Second, Trump’s FCC is pursuing the Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Sixth Report and Order, CG Docket No. 17-59, which includes requiring ID and address and other identifiers for all users of cell phones. This too violates the Rehab Act, in my opinion, by causing disparate treatment through discrimination against those who need privacy to mitigate PTSD and other disabilities.

Additionally, it is a direct attack on personal privacy, and I will be a thorn in their side when this commenting/consultation period opens.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate.

Here’s what Claude responded, in part:

“I’d challenge the binary first, because I think it’s part of what traps people. Victim or owner isn’t the actual choice space. There’s a third position that the literature on what Pauline Boss calls “ambiguous loss” gets at — the carrier. Someone who bears a wound that won’t close, without pretending it has closed and without being defined solely by it. That’s not a reframe trick; it’s a different ontology of what healing means.

The owner/agency framework — popular in personal development, sometimes in coaching — works reasonably well for discrete past events. You were wronged, the event is over, the question now is how you relate to the memory and what you build going forward. For that situation, “shift to ownership” maps onto something real.

Parental alienation breaks that framework, and I think you already know this — which is probably why your clients reject the offered exits. Alienation isn’t a past event. It’s an ongoing, renewing wound. The children are alive. The phone could ring today. The campaign against the parent continues whether they engage or not. There’s no “after” to relate to. Traditional grief models assume a body to bury; this is grief with no body, no funeral, and no permission from society to fully mourn. Telling someone in that situation to “take ownership and move forward” is asking them to bury someone who isn’t dead. They’re right to refuse.

So the honest answer to your question — how does one shift when any alternative role feels hollow compared to the intended outcome — has a piece I think you’re hoping I won’t say: sometimes they don’t shift, and they shouldn’t be made to feel they’ve failed for not shifting. The desire for reconciliation and redemption isn’t a pathology to be processed away. It’s the appropriate response of a parent who loves their child. Asking them to want less is itself a kind of violence.

That said — and this is where I’d push on your framing — I think “compared to the original intended outcome” is a comparison that destroys whoever runs it, regardless of the loss. Every life contains the death of intended outcomes. The alienated parent’s loss is genuinely worse than most, but the structure of “my actual life vs. the life I was supposed to have” is a torture engine that runs on any fuel. Part of what makes alienation so cruel is that it makes this comparison feel forced and constant, where most people get to let it fade. The work isn’t accepting the loss — it’s interrupting the comparison loop without pretending the loss is acceptable.

What I’ve seen in the better writing on chronic, unresolved grief (Frankl is the canonical reference, but also Hillesum, and more recently the meaning-making work coming out of bereavement research): the people who carry it best don’t transcend the wound. They don’t reach a higher plane. They develop a relationship with the wound that lets them still be fully themselves around it. They want reconciliation. They ache for redemption. They sometimes get neither. And they still find that there are mornings worth waking up for, work worth doing, other people worth loving — not as replacements for the lost children, which would be obscene, but as the rest of a life that was never going to be only about that one thing, even if that one thing was the center.

The hardest piece, and the part most frameworks lie about: some children return. Some don’t. Some return decades later. The alienated parent can’t make this happen, and pretending they can — through “doing the inner work” or whatever — is just another flavor of the splitting that did this to them in the first place. What they can do is stay reachable, stay sane, stay alive, and remain the parent the child could come back to if the child ever sees through it.

That’s not a shift from victim to owner. It’s something closer to: refusing to be defined by what was done to you, while also refusing to pretend it wasn’t done.”

Just GahDaym.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate.

And I see all kinds of videos, where a cop walks up to a first amendment auditor, or conducts a traffic stop, and when the individual that is detained (“Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has “seized” that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Terry v. Ohio holding), the individual asks “why did you pull me over,” or “what crime do you suspect me of committing,” the officer will often pull something out of their ass like:

• You have a tail light out

• You have a broken windshield

• You were parking in a no-parking zone

• You look suspicious

Or some other horse-shit that IS NOT A CRIME.

Here’s what the general public has not yet registered when resisting these common intrusive interactions with police. AN INFRACTION OR VIOLATION IS USUALLY NOT A CRIME!

I mean, oftentimes, speeding less than 9 miles an hour over the limit, is an INFRACTION, and neither a misdemeanor or a felony, and thus NOT A CRIME.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Under Terry v. Ohio, the only legitimate reason a cop can stop and detain you briefly, is when reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime exists. AN INFRACTION IS NOT A CRIME.

AN INFRACTION IS NOT A CRIME.

AN INFRACTION IS NOT A CRIME.

Further, the Terry decision uses the limiting phrase “crime of violence.”

Thus, IF You know the list of infractions that are not crimes, such as (using North Carolina as an example) (From a very good AI model)

• Not carrying a registration card

• Not updating the address on a driver license when one has moved

• operating a motor vehicle in violation of the lane-discipline provision cross-referenced there, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-176(a1) (2026)

• certain littering acts (under 10 lbs) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-399 (2026)

• lots of vechile inspection violation N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.8 (2026)

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-246.1 (2026) authorizes a county to adopt civil-enforcement ordinances using electronic speed-measuring systems in school zones. When a county uses that authorized mechanism, the resulting violation of the school-zone speeding statute is specifically not treated as an infraction if the citation is issued under the ordinance; instead, it is deemed a noncriminal violation carrying a civil penalty and no driver’s-license points

And, from https://northcarolinavehicle.org/traffic-violations:

• Below are the examples of traffic infractions in North Carolina:

  • Disposing of litter on the roadway

  • Exceeding the speed limit by up to 15 mph

  • Parking violations

  • Not using turn signals or signaling incorrectly

  • Not stopping or yielding when required

  • Violations related to seat belt use

  • Faulty vehicle equipment

  • Making improper turns

  • Driving the wrong way on a one-way street

The thing is, AN INFRACTION IS NOT A CRIME! And yet, no one is challenging the authority of the police officer to pull over or approach and detain someone for infractions. People are just assuming that infractions, because they may be citable offenses, are fitting into the Terry v. Ohio construct of an officer’s authority to stop and detain someone. Uh, NO.

