Just as with pools and lifts for the disabled, the ADA Nazis are back again with their palms outstretched via attorneys looking to fatten their own purses. I also wrote about this regarding a very small lunch stand called the Squeeze Inn, in a depressed area of town, sued behind an ADA issue. It closed that location and had to expend cash to open in another location. This was before, I should note, the entire national economy crashed.

From the Colfax Record website, by Gus Thomson, Auburn Journal Staff Writer:

AUBURN CA – The Weimar Country Store was just barely hanging on before it got hit with a lawsuit from a Carmichael attorney on alleged Americans With Disabilities Act non-compliance, its owners say.

Now the store – a center for the rural community, just west of Colfax – is facing a future clouded with doubt and even more economic uncertainty, said Mike and Carol Gaines.
The couple has owned the store for six years and Carol worked there 22 years before that. It’s the place for locals or travelers pulling off the freeway to buy a lottery ticket or two and a pack of smokes. There’s food and beverages. And Carol admits there’s always gossip to be shared.

“There’s plenty of that,” Carol Gaines said.

Unfortunately for the Gaineses, the talk has revolved around the shaky future of their store after Carmichael attorney Scott Johnson initiated a civil lawsuit in January similar to hundreds of others he has launched in the region on perceived ADA problems.

Johnson didn’t respond to the Journal’s request for an interview but has said in the past that his goal is to have businesses conform with federally-mandated requirements. Critics say that he’s making businesses spend money to settle his lawsuits – usually $5,000 – that could be better spent upgrading facilities. Johnson contends the work should have been done before legal proceedings were started.

For the Weimar Country Store, the lawsuit – plus legal expenses to hire their own lawyer, have an inspector determine what problems exist, and the cost of an upgrade – could be a crushing burden.
“Business has been really slow this year,” Carol Gaines said. “The lack of snow and that impact on the ski business has killed business here.”

Carol Gaines said they always felt the store was ADA-compliant, particularly after state lottery officials inspected the business and OK’d it for selling tickets.

“We’ve had to take a loan out to hire an attorney,” Gaines said. “We have no extra money for this kind of stuff.”

Now the business has had to cut staff hours to make ends meet. And the future is far from clear as the Gaineses move forward on the possibility of thousands of dollars in new, unexpected expenditures.

The store was robbed at gunpoint in late 2010. The take was in the hundreds, they said, not close to what they are anticipating paying Johnson. And the alleged gunman – currently moving through the court system – is facing a prison term of several years if convicted.

The two say they’re irked by the irony.

“It’s criminal,” Mike Gaines said. “Instead of spending money on attorney fees, we should be allowed to put it toward compliance costs.”

Please read the rest of the article, because it does nothing more than document the — in my opinion –predatory efforts of attorneys who sue smaller businesses on the grounds of ADA “violations.”

Scott Norris Johnson, as the article indicates, has already gone against numerous businesses and has essentially, in my opinion, held them hostage by utilizing the very strict wording of the ADA.

Mr Johnson has found and made a quite lucrative business — estimated at millions of dollars — by suing SMALL businesses that don’t have access to their own attorneys or a bulky cash flow. And he purposely targets those who, in briefcase-speak, cannot predominantly easily “fight back.” And isn’t it odd how whatever settlements are made, are private and cannot be disclosed? Purposely.

It’s interesting, because Mr Scott Johnson has already been the subject of a Sacramento News10 article back in 2010, where he is known to have already filed more than ONE THOUSAND (1,079 suits, specifically, as of 2010) federal lawsuits.

It’s also interesting because Mr Johnson was struck by a drunk driver in 1981, making him a quadriplegic. With that in mind, I present the News10 video below:

From the article:

SACRAMENTO, CA – A quadriplegic attorney who has filed more than 1,000 federal lawsuits claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act says he’s an agent of change. But his critics choose different words.

Scott Johnson, 47, was disabled by a hit and run drunk driver in 1981. For the past six years, Johnson has been on an ADA enforcement crusade that has potentially earned him millions of dollars. He operates out of his home in Carmichael with a team of legal assistants.

A News10 analysis of federal court records in the Eastern District of California indicated Johnson has been the plaintiff in at least 1,079 ADA lawsuits since 2003. Johnson said he hadn’t kept count, but did not dispute the number. He said his average settlement with business owners has been between $4,000 and $6,000.

When you initially think of ADA suits, you think of large business fat cats who refuse to allow guide dogs in stores, don’t provide elevators in multiple-story buildings, or tell people in wheelchairs to go somewhere else.

