|
|||||||||||
|
Media Links  OC Register: Mar-28-08 Unfair Fight? OC Register: April-01-08 Tyranny of the Bias Bloodhounds (editorial) OC Register: April 02-08 Outrageous State Shakedown (letter to editor) LA Times: Nov-06-07 Landlord Rents Trouble When He Posts an Ad LA Times: June-21-07 Rental Ad Twisted into Battle over Bias BLOGS: Red County: OC BLOG, The State Gone Crazy One Citizen Speaking: Fair Housing Groups, Legalized Extortionists? RADIO:
John & Ken Radio Show (KFI
AM 640) 4-1-08
NPR Radio Interview 12-21-07 AS_IT_HAPPENSInterview begins @ Part One, Clip Position - 17:11 - on your Real Player bar
|
Website Links
Discriminatory
Advertising Law according to the Attorney General
Discriminatory Advertising Law -Housing & Urban Development HUD
The Shakedown at the Department of Fair Employment & Housing
Ralph Tsong, Paul Ramsey,State DFEH, File Discrimination
Lawsuit
Here's a list of dozens
of other "supposed" discriminatory
Postings |
||||||||||
Daniel Bader, Newport Beach Homeowner
|
The State of California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH) attorneys, Ralph Tsong, Esq. and Paul R. Ramsey, Esq. filed a discrimination suit against me on behalf of the non-profit, Fair Housing Council Corporation of Orange County (FHCOC)
(The FHCOC is currently being investigated by HUD for misuse of public funds; see OC Register Article: 4-27-08).
Without any forewarning, the FHCOC filed a formal complaint with the State in October 2006 after purportedly viewing an 8 word phrase in a rental ad I posted on Craigslist.com.
The
FHCOC alleged that the phrase violated State & Federal laws against
discriminatory advertising on the basis of familial status. The
FHCOC is a non-profit, private corporation. It is funded -in large part- by the US
Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), and also contracts
with local and State governments. It is a corporation headed up by a $350/hr
attorney, D. Elizabeth Pierson, Esq. (now Former CEO). Ms. Pierson claims that the corporation was damaged
by the 8 word phrase I used in the body of my Craigslist ad and has demanded
$4,000 plus 5 years of continuing landlord education to be taken through
the Fair Housing Corporation
and at an additional $250 per class expense to me. No prospective tenant complained.
The FHCOC states that it was damaged and is currently the Real Party in this lawsuit. Attorneys for the State of California are representing this corporation at the State's expense. The civil lawsuit against me was filed by the State of California's staff attorney, Ralph Tsong, Esq., in Orange County Superior Court on November 30, 2007. Mr. Tsong is seeking attorney fees and ‘unlimited damages’.
The phrase I used in the body of the rental ad for my attached 480 sq. ft. mother-in-law unit was: “Well suited for 1 or 2 professional adults”
The State DFEH formally contends that this phrase is discriminatory and filed suit because :
" ...a reader "Could" interpret it as
indicating a preference toward people without children .
The Fair Housing Council's CEO/President and Chief Counsel, D. Elizabeth Pierson, Esq., and theFHCOC's Director, Joel Ibanez, concluded that this phrase warranted filing a formal complaint with the State because it: "Sort of Implies an Indication that it (the rental unit) would be for older people' Joel Ibanez (see LA Times 6-21-07)
The State DFEH and the Fair Housing Council Corporation both contend that the phrase is a violation of anti-discriminatory advertising laws: "regardless of the intent of the advertiser and/or past and current rental practices"
Ramsey and Tsong, on behalf of the FHCOC, demanded that I pay $4,000 plus enroll in 5 years of continuing landlord education to be taken at the FHCOC (at an additional $250 per class expense to me) or face a lawsuit with the State of California.
