If this issue was useful, send it to someone who’d use it.
Like it above if you got something from it.

Share

Bad actors leave fingerprints. Bad corporate actors leave PDFs.

This is the first in a recurring series. The format is simple. Pick a company operating in the emotional-support-animal documentation industry. Lay out its conduct using the company’s own records. Stop there.

We start with American Service Pets, a d/b/a of Greater Guide, Inc., because they have done the public a favor. They have placed nearly every relevant admission about their business model on a federal court docket. They did this voluntarily. They did this as plaintiffs. They are now stuck with all of it.

The fact pattern below is mine. The federal record is theirs.

A message from REVOLT Insights

Civil litigation drafting built to survive a hostile read

Pleadings, motions, and statutory filings drafted for licensed Florida and federal practitioners. Practice areas: Chapter 119, §57.105, FDUTPA, §1983, qualified immunity, and dispositive motions. Every citation Shepardized through Lexis. Build Sheet with every draft. Flat-fee. Law-firm-only by design. The retaining attorney directs and signs every filing.

Need a helping hand?

§ 1. The transaction

On November 28, 2025, a fictitious persona named “T. Dirk Diggler” submitted an intake questionnaire to americanservicepets.com. Symptom inventory self-scored 23 out of 45. Requested ESA: a Labrador retriever named “Scooby Doo.” Black Friday checkout. On brand.

By 8:40 AM, Paul Hanson, Ph.D., Florida psychologist license PY 4391, addressed at 1225 W. Beaver Street, Suite 205-1, Jacksonville, emailed Diggler asking for “any additional information by email regarding your mental health issues.” That was the entirety of the clinical engagement Hanson would conduct.

At 9:18 AM, Diggler responded with a free-text narrative citing “Persistent Post-Quantum Anxiety Disorder” and describing “crazy waves tied to a feeling of ‘splitting paths’ … like multiple outcomes are happening at once.” Diggler explained that his Labrador “nudges me and sits against my legs, bring me back to earth.”

Persistent Post-Quantum Anxiety Disorder is not in the DSM-5. Not in the DSM-5-TR. Not in the ICD-10, the ICD-11, or any peer-reviewed clinical literature ever produced on this Earth. It is a joke.

Then again, it’s intentionally not funny, a stress test seeing how far the issued could be pressed.

At 10:07 AM, Hanson approved the letter. “Thank you so much Dirk for providing me with this additional information. I will go ahead and approve your letter. I wish you the very best.” The signed ESA letter declared Diggler “meets the criteria under the Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” and stated that Diggler “has a mental health condition as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which substantially impacts major life activities.”

Forty-nine minutes from fictional disorder to signed federal-rights document. No phone call. No video. No clinician contact beyond two emails.

ASP charged Diggler money for it.

§ 2. The product is not what they say it is

ASP markets, on its website:

• “HUD/FHA Compliant”

• “Stop paying pet fees”

• “Housing fees waived”

• “100% guaranteed”

Those are not clinical claims. Those are legal claims. They describe the operational effect of a federal-law-derived right, not the symptomatology, prognosis, or treatment plan of any human being.

This matters for two reasons.

Florida mental-health professionals are licensed to evaluate, diagnose, and treat mental and emotional conditions. They are not licensed to interpret the Fair Housing Amendments Act, draft accommodation demands binding on third parties, or prepare documents whose primary function is to assert federal statutory rights against landlords. That is law. Performing law without a law license, under The Florida Bar v. Sperry (Fla. 1962), Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh (Fla. 1978), and Florida Bar v. Neiman (Fla. 2002), is the unauthorized practice of law.

Second, when a non-lawyer corporate entity directs a licensee to produce legal-effect documents, the corporate entity is engaged in UPL, and the licensee is its conduit. The Bar has prosecuted exactly this pattern as a “document mill” arrangement. A corporation is not a lawyer. A corporation cannot become one by hiring a signatory.

ASP markets legal outcomes. ASP sells legal outcomes. ASP is not a law firm and employs no attorneys to perform the legal-interpretive work it advertises and bills for.

Visit REVOLT Training to learn more.

§ 3. The UPL is not subtle

Hours after the Diggler letter issued, Diggler emailed Hanson with a manufactured housing problem. A landlord, said Diggler, was demanding to see the “full file” — the assessment, the notes, the questionnaire, anything substantiating the evaluation. Diggler had until Monday morning to produce records or face fees and eviction.

Hanson responded at 7:37 PM that night, from his personal Gmail account:

“Please be advised that your landlord has no legal right to any of that information. He is clearly violating your rights and I would suggest that if they do not accept your letter that you inform them that you will be filing a complaint with HUD. I also would advise you to contact American Service Pets on Monday morning and report this conduct.”

Four sentences. Hanson, with no law license, (1) interpreted the landlord’s obligations under federal housing law, (2) characterized the landlord’s behavior as a legal violation, (3) drafted litigation strategy (”filing a complaint with HUD”), and (4) directed the consumer to the corporate entity for further enforcement coordination.

Each is the practice of law. None is the practice of psychology.

It is also a HIPAA violation. Hanson conducted this exchange, including the receipt and storage of protected health information, through phanson1014@gmail.com. There is no Business Associate Agreement available for a personal Gmail address. There is no PHI encryption-at-rest contract. 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502 and 164.306 are not optional for licensed clinicians, and “I prefer my iPhone for work email” is not a recognized exemption. The Office for Civil Rights at HHS may have opinions about this, in due course.

Allow me to say that again, for a particular someone reading this … in due course.

But focus on the UPL, because that is the structural element. The legal advice was not an off-script ad-lib by a rogue contractor. It came at the end of a transaction whose entire commercial purpose was to produce a document marketed as legally enforceable. The advice was the closer. It was the part where ASP, through Hanson, told the consumer how to operationalize the legal product they had just bought.

That is not the periphery of ASP’s business. That is the business.

§ 4. The custodial paradox

T. Chaz Stevens, aka me, in my capacity as an investigator using a clearly fictitious persona for a clearly disclosed test purchase, served a HIPAA records-access request on November 30, 2025. The request asked for the assessment file underlying the ESA letter. Notes. Questionnaire responses. Whatever ASP and Hanson maintained.

The responses came back as exhibits.

Hanson, on November 30 at 10:19 AM: “The staff at American Service Pets will be available tomorrow. You can request your file from them as they maintain all your records.”

ASP customer service representative Tammy Lobell, that same morning at 11:08 AM: “Since I am unable to send you your full records directly via email, I recommend checking any previous communications you received from us … Unfortunately, I am unable to directly email or resend your documentation from here.” She redirected the request to documents@mypsychologygroup.com, a separate domain not within ASP’s stated infrastructure, and one ASP has not publicly explained.

Hanson points at ASP. ASP cannot produce. Both claim the file is somewhere. Neither produces it.

Up their ass, as the great philosopher Nanny would opine.

There are two possible explanations.

1. The assessment file exists but neither party will produce it. That is itself a federal records-access violation under 45 C.F.R. § 164.524 and a Florida psychologist-recordkeeping violation under Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B19-19.0025.

2. Or the assessment file does not exist, because no assessment occurred.

The elapsed time between Diggler’s fictional-disorder narrative and Hanson’s letter approval was forty-nine minutes. The principal symptom was fictional.

Wait, it gets stupider.

Visit REVOLT Training to learn more.

§ 5. They sued someone for doing exactly this

In Greater Guide, Inc. d/b/a American Service Pets v. SAPS LLC, et al., No. 2:25-cv-00428 (E.D. La.), Section “J”(5), ASP, as plaintiff, sued a competitor and a non-profit called Prevent ESA Fraud, along with its principal Dominick Latino III, alleging Sherman Antitrust Act violations, civil RICO, and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violations. The theory: those defendants had, in ASP’s words, “created allegedly fraudulent accounts and thereby engag[ed] the services of third-party mental health professionals through ASP’s website” and then “mailed complaints to state regulatory agencies concerning independent mental health professionals who contracted with [ASP].”

ASP went to federal court arguing that competitors who used fictitious accounts to obtain ESA letters from ASP, and then filed regulatory complaints, had violated federal racketeering, antitrust, and computer-fraud statutes by doing so.

Sound familiar?

On October 31, 2025, the Honorable Carl J. Barbier, United States District Judge, dismissed every federal claim ASP had asserted with prejudice. The state-law claims he dismissed without prejudice. ASP could refile them in state court. So far it has not.

The basis was the Noerr-Pennington doctrine (I’ve read it, have you?), which holds that filing complaints with government regulators is protected First Amendment petitioning activity, and the only way to strip away that immunity is to show the petitioning is “objectively baseless” — sham petitioning, in the Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures sense.

Judge Barbier was unimpressed with the sham-petitioning argument. At page 9 of the order: “One thing Plaintiff has not alleged, however, is that Defendants’ complaints to state regulatory boards are untrue.” ASP did not contest the truth of the regulatory complaints. ASP contested only that competitors had used “fictitious accounts” to obtain the underlying letters.

Then, ten lines later, Judge Barbier laid out which state laws the regulatory complaints rested on. Louisiana’s Support and Service Animal Integrity Act, La. Stat. Ann. § 46:1974. California’s Health & Safety Code § 122318. Florida’s § 760.27. All three statutes existed before ASP entered any of those markets. All three require things ASP’s workflow, as described in its own pleadings, does not provide. In-person or remote synchronous engagement. A pre-existing client-provider relationship. An actual clinical evaluation, performed at least thirty days before issuance.

The federal court found the petitioning was not baseless because the underlying state laws are real, the requirements are real, and the regulatory complaints fell squarely within those requirements.

Translation: a federal court, examining the conduct of one of ASP’s competitors, held that filing regulatory complaints with state boards based on documented test purchases, even where the underlying accounts used fictitious personas, falls squarely within Noerr-Pennington. ASP cannot sue people for filing those complaints. They tried. They lost. The order is on the docket.

Suck it, ASP.

I am not the SAPS defendants. What I did to ASP via the Diggler persona is materially identical to what those defendants did.

And I did this on purpose.

Greater Guide is not, technically, the law in the Eleventh Circuit. Noerr-Pennington reasoning is constitutional in derivation, the underlying statutes are functionally parallel, and the persuasive value travels the way persuasive value travels: ASP told the federal court, on the record, that it had no good answer.

Look Court, there’s Bigfoot! Nothing to see over here!

§ 6. The pleading concessions

Beyond Noerr-Pennington, ASP did something more interesting in its federal pleadings. It described its own business model in language the court accepted as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss.

From the order, page 9, summarizing ASP’s own attached exhibit:

“Of the eight complaints that Plaintiff included in this list, all but one of them is based on Defendants’ (Prevent ESA Fraud and Dominick Latino III specifically) allegation that an independent mental healthcare provider issued an ESA certification letter to an ‘investigator’ based solely on an online evaluation. In its pleadings, Plaintiff does not refute this allegation.”

ASP attached, to its own complaint, a list of regulatory complaints filed against ASP-affiliated providers in Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and Washington. ASP described those complaints. ASP did not contest the underlying facts: that ASP-affiliated providers had issued ESA letters “based solely on an online evaluation” without any synchronous clinical engagement. ASP’s only position was that the people filing the complaints were doing so for anticompetitive reasons.

That distinction collapses on contact with the law. If the regulatory complaints accurately described ASP-affiliated providers’ workflow, and if that workflow violated state statutes, then competitors filing accurate regulatory complaints are protected petitioners regardless of motive. Anticompetitive motive does not strip Noerr-Pennington immunity from accurate petitioning. The court held this expressly.

So ASP, in pursuing federal claims it would lose, did not refute that:

1. Its affiliated providers had issued ESA letters “based solely on an online evaluation” in the eight transactions described.

2. This conduct had been the subject of regulatory complaints in six states.

3. The factual accuracy of those complaints was not in dispute.

These are admissions on a federal docket. They are admissible against ASP in subsequent litigation as party admissions under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). Under Fla. Stat. § 90.406, the documented multi-state pattern is admissible as evidence of habit and routine practice. ASP cannot, in the Hanson matter or any other matter, argue that what happened with Diggler was a one-off mistake. ASP’s own federal pleadings describe it as the system.

ASP went to federal court to silence critics and produced a permanent federal order describing its operational model in the language of those critics. The complaint became the evidence.

It’s called, technically speaking, “Streisand’ing oneself.”

§ 7. The signatory is the symptom

I have been careful not to make this piece about Hanson individually. He is a Florida-licensed clinical psychologist, license PY 4391. His conduct in the Diggler matter is the subject of separate litigation correspondence, which his counsel of record as of December 2025, Bruce Lamb of Gunster in Jacksonville, has been holding without response since December 5, 2025. Five months of silence is its own data point. The matter is unadjudicated and I treat it that way.

Sometimes you have to let the chili simmer on the back burner.

Hanson’s individual licensure is not the structural story.

The structural story is the system that recruited Hanson, deployed his name and license number on a letter approved forty-nine minutes after a fictional-disorder narrative arrived in his inbox, automated the post-letter UPL email instructing consumers how to assert federal rights against landlords, and routed records-access requests to a separate corporate domain, documents@mypsychologygroup.com, that ASP itself appears unable to access.

