WE NEED MORE PWD TESTERS TO SUE WEALTHY LANDLORDS: UAAAC AND ITS MEMBERS ARE TESTERS

It was 1966. John, a Black factory worker, applied to rent a home in a White area. The landlord refused to rent to him. John sued based on race. David Warren hated Blacks, the landlord. But he testified he did not refuse to rent to John because he was Black. John did not win the case.

John went to the Department of Justice. The Department had a White and Black factory worker with the same salary apply to rent from Warren. The White was approved. The Black was denied. The Black person sued.  Attorney James said the Black person could not sue because he never intended to rent from Warren. The Court created Tester Standing and the Black factory worker won.

A tester can test if a landlord is complying with the law without any desire to rent. The tester can bring a lawsuit. This is tester standing.

Courts have decided that disability groups and their members can be testers for Fair Housing Act and ADA lawsuits. The UAAAC is a tester based on the laws. Most people with disabilities are too afraid to sue. Minorities with disabilities fear that they will suffer the same as Theodore Arthur Pinnock. The White Legal community tried to crush him. But a person can only destroy herself or himself. God endowed Theodore Arthur with an unbreakable mind and spirit.

We need more testers to sue wealthy landlords. Residential secretly hate the "crippled.". Lawsuits with brave testers reveal the hate.

Below the UAAAC has provided legal support for being a tester. It will sue any entity or person saying it is extorting money by filing lawsuits.

Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center v. Hospitality..., 867 F.3d 1093 (2017) decided plaintiffs suing under Title III of the ADA have “tester standing.” In Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 372–74, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982), in which the Supreme Court held that testers have standing to sue under Sections 804(d) and 812(a) of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(d), 3612(a). The Court first noted that Section 804(d) prohibits representations “to any person because of race” that a dwelling is unavailable, when in fact it is available. Id. at 373, 102 S.Ct. 1114. The Court reasoned that Section 804(d) “establishes an enforceable right to truthful information concerning the availability of housing,” and that an invasion of this right causes harm that is potentially cognizable under Article III. Id. at 373–74, 102 S.Ct. 1114. Whereas Congress in Section 804(a) required a “bona fide offer” to rent or purchase before a plaintiff could sue for discriminatory refusal to sell or rent, it included no such limitation in Section 804(d). Id. at 374, 102 S.Ct. 1114. The Court relied on this absence of limiting language to hold that plaintiffs who “pose as renters or purchasers for the purpose of collecting evidence of unlawful steering practices” have standing to sue for violations of Section 804(d). Id. at 373–75, 102 S.Ct. 1114.

The Ninth Circuit have held that the disabled may assert tester standing under the FHA. After Havens Realty was decided, Congress amended the FHA to specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of “handicap” in the “terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Following the reasoning of Havens Realty, the Ninth Circuit held that tester standing was available under this provision. Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1102–04 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that, as with the provision at issue in Havens Realty, § 3604(f)(2) was by its terms not limited to bona fide purchasers. Id. at 1104. The Ninth Circuit held that “[i]nterpreting § 3604(f)(2) to exclude [testers] from enforcing their right to be free from discrimination undermines the specific intent of the [Fair Housing Act Amendments], which is to prevent disabled individuals from feeling as if they are second-class citizens.” Id.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that motivation is irrelevant to the question of standing under Title III of the ADA.

Fake News Targets Black and Asians with cerebral palsy: Response To Elizabeth Wagner's Questions

DRA, DREDEF and other great groups file disability rights lawsuits. But they get a free pass by the liberal media. Yet the liberal media targets a minority group and convinced the California to disbar a Black lawyer with cerebral palsy. Many White lawyers violate the rules but are not disbarred.  The media fabricates fake news.

Question:·         How one becomes a member of the UAAAC.

Answer: Request a membership application via Facebook and pass membership standards.

Question:·         Whether Mr. Theodore Pinnock intends on moving to California, as specified in the attached complaint.  

Answer: Yes

Question:         Whether members of the UAAAC intend on moving into the dozens of apartment complexes UAAAC members have filed lawsuits against.

Answer: Members intend to make sure that all members of the disability community have the equal opportunity to move in to FHAA and ADA compliant complexes. Members may or may not intend to move in. Members intend to be FHAA testers to have to right to bring the lawsuits

Question·         Whether the lawsuits meet the spirit of disability rights laws.

Answer: All people have a right to bring valid lawsuits to enforce civil rights. Since 5000 years ago civilized people created judges to resolve disputes as opposed to selp help. So the answer is YES!

Question:          The UAAAC’s response to claims that the lawsuits UAAAC members have filed are tactics to extort money from apartment complexes.

Answer: The UAAAC files valid lawsuits. If NBC makes the claim that it is engaging in illegal activities or any entity or person make such a baseless claim the UAAAC will sue them for tort and other remedies.

UAAAC knows other White Disability Groups bring lawsuits. However, no one ever claims they are engaging in extortion.