What AI says about me.
And my responses.
Here’s what Grok pulled up about me. There was a bit of misinformation in this return.
I asked: “Can you find any negative information on Jay Shore, a Certified ADA Advocate?”
Grok searched 15 websites, and returned this:
“Based on the information available online, here are some points that could be considered negative regarding Jay V. Shore, a Certified ADA Advocate:
Allegations of Unauthorized Practice of Law: There are mentions where opposing counsel or courts have accused Shore of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Shore himself has noted in his writings that he has been fighting claims of some form of alleged unlicensed practice of law in two different states, where these complaints were initiated by judges who allegedly refused equal access to litigants on the basis of disability. However, Shore argues that his actions are covered under the ADAAA as administrative advocacy rather than legal practice.
Controversial Approach and Language: Some of Shore's online presence, particularly on platforms like Substack, includes strong language and critiques of various systems, which can be seen as controversial or off-putting to some. For instance, his subscription page slogan, "ADA RIGHTS (I have Lalochezia) Your questionable source for mental enemas," suggests an approach that might not be well-received by all audiences.
Litigation Against Him: Shore has been involved in legal disputes where he was the plaintiff, such as in Shore v. City of Portland, where his claims under the ADA were dismissed with prejudice, indicating that the court did not find merit in his allegations against the defendants on certain counts.
Public Perception and Advocacy Style: While Shore is praised by some for his advocacy, his aggressive and sometimes confrontational style might be perceived negatively by those who prefer more conventional or diplomatic advocacy approaches. This includes his direct confrontations with judges and court officials, which he describes in various writings and videos.
These points reflect potential criticisms or negative perceptions based on public records, his writings, and online commentary. However, it's important to note that advocacy work, especially in areas like disability rights, can be contentious, and what one person views as negative, another might see as necessary or effective advocacy.”
Regarding these statements, I offer the following:
I will forever be accused of unauthorized practice of law (UPL). The fact is, there is no support for these accusations, because (a) there is no “bright line” definition of the “practice of law”, and this removes mens rea, which is an intent. There can be no intent without clarity of the prohibited act. It also removes actus reus, because there can be no act without a defined act.
Dr. Huffer warned us that this was a main ploy of the courts and objectionable lawyers, to intimidate and threaten ADA advocates. I have a long history of fighting the system, because of he inconsistencies in the system. A system that purports to be fair and impartial, while exhibiting the opposite postures most of the time, is a system that needs challenges, and not from a weak position.
I anticipate the threats and inferences of UPL. As I have shown here and in other places, even a federal judge with a retaliation posture who referred me to the State Bar of Nevada, couldn’t accomplish them actually saying that I was engaged in UPL, and they declined to pursue the matter.Legit. No further commentary needed.
This actually brought me a chuckle. Any reasonable person can see that “litigation against him” and “Shore v. City of Portland” are misaligned. I was the Plaintiff… The dismissal that Grok mentioned did indeed happen, but it was only as to certain counts or causes of action. The case went forward to the point of discovery, where the City of Portland settled the case with me in a private settlement agreement. My motion to dismiss and the order to dismiss are shown here:
Legit. I was trained by the best, the late Dr. Karin Huffer, PhD. She was brilliant in her research, and yet she was much more meek than I am. I am forever honored by her training and example. I must go my own way, however, and someone has to have the “aggressive and sometimes confrontational style” to change things. Diplomacy has failed at resolving the matter of access to fair and impartial courts. It’s too late to beg the oppressors for their mercy. It’s time to point out that they are corrupt as fuck, and share that with the world.
With that being said, I do make it a practice of giving courts one chance, and one chance only to be honorable when I approach. You can call it confirmation bias if you want, but my experienced and seasoned tenure in this ministerial work of ADA advocacy is that courts are inherently without honor, and without intent to provide equal access for those who are disabled in some way, especially if the disability is an invisible disability that requires the court to modify its services, programs and activities to achieve equal accessibility. Their response is to attack me, so I’m ready for it.
I’ve often said, the only way to win is to embarrass the hell out of them. It’s what Jesus did.
P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate
I’m not going anywhere near that AI bullshit