Accor/Motel 6 Outrage Carrollton Texas

I fully retract and withdraw all of my previous postings on this site concerning Accor, Motel 6 and/or Manager Lee Judson.

ROR, it is very important that you post this notice; please, thank you.

If any of you veterans out there are planning on visiting Seaside, Oregon for Veterans Day, the Motel 6 there is a pretty nice place to stay, it's economical and you can bring your pet.

But my wife and I were barred from ever staying there without any reason given. It may have been the manager is an anti-war guy and didn't like my Viet Nam Veteran license plate holder.

If you do stay there, I would really appreciate it if you would ask them about that and let me know.

Thanks, d**k and Sandy

I have posted this consumer complaint on about 20 C.C. sites telling about Judson's outrageous act. I posted to so many for the same reason a person hanging a picture taps the wall - looking for a stud to bang a nail into.

At every post I expected a heavy hitter to read it and step up to the plate on my behalf: a government agency (ADA, AG, BOLI), an official Consumer Complaint agency (BBB), a Class Action attorney, even Accor, in short, I was looking for a stud. Finding none, I press on toward the goal of being made whole.

Ok the reason I am interested is that in all your rants, I do not understand why you want to tell the world that you are on this list.
So never mind since you seem to be on a crusade of you own making.
One thing about names never asume gender.
Bye Bye.

I think it's interesting that you would want to know - why do you, Kim? What's your interest in all of this? I can just imagine you sitting in the board room of a New York law firm with your laptop just waiting for me to say something incriminating and one of your fellow attorneys jumping up, clapping his hands and screaming, "Aha! We've got him! Way to go, girl! Calvados all around."

I also thought it was interesting that Accor didn't rein that wild hair in. I'm old, ugly & stupid so I asked my daughter her opinion - she's young, beautiful and intelligent, here's what she had to say:

"It's my understanding that these hotels are franchised, which means they are owned and operated by independent entities that purchased the rights to use the Motel 6 logo. Unless you're a minority and can demonstrate racial discrimination, Accor North America doesn't have an incentive to interfere or influence who or who isn't placed on the independent owner/operator's Do Not Rent List. It's at the discretion of management. Accor will receive their franchise fee regardless of how many rooms are rented."

Right. Which makes me wonder what Accor's policy is toward selling these franchises. I mean, in light of Judson's bizarre behavior, one would think that if Charles Manson got out of prison, won the lottery and changed his name to DeGaulle, would they sell to him? From the hundreds of consumer complaints against Accor's establishments I've read, I would think so.

You still have not answered the the question as to, WHY?, you posted to so many sites.

Kim: You did not answer my question as to: Why, the reason you wanted to tell the world that you were on this list.

d**k: Quite frankly, Kim, I couldn't care less about being on Judson's stupid list; let him blacklist whomever he wants to, blacklist everybody - he can sit in his little castle all by himself for all I care. There's a lot of interesting places to go at the coast, fun places to stay and things to do. What really chapped my hide was Judson lying to the WA BBB about us who passed it on to BOLI and God only knows who else when he said the reason he put us on the list was because we were evil characters - read my other posts on this site.

Kim: The internet is a very interesting place, where you put statements on it and it can not tell your intentions.

d**k: O.K., World, here's a statement: A week after we stayed at Owner/Manager Lee Judson's Seaside, Oregon, Motel 6, 8/13/06, and had submitted our little comment card that allegedly is the reason for this mess, Judson wrote a warm, fuzzy letter to my wife apologizing and inviting her to make another reservation.

My intent: I would like to have someone solve the mystery as to what made Judson put us on his Do Not Rent list and say the nasty things he did about us after telling us no problem, we'll leave the light on for you. I hope somebody out there smarter than I am could figure that one out and let me know.

There. Statement. Intent. Sue me.

You did not answer my question as to:
Why, the reason you wanted to tell the world that you were on this list.

The internet is a very interesting place, where you put statements on it and it can not tell your intentions.

What is a accorite?

Hi, Kim, It seems to me like you came right in the middle of this thing, read one comment and leapt into the fray. If you're interested in this brouhaha, I suggest you read them all before commenting further, but I'll help out until you do.

Kim: It seems to me that there were only maybe 4 people that knew you were on the nasty No Rent To List, Manager. desk clerk, you and your wife, when this thing started.

d**k: And the BBB when Judson lied to them about why he put us on it. And he offered to broadcast it to his hospitality industry buddies essentially blacklisting us on the entire northwest coast - all because we submitted one of his comment cards, I hope you're catching that point.

Kim: Why did you come on so many complaint sites to tell the world that you were on this list?

d**k: I put my consumer complaint on Consumer Complaint sites .... where would you have put it; isn't that pretty much what they're created for?

Kim: You are the only one saying that your wife and you are nasty, evil, vile ( and I love tortfeasors). What injury?

d**k: This issue has been beaten to death - please read the posts.

Kim: I also think that if there were a judgment against you and that you were not to do what you are doing with these reports, that you are hoping that the manager or anyone from accor will respond and you will try to claim the deal you struck is void.

d**k: I never struck a deal - read the posts. My only hope is that Judson will come to his senses and/or Accor will tell him to.

Kim: I'm wondering about your statement about getting $5,ooo from motel 6, and then doing it to other motels is working out?

d**k: You have done some research; I was getting chummy with the regular posters on that site and if that's what I said, I was being facetious, of course.

d**k:

It seems to me that there were only maybe 4 people that knew you were on the nasty No Rent To List, Manager. desk clerk, you and your wife, when this thing started.

Why did you come on so many complaint sites to tell the world that you were on this list? You are the only on saying that your wife and you are nasty, evil, vile ( and I love tortfeasors). What injury?

I also think that if there were a judgment against you and that you were not to do what you are doing with these reports, that you are hoping that the manager or anyone from accor will respond and you will try to claim the deal you struck is void.

I'm wondering about your statement about getting $5,ooo from motel 6, and then doing it to other motels is working out?

Robert, you are obviously adversarial, why would I give you anything? If you're on Monster Merchant's side, ask him.

Actually, you're right - I misspoke, ths past year I've done a ton of copying and pasting, no big secret.