Take Hanson out of the picture. Replace him with any other Florida-licensed clinician on ASP’s roster. The workflow does not change. The marketing claims do not change. The post-letter UPL automation does not change. The custodial paradox does not change. The federal pleadings do not change.

The harm is not one signature. The harm is the architecture.

Architecture is what regulators regulate. Architecture is what consumer-protection statutes are aimed at. Architecture is what payment networks delist for, what advertising platforms suspend for, and what state attorneys general file civil enforcement actions over.

§ 8. A short detour through the indifference

A reasonable reader, having gotten this far, might wonder why the press has not already covered this. Or the regulators. Or the consumer-advocacy ecosystem.

The press, by and large, does not give a flying fuck.

Not because reporters are lazy or compromised, most are neither, but because the modern attention economy does not pay reporters to cover seventeen-step structural-fraud cases against companies most readers have never heard of. Click-bait has a body, a celebrity, a fire, or a verdict-reading. It does not have a forty-nine-minute issuance interval, a Noerr-Pennington analysis, and a custodial paradox involving two domains and a HIPAA access request. There are exceptions: Bryan Polcyn at FOX6 Milwaukee has done genuine industry-wide work on ESA documentation fraud. The general newsroom posture is benign neglect.

The relevant subreddits are uninterested for the opposite reason. If a landlord is the one defrauded by a fake ESA letter, the response is approximately booyah, the landlord deserves it. If the public writ large is the one defrauded, through corroded credibility, clogged regulatory channels, and the steady debasement of a federal accommodation mechanism that disabled people actually rely on, the response is also approximately booyah, the public writ large deserves it. The communities that should care do not, because the harm is diffuse and the immediate vibe is anti-establishment, and a fraudulent ESA letter feels, in the moment, like a small act of class warfare against landlords. It isn’t. The actual victim is the next disabled tenant whose legitimate ESA letter gets refused because the landlord assumes everyone is running the Diggler play.

Regulators are not indifferent. They are under-resourced. The Florida Department of Health has finite staff. The Florida Bar’s UPL division has finite staff. HHS OCR has finite staff. State attorneys general have finite staff. Each of those bodies operates on a complaint-driven model. The bottleneck is not regulatory will. The bottleneck is the volume of well-documented complaints reaching the desks of the people authorized to act on them.

ASP built its business around all three indifferences. The press will not cover it because it is not click-bait. The internet will not police it because the immediate optics flatter the wrong instincts. The regulators cannot police it at scale because nobody is feeding them documented files at the rate the industry generates problems.

What ASP did not count on is me.

§ 9. Why this matters past the joke

The Diggler persona was ridiculous on purpose. Persistent Post-Quantum Anxiety Disorder is funny on purpose. The Labrador’s name is funny on purpose. The satire is the demonstration that ASP’s workflow has no internal capacity to detect any form of consumer-side fraud, however blatant.

This is not victimless.

When a real disabled person presents a real ESA letter to a real landlord, that letter rests on a chain of credibility built up over decades of clinical, statutory, and regulatory work. Letter mills like ASP corrode that chain. Every fraudulent ESA letter accepted by a landlord is followed by three legitimate letters held to a higher standard than the law actually requires, because the landlord no longer believes any of them. The downstream cost is borne by people with documented disabilities trying to assert real federal rights. They get the friction. The mills get the revenue.

Florida Statute § 760.27, passed in 2020 under SB 1084, exists to prevent this. It requires that a clinician issuing ESA documentation have personal knowledge of the patient’s condition. ASP’s business model, as described in ASP’s own federal pleadings, does not provide for personal knowledge. ASP charged a fictional patient money for a letter signed by a clinician who had exchanged two emails with that patient over forty-nine minutes. § 760.27 is not ambiguous about whether that is permissible.

Florida Statute § 817.265 makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to knowingly provide fraudulent disability documentation. The federal Fair Housing Act assumes that the ESA documentation circulating in the housing market is, on the whole, legitimate. ASP’s workflow tests both assumptions to destruction.

Florida’s UPL framework, Sperry, Brumbaugh, Neiman, Bar Rule 10-2.2, exists because the legal interpretation of federal law, applied to specific factual situations, with the purpose of binding third parties to legal obligations, is supposed to be done by people who passed the bar exam and carry malpractice insurance. ASP’s post-letter email automation does the legal interpretation. Hanson, in a personal Gmail account, did the legal interpretation. Neither one passed the bar exam.

Each of these statutes is enforceable by a different agency. FDUTPA, § 501.204, by the Florida Attorney General. § 760.27 in private civil actions. § 817.265 by the State Attorney. UPL by The Florida Bar. HIPAA by HHS OCR. The professional license itself by the Florida Department of Health, Board of Psychology. None of those bodies acts on its own knowledge. They act on complaints. The complaint is the input. The investigation is the output. The cost is a postage stamp and a couple of attached PDFs.

I filed my UPL complaint against Hanson on December 1, 2025. Other complaints have followed.

§ 10. Closing the file

ASP is the case study. The treatise frame is broader. There is a generation of corporate ESA letter mills operating in the same shape: same questionnaire-only intake, same post-letter UPL automation, same payment-processor exposure, same federal court docket if and when one of them is incautious enough to sue someone.

Some of the rest are watching. Some are not.

The ones who are not watching, I will get to in subsequent writing.

The ones who are watching may wish to consider what their own intake-to-letter timing looks like, what their own consumer-facing marketing language describes, and whether anyone on staff has ever issued legal advice to a consumer in a position adverse to a third party. The Florida Bar is interested in that conduct. The Florida Attorney General is interested in that conduct. The federal payment networks are interested in that conduct.

This piece relies on ASP’s own marketing materials, ASP’s own emails, the federal court order ASP itself caused to be entered against ASP’s interests, and my own documented test purchase. It is opinion where it is opinion and fact where it is fact, and it is neither libelous nor defamatory under Florida law, including the anti-SLAPP protections of Fla. Stat. § 768.295. Corrections to anything misrepresented above will be made promptly upon documentation.

The Hanson matter remains unadjudicated and is treated that way throughout. ASP is bound by Florida law, by federal law, and by its own pleadings.

ASP built a business model that depends on three forms of indifference, press, public, and bandwidth-limited regulators, to remain commercially viable. They did not anticipate a fourth variable in the equation.

I’m sitting at my desk in Deerfield Beach. With all the receipts. And giant balls.

T. Chaz Stevens, MSc, also known on Reddit as ChurchOMarsChaz, is a CLE-faculty consumer-protection researcher and pro se litigant in South Florida. He is not a lawyer.

A message from REVOLT Insights

Sufficient Records Win Before Appeals Begin

Trial records do not assemble themselves. Sufficient Records Engineering identifies missing rulings, weak objections, transcript gaps, and preservation problems before they become appellate failure points. We help litigators build the paper trail courts need: cleaner issues, stronger arguments, fewer surprises, and a record engineered to survive review.

We Can Help

A note on what follows: this piece is commentary on publicly filed regulatory complaints, on the publicly available record, and on the live website at issue. The 2024 BHEC Agreed Order is final and adjudicated. Everything about the December 2025 filings, and the May 2026 supplement, is allegation — not finding. The agencies will decide.

The 2024 case

In July 2025, the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council issued an Agreed Order against Miki Tesh, LCSW (License #53341), the therapist featured on emotionalsupportanimalsoftexas.com. The Council found that on or about September 15, 2023, Tesh had issued an Emotional Support Animal letter diagnosing a client with a “psychiatric disability” after — and I want you to sit with this — only reviewing a questionnaire and conducting a brief phone call about administrative issues.

That was the clinical encounter. A form and a phone call.

Subscribe now

The Council’s findings were polite but unmistakable: “Respondent’s assessment process was inadequate and did not meet accepted professional standards to diagnose or determine disability.” Plain regulator-speak for: this is not how you do an evaluation.

Tesh’s license was reprimanded. The Order required a $2,500 administrative penalty (split as $2,000 in administrative costs and $500 as the penalty itself). The Order also recorded that Tesh “has implemented numerous corrective actions to ensure that a similar violation does not occur.” Brian Clark signed for the staff on July 7, 2025. Darrel Spinks, the Executive Director, ratified the Order in July 2025.

End of story? Not even close.

The disclosure law

According to two December 2025 complaints, while the Tesh Agreed Order was being finalized, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 4224, codified at Texas Health and Safety Code §181.105. The complaints assert that the law took effect September 1, 2025, and requires “covered entities” — which the complaints argue Tesh’s operation qualifies as under §181.001, because it evaluates and stores Protected Health Information for commercial gain — to prominently post on their website detailed instructions telling consumers how to:

1. Request their health care records.

2. Contact the disciplinary or licensing authority (in Tesh’s case, BHEC).

3. File a consumer complaint with the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division.

Layered on top is 22 TAC §884.31, the BHEC rule the complaints cite as requiring licensees to provide public notice of the Council’s name, address, and telephone number for directing complaints.

The whole point, as the complaints frame it, is consumer transparency: anyone purchasing a medical accommodation document for commercial purposes should know how to audit the provider, demand the underlying records, and complain when something looks off.

The complaints

On December 19, 2025, two complaints were filed:

The first went to BHEC’s Enforcement Division, alleging — based on a review of the website that day — that the three required pathways were not prominently displayed. The Council acknowledged receipt on December 23 and assigned TBHEC Complaint No. 2026-00297. Charles Gonzales, Enforcement Assistant, signed the acknowledgment letter. Projected resolution: six to twelve months.

The second went to the Texas Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, framed as a deceptive trade practice under three categories: False/Misleading Statements or Advertising, Quality of Care Concerns, and Failure to Provide Requested Health Care Documents/Records. That filing is now logged as TCP-021426, with the BHEC narrative attached.

What changed between filing and now

Here’s where the story turns. As of May 9, 2026 — five months after the complaints were filed — the website does contain a disclosure section. It lives on the FAQ page (URL: emotionalsupportanimalsoftexas.com/ufaq/). It has three subsections:

• “The Right to See and Get Copies of Your PHI” — describes a 30-day records-request process and a $25 fee.

• “How to file a Patient Privacy or other Complaint” — lists, as bulleted hyperlinks: “BEHC” (sic — the typo is on the site), the Texas Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, and HHS Office for Civil Rights.

• “Notice to Clients” — explains that BHEC investigates professional misconduct by social workers and provides the address (1801 Congress Ave., Ste. 7.300, Austin, Texas 78701), main number (512) 305-7700, and the toll-free 1-800-821-3205.

I checked the underlying HTML. The links are real and they go to the right places: the BEHC link points to bhec.texas.gov/how-to-file-a-complaint/, and the Consumer Protection link points to the AG’s actual file-a-complaint page. The “BEHC” typo doesn’t break anything; a user who clicks lands on BHEC’s page.

So: today, the consumer-disclosure pathways the complaint said were missing have appeared. That’s not nothing. That’s regulatory pressure doing the work it’s supposed to do.

The interesting question is whether what’s now there satisfies §181.105’s “prominently posted” standard.

What “prominently posted” might mean

Three things worth noticing about the live page.

First, what the navigation tells consumers exists. The site’s main menu has eighteen items. They include “Texas ESA Letter,” “GET STARTED NOW!,” “What I charge,” “About me,” “Reviews,” “Service Dog Letter,” “ESA for Campus Housing,” “What if my apartment rejects my letter?,” “Affordable spay, neuter, vaccines,” “Locations,” “Infographics,” and “Texas ESA PSA Blog.” There is no menu item called “Notice of Privacy Practices,” “Patient Rights,” “File a Complaint,” or anything that would flag the existence of a disclosure section. The disclosures are reachable only by clicking a menu item called “All FAQs,” which a reasonable consumer would read as a help page about emotional support animals.

Second, the page where the disclosures live is structurally an FAQ archive. The HTML page title is “Archives: FAQs.” The H1 is “Archives: FAQs.” The disclosure block is the first item in a list that also includes “What if my ESA letter is rejected?” and “What else are emotional support animals or service dog in Texas called?” Same heading style, same formatting, same visual weight. The disclosure is a peer of “what else are ESAs called,” not a dedicated notice block.

Third, the framing. The complaint pathway header reads: “How to file a Patient Privacy or other Complaint.” The introductory sentence reads: “If you believe your PHI has been or may have been used or disclosed in violation of HIPAA or the Texas Medical Records Privacy Act you may file a complaint with...” That framing scopes the disclosure to privacy complaints — i.e., grievances about how PHI was handled. A consumer with the exact kind of grievance that produced the 2024 BHEC case — namely, an inadequate clinical assessment — would not read this paragraph as describing a pathway available to them. They’d read it as the privacy-complaint section, scroll past, and never reach the “Notice to Clients” paragraph below it that describes BHEC’s actual professional-misconduct jurisdiction.

None of that is a finding. It’s a description of the live page. Whether it adds up to “prominently posted” is precisely what BHEC and the AG now have in front of them.

The supplement

On May 9, 2026, a supplement to the original BHEC complaint was filed with the Council’s Enforcement Division, on the open file in TBHEC Complaint No. 2026-00297. The supplement does three things and only three things.

It updates the factual record by attaching the May 9 capture of the live site and the underlying HTML source, and noting that the website was modified at some point between December 19, 2025 and the filing date.

