Potter Handy of filing "boilerplate" complaints. 

Potter Handy insists that it is protecting the rights of the clients it handled and called the civil suit brought by the district attorneys "a political stunt". 

I call it profiting off the misery of others. 

COVIDiocy Consequences: UCLA Doctor Escorted Off Work Premises After Speaking at Anti-vax Rally

Unvaccinated UCLA anesthesiologist Dr. Christopher Rake spoke at an anti-vax rally, wearing his white doctor's coat, back in September: "So they're telling me, 'take the jab or we take your job'. And I am here to say no!"  Then as a plane passed overhead, Rake held his hand and shouts, "Wave for freedom! FREEDOM!"

This is despite the August 5th California executive order that all health care workers MUST be vaccinated against COVID by September 30th. 

On October 4th, Rake showed up for work at the UCLA Medical Center and was promptly escorted out of the building by security, exactly as he wished. 

Of course, he's declaring martyrdom, i.e. they (UCLA) can't tolerate freedom, and he deserves to work even though he won't get vaccinated. 

The fact that an accredited doctor is willing to attend an anti-vax event while wearing his white coat, thus using his credentials and his employment to spread disinformation, is frankly, troublesome. 

As Lee Iacocca said, "Lead, follow, or get the **** out of the way." 

To not only be an obstructionist (attend anti-vax rally) but basically displaying your place of employment and your credentials, shows a serious lack of judgment. 

Do you really want a doctor who prioritizes his "freedom" over that of public health, i.e. YOUR health? 

If vaccine mandate will push the vaccination rate to the point that COVID becomes a non-issue, then do it. Pandemic times require extraordinary measures. 

The unvaccinated is willing to DIE for their "freedom". But you can't have freedom if you're dead. 705K people are already dead. COVID is the most important issue, and vaccine is the simplest way to end COVID. The more diddling we do is more time we give it to mutate, and kill more people, mainly the unvaccinated. 

In a way, it's the unvaccinated cutting off their own noses to spite their faces. They are basically KILLING THEMSELVES for their irrational beliefs. 

There's nothing wrong with believing in freedom, but there's a right time and a wrong time for that. 

And let's not forget that George Washington HIMSELF ordered the entire Continental Army and new recruits to be inoculated for smallpox. The disease is killing more of his men than the British. 

There is nothing unAmerican about a vaccine mandate. 

Don't be a COVIDiot like Rake. 

Sad COVIDiocy: Proud unvaxxed and unmasked Mother of 4 died of COVID

An Escalon (southeast of Stockton, CA) mother, a well-known local antivaxxer, had died of COVID on September 15th, 2021. 

Kristen Lowery, who declared herself "unmasked, unmuzzled, unvaccinated, unafraid -- together we win", left behind 4 school-aged children. 

She proclaimed to be a "free-thinker" and an "ex-vaxxer" on various posts. 

If you won't get vaxxed for yourself, would you do it for your children? 

Don't be a COVIDiot. Get vaxxed is the simplest way to protect yourself. 

Why don't DMV or places with incredibly long lines have SMS notification?

Everybody in California knows about the lines at a DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles). If you line up at 7:30AM (it actually opens at 8), you may be out by 9AM. If you like up at 9:30 AM, you probably out by 12PM. If you line up any later, you may be out before closing, but just barely.

They have an automated system now that gives out numbers, and then automatically announce "F07 at Windows 14" but it's still dumb. You never know how fast the line moves, so there's no estimate, so you're pretty much forced to stick around FOREVER, and if you happen to miss your slot...

Pharmacies like Walgreen can send SMS to your number to let you know when your perscription is ready to pick up. Why can't DMV do something similar? Say you're F47, you'll get a SMS when the queue is like F42. Then you can reply with CANCEL if you want to abandon the place (like you won't make it back).  The system can even predict how fast the wait will be based on the last 10 people processed.

How much would such a system cost? Minimal, and actually fit within their existing system. Should cost less than $1000 per DMV branch, plus cost to send the SMS, even less if you don't want the "CANCEL feature.