""I never tried to copy and paste an original vent in order to achieve a sort of uniformity. I was subjected to an egregious event and reported on it from memory. The vents are slightly different because I spoke from memory and took it from different angles.""

You didn't? Please explain why you have the same TEXT, word for word posted on various websites as myspace, (((Redacted))), (((Redacted))), (((Redacted))), complaints, (((Redacted))), ventvent websites.

You seem to cut, past, copy when you think it serves your purpose.

We're still waiting for a case/filing number and the name of the court to VERIFY that you really are defending against a $100,000 countersuit.



 CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

End of the thread; I've spoken my piece as honestly as I know how, now lets roll the dice and see how it goes. Thank you, Ripoff Report for the space and all who have taken the time to respond. d**k & Sandy

P.S. It's not "Bronze Stars"; it's bronze stars on a decoration - big difference.

Really, d**k. You claim to have earned Bronze Stars and that you are a Chaplain and an upright citizen. Your actions DO NOT bear out your claims. You agreed in court not continue your tirade against Motel 6, and yet you continue to do just that. Apparently, your word is worth nothing - as is the rest of your "testimony". You have only proven yourself to be a liar. I am ashamed of your actions.

Now we are back the conclusion you have made that someone defamed you and your wife.

Many people have sincerely tried to help you understand your situation and the reality of how things are, but you persist in beating your chest and acting like this is some school yard scrapping match. I am beginning to suspect that you are enjoying being the victim' in your story and like all the attention your fight' is getting you on consumer websites.

I hope you do not end up with a 100,000 dollar judgment against you for persisting in this, but I am not going to beat my head against your brick wall any longer.

Will this thread EVER end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Accor/Motel 6 kicked us out of their establishment inferring that we are disreputable people and want to make a war out of it; O.K., I'm no stranger to war and I'm not afraid of the Frightful French or the Beaverton Bullies. They've got their B.A.'s, M.A.'s and PhD's; well, I've got my GED and I say bring it on.

I've got 4 Bronze Combat Service Stars on my Viet Nam Service medal; I've put my life on the line for my country in places like Korat, Danang & Phan Rang. I'm an honorably disabled retired Non-Commissioned Officer in the United States Air Force.

My wife is a saint and is rightfully known as Mother Teresa in the nursing home where she's taken care of folks who could not care for themselves for 20 years.

We are proud parents with wonderful children and grandchildren whom we love, they love us and look up to us.

We have a relatively recent letter from Comfort Inn management commending us on being in the top 5% of guests registering there. Our friends, Bob & Karen, who managed the Trade Winds Motel in Seaside gave us incentives to stay longer and come back sooner; we are verifiably good, honest, responsible guests.

I am a respectable Truckstop Chaplain and a volunteer with the Red Cross, our local Highway Patrol and Police Department. We are solid citizens.

I'm 70 years old and starting to get the idea I'm not going to live forever. If Accor/Motel 6 think I'm going to my grave with my wounded buddies in the VA Hospital, my police friends, my Red Cross friends, my trucker pals, our children and grandchildren thinking my wife was a prostitute and I a drug dealer without a fight, they've got a totally 'nuther think coming.

Bring it on.

quote ""Yet people from all over the country are rebutting my complaint except them. Why do you think this is? I'll tell you why: they haven't got one."

Actually, they DID have a rebuttal. They made their rebuttal where it COUNTS, in court, and by the postings here they won round one which was to have the suit against them tossed.

Round two hasn't been posted yet but I suspect someone is going to have a 100K judgement against him.

Don't expect many donations.

We're still waiting to see the text of the countersuit filed by the motel.

Know what's cool about this site? They invite, even encourage, rebuttals from companies that are complained about. Accor/Motel 6 are reading my posts. Yet people from all over the country are rebutting my complaint except them. Why do you think this is? I'll tell you why: they haven't got one.

If they will step up to the plate and state why this victim submitting the report is wrong and state why they think they are right, or if they'll just admit they made a mistake and how they will correct it so it will not happen in the future to others; in other words .. If they want to submit a REBUTTAL, and make it a real REBUTTAL, either agreeing or disagreeing with my posted Ripoff Report, then I'll think about pulling in my horns.

Usually, it is me that gets the names wrong.

d**k,

I was very suspect of your original post here, and very critical of it. Since you have been providing more information and since I have researched elsewhere I am to a point where I think that you were treated in a wrong manner, and I applaud your committment to your wife. BUT - I do not think you have any specific legal recourse with this exact issue or incident. I think that if you press on here, you will have to pay the huge amount that the motel was counter-suing you for. What happens if you get a judgment against you for this huge amount and then die off (god forbid!)? That would not leave your wife with a good situation.

You can still try to change the way laews are and how people are treated. Be an advocate for your cause. You can make a difference.

Doug,

I had not known that your case was dismissed on a summary judgment motion, but I expected that such a motion was coming quickly or that a directed verdict would be sought as soon as you finished trying to prove your complaint. If this is the case you are in, you are in SERIOUS trouble.

If your complaint has been dismissed due to it not being based upon law or for a lack of evidence or issue, the counter claim by Motel 6 has a LOT of validity. The judge is not going to listen to ANYTHING you try to argue regarding defamation or discrimination. Your case is over and only the Motel 6 claim is going to be decided.

If I had a client in your situation, I would be telling him to make nice and work something out with Motel 6 like what your attorney did for you. You may be angry with Motel 6 for refusing to rent to you, but you need to accept that businesses generally do have the freedom to decide with whom they do business and that you cannot change this situation. It should tell you something that all those other advocate and legal groups to whom you have complained have declined to take on your case.

For your sake and that of your wife, please consult another attorney in your state and try to settle this. Financial disaster is coming your way.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. What this boils down to is this person is unhappy because he was rented a room without a microwave, a refrig, a couch and whatever else at a full price, when in the past, he has paid the same price for a room with all of the above items included. Now he and his wife complain, raise heck, call everyone on the planet, blog all over the internet, file complaints with other organizations and file a law suit. The manager gets tired of it and puts him on their DNR list and then files a countersuit.

