Orange County Blog

Bad decision. Punks like this Gunther and Angelucci are not in this for society. They want an easy ticket to free cash, and now they've got it. Somebody in Sacramento please wake up and do something!

Something else to celebrate too - Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658 which held it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims of domestic violence from state-funded DV services.

Metropolitan News-Enterprise, "Court Rules Domestic Violence Programs Must be Open to Men," http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/wood101508.htm

San Francisco Chronicle, "Appeals Court Decision Supports Battered Men,"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/15/BA3S13HOLS.DTL

The misandrists were as angry about those decisions as the reactionaries are about the overturning of the Gunther decision.

But then part of the joy of all this is seeing rabid reacto types foam at the mouth over sound legal court decisions that put the law over judicial activism and that help eradicate discrimination.

A cold one on me for everyone tomight!

Thank you Olga. You and Dave are my heroes too. See me and Dave smiling in the picture? There's a reason. The barriers are being fixed in droves thanks to good people like him "making the world a better place." I hope he takes those big-ole-lucrative proceeds and buys a wheelchair-friendly yacht for you both to enjoy. You deserve it!

This Marc dude is really weird... LA guy, right?

Oh, look! Marc feels he must have the last word. That's cute, in a high school kinda way.

From what I heard on KFI, Marc Angelucci thinks women should be made to open car doors for men etc, and that female domestic violence victims are pampered over male counterparts. He is president of a male rights group and supports anti-traditional marriage efforts coming from SF and Weho. Watch out Brian T. He could be flirting with you.

MarcUs:your own words betray you, girl:

"But no I won't be flirting with Brian. Trust me. I have a girl friend AND HE'S NOT MY TYPE ANYWAY."

Girl friend doesn't work with a male reference unless...

You're not going to blame your bad English are you?

Olga was righ when she called you a dog. Your future yacht queen is ad hommer four!!! One of those broken clocks are right twice a day moments, huh, big important Glendale scholar?

Why can't you admit what you are?

Admission is the first step in recovery.

Put in realistic terms:

A gymnasium is needed for battered women.
An SUV is needed for battered men.

The problem being battered men and the hysterical mens rights groups simply continue to refuse to acknowledge that more men kill men, women and children.

See www.FamilyLawCourts.com/kids.html

Glad to see someone actually made a substantive comment rather than a childish personal attack. Bonnie said:

"The problem being battered men and the hysterical mens rights groups simply continue to refuse to acknowledge that more men kill men, women and children."

Here is my response.

First, as for children, the difference is very small and varies by source. For example, according to the DoJ, "Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2002: 31% were killed by fathers, 30% were killed by mothers"

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm

As far as domestic violence, women are just as violent as men in relationships, except that men report it less so crime data shows an false disparity. California State University Professor Martin Fiebert’s online bibliography summarizes over 200 studies, using various methodologies, "which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners," and about one-third of DV injuries happen to men. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Even the American Psychological Association and Harvard Medial School have announced research showing the same thing.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

A 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women are as violent and as controlling as men in dating relationships worldwide.
http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n

And although men may commit more "traditional" forms of rape than women, the numbers change dramatically when we count statutory rape and teacher sex abuse.

A study in South African found 2/5 of South African boys say they have been raped, “most often by adult women.” http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=ad3524cc-6076-4bc2-a015-23860553bd04

A major study in Canada found high rates of homeless kids being molested, with 3/4 of the molestations of boys being by adult women, but there were still no programs for the boys, only for girls. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=604d29af-5999-47ec-a156-0f5bc96954f2

A student survey showed 43% of teacher sex abuse comes from female teachers but over 90% of prosecutions are of male teachers. http://www.newsobserver.com/672/story/501955.html

An even bigger issue raised by men's rights activists isn't who kills or abuses more, but which victims are getting attention, and which perpetrators are getting prosecuted. The New Mexico study above showed male statutory rapists are far more likely to be prosecuted than female statutory rapists.

In England, funding for sex abuse victims is often denied for male victims. http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2007/06/25/4287949-sun.html

Government-funded DV programs still discriminate against male victims. Some governments have revoked funding from domestic violence shelters for refusing to help male victims. http://express-advocate-wyong.whereilive.com.au/news/story/support-team-pulls-plug/#

This is happening in the U.K. as well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/05/domestic-violence-charity-funding

Other governments, like the
Netherlands, have set aside specific funds for battered men’s shelters. http://www.amsterdamnews.net/story/464390. But in many countries, battered men’s shelters remain without any public funds. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1146783/First-refuges-battered-husbands-offer-support-male-victims.html