It identifies the four features of the current configuration that bear on the prominence question: that the disclosures are reachable from the main navigation only via a menu item titled “All FAQs”; that the page hosting the disclosures is, structurally, a WordPress category-archive page titled “Archives: FAQs”; that the complaint-pathway subsection’s introductory sentence scopes the pathway to PHI/HIPAA grievances rather than to the broader category of consumer or professional-misconduct grievances; and that the visible label on the BHEC hyperlink reads “BEHC” rather than “BHEC,” even though the underlying link target is correct.

And it explicitly disclaims any specific outcome, asking only that the Council evaluate whether the current configuration satisfies the prominence requirements of §181.105 and 22 TAC §884.31.

That’s it. No new allegations, no editorial, no demand for a particular sanction. The supplement is two pages plus exhibits.

The reason for filing is preemptive. Without it, an investigator visiting the site for the first time during the six-to-twelve-month review window sees disclosures present and reasonably infers the original complaint has been overtaken by events. The supplement removes that inference. It locks in the December 19 baseline, documents the post-filing change as a change, and identifies the structural deficiencies an investigator might otherwise miss on a casual site visit.

Why this matters

Stack the timeline:

• On or about September 15, 2023 — Tesh issues the ESA letter that launched the original BHEC complaint.

• July 2025 — BHEC ratifies the Agreed Order. Reprimand. $2,500 penalty. Finding of corrective action.

• September 1, 2025 — HB 4224’s disclosure mandate takes effect, according to the complaints.

• December 19, 2025 — Website reviewed. Disclosures, the complaints allege, absent. BHEC and AG complaints filed.

• May 9, 2026 — Supplement filed with BHEC, identifying the structural prominence concerns about the updated site.

The 2024 BHEC complaint was about clinical assessment. The December 2025 complaints are about disclosure. Today’s site shows that the December complaints produced movement: the disclosures the complainant said were missing now exist, with working links. That tends to confirm the complaint’s reading of §181.105 was at least colorable — if it weren’t, you’d expect the site to be unchanged.

But the kind of movement matters. What’s now on the site is the minimum-viable compliance posture: a disclosure block on the FAQ page, with no nav-menu signal, framed as a HIPAA-privacy section, and with the regulator’s name visibly typo’d. A consumer who paid $78 and was unhappy with their evaluation would not, plausibly, find their way through this layout to BHEC’s actual professional-misconduct intake.

Whether that’s “prominently posted” within the meaning of §181.105 is the question. If the answer is yes — if a buried-under-FAQs, HIPAA-framed disclosure block satisfies the statute — then HB 4224 is a much weaker consumer-protection tool than the legislature reportedly designed. If the answer is no, then the December complaints and the May supplement will have done two pieces of work: forcing the disclosures onto the site at all, and clarifying what “prominent” actually requires.

That’s what the supplement was filed to put in front of BHEC.

What happens next

BHEC has Complaint No. 2026-00297 open, now with the supplement on file. The AG’s office has TCP-021426 logged with the BHEC narrative attached. The agencies will take their time — six to twelve months, by BHEC’s own published schedule.

In the meantime, the website is live in its current form. The orange “Schedule Appointment” button still recurs on the marketing pages. The $78 fee still applies. The disclosures exist; the question is whether existing on the FAQ page is the same as being prominently posted.

That is the gap §181.105 was, per the complaints, written to close.

We’ll see if it closes here.

Timothy “Chaz” Stevens runs Revolt Training and investigates ESA letter-mill operations across multiple states. The complaint documents referenced here, including the original BHEC Agreed Order against Miki Tesh (Complaint No. 2024-00218), the December 2025 BHEC complaint (No. 2026-00297), the Texas AG complaint (TCP-021426), and the May 9, 2026 supplement to the BHEC complaint, are publicly available regulatory filings and are available on request. The May 9, 2026 review of emotionalsupportanimalsoftexas.com was conducted against the live site and the page’s HTML source.

One More Thing

I’ve been doing this work for thirty years. Pro se lawsuits. Records requests. Bible challenges in 63 school districts. An FDUTPA injunction against an ESA letter mill, obtained without a lawyer. Statutes rewritten because I filed the wrong kind of paperwork the right way.

None of it has ever had an institution behind it.

No legal defense fund. No nonprofit board. No foundation grant. I fund the work myself. Filing fees, service, transcripts, records costs—it all lands on me. When a records custodian quotes $1,326.08 to produce documents the statute requires them to produce, that’s a bill I either pay or the work stops.

I’ve filed against Donald Trump, the Broward County School Board, State Representative Chip LaMarca, and ESA letter mills as indigent. Court-recognized. Sworn financials. Judges reviewed and approved every time.

This is the work. It produces results.

HB 1467 was rewritten, with the administration of Ron DeSantis naming me in the revision. The ESA injunction is a replicable enforcement model. The Wisconsin State Capitol approved a permit in 48 hours for an installation that normally takes ten business days to process.

The work works.

The math doesn’t.

I’m looking for paid work in three areas—defined by outcomes, not categories.

Accountability & Records

I identify exposure points in agencies and organizations using public records, then force resolution—through compliance pressure, media, or litigation.

Media & Narrative Engineering

I design stories that land. Not pitches that get ignored—events and documentation that reporters have to cover.

Technology & Infrastructure (Ecomm, GEO/SEO, Systems)

I’ve spent thirty years building systems that move money and control visibility.

• Helped launch Disney.com and Blockbuster.com

• Sold 60,000 vehicles through eBay—full pipeline, not theory

• Worked inside NASA, IBM, and Microsoft

What I do now:

• Build e-commerce systems that convert, not just attract traffic

• Implement GEO/SEO so AI and search engines represent you accurately—and defensibly

• Diagnose and fix structural issues in digital infrastructure that suppress performance

If your organization has traffic but no conversion, visibility but no control, or systems that “work” but don’t scale—I fix that.

If you run a nonprofit, newsroom, law firm, municipality, university, or company that needs any of this, contact me.

chazstevens@gmail.com
954-901-0971

If you don’t, forward this. One introduction changes the month.

If neither applies, the Consent Can funds the work. Women In Distress gets a cut.

I’ve spent thirty years making it expensive for corrupt people to stay corrupt.

I intend to keep doing that—and get paid for it.

In the past week, an ESA and service animal company called PawPassRx launched two Reddit posts, a commercial website with four product tiers, and an “About the Founder” page in which the founder, identified only as Cody S. Gerald Cody of Tennessee, lays out the operating model of the business in his own voice, on the record.

Cody has, voluntarily and in marketing copy he signed his name to, made statements that describe the structural problem with the entire post-Tinner online ESA documentation industry. He is one of the first operators in this space to tell the truth about how the model works. His “truth” is interesting. It is also actionable on at least four independent legal theories.

The founder, in his own words

Cody is, by his own description, a U.S. Army veteran (68W combat medic), a holder of a B.S. in Psychology, and the founder of PawPassRx. He is explicit about what he is not:

“Not a licensed mental health professional. I do not diagnose, treat, or write ESA / PSD letters myself. The licensed clinicians in our network do that work. Not a licensed attorney. Information on this site is educational, not legal advice.”

He is also explicit about what he is. The about page states he has spent “the last 10+ years operating a network of state-licensed mental health professionals who evaluate clients and issue assistance-animal documentation.”

Our OSINT seems to indicate otherwise, but that’s another post.

Read that sentence again. He is a non-clinician, non-lawyer who has spent a decade operating a network of clinicians whose function is issuing assistance-animal documentation. He is the commercial operator of a network whose product is clinical documentation, sold to consumers under his commercial brand.

That sentence is the whole industry, written down. It is also the operating model that Stevens v. Tinner et al., Broward County Case No. CACE25010712, addressed by permanent injunction on April 17, 2026. The clinician’s identity is not visible to the consumer at point of sale. The platform is the consumer’s commercial counterparty. The clinician downstream produces the deliverable. The operator in the middle is, by his own description, neither clinician nor lawyer, but is functionally directing the commercial frame within which both kinds of work happen.

The about page extends the model. The founder describes “routinely connecting clients facing illegal discrimination with lawyers” who have secured reasonable accommodations from landlords. The operator who is not a clinician but operates a clinical network also operates an attorney referral pipeline. He sends the customers who bought his documentation to the lawyers who litigate when the documentation gets rejected. The Reddit deployment post, a six-step playbook with verbatim demand-letter templates and forum-selection counsel, is not freestanding consumer education. It is the front-end customer journey for a referral pipeline operated by a non-lawyer.

A non-lawyer can refer a friend to a lawyer. A non-lawyer can run a free advice column. A non-lawyer can write about the law on the internet. None of that is the unauthorized practice of law. Florida, like most states, has been clear for forty years that doing those things as part of a commercial enterprise that profits from the legal services on offer, with tailored advice, with drafted legal correspondence templates, with forum-selection counsel, all in connection with product sale, is a different thing. The Florida Bar Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law has acted on far less.

The withdrawn notice they keep selling

One more sentence in the “areas of authority” section:

“How the Fair Housing Act, ADA Title III, ACAA, and HUD FHEO Notice 2020-01 function in real-world landlord, business, and airline interactions.”

HUD FHEO Notice 2020-01 was withdrawn by HUD on September 17, 2025.

The page is dated “current as of 2026.”

This is the third independent surface on the PawPassRx ecosystem where the company asserts the withdrawn notice as current authority. On the housing rights page, they cite it directly as governing the landlord’s accommodation duties. They cite it again as the source for the rule that a landlord cannot demand diagnosis details, cannot require a specific form, and cannot charge a pet deposit on an approved assistance animal.

Cody, or Gerald, or Gerry needs to get up to speed.

After Henderson v. Five Properties (5th Cir. 2025) and HUD’s September 2025 withdrawal of its fee-waiver guidance, the automatic ban on pet deposits is gone. In the Fifth Circuit, landlords can charge these fees unless the tenant proves the waiver is “indispensable and essential” to the housing.

Claiming a landlord “cannot” charge a deposit ignores the new necessity test. If the tenant can afford the fee, courts now often rule that a waiver is not a reasonable accommodation. It is an unnecessary financial bonus.

The no-fee rule originated in the Fair Housing Act and a 2020 HUD memorandum. Henderson held HUD overstepped. The decision reset the standard to one much stricter for tenants.

One caveat: the ruling binds the Fifth Circuit only — Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi. Any letter mill marketing the old “no pet deposit fees” rule to consumers in those three states is misleading them, intentionally or not.

PawPassRx has now been alerted. Any guess how quickly they will update the site?

They are, in their own words, the honest corner of Reddit.

On Reddit two days ago, the same company argued the opposite. They argued that the withdrawal of FHEO Notice 2020-01 cleared the federal field of any “personal knowledge” or “therapeutic relationship” requirement on letter-issuing clinicians. They want the notice gone when it constrains their letter-issuance practice. They want the notice in force when it constrains landlords from rejecting their letters.

The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, § 501.204, was written for that. Misrepresentation of legal authority, particularly representation of withdrawn agency guidance as currently binding, is squarely within the statute’s reach. The Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division has acted on far less. It is also a near-perfect FTC § 5 fact pattern.

The Reddit post that argued the FHEO 2020-01 withdrawal cleared the field also asserted that the FHA’s silence on the term “therapeutic relationship” means the term has no operational legal content. Statutory silence is not regulatory permission. The FHA’s silence on a defined “therapeutic relationship” does not mean the term has no operative content. It means the operative content lives in regulations, agency guidance, state law, professional licensure rules, telehealth statutes, common law, and consumer protection law. Those bodies of authority do not disappear because a federal statute is silent.

In Florida, Statute § 760.27, the state’s ESA-specific provision, requires that supporting documentation come from a health care practitioner who has “personal knowledge of the person’s disability” and is “acting within the scope of his or her practice.” The exact phrase PawPassRx says has no operational definition is right there in active state law. Verbatim.

The same statute goes further. It limits reliance on out-of-state practitioners to providers who have “provided in-person care or services to the tenant on at least one occasion.” That sentence is the entire cross-state telehealth ESA letter mill model, prohibited on the face of the statute, as to Florida tenants. A clinician licensed in Texas or Idaho or any other state cannot, under Florida law, provide reliable supporting documentation to a Florida tenant by video call alone. They must have provided in-person care, on at least one occasion, before any out-of-state-issued documentation can be considered reliable under § 760.27.

Florida Statute § 456.47 separately requires any out-of-state telehealth provider serving a Florida resident to be Florida-licensed or registered under the telehealth statute. Florida Statute § 501.204 makes deceptive trade practices actionable through both the Attorney General and private enforcement.

On April 17, 2026, the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit entered an Omnibus Order, agreed to by all parties in Stevens v. Tinner et al., permanently enjoining defendants from issuing ESA letters to Florida residents unless the letter is issued by a Florida-licensed mental-health professional or a § 456.47-authorized telehealth provider, the provider has conducted an individualized clinical evaluation establishing personal knowledge of the patient’s condition, the evaluation includes at least one synchronous real-time interaction (audio, video, or in-person), and the letter is not generated solely or primarily through automated systems, questionnaires, or template workflows.

The order is careful about what it does not prohibit. It expressly permits synchronous remote evaluations conducted by telephone or video conference. It expressly preserves provider independent professional judgment on evaluation methods, diagnostic standards, and duration of consultation. It expressly permits questionnaires, email exchanges, and form submissions used in conjunction with synchronous interaction. The order is not anti-telehealth. It is anti-questionnaire-only.