He then posts all over the internet at a number of different sites, now claiming discrimination based on disabilities AND when his day in court is dismissed at the lower level and an agreement IS reached with his attorney, not to his liking, he begs donations to take it to a higher court pleading a martyr's cause. So be it. Let him suffer the consequences of his actions. All this over a few bucks. Give me a frickkin' break.

How do you go from going on a do not rent list at a single hotel to filing a class action law suit against Accor?

According to you, your wife wrote accor "'My husband & I have been staying at your fine hotels for ages - 10 years, maybe - and our stays have been very enjoyable. But Sunday we got assigned a tiny, tiny room with no couch, only one bed, no microwave, and no frig at the regular price. The dear counter lady understandably was no help in giving us a reduced rate - what do you think? Is that fair paying full price for 1/2 a room? Thanks.'"

You also stated that while you went to get coffee you advised him that he potentially had bed bugs. Since you were getting coffee when you mentioned this, I can only assume that this was in the lobby area where other guest would be around to hear it.

You complained to Accor North America, Accor France(although I dont know why), better business bureau, small claims court and the list goes on.

He placed you on his DNR because you are a complainer and he didn't want to deal with you any more. You insulted his rooms, his rates and were condesending to his staff. Perfectly valid reasons to place you on the DNR, no other explanation from him is needed.

As far as your class action law suit goes, it has no merit. You mentioned that Accor North America and Accor France both apologized to you. Motel 6s are individually owned franchises, so you can not go after the Parent Company because they have not wronged you.

I have never seen a report and rebuttals with so much accurate legal analysis. Kudos to the majority of you for having and presenting such an accurate picture of the law.

Unfortunately, as others have come to conclude, the reporter is not one of those people.

That's not to say that you haven't been wronged, Doug, and without the hotel's side of the story, none of us can conclude either way. You present a solid case of having been wronged in a moral sense, but we simply can't take your one-sided, ever changing version of the events as indisputably true.

I can glean a hypothesized "procedural history" of this case based on the reports. If I am incorrect in any way, I hope that Doug will correct me. Here is my perceived chronology of events:

1) Doug and his wife stayed at Motel 6 in August of 2006.

2) In November of 2006, the couple found that they were on the "Do Not Rent" ("DNR") list.

3) The couple tried to rectify the situation by contacting all the proper hotel officials and government agencies. So far so good. Unfortunately, these informal routes proved to be of no avail.

4) Doug began posting his version of the events on numerous consumer websites.

5) Doug files a suit in small claims asking for the jurisdictional maximum.

6) Motel 6 files a motion to dismiss Doug's complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, or a motion for summary judgment based on the fact that there were no material issues of fact in dispute and that the Motel was entitled to a judgment in law. This motion is granted.

7) (And possibly simaltaneously with "6"), Motel 6 files a complaint against Doug alleging libel, tortious interference with a business expectancy, and malicious prosecution. $100,000 is not an outrageous demand for claims of this nature.

8) A settlement is reached whereby Motel 6 will dismiss its claim provided that Doug enter into a non-disparagement agreement. The terms of this agreement likely require that Doug refrain from making any further derogatory comments about Motel 6, and $100,000 is likely set as the liquidated damages in the event that Doug breached the agreement.

9) Doug breached the agreement.

10) Motel 6 initiates a claim for an award of $100,000, representing the liquidated damages assented to, by Doug, in the event that Doug further defames Motel 6.

Does that about sum it up?

If I'm correct for the most part, I hate to say it Doug, but you don't have a leg to stand on.

Let me address some quotes:

"I'm going to go pro se for the fun of it and the learning experience. This will be instructional for any consumer complaint advocates out there as well. I don't see how I can lose, but one never knows. If I do lose, this will be a lesson 1) Next time a business gives you the business, tuck your tail between your legs and silently steal away. 2) Going pro se might not be a good idea. I'll keep you informed.'"

Going pro se for the "fun of it" and for a "learning experience" is a big mistake. In your case, it may end up being a $100,000 mistake. If 100k is at stake, you CAN NOT go pro se! That's not to say that the court won't allow it, just that it's a TERRIBLE idea! One procedural mis-step could result in a default judgment against you. How familiar are you with state and local court rules and procedures? And I'm talking about procedures involving the filing of complaints and answers, procedures regarding discovery, procedures regarding motions, procedures regarding evidence, procedures regarding the conducting of a trial, etc. After three years of law school and two years in practice, I STILL need to consult the books ALL THE TIME.

Beyond the procedural aspects, you MUST have a firm understanding of EVERY aspect of the substantive laws you're dealing with. Without that, you will undoubtedly mis-understand the issues presented by your case, and you be ill-equipped to even know what evidence is relevant to your claim or defense.

"Keel, that's a popular misconception that motel owner/managers can pick and choose their guests (only blue eyes need register); this is simply not true. Check out: 42 U.S.C. section 12181(7)(A) and C.F.R. section 36.104. All Motel 6' in the United States are places of lodging and are thus places of public accomodation within the meaning of those statutes."

There are a few flaws with this, and this is indicative of your lack of understanding of the relevant laws. First, nothing in the C.F.R. (the Code of Federal Regulations) is a statute. They are regulations, promulgated by agencies of the executive branch of the federal government.

Second, the U.S. Code section you cited merely states the definition of a place of public accomodation and is not a law that can be acted upon in itself. Third, you cited the wrong CFR section. You were going for 36.201(a). This section states: "A public accommodation shall not subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability . . . to participate in or benefit from the . . . accommodations of a place of public accommodation."

This regulation does not say that people with disabilities can't be discriminated against. It says that such people cannot be discriminated against because they are disabled. If the reason for the denial of service is anything other than the disability, no law is broken.

"Thank you for asking and thank you Ripoff Report folks for letting me tell my story; I was planning on telling it to a Small Claims Court judge, but I was deprived of that privilege by Manager Judson and his attorney."

You were deprived of that privilege by the court and the rules by which the court is bound.

Doug, you need to cut your losses. You need to find some way to get out of this mess short of a trial or a judgment. You will not win this case on the merits and the law. Your only hope is another favorable settlement agreement. I urge you to retain a lawyer to fix the mess you've gotten yourself into. I dissuade you from trying to take this case in front of a judge or jury.

