It's about time . . .
I'm a lawyer. I see situations in which litigation could be filed nearly every day.

But, as I counsel clients, just because litigation could be filed doesn't mean it should be filed. This guy is a prime example of someone who should not have filed litigation.

This plaintiff, Jarek Molski, and his attorney engaged in a campaign of legalized extortion. His premise is similar to that used by asbestos plaintiffs: sue everyone and see if they would rather settle than pay attorney's fees to defend themselves in court. Instead of threatening defendants with broken kneecaps or arson, he threatened to drain their pocketbooks and savings. Few restaurants fought back, as it was easier and cheaper to pay Mr. Molski $4,000.00 or so than to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending the specious litigation. One restaurant that did fight back spent over $60,000.00 before being vindicated.

Mr. Molski has been at this for over two years, and apparently netted over $1 million dollars in income from his litigious activities.

How bad is it? Well, in a recent Ninth Circuit decision, the Court of Appeals found that:

Molski and his lawyer Thomas Frankovich (”Frankovich”) were purportedly in the business of tracking down public accommodations with ADA violations and extorting settlements out of them. On cross examination, Molski acknowledged that: he did not complain to any of Cable’s employees about his access problems; he had filed 374 similar ADA lawsuits as of October 8, 2004; Frankovich had filed 232 of the 374 lawsuits; even more lawsuits had been filed since that date; Molski and Frankovich averaged $4,000 for each case that settled; Molski did not pay any fees to Frankovich; Molski maintained no employment besides prosecuting ADA cases, despite his possession of a law degree; Molski’s projected annual income from settlements was $800,000; Molski executed blank verification forms for Frankovich to submit with responses to interrogatories; they had also filed lawsuits against two other restaurants owned by Cable’s; they had filed a lawsuit against a nearby restaurant; and [Molski's private investigator] Sarantchin obtained up to 95% of his income from Frankovich’s firm for performing investigations for ADA lawsuits.

Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc. (cite unknown).

Unfortunately for him, a federal judge saw through his claims and barred him from filing any more ADA litigation in the Central District of California without permission from the Court. Ever. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Ninth Circuit. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, ending the litigation.

Molski's claims bordered on ludicrous. "Molski had claimed he injured himself at multiple businesses on the same day." A judge described Molski's alleged injuries as being "contrived":

For example, in Molski v. El 7 Mares Restaurant, Case No. C04-1882 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Molski claims that, on May 20, 2003, he and significant other, Brygida Molski, attended the El 7 Mares Restaurant for the purposes of dining out. Molski alleges that the restaurant lacked adequate handicapped parking, and that the food counter was too high. After the meal, Molski attempted to use the restroom, but because the toilet’s grab bars were improperly installed, he injured his shoulders in the process of transferring himself from his wheelchair to the toilet. Thereafter, he was unable to wash his hands because of the lavatory’s design.

Although this complaint appears credible standing alone, its validity is undermined when viewed alongside Molski’s other complaints. In Molski v. Casa De Fruta, L.P., Case No. C04-1981 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Molski alleges that he sustained nearly identical injuries on the exact same day, May 20, 2003. In Casa de Fruta, Molski alleges that he and significant other, Brygida Molski, patronized Casa de Fruta for the purpose of wine tasting. On arrival, Molski was again unable to locate van accessible parking. Once inside, Molski again found the counter to be too high. After wine tasting, Molski again decided to use the restroom, and again, injured his upper extremities while in the process of transferring himself to the toilet. Thereafter, he was once again unable to wash his hands due to the design of the lavatory.

This was, apparently, not the end of Molski’s day. In Molski v. Rapazzini Winery, Case No. C04-1881 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Molski once again alleges that he sustained nearly identical injuries on the exact same day, May 20, 2003. Molski, again accompanied by Brygida Molski, claims he visited the Rapazzini Winery for the purpose of wine tasting. Again, Molski complains that the parking lot lacked adequate handicapped van accessible parking. Upon entering the establishment, he discovered that the counter was too high. After tasting wine, he again needed to use the restroom. In the course of transferring himself from his wheelchair to the toilet, he injured himself yet again. Thereafter, he was again unable to wash his hands due to the lavatory’s design.