A legitimate licensed clinician conducting a real video call with a real patient, exercising real clinical judgment, has nothing to fear from the Tinner standard.

What the Tinner standard does not allow is the assembly-line model. A consumer fills out a form, the clinician (in some other state, sometimes never having met the consumer) signs a templated letter, the platform delivers the letter, and the customer-facing brand is a website. PawPassRx, or rather Cody S., who claims authority over how all of this functions in “real-world landlord, business, and airline interactions,” does not mention any of it.

The registration kit they sell while disclosing it does nothing

The airline page on PawPassRx advertises a Service Dog Registration Kit, $79, billed as “the most common pre-flight purchase among travel-focused handlers.” Blink. Rubbing eyes. Blink again. The product includes a printed ID card, a QR-verifiable certificate, and an “ADA Know-Your-Rights card.”

The U.S. Department of Justice has been saying this, in writing, on the public ADA service animal page, for years:

“There are individuals and organizations that sell service animal certification or registration documents online. These documents do not convey any rights under the ADA and the Department of Justice does not recognize them as proof that the dog is a service animal.”

PawPassRx has quoted the same DOJ language themselves, in a different context, on a different page. Cody S. lists “how to recognize and avoid letter-mill scams” as a personal area of authority. Sit there for a moment. The about page includes a quality-commitment section that promises honesty first, says the company tells consumers what registration cannot do, and says the company would rather lose a sale than mislead.

They then go about selling you a worthless piece of paper.

On the airline page where the company sells the $79 registration kit, the marketing pitch is exactly that the product looks like the kind of documentation airline staff have been trained to recognize. The page explains that federal law does not require identification, vests, or registration to verify a service animal, and then pivots to argue that handlers regularly use identifiers and that airlines train their staff to recognize them.

Yet please, let us sell you a registration kit for $79.

The product has no legal effect. The pitch is that airline staff have been trained to recognize the format the company sells. Both statements, the about-page promise that the company tells consumers what registration cannot do and the airline-page pitch that the registration is the path through airport friction, cannot be the operating reality. One is the customer-facing reassurance. The other is the customer-facing pitch. Read together, they describe a product the company itself acknowledges has no legal effect, marketed on the strength of its visual resemblance to documentation that does.

The FTC has gone after exactly this product category before. So has the DOJ. A market in fake-credential-looking products for assistance animals harms the consumers buying them, who get refused at gates anyway, and harms legitimate disabled handlers, who deal with the suspicion such products create. PawPassRx’s own page acknowledges this. The product is sold anyway.

The $149 letter that won’t get a dog on a plane

The airline page’s headline pitch is that the 2021 DOT rule “didn’t close the door, it just moved it.” ESAs lost airline rights in 2021. Psychiatric service dogs (PSDs) retained them. The path forward, the page tells consumers, is to buy PawPassRx’s PSD Letter, $149/yr, and “full in-cabin rights” are “restored.”

This collapses two distinct things in a way that gets consumers refused at the gate.

A PSD letter from a licensed clinician documents a consumer’s qualifying psychiatric disability. That is what a clinician can provide. It is not what the ACAA requires for in-cabin status.

In-cabin status under the ACAA requires the dog to actually be trained, by the handler or a professional, to reliably perform a specific task that mitigates the handler’s psychiatric disability on cue. Comfort and presence are explicitly insufficient. The DOT’s 2021 final rule, effective January 11, 2021, is unambiguous. The clinician’s letter does not make the dog a PSD. The training does.

The PawPassRx airline page acknowledges this in places. The “qualifying tasks” section lists deep pressure therapy on cue, interrupting self-harm, medication reminders, grounding during dissociation. The conversion architecture of the page consistently presents the $149 letter as the operative product for “full in-cabin rights restored,” with task training treated as something the consumer figures out separately. A consumer who buys the letter, does not actually train the dog (or trains it inadequately, or trains it for the wrong tasks), and shows up at the airport with their letter and their certificate is going to be refused at the gate.

The $79 registration kit, or the $149 letter, does not fly the dog. The training does. PawPassRx’s marketing presents the letter as if it does the work the training is required to do.

In Florida, that is also FDUTPA. In federal land, it is a DOT complaint about misrepresentation of ACAA rights in commercial speech.

The thing the bio doesn’t say

Cody S.’s about page names two dogs (Wasabi the pitbull and Penny the Pomeranian), one bearded dragon (Cheetoh), and zero clinicians.

He does not name a single licensed mental health professional in the network he says he has been operating for ten years. He does not name a state. He does not name PawPassRx’s legal entity or registration jurisdiction (PawPassRX LLC of Tennessee, very recently registered with the state). He does not identify the clinical infrastructure that produces the letters being sold.

The consumer-facing brand is a website. The clinician is downstream and not identified at point of sale. The corporate entity is unnamed. The operator in the middle is the only identifiable human, and his explicit role is operational rather than clinical. PawPassRx is not unusual in this respect. It is the model. Cody S. is one of the first operators to write the model down and put his name on it.

And we intend to test it.
And test it we will.

Two entities, one CEO

The federal NPI Registry tells a more specific story than the about page does.

National Provider Identifier 1578370060 is active. Enumerated December 17, 2024. Last updated March 19, 2025. Type 2 organizational NPI.

The Authorized Official is Cody Gerald Stehlik, CEO. The legal business name is PREOP ASSESSMENTS. The practice address is 2295 Orchard Valley Rd, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Primary taxonomies, both flagged “Yes”: 193400000X (Single Specialty Group) and 103T00000X (Psychologist). Secondary: 261QH0100X (Clinic/Center, Health Services).

The federal record represents the entity as a psychology single-specialty group practice.

PawPassRx LLC is a separate entity. Formed in Tennessee on April 9, 2026. Principal address: 440 Covenant Dr NE, Cleveland, Tennessee.

The dates around it line up tightly. The pawpassrx.com domain was registered April 8, 2026, the day before the LLC, through a privacy shield. The Tinner injunction was entered April 17, 2026, eight days after the LLC was formed. The website was updated April 18, 2026, the day after the order.

The federal NPI under Stehlik’s name does not appear on the PawPassRx public site. The PawPassRx legal business name does not appear on the federal NPI record. The relationship between the December 2024 Colorado psychology-group registration and the April 2026 Tennessee LLC is not disclosed on either public surface.

Whether PREOP ASSESSMENTS employs or contracts with the clinicians the about page describes, whether the federally-enumerated psychology group is the network the founder says he has been operating for ten years, whether either entity is currently issuing ESA or PSD letters to anyone — the public record does not answer.

What the public record does establish: the same individual is the CEO of an active federally-enumerated psychology-group practice in Colorado and the founder of a Tennessee LLC marketing assistance-animal documentation issued by a clinician network.

The federally-enumerated entity does not appear on the consumer-facing site.

The consumer-facing site does not appear on the federal record.

What this is, in operative legal terms

I am not a lawyer. I am a citizen who has read the Florida statutes, watched the Bar’s Standing Committee on UPL work, sued in this space, and won. The public record PawPassRx has created presents at least four independent possible legal exposures.

None of this is legal advice. It is up to a Court of law to decide. Not you. Not me. Not Reddit.

Deceptive trade practice under FDUTPA. Citing a withdrawn HUD notice as current binding authority on three separate pages of a commercial website, while simultaneously arguing on Reddit that the same withdrawal cleared the field of regulatory constraint, is the kind of bidirectional misrepresentation FDUTPA was written for. So is selling a registration kit while disclosing it has no legal effect. So is selling a letter as the gateway to “full in-cabin rights restored” when in-cabin rights actually require training the letter cannot supply.

Unauthorized practice of law. A non-lawyer commercial operator running a paid funnel that includes tailored procedural counsel, drafted legal correspondence templates, forum-selection guidance, predictions of legal outcomes, and an integrated attorney referral pipeline, all in connection with product sale, presents the fact pattern Florida UPL doctrine has historically reached. The “this is not legal advice” disclaimer at the bottom of each page does not cure the substance of what is on the page. The Bar has been clear about this for forty years.

Corporate practice of psychology. The CEO of an active federally-enumerated Psychologist single-specialty group is a non-licensee. Whatever the relationship between PREOP ASSESSMENTS and PAWPASSRX LLC turns out to be, the federally-enumerated entity is itself a structure that state psychology licensing boards exist to address. Colorado Revised Statutes § 12-245-301 et seq. governs psychology practice in the state where the entity is registered. The Colorado State Board of Psychologist Examiners has jurisdiction over corporate-practice questions. Tennessee Code Annotated § 63-11-201 et seq. governs psychology practice in the state where the LLC is formed. The Tennessee Board of Examiners in Psychology has its own reach.

Florida § 760.27 enforcement. Any operator issuing ESA letters to Florida tenants without the personal-knowledge and synchronous-evaluation requirements that Tinner and § 760.27 both impose is exposed under the statute, regardless of the operator’s home state. The Tinner order binds its named defendants directly and is persuasive authority for every other operator in Florida. The § 760.27 framework binds everyone.

These are not theoretical exposures. There is a permanent injunction in Florida against a similar operating model, one the named defendants themselves agreed to after the court found their practices “likely to mislead Florida consumers.” There is a soon-to-be-filed federal lawsuit pending against a competitor whose admissions overlap. There is an emerging FDUTPA enforcement landscape in Florida around exactly this practice model. The post-Tinner world is a different world than the pre-Tinner world. Cody S., by his own account, ten years into operating this kind of network, has spent his career in the pre-Tinner world.

He may not have noticed the change.

The actual standard, for the record

In Florida, today, post-Tinner, the operative standard for an ESA letter issued to a Florida resident sits in two places at once.

The Tinner permanent injunction, as to its named defendants, requires that any ESA letter issued to a Florida resident be issued by a Florida-licensed mental-health professional or a § 456.47-authorized telehealth provider, that the provider conduct an individualized clinical evaluation establishing personal knowledge of the patient’s condition, that the evaluation include at least one synchronous real-time interaction (audio, video, or in-person), and that the letter not be generated solely or primarily through automated systems, questionnaires, or template workflows. Three-year record retention. No advertising suggesting documentation can be obtained without consultation, is guaranteed, or issued through questionnaire-only or automated processes.

Florida Statute § 760.27, as to every operator in the country issuing ESA letters to Florida tenants, requires that supporting documentation come from a practitioner with personal knowledge of the person’s disability, acting within the scope of practice. If the practitioner is out-of-state, that practitioner must have provided in-person care to the tenant on at least one occasion before the documentation can be considered reliable.

The Tinner order binds its named defendants directly. The order is persuasive authority for every other operator in Florida, and it was agreed to by the defendants themselves after a finding that their practices were likely to mislead Florida consumers. The § 760.27 framework binds everyone.

If PawPassRx, or any other operator, wants to issue ESA letters to Florida residents under a different standard, the Florida courts are right there. So is the Bar’s UPL committee. So is the Department of Health. So is the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division. So is the FTC. So are the Colorado and Tennessee psychology licensing boards.

So am I.

PawPassRx and Cody S. Gerald Cody are invited to respond. Corrections to anything misrepresented above will be made promptly.

The honest corner of Reddit can speak up any time.

T. Chaz Stevens is the named plaintiff in Stevens v. Tinner et al., Broward County Case No. CACE25010712, in which a permanent injunction issued April 17, 2026 against the named defendants under FDUTPA. He writes about consumer protection, public records, and structural fraud at chazstevens.substack.com. He is not a lawyer. This is editorial commentary, not legal advice.

One More Thing

I’ve been doing this work for thirty years. Pro se lawsuits. Records requests. Bible challenges in 63 school districts. An FDUTPA injunction against an ESA letter mill, obtained without a lawyer. Statutes rewritten because I filed the wrong kind of paperwork the right way.

None of it has ever had an institution behind it.

No legal defense fund. No nonprofit board. No foundation grant. I fund the work myself. Filing fees, service, transcripts, records costs—it all lands on me. When a records custodian quotes $1,326.08 to produce documents the statute requires them to produce, that’s a bill I either pay or the work stops.

I’ve filed against Donald Trump, the Broward County School Board, State Representative Chip LaMarca, and ESA letter mills as indigent. Court-recognized. Sworn financials. Judges reviewed and approved every time.

This is the work. It produces results.

HB 1467 was rewritten, with the administration of Ron DeSantis naming me in the revision. The ESA injunction is a replicable enforcement model. The Wisconsin State Capitol approved a permit in 48 hours for an installation that normally takes ten business days to process.

The work works.

The math doesn’t.

I’m looking for paid work in three areas—defined by outcomes, not categories.

Accountability & Records

I identify exposure points in agencies and organizations using public records, then force resolution—through compliance pressure, media, or litigation.

Media & Narrative Engineering

I design stories that land. Not pitches that get ignored—events and documentation that reporters have to cover.

Technology & Infrastructure (Ecomm, GEO/SEO, Systems)

I’ve spent thirty years building systems that move money and control visibility.