Thanks for those insights, Tom - much appreciated. Since slamming us on his nefarious DNR list reserved for nasty people doesn't make any sense, I'm scratching around trying to figure out what his problem with us really was, discrimination of some sort, disability came to mind.

Judson said he barred us from renting because my wife made a reasonable request. It doesn't make any sense to me that an astute businessman would do that to long term, regular guests. But if that really was his only rationale, it ought to be against the law. If it is not illegal, it ought to be, and if I have to take a few lumps to bring it to the attention of the powers that be to make it against the law, I'm willing to go all the way with that.

I've been keeping Marge Boule', a powerful columnist for the Pulitzer Prize winning Oregonian newspaper apprised of our situation. She said she can bring this egregious act to the attention of lawmakers who can introduce legislation addressing this type of outrage. She also said, referring to what happened to my wife and me, "It stinks."

Tom, if you're interested, search 'Motel 6' at Trip Advisor. There are over 200 - 200! Complaints against Accor's raunchy motels. This screams for either a Congressional investigation into the way this French company is conducting business here in the states or possibly a class action lawsuit; whatever, Accor totally needs to clean up their act because the way they treat innocent tourist/travellers does indeed stink.

d**k... Please think through what you are doing. People are trying to warn you about the weakness of the case you are bringing.

You are proclaiming to be part of some protected class under the Americans With Disabilities Act. What you have left out are the details regarding what your and your wife's respective disabilities might be and what reasonable accommodations the motel failed to make so that you could stay there. (That is the basis of the ADA.) Obviously, you were able to sleep in and use the facilities of the room the last time you stayed at the motel, so the motel did not turn you away because it could not accommodate you.


The court is going to ask you this question, so you should have an answer ready with solid proof to back it up: Exactly HOW did the motel discriminate against you due to your disability? Merely arguing that you have some disability and the motel therefore cannot refuse to rent to you is NOT going to work no matter how emphatically you state it. Parading your wife in front of the judge or jury to get sympathy is not going to work either. You will need to make a definitive showing that your disability (whatever it may be) was the major reason for the motel putting you on a list of those to whom it will not rent a room.

Then get ready for the motel to put the desk clerk on the stand to state that you were unreasonable, a complainer, rude, harassing, etc. (whether or not you agree with it) and for the motel to state that that alone was the reason you and your wife no longer are welcome. You will need to have provided strong evidence of discrimination to stand up against that.

If you cannot offer any proof of discrimination beyond the fact that you have some sort of disability, you likely will be held responsible for the motel's legal bills and may even find yourself facing monetary penalties to the motel. This is not an attack on you. It is trying to make you understand what you are about to get into.

You obviously no longer have an attorney either because you fired him or he dismissed you because you would not listen to the advice he was giving you. That is a big problem for you. There is an old saying that a person who represents himself at trial has a fool for a client. If you do not fully understand court procedure, how to put on evidence, and how to argue case law and statutes... well, you are going to be in for a rough time and a court will not make special exceptions for you because you do not have an attorney.

Others have told you to let this go. I hope you will listen.

d**k... Please think through what you are doing. People are trying to warn you about the weakness of the case you are bringing.

You are proclaiming to be part of some protected class under the Americans With Disabilities Act. What you have left out are the details regarding what your and your wife's respective disabilities might be and what reasonable accommodations the motel failed to make so that you could stay there. (That is the basis of the ADA.) Obviously, you were able to sleep in and use the facilities of the room the last time you stayed at the motel, so the motel did not turn you away because it could not accommodate you.


The court is going to ask you this question, so you should have an answer ready with solid proof to back it up: Exactly HOW did the motel discriminate against you due to your disability? Merely arguing that you have some disability and the motel therefore cannot refuse to rent to you is NOT going to work no matter how emphatically you state it. Parading your wife in front of the judge or jury to get sympathy is not going to work either. You will need to make a definitive showing that your disability (whatever it may be) was the major reason for the motel putting you on a list of those to whom it will not rent a room.

Then get ready for the motel to put the desk clerk on the stand to state that you were unreasonable, a complainer, rude, harassing, etc. (whether or not you agree with it) and for the motel to state that that alone was the reason you and your wife no longer are welcome. You will need to have provided strong evidence of discrimination to stand up against that.

If you cannot offer any proof of discrimination beyond the fact that you have some sort of disability, you likely will be held responsible for the motel's legal bills and may even find yourself facing monetary penalties to the motel. This is not an attack on you. It is trying to make you understand what you are about to get into.

You obviously no longer have an attorney either because you fired him or he dismissed you because you would not listen to the advice he was giving you. That is a big problem for you. There is an old saying that a person who represents himself at trial has a fool for a client. If you do not fully understand court procedure, how to put on evidence, and how to argue case law and statutes... well, you are going to be in for a rough time and a court will not make special exceptions for you because you do not have an attorney.

Others have told you to let this go. I hope you will listen.

d**k... Please think through what you are doing. People are trying to warn you about the weakness of the case you are bringing.

You are proclaiming to be part of some protected class under the Americans With Disabilities Act. What you have left out are the details regarding what your and your wife's respective disabilities might be and what reasonable accommodations the motel failed to make so that you could stay there. (That is the basis of the ADA.) Obviously, you were able to sleep in and use the facilities of the room the last time you stayed at the motel, so the motel did not turn you away because it could not accommodate you.


The court is going to ask you this question, so you should have an answer ready with solid proof to back it up: Exactly HOW did the motel discriminate against you due to your disability? Merely arguing that you have some disability and the motel therefore cannot refuse to rent to you is NOT going to work no matter how emphatically you state it. Parading your wife in front of the judge or jury to get sympathy is not going to work either. You will need to make a definitive showing that your disability (whatever it may be) was the major reason for the motel putting you on a list of those to whom it will not rent a room.

Then get ready for the motel to put the desk clerk on the stand to state that you were unreasonable, a complainer, rude, harassing, etc. (whether or not you agree with it) and for the motel to state that that alone was the reason you and your wife no longer are welcome. You will need to have provided strong evidence of discrimination to stand up against that.

If you cannot offer any proof of discrimination beyond the fact that you have some sort of disability, you likely will be held responsible for the motel's legal bills and may even find yourself facing monetary penalties to the motel. This is not an attack on you. It is trying to make you understand what you are about to get into.