The Court is tempted to exclaim: “what a lousy day!” It would be highly unusual — to say the least — for anyone to sustain two injuries, let alone three, in a single day, each of which necessitated a separate federal lawsuit. But in Molski’s case, May 20, 2003, was simply business as usual. Molski filed 13 separate complaints for essentially identical injuries sustained between May 19, 2003 and May 23, 2003. The Court simply does not believe that Molski suffered 13 nearly identical injuries, generally to the same part of his body, in the course of performing the same activity, over a five-day period. This is to say nothing of the hundreds of other lawsuits Molski has filed over the last four years, many of which make nearly identical allegations. The record before this Court leads it to conclude that these suits were filed maliciously, in order to extort a cash settlement.

Molski v. Mandarin Touch Rest., 347 F. Supp. 2d 860.

The California Bar is also hearing an ethics complaint filed against Molski's lawyer, Thomas Frankovich. The complaint alleges that Frankovich filed claims against businesses, then tried to intimidate them into settling quickly (and without benefit of legal advice).

I'm glad this is happening. The ADA is an abysmal piece of legislation, with gaps big enough to drive a truck through it, doors open and horns-a-blaring. The fact that this idiot took the legislation this far shouldn't surprise us as much as the fact that our supposedly wise legislators enacted it to begin with.

I'm just surprised to hear of a California judge with the common sense to put a stop to this nonsense.


H/t Patterico's Pontifications for background information.

Labels: ADA, Congress, law, nutbags

- posted by MrSpkr @ 13:05 0 comments

 
The Immigration Abomination
N.Z. Bear has posted a copy of the Immigration Reform Bill that is currently before Congress. Furthermore, he has posted it in a format that allows bloggers access to an effective index and allows bloggers to post comments to each section. Read the bill, analyze it, and make your comments.

Than, call your Senator or Congresscritter. We must stop this bill.

Labels: Congress, Immigration, law

- posted by MrSpkr @ 00:08 0 comments

 
Of all the liberal reactions to Falwell's death . . .
I find it ironic that Larry Flynt's is classiest:

The Reverend Jerry Falwell and I were arch enemies for fifteen years. We became involved in a lawsuit concerning First Amendment rights and Hustler magazine. Without question, this was my most important battle – the l988 Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Jerry Falwell case, where after millions of dollars and much deliberation, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in my favor.

My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in

California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.

The most important result of our relationship was the landmark decision from the Supreme Court that made parody protected speech, and the fact that much of what we see on television and hear on the radio today is a direct result of my having won that now famous case which Falwell played such an important role in.

True enough.

Rest in peace, Reverend Falwell; rest in peace.

Labels: Falwell, law, RIP

- posted by MrSpkr @ 23:19 0 comments

 
Where the nutbags get their legal forms
Wow. These Republic of Texas morons have a website?

The Republic of Texas group refuses to acknowledge the existence of the State of Texas or the authority of any governmental leaders, state or federal, over them. They are sort of like the guys who claim that they don't have to pay federal taxes because the federal income tax laws are illegal. They also convene fake courts to issue fake judgments, which they then reduce to liens. The [bogus] liens are filed against property held by those who oppose, insult, or otherwise irrritate the Republic of Texas gang.

Frightening, yet amusing. Here are some excerpts from his ramblings:

I, me, the Secured Party, is not an expert in the Law however I do know right from wrong.

But not, apparently, reality from fantasy.

On May the twenty-second 2001, this Court ordered the Admiral of the navy to immediately dispatch sufficient numbers of navy personnel to the county of Dallas, Texas state and republic for protection of this Court while this Court convenes and restores the law, due process, trial by jury by law and a republican form of government as guaranteed us, we the people by the Constitutions to the people of the county of Dallas, Texas state and republic. On twenty-sixth day of June in the year two thousand and one this Court found the Admiral of the navy guilty as follows:

This Court found the Admiral in contempt of this One Supreme Court of the people of the county of Dallas, Texas for his refusal.

In other words, he's mad because the United States Navy didn't send in the Marines at his request!

Not that the Marines had anything better to do.

