minding my business

"Scam" you mean people are fighting back against housing discrimination??? I don't think these people know what the word scam means

Scams are designed to trick someone into giving up money based on lies. This is just.. asking for information then legally enforcing the law??

A Section 8 tenant is filing dozens of $100,000 lawsuits. Is it a discrimination fight or a shakedown? - Los Angeles Times

Jack Flemming

10–13 minutes

A gaggle of scorned landlords and real estate agents across L.A. have a message: If Alexys Watson messages you on Zillow asking if you accept Section 8 vouchers, choose your next words very, very carefully.

Over the last eight months, dozens of landlords and real estate agents have responded to Watson’s inquiries — and dozens have been sued for at least $100,000. The lawsuits allege discrimination for refusing a Section 8 applicant, regardless of whether they actually declined her application.

“I have to ask the owners and get back to you,” one agent wrote. $100,000 lawsuit.

“The house might be too old to meet the requirements,” another wrote. $100,000 lawsuit.

A review of hundreds of lawsuit exhibits show: One landlord accepted her application, but never got the house inspected by the city to qualify it for Section 8 tenancy. At least nine others never even put a decline into writing; the only exhibits in the lawsuits filed against them are screenshots of call logs (sans audio) and texts from Watson to each one claiming that they declined her over the phone.

Each time, a lawsuit.

More than 40 of them filed since summer.

Watson declined to speak for this article. Her lawyer, Alexander Robinson, claims the lawsuits are a result of rampant discrimination against a single mother genuinely looking to find housing for her and her children, but being turned away because she’s a Section 8 recipient.

Defendants claim they are being shaken down. Instead of risking a trial and the costs it would bring (a small fortune in legal fees and at least $100,000 in damages if they lose), many are choosing to settle, paying tens of thousands of dollars to avoid a legal battle.

Robinson disagrees. He said the law is being broken, and the lawsuits are a response.

“The law makes it illegal to make a discriminatory statement,” he said. “She’s not asking for discrimination. But when she finds it, should she ignore it? Should she allow that activity to continue?”

He said Watson reached out to him after a no-fault eviction, which threw her into housing instability and kicked off her current housing search. He declined to provide any information on settlement amounts — or his contingency fees — but according to multiple defendants and attorneys familiar with the payouts, they start around $5,000 and range north of $35,000.

Most of Watson’s lawsuits name multiple defendants — not only the agents or landlords with whom Watson interacted, but also the homeowners themselves and the owners of the real estate brokerages. One defendant, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of further lawsuits, said Robinson demanded individual settlements from so many people in one case that the total settlement demand neared $100,000. The defendant is still deciding whether to pay or fight.

Robinson said in these situations, state law extends liability to brokerages and homeowners, not just the front-line agent interacting with the tenant. He disputed the claim that naming multiple defendants is an arbitrary tactic to inflate settlement demands and said framing it as a punitive cash grab undermines the discrimination protections that California has created.

The string of suits is stirring up a larger conversation on what does and doesn’t qualify as discrimination in Southern California’s dog-eat-dog housing market, where sky-high housing costs push both tenants and landlords to extremes.

Watson’s lawsuits all center on the Fair Employment and Housing Act, a state law that prohibits landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on things like race, gender, ancestry, citizenship, etc. In 2020, California added source of income to the list, meaning landlords can’t turn away a tenant if they’re planning to pay rent using a Section 8 voucher.

These cases are testing the limits of the law: Does typing a Zillow message saying you don’t accept Section 8 make you liable? Does failing to order a government inspection of your property once a Section 8 tenant applies violate the law? Is misunderstanding Section 8 rules grounds for a lawsuit?

Defendants are questioning whether the punishment fits the claim. In the wake of last year’s devastating fires, landlords who price-gouged their listings to take advantage of fire victims mostly received mere warning letters; in this case, landlords and real estate agents are paying $30,000 settlements or more for sending a message on Zillow.

The Section 8 program is one of the country and state’s most powerful tools for fighting homelessness. Launched in 1974, it subsidizes rent for more than 2.3 million people nationwide, including more than 600,000 in California and 78,000 in L.A. Voucher holders typically pay around 30% of their adjusted income, and government agencies cover the rest of the rent.

Vouchers are extremely valuable, and the waiting list to get them is years-long. You can typically keep them for as long as you meet eligibility guidelines — Watson has had hers for 17 years, according to her lawsuits. They can also move with the tenant; when a lease ends, recipients generally have 180 days to secure a new place or else their voucher goes back into the lottery, though extensions are often granted.

The suits all follow the same format: Watson applies to a rental listing on Zillow, and for a variety of reasons, her application is rejected. The vast majority are based on brief exchanges on the Zillow app or over text.

Several lawsuits reviewed by The Times included specific language refusing her Section 8 voucher, including one filed after Watson attempted to rent a four-bedroom house in West Hills listed at $5,200:

Watson: Just wanted to confirm the owner is open to section 8 applicants?