I present this possibility of exchange:

Police Officer: ”Sir, I stopped you because you failed to come to a complete stop at the stop sign back there. I need to see your driver license, insurance, and registration.”

Detained Individual: “Officer, is failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign - a misdemeanor or a felony?”

Police Officer: “Neither, it is an infraction, but I can write you a ticket for this.”

Detained Individual: “Officer, under Terry v. Ohio, the legal standard of authority for you to stop and detain someone is when reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity is afoot. Because you have admitted that the reason you stopped me is only an infraction, and not a crime, you are noticed that you are currently acting outside of qualified immunity. Now, what do you demand that I do?”

[Edited addition. I am aware that there are “stop and identify” states. And while SCOTUS, in Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada said that states can enact laws that require one to identify when stopped, I am saying that perhaps that’s not the end of the discussion.]

Know your remedy.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, as Certified ADA Advocate

Man to Man

MAN TO MAN

(By Jay Vincent ~ 12-28-20) ©

For all those times you gave your word:

You’d never run, but grab your sword,

I see you.

For all the times you felt so trapped;

Each maiden voyage without a map,

I see you.

For all the times you tried so hard,

To look so brave, to keep your guard,

I see you.

For all the days, for all the ways

You’ve had to work, and never laze

I see you

For every time you gave your soul,

To lift the load, to keep control,

I see you.

For every tear you couldn’t cry,

To keep facade, to hide the lie,

I see you.

For every time you felt confused,

And wondered why you felt so used,

I see you.

And if the day arrives at last,

You weep your tears, you raise your fists,

You curse the lies that caused your pain,

You stand in rage while unashamed,

Your sword cuts through those truly weak,

The ones who tasked you to not speak,

Who bade you to your anguished war,

Without regard through every door,

Until your soul demands “no more”...

And now you dare to seek YOUR peace,

A place to cry, to heal, to weep,

Concern for those who used you - gone,

They’re not here when you’re all alone.

And so you step out on your own,

Admitting pain while standing strong,

The sword, a still, and silent blade,

Your voice alone, your will displayed,

And at this point,

Lies are de-fined,

Truth is refined,

Today I find -

I am you.

Why did I make the choices that ended up with me alienated and alone?

Why did I not see it sooner, and try to better address it?

Why am I even here?

This month, please be aware that everyone around you is struggling. EVERYONE.

I’m not special because I happen to be writing this message. I’m right there in the struggle boat.

Give someone a hug, and take a step or two with them.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate

I learned that disorienting a system caused it to have the standard operating procedure thrown into inaccessibility, and this disorientation creates new opportunities.

I think this is one of the strongest operators I have found to be magical in my life.

Marc Stevens, in his book Adventures in Legal Land, included the following quote:

“Those who attack the rationale of the game, and not the players, are its most formidable adversaries.” - James J. Martin in the introduction to Lysander Spooner’s No Treason -Constitution of No Authority.

In application of the ADA, and calling out state court players who openly discriminate, it seems that I have not only attacked the rationale, but also the players, and their “rationale” for existence.

Questioning the rationale of a judge, demanding accountability from those who stand in front of them, while simultaneously avoiding that same accountability, has been a light saber that cuts through all of the bullshit.

Asking a judge to give the static, complete, full, and permanent meaning of words/terms like “contempt” or “represent yourself” or whatever else they pull out of their control toolbox, cuts through all of the bullshit, especially since we ALL have communication disabilities, when it comes to the language of the court, and the ADA requires equal access and effective communication.

Telling a judge that there is no ADA access, thus no sixth amendment access to court, upends the very foundation of the operating system (rationale) of their game.

And so on, and so forth.

Tell them that the emperor has no clothes. It totally fucks with their hubristic entitled power trip.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate

Rosie (speedmeth) Gonzalez, as I call her, was a judge in Bexar County TX. I gave her the name #BexarButch, because of her militant feminazi lesbian presentation. I have no problem with lesbians or gays, and yet, her entire angry, belligerent identity was as described just prior.

She wore the LGBTQ flag colors on her robe, and displayed these colors elsewhere in her courtroom.

To put it plainly, she is a cunt, masquerading as a man.

So when she openly discriminated against a litigant with autism, who was involuntarily stimming and had outbursts, I went to work putting together a video about this matter. You can find it anywhere online, and I won’t distract this article by posting mine.

That’s not what got her, though. She apparently put a lawyer in detainment in her courtroom, and she was charged with one or more felonies for this.

And what did she do? Did this piece of shit judge face the accountability she insisted on from others? NO. She ran like a little cockroach.

This is the rule for judges. When faced with the possibility of accountability, they RUN.

Fuck her and the rest of her life.

P.D., Jay V. Shore

I asked Vincent several questions, among which were:

1. Show me a table of conflicts between the uploaded maxims of common law and the doctrine of judicial immunity.

2. Show me a table of conflicts between the uploaded documents and the practice of keeping judicial disciplinary records secret.

3. Tell me about the use of the doctrine of quia timet to address the anticipation of future harms.

I’m posting this as a substack article, because I will be (a) pointing legal researchers here for this information, and (b) I am opening this up to anyone to research and provide relevant information for attack points.

It is absurd that judges wear robes, call themselves honorable, assume an air of superiority, and all the while they are AFRAID of accountability, and worse, shielded from accountability.