You don’t think of this:

The owner of a Rocklin restaurant who became one of Johnson’s more recent targets contacted News10 to complain about the fairness of the lawsuit he was served with in November.
Chris Rubino said he spent $700 to repaint hash marks on the side of a disabled parking spot in front of Rubino’s Ristorante. He acknowledged it took him a year to do so after receiving Johnson’s first warning letter.

Really? A lawsuit because a small business somehow failed to “repaint hash marks” on the side of a disabled parking spot? Because, after all, this paragraph in the article is the most telling:

Johnson agreed to meet with Rubino to inspect the repainted parking space, but said he would still likely seek monetary damages.

Meaning: you complied, but I’m still going to sue you.

Meaning: it isn’t quite all about compliance, it’s about “hurting you” and “funding me.” Because I can, under the law.

As any lawyer or cop can tell you, there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Mr Johnson clearly works under the letter of the law and the spirit be damned.

Johnson offered no apology for making a handsome living suing businesses both large and small, even if it makes people hate him. “I bring change. People resist change,” he said.

In response: first, I congratulate Mr Johnson in overcoming his disability as the result of a tragic accident over 20 years ago, in 1981, at the age of 19. He acquired his degree from CSUS [my alma mater as well], then picked up his JD, post accident, from the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, and passed the Fornicalia bar in 1993. This is no small feat. Many kudos, sir.

But I submit that, in my opinion, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Yes, you make a “handsome” living, in the millions of dollars, suing businesses that may not be, entirely by the letter, in compliance with ADA issues. And we all know the history of this focus; that much is clear and obvious. You are part and parcel of the reason that small businesses are closing in Fornicalia, and large businesses are fleeing as well.

I say that, again in response, the upcoming AB 1878 is too long in coming.

Assembly Bill 1878 would give businesses 120 days after written notice is received to correct a possible violation before a lawsuit can be filed.

I can and will support that bill and monitor that bill in any and every way possible.

Beth Gaines contends that 98 percent of California businesses are out of compliance in some way and – as the law now stands – can be sued for railing height being off by a centimeter or parking-lot striping not being the right shade of a particular color.

Let me be up front, Mr Johnson: this all smacks of vindictive behavior because of your personal plight. Focused on businesses who had nothing to do with your plight.

From ADACrisis.com:

Mr Johnson’s contact info is:

5150 Fair Oaks Blvd
Carmichael, CA 95608
(916) 485-3516

The address itself is a private UPS PO Box complex. A contact is here.

Quantified as a “legal extortionist,” he is mostly a one-man suit mill, having shut down a Truckee restaurant, the Donner Lake Kitchen in March of 2011.

Another telling sentence:

The vast majority of the Johnson’s targets settle for roughly $2,000 to $6,000 each, and the lawyer puts many of his targets on monthly payment plans.

A monthly payment plan. Imagine that.

Mr Johnson, I know you’ve suffered. That much is clear.

I still ask: how do you sleep at night?

BZ

That could be you, or that could be me, above. Is that how you envision your final days, having contributed to our society as you have, as a taxpayer, as a producer, as an individual who may no longer have a family to take care of you?

The bulk of America doesn’t have a clue about SCOTUS or the recent arguments made last week regarding ObamaKare. My very valued readers do, as well as the readers of various Leftist blogs and sites.

Depending on one’s bent, either the actual arguments made in front of SCOTUS last week by the government were perhaps the worst stammering presentations in the last 30 years, or the work of Constitutional scholars and unimpeachable due to their inherent foundational logic and clarity.

An actual vote on the issue of ObamaKare was already made this past Friday (March 30th) by SCOTUS. That much is certain. It is now up to the various justices and, truthfully — their staffs — to craft their individual opinions and to craft the majority opinion.

That said, there are now major news stories surfacing regarding Mr Obama and his view on this amazingly-critical ruling that will either be the major SUCCESS or the major FAILURE of his term.

From Reuters.com:

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of “judicial activism” that Republicans say they abhor.

Obama’s advisers say they have not prepared contingency plans if the measure fails. But the president — who expressed confidence that the court would uphold the law — made clear how he would address it on the campaign trail if the court strikes it down.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

The Supreme Court justices are expected to issue decisions in the dispute by late June, a time when the presidential campaign season is likely to be in full swing.

“So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.”

The Supreme Court is looking at whether Congress exceeded its power to regulate commerce in U.S. states with that mandate.

And this time I concur with Mr Obama: yes, there is a human element to the forthcoming SCOTUS opinion, and that is: does it conform to the US Constitution? Mr Obama is making the anti-Constitutional argument, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

From YahooNews.com, Mr Obama warns the Supreme Court of the United States that it is “unelected,” despite its having a firm hold and is in keeping with the triumvirate of the US branches: the Executive, the Legislative and Judicial. The Judicial stands alone — as does the Executive:

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the “unelected” Supreme Court not to take the “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

Though Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation down.