Neither Ramsey or Tsong were able to produce any historical cases, explanation or document which supported thepurported $4,000 in out of pocket expenses, or punitive damage award demanded by the FHCOC. |
|
||
|
|||
|
My name is Daniel Bader. I am a 56 year old homeowner and have been living in Newport Beach, California for 19 years. I hold an MBA in International Marketing from the University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington and have over 30 years of experience in the computer/software/internet industries. I also have a real estate license have been working as a commercial broker focusing exclusively on the restaurant, bar and cafe markets in Orange County.
I currently own a 1938, 1,227 total square foot cottage which includes an adjoining 480 sq. ft. mother-in-law unit located over the one car garage in the back. I purchased the property in 1999 and have been living in the approximately 720 sq. ft. front unit full time. The rental unit is bordered on both sides by alleyways and leases for $1,950/month. Both units are directly connected via a doorway with only a false wall dividing one from the other.
Moreover,
there is no storage or parking for the unit and the monthly gas, electric and
cable bills are split evenly between the tenants and myself. We share the same
mailbox and address as well as the laundry facilities located
in my garage. The building has been periodically used as both a
single-family and duplex residence over the years and the City of
Newport classifies it as a ‘legal, non-conforming duplex’.
In
June 2006, I posted a couple of rental ads on Craigslist.com which contained the phrase ‘well
suited for 1 or 2 professional adults’ in the body of the ad. ( After viewing my post on 5 separate occasions, the FHCOC filed a formal complaint against me with the State of California DFEH. The FHCOC demanded $4,000 in monetary damages and 5 years of continuing landlord education from me to be taken at the FHCOC training facilities at an additional expense. There was no potential renter or individual who complained about my post. And, obviously, the FHCOC had no interest in renting the unit for itself. On October 20, 2006, I was served with the Notice of Filing of a Discrimination Complaint. Apparently, the State of California felt that the alleged violation was serious enough to dispatch a State employee, Yvette Salmon, down from Los Angeles to my home in Newport Beach to personally hand-serve the Complaint on me . On its face, the appearance of the Complaint looked just like a lawsuit, but I was assured it was not a suit, but only an administrative action. There was no formal demand attached to the Complaint and I was urgently requested to immediately respond to schedule a ‘conciliation conference’ to be held at the DFEH office in downtown Los Angeles. Prior to the scheduled conference, at the behest of the DFEH, I submitted a formal affidavit on 5-12-07 and the contact information of several witnesses and personal references for investigation.
This is a picture of my "For Rent sign that I had posted on my fence at
the time my Craigslist ad was running. |
Mother-In-Law
Apartment
|
|
At that conference which was held on June 5, 2007, I was escorted into a small conference room by two DFEH administrators, Lillianita Brumfeld & Belinda Brown.. Once the proceeding began, the lead administrator, Ms. Belinda Brown, read the Complaint and the Government Code Section 12955 (c) that I had allegedly violated. There was no court reporter or electronic recording device present in the room. Anti-Discriminatory Advertising Government Code Section 12955 (c) states; “It shall be unlawful for any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability…” _______________________________ (Unknown to me at the time, Ms. Brown stopped reading after this first clause of the Code and did not read the following second clause attached to the Section which I discovered existed several months later. This second clause of the Code actually goes on to state) “…or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or discrimination.” (Note: This highly relevant omission infers that there must be situations where the ‘intent’ of a violator is relevant. Therefore, the Legislature must have attached this ‘intent’ phrase to address ambiguous cases - like mine - so as not to prosecute unintended violations that may be unwittingly posted by naive advertisers. Otherwise, what could possibly be the reason for the Legislative body attaching this second