The federal Violence Against Women Act, though mostly gender-neutral, has provisions that expressly discriminate against men, such as the entire Native American section that excludes American Indian men. And the title itself stigmatizes and downplays the seriousness of male victims. We don't have a "Men's Occupational Safety and Health Act" just because 92% of occupational deaths happen to men. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t04.htm And the Act has been implemented in a completely discriminatory way, as the funds get routed to state coalitions that limit the funds to women. http://www.ncfm.org/chapters/la/gelles.html

The most recent research on criminal sentencing shows that men still get higher penalties than women. Seattle Times, “State courts unfair to men, minorities, UW study suggests,” http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008782782&zsection_id=2003925728&slug=courtstudy25m&date=20090225

This confirms what previous studies have found, which is that men get higher sentences than women for the same crime even when all other factors are equal (age, race, priors, family situation, etc.), and that "gender differences, favoring women, are more often found than race differences, favoring whites.” (Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v 35, pp 136-168.)

A study published in Justice Quarterly in 1986 found that, for the same felony, being male increased the chance of incarceration by 165% (being black increased the chance 19%).

The gender of the victim matters as well. A drunk driver will receive an average of a 3-year higher sentence for killing a female than for killing a male (compared to a 2-year higher sentence for killing a white instead of a black). (“Unconventional Wisdom,” Washington Post, Sept. 7, 2000.) Researchers Edward Glaeser (Harvard) and Bruce Sacerdote (Dartmouth) examined 2,800 homicide cases randomly drawn from 33 urban counties by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and found killing a female instead of a male increased sentences by 40.6% (compared to 26.8% for killing a white instead of a black).

I don't think the above sources are hysterical Bonnie. But if they are please show me so. I'm always open to correction.

>Marc A. says:

>Something else to celebrate too - Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 >Cal.App.4th 658 which held it is unconstitutional to exclude >male victims of domestic violence from state-funded DV >services.

>Metropolitan News-Enterprise, "Court Rules Domestic Violence >Programs Must be Open to Men," >http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/wood101508.htm

This is a good article and I agree Domestic Violence Programs should be open to men. Here are some other parts of the article I agree with:

Morrison further noted that the court’s opinion did not require that programs offer “identical services” to men and women.
“Given the noted disparity in the number of women needing services and the greater severity of their injuries, it may be appropriate to provide more and different services to battered women and their children,” he said.

Concluding that legislative findings indicated that the problem of domestic violence against females was increasing and that existing services were underfunded and certain areas underserved, Connelly found that women were more likely to be victims and to sustain severe injuries, and that the plaintiffs had failed to show a similarly severe unmet need for male victims.

Well Ellioti, if you're not willing to remove wheelchair barriers then yes I think you should keep your business closed. Those who refuse fair access to people with disabilities should not even be in business. As for tenants, you can contractually require them to comply with the ADA.

It's kind of funny that Moxley has people believing things like that Gunther still does these lawsuits (he doesn't and he's not even in OC) or that I do them (I haven't in years) or that I'm his "legal adviser" (I'm not), but that's ok it makes his story better so I have no problem with it, especially because I still cheer on those who do these lawsuits.

And from what I know the plaintiffs are willing to settle low if the defendants agree to remove the barriers and settle early. It's the ones who foam at the mouth and puff up and scream extortion that usually wind up paying alot, and that's their own fault or the fault of their attorneys. All the name-calling doesn't hurt the plaintiffs one bit. They see right through the hype and reactionism and they know that thousands of barriers are being removed as a result.

And henceforth I cheer the plaintiffs on and chuckle at the reactive vitriol and amusing ad homs that follow!

"Is it me, or does Marc say "hom" a lot?"

No you're right, I do! No need to worry, it's not just you. You see, most of the responses in here ARE personal attacks so I label them what they are, ad homs. I say it alot because they're in here alot.

"First of all, if you're willing to so rabidly defend yourself, why start with "Too bad I haven't done a case like this in years." Why not? They seemed pretty lucrative to me."

They never were my thing, really. But I totally support those who file them. I don't have to keep filing them to defend those who do. Does that makes sense to you? Uh oh, I feel another personal attack coming! Duck!!!

"Some places cannot be made handicapped-accessible. Some people cannot afford to handicap-accessorize their businesses."

That's true, and THOSE ones are EXEMPT. That law gives them an exemption. Did you know that?

"You and Gunther might legitimately think of yourselves as vigilantes but you're nothing more than well-polished shakedown artists."

Hmmm. No, I disagree. But thanks for the AD HOM. Oh I just love saying that word.

"The problem isn't that the big mean businesses aren't handicapped-accessible. The problem is the way in which small businesses were targeted, as well as your and Gunther's willingness to sue rather than simply notify the business owner."