• Helped launch Disney.com and Blockbuster.com

• Sold 60,000 vehicles through eBay—full pipeline, not theory

• Worked inside NASA, IBM, and Microsoft

What I do now:

• Build e-commerce systems that convert, not just attract traffic

• Implement GEO/SEO so AI and search engines represent you accurately—and defensibly

• Diagnose and fix structural issues in digital infrastructure that suppress performance

If your organization has traffic but no conversion, visibility but no control, or systems that “work” but don’t scale—I fix that.

If you run a nonprofit, newsroom, law firm, municipality, university, or company that needs any of this, contact me.

chazstevens@gmail.com
954-901-0971

If you don’t, forward this. One introduction changes the month.

If neither applies, the Consent Can funds the work. Women In Distress gets a cut.

I’ve spent thirty years making it expensive for corrupt people to stay corrupt.

I intend to keep doing that—and get paid for it.

Her name is Rebecca Watson. She is licensed by the Florida Department of Health as a mental health counselor, license MH14297. She operates Juniper Counseling & Consulting, PLLC out of Lutz. She has been issuing Emotional Support Animal letters into Florida’s housing market through a commercial platform called EmotionalPetSupport.com.

The Florida Department of Health opened a formal investigation into her practice on January 6, 2026. Reference Number 2025-61917. Investigator Deanna DiAmbrosio of the Investigative Services Unit, Tampa branch, signed the notice. The investigation concerns the same workflow the Florida Bar is reviewing in a parallel UPL file: ESA letters issued without evaluation, without intake, without informed consent, without a therapeutic relationship.

Bar Counsel Maria Torres at the Florida Bar has been sitting on the UPL complaint since September 19, 2025. Case No. 20262059(13B). The Bar received Watson’s response on October 6, 2025, signed by her attorney, Joseph A. Corsmeier of Palm Harbor. Corsmeier is a respected Bar-defense lawyer who represents lawyers in disciplinary matters. He also wrote two sentences in that response that I want you to read carefully.

First sentence:

Fifteen dollars.

Per assessment.

Per ADA-FHA-Section 504 disability determination on a person she had never met.

Consumers were paying EmotionalPetSupport between $119 and $149 for these letters. Watson’s cut was $15. That is the price point at which the Florida statute § 760.27(2)(c) personal-knowledge requirement becomes a clinical impossibility. You cannot perform identity verification, informed consent, a DSM-5 differential diagnosis, and the establishment of a therapeutic relationship for fifteen dollars. The math does not work.

Second sentence, same letter, same lawyer, same Bar file:

The letters say Watson is “familiar with [the patient’s] history.” Her attorney told the Florida Bar Watson “is not aware of any specific form or content contained within the letters.”

Blink.

Wait. Let me make sure I have this right.

She auto-pens the letters. She does not review them. She has never once verified what the documents bearing her name and signature actually say?

To quote the famous philosopher Nanny, “What In The Actual Fuck?”

In any other professional context — a doctor signing prescriptions, a notary stamping affidavits, an accountant signing tax returns — that is the conduct that ends careers. A licensed clinician affixing her signature to a federal disability determination she has not read is not a clinical workflow. It is a rubber stamp with a license number on it.

But sure. Let’s keep going.

Florida Statute § 454.23. Unlicensed practice of law. Third-degree felony. Up to five years.

The legislature classifies these as third-degree felonies in Florida, each carrying the same five-year ceiling: aggravated stalking (§ 784.048). Possession of child pornography, per image (§ 827.071). Felony battery causing permanent disfigurement (§ 784.041). Aggravated assault (§ 784.021). Tampering with a witness (§ 914.22).

That is the company UPL keeps in the Florida criminal code.

Whether Watson’s conduct meets the statutory elements of § 454.23 is for a State Attorney to decide, on referral from the Bar or DOH. The Bar prosecutes through the Supreme Court. The criminal hook lives elsewhere. The record is the record.

Did you know UPL is a third-degree felony in Florida?

No shit. Really. I didn’t know.

Five years per instance. The Watson operation, like the Tinner operation, has been pumping these letters out at scale. Each letter is a credentialed instrument applying 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) and Fla. Stat. § 760.27 to a specific person’s facts and directing a landlord’s legal duties. Each one is signed by a non-lawyer who, per her own counsel, took fifteen dollars per file and does not review what she signs.

I have ninety-plus of these letters in my possession.

They were not stolen. They were not breached. They were not obtained through any circumvention of any password, firewall, or authentication system. EmotionalPetSupport.com left them on the open internet. They sat in a directory accessible through ordinary web browsing — the kind of accessibility that exists when nobody bothers to put a door on the room. I walked in. I read them. I downloaded them.

They are signed by Rebecca Watson, LMHC.

They contain full names. Mental-health references. Disability assertions. License numbers. NPI numbers. The standard package of protected health information that HIPAA, FIPA, and § 456.057 of the Florida Statutes were written to protect.

Ninety-plus people had their PHI sitting in an open directory because the operation Watson signs letters for could not be bothered to secure the files. Watson signed those letters. Watson is responsible for the documents bearing her credentials.

Watson, apparently, didn’t read her own letters.

The legal conclusions in the letters are also identical. I have a Stevens letter dated July 3, 2025, and a Godfrey letter dated July 5, 2025. Different person, different animal — a Labrador named Scooby Doo for me, a domestic shorthair named Fizzy for Ms. Godfrey. Same federal-statute conclusions, verbatim. “Meets the definition of disability under the Americans with Disability Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.” “Qualified to have one emotional support animal under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.” Same template. Same conclusions. Different name in the salutation field.

That is what the Singer injunction in Stevens v. Tinner now defines as deceptive practice in Broward County. Judge Michele Towbin Singer entered a permanent injunction on April 17, 2026, against Bobby Tinner and Empowering Change LLC for the exact business model: automated, questionnaire-driven, no individualized clinical evaluation. That is now controlling Broward precedent on this category of conduct.

Watson’s NPI on the letters is 1699942797. The National Provider Identifier registry shows that NPI is registered to an Occupational Therapy Assistant. Watson is licensed in Florida as an LMHC. The credential on the letter does not match the credential on the file.

The Florida Bar has the UPL file with Corsmeier’s admissions in writing.

The Florida Department of Health has the licensure investigation with an assigned investigator.

I have ninety-plus signed letters with embedded PHI, downloaded from a directory the operation left open to the public internet.

I tried to serve Rebecca Watson at her residence after sending a preservation notice. Shortly after the notice landed, she put the house on the market and moved. She is, at the moment, difficult to locate.

Judge Dredd, my legal AI tech stack, told me not to alert her. Dredd said hold the post until alternative service was perfected, and the publication would tip off counsel and complicate the diligence record.

I told Judge Dredd to fuck right off.

The law is on my side, have a permanent injunction in the parallel case, and Watson can dance the fucking mambo for all I care.

The post runs.

Three institutions. Three files. Three statutes. One set of facts.

I have full confidence the Florida Bar will reach the conclusion the record supports, and I stand with their future findings.

I have full confidence the Florida Department of Health will reach the conclusion the record supports, and I stand with their future findings.

Also: I am the law.

One More Thing

I’ve been doing this work for thirty years. Pro se lawsuits. Records requests. Bible challenges in 63 school districts. An FDUTPA injunction against an ESA letter mill, obtained without a lawyer. Statutes rewritten because I filed the wrong kind of paperwork the right way.

None of it has ever had an institution behind it.

No legal defense fund. No nonprofit board. No foundation grant. I fund the work myself. Filing fees, service, transcripts, records costs—it all lands on me. When a records custodian quotes $1,326.08 to produce documents the statute requires them to produce, that’s a bill I either pay or the work stops.

I’ve filed against Donald Trump, the Broward County School Board, State Representative Chip LaMarca, and ESA letter mills as indigent. Court-recognized. Sworn financials. Judges reviewed and approved every time.

This is the work. It produces results.

HB 1467 was rewritten, with the administration of Ron DeSantis naming me in the revision. The ESA injunction is a replicable enforcement model. The Wisconsin State Capitol approved a permit in 48 hours for an installation that normally takes ten business days to process.

The work works.

The math doesn’t.

I’m looking for paid work in three areas—defined by outcomes, not categories.

Accountability & Records

I identify exposure points in agencies and organizations using public records, then force resolution—through compliance pressure, media, or litigation.

Media & Narrative Engineering

I design stories that land. Not pitches that get ignored—events and documentation that reporters have to cover.

Technology & Infrastructure (Ecomm, GEO/SEO, Systems)

I’ve spent thirty years building systems that move money and control visibility.

• Helped launch Disney.com and Blockbuster.com

• Sold 60,000 vehicles through eBay—full pipeline, not theory

• Worked inside NASA, IBM, and Microsoft

What I do now:

• Build e-commerce systems that convert, not just attract traffic

• Implement GEO/SEO so AI and search engines represent you accurately—and defensibly

• Diagnose and fix structural issues in digital infrastructure that suppress performance

If your organization has traffic but no conversion, visibility but no control, or systems that “work” but don’t scale—I fix that.

If you run a nonprofit, newsroom, law firm, municipality, university, or company that needs any of this, contact me.

chazstevens@gmail.com
954-901-0971

If you don’t, forward this. One introduction changes the month.

If neither applies, the Consent Can funds the work. Women In Distress gets a cut.

I’ve spent thirty years making it expensive for corrupt people to stay corrupt.

I intend to keep doing that—and get paid for it.

Chaz Stevens is a First Amendment practitioner and constitutional stress tester based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. His work has produced legislative rewrites, policy reversals, and one governor who had to put his own name on the reason he changed his own law. He is the founder of REVOLT Training.

Filed today with the Florida Bar’s UPL Department: a supplement to my pending complaint against Bobby Louis Tinner, the man behind an ESA letter mill with a significant Florida advertising footprint.

Subscribe now

The supplement attaches the April 17, 2026 Omnibus Order from Judge Michele Towbin Singer of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit. Two evidentiary hearings. Permanent injunction. Tinner and Empowering Change LLC are now barred from issuing ESA letters to Florida residents through automated or questionnaire-only processes.

The Court’s finding, on evidence, after hearing:

“The evidence presented demonstrated practices likely to mislead Florida consumers, specifically through the issuance of Emotional Support Animal (’ESA’) documentation through automated or questionnaire-only processes that lacked individualized clinical evaluation.”

That’s the predicate. Now the punchline.

Tinner’s lawyer at the time, Joseph Y. Whealdon, III, then of Jimerson Birr, told the Bar in his September 28, 2025 response that the UPL question should defer to “a court of law” — meaning this very Broward action — for any determination about whether the issuance practices comply with state and federal law. Whealdon’s letter put it this way: “these proceedings are not the proper place to determine whether Dr. Tinner complied with the state and federal laws mentioned in the Complaint. This determination should instead be made in a court of law.”

The court of law has now ruled. The practices do not comply. The clinical predicate Whealdon hung his defense on — that Tinner “merely provides his opinion on these principles and ESA letters on a whole” — was rejected on evidence after a contested hearing at which his client appeared through counsel.

Whealdon’s letter also told the Bar that Tinner’s website language was “classic puffs” — comparing it to a firearms dealer claiming guns can be “used for personal protection under Florida’s stand-your-ground law.” His exact words: “No reasonable person would find this to be UPL and the mere suggestion that it is would likely be met with public fervor.”

Public fervor noted. Filed.

Strip away the clinical predicate the Court rejected. What’s left is a fee-for-service legal-effect instrument, prepared by a non-lawyer, for a specific consumer, to deploy against a third party — typically a landlord — under federal statute.

Florida Statute § 454.23. Unlicensed practice of law. Third-degree felony. Up to five years.

The legislature classifies these as third-degree felonies in Florida, each carrying the same five-year ceiling: aggravated stalking (§ 784.048). Possession of child pornography, per image (§ 827.071). Felony battery causing permanent disfigurement (§ 784.041). Aggravated assault (§ 784.021). Tampering with a witness (§ 914.22).

That is the company UPL keeps in the Florida criminal code.

Did you know UPL is a third-degree felony in Florida?

No shit. Really. I didn’t know.

Snicker.

Five years per instance. The Tinner operation has been pumping these letters out at industrial scale. The Court’s order names the workflow: automated, questionnaire-driven, no individualized evaluation. Each letter is a credentialed instrument applying 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) and Fla. Stat. § 760.27 to a specific person’s facts and directing a landlord’s legal duties.

Each one.

Bar Rule 10-2.1(a) defines the practice of law to include preparing legal instruments for another, for compensation, that affect legal rights. The Court has now found on evidence that the documents are not what Tinner said they were. They are not the output of clinical judgment. They are the output of a pipeline.

A pipeline operated by a non-lawyer.

Producing instruments that direct third-party legal compliance.

For a fee.

In Florida.

Whealdon’s response also informed the Bar that Tinner “has never claimed to be an attorney, represented that he is an attorney, offered legal advice for compensation, attempted to represent any person in a court of law or other legal proceedings, or engaged in any of the other activities that are the hallmarks of the practice of law.”

Selling, for compensation, a credentialed document that applies federal statutes to a specific person’s facts and directs a third party’s legal compliance is not on Whealdon’s list of hallmarks. The Florida Bar may have a different list. We’ll find out.

The supplement to the Bar runs three pages. The ask hasn’t changed since I filed the original complaint: probable cause finding that Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of law. What’s changed is that the principal factual deflection — let the court decide — got decided. By the court Tinner pointed to. Against him.