In a highly combative salvo, Obama also staunchly defended the anchor of the law — a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance — as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

Pointed comments from Supreme Court justices last week during three days of compelling hearings have convinced many commentators that the court, expected to rule in June, will declare the law, dubbed ObamaCare, unconstitutional.

And, I submit, it will AGAIN come down to a 5-to-4 vote. And ObamaKare will be stricken, I prognosticate.

Because the US Constitution doesn’t guarantee positive rights, it guarantees negative rights! Please read and familiarize yourself with the Constitution from my post here:

POSITIVE vs NEGATIVE RIGHTS:

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

– The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures

– It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”

Leftists wish to enable a solid “privileges or immunities clause” which becomes open-ended and — therefore — susceptible to specific ‘interpretation” by such pre-chosen federal judges!

A “logical extension” might be to allow “privileges or immunities” to create new “rights” which could “guarantee” social or economic “equality.”

If the law moves this way, then your possessions, my possessions, could and would be “redistributed” as seen fit by your government.

Your “rights” will be parsed out, in dribs and drabs, by appointed berobed iconoclasts and Leftists.

This will supplant “representative” decision-making and throw decisions onto those who are appointed and — therefore — completely immune from accountability or responsibility.

Make no mistake: the purpose of Mr Obama’s will is to impose federal overarching positives upon each and every one of us; it isn’t about what may be limited; it is ALL about what might be expanded for us. Because we exist in one class: as voters who can be guilted and manipulated.

We exist as a class to be subsumed and guilted and lied to and turned upside-down to shake out each and every penny we possess.

Further, here’s how Mr Obama will play it come November: as the perennial BLACK VICTIM. He had his “centerpiece” struck down by those elite whites who are evil, ugly, monied, and form the backbone of a strict conspiracy to strike down any advancement whatsoever of blacks and other “minorities” — except that, moreover, minorities in major Leftist states are WHITES, as in Fornicalia.

But, of course, statistics be damned.

What say you? ObamaKare Constitutional or un-Constitutional?

You know where I weigh in:

The US Government: running your health care in the same caring, effective, efficient, considerate, innovative and understanding fashion as your local DMV.

BZ

So I actually broke down and bought a few of the “new” curlique TOXIC MERCURY (now federally-mandated) light bulbs.

After LESS than one year, as you can see, one of those bulbs is gone. Done. Burned out.

So guess what? I threw it in my trash can and where my trash goes, nobody knows. That’s between me and God. But I could hazard a guess that a toxic waste crew from FEMA or a HAZMAT team didn’t come down from Heaven to visit and clean up. With an appended tax tab of $5,000 or more. Actually, where did I put it? I quite can’t remember. Honestly!

Imagine that.

Let’s review, for the obtuse amongst us:

New bulbs?

• Toxic; filled with mercury;
• Much more expensive;
• Promised to last, at minimum, twice as long as incandescent;
• Slow to acquire full brightness;
• Sometimes require an actual MINUTE or more to come to full light;
• Must be disposed-of with delicacy considering their toxic nature;

Yeah, that’s great, Religious Leftists.

Hope you’re quite fulfilled and satisfied. Because my bulb went into my PLASTIC BAGGED trash and will end up who-knows-where. Probably contaminating someone’s landfill with the REST of the toxic FEDERALLY MANDATED piece-of-shit CFL nightmares. Or somewhere. I can’t quite remember where I put it. Honestly!

1. CFLs: WORSE Than What They’re Replacing
Many state governments (and Canada) have said we must all be incandescent bulb-free in four more years (by 2012) so waiting in the wings stands the CFL, otherwise known as the Compact Fluorescent Light (or Lamp). But what advocates of the CFL don’t say is:

– CFLs don’t produce immediate light; they must warm up;
– They cost up to TEN TIMES more than incandescents;
– Light produced by the CFL is harsher than incandescents;
– You can’t just throw a CFL away, because:
– CFLs contain mercury — hello? Anyone remember? Mercury is toxic? Dead fish anyone?
– CFLs may cause skin cancer;
– CFLs may set off migraines, dizziness, disorientation for those with epilepsy;
– CFLs cause pain to Lupus sufferers;
– CFLs aren’t for bathrooms; humidity shortens their lifespan;
– Improper usage (track lighting, for example) may cause fires.

Remember when Brandy Bridges of Maine broke a CFL in her house? The cleanup cost her $2,000. She couldn’t vacuum the carpet. The EPA had to test the air in her home. Recycling experts say solutions to disposal of CFLs is about five years away.