Defendant: Sorry no not at this time.

Watson: thank you

Other cases are more ambiguous over the home’s Section 8 eligibility, including one filed after Watson tried to rent a commercial property listed as a “creative office space” in Mid-Wilshire for $4,700:

Watson: I’m interested in your property. Are you open to section 8 voucher holders?

Defendant: Good afternoon — this property has not been inspected/approved for Section 8.

In Yolanda Bowman’s case, she got an inquiry from Watson about a four-bedroom home in Carson. Bowman invited her to an open house in November, and she toured the property.

According to Bowman, a real estate agent, she talked with Watson over the phone on Nov. 19 and told her about a credit screening fee she’d have to pay to advance her application. She sent her a follow-up letter two days later with instructions on how to submit the payment.

Bowman said Watson never paid the fee.

In exhibits filed in her lawsuit, Watson accused Bowman of ignoring her application, with Bowman responding that “the owner of the property has decided not to accept Sec 8 and has leased the property to a private entity.”

Bowman said the stalled application was entirely due to the unpaid screening fee, not any Section 8 discrimination. But her choice of words led to a lawsuit.

“It’s the furthest thing from discrimination,” Bowman said, adding that the homeowner she was working with currently has a Section 8 tenant in another property she owns. “It was my mistake for even mentioning [Section 8], but the milk’s out of the carton now. If I hadn’t responded at all, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

Jeremy Alberts, an attorney familiar with Section 8 discrimination cases, said that if you don’t respond to Watson’s messages, there’s no good-faith basis for a lawsuit. But multiple defendants interviewed by The Times insisted that not responding at all feels more discriminatory than responding in good faith.

One defendant, who requested anonymity due to a confidentiality clause tied to a settlement agreement they signed, said, “I don’t think [Watson] is genuinely looking for a place to live. I think she’s phishing for people to reject her application for any number of reasons so she can sue them.”

A 2025 report from the California Civil Rights Department conducted a source-of-income discrimination test and found that 54% of households across L.A. County and Ventura County demonstrated Section 8 discrimination.

Robinson, Watson’s attorney, declined to provide any information on Watson’s current living situation but said she’s relying on temporary arrangements and earnestly trying to find a house for her and her family.

“We’re in the middle of a housing epidemic, and this law was passed by the Legislature to say that this needs to be addressed,” he said. “Ms. Watson is an example of all the various challenges that come with trying to live in L.A.”

Aaron Carr, executive director of Housing Rights Initiative, a nonprofit watchdog group, said people like Watson are providing a valuable service to society by exposing California’s discrimination problem.

“Being a voucher holder is a soul-crushing exercise in rejection, humiliation and human suffering,” he said. “If you don’t want people coming after you for breaking the law, stop breaking the law.”

Carr said discrimination is particularly rampant in L.A. due to two factors: lack of housing and lack of enforcement. And if California won’t commit funding to enforcing its laws, tenants will take things into their own hands.

“It’s not the most elegant thing, but ideally, it’ll make companies aware of these rules so next time a voucher holder applies, they’ll be willing to rent to them,” he said. “And it will be life-changing for the tenant.”

Watson isn’t the first person to test these cases. Another voucher holder, Mia Camillah, filed a similar string of lawsuits in 2024 and 2025. Michelle Uzeta, executive director of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, filed a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a Section 8 tenant in 2022. The Times chronicled the tenant’s search, which was resolved only after Uzeta intervened pro bono.

“I’d like to believe everyone who discriminates does so without understanding, but that’s not the reality we’re in,” Uzeta said. “There’s so much stigma around Section 8, but we’re not talking about people on drugs or people who can’t work. We’re talking about students, families and working people that need extra support.”

Multiple defendants questioned whether Watson still qualifies for Section 8 eligibility after receiving so many payouts from settlements. But Robinson said settlement recoveries aren’t treated as ongoing income and don’t alter the underlying housing circumstances. He said Watson’s funds are being managed conservatively for long-term stability.

the “sex positivity” and “sexual liberation” and “sexual freedom” ideology has always championed unrestricted sexual access to and rape of women and children. it has always maintained a strong pro-rape current, a movement that reduces women to public property, a view that venerates male orgasms over female personhood, and a celebration of sexual violence against women and children. it is an attack on feminists who have agitated for any kind of sexual ethics that sought to limit male sexual entitlement, from age of consent laws, to marital rape laws, and so on.

industrial patriarchy had to adapt to women attaining the legal, social, and political ability to deny men sexual access to them, and “sexual liberation” is that patriarchal adaptation—the abuse, violence, and degradation of women is fine if the women themselves desire it and we are discouraged from interrogating this desire and who benefits from it.