clause to the Government Code 12955?) ____________________________________ After reading the Complaint and Statute to me, I was told that they (the two State administrators) had already predetermined that the 8 word phrase I used in the body of my ad ("Well suited for 1 or 2 professional adults") was a violation of the Statute even though Ms. Brumfeld had conducted a telephonic interview with a former tenant of mine, Darla Walters, who had a 16 year old daughter living with her in my mother-in-law unit. The Administrator had even interviewed a witness who happened to be renting the unit at the same time my Craigslist ad was running and who had 2 children under the age of 12 staying in the unit. She also told me that she found no evidence of a history or practice of discrimination. DFEH Investigation Evidence-Summary Regardless of the fact that I had no history of discrimination, I was told by Ms. Brown that the evidence "might’ mitigate the damages, but would not vindicate me." I then asked, “so, what does the Fair Housing Council want from me?” I was then told that the FHCOC was demanding $4,000 to cover the ‘out-of-pocket’ expenses that they had purportedly spent conducting an online investigation on me and in mailing out (90) Fair Housing flyers into the community: (clearly intended to bring in more discrimination business and not to educate the community)I was also told that the FHCOC was demanding 5 years of continuing landlord education to be taken through their training facilities and at $250 per class additional cost to me. I then asked the Administrator if I could have the FHCOC’s demand in writing and if I could see how they calculated their purported $4,000 in ‘out of pocket’ expenses. I was told, “no, Mr. Bader, you can’t”. I then asked why the aggrieved Complainant (The FHCOC) wasn’t present at the conference and was informed by Ms. Brown that, ‘they don’t have to attend’. At that time, Ms. Brown asked me if I, “wanted to make a settlement offer?” I replied, “what will happen if I choose not to make an offer?” Ms. Brown explained, “then we will have to send the Complaint to Legal”. Utterly confused I responded, “but I don’t discriminate and never have.” Ms. Brown said, "it doesn't matter, your ad is a violation on it’s face." Looking at Ms. Brown, I asked, "are you an attorney?" She replied, "no, I am not.". I then turned toward Ms. Brumfield and asked her if she was an attorney? Like Ms. Brown, Ms. Brumfield replied, "no, I'm not." Logically, I asked; well then, how is it that you two make the determination that my phrase is discriminatory? Ms. Brown replied, "that's our responsibility, and we've determined the phrase you used violates the statute." Then I asked; “well then, why did you ask me to produce documents and witnesses for my defense if you had already pre-determined that I was guilty?” Ms. Brown replied; “We are required by Government Code to conduct the investigation. Ms. Brown then added; “Mr. Bader, it could get very costly for you as you’ll probably have to hire an attorney and may have to make several time consuming trips up to Los Angeles for hearings.“ I then asked her; “well, can I at least have a look through the file? I’d like to see the Craigslist ad that I had placed several months ago? “No, you may not, she answered, …that’s confidential.” Holding back my frustration, I then said to the Administrator, “OK, I’ll offer one training class.” With a surprised look on her face, Ms. Brown said, ‘that’s it…no money?” “No money," I echoed. At that time, both Administrators picked up their files, asked me if I’d like a cup of coffee and left me alone in the room while they purportedly went to telephone the FHCOC with my offer. Several minutes later they both returned. Before they had a chance to sit down I preempted them with the question, “well, do we have a deal?” Ms. Brown appeared impatient with me and said, “no Mr. Bader, we don’t. So, I asked; what's their counter? Ms. Brown explained; "there is no counter." "No counter", I asked? "They don't have to counter," she answered. Then she asked me; "would you like to up your offer?” "Well then,
I asked, I guess that
means money? After a few more minutes of what I could only describe as a shakedown, I stood up and excused myself from the meeting. As I was leaving I concluded with, “Thank you ladies, but I don’t think we’ll be doing a deal today.” |
|