It’s time for these tables to turn.

Vincent Federal Conflict Chart With Judicial Immunity

7.61KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

Legal Analysis Of Judicial Immunity Conflicts With Common Law Maxims

219KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Cases That Deal With The Resolution Of Conflict Between Doctrines

559KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Vincent Table Of Conflicts With Keeping Disciplinary Records Private 2

8.58KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

Using The Doctrine Of Quia Timet To Address The Anticipation Of Future Harms

43.9KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Nippon Life Insurance Company has filed a suit in the Northern District of Illinois against OpenAI a/k/a ChatGPT for unauthorized practice of law.

I’m getting ready to put out a video of a judge telling a pro se litigant that there is absolutely no difference of standard for a pro se person as compared to a lawyer, which is patently untrue according to Haines v. Kerner. 404 U.S. 519 (1974).

But, this does present the issue that the courts are rigged for lawyers, and not for the average American to come in and seek their equal access to court.

This lawsuit as much as verifies the same concept.

Lawyers are worried about AI, and rightfully so. Their chokehold on the legal industry has actually choked out justice for the average American. If you can’t “buy” the law, by hiring an attorney, you can’t experience justice, or even equal footing in the courts of America.

I have a couple of lawyer friends that follow this blog, and this is no dis on them or their practice. It’s just a fact.

Frederic Bastiat wrote about this long ago in his masterpiece “The Law”

Below is a copy of the Complaint in this case, and I have marked it in red with my thoughts. Of course, my comments on the complaint are only my opinion, and not legal advice.

It seems preposterous that a corporation can be even accused of unlicensed practice of law, but NIPPON is trying it.

IF NIPPON prevails in this case, justice will be further from reach, and lawyers will celebrate.

IF, however, NIPPON fails, it may be a new dawn on the horizon.

OF NOTE: Dela Torre, who is the subject of the case, used ChatGPT to draft her filings and give her legal advice. She claims to be disabled, which bears special observance of this case.

Here’s the complaint.

Nippon V

11MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

If you’re in Florida, and you’re trying to get ADA access, there’s a very real likelihood that they are going to get it wrong.

For kicks, I went through their state guidance, and marked it up to show where it is deficient.

Here you go:

Title Ii Guidelines Ada Information General Counsel Services Florida Courts

2.04MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This is three of the most powerful minutes in my life.

When they left, I was lost. I didn’t know who I was anymore. Hell, I still don’t.

The thing I had given my energy, body, and sheer willpower to overcome, had told me I wasn’t good enough, and the psychological splitting occurred.

Psychological splitting is when an ideology, such as “woke”, says “If someone isn’t ‘woke’, they’re bad. (Especially a parent.)” If they’re bad, go no-contact. With psychological splittting, there is no grey area. Either someone is the same as you, in belief or whatever other measure you are comparing, or they are not. If they are not, they’re just labeled as “bad.” The hallmark of psychological splitting is thinking in extreme binary, either “good” or “bad”, while these same people, my kids included, embrace “nonbinary” as a “gender” identity. It’s fully bizarre and absent sustainability when questioned with facts that require them to adhere to the binary position they have claimed.

There was no opportunity to discuss this with the kids. I TRIED. I tried again. Nope. I was crucified on the cross of psychological splitting, and that was that.

How is this a disability?

This kind of emotional, mental, and physical trauma (yes, it’s all three) cause our brains to go into fight or flight. We want to reach out to our kids every day, but we know that will only make it worse, and they will dig their heels in, becoming ever more entrenched in the position of “no-contact.”

We start our day with a fog. It’s a fog that only lifts momentarily if we can distract ourselves enough.

And so, our major life activities of working, communicating, caring for ourselves, interacting with others, and more, are ALL affected by the filter of the trauma of loss.

There is no part of life that this does not affect harshly.

The sheer willpower I had to muster to keep my kids safe and fed and sheltered has now become sheer willpower to just live another day. Some days, I don’t even want to do that…

Not only is this a disability, it is an EPIDEMIC that is not receiving enough attention.

The ideal of woke has murdered the ideal of traditional. With it, the minds, bodies, and hearts of parents everywhere are suffering and lost. There is no “cure”. There is no medicine that can remove this trauma. (Although some of us have tried…)

The imagination of the woke, no-contact child is that they have escaped someone “bad,” because of the psychological splitting mechanism of labeling someone who doesn’t believe the same way as bad.

What these kids have done, however, is to place a pure love on the cross of idealism.

I can’t state it more plainly.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, as a broken Dad.

One of the most power-shifting dynamics I’ve ever USED s to give it right back to the judge that is abusing or intimidating you.

Some examples:

A judge keeps interrupting you, throwing your thought process, and any respect, out the window.

“Judge, how can you thoroughly explain the due process concept of the right to be heard, when you as judge keep interrupting me and disrespecting me? Don’t you demand to not be interrupted and treated with respect? How is it then that you can do to me what you demand I avoid with you? How is that respectful or giving me the right to be heard?”

A judge threatens you with contempt for something you are doing to upset them, but you don’t understand why it is upsetting them.

“Judge (I NEVER call them “your honor”, because they haven’t earned it), since you are using that word “contempt” to intimidate and threaten me, I am asking for the specific, static, complete and full meaning of the word contempt, so that I can avoid it in the future.”

Crickets will start chirping.