Shark Fin Ban is Much Ado About Nothing (and may even be racist)

Image via WikipediaJust today, there's news that a couple state reps want to ban "shark fins" in California. Assemblyman Paul Fong claim that 70 million sharks are slaughtered per year, mostly for their fins.

Well, marine biologist says that figure is bull****. That's the highest end figure available. A truer figure is about 38 million. It could be as low as 26 million. This was again, cited by National Geographic, who's not going to publish the "100 million" or even "70 million" figure.

Furthermore, Japan and China are the primary importers of shark fins. According to an importer, 95% of stock is going to China and Japan. China, with its growing economy (just passed Japan for #2 economy in the world) is the biggest importer of shark fins.

Thus, banning shark fin imports or sale in California will NOT significantly affect shark finning at all.

In fact, most of the sharks harvested are done in poor third-world countries like Ecuador, Indonesia, and so on. Though Japan has its own port full of shark finning. Except in this case, the carcasses are NOT tossed back into the ocean for the ultimate recycling. And according to Japanese government stats, their shark catch have HALVED since the 1960's (to about 35000 tons per year, and that's the whole sharks, not just the fins).

In fact, a 2010 film, called "The Shark Con", asks whether the "plight of sharks" and "shark finning" have been drummed up by so-called ecologists as a bit of fear-mongering.

Furthermore, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, and Singapore are also consumers of shark fin. Yet it seems only Chinese are targeted.

Frankly, this is a purely symbolic gesture. It won't do anything significant to reduce the consumption of shark fins.

Related articles

• Sen. Leland Yee Opposes Shark Fin Ban Bill (sfist.com)
• California Proposes Ban on Sale of Shark Fins (treehugger.com)
• California legislation would ban sale of shark fin (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• California legislation would ban sale of shark fin (sfgate.com)
• Leland Yee Opposes Proposed Ban on Shark Fin Soup (blogs.sfweekly.com)

About Whitman-gate, and what's wrong with the allegations

I am a skeptic, not into politics. I consider myself a moderate Republican (like our Governator) but that is not the reason I doubt the charges against Whitman. I see a lot of problems with these charges, and I'll list them.


* Since when does a HOUSEKEEPER get "mileage reimbursements"? Yet that is what Allred claims she will sue Whitman for "Nicky".

* $23 / hour for only 15 hours a week is a lot. How many hours did "Nicky" work and NOT get paid? Was there a log that can be somehow verified, or is this just a matter of single-sided claims?


* WHY is that letter in the hands of "Nicki"?

Whitman's explanation is that Dr. Marsh got the letter, glanced at it, decided that Nicki probably transposed a digit or two, so wrote a note and gave it to Nicki to take care of, and Nicki intentionally held the letter and never mailed it back, and nobody ever followed up. Marsh never thought of it again, never told his wife, and Nicki, having essentially "stole" the letter, kept quiet about it.



Allred's explanation is that Dr. Marsh read the letter, knew that Nicki is illegal, but decided to say nothing, and instead used the letter to blackmail her into working overtime without pay and generally feel like ****.


Nothing said by Allred so far contradicts Whitman's explanation, and it sounds perfectly reasonable to me, at least. They may have erred in not filling out the letter himself and returned it, but the explanation why is reasonable.

On the other hand, Allred's explanation does have a few holes... the biggest of which is that very letter she claims is evidence. If the March/Whitman household wish to "blackmail" Nicki into working for free, they would never have mentioned the letter. All they have to say is "I know you are illegal. I like you, so I won't call the INS. But I need you to work a couple more hours for free."  Why mention the letter at all? Why give the letter to Nicki to be kept as evidence?


The allegations make no sense, and as some papers have stated, this has every sign of being an "October Surprise": only revealed 30 days before the election to derail the Whitman campaign in the arena of publicity, with little facts to be had.

RANT: when health Gestapos strike

Image via Wikipedia

Health Gestapos are everywhere, and in the name of "healthy kids", they set their sights on... taco truck that no student even patronizes.