State of California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH) Ralph Tsong, Esq. & Paul R. Ramsey File Formal Discrimination Accusation :On 10-11-07, after several failed attempts to grind a settlement out of me, the DFEH sent the Complaint to their legal department for violation determination which resulted in the DFEH issuing a formal “Accusation” against me. Once again I contacted Mr. Parsons at the LA Times who wrote a follow-up column . In that article, the DFEH’s Chief Counsel, Paul Ramsey, Esq. (who resigned from his position in December, 2007) emphatically stood by the State’s contention that the phrase I used was discriminatory on it’s face and that I had violated the Statute. Once I was served with the formal Accusation, I was given the choice to either have the Complaint heard in front of a State Board Fair Housing Committee or I could elect to have it litigated in front of a Jury. I elected the latter even though I was told by the State’s Los Angeles Staff Attorney who is in charge of this Complaint, Ralph Tsong, Esq., that; "...even if I were to win, by law, I could not get reimbursed for my attorney’s fees." Also, on pages 3 & 4 in the body of the formal ”Accusation”, Mr. Tsong explicitly warns me;
Mr. Tsong also advised me that the LA Times Article interview with the FHCOC which quoted the FHCOC’s Director & Trainer as admitting that my phrase only ”Sort of implied a preference…” would be considered “hearsay” and inadmissible at trial. Tsong formally reiterated his contention in a letter to me dated, 12/3/07 . I then asked Tsong, “how can the State ethically pursue this Complaint now that you know that it was frivolous, if not outright fraudulent to begin with?” Tsong replied, “well, it will be an interesting ‘test case’.” Completely befuddled, I exclaimed,“A ‘test’ case? The State of California wants to test this case on me?” I then asked Tsong, “what jury is going to possibly believe that the Fair Housing Council had $4,000 in purported out of pocket expenses?” “Mr. Bader, he responded, all settlement negotiations are confidential and will not be admissible at trial.” I then asked him, “now, how can there be settlement negotiations if the accuser’s purported bona-fide expenses amounted to $4,000? There should be nothing to negotiate, right?” Mr. Tsong simply brushed my question aside and said, “maybe you should consult with an attorney, Mr. Bader.” Rhetorically, I asked, “Mr. Tsong, I am totally confused. From the outset, the State proclaimed that its role is as a ‘neutral party’ in the dispute and only acts as a mediator. But you argue as if you are an adversary?” All I could do was shake my head and say to him, “Mr. Tsong, this is truly unbelievable” and hung up the phone. |
LA Times Second Article-11-06-07 ( Ralph-Tsong. Esq. Letter 12-3-07) |
|
Ralph Tsong,
Esq. & Paul R. Ramsey of the DFEH, File Discrimination Lawsuit
After 2 LA Times columns and 2 National Public Radio interviews, plus the State’s own admission that they did not believe that I had either a history or practice of discrimination, Ralph Tsong, Esq., attorney for the State of California Department of Fair Employment & Housing, on behalf of the FHCOC filed a formal lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court on November 30, 2007. Interesting to note, I was informed by Mr. Tsong of the filing of lawsuit in a kind of ‘oh, by the way’ notice in the body of a reply letter to me (see 12-3-07 Letter) On December 28, 2007, I received the formal Lawsuit papers via First Class Mail which included a self-addressed, postage paid envelope by which I could sign and return my notice of acceptance. I filed the Answer to the Complaint on January 04, 2008 |
Tsong-resume.pdf
Ralph-Tsong,
Esq.
(Interesting to note that Mr. Tsong was hired
by the DFEH in March 2007 and has held 1 new job for each of the past 4 years
since his admittance to the Bar.)
Notable Quotes:
"Mr. Bader, you should look at this
|
|
Discriminatory Advertising Law A Direct Contradiction: Apparently, the State Attorney General and the DFEH/FHCOC read the discriminatory advertising statute differently. The following document is taken directly from the Attorney General’s website (as of 1-20-08) ). Attorney-General’s interpretation of the Code, 12955 (c) from his website State of California Housing Law Clearly, the Attorney General believes that the Anti-Discriminatory Advertising Code inherently states that a person must have the ‘intent’ to discriminate. Defining exactly what is regarded as unlawful discriminatory advertising, the AG specifically uses the phrase on his website:
…”if it is done to
discriminate.”