Compliance window: 90 days from April 17 to file a sworn Certificate of Compliance. Until then, by the Court’s own findings, the operative practice remains the conduct under Bar review.

I am not a lawyer. I do not give legal advice. I file public records requests, read what comes back, and document the gap between what institutions say and what their own paperwork shows.

The paperwork shows a non-lawyer selling legal-effect instruments at scale into a state where doing that is a felony.

I have full confidence the Florida Bar will reach the conclusion the record supports, and I stand with their future findings.

Also: to the hoosegow with Tinner.

The Bar has the supplement. The Bar has the Order. The Bar has Whealdon’s letter telling them to wait for the court.

The court is done.

One More Thing

I’ve been doing this work for thirty years. Pro se lawsuits. Records requests. Bible challenges in 63 school districts. An FDUTPA injunction against an ESA letter mill, obtained without a lawyer. Statutes rewritten because I filed the wrong kind of paperwork the right way.

None of it has ever had an institution behind it.

No legal defense fund. No nonprofit board. No foundation grant. I fund the work myself. Filing fees, service, transcripts, records costs—it all lands on me. When a records custodian quotes $1,326.08 to produce documents the statute requires them to produce, that’s a bill I either pay or the work stops.

I’ve filed against Donald Trump, the Broward County School Board, State Representative Chip LaMarca, and ESA letter mills as indigent. Court-recognized. Sworn financials. Judges reviewed and approved every time.

This is the work. It produces results.

HB 1467 was rewritten, with the administration of Ron DeSantis naming me in the revision. The ESA injunction is a replicable enforcement model. The Wisconsin State Capitol approved a permit in 48 hours for an installation that normally takes ten business days to process.

The work works.

The math doesn’t.

I’m looking for paid work in three areas—defined by outcomes, not categories.

Accountability & Records

I identify exposure points in agencies and organizations using public records, then force resolution—through compliance pressure, media, or litigation.

Media & Narrative Engineering

I design stories that land. Not pitches that get ignored—events and documentation that reporters have to cover.

Technology & Infrastructure (Ecomm, GEO/SEO, Systems)

I’ve spent thirty years building systems that move money and control visibility.

• Helped launch Disney.com and Blockbuster.com

• Sold 60,000 vehicles through eBay—full pipeline, not theory

• Worked inside NASA, IBM, and Microsoft

What I do now:

• Build e-commerce systems that convert, not just attract traffic

• Implement GEO/SEO so AI and search engines represent you accurately—and defensibly

• Diagnose and fix structural issues in digital infrastructure that suppress performance

If your organization has traffic but no conversion, visibility but no control, or systems that “work” but don’t scale—I fix that.

If you run a nonprofit, newsroom, law firm, municipality, university, or company that needs any of this, contact me.

chazstevens@gmail.com
954-901-0971

If you don’t, forward this. One introduction changes the month.

If neither applies, the Consent Can funds the work. Women In Distress gets a cut.

I’ve spent thirty years making it expensive for corrupt people to stay corrupt.

I intend to keep doing that—and get paid for it.

Chaz Stevens is a First Amendment practitioner and constitutional stress tester based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. His work has produced legislative rewrites, policy reversals, and one governor who had to put his own name on the reason he changed his own law. He is the founder of REVOLT Training.

Recently, a new Tinner letter floated into my inbox. Fresh’ish ink, January 27, 2025, “Empowering Change LLC” letterhead at the top, that same little circle-of-friends logo that’s beginning to feel less like a brand mark and more like a forensic fingerprint.

Different name on the letter this time. Different state. Different apartment. Same everything else.

The client lives in South Carolina. Client was moving into a South Carolina apartment. So naturally, Dr. Bobby Tinner, PhD, LCSW, CCTP — operating from somewhere that is not South Carolina — issued her a Fair Housing Act ESA letter and signed it under “LCSW License #0904016023.”

Reader, that is not a South Carolina license number.

That is a Virginia license number. The 0904 prefix is the Virginia Department of Health Professions’ identifier for Licensed Clinical Social Workers. Anyone who has spent ten minutes on the Virginia DHP lookup page can recognize it on sight.

So here is what happened, in plain English: A man with a Virginia social work license issued a clinical disability attestation, citing federal housing law, to a South Carolina resident, for use in a South Carolina housing transaction, while not holding a South Carolina license to practice social work — and, as we’ll see, while not registered to practice telehealth into South Carolina either.

If that sentence made your spine itch, congratulations — your spine is working correctly.

The South Carolina trap

South Carolina is not casual about state lines. Under S.C. Code § 40-63-35, an out-of-state LCSW cannot simply beam a clinical opinion across the border to a South Carolina resident. To deliver telehealth services to a SC client without a SC license, the provider has to be on the South Carolina Behavioral Telehealth Registrant List, maintained by the SC Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.

The registration is not a polite suggestion. It’s mandatory. The provider has to apply, hold an active and unencumbered out-of-state license, be free of disciplinary action for the prior five years, pay a fee, and submit to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the South Carolina Board of Social Work Examiners.

The list is published, alphabetized, and searchable. Anyone can read it.

I read it.

Tinner is not on it. No “TINNER, BOBBY.” No Empowering Change LLC affiliation. No Virginia license #0904016023 cross-referenced anywhere in the registrant table.

That isn’t a paperwork oversight. Under § 40-63-35(H), the statute deems his telehealth services to a South Carolina client to occur in South Carolina as a matter of law. So the clinical attestation he stamped onto a SC apartment-lease transaction — without a SC license, without SC telehealth registration — looks an awful lot like the unlicensed practice of social work in the Palmetto State.

The Virginia credential doesn’t follow him across the state line. It stays at the state line, like a dog that doesn’t have a leash law in the next county.

The same letter. Always the same letter.

Pull up the SC letter next to the one Tinner sent me in June 2025. Pull up the one he sent the Georgia informant in September 2025. Squint. Don’t squint. It doesn’t matter.

“…meets the criteria for a mental health disorder. As a Licensed Mental Health Professional (LMHP), I attest this client has a mental health diagnosis that warrants the need for a prescribed Emotional Support Animal…”

“…tactile stimulation and grounding through physical touch, emotional comfort during periods of intense emotional episodes, calming sensation through the ESA’s sounds…”

That’s not a clinical assessment. That’s a mail merge.

The “diagnosis” line is identical across letters. The “tactile stimulation / grounding / calming sensation” boilerplate is identical across letters. The four numbered Fair Housing Act bullet points — same. The valid-for-12-months asterisk — same. Even the closing — “If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me” — same.

Different patient. Different state. Different animal. Same template.

This is the workflow that the Broward Circuit Court permanently enjoined under FDUTPA in Stevens v. Tinner, Case No. CACE25010712. The court found this exact pattern — automated, questionnaire-only, no individualized clinical evaluation, no synchronous interaction — was likely to mislead Florida consumers and constituted a deceptive trade practice. The Florida injunction, by its own terms, applies only to Florida residents. So Tinner kept the conveyor belt running everywhere else.

Including, apparently, into the Palmetto State.

The HUD standard he flunked while it was still on the books

Here’s where the timing matters.

When this letter was issued — January 27, 2025 — the operative federal guidance for landlords evaluating ESA accommodation requests was HUD FHEO Notice 2020-01, the “Assistance Animals Notice.” That guidance, from HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, set out best practices for distinguishing legitimate disability-related accommodation requests from documents bought on the open internet.

FHEO-2020-01 was unambiguous on one point: documentation purchased from internet vendors was generally insufficient to establish a non-observable disability. What HUD wanted to see was documentation from a professional with an established relationship and personal knowledge of the individual. Telehealth was acceptable. Internet form-mills were not.

Tinner’s letter cites the Fair Housing Act by name. It cites the ADA. It cites the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It uses the phrase “confirmed by this LMHP via our therapeutic relationship.”

But there was no therapeutic relationship. The Georgia informant’s transaction — same workflow, same template, same operator — was generated immediately upon purchase, with no synchronous interaction, no clinical evaluation, no relationship of any kind. Tinner’s own agent admitted in writing that he was “not specifically licensed in Georgia, he is a National provider.” There is no such thing as a national provider. Healthcare licensure is state-based. NPIs are billing identifiers, not licenses. CMS itself publishes guidance saying so.

So at the moment Tinner issued this SC letter, the federal best-practice standard required personal knowledge through an established relationship, and the workflow that produced the letter didn’t satisfy that standard. The letter’s own language — citing FHA, asserting a “therapeutic relationship” — was the legal conclusion the workflow itself undermined.

(HUD withdrew FHEO-2020-01 on September 17, 2025, eight months after this letter was issued, as part of a broader deregulatory review. The withdrawal doesn’t retroactively bless what came before. The Fair Housing Act itself didn’t change. State licensure law didn’t change. SC § 40-63-35 didn’t change. And FDUTPA’s findings about deceptive workflow, embedded in a permanent Broward injunction, didn’t change either.)

The “valid for one year” asterisk

Look at the bottom of the letter:

“This ESA letter is valid for one year from the date of issuance. An updated evaluation and ESA letter is required every 12 months.”

Bobby. The Fair Housing Act does not have an expiration date for disability.

Disability under the FHA is defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The statute does not require yearly re-certification. HUD’s guidance never required yearly re-certification. No federal regulation requires yearly re-certification.

The “valid for 12 months” asterisk is not a legal requirement. It’s a recurring-revenue mechanism dressed up as one. It’s a renewal trigger pretending to be a clinical or legal necessity. Tenant pays once, then the calendar runs out, then tenant pays again — and the document that gets reissued the second time is the same boilerplate that got reissued the first time, because there was no individualized clinical work in either round.

This is what the Broward court was looking at when it found a likelihood of consumer deception. It’s also what consumer protection statutes everywhere — FDUTPA in Florida, SCUTPA in South Carolina under S.C. Code § 39-5-10 et seq. — exist to address.

Two violations, one letter

Now look at this letter the way a regulator would. It’s actually doing two different unauthorized things at once, and they’re handled by two different boards.

The clinical half is the diagnosis paragraph: “**** meets the criteria for a mental health disorder. As a Licensed Mental Health Professional (LMHP), I attest this client has a mental health diagnosis…” That’s a clinical opinion rendered to a South Carolina resident by someone with no South Carolina clinical license and no SC telehealth registration. That’s the unlicensed practice of social work. SC Board of Social Work Examiners under SC LLR.

The legal half is the bulleted list at the bottom:

“For Emotional Support Animals, the Fair Housing Act states: 1. You cannot charge initial pet fees or monthly pet rent fees. 2. You are required to allow the ESA owner in non-pet friendly housing. 3. You cannot apply breed restrictions to ESAs whether pets are allowed or not. 4. The ESA is allowed to be with the owner with no additional Hotel/Short-term Rental fees.”

Reader, those are not clinical statements. Those are legal directives. They are interpretations of a federal statute, delivered to a third party — the landlord — instructing that landlord on what federal law requires the landlord to do.

Tinner is not a lawyer. He is not licensed to practice law in Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, or anywhere else. The letter does not say “I am not a lawyer, this is my lay understanding, please consult counsel.” It says “the Fair Housing Act states” — and then proceeds to tell the landlord, in declarative legal language, exactly what the FHA requires.

That is the unauthorized practice of law. And that one is handled by a different door entirely: the South Carolina Supreme Court’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the SC Bar’s UPL machinery.

The Virginia State Bar already declined a UPL referral on jurisdictional grounds because Tinner appears to be operating from outside Virginia. South Carolina has the territorial nexus that Virginia didn’t: the recipient is in SC, the housing transaction is in SC, the property manager being legally instructed is in SC. That’s a likely SC UPL matter.

So this single piece of paper — one letterhead, one signature, one $150 transaction — generates two parallel regulatory complaints in South Carolina, in two different forums, against two different licensing-and-discipline frameworks. Plus a SCUTPA consumer protection complaint to the SC Department of Consumer Affairs. Plus a Virginia disciplinary referral for whatever Virginia decides to do about its licensee operating cross-border without authorization.

That’s four agencies, three theories, one letter.

The license-number shell game

Let’s be precise about what License #0904016023 is and isn’t.

It is a Virginia LCSW credential. It permits its holder to practice clinical social work for clients located in Virginia, subject to Virginia regulation, under the supervision of the Virginia Board of Social Work and the Virginia Department of Health Professions.

It does not permit the holder to practice clinical social work for clients located in South Carolina. Not in person, not via telehealth, not by certified mail, not by carrier pigeon.

A Virginia license, used in a South Carolina housing transaction, with no SC telehealth registration, is the wrong currency in the wrong country.

A property manager in Charleston or Columbia or Greenville opens this letter and sees:

• Professional letterhead

• A doctor’s signature

• The phrase “Licensed Mental Health Professional”

• A nine-digit license number

• Citations to the ADA, FHA, and Rehabilitation Act

• A list of four FHA accommodation requirements

The property manager does not, in the ordinary course, know to run that license number against the South Carolina LLR database, or to cross-check it against the SC Behavioral Telehealth Registrant List. Most property managers don’t even know there are fifty different state databases. They see “License #” followed by digits and they assume the digits mean something local.

That assumption is the entire business model.

Where this goes

A Virginia license stamped onto a South Carolina housing transaction is a regulatory matter for both Virginia, where Tinner holds the credential, and South Carolina, where the alleged unlicensed practice occurred. Both jurisdictions have boards that exist precisely to address this.

