California Courts are Corrupt AF

An Excerpt of letters I have written this week for clients

Here are some excerpts from letters that I have written for clients this week. They should explain my title fully:

****************************

It is understood that during this Chambers meeting, Judge MENTAL offered Mr. CLIENT a form, and the only form known to the undersigned is the MC410 form which requests accommodations under California Rules of Court, Rule 1.100, and excludes the ADA from the request portion of the form. This is the link for that form -https://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/sites/default/files/sdcourt/generalinformation/forms/adminforms/adm410.pdf The MC410 form states as the opening statement: “This form is to be used to make a request for accommodation under rule 1.100 of the California Rules of Court.” and in Item number 2 on your form, it specifically restricts the request for accommodations to California Rules of Court, Rule 1.100. This denies ADA access for any individual using this form. Anyone that uses this form is not requesting under the ADA, but instead only the California Rules of Court, Rule 1.100.

Further, the MC410 form that you offer says “Optional Form” on the bottom left corner. Thus, any reasonable person would believe that the form is not required.

Judge MENTAL should be aware of Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, at 228 (1988): “Administrative decisions, even though they may be essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not similarly been regarded as judicial acts. In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880)”

Your form MC410 differs greatly from the MC410 form offered by the Judicial Council of California, linked at https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-11/mc410.pdf

Your form says “Rev. 10/23” while the Judicial Council’s form says “Rev. January 1, 2021”. While both forms are exclusive to California Rules of Court, Rule 1.100, they are absent compliance with the ADA.

Rule 1.100 delineates out the separate defenses:

“Rule 1.100 (f) Denial of accommodation request

A request for accommodation may be denied only when the court determines that:

(1) The applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of this rule;

(2) The requested accommodation would create an undue financial or administrative burden on the court; or

(3) The requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.”

Cal. Rules of Court Rule 1.100 is absent compliance with the ADA in several ways:

The rule does not require compliance, 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.)”. This is a plain statement that the Court does not have to follow the mandates of the ADA, which is disturbing.

The rule requires “a statement of the medical condition that necessitates the accommodation.” Nothing in the ADA, Title II, requires “a statement of the medical condition that necessitates the accommodation”.

Plainly put, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.100 effects “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”. (28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(8)).

EVERY PERSON IN CALIFORNIA THAT USES THIS FORM TO ASK FOR ACCOMMODATIONS IS NOT DOING SO UNDER ADA, BUT ONLY UNDER CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT.

I keep saying this…

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