The story begins with a famous taco truck of San Francisco, the "Tonayense", is parked near a school. The problem with this fact: the truck was there first. Really. The school opened later.

So what's wrong with the taco truck parked near a school? It's actually against city law. Sometime in 2007, San Francisco city council passed a law prohibiting any "mobile food vendors" from selling food within 1500 ft of any school, to complete the "wellness policy" of schools, advocated by a "parents group".

(For comparison, most restraining orders against domestic abuser only require the abuser to stay 500 ft away from the victim)

So why was this policy in place? The advocacy group claims that 1) the mobile food vendors sell unhealthy food 2) it creates two classes of students: those that can afford to dine outside, and those who don't  3) it hurts the school cafeteria by depriving it of income.

The principal of the school in question had NO complaint about the taco truck at all. He eats there almost every day, and he had seen NO STUDENTS AT ALL. Several city papers also staked out the place. No students.

As for the claims... A1) The tacos and burritos and whatnot are no less healthy than any national fast food stores  A2) only seniors in the high school are allowed off campus for lunch, and almost all of them consider the taco truck too expensive  A3) San Francisco school policy for cafeteria is to feed EVERY student that comes through, whether they can pay or not, so cafeteria CANNOT be hurt by students eating elsewhere. It is not in the money earning business any way.

The taco truck was forced to move two blocks, but not before it raised a stink through a series of hearings, and many charges and counter-charges of misrepresentation, lies, and whatnot in public.

Much ado about nothing, I say.

Rant: Occupation of buildings as protest?

Image via Wikipedia

A bunch of students have taken over several University of California campus buildings at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz, as well as other campuses. The students are "outraged" by the increase in fees, to over 10000, roughly 32%. So what exact did these student "protest" this lack of funds? By causing massive police presence, occupying buildings, forcing police to break in, trespassing, and destroying rooms and general vandalizing. They were finally evicted by police, charged with various misdemeanors and infractions in some cases.

Their protests actually COST the university system more money.

They claim they are expressing their outrage over the fee increase, but they are actually contributing to the problem by causing general mayhem, thus causing the school to lose even MORE MONEY.

Also, if the classes would be cut due to lack of funds, wouldn't you want to get your money's worth NOW, instead of cutting class and join this "protest" that actually costs the schools MORE money?

So in other words, it's like protesting lack of civil rights by beating up African-American people.

Tell me how is that logical?

What's more, a bunch of yahoos then messed up the UC Chanceller's RESIDENCE building, and vandalized the entire front porch, plus throwing a TORCH at it, essentially trying to firebomb it! That's completely OUTRAGEOUS! These are ****ing terrorists, not student activists!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cal Students Occupy Major Berkeley Campus Building (usnews.com)
• Dozens arrested in UC student protest (msnbc.msn.com)

Not "legalize pot" again...

With California budget in such a mess, it's no wonder some folks with ulterior motives are trying to lobby CA to legalize marijuana for some additional revenue.

Frankly, this is going to cause so many issues, esp. with the Federal government (esp. the DEA, among others) that it's automatically a non-starter.

However, I may consider voting for it given that following condition(s) are met:

* any person who voluntarily choose to smoke pot will NO LONGER be eligible for ANY government-sponsored health care, be it city, state, or Federal funded, except detox. They may be reinstated provided they go through detox successfully.

WHY: If you choose to mess up your own body, why should we spend taxpayer money to fix you? If you want to get fixed, sure, go through a rehab program first. Relapse will mean a PERMANENT ban from public-funded healthcare, PERIOD.

This may require the state to create a detox prison, for addicts ONLY. After all, do you really want to lock up the users along with the peddlers and other hard-core criminals? No, you can fix the users... IF they want to be fixed. And a threat of NO HEALTHCARE EVER may scare them enough.

What do you think?

Judicial Activism: the new double-speak

Image via Wikipedia

Judicial activism is currently defined as a judge using his or her position to affect/change law, instead of defining/interpreting law.