we must not think of sexual liberation or “sex positivity” as an enemy to patriarchal religion—they are simply rivals. the sexual liberationist truly hates the so-called “puritan” not for any genuine moral reason, but because the “puritan” has the potential to say no to men. nevermind the fact that the puritan movement was not anti-sex and the sex positive advocates are misusing the term. the term’s utility to the sex positive movement is that it can be used as a slur to demean women who want a type of sexual ethics that disentangles violence from sex. the patriarchal theologist hates the fact that women can say no to men. they both see women’s boundaries as a threat. they see a sexual ethics that opposes violence against women as a threat. the dressing may be different, but the skeleton is the same. they are two opposing male supremacist ideologies vying for dominance. feminists reject both.

wilhelm reich, the godfather of this ideology, experimented on and sexually abused children, pat califia supported incest, child sexual abuse, and sexually abused a woman, gayle rubin extensively supported child sexual abuse and child pornography, the latter two were responsible for the spread of BDSM and its foundational links to queer theory, sadism was named after marquis de sade, a notorious rapist who tortured his victims. i could go on forever lol. these are some of the main architects of sexual liberation. look into any of these thinkers or most male psychologists who sought to naturalize women’s sexual subordination and you will uncover biological determinism—specifically related to the notions that “sex is a need,” that men’s sexual entitlements are natural, and women’s sexual inferiority and their desire to be dominated is natural. the notion that consent means a sex act cannot be critiqued, that consent purifies a sex act, no matter how violent, lies at the foundation of a patriarchal sex culture.

this critique isn’t limited to any one sex act, either. the social context that drives and encourages women to engage in anal, blowjobs, and choking is certainly not neutral under this rotten culture and should be critiqued from a feminist perspective. but you’ll find that feminists eviscerated the “normal” heterosexual act of intercourse (PIV) and how women are treated in it with much harsher terms than any other sex act lol. don’t allow the pro-rape advocates to call you a “puritan” because you’ve taken exception to the most normative sex act. the feminist critique takes everything to task, especially intercourse.

a lot of women and girls are taking their blinders off but are not reading the extensive feminist literature on this subject. dworkin’s “intercourse” is a good starting point for a feminist critique, but you’ll also have to read stuff that will piss you off and disgust you, like some of the thinkers i listed above lol. it’s a horrible stain on human history in my humble opinion. we can only achieve a truly ethical sex culture when this tumor of an ideology is excised, in conjunction with its main political rival, patriarchal religion.

idk how formatting works on this site any more lol under the read more i have citations for my polemic if you wanna look!

on that note, one of the most prominent prison abolitionists in the US, mariame kaba, got ran off of social media in the wake of Oct 7th for saying that the Palestinian resistance should have never taken hostages and that they need to be released. her leftist audience seemed to agree with her about doing away with detaining people…until she was being ideologically consistent by applying that idea to everything, including zionism. her audience of prison abolitionists appeared to think that israelis ought to be detained for enforcing colonialist violence (correct)…but the same standard shouldn’t apply to americans at home? or maybe, an even more sinister thought—that a lot of prison abolitionists think male violence isn’t worth detaining people for but colonialist violence definitely is. because, you know, men are viewed as the primary victims of colonialism. this leftist flavored misogyny needs to be confronted as harshly as right wing misogyny. mariame kaba was just being ideologically consistent in her opposition to detaining people, but her audience drew the line somewhere. in 2019, she even defended a male sexual abuser who ended up claiming more victims after she advocated for his freedom and participated in a “community-based” “accountability” process that the abuser disregarded. this didn’t cause her to get expelled from online leftist spaces, though. defending a male abuser doesn’t get you cancelled. much to say about it!

and further, there is a significant amount of them who want the “community” to deal with abusers, but they rarely have a sufficient answer for the possibility that the “community” produces and enables abusers. that the “community” is as much a vehicle for patriarchal violence as the ruling class state. they want to reduce violence and abolish criminalization by eliminating privation and poverty, which is correct, but they get really mad when people ask what happens if a sexual abuser happens to exist after this ideal society with no enforced privation is achieved.

i think a marxist would say you gotta detain that person for the practical reason of rendering them unable to physically attack people. you don’t gotta subject them to psychological abuse, inhumane living conditions, labor exploitation, nor solitary confinement. but you gotta, like, detain them so they are physically unable to continue the abuse. ideally they would be receptive to rehabilitation, but if they aren’t, they should remain detained so as to not enact more violence onto people. in a world with no enforced privation, i like to think arresting people will be rare and minimal. but the prison abolitionists who think detaining people (mostly men lol) is an injustice will likely say sexual abuse just won’t exist at all if poverty is abolished, so there’s no need to worry about that possibility. or, you gotta leave it up to the “community” to give the abuser a stern talking to or beat them up and that will be enough to solve the problem. no mention of what happens if they don’t want to be rehabilitated at all. you just can’t detain them!

Finger lime cheong by fermentnation.88.