On Wednesday, July 17, 2008, my attorney and me met with 5 of the Fair Housing Council Board Members; Mr. Wayne Ward, Mr. Chris Brown, Mr. Earl Deering, Mr. Wayne Rogers and Ms. Christine McGuire.  We were hoping to come to a settlement with the Board now that Ms. Pierson has been fired as the CEO.

The Board Members demanded that I still pay many hundreds of dollars and take training. Since this was a settlement meeting, I can't disclose the details of the monetary and punitive damage demands they want from me. We showed the the Board members dozens of Craigslist ads that clearly state a preference that I have been compiling and not ambiguous like mine. We showed them the State's investigative conclusion showing that I had no history or practice of discrimination. We showed them the $4,000 demand letter from Pierson. They just sat there expression less as if non of it mattered and still contend that my ad was discriminatory 'on its face'. They also contend that they have the same immunity as the State.

Mr. Wayne Rogers, a CPA, simply and nonchalantly likened my situation as; "Mr. Bader, it's like a highway speeder who gets pulled out of the hundreds of speeders and issued a speeding ticket". I replied; well, I don't know too many speeding tickets that cost $4,000 plus 5 years of traffic school at additional expense, do you? He said he once had a ticket that cost him $300. I just rolled my eyes and realized that these people just don't understand the difference.

Their attorney, Ms. Deborah Reisdorph, Esq. then told me that the $4,000 demand and 5 years of training that the FHCOC had demanded of me would ' would never be admitted into evidence'.  My attorney asked; well, if that's the case, then  how would anyone go about proving extortion? Ms. Reisdorph concluded the meeting.

The Fair Housing Council Corporation plans to object to two pieces of my evidence;

1. the $4,000 plus training demand letter from their former CEO arguing that it is part of settlement negotiations and therefore inadmissable.

2: the quote taken directly out of the first LA Times article where their Director of Training stated my ad: 'Sort of implied a preference' and that's the reason why they filed the complaint. They are going to argue that  LA Times quote is 'hearsay'.