You obviously no longer have an attorney either because you fired him or he dismissed you because you would not listen to the advice he was giving you. That is a big problem for you. There is an old saying that a person who represents himself at trial has a fool for a client. If you do not fully understand court procedure, how to put on evidence, and how to argue case law and statutes... well, you are going to be in for a rough time and a court will not make special exceptions for you because you do not have an attorney.

Others have told you to let this go. I hope you will listen.

d**k... Please think through what you are doing. People are trying to warn you about the weakness of the case you are bringing.

You are proclaiming to be part of some protected class under the Americans With Disabilities Act. What you have left out are the details regarding what your and your wife's respective disabilities might be and what reasonable accommodations the motel failed to make so that you could stay there. (That is the basis of the ADA.) Obviously, you were able to sleep in and use the facilities of the room the last time you stayed at the motel, so the motel did not turn you away because it could not accommodate you.


The court is going to ask you this question, so you should have an answer ready with solid proof to back it up: Exactly HOW did the motel discriminate against you due to your disability? Merely arguing that you have some disability and the motel therefore cannot refuse to rent to you is NOT going to work no matter how emphatically you state it. Parading your wife in front of the judge or jury to get sympathy is not going to work either. You will need to make a definitive showing that your disability (whatever it may be) was the major reason for the motel putting you on a list of those to whom it will not rent a room.

Then get ready for the motel to put the desk clerk on the stand to state that you were unreasonable, a complainer, rude, harassing, etc. (whether or not you agree with it) and for the motel to state that that alone was the reason you and your wife no longer are welcome. You will need to have provided strong evidence of discrimination to stand up against that.

If you cannot offer any proof of discrimination beyond the fact that you have some sort of disability, you likely will be held responsible for the motel's legal bills and may even find yourself facing monetary penalties to the motel. This is not an attack on you. It is trying to make you understand what you are about to get into.

You obviously no longer have an attorney either because you fired him or he dismissed you because you would not listen to the advice he was giving you. That is a big problem for you. There is an old saying that a person who represents himself at trial has a fool for a client. If you do not fully understand court procedure, how to put on evidence, and how to argue case law and statutes... well, you are going to be in for a rough time and a court will not make special exceptions for you because you do not have an attorney.

Others have told you to let this go. I hope you will listen.

Keel, that's a popular misconception that motel owner/managers can pick and choose their guests (only blue eyes need register); this is simply not true. Check out: 42 U.S.C. section 12181(7)(A) and C.F.R. section 36.104. All Motel 6' in the United States are places of lodging and are thus places of public accomodation within the meaning of those statutes. If the motel manager were to give you his side of the story - honestly, he got creative in his letter to the WA BBB - he could tell you nothing different than what I have posted.

I'm no Rosa Parks, but a bus driver in - Selma, AL, I think, back in the 60's - thought he could transport whomever, however he thought and the Civil Rights movement was born. My wife & I were clearly discriminated against and it's my ferverent prayer that someone from the ACLU, ADA or similar organization reads these posts and gets troubled by the deprivation of our constitutional right, as disabled citizens, to public accomodation without harassment and actually gets involved beyond responding with sorry about that letters.

This isn't on all fours, but a motel's "Do not rent" list was the subject of a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit in South Carolina last year. The plaintiff's attorney, Mark Whitlock said, "I've never seen anything like this since the 1960s when they banned 'coloreds' from hotels and motels."

d**k,

First, all business have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose to. The business does not have to have a reason.

Secondly, you mentioned that you are entitled to public accomodations. That may be true, but public accomodations would cover accomodations run by the government and not by businesses. You don't have any "right" to stay at any privately owned hotel.

Lastly, you talk about rights yet you want to just assume managers are discriminating against you if they don't give you a reason why they rent to you. So in your world you are guilty until proven innocent?

I would like to hear the hotel's side of the story. Generally businesses do not turn away paying customers, especially repeat customers, without a valid reason.

This is not a cause, its not even a fight you can win. If you want to fight for a cause then how about picking something like the environement, the tax policy, global warming, the war, animal rights...I'm sure you could find something

d**k,

First, all business have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose to. The business does not have to have a reason.

Secondly, you mentioned that you are entitled to public accomodations. That may be true, but public accomodations would cover accomodations run by the government and not by businesses. You don't have any "right" to stay at any privately owned hotel.

Lastly, you talk about rights yet you want to just assume managers are discriminating against you if they don't give you a reason why they rent to you. So in your world you are guilty until proven innocent?

I would like to hear the hotel's side of the story. Generally businesses do not turn away paying customers, especially repeat customers, without a valid reason.

This is not a cause, its not even a fight you can win. If you want to fight for a cause then how about picking something like the environement, the tax policy, global warming, the war, animal rights...I'm sure you could find something

d**k,

First, all business have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose to. The business does not have to have a reason.

Secondly, you mentioned that you are entitled to public accomodations. That may be true, but public accomodations would cover accomodations run by the government and not by businesses. You don't have any "right" to stay at any privately owned hotel.

Lastly, you talk about rights yet you want to just assume managers are discriminating against you if they don't give you a reason why they rent to you. So in your world you are guilty until proven innocent?

I would like to hear the hotel's side of the story. Generally businesses do not turn away paying customers, especially repeat customers, without a valid reason.

This is not a cause, its not even a fight you can win. If you want to fight for a cause then how about picking something like the environement, the tax policy, global warming, the war, animal rights...I'm sure you could find something

d**k,

First, all business have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose to. The business does not have to have a reason.

Secondly, you mentioned that you are entitled to public accomodations. That may be true, but public accomodations would cover accomodations run by the government and not by businesses. You don't have any "right" to stay at any privately owned hotel.

Lastly, you talk about rights yet you want to just assume managers are discriminating against you if they don't give you a reason why they rent to you. So in your world you are guilty until proven innocent?

I would like to hear the hotel's side of the story. Generally businesses do not turn away paying customers, especially repeat customers, without a valid reason.