Another one I have done in this situation, and I have video of this one, is to ask, “So you’re the sole accuser, the sole witness, and the sole adjudicator of this contempt?” (This goes to the very core of fairness, and shows the conflict of interest that EVERY contempt charge includes)

Here is an abbreviated version of that exchange with the now disgraced Judge Bridgett Robb of Nevada (She’s apparently a stalker)

A hilarious back-down of bullying…

But the best one, and I’ve used this, although to my regret, I don’t have it on video, asking the judge if they are COMPETENT to give the specific, static, complete, and full meaning of the word “contempt”. This impugns their competency, and they will explode. (I escaped unscathed, however.)

Among the other tactics they try, are discriminatory comments, even in passing. Here’s me calling out a judge for this.

At least he apologizes. I found this judge to be quite pleasant, in all fairness.

When they use terms that confuse or intimidate, asking them if they are “COMPETENT” to give the full meaning of the word they just used against you will totally torque their asshole so tight you couldn’t pull a straight pin out of it with a tractor.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, as Certified ADA Advocate, and intermittent rabble-rouser

For one individual, it may be avoiding going out at night. For another, it may be avoiding some place where their trauma occurred.

I heard a tiktok from mikecullisonvegas (he was selling something) but he gave the best description of PTSD I’ve ever heard. Here are excerpts, without his sales pitch.

QUOTE:

“You experience a traumatic event, what? Whatever. You get into a car accident instantaneously, and I mean within milliseconds, your amygdala detects a threat. Your system floods with norepinephrine. But here’s the problem. Your hippocampus, which is supposed to contextualize memories and timestamp them, just goes offline during extreme trauma.

So the amygdala encodes this memory. With zero context. 1989 neuroscientist James Pittman proved it becomes a memory that’s essentially frozen in time, hyper consolidated, the proteins, dendritic connections, the synaptic strength, all abnormally amplified. Now, a year later, you smell exhaust or bur rubber or whatever, and your amygdala doesn’t think memory.

It thinks threat now, and your entire nervous system reactivates as if the accident is happening right there in that very moment. That’s not a psychiatric symptom that’s persistent in coding. Of a false present moment. Reality. PTSD is a biological filing error where your brain loses the ability to distinguish between what happened.

And what’s happening, your nervous system becomes trapped in this loop of retraumatization. When you’re in a chronic threat state, your autonomic nervous system lives in sympathetic overdrive. So normally your vagus nerve is like a brake pedal. It tells your biology that you’re safe. Trauma breaks that pedal and this causes very real physical damage.

Most PTSD patients have actually inverted cortisol curves, so it’s high at night when it should be low, creating this perpetual wakefulness. That’s not stress, that’s a pathology.”

This really explains what is happening.

For me, it’s ANY system that has rules. Some would call this anti-authoritarianism.

Anti-Authoritarianism

Are people that are classified as anti-authoritarian just bad people? Do they just have a bent to “disobey” or be “vexatious?”

I would argue an emphatic NO. For me, it was sourced as a child with the disconnect between abuse and proclaimed love, so that love always has some hidden agenda behind it. This was reinforced with school, church, and oh yes, government and the “justice” system. All of these constructs contain the possibility, and the plausibility to be extremely corrupt and abusive. When a child or an adult is abused by this, and they reach the point of rage that allows them to escape the fear of paralyzation, they step away or more often run away from the abuse.

To whatever degree that they can process without going into the event unsafely, they realize, in their internal mechanism, that there were variables associated with this.

For instance, seeing someone in a suit and tie can translate to the authoritarian memory, and all of a sudden, the PTSD individual is right back in the situation where a parent, teacher, judge, or some other authority figure is getting ready to brutalize them. It shuts them down, because it isn’t just a possibility, their mind believes and behaves as if it IS happening at this very moment.

The major life activities of communicating, breathing, interacting with others, cardiovascular operation, thinking, concentrating, caring for oneself, and more are severely impacted.

And, like it or not, even though I was raised as Gen X, and taught to “walk it off”, the abuse is so rampant in this current social framework, that this “walking it off” is only mimimally available as a resolution.

Social constructs have broken down. Whoever it is (many theories abound) that design the flow, propaganda, social emergences of new and destructive ideologies, and disarray, have planned the demise of society.

Many suffer in silence, and when they see a tactic that could help them, but don’t have the full picture, they try asking an officer what crime they are suspected of, and it goes downhill from there, even though they are well within their rights to ask this and resist unlawful or voluntary interaction with police.

When the self-mitigation operating systems go bye-bye

When someone gets into a situation, and their operating system of self-mitigation has a piece taken off of the board, the panic, sweats, hyperventilation, tunnel vision, and more resurface, because it is that same original trauma re-manifesting itself, even though in a different form.

And for me, I have found it most helpful to document as much as I can remember happening, sit with it, and develop new pieces for the chess board, so that I can face a similar situation more efficiently and with a more full executive function the next time. (I hope that helps you too.)

What about when that doesn’t work?

Well, church, schools, courts, cops, and other authority figures are resistant to change, so unfortunately, we with PTSD are tasked to still stand up to the dragon, keep challenging it, and resisting the abuse. It’s not easy, but it is our path.

One thing that I have found most valuable on this path is that when I face authority, asking it questions that it cannot answer, and watching it deflect, gaslight, etc., and then calling that out as not answering the question, well, that seems to totally fuck the construct, at least for a bit.

Jesus, when approached by those who would trap him, would often ask them these sorts of questions, and watch them reason over the impossibility of the answer.

I’ve said it many times: If you want to win, you have to embarrass the hell out of them.

It’s what Jesus would do. LOL

One last thought that I’ve recently written about in recent posts here. Chase Huges said that power and confidence comes from being able to incur a social injury without it fazing us.

When you can be embarrassed, triggered, or otherwise in a twist, and instead of letting it get the best of you, you can turn the tables and see them embarrassed? That’s a WIN in my book.