But wait -- it gets better:

This Court again issues this second Order for the Admiral to appear immediately before this Court and show cause why the Admiral has refused to carry out the order of this Court and the duties of his Commission and his pledge by oath to serve and protect the people and the Courts of the people of the several united States.

This order is to be hand carried to the nearest naval facility and given to the officer on duty to be immediately transmitted by that officer to the person in the office of Admiral of the Navy.

Failure of the Admiral to act immediately will cause this Court to petition the Nations of the world to come to the aid of the people of Texas, the county of Dallas and this Court.

(emphasis added) ROFL! So, if the United States Navy won't help him, HE'LL GO TO THE UNITED NATIONS!
I hope the Navy didn't hurt themselves laughing at this guy. Keep in mind, the guy that sent this "order" is totally serious.
Next, he takes on Governor Rick Perry and the Texas legislature. Now, while I am a Republican, I'm not particularly fond of Governor Perry. I wouldn't have minded seeing a different governor. But I am not sure that this is the way to go about replacing him:

To: The Governor for the State of Texas Rick Perry and The Texas House and Senate:
Therefore you are placed on notice that we the people have reopen our Court of record. We have appoint lawful law enforcement officers for the protection of our Courts of record and the peoples life, liberty and property and any more violation of the peoples rights by any person under the color of any law will be arrested and tried by the peoples county Court of record and a just and fair sentence will be placed on that person if found guilty.

Nyah, nyah! My pretend court is back in session, and I am gonna do something about you guys, just see if I don't. And you'd better not try to stop me, or else:

Any interference by any UNITED STATE, STATE, COUNTY OR CITY agent will be evidence of sedition.

And I'll give them a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging!
But why is the author so upset? Here's a clue:

A man known to as Ralph Kenneth Evans and Ralph, evans has been given the duly and the privilege to preset to each of you this notice for the lawless and abuse he has suffered at the hands of your armed commercial thugs impersonation law enforcement officers whom he believes to be Satanic minions by their acts and deeds in view of the past lawless abuse and torture he has suffered which has been regular and on going even as resonate as the week of August 5th-11th 2001.

Okay, so that's a little vague. Let's get more specific:

On are about the fifth day of August 2001, I was taken by commercial agents of the Corporation of Rowlett, Texas placed in the commercial prison in the corporation of Rowlett and my twenty dollar gold coins was taken from me and are still taken. On Monday the sixth of August I was taken by a commercial agent of the corporation of Rowlett to the commercial prison of the corporation of DALLAS COUNTY and held by the commercial agents of the sheriffs department for the corporation of DALLAS COUNTY. I was abused, tortured and terrorized by the commercial agents of the sheriffs department day and night till Saturday August the eleventh then released and was told by one of the commercial agents that they were turning me loose because they had, had enough fun with me. I had suffered torture by mental abuse from Monday-Friday by the sheriffs commercial agents in an attempt to force me to give them my name and my birthright and to contract myself into bondage to them. When they release me and returned part of my belonging to me I ask them to also return the gold coins to me but to this day I have not had the coins returned. I was told that the corporation of Garlands commercial agents had a writ of body attached issued against RALPH KENNETH EVANS (which the Courts have ruled violates the laws of Texas and the Federal Constitution) whom they claimed I am, but being only my copyright private property removed from commerce. (I have lived in fear that I will be kidnapped again if seen by any of the commercial agents operating in the county of Dallas, Texas one of the several united States of America because of the unlawful Garland writ of body attachment). While I was being tortured by these commercial agents I ask for a pen and paper so I may write a petition for writ of habeas corpus, I was laughed at and ask where I thought I was at the Holiday Inn. The same was true when I ask to be taken before a lawful judicial tribunal for the county of Dallas for a due process hearing.

"Umm, they took me and they teased me and they made fun of me and then they . . . um . . . let me see . . . they took my twenty gold coins! That's it! That's the ticket!"
So what does he want as compensation for this heinous offense?