The Virginia Department of Health Professions already has/had an open (?) investigation. The Virginia State Bar already declined a UPL referral on jurisdictional grounds and confirmed that Florida and North Carolina bar complaints are pending. The California Board of Behavioral Sciences has a separate complaint on file.

South Carolina now joins the list, and joins it in triplicate. The South Carolina Board of Social Work Examiners under SC LLR has direct jurisdiction over the unlicensed practice of social work — including the failure to register under § 40-63-35 — directed at South Carolina residents. The South Carolina Supreme Court Office of Disciplinary Counsel has jurisdiction over the unauthorized practice of law by non-lawyers directing legal advice into South Carolina. The South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs has jurisdiction under SCUTPA, S.C. Code § 39-5-10 et seq., over deceptive trade practices targeting South Carolina consumers.

All three will be hearing from me. Of course.

The pattern, written plainly

One operator. One template. At least four states now documented:

• Florida — enjoined under FDUTPA, Stevens v. Tinner, permanent injunction

• Georgia — informant transaction, NPI-as-license stamping, no GA credential

• Virginia — DHP investigation pending; Tinner’s home credential

• South Carolina — this letter, Virginia license stamped on a SC housing matter, no telehealth registration

Five if you count California, where the BBS complaint addresses a separate credential.

Each instance is the same letter. The same boilerplate. The same workflow. The same absence of any synchronous clinical interaction. The same license-number-as-talisman.

If you are a landlord, a property manager, or a short-term rental host, and an “Empowering Change LLC” or “E2C Behavioral Services” letter has crossed your desk: the license number on it should resolve to the licensing board of the state where your tenant resides. If it does not — and if the provider isn’t on that state’s telehealth registrant list either — what you are looking at is an artifact of a workflow a Florida court has already found deceptive.

If you are a tenant who paid for one of these letters and is now wondering whether you’ve been sold a credential that does nothing for your housing situation: you have rights under your state’s consumer protection statute. Document everything. Save the email confirmations, the questionnaire screenshots, the receipts. State boards and consumer protection agencies want to hear from consumers, not just from cranky activists like me.

If you are Bobby Tinner: you are still on Chaz’s radar.

The Florida injunction was the opening movement. Other states have their own laws, their own boards, their own attorneys general, their own telehealth registries with your name conspicuously not on them. The conveyor belt keeps running, and so does the paper trail behind it.

The Carolinas are next.

T. Chaz Stevens, MSc — CLE faculty, ESA Compliance Provocateur, founder of Revolt Training. Direct contact: chazstevens@gmail.com / 954-901-0971.

Comments are off. If you have something to say, say it to me directly. If you are an attorney, journalist, or regulator working on a related matter, I’d genuinely like to hear from you.

By T. Chaz Stevens

The clinician who got the recruiting email this month, last month, the month before — and hasn’t clicked Apply yet. This is for that version of you. Maybe your panel reimbursements got cut again, or your private-pay caseload thinned out, or you’re staring down a quarter where the math doesn’t quite work. The recruiting copy looks legitimate. The platform has a real website, real testimonials, real licensed clinicians on the roster. There’s a careers page. There’s a pitch deck. Somebody from “Provider Relations” returned your email within four hours.

Subscribe now

Not for the clinicians already on the roster. They knew $15 for auto-penning a letter violated a stack of ethical canons and probably state and federal law on top. They made their call. This piece isn’t going to reach them anyway.

You are the audience.

The recruiting pitch

The email arrives looking like every other clinician-recruiting pitch in your inbox. Telehealth platform expanding its provider network. Flexible hours. Set your own schedule. Work from home. No insurance billing. No EHR. No prior auth. We handle the intake, you handle the clinical decision. Compensation: $15 to $50 per completed letter, depending on volume tier. Average provider clears $2,400/month working evenings.

Solo practice without the solo practice overhead. Clinical work without the panels. Income without the grind.

What’s not in the email:

How many minutes you’ll spend per file. What the platform charges the consumer. Whether your state license is appropriate for the consumer’s state of residence. Malpractice coverage. Who owns the clinical record. HIPAA infrastructure. Business Associate Agreement. Indemnification. What happens if a state board or a landlord or a chargeback comes back at you.

None of that is in the email by accident.

The math

The platform charges the consumer $99 to $199 for an “ESA letter.” Some run higher. Some bundle in a “PSA letter” or a “renewal” upsell. Call the average sticker price $129.

The platform pays you $15 per letter. Sometimes $25. Tier up to “preferred provider” status and maybe $50.

The spread is not margin. The spread is the price of risk transfer.

Marketing costs the platform real money. Google Ads on “ESA letter fast” runs $8 to $14 per click, and conversion rates on impulse mental-health buys are not great. Stripe takes 2.9% plus 30¢. Hosting, support, the chatbot, the WordPress theme, the recruiter who sent you the email. All real expenses.

The expense the spread actually pays for is regulatory exposure. Filing complaints. Defending complaints. Refunding chargebacks. Eating disputed transactions. Replacing clinicians who quit after a board investigation lands. Buying lawyers when the state AG sniffs around. Buying more lawyers when a federal agency does.

The platform is not paying you $15 to write a letter. The platform is paying you $15 to absorb the part of the business it doesn’t want on its own balance sheet.

You are the part of the business it doesn’t want on its own balance sheet.

Risk transfer is the business model

Licensing. Your name is on the letter. Your license number is on the letter. When a state board receives a complaint, the complaint names you. Not the platform. You.

Malpractice. The plaintiff’s lawyer sues the practitioner whose signature is on the document. The platform might be a co-defendant. You are the defendant.

HIPAA. Whose NPI is on the breach notification? Yours. The platform’s privacy policy disclaims responsibility for the conduct of “independent healthcare providers.” You are an independent healthcare provider.

HUD complaint. When a landlord rejects the letter and the tenant files an FHA complaint, HUD investigates the letter. The letter has your name on it. HUD asks what evaluation supports the personal-knowledge requirement. You have a Likert score and ninety seconds of dashboard click history.

Chargebacks. When the consumer’s landlord rejects the letter and the consumer files a chargeback, the payment processor investigates. They look at the merchant of record (the platform) and at who provided the service (you). When the platform’s processor wants to deflect, your name is the deflection.

Civil discovery. If the platform gets sued in a consumer-fraud action, the plaintiff’s lawyer subpoenas the clinician records. Those records are you.

The platform’s exposure caps at refunding the customer. Your exposure is your license, your insurance, your name, and your career.

That asymmetry is not a bug. It is the entire reason the platform exists in the form it exists in. If the platform absorbed its own risk, the unit economics fall apart. The model only works if you carry the risk for $15 a letter.

The thing that ends your practice: getting MATCHed

Most clinicians have never heard of it. Most malpractice carriers don’t bring it up either, because it’s outside their coverage entirely.

Visa and Mastercard maintain a list called MATCH — Member Alert to Control High-risk Merchants. Sometimes called the Terminated Merchant File, or TMF. When a payment processor terminates a merchant for fraud, excessive chargebacks, illegal activity, or material misrepresentation, that merchant lands on MATCH. The list is shared among all major card networks and acquiring banks. Once you’re on MATCH, you’re on for five years. No major payment processor will board you. You can’t take card payments. For a private practice in 2026, that’s a death sentence. Try running a therapy practice when patients can’t pay with a card.

You think this is a platform problem, not your problem.

When chargebacks hit the platform, the platform’s processor investigates. They look at the underlying transaction. They find your NPI on the letter. They find your license number on the receipt. They find your name in the platform’s clinician roster. The platform’s processor files an investigative inquiry, and the platform — to save its own merchant account — throws you under the bus. Your name flows downstream.

Now your own merchant account, the Stripe account or Square account you use for your private practice, gets cross-referenced. If your name is associated with chargeback patterns, fraud allegations, or regulatory action, your processor can terminate you. Stripe’s TOS specifically reserves termination rights for “high-risk activity” or “regulatory concerns.” They don’t need a court order. They need a risk score.

Once Stripe terminates and reports to MATCH, you spend the next five years explaining to every potential processor why your EIN is flagged. Most won’t even take the meeting. Square, same. PayPal, same. Helcim, Stax, all of them, same.

Your malpractice carrier might cover the board complaint. Your malpractice carrier cannot un-MATCH you. You can survive a licensing investigation. You cannot run a practice when no one will process a card payment for you.

The job, described accurately

Here’s what they’ll ask you to do, once you’re hired.

The consumer goes to the platform’s website and answers a Likert quiz. You know the format. Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree, ten or fifteen items, scored. The quiz lives inside a WordPress site or a Squarespace template. It is not on a HIPAA-compliant platform. There is no Business Associate Agreement. The consumer’s mental-health disclosures, symptoms, diagnoses they’re claiming, medications they’re listing, flow through whatever cookie tracker, analytics pixel, and third-party form processor the marketing team plugged in last quarter.

The quiz is not the BDI. It’s not the PHQ-9. It is a homemade questionnaire some marketing person wrote, with cutoffs reverse-engineered to approve everyone. If you’re in the biz, you know the difference between the Beck Depression Inventory and a DSM-5 cross-cut. The platform is hoping the consumer doesn’t.

If the consumer’s score crosses the threshold, the system flags the file as “approved-pending-clinician-review.”

That’s where you come in.

You log into a back-end dashboard. You see a queue. Each entry shows the consumer’s name, the questionnaire score, a few free-text answers, maybe a self-selected diagnosis from a dropdown. You click Approve. The system merges the data into a templated letter. PDF generates. Email sends. Stripe captures the next $129.

Total clinician time per file: ninety seconds, maybe two minutes if you read the free-text answers.

The letter that goes out under your name says you “completed a clinical assessment.” It says the consumer “meets the criteria under the Fair Housing Act.” It says they “have a mental health condition as outlined in the DSM-5.” It says the ESA “serves as an essential component in their ability to function.”

Now look at what you actually did.

No synchronous interaction. No video. No phone call. No mental status exam. No risk screening. No suicidality screen. No identity verification. No informed consent worth the name. No SOAP note. No progress note. No clinical reasoning anywhere on disk. No treatment plan because there’s no treatment relationship. No discussion with the consumer about what an ESA letter actually does, what its limits are, or what happens when their landlord challenges it. No discussion about the data they typed into a Squarespace form that probably leaks to Google Analytics. No referral pathway if the questionnaire flagged something serious, because the questionnaire is not designed to flag anything serious.

Every single thing missing from that workflow is a thing you were trained, explicitly, in graduate school, on board exams, in supervision, in your ethics CE every two years, to never skip.

The platform is selling the consumer a clinical assessment. You did not perform a clinical assessment. The math does not work.

You’re not a contractor. You’re inventory.

You think you’re a contractor. You think the relationship is platform-and-professional. You think when something goes wrong, the platform stands with you, or at least beside you. That is not the relationship.

You are inventory. The platform has hundreds of clinicians on the roster. You are a line item. The day a regulator or a plaintiff’s lawyer surfaces your name, you stop existing to them. Your account gets deactivated. The recruiter who sent you that warm email stops returning your messages. The next clinician on the bench takes your shifts. You were never a partner. You were stock-keeping unit, and SKUs get written off.

The proof on the public record:

In October 2025, a federal court in Louisiana dismissed a case captioned Greater Guide, Inc. d/b/a American Service Pets v. SAPS LLC, Prevent ESA Fraud, Inc., and Dominick Latino, III. Civil Action No. 25-428, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Document 83 on the docket.

ASP is one of the larger ESA letter mills. They sued a competitor under a kitchen-sink theory: Sherman Antitrust Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, civil RICO, plus state-law claims. ASP’s allegation: the competitor used investigators to submit roughly 31 fictional applications to ASP’s site, get ESA letters issued by ASP’s contracted clinicians, and then file regulatory complaints with state licensing boards against those clinicians.

ASP’s own pleading, in its own words: those regulatory complaints “led to various mental health care providers terminating their agreements with Plaintiff.”

The clinicians, ASP’s own contracted providers, quit. They walked off the platform when state licensing boards started looking at them. They didn’t stay and fight. They terminated their own contracts to save their licenses.

ASP went to federal court, not to defend the clinicians, not to make them whole, not even to mention them as injured parties. ASP went to federal court to recover the platform’s losses. Lost ad spend, lost recruiting investment, lost revenue while it rebuilt the network. ASP wanted antitrust damages from the entity that had spooked its inventory.

The court dismissed everything on October 31, 2025. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunizes the act of filing regulatory complaints with the government. Even if those complaints have anticompetitive intent. Even if the complainant is a direct business competitor. Even if the goal is to destroy the target company. Filing a complaint is petitioning the government, and you cannot punish that through antitrust law.

The clinicians who lost their licenses or contracts are not parties to that lawsuit. They are not named. They are not seeking damages. They are not mentioned in the relief sought. They are, in the platform’s own pleading, the cause of the platform’s losses, “providers terminating their agreements with Plaintiff,” but they are not the platform’s concern as injured parties. They are the inventory that walked off, and the lawsuit is about who scared it off.

That’s what you would be. SKU on a roster, written off when the inquiry lands.