Marc Stevens, in his book (I recommend reading) Adventures in Legal Land, quotes a note from the Geneva Bible, Note i, Exodus 1:22:

“When tyrants cannot prevail by deciet, they burst into open rage.”

Give ‘em hell.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, as Certified ADA Advocate (Outward Goddamn Bound)

For me, however, the early childhood experiences of being beaten until bloody, and then having my parents simultaneously profess that they love me, and that “it hurts me more than it hurts you” seared my spirit.

Going forward, I was taught that if God wants to punish you for some wrong that you’ve done, even if you didn’t know it was wrong, he’d give you cancer or smite you dead. Always fear.

Looking back, I guess I realized (subconsciously) that it was just a minefield, and I set about addressing it differently.

I was never malicious, and I don’t think that’s in me at all, although I reserve the right to be surprised. I was mischevious. I saw that doing what someone didn’t expect shook shit up, and they had to determine a way to deal with it that wasn’t standard. I saw this as a child…

Standard Communication

What people say may be close to what they mean, but it is never exactly what they mean.

God.

The common concept of “God” bears this out. I heard “God loves you unconditionally, even to the point of giving his own son to die for you.” What was meant, however, was that there were a few conditions, y’unnerstand.

First, you have to accept the construct of God, as the man of the cloth tells you. If you question God, you’re bad (even though David absolutely indicts God in Psalm 44, and he was called “A man after God’s own heart (I Samuel 13:14). Granted, this was before the indictment mentioned above.

Second, you have to avoid sin, especially if you don’t repent and somehow redeem that sin. (Prayer, for protestants, confession for Catholics).

NOTE: This is not a slam to those who ascribe to mainstream religions. I have people that I love dearly who are in these, and they deserve to have their faith. I’m just expressing how it all disappointed me when cross-examined.

Then there are works. In my cult, I was taught that works did not redeem a soul, but that God still required them. I was also taught that avoiding these “works” (that were always somehow laid out by church leadership or laity, not God himself) was a sin, and disrespectful to God.

School

Since I went to a Christian school, that was a part of whatever church we were attending, it was more indoctrination into these partial concepts, and they couldn’t be questioned.

Punishment. While it’s fair to deter those who disrupt society in a way that harms others, school was more than that. Things like “disrespect” had latently ambiguous meaning, and it depended on how the authority figure’s ego interpreted said “disrespect”. We had no defense to this claim, or the punishment for it. It was just a fear tactic that was used to stop authority from being challenged, questioned, or in any way held to account for what they were demanding…

Which leads us to court…

Court

Court, and the “justice system” is just more of the above. Without metaphoric intent, they will beat you until you bleed, tell you it’s for the good of you and everyone, and expect you to call them “your honor” for abusing trust.

The thing about court, and the immediacy of having someone in the flesh that assumes absolute control without accountability, is that there are ways to totally rock this boat.

In my advocacy, I have learned many techniques that upend the facade that the “justice system” is actually about “justice”.

It is actually just a control mechanism that uses coercion, intimidation, threats, and follow-through on those threats, to assume absolute control of your life. Consent of the governed? It doesn’t exist. Oh, they’ve structured it in a way to offer benefits and little carrots at the end of a stick, and when you’re hungry and take a benefit, you’re hooked, but it’s just like prison when the big bull offers you a cigarette or a brownie from commissary. That is taking receipt (and importantly, benefit) of trust property, and the terms to the trust are never displayed up front, subject to cross-examination.

In fact, if you question the terms of such a benefit, say, at the DMV or the county planning office, or at the Sheriff’s office, you are met with instant posturing, intimidation, coercion, and threats.

How dare you question us?

The way I see it, we all have communication disabilities, crippled by fear, and only a few will ever dive into that to see how to at least look at it face-to-face.

It’s a terrifying thing to stand up for oneself, and in my advocacy, I tell clients, self-advocacy is the hardest thing in the world.

William Goren, the attorney that writes THE book on the ADA for the American Bar Association, who is unquestionably an expert in the ADA, expressed that during Covid, he would have been well within his rights to ask someone to take down their mask to accommodate his hearing disability. He saw it as “too confrontational.” (Linked on this paragraph, if you want to read that story first-hand.)

If it scares the “Yoda” of the ADA, that says something.

I’m seasoned as fuck, I feel like I’ve been self-advocating my entire life, and I still have what has to be classified honestly - FEAR - when it comes to self-advocacy. I’ve taken steps to pre-empt predictable issues, and have this pretty well squared away, but people can be fuckwads.

In a life where the rule is the expectancy of not questioning, when one says “I have a communication disability and need accommodation” it is met with varying responses.

I have to give thanks that I’m a big guy. Often, this goes without a hitch. But when I cross paths with that egomaniac that has their very ego identity on NOT being questioned, it turns violent in a matter of milliseconds.

And yes, it is violent to abuse legitimate disability, no matter what that looks like, in my opinion.

I’ll close with this. I recently heard Chase Huges say on a video that if you want to know if something is a psyop, just look for whatever cannot withstand questioning. It seems that our entire lives are just that.

Stay tuned. I will erect my middle finger in the direction of absolutism and despotism until my last breath.

Of the people, by the people, and for the people is a curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate

PART ONE TO THIS IS LINKED HERE.

So, LEAH MICHELLE BOUCEK, a California Commissioner (judicial officer) decided she wanted to act as my attorney. That’s a problem.

I hope you read the first part of this two-part expose, because it lays out how the ADM-410 form, used all across California, is being used as an across-the-board denial of ADA accommodation requests. Further, you are forced into this nonsense, even though the ADA prohibits eligibility criteria.

Ms. BOUCEK forged a document, claiming that I was an applicant on an ADM-410, and she signed it.