A judge's role is often to clarify law, like when multiple laws come together which one has precedence, would a law apply to a new situation previously unintended or never before existed, and so on. For example, on many constitutional issues, some local laws are claimed to interfere with such rights as Bill of Rights and so on, by one side, and the government on the other side, claiming the laws are perfectly fine as written.

A while back, several California Supreme Court judges declared that the California constitution, which protects against discrimination against various things, including sexual orientation, trumps over any local law or even state assembly laws that blockss "gay marriage", despite the previous State Assembly passage of "In Defense of Marriage Act". They are accused of "judicial activism", as religious right accused them of "imposing their minority view on the majority of Californians".

More recently, Supreme Court candidate justice-to-be Sonia Sotomayor was accused of judicial activism by no less than Senator John McCain, former presidential candidate. This is probably fallout from her "wise Latina" remark made years ago.

So what's the point? I believe there's a fundamental logic problem with the critics who accuse ANYONE of judicial activism.

If judges are to interpret law as written, irrespective of public opinion, then if they do pass a decision that is unpopular, they will be lambasted as "judicial activists who are forcing their will on the public", correct?

But the whole idea of a judicial activist is someone who used his/her opinion, instead of law as written, to interpret the law, isn't it?

So what are the critics saying? That it's okay for the judge to use PUBLIC OPINION to interpret the law, but not his or her own opinion?

Even though a judge is ONLY supposed to use the law exactly as written, and perhaps, a bit of background information to guess at the circumstances and the original INTENT of the lawmakers who passed those laws, correct?

So what are the critics really saying? That any judge that makes judgments against public opinion is a judicial activist?

I always thought "activists" are those who are trying to make a difference (I make no judgment on the worthiness of their cause). It seems that only among POLITICIANS that activist is a NEGATIVE word.

So the politicians are against judicial activists (who are best defined as judges who buck public opinion, according to above). Which would make sense, since politicians fight for public opinion.

But what about the rest of us? Perhaps we should just embrace judicial activists BECAUSE the politicians hate them.

Until they rule against your subgroup, of course.

Guess what CA wanted to regulate about your car?

Image via Wikipedia

Guess what regulation California wants to pass regarding your car?

A regulation concerning PAINT.

That's right, a proposed legislation will regulate what kind of paint / color you can get in California.

WHY?!?! You ask.

Well, black or dark color car gets hotter in the sun, right? So if you require cars to have lighter colors, you'll use the AC less, and thus, improve mileage, and reduce global warming, right? It sounds like someone from the Sierra Club or Union of Concerned Scienetists would propose: it sounds good, but it's unscientific.

So is the color black doomed as a car paint choice? Not quite.

Now you're going to say, but that made sense to me! But wait!

The problem is... Most of the heat in the cabin came through the glass, not the skin of the car covered by paint. Just think about it. The glass area is right at the cabin, while the area with paint is over the area mostly UNrelated to the cabin.

So how much gas can this idea save? About 10 gallons per car PER YEAR, and this would add over $50 to cost of the car, by most estimates. Not to mention this will severely limit your car's paint choice (black is out, closest is a very dark brown).

It took a study from the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) to prove that this idea is a non-starter and that California Air Resources Board (CARB) should axe the idea, and CARB did.

Now CARB is back with another idea: requring glass that reflects a LOT MORE light than the current safety glass, which reflects a mere 6%. According to the proposal, the new windshield must reflect 30% of light (which matches current law of 70% light pass-thru). Side, rear, and sunroofs require even MORE reflectivity.

Please note that the regulations say REFLECT, not absorb. Which means tint is NOT acceptable.

In fact, the reflectivity requirement will jump to 45% by 2014, though in all honesty, it's for new cars only.

The problem is so far, only one company had came up with a new glass formulation that meets the 30% reflectivity... and it's EXPENSIVE, as it involves a nanolayer of silver between current safety glass, among other things. It does not affect visibility.

And what's more, the layer of silver blocks radio signals due to the Faraday effect (any one know what a Faraday cage is?) Thus, radar detectors and internal GPS receivers and anything else that receive radio signals inside the cabin will have problems (yes, even your cellphones, though that can be fixed by special antennas). Oh, and those toll transponders (Fastrak in Northern CA) that used to go inside your car... Now they have to go OUTSIDE.