This is not a cause, its not even a fight you can win. If you want to fight for a cause then how about picking something like the environement, the tax policy, global warming, the war, animal rights...I'm sure you could find something

I know you guys have a point, but I'm not going to 'just let it go." A lot of things that are right with this country are that some folks have put it all on the line to correct an injustice. For just one example, women with small children abandoned by their husbands now get child support because one gal dared to stand up, be counted and the law was changed.

What that motel manager did to me and others who have contacted me with the same issue is flat wrong and I will fight it as long and as hard as I can. I don't think a manager should have to stand in the doorway with his arms folded yelling, YOU CAN NOT STAY HERE - YOU'RE DISABLED! Or some other protected class, for the ADA to get involved. In my opinion, unless the manager has a dang good verifiable reason for denying the hospitality they advertise to guests, it should be assumed they are discriminating - don't you?

I can't believe someone would use a rip off site to rip people off. Is there a law against this? Ripp off report.com needs to moderate these complaints better. Shame on you sir.

My wife & I, for examples, are members of two federally protected classes: seniors & disabled. Judson broke the law - I've got the statutes - when he refused to rent to us for no reason

From the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website under the Disorder at Budget Motels heading: Motel staff have the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class in making room rental decisions.

Even the source you are using to justify your suit tells you that motels have the right to choose those with whom they do not want to do business as long as it is not for the purpose of discriminating against a protected class. In other words, just because someone is of a minority race does NOT automatically mean that any refusal is based upon race if the motel had another, non-racial reason for denying the room. If you can PROVE that the owner's refusal to rent to you was based upon your age or disabled status (both very hard to prove), then you MIGHT have a shot at something. Just being part of a protected class is not going to be enough. From what you have stated, it appears the owner has a different reason for his refusal and that your age and disability were not factors in that decision. I can almost guarantee with 100 percent certainty that if it was not based upon some protected class reason, the motel is not going to be found liable to you.

I was planning on telling it to a Small Claims Court judge, but I was deprived of that privilege by Manager Judson and his attorney.

So you have landed in a higher, more formal court. Whatever your allegations may be against the motel still will be heard by that higher court and will have the same level of legitimacy (high or low) that they had in Small Claims..

Everyone can appreciate that you are upset, but everyone on this and all the other boards has tried to make you understand the reality of your situation. You seem determined to find out the reality for yourself, so by all means proceed to court. We know you will be crying foul when the court rules in the manner everyone has tried to tell you it probably will. I hope you have prepared your attorney for the surprise of all these posts being used against you in court.

Since you have been so open about your full name, address, profession and other personal information on other websites, it will not be difficult to check on the outcome of this case.

My wife & I, for examples, are members of two federally protected classes: seniors & disabled. Judson broke the law - I've got the statutes - when he refused to rent to us for no reason

From the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website under the Disorder at Budget Motels heading: Motel staff have the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class in making room rental decisions.

Even the source you are using to justify your suit tells you that motels have the right to choose those with whom they do not want to do business as long as it is not for the purpose of discriminating against a protected class. In other words, just because someone is of a minority race does NOT automatically mean that any refusal is based upon race if the motel had another, non-racial reason for denying the room. If you can PROVE that the owner's refusal to rent to you was based upon your age or disabled status (both very hard to prove), then you MIGHT have a shot at something. Just being part of a protected class is not going to be enough. From what you have stated, it appears the owner has a different reason for his refusal and that your age and disability were not factors in that decision. I can almost guarantee with 100 percent certainty that if it was not based upon some protected class reason, the motel is not going to be found liable to you.

I was planning on telling it to a Small Claims Court judge, but I was deprived of that privilege by Manager Judson and his attorney.

So you have landed in a higher, more formal court. Whatever your allegations may be against the motel still will be heard by that higher court and will have the same level of legitimacy (high or low) that they had in Small Claims..

Everyone can appreciate that you are upset, but everyone on this and all the other boards has tried to make you understand the reality of your situation. You seem determined to find out the reality for yourself, so by all means proceed to court. We know you will be crying foul when the court rules in the manner everyone has tried to tell you it probably will. I hope you have prepared your attorney for the surprise of all these posts being used against you in court.

Since you have been so open about your full name, address, profession and other personal information on other websites, it will not be difficult to check on the outcome of this case.

....you have come a long way in providing information since the original post.

It appears to me that you were not treated fairly, and I suppose that I would be mad too if I was treated the same way. But I think that you are in a situation that has no legal recourse.

For whatever reason this motel has, you have evidently irritated them somehow for them to place you on a do-not-rent list. We don't know what they were thinking. Legally they have the right to place people on this list. Whether or not it is justifiable is another thing. But they can hide behind this. So they placed you on it.....it is not "fair"....but you cannot convince them to change it.

Take an example : an employer wants to hire someone; he cannot discriminate because of race, religion, age or creed.......but in truth he dismisses a possible candidate because he has a prjudice or thinks the applicant too old.....and he does this while claiming the applicant was not qualified for some reason. See - this is not fair to the applicant, and the applicant can scream and kick, but it won't do any good. It can't be proved that there was a different reason.

In your case, you filed a lawsuit in small claims court. The suit really does not have a basis. The motel responded exactly as anyone in their position should with a countersuit.

The deal your attorney made on your behalf is a great deal....I would tell yo to take the deal and abide by it. At this point, this is waht you need to do.

That does not mean that what happened was correct or right..... there are some things in this world you just cannot spend time on. Wouldn't you agree that it would be better to spend time with you wife doing things rather than wasxting it on trying to get these people to acknowledge a wrong?

Just let it go......life is too short d**k.

I apologize for not making myself clear in this informal shoot-at-the-hip complaint; I can see how you would be confused.

I had no idea why Judson put us on his DNR list; I thought it was mistaken identity or something and he refused to say why he did what he did. I only found out why when BOLI investigated and I was given a copy of a letter Judson sent to the WA BBB 11/15/06; in it he said, " We add guests to the list for various reasons including but not limited to drug use, drug paraphernalia, trashing a room, damaging a room, being abusive to other guests or staff, leaving pets unattended for long periods of time, etc. The Colbeths met a criterion that we have set.."

The etcetera would come from the Center For Problem Oriented Policing (POPS), the industry standard which includes all Motel 6'. The a. on their sample list reads "No illegal activity (including drug use/sales, prostitution, and underage drinking)...