The California Code of Judicial Ethics forbids judicial officers from practicing law. But when someone fills out a form, purporting to be for me, and then signs it, Ms. BOUCEK has, with the issuance of this forged document, practiced law, acting as my attorney without authority.

I’m going to post it just below, then give a play-by play on how fucked up this is. So, look at the images, but the article continues below the images. Total of 7 pages. (Her signature is on the second page.) You’ll understand that I have sanitized this to protect my client from being named, and the specific requests for accommodation, because they are mostly private to my client.

Then she includes my letter as attached to this, showing that I explicitly stated that I am not asking for accommodations under California Rules of Court, rule 1.100, and why I was avoiding that.

Okay, let’s get into this. After you pick your jaw up off of the floor that Ms. BOUCEK had the gall to fill out a form naming me as applicant, and making false statements on my alleged behalf, then there’s the crux of the issue.

Ms. BOUCEK uses California Rules of Court, Rule 1.100 to deny EVERY accommodation requested, except for emailing the denials to my client and I.

California Rules of Court, Rule 1.100 is not listed in the ADA Title II, 28 C.F.R. §35.164, as a valid reason that an accommodation can be denied. Period.

But that’s her reason. I’ve been in California numerous times, and this is the PATTERN.

The California Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”), Rule 5.5 states:

Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law:

“A lawyer admitted to practice law in California shall not: (1) practice law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction;”

The California Code of Judicial Ethics

Canon 2A: “A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Ms. BOUCEK’s issuance of the forged document is disrespect and/or non-compliance with federal law of the ADA.

Ms. BOUCEK’s issuance of the forged document is impropriety at worst, and the appearance of impropriety at best.

Canon 3B(5): “A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (a) bias, prejudice, or harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, gender identity,* gender expression,* religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment.”

The forged document creates an appearance of bias or prejudice on the basis of disability. It was specifically stated in my initial communication to the Court dated February 2, 2026 that both my client and I have communication disabilities, and instead of accommodating these disclosed disabilities under the ADA as requested, Ms. BOUCEK initiated discriminatory and excluding communication that denies both my client and I from equal access to the Court on the basis of disability under the ADA, all through the the forged document issued by Ms. BOUCEK.

Canon 3B(7): “A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, that is, any communications to or from the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending* or impending* proceeding.”

The forged document is an initiation by Ms. BOUCEK of ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.

Canon 3C(1): “A judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative responsibilities impartially,* on the basis of merit, without bias or prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall not, in the performance of administrative duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (a) bias, prejudice, or harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, gender identity,* gender expression,* religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment.”

The forged document displays Ms. BOUCEK’s administrative duties of (allegedly) accommodating disabled litigants in a manner that destroys the public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, and effects the appearance of bias on the basis of disability by forging a document that purports to re-characterize requests for accommodation under the ADA, as requests for accommodation strictly and solely under the rule 1.100 of the California Rules of Court, and forging the name of Jay V. Shore as the “APPLICANT” on the forged document.

I just realized this while writing this article, but it also creates a conflict of interest, because Ms. BOUCEK is acting as my attorney and as a Commissioner in this matter.

Canon 4G: “A judge shall not practice law.”

Ms. BOUCEK’s issuance of the forged document equates to the unauthorized practice of law, purporting that Ms. BOUCEK represents one Jay V. Shore as “APPLICANT” on the forged document, creating the document allegedly on or for his behalf.

It is shocking to the conscience that she uses California Rules of Court to deny every accommodation request, but basic human decency requests like having a Domestic Violence victim separated from their abuser denied shows how evil Ms. BOUCEK is.

Another instance of this is when she denies allowing me to ask for a break for my client when my client is triggered. Seriously, WTF.

This commissioner with the Karen hairstyle that looks like she had it done at her groomers, and needs to talk to the manager, is someone that wants to be called “your honor. I call bullshit.

The State of California needs a class action lawsuit, and YESTER-FUCKING-DAY.

Asking that the proceedings be conducted in a trauma-informed way is denied…

Judicial immunity is a failed construct. But, I already wrote about that, here.

If you want to know why I hate the judiciary so much, this is the reason. They demand that those in front of them be held to account, while people like LEAH MICHELLE BOUCEK are without one single solitary ounce of integrity, fairness, or honor. She’s the rule, not the exception.

KILL JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. KILL IT, AND THEN KILL IT AGAIN.

I’ll respect these fuckers WHEN THEY EARN IT.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, as Certified ADA Advocate, and DV/SV survivor Rights Advocate.

Meet LEAH MICHELLE BOUCEK. This court Commissioner (Judicial official) helped me decide to blow the lid off of the California Scam by putting all of this in a linear document, that could be used to show how this works, so that it can be confronted. She presumed to act as my attorney, and well, she couldn’t have picked a better guy to fuck with…

Before I start, I abhor loquacity, but this stack will require it. This article will outline how the State of California has structured its courts to deny ALL ADA access for individuals with disability, other than the standard architectural access, such as ramps, electric doors with buttons and other architectural requirements that are encapsulated in building codes everywhere.

If, however, you have a disability that is is non-standard, such as Traumatic Brain Injury, or autism, mental health issues, PTSD, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, dyslexia, communication disabilities of any type, deafness, blindness, high blood pressure that needs to be exponentially mitigated during stressors, or any other disability (a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities), you are fucked (I have Lalochezia), when it comes to trying to get equal access in California.