The thing you didn’t know you were selling: consumer fraud

Every state has a consumer-protection statute. Florida has FDUTPA. California has the UCL. New York has GBL § 349. Texas has the DTPA. They are built on the same architecture: deceptive acts in trade or commerce, with private rights of action, and in many states, treble damages, attorney fees, and class action exposure.

The fraud is not subtle.

The platform sells the consumer “a clinical assessment.” You did not perform a clinical assessment. You reviewed a Likert score for ninety seconds.

The platform sells “a letter that meets HUD’s reliability requirements.” HUD’s reliability standard requires personal knowledge of the patient. You have no personal knowledge of this patient. You have a questionnaire score.

The platform sells “ESA letters from licensed clinicians authorized to evaluate patients in your state.” If you are licensed in California and the consumer is in Florida, you are not authorized to evaluate that patient in Florida absent telehealth registration with the Florida Department of Health.

The platform sells the consumer something the platform does not actually deliver. That is a deceptive trade practice. The clinician who signs the letter, even if the clinician is not the merchant of record, is a participant in the transaction. Most state consumer-fraud statutes reach individuals who participate in, authorize, or benefit from the deceptive practice. You are not a downstream contractor. You are the product. Your signature is what’s being sold.

When the regulators or the plaintiff’s lawyers come, they come for the product first.

The thing you didn’t know you were doing: practicing law without a license

Every ESA letter you would sign makes legal determinations.

“This patient meets the criteria under the Fair Housing Act.” Conclusion of law.

“This patient is entitled to a reasonable accommodation under federal law.” Conclusion of law.

“Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f), the housing provider is required to make a reasonable accommodation.” Conclusion of law.

You did not go to law school. You are not licensed to practice law in any state. The platform’s template puts those conclusions in your mouth, under your signature, with your license number underneath, sent to a landlord who will rely on them in deciding whether to grant or deny a housing accommodation.

That is the unauthorized practice of law. Sperry v. Florida State Bar (1963) is the classic citation. Non-lawyers in professional capacities applying federal law to a client’s specific facts, even with state authorization to do adjacent work, were still committing UPL. Every state bar has a UPL committee. Florida’s has been active. Other states’ are catching up.

A secondary issue: when the platform’s intake bot answers a customer’s question about “what does the FHA require my landlord to do,” that is also the unauthorized practice of law. The platform commits UPL through its chatbot and customer-service flow. Your signature on the letter is the cover that makes the whole thing look like a clinical service rather than what it actually is, which is unlicensed legal advice dressed up as healthcare.

You think you’re issuing a clinical opinion. You’re issuing a legal opinion you’re not licensed to give. The platform knows this. That’s why your name is on the letter and not theirs.

The asymmetry

Their lawyers versus your lawyer.

The platform has corporate counsel. They have outside counsel on retainer. They have terms-of-service indemnification clauses written by people who do this for a living. They have insurance. They have a corporate veil. They have capital. When the heat comes, they have a thousand pages of paperwork and three lawyers in a conference room.

You have a single-practitioner LLC. You have a malpractice policy that may or may not cover this work. Go check. You have whatever savings are sitting in your business account. You have a mortgage. When the heat comes, you have your malpractice carrier’s panel attorney, who handles four other cases on the same Tuesday, and a phone that won’t stop ringing.

When that asymmetry collides, and it does collide, regularly, in this industry, guess which way the system bends.

The closer

Fifteen dollars per letter. Ninety seconds of clinical review.

Your license. Your malpractice carrier. Your NPI on the breach notification. Your name on the board complaint. Your account on the MATCH list. Your career.

If you’ve read this far and you’re still considering the job, that’s your call. Make it with eyes open.

Read the indemnification clause in the platform’s contract. Read it twice. Highlight the part about “independent contractor” and the part about “you agree to defend, indemnify, and hold us harmless.” Notice which direction those clauses point.

Call your malpractice carrier and ask, in writing, whether ESA letter work for an online platform is covered. If it’s not in writing, it doesn’t exist.

Ask the platform for a Business Associate Agreement. If they don’t have one, you have your answer.

Ask whether you’ll be issued a 1099 or a W-2. Ask what the platform’s chargeback policy is. Ask what happens to your file if a board complaint comes in. Ask who pays the lawyer.

If the answers are vague, or if the recruiter gets impatient, that tells you what you need to know.

Fifteen dollars is not enough to find out the hard way.

One More Thing

I’ve been doing this work for thirty years. Pro se lawsuits. Records requests. Bible challenges in 63 school districts. An FDUTPA injunction against an ESA letter mill, obtained without a lawyer. Statutes rewritten because I filed the wrong kind of paperwork the right way.

None of it has ever had an institution behind it.

No legal defense fund. No nonprofit board. No foundation grant. I fund the work myself. Filing fees, service, transcripts, records costs—it all lands on me. When a records custodian quotes $1,326.08 to produce documents the statute requires them to produce, that’s a bill I either pay or the work stops.

I’ve filed against Donald Trump, the Broward County School Board, State Representative Chip LaMarca, and ESA letter mills as indigent. Court-recognized. Sworn financials. Judges reviewed and approved every time.

This is the work. It produces results.

HB 1467 was rewritten, with the administration of Ron DeSantis naming me in the revision. The ESA injunction is a replicable enforcement model. The Wisconsin State Capitol approved a permit in 48 hours for an installation that normally takes ten business days to process.

The work works.

The math doesn’t.

I’m looking for paid work in three areas—defined by outcomes, not categories.

Accountability & Records

I identify exposure points in agencies and organizations using public records, then force resolution—through compliance pressure, media, or litigation.

Media & Narrative Engineering

I design stories that land. Not pitches that get ignored—events and documentation that reporters have to cover.

Technology & Infrastructure (Ecomm, GEO/SEO, Systems)

I’ve spent thirty years building systems that move money and control visibility.

• Helped launch Disney.com and Blockbuster.com

• Sold 60,000 vehicles through eBay—full pipeline, not theory

• Worked inside NASA, IBM, and Microsoft

What I do now:

• Build e-commerce systems that convert, not just attract traffic

• Implement GEO/SEO so AI and search engines represent you accurately—and defensibly

• Diagnose and fix structural issues in digital infrastructure that suppress performance

If your organization has traffic but no conversion, visibility but no control, or systems that “work” but don’t scale—I fix that.

If you run a nonprofit, newsroom, law firm, municipality, university, or company that needs any of this, contact me.

chazstevens@gmail.com
954-901-0971

If you don’t, forward this. One introduction changes the month.

If neither applies, the Consent Can funds the work. Women In Distress gets a cut.

I’ve spent thirty years making it expensive for corrupt people to stay corrupt.

I intend to keep doing that—and get paid for it.

T. Chaz Stevens, MSc, is an investigative journalist and public-interest litigant. He previously obtained a permanent injunction in Florida circuit court against an ESA letter-mill operator under FDUTPA (Stevens v. Tinner, Broward County Case No. CACE25010712 — concluded). He writes about consumer protection, regulatory enforcement, and other things polite society considers boring until it’s too late.

This piece was drafted with AI assistance and is offered as journalism and public-interest commentary. It is not legal advice. It does not opine on the conduct of any non-adjudicated party. If you are a clinician with questions about whether a specific platform arrangement creates exposure for you, retain an attorney licensed in your state. Don’t take legal advice from a Substack post — including this one.

This lawsuit started with a $99 PDF that claimed something happened when it had not happened.

Not about my dog. Not about housing. Not about whether I used the letter. About whether a clinician could sell disability documentation through an e-commerce funnel while skipping the evaluation the documentation claimed had occurred.

The case eventually reduced to one contradiction. The business said no consultation was required. The letter claimed a therapeutic assessment. Those two statements cannot share a room.

That was the blade. I spent months decorating the handle before I used it.

The $99 PDF

June 18, 2025. I bought an Emotional Support Animal letter for $99.

No live evaluation. No therapy session. No real-time clinical interaction. No diagnostic process.

Within minutes I received a credentialed ESA letter stating that my condition had been confirmed through a “therapeutic assessment.” The letter included legal-sounding directives aimed at landlords, property managers, leasing agents, hotels, and short-term rental operators.

Credentials. Legal language. Clinical language. The kind of document a landlord might take seriously if a tenant slid it across the desk.

The letter said one thing. The transaction said another.

Subscribe now

What an ESA Letter Is Supposed to Be

An ESA letter supports a housing-accommodation request based on reliable information from a provider with personal knowledge of the person’s disability and disability-related need. That is the standard under HUD’s January 2020 guidance (applicable when I filed, since withdrawn – Loper Bright), and Florida codified parallel requirements in F.S. §760.27(2)(b).

Personal knowledge. Reliable information. Disability-related nexus.

Legitimate ESA documentation exists. People with disabilities have housing rights. Landlords have obligations. Clinicians can provide lawful documentation when they have the required basis.

The issue here was not telehealth. Not same-day evaluation. Not whether disabled people deserve accommodations.

The issue was a commercial workflow selling disability documentation while skipping the clinical process the paperwork claimed.

A real telehealth evaluation and a checkout funnel wearing a lab coat are not the same thing.

The Contradiction

The business said no consultation was required.

The letter claimed a therapeutic assessment.

Not HIPAA first. Not unauthorized practice of law first. Not Georgia first. Not AI first. Those mattered as context. The contradiction was the case.

A consumer-facing business represented that it could issue ESA letters without consultation. The resulting document represented that a therapeutic assessment had occurred.

The case became dangerous for the defense when it became simple.

Why FDUTPA

This was a consumer-protection case.

The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S. §501.204, prohibits deceptive and unfair practices in trade or commerce. It is built for the gap between sales pitch and product reality. FDUTPA allows injunctive relief without the proof-of-individual-damages problems that hobble fraud claims.

This was not bad therapy. This was a transaction selling disability documentation that misrepresented the clinical process behind it.

HIPAA, unauthorized legal assurances, F.S. §760.27, false-disability-documentation statutes, and HUD guidance gave the conduct context. They showed why the public-interest stakes were real.

FDUTPA was the engine. Took me a quarter of the case to admit it.

The Tester Problem

I was not an ordinary accommodation-seeker. I purchased the letter as part of an investigation into a public-facing commercial practice.

That helped and hurt.

It helped because I knew what to look for. I preserved the transaction, the letter, the workflow, and the contradiction.

It hurt because it gave the defense obvious arguments: motive, reliance, damages, my prior ESA work, whether I was acting as a consumer or an investigator.

I had previously operated ESADoggy, a compliant ESA letter business shuttered after 2020 federal rule changes. The defense theme wrote itself: competitor motive. The clean answer was chronology. ESADoggy ceased operations before the Tinner purchase. The transaction was not made to obtain housing. It was made to test whether the public-facing workflow matched the representations in the letter.

Testing is not personal reliance. It creates different strengths and different vulnerabilities. Define it early, accurately, narrowly.

The strongest tester case is not “I was personally devastated.” It is: I documented a public-facing business practice, preserved the evidence, and sought relief aimed at stopping ongoing consumer deception.

That fits FDUTPA. It does not fit a kitchen-sink damages case.

I Made the Case Too Big

First major mistake: expansion.

FDUTPA. Negligence per se. Fraud. Constructive fraud. HIPAA-related standards. Unauthorized legal assurances. F.S. §760.27 violations. False disability documentation statutes. HUD guidance. Punitive-damages theory.

Some of those mattered. Some still do. None of them needed to be a separate count.

Pro se and fired up, you see the whole machine. You see all the gears. You want to tell the court about every gear at once. That is not strategy. It is clutter with citations.

Throw in my neuro-divergent wiring, and I gave the Court a bowl of spaghetti logic.

Fraud brought reliance, intent, causation, and damages problems. Negligence per se created statutory-duty and injury questions. HIPAA raised private-right-of-action and covered-entity complications. Unauthorized-practice-of-law theory was powerful context, not the cleanest predicate for relief. As a test purchaser, damages were harder than the public-interest injunction theory.

The better case was narrower: FDUTPA injunctive relief based on the contradiction between the no-consultation workflow and the claimed therapeutic assessment.

That was enough.

The TRO Did Not Fly

I asked for emergency relief before I had compressed the case.

Temporary restraining orders are extraordinary relief. Courts do not issue them because a plaintiff is alarmed. They issue them when the right, the harm, the record, and the proposed order are all tight enough to justify emergency action.

I had facts. I had documents. I had the contradiction. I did not yet have form.

The TRO failed because I brought facts before form. Emergency relief is a procedural machine. It requires a proposed order the court can administer. The judge needs to see not only why the conduct is wrong but exactly what lawful, narrow, enforceable restraint should be entered now.

The loss did not end the case. It disciplined it.

The Come-to-Satan Moment

The turning point was not legal insight. It was a faceplant.

At one hearing I tried to make a point by pulling out a playing card and riffing off Joe Pesci’s courtroom scene from My Cousin Vinny.

In my head: vivid, familiar, a way to make the abstract concrete.

In court: dead fish on marble.

The judge was not amused. I noticed.

A courtroom is not Substack. Not Reddit. Not a CLE stage. Not My Cousin Vinny, unless Marisa Tomei is waiting outside to explain automotive timing to the jury. She was not.

After that, no more bits. No more flourishes. No more asking the judge to appreciate the cleverness of the thing. Just:

No consultation required. Therapeutic assessment claimