The Motive Attack Reverses the Timeline

The Receipts · The Bar Record

The Motive Attack Reverses the Timeline

The Bar suggested my ADA request was really a legal tactic. There is a small problem with the theory. The mistake it was reacting to already existed.

What happened

After the defective dismissal was already on the books, after the Bar had already lost my rebuttals and closed the case on an empty file, a Deputy General Counsel wrote that my invocation of the ADA “may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation for a functional limitation and more toward securing a particular substantive outcome … or toward establishing a basis for further legal action against the State Bar.”

Read that again with a calendar in your hand. The outcome already existed. The correction request came after the mistake. And the Bar’s response to a man pointing out its filing error was to wonder what he was really after.

Why it matters

You cannot be suspicious of someone for complaining about a problem you created first. The sequence is not close. The Bar made the error. I asked them to fix it. Then the Bar decided the request to fix it was the suspicious part.

The outcome already existed. Everything after it was just me asking about it.

What the record says

The motive line is verbatim from the May 12 email, the same email that denied Title II applied, and the same email that went to me and no one else, with every other name stripped off the thread.

What remains unanswered

If asking the Bar to correct its own admitted mistake is evidence of bad motive, what is a disabled complainant supposed to do when the Bar loses his file? Ask more politely? The record does not say. It just says the question was treated as the offense.

Part of The Receipts. See the open questions in the Question Ledger and the full State Bar record.