I’ve been an ADA Advocate since 2017. I’ve seen corruption in courts nationwide, when it comes to getting equal access under the ADA. While the US legislature is partially responsible for the inaccessibility of the ADA, because they didn’t fund it, and they didn’t write in punitive damages for Title II state and local entities that breach the ADA, the core problem is that courts know that:

1. The people that need ADA accommodations for equal access are often the least equipped to fight the courts on non-compliance; and

2. Lawyers are absolutely impotent and terrified of taking on state court judges, because the system they work in makes such an act career suicide. Here is William Goren, author of “Understanding The ADA” published by the American Bar Association, saying that Lawyers are afraid to take on state court systems:

https://rumble.com/vwodge-top-ada-authorlawyer-admits-lawyers-are-afraid-to-hold-judges-accountable-u.html

Mr. Goren will be mentioned again in this article.

This means that if you are going to fight the state court system for violating your ADA rights, the burden of that rests squarely on your shoulders. We as disabled individuals are without remedy, without buying the law (hiring a lawyer) and there are no lawyers with the cojones to hold a state court judge accountable. It’s a rigged system with a semblance of rights tossed in our laps while the US legislature says figure it out for yourselves.

The USDOJ complaint line is as worthless as a Federal Reserve petrodollar. They simply don’t care.

Early in my advocacy, I saw that filing a complaint with the USDOJ on a state court violating the ADA never ended in any type of resolution or investigation. Since there is no Title II administrative remedy exhaustion requirement, save your energy and don’t waste your energy.

The rationale above is also the reason there is so little case law that deals with state court violations. People that are disabled, and further abused by the court system have little to no energy to fight back to the finish line.

And then, there’s California…

California totally sidesteps the ADA.

California has enacted a Court rule, 1.100, and there are several problems with this rule as it relates to (actually negates and voids) the ADA.

Example 1. Rule 1.100 does not require compliance with the ADA, and actually says that “the court must consider, but is not limited by... the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.)” (Rule 1.100(e)(1)).

“but is not limited by”…. This is a plain statement that the court claims to not be “limited by the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

The ADA limits (actually prohibits) acts that are discriminatory. (28 C.F.R. §35.130(a)).

The ADA limits (actually prohibits)acts that are retaliatory. 28 C.F.R. §35.134(a).

The ADA limits (actually prohibits) acts that are coercive, intimidating, threatening or interfering with the exercise and enjoyment of rights under the ADA. 28 C.F.R. §35.134(b).

The ADA limits (actually eliminates) state sovereign immunity under 28 C.F.R. §35.178

But the State of California Courts are “not limited by” those explicitly written limitations included in the ADA, according to rule 1.100 of the California Rules of Court.

Example 2. Rule 1.100 requires “a statement of the medical condition that necessitates the accommodation” Rule 1.100(c)(2). This flies in the face of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which states intent to make it more broadly accessible:

Considerations concerning the requirement for medical information”

28 C.F.R. §35.101 states: “The primary purpose of the ADA Amendments Act is to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA. Consistent with the ADA Amendments Act's purpose of reinstating a broad scope of protection under the ADA, the definition of “disability” in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of “disability.” The question of whether an individual meets the definition of “disability” under this part should not demand extensive analysis.” (emphasis added)

Plainly put, there is no requirement in the ADA Title II to “prove” a diagnosis, because the basic definition of disability is a “physical or mental impairment that substantially impairs one or more major life activities.” 28 C.F.R. §35.108(a)(1)(i).

28 C.F.R. §35.130(d)(1)(i) says The term “substantially limits” shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. “Substantially limits” is not meant to be a demanding standard.

Understanding the ADA’s Mr. Goren says “A formal diagnosis is not necessary in order for a person to have a disability under the ADA.”

And this isn’t just opinion. Let’s say one has their leg amputated, and a month later needs help getting into court. The common medical framework does not provide each amputee with a written “diagnosis” of amputation. It may be in someone’s medical history or the notes, but having a “diagnosis” is just absurd.

Same with anxiety. You don’t have to have a diagnosis to know that anxiety exists. You just KNOW. I have misophonia (noise triggers). I’ve told my doctors about this, but never needed to pursue a “diagnosis”. I just self-mitigate this, by various means. Misophonia substantially impairs many major life activities when triggering occurs. I just want to GTFO of an area, and that’s a parasympathetic nervous system response of fight or flight. My concentration is ALL absorbed with stopping the noise triggers. I’ve dealt with this for a long time. It’s mostly unexpected, or unwanted noise. I can jam out with the speakers blaring. But let someone knock on the door, or something falls off a shelf and makes a bang? OMG….

IMPORTANT OBSERVATION: As a DV/SV survivor rights advocate, I can say with experience and confidence that MANY people who are survivors never get PTSD or anxiety “diagnosed”, because they are either unable to go work through their trauma, or they have compartmentalized it. But when certain social triggers occur - Someone getting too close or in their space, or a creep/predator approaches them, the fear and trauma reactions will surface.

Dr. Judith Herman, in her book Trauma and Recovery, said “If one set out by design to devise a system for provoking intrusive post-traumatic symptoms, one could not do better than a court of law. Women who have sought justice in the legal system commonly compare this experience to being raped a second time.”

Getting a “diagnosis” for this is not only absurd, it is impossible. COURT CAUSES TRAUMATIC RESPONSE IN MOST LITIGANTS. The core Court operations model incorporates the four prohibitions found in 42 U.S.C. §12203(b) - coercion, intimidation, threats, and interference - and these substantially impair many major life activities. Thinking, concentrating, communicating, interacting with others, caring for oneself, breathing, speaking, learning, and more are affected to a very large degree.

If it substantially impairs a major life activity, the prong 1 definition of disability in the ADA is most assuredly available in some manner.

ADA Title II states in 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(8): “A public entity shall not impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being offered.”

I’ve been doing Advocacy for 8 years, and California is the only state that ties in a requirement for medical documentation, and this also eliminates many other physical or mental impairments that don’t need medical documentation.