As you can guess, this will severely affect the cost of a car, adding a few hundred, due to the exclusivity of this glass formula, and the added cost of the glass. In other words, CARB will grant monopoly to this glass maker, if this proposal passes. Yet the gain in energy savings is still debatable.

Not to mention this idea is pointless in the northern states. In the sunbelt, absolutely. But northern states? Nah.

Yet you know everybody follows CA when it comes to emission and energy stuff.

But there are HUGE implications when it comes to completely changing the formula of autoglass that is in use for the past several decades. I am sure it'll pass visibility and crashability, but what about replacement cost, widespread availability of such glass at places OTHER than the dealer, not to mention effects on interior electronics, effect on other drivers (increased reflectivity will affect other driver's visibility THROUGH your vehicle, say into the traffic beyond), and so on?

Then there are additional problems. If an owner is forced to replace these uber-glass with regular glass, maybe due to breakage, lack of parts, and so on, is the car still "legal"? Can it be registered next year like smog test? Will CA charge a "mitigation fee" to register out-of-state vehicles like it current does with cars that doesn't meet CA emissions? Do owners of such vehicles get refund for electronics that no longer work inside, or get a stipend to install conduit antennas to keep these electronics working?

While the intent is good, there are always unintended consequences. I am just not too certain if the consequences of this proposal has been fully realized yet.

Oh, no, PETA is at it again...

PETA, or People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, is always generating new headlines, and they are very good in generating publicity with various stunts. Here are two examples...

Pescadero State Beach in Pescadero, California is slated for closure due to a severe budget pinch in California. PETA offered to keep the beach open by paying... If the state agrees to change the park's name to "Sea Kitten State Park", and ban fishing at that spot.

Why? Pescadero means "fisherman" in Spanish. And "sea kitten" is what PETA wants you to call "fish". According to them, "fish" is a derogatory term, so to bring "respect" to fish, everyone should start calling them "sea kittens".

Elsewhere... In Iowa State Fair, two local sculptors want to create a sculpture of Michael Jackson with butter as homage. PETA decided it's not a good idea, and suggested "Earth Balance" Vegan spread instead.


So, are the PETA guys just plain nuts, or is there some genius behind that nuttiness?

Business based on tricking people

The only business that relies on tricking people is magicians. Anybody else, and we call them crooks, and put them in jail.

Except the guys who manage to toe a fine line between warning you not to be stupid, and make you fall for the scam any way.

Here's one example... In California, every corporation incorporated here have to file an annual "minutes" with $25 processing fee that basically updates the government on how your corporation is doing, and who are responsible. Here is one such form:



However, there are some "legal scammers" out there that want to do the same work, except charge you $75 more, for a total of $100. But you do all the work any way, since you get to fill out THEIR version of the form, all the same info. They just copy your info onto a real form, and pocket the extra $75 you sent in. Sounds like easy work, doesn't it? Here's such a form:



He's making money even if he got a response of just 1% (i.e. only 1 out of 100 fall for this "legal scam"). Yikes, too bad real businesses don't profit like that.

Will the REAL Miwok Indians please stand up?

Image via WikipediaNow that Red Hawk Casino is open by "Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians", another Miwok Indian is getting sued by this band... With a casino feeding their coffers, they can afford to.

So what's the suit about? This man, a Mr. Caballero who CAN trace his ancestry back for 100 years in El Dorado county as a Miwok Indian, through BIA and other records, claims to be the tribal historian of SSBoMI. The SSBoMI, on the other hand, don't want him to use the name SSBoMI and claims "copyright infringement". They claim that they don't doubt that he is Miwok, but he's NOT "Shingle Springs Miwok". Though he claims he is, and he represents 400 other Miwoks in the county.

However, now that a bigger issue has been raised... That perhaps SSBoMI are NOT Miwok Indians at all.

Read the comments section and make up your own mind.