From Canada:

Are there any disadvantages?
– Yes. They cost more to buy.
– They can pose a fire hazard if the wrong bulb is used in the wrong place.
– They don’t like power surges, so if your area is prone to electrical anomalies, you may not want to use them.
– And because of their mercury content, they should only be thrown out at a proper waste disposal site, an inconvenient stop for most.

My area is prone to numerous power surges and fluctuations. But Fornicalia isn’t going to give me any choice in bulb, by 2012.

Smells to me of more emotive, ill-thought-out, feel-good Leftist Bullshit where the solution is worse than the problem ever could be.

Hey, how about $50 light bulbs?

Or a $50,000 CFL cleanup bill?

CFLs poison the environment.

They poison and kill the workers who assemble these bulbs.

Bottom line? I threw the CFL in the trash and replaced it with one incandescent 60-watt bulb which provided MORE illumination, IMMEDIATELY, and for a fraction of the cost. Or I didn’t. I can’t quite remember what the hell I did with that thing. Honestly!

Multiply ME times thousands per day.

A small personal and very intimate side-note to Obama and current EPA MussoliniHeads: fuck you.

BZ

P.S.
These ignorant imbeciles claim “green”? How about the BLACK of death and toxic ventures promulgated by a new generation of EMOs lacking actual facts?

First, from China:

China arrests over coup rumours

The internet rumours have spooked China’s top leadership

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• China policeman ‘sought UK talks’
• Scandal claims ‘preposterous’
• Coup rumours ricochet

Chinese police have arrested six people and shut 16 websites after rumours were spread that military vehicles were on the streets of Beijing, officials say.

The web posts were picked up last week by media outlets around the world, amid uncertainty caused by the ouster of top political leader Bo Xilai.

The State Internet Information Office (SIIO) said the rumours had a “very bad influence on the public”.

Two popular microblogs have temporarily stopped users from posting comments.

Second, from Russia:

Russian Police Detain 55 Protesters Near Moscow’s Red Square

VOA News

• 
• 

Photo: Reuters

Interior Ministry officers detain opposition activists during a protest rally to defend Article 31 of the Russian constitution, which guarantees the right of assembly, in Moscow March 31, 2012.

Russian police say they detained 55 opposition supporters near Moscow’s Red Square in order to prevent an unauthorized anti-government rally there.

Activists had called for supporters to walk around the square, located outside of the Kremlin, wearing white ribbons as a symbol of the protest movement.

But police closed the square and blocked off its access roads, preventing the gathering.

Russian opposition activists have criticized the government for violating their right to freedom of assembly.

Tens of thousands of activists have rallied in recent months against widespread fraud in the parliamentary election and against Vladimir Putin’s election as president last month.

An unhappy and unstable China and Russia tend to make unhappy and unstable decisions whilst under pressure.

And pressure is indeed ratcheting up on all countries and issues.

With that in mind, according to Obama aides, it’s time to blame Romney for Obama’s blatant display of fear towards Russia in Obama’s “coming second term.”

For the love of God, I swear this nation and this planet get more upside down and unrecognizable by the week — and so few seem to notice or care.

BZ

Everyone is back, including Christina Hendricks, on AMC’s Mad Men.

Christina Hendricks: the chick that mostly everyone loves to hate; except that she portrays a truthfulness that most people will never admit in public but inherently know: zaftig and voluptuous women are loved and admired. Red haired, 5’8″, 150 lbs +. Check. [Green dress above.]

In essence, despite decades of bullshit fashion magazines and brainwashing: real women actually do have curves and extra padding.

And curves and extra padding are way cool. Something more to hang onto in tenuous times.

Women: no matter what so-called “popular culture” portrays, actual men want actual women with curves — not Dachau survivors subsisting on 40 grams of gruel a day and less than a pint of water. Read into that as you will. Comment forum provided.

Real Men know that Real Women aren’t perfect. Because neither are Real Men.

Real Men don’t want “perfection.” They just want Real Women.

Not women with Angelie Jolie fake inflatable lips, or Beshine/MayaHills breasts.

Real, actual women.

If you haven’t, check out AMC’s Mad Men. Racist, sexist, quirky, confusing, eminently satisfying and entertaining when glimpsed in the “then-day” environment in which it is fashioned.

It’s fascinating if for no other reason than a contrast of the promulgated “then” and “now.”

My, how we have changed.

Some, for good.

More than “some,” I think, for bad.

BZ

P.S.
I first encountered Christina Hendricks on one of my all-time highest rated (but shortest-lived) sci-fi TV series ever: “Firefly” — as the character “Saffron.” See below photo.