« Arnold Cuts Some Gas | Main | David Dreier: In and Out »

Comments (9)

1. Allan Bartlett says:
   October 16, 2006 19:10

   These scumbags are giving ambulance chasers a bad name! These are shakedown lawsuits pure & simple and Bill Lockyear or the new Attorney General come next year needs to put thses out of business.

   Powder Blue Report

2. Alex Brant-Zawadzki says:
   October 16, 2006 23:10

   A certain quote from The Big Lebowski comes to mind.

   WALTER: Let me tell you something else. I've seen a lot of spinals, Dude, and this guy is a fake. A fucking goldbricker. This guy fucking walks. I've never been more certain of anything in my life!

3. Bill Bushek says:
   October 17, 2006 11:10

   Angelussi, Gunther's attorney who helped Gunther file lawsuits against small business owners out of compliance for persons with accessibility, gave small business many chances to "settle the lawsuit at a lesser settlement than initially proposed." How about offering the small business an opportunity to fix the problem in 60, 90 or 120 days as Scott Moxley suggests? This issue is all about money. Not access. Every year, legislation offering a remedy to first, fix the accessibility problem and second, give the small business owner a reasonable time frame to fix the problem fails in the legislature. Elected officials need to represent and support the people in their district, not the needs of unscrupulous attorneys who file shakedown lawsuits.

   Sincerely,

   Bill Bushek, Supporter

   Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

   P.O. Box 26

   Corona del Mar, CA 92625

4. jae says:
   November 22, 2006 19:11

   im so glad that the jig is up on these lowlifes. the attorney is just as bad. i bet the attorney found these wheelchair people. i own a carwash that has all the ramps, ada toilets, handles and so on. last year i renovated the bathrooms and i guess the mirror was 2.5 inches too high. well, i got a lawsuit from these scumbags. they write that we wont comply. that is not it, we dont even know we are 2.5 inches non-compliant. anyways, id rather spend 10k on another attorney than give these pathetics a dime. if there is anyone who can help me out with this please email me at jaewest2004@yahoo.com thank you

5. Harry Crouch says:
   November 27, 2006 07:11

   The fact is ADA requires businesses to make certain accommodations for those with special needs. Many businesses choose not to comply until challenged. Businesses in non-compliance have no basis to criticize those that frequent their businesses only to find required accommodations lacking or totally absent. Most business owners ignorant of ADA requirements when notified of deficiencies readily comply and make necessary renovations while others baulk, bitch, and complain. Business owners who knowingly defer renovations are in fact the ones blatantly violating the law, not those with special needs being denied as customers the required accommodations. Only complete idiots, bigots, and "scumbag" cross burner types would rally to defend renegade business owners instead of those whose legal rights and protections are being blatantly violated. Mr. Angelucci is a personal friend and perhaps one of California's leading civil rights attorneys, one who vehemently defend men's rights when most men only make jackasses of themselves with ignorant comments about shyster attorneys. No matter Jackass, if your rights were being violated find an attorney other than Marc Angelucci who spends 40 or more hours a week of his own time, without any meaningful compensation, with little praise, mostly out of his own pocket, that will stand up for your Jackass rights.

6. Marc Angelucci says:
   November 27, 2006 10:11

   Harry, someone just showed me that you posted this. Thanks. But be careful about discussing things with this reporter. R. Scott Moxley distorts things to get the story he wants, even if he writes well. He even cited medical records that pre-dated Gunther's confinement to a wheelchair in order to prove Gunther doesn't need a wheelchair! If that were a mistake, it would be one thing, but it was no mistake. Gunther had told Moxley about the more current medical records in which Gunther's doctors confine him to a wheelchair for his worsening degenerative disk disorder, but Moxley omitted that on purpose and cited medical records pre-dating Gunther's confinement to a wheelchair, as though that proves he doesn't need a chair.