O.K.? Then in Judson's deposition before BOLI Inspector, Kerry Johnson, 3/30/07, he said he placed us on his DNR list because we "...filed what he felt was a bogus complaint."

I'm surprised you guys are so interested in my situation, but since you are, here is an exact copy of the complaint my wife submitted at checkout:

"My husband & I have been staying at your fine hotels for ages - 10 years, maybe - and our stays have been very enjoyable. But Sunday we got assigned a tiny, tiny room with no couch, only one bed, no microwave, and no frig at the regular price. The dear counter lady understandably was no help in giving us a reduced rate - what do you think? Is that fair paying full price for 1/2 a room? Thanks."

That's it - it wasn't even a complaint - it was an innocuous request and that is the sole reason Judson put us on his nefarious list with tortfeasors, felons and their ilk and I'm mad; sorry if you can't understand that.

Thank you for asking and thank you Ripoff Report folks for letting me tell my story; I was planning on telling it to a Small Claims Court judge, but I was deprived of that privilege by Manager Judson and his attorney.

When was your last visit to the motel?
August 13, 2006

When did you find out about being on the do-not rent list?
When I tried to make a reservation in November.

Q (a). To who did you respond to about that ...
A. You want to know who I talked to!? O.K., here's a partial list: The Seaside Oregon Motel 6 desk clerk, John; the manager, Helen; supervisor, Karen; the owner, Judson; the franchisee director, Wolf; Corporate Accor NA in Texas, Julliard & LeMener; Corporate HQ in France, Pelison & Weinberg; the Chambers of Commerce in 3 states; the Texas Workforce Commission; the Multnomah County Sheriff; the Washington County Sheriff; the manager's attorney, Gish; Bureau of Labor & Industries, Inspector, Kerry Johnson ; the Oregon Bar, Morrill; AAA, another guest similarly screwed by Judson, Ms. Hardin; AARP, Eades-Goudy; ADA, Worden; APdisAbilities, Davis, AH&LA, ASTA, Attorney Generals in 3 states; BBB in 3 states; Call For Action, Media: magazines, newspapers, TV, radio; the FTC; the Gray Panthers, HUD, Keeler; various lawyers; Oregon Civil Rights Division, Oregon Lodging, Oregon Public Health Division, POPS, Respect My Rights, Multiple Consumer Complaint Web Sites (like this one).

Q (b)... and what did you say to them?
A. What I said to them was almost verbatim what I told you guys.

Q(b). Who responded back to you and what did they say?
A. Almost everyone responded, and their responses (including you guys') made me really relate to how a woman who has been raped is treated like she's the criminal.

Common misconception: Hotel/Motels cannot pick and choose who they will rent to. It is against the law to "Refuse Service to Whomever They Want". My wife & I, for examples, are members of two federally protected classes: seniors & disabled. Judson broke the law - I've got the statutes - when he refused to rent to us for no reason and it really annoys me that nobody seems to give a dang.

Thank you for your interest. And as for sending copies of documents, I don't think that's a good idea.

You state:

"Infer my sweetheart is a prostitute - you've got a scrap on your hands and I don't care if I don't win a popularity contest - I'll complain at the top of my lungs long and loud, win or lose - let the chips fall where they will."

Meanwhile, YOU are the ONLY person to infer this. No one else has. You even go so far as to ALLUDE that this is what the hotel did - yet you have not one shred of proof. You were allegedly put on the "Do not rent" list, no the "wife's a hooker" list. Your insanity has gotten the best of you.

As so many have stated to you on other boards, Motel 6 has the right to choose who it wants to do business with and for whatever whim or reason it might have as long as it is not race, sex, religion or one of the legally protected classes.

The reason for you and your wife being placed on a Do Not Rent To list may have been weak, but it was the motel's right to decide whether or not to rent to you. You alone made the inference that your wife was being called a prostitute and you a drug dealer because of that list. You stated nothing that in any way showed the owner, desk clerk, manager or anyone else associated with the motel made that inference.

You sued the motel (without an attorney) for it not renting to you. There was no legal basis for your suit, so you were served with a legitimate countersuit. These countersuits are authorized because of the hassle and expense defendants must go through to defend themselves against claims like yours that have no basis in law. You hired an attorney, who probably tried to explain this to you, and worked out a deal by which you would pay nothing to the motel as long as you stopped posting all these complaints on websites.

For some odd reason, you are unable to see how SWEET that deal was, and instead have complained to the motel chain's corporate level about the deal and continued to post your rants on boards like this one. I would not be surprised if your attorney has not fired you and the motel has decided to withdraw from the settlement. You will continue to make the matter worse for yourself by posting these complaints.

Many others have wondered why you even want to fight to stay at a motel that you claim had "evidence of bed bugs" as most sane people would want to avoid such a place. It is time to accept the facts and stop this crusade to get the motel to change its mind. IT WON'T.

You need to listen to your legal counsel and try to work something out with the motel (and abide by the deal) before you end up being forced to pay a lot of money you do not seem to have. You are in the wrong in this matter

You need to provide ALL the information...not just parts of it because " I thought they were irrelevant or unnecessary" - seriously, how can you think that anyone could make any kind of educated opinion when you are not providing ALL the facts.

When was your last visit to the motel?
When did you find out about being on the do-not rent list?
To who did you respond to about that and what did you say to them?
Who responded back to you and what did they say?

Looking at your posts from various site, it looks like you got mad at the motel because they put you on a do-not-rent list and have blown it out of proportion. It seems that you are the only individual who has used the terms "prostitute" and "drug-dealer". You did not mention bed bugs in your first posts.

I don't lnow if you realize it or not, but people CANNOT see what your complaint was to the BBB....nor can they see the actual response from the business. Why don't you put a copy of your original complaint here, and the copy of the original response. All of it- don't edit it.

Part of the reason that this site is here is so that people can post complaints that everyone can see....that does not happen with the BBB.

This report was a vent? Let's see ""If you could see your way clear to help us, it would be very much appreciated. Send your donation to (((REDACTED BY RIP-OFF REPORT))) Thank you and God bless.""

Reads like a request for donations to me.

As I stated, post the text of the lawsuit against you and we can decide for ourselves.