The problem with what California is doing, and what the ADA Amendments Act intends to eliminate, is that people with disabilities already feel separate from abled persons. Invisible disabilities such as PTSD or depressive disorder, or ADHD, or Autism and a host of others, are discriminated against when they are put in a position to prove they need help to have equal access.

California has imposed and applied “eligibility criteria” that screens out, and tends to screen out an individual with a disability, AND THE ENTIRE CLASS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES, by (a) giving the middle finger to the ADA’s intended limitations, and (b) by requiring things that the ADA doesn’t require. But the kicker is, California HAS NOT SHOWN THESE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE PROVISION OF THE SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY BEING OFFERED (COURT).

And I posit that California cannot show this as necessary, because California is the only state I’ve seen with this built in. Other states are doing just fine without creating the eligibility criteria discussed in this article.

Example 3. Rule 1.100(c)(3) creates another eligibility of forcing the disabled litigant in a box of timeliness.

Rule 1.100(c)(3) includes a provision that requires: “Requests for accommodations must be made as far in advance as possible, and in any event must be made no fewer than 5 court days before the requested implementation date. The court may, in its discretion, waive this requirement.” THEY GIVE THEMSELVES DISCRETION TO WAIVE THIS REQUIREMENT (so it’s not shown as “necessary”) The ADA does not require it, and California totally made this time limit up arbitrarily.

28 C.F.R. §35.160(b)(2) says “In determining what types of auxiliary aids and services are necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of individuals with disabilities. In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability.”

The burden of the provision of auxiliary aids and services (accommodations) is on the Court. Part of that burden is that the Court provide the accommodations in a timely manner. There is no requirement that requests for accommodation be in writing in Title II. In fact, one can go into court, and say “I am disabled, I have [give the nature of the disability], and I need to be accommodated”. I don’t suggest this, because this would breach your privacy rights under 28 C.F.R. §35.160(b)(2)

However, if you do this, the Court is with the burden of then providing you with reasonable accommodations in a timely manner. California has shifted the timeliness burden to the disabled individuals shoulders.

Yes, it helps a Court to have advance notice. But saying that if someone is late, or comes in at three, two, or even one day before the court with a request, causes them to lose their rights? Horseshit.

Why California IS subject to the ADA.

28 C.F.R. §35.104 (Definitions) states:

Public entity means—

(1) Any State or local government;

(2) Any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government;

California courts are a department, agency or other instrumentality of a state or states or local government.

Every other state court system is subject to the ADA and limited by the provisions of the ADA. California claims it is NOT limited by the ADA. You decide.

How California is Playing Their Game

I’ve had numerous advocacy events in California, and they all play out similarly.

California offers a form called an ADM-410 form. Here is San Diego Superior Court’s Form Linked

Just in case they decide to change it after this goes public, I am going to post the pages below, with stars beside mentionable sections.

Page 1 of the form ADM-410 (You should be able to click on this and have the full size image populate.)

The first thing I want to point out is that this form ONLY requests accommodations under California Rules of Court, Rule 1.100. This is stated clearly in the first paragraph and in Item number “2”. There is no mention of ADA on this form. Rule 1.100 is also shown on the bottom right hand corner.

Also notice that the bottom left corner says “Optional Form”.

Here is the second page of the Form ADM-410:

This is where it gets good.

Title II of the ADA, at 28 C.F.R. §35.164, mandates what the duty of a state entity is when dealing with ADA accommdations. Here is that section of the ADA:

“This subpart does not require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with this subpart would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of the public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this subpart would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.”

The ADA lists only two reasons in this section for denying accommodations: Fundamental Alteration of the service, program, or activity, or Undue financial AND administrative burdens. They also have the burden of proving this out, and putting all of this in a “written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion.” I’ve never seen a court comply with this by actually proving fundamental alteration or undue burden. Not once in 8 years.

ALSO, if they deny, based on proving the fundamental alteration or undue burden, they then have the burden to “nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.” I’ve very seldom seen a court offer alternatives, as this mandates.

But the bottom line is that this section does not say “Oh, if it fails to satisfy the California Rules of Court that have additional eligibility criteria that are not shown to be necessary, then you can also deny…” I’m begging any reader to correct me if I somehow missed this.

So the ADM-410 form shown with the additional denial reason of “fails to satisfy the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.100”.

EVERY time I’ve dealt with California Courts, that box has been checked or that reason has been used in the additional narrative, when a denial comes up. For the record, I’ve always had denials. Courts cannot seem to bring themselves to actually act with the honor they purport to have, and give disabled individuals equal access. It’s more important to them to bully and posture and maintain their fragile egocentric control frame by discriminating against those that are helpless to defend themselves.

TO SEE WHAT BOUCEK DID… HERE IS PART 2

This kind of bullshit is what “they” call a “justice system.

Birth

Give us your body

Numbered, injected, and cut.

Kindergarten

Culture shock

Leave your parents, Pledge your allegiance

Elementary

Give us your minds

Conformity, individualism struck

High School

Hormone invasion

More indoctrination, your life is the nation’s

College

Conformity to the community

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated

Adulthood

Nose to the grind

Daily, knee-deep in the muck

Mid-Life WhatTheFuck???

You need a break

Surely this life has a reason???

Mid-life intervention

Take a vacation,

All that you need is a distraction

Mid-life submission

You are trapped

Your conformity precludes the search for reason

Later years

Misery enjoys company

At least you gave your children the confusion,

And they passed it along to theirs...

Just before death - Regret and realization -

Your life was aborted at birth by ignorance...

Your life was aborted mid-life by allowance...

You died for 80 goddamned years...

~JV