No, the problem is not the size of the business at all, but the Number of them. Thousands all over the state that don’t comply. So warning a few of them doesn't get the rest to change. What gets them to change is when the media publicizes these lawsuits, as they have done. THAT gets them to change. Suddenly they care.

"What, do you guys deserve some kind of prize for each and every business you can sue after failing to notify said businesses of their violations outside the forum of a lawsuit?"

I haven't asked for a prize but sure why not I'll take one!

"Not to mention many of these so-called inaccessible places in fact were guilty of having a mirror inches too high. We're not talking about unscalable walls here, we're talking nit-picking. Nit-picking that forced some small businesses to close."

I sued two places that had NO ACCESS AT ALL to their places. That's not "nit-picky" at all. And I know plenty of people in wheelchairs who don't consider it nit-picky when they can't reach the toilet seat cover or can't look in the mirror.

"Moxley's not using you to make his stories better - you're doing that all by yourself."

When did I say he's using me? What I said is he's omitting things or not giving a full story in order to make the story better. I do give him credit though, he has improved a lot. His first story on this was filled with half truths and inaccuracies, some of them intentional as I showed before. This one here was much more objective.
"If you actually believe that any business which is not fully handicapped-accessible ought to be shut down, then you really don't deserve any of the ad hominem attacks above, because you're also disabled. Developmentally."

Yes, I believe they should be shut down IF THEY REFUSE to make themselves accessible. Does that makes sense to you? Because otherwise one of us is mentally disabled. Oh no did I just make an AD HOM? Oh shit!!!

"If we are talking about the same guy, Marc sometimes means well but his biggest problem is that he always has to believe he's the smartest gal in the room. Using a fake name, he makes comments about his own brilliance on websites. He's emotionally needy for applause. Sad."

Wow, that's a new one, "One who knows him." When did I ever use a "fake name" anywhere? I'd sure like to know that one. Where and when. I've never done that ever so I'd sure like to know what you're talking about. And, by the way, what is YOUR name, "One who knows him"? Whose using a "fake name" here?

No way am I the "smartest" in the rule. But your comment helps illustrate exactly the reason why I just LOVE to face off with hordes of reactionary people like on this site, all by myself, because it's so amusing how fast they turn to personal attacks on me when they nothing substantive to say at all. It's the exact same thing with feminist websites as it is with sites like this, and it's SO fun to watch and engage in.

"Calling you a shakedown artist is not an ad-hominem attack."

Actually yes it is. Ad hom is a personal attack. But anyway that's ok.

"Calling you a miserable, mother-humping sack of douchebags who likes to tenderly caress unattractive men at truck stops if they have the cash to pay - that would be an ad-hominem attack. My opinion on your professional credeibility is just that."

LOL!!! Now that's a funny one! Thank you!!

"the prize of which I spoke is the money you and Gunther pocketed in your little mini-crusade"

Well you're factually incorrect again but then that's Moxeley's fault not yours. I never got money from any judgment out of the wheelchair lawsuits, but I have always supported those who file them as long as they settle low with the smaller businesses taht agree to fix the problem, which from what I know Gunther does. I did file a few while working for Morse, yes, and I won at trial and am happy about it. And yes I definitely got money, her, wait, "prizes," for the lawsuits against Ladies' Nights or female-only discounts, and I got a wonderful monetary "prize" against the State of California for the lawstuit that stopped the state from excluding male victims of DV from its funding. I kind of classify those as all civil rights lawsuits and yeah, I'm very happy about that one.

Does that upset you? I'm sooo sorry. Your seething hatred and foaming at the mouth is very confirming to me of the good that coms out of these lawsuits. Of course, the amusement is in the reactionist dis-logic that arises, not in seeing anyone in "pain," so if it's any help, tell yourself that I'm still a mother-humpting, truck stop something or another (how does that go again?). It's feel better.

"So did you lie? Or are you just confused?"

Nope. You were too busy believing what Moxley says but that's ok I forgive you. Life is too good to be foaming at the mouth other people.

I'm glad you and Gunther can have an amicable chat regarding mother-humping.

I hope you didn't think I suggested that my opinion of your professional credibility is that of the mother-humping etc.etc. - in fact what I meant was that my opinion was just that - an opinion.

Again, and for the last time - calling you a shakedown artist is not a personal attack. It's a PROFESSIONAL attack. I didn't say you are a bad man. I didn't say you sneak into the Santa Ana Zoo to copulate with pygmy goats. I didn't say the prior comment was an unwarranted attack on the standards of pygmy goats.

Good luck to you in your future endeavors sir.