The responses to my vents were very good; much better than I expected. If I had known they would have been scrutinized so thoroughly, I would have been more exact.

I can't recall who said what, but one guy actually analyzed many of my posts...! Wow. He complained that they aren't all saying the same thing.

I never tried to copy and paste an original vent in order to achieve a sort of uniformity. I was subjected to an egregious event and reported on it from memory. The vents are slightly different because I spoke from memory and took it from different angles.

I left many facts out and included others because I thought they were irrelevant or unnecessary for a consumer complaint vent. Everything I said is verifiable: my wife's original request is a copy of the message sent by the manager to Corporate. His e to the WA BBB, his statement to the BBB, I've got copies of everything and was all set to present them to a Small Claims Court Judge before it went to the attorneys.

I'm not looking for sympathy and this is definitely not a scam. I think it is outrageous that any merchant should refuse service to anyone on a whim and then allege the customer was a disreputable character.

Infer my sweetheart is a prostitute - you've got a scrap on your hands and I don't care if I don't win a popularity contest - I'll complain at the top of my lungs long and loud, win or lose - let the chips fall where they will.

The only person who makes an inference to his wife allegedly being a hooker is himself.
There is no way for anyone else to ever make a connection like that.

I did some research and found d**k (Richard Colbeth ) has posted on several consumer complaint websites.



His claims in each post don't always agree with other claims he has made, nor does the time line in some of his posts make any sense.



It is almost like he is posting these claims like a stalker against this motel.



Here is one he posted on 12-29-06:

"My wife & I have been staying at that motel for over a decade, with absolutely no problems whatsoever, last stay, May 29th. When I tried to make a reservation in November, they told me Manager Lee Judson had put us on his Do Not Rent list. This list is typically reserved by the hotel/motel industry for drug dealers and prostitutes...! My wife and I are both quiet, responsible, disabled senior citizens. I've been staying at hotels/motels over half the planet for about 1/2 a century. I probably stayed at that Seaside Motel 6 while Judson was still in High School. Manager Judson absolutely refuses to say why he put us on that horrible list. I would like him to #1. Apologize to my wife for the egregious guilt by association he caused her and to me for assassinating my character. #2. He should admit he made a mistake and He should take us off that list and restore us to full acceptance.

Thanks very much for your support.

Richard Colbeth "





Here is one posted on 4/25/07:

"John & Kim Wolf, Portland, Oregon are the Franchisees of the Seaside, Oregon Motel 6. They allow their manager, Lee Judson, to put innocent people on his nefarious Do Not Rent list generally reserved in the hospitality industry for prostitutes and drug dealers! We were put on it without notice and only found out about it when we made a reservation for our 19th wedding anniversary 3 months after the fact, totally wrecking our celebration plans.

My "drugs" of choice are aspirin & Saw Palmetto and I don't deal those. The Wolf/Judson inference that my beautiful, disabled senior citizen bride of 19 years is a prostitute is character assassination of the worst sort and in my opinion is professional malpractice.



BOLI doesn't agree, but in my opinion, the way the Wolfs' manager Judson is using that horrible list of his is discriminatory and deprived us of our basic civil right to public accomodation.



Thanks very much for your support.

Richard Colbeth "



Here is one posted on 5/18/07:

"My wife & I had been happily staying at the Seaside, Oregon, Motel 6 for over a decade with no problems whatsoever.

Back in August '06, at about 6 am, I left the room to get a cup of coffee and I simply described what I thought may have been evidence of bed bugs to the desk clerk. He said they didn't have them so I forgot our momentary conversation.



Well, the clerk reported me as being abrasive and the manager, Lee Judson, put us on his Do Not Rent list...!

I thought if they had the nasty critters they would want to know about it; apparently not.



I think they ought to apologize to my wife and me... actually, the parent company, Accor North America, did, so did Accor HQ in France, but Judson is adamant.



I think they ought to offer us a complimentary stay and total reinstatement - after the place is thoroughly checked for bed bugs, of course.





Thanks very much for your support.

Richard Colbeth "





Do you notice that the last post does not match the first two? Do you notice how in the last post he tries to say that there were bed bugs there at the motel....but this was not point out in a previous post.



Here is a post he made from another site:

"Seaside, Oregon, Motel 6 Manager, Lee Judson, put my wife & me on his nefarious Do Not Rent list for no valid reason. I complained to this site and a dozen more consumer complaint sites for the past 8 months. I finally sued him in Small Claims Court for $5,000. He countersued me for $100,000.00. I'm going to go pro se for the fun of it and the learning experience. This will be instructional for any consumer complaint advocates out there as well. I don't see how I can lose, but one never knows. If I do lose, this will be a lesson 1) Next time a business gives you the business, tuck your tail between your legs and silently steal away. 2) Going pro se might not be a good idea. I'll keep you informed."



He then has posted the same thing he has posted here asking for "donations".

There is always three sides to a story as this. Your's, their's, and that wavy line down the middle called the truth.



Without any explanation, other than the emotional "disability" claim, I wouldn't expect any donations.



Why don't you post the text of their suit against you? Then we can decide whether to help.

You have filed this story on other sites. What you forgot to mention this time was that YOU sued the motel first simply because the owner stated that he no longer would rent to you and your wife. As there were no legal grounds for you to have filed this suit since the business had violated no law, you received a legitimate counter suit for filing a frivolous suit.



As you stated on another web site, your attorney worked out a deal that would prevent you from having to pay damages and penalties to the motel IF YOU WOULD STOP POSTING THINGS ABOUT THE MOTEL ON CONSUMER COMPLAINT SITES. Almost everyone who read your other complaints told you that your attorney had worked out a VERY good deal for you, as you were the person in the wrong. Did the settlement fall through because you failed to stop posting on the complaint sites?



You are being very foolish to try to elicit sympathy for the situation you created for yourself. Parading your disabled wife in front of us is not going to make anyone feel sorry for you. You easily could have followed the terms of the settlement and accepted that the motel could choose whether it wanted to do business with you.



As you seem to have violated that settlement, you now need to accept the consequences like an adult.

reeks of scam.



Your post stated no actual facts. Why don't you add some facts, like what court is the lawsuit filed, so people can actually verify.