State of California Housing Law Conversely, the Director of the DFEH, Wanda Kirby and the DFEH’s (now Former) Chief Counsel, Paul Ramsey, Esq., as well as D. Elizabeth Pierson, Esq., the Chief Counsel/President & CEO of the FHCOC all believe just the opposite. They contend that a violation occurs, “regardless of (the) intent”, of the advertiser. Moreover, they believe that any ad they interpret as indicating a preference is actionable on its face. |
Letter to Attorney General Brown
|
Discriminatory Advertising Law According to the “Advertisements may not state
an explicit preference…. . HUD-memorandum regarding discriminatory advertising Contrarily, the DFEH and the FHCOC contend that an ad only has to ‘imply a preference… |
|
|
Other Postings Found on Craigslist.com
All one has to do is go to the Housing/Apts for Rent area of Craigslist
and type in the keyword/s ‘prefer’, ‘family friendly’,
’singles’, female, adult, mature, professional, student/s, roommate, casita,
bano, etc. and then scan through the list. Of course, there are plenty of
other online classified services like Craigslist. Try this one: (Note: I suspect that there are 1000’s of ads posted everyday on Craigslist.com that contain similar ambiguous phrases like mine. Furthermore, since the FHCOC contends that they do not have to prove ‘intent’ of the advertiser to discriminate and they don't have to produce a 'real' victim, Craigslist is a virtual gold mine for them and some 86 similar nationwide, non-profit Fair Housing agencies that are funded by HUD). This list alone could generate 100's of thousands of dollars in supposed damage claims by the FHCOC including the additional expense charged for training the advertiser. Craiglist is a virtual fertile field for unscrupulous attorneys.
So, what do these Craigslist ad's imply?
|
1. With No
Warning; The Fair Housing Council
Corporation of Orange County (FHCOC) files a discrimination complaint with the State of
California, 2. The DFEH serves the complaint on the accused violator which instructs the accused to urgently contact the DFEH informing them that they have been accused of very serious violations of Federal and State discrimination laws. 3. A DFEH State administrator then demands that the accused submits discovery including: the names of witnesses and contact numbers, affidavits, neighbor's, current and former tenants, rental records, etc. and then conducts an investigation. 4. Once the investigation is concluded, a DFEH State administrator then demands that the accused attend a confidential conciliation meeting or threatens to send the complaint to the DFEH's legal department. 5. At the conciliation meeting, the accused is taken into a private conference room at the DFEH. There is no court reporter present or any transcript of the meeting. All communications are regarded as highly confidential. A State Administrator makes the decision whether or not there is a violation (she is not a lawyer). She then demands a monetary settlement from the accused and threatens to send the complaint to Legal if they do not pay the monetary demand that the accuser (FHCOC) wants. (In my case, the demand was for $4,000 plus 5 years of continuing education to be taken through the FHCOC at an additional expense to me). The accuser (FHCOC) does not have to be present at the meeting, nor does the accuser (FHCOC) have to negotiate directly with the accused. Nor does the accuser have to provide any justification for their/its demand/s. The State tells the accused that all settlement negotiations are considered confidential and inadmissible should the case go to court. 6. The DFEH explains to the accused that it has complete immunity from counter prosecution for its actions, intentional or not intentional. DFEH lawyers (Ralph Tsong, Esq., Paul Ramsey, esq) also explains to the accused that they won't be able to get their attorney's fee's if they decide to take the case to court and win. The accused is urged by DFEH lawyers to make settlement offers to the accuser (FHCOC) explaining that if they don't pay up it will be a very costly and time consuming process to the accused. The DFEH lawyers also explain to the accused that the accuser (FHCOC) does not have to make a counter offer. 5. Once the accused agrees to the monetary and punitive penalties demanded by the FHCOC, the accused must sign a confidentiality contract.
There is no
public record of any kind and the complaint and the confidential settlement agreement are
kept permanently secret. |
Thank you for reading my Blog. I update it often. Please feel free to email me with any comments you’d like to make.
|
Want To
Help Out? Legal Defense Fund: Many people have been asking if they could help with my Rick Raynsford, Esq at 949-230-8761 or if you wish you can send a check to: The Dan Bader Legal Defense Fund C/O Rick Raynsford, Esq. All remaining funds will be donated to the Wounded Warrior Project |