   Moxley also quoted Fresno District Attorney James Falkowski saying in closing argument in a child support case in 2001 (again, before Gunther's confinement to a wheelchair) that Gunther may have faked his disability. But Moxley never mentioned that the 5th District Court of Appeal said the D.A. had no evidence to back this up, and flat-out said Gunther is completely disabled. The decision is at http://www.napil.com/PersonalInjuryCaseLawDetail28846.htm

   Moxley knew about the appellate decision because he reviewed the Fresno records and even commented about them to me. But he left it out because it weakened the angle of his story.
   When I asked him why he omitted this, he gave no substantive response but only a barrage of personal attacks and ad homs.

   Supposedly there are to people (apparently produced by the defendants) who "saw Gunther walk." I haven't heard their testimony. But I seriously question it. In any even, many people who are confined to wheelchairs can often still walk a short way here or there. That doesn't mean it is safe, or medically advisable, that they do so. They shouldn't have to take that kind of risk in order to access a public accommodation. That's why the ADA is there.

   Even hyped up stories on these lawsuits help bring the publicity that forces widespread ADA compliance that otherwise does not occur. So I don't oppose the media hype, but I do oppose yellow journalism and intentional omissions. That is inexcusable, in my opinion. And it doesn't take an expert to see that.

   A "warning period" would only allow businesses to continue their non-compliance until they are warned. That's like forcing OSHA to warn a construction site before they inspect. It has little deterrent value. Nor would it bring the kind of publicity that these lawsuits need in order to force widespread ADA compliance.

   As for the "small businesses," to my knowledge Gunther always offers to settle low if it's a small business. And, in fact, many of them do. Those that recognize their violations early on, and then settle and fix the violation, do not wind up with big expenses. It's the ones who pretend no violation existed and then fight the case that often wind up paying damaging amounts. Then they go to the media with sob stories. But Gunther does not lie about the violations. On a few occasions he made a mistake, such as one case where there was a ramp that was not easily visible from the front, and in those cases he dismissed immediately upon being told of the mistake. The other side uses this to attack Gunther as though he sues even when there was no violation, but they naturally don't mention the whole story, and if that's all they can come up with out of all the cases he has filed, it shows how little they have on Gunther to prove he sues where there is no violation. The fact is, he does not. And an Orange County judge recognized that.

   Thankfully, other media stories on this in Long Beach, in the Metro News Enterprise, and elsewhere, were very objective, despite the Orange County Weekly's tabloid-style story.

   Eventually, the legislature might change the law to require a warning period (an appellate court recently disagreed with other courts and decided that intentional discrimination is necessary under certain statutes, which may nor may not wind up reviewed by the CA Supreme Court). But the publicity has already brought widespread ADA compliance that otherwise would not have occurred. So either way, I'm happy about the compliance that has resulted from these suits.

   Eagle Rock is a good example. I frequent many businesses there and I used to have to warn them about ADA violations. Then somebody (not sure who) filed Gunther-style lawsuits there, and the media went wild. Now I see total compliance in the area, and I am happy about that. The media, of course, never really addresses this.

   Quoting Gunther in the article is not the same as explaining, in the story itself, how these lawsuits have brought about ADA compliance through the publicity. But in any event, the changes are occurring, and I'm happy about that. No matter what happens from here, the changes that these lawsuits brought are a good thing that would not have otherwise happened.

   Thanks again, Harry.

   Marc

7. jae says:
   December 19, 2006 00:12

   fu harry, only the mirror was 2.5 inches too high. dont talk about businesses being "challenged to be compliant". why dont we all go around sueing each other for every little thing? if a biz didnt have ramps and so forth you would have an arguement. anyways these criminals are done.

8. jae says:
   January 22, 2007 16:01

   hey guess what harry? seems like the rat bastards dismissed the lawsuit. i wonder why? rats

9. Sam J says:
   March 19, 2008 11:12

   The worst part is, there HUNDREDS of lawyer/complaintant teams under the guise of ADA heroes suing mom & pop businesses for $4-6,000 settlements. These guys use this type of litigation as a means for employment! ABUSE!