The bill for said taking is now due and payable by each party as follows, THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT TEXAS five million United States dollars of silver specie (5,000,000.00). THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GARLAND TEXAS five million United States dollars of silver specie (5,000,000.00). THE CORPORATION OF THE DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT twenty million United States dollars of silver specie (20,000,000.00). THE CORPORATION OF THE DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS thirty million United States dollars of silver specie (30,000,000.00). . . . THE CORPORATION THE STATE OF TEXAS sixty million United States dollars of silver specie (60,000,000.00). . . THE CORPORATION THE STATE OF TEXAS sixty million United States dollars of silver specie (60,000,000.00).
4. Total amount of this Bill of Exchange due and payable within thirty (30) days 120,000,000.00

(emphasis mine). Oh . . . is that all?
No. There's more. Since the United States has been so mean to him (as well as authorities in the Dallas County, Texas area), he's going to quit their "so-called nation" and be a Nation Unto Himself:

Ralph Kenneth Evans further declares, under the penalty of perjury, under the laws of the united States of America, that Ralph Kenneth Evans is not a United States citizen nor a citizen of the united States. Ralph Kenneth Evans was born in Picken County, Jasper, Georgia is a Citizen of the Government of God, Philippians 3:20, and a Citizen of the Sovereign Republican State wherein I reside, and further declares that all foreign commercial financial instruments, including the foreign counterfeit 'dollars', Federal Reserve Notes, put upon the American people by fraud and theft; used by Ralph Kenneth Evans are and have been used 'Without Recourse" since they are bad checks: and passed non-assumpsit of any contractual offers, and with all rights reserved without prejudice.

Keep in mind, this guy actually believes this crap.

So what set this guy off? According to an opinion released about five months prior to those letters (March 27, 2001), Mr. Evans was upset that he couldn't build a deck in his backyard without a permit:
From State Farms Lloyds v. Evans, Civil Action No. 3:99-CV-1516-M, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (no linkable free view available):

There are two separate insurance policies at issue in this case. Defendant Ralph Evans and Defendant Rebecca Harrell Evans were insured by Plaintiff State Farm Lloyds under a Texas Homeowners Policy, Form B ("Homeowners Policy"). Ralph Evans was insured by Plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company under a Texas Dwelling Policy, Form 3 ("Dwelling Policy"). Ralph Evans made one claim under the Homeowners Policy, by which he sought to have State Farm pay for the "theft" and "vandalism" of a deck at Defendants' premises in Rowlett, Texas ("claim one"). n1 Ralph Evans also made three claims under the Dwelling Policy, by which he sought to recover from State Farm for alleged damage to his premises in Garland, Texas. Specifically, Ralph Evans claimed that (1) the property in Garland, Texas was a total loss "by malicious, fraudulent, corrupt, and willful acts in violation of the laws of Texas" ("claim two") . . .

State Farm asserts that Defendants built the deck without first obtaining a permit, in violation of a City of Dallas ordinance.

Oops. Cities tend to get picky about such things. But wait . . . it gets better:

State Farm has established that (1) Defendants were ordered by Judge Tyson, of the 44th Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas ("the Judge"), to "desist and refrain" from constructing a deck, and to tear down any existing portion of the deck and (2) the Homeowners Policy does not cover "loss caused by the destruction of property by order of [a] governmental authority" or "loss caused by or resulting from the enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair or demolition of a building or structure."
. . .
Claim two is based on the following undisputed facts, as set out in State Farm's summary judgment papers: (1) After the order described above was issued, Defendants filed a document which acted as a type of lien against the Judge, causing a cloud on title to the Judge's home; (2) the Judge then brought a lawsuit against Defendants, seeking, among other things, to have the lien removed; (3) the court hearing the Judge's suit ruled for her and awarded her monetary damages and other relief; and (4) the Judge, as judgment creditor, abstracted her judgment in Dallas County, Texas and thereby created a judgment lien on Mr. Evans' property in Garland, Texas, with the result being, according to Mr. Evans, a total loss in the value of the property. State Farm is entitled to summary judgment on claim two because it has established that (1) the Dwelling Policy insures against only physical loss to the property, and (2) Ralph Evans did not assert any physical injury to the Garland, Texas property. Purely economic loss, of the type claimed by Mr. Evans as a result of the Judge's abstracting her judgment, is not a claim of physical loss . . .

Oops. Now I understand why he spent a night or two in jail . . .

What a maroon.

Labels: law, nutbags, Republic of Texas

- posted by MrSpkr @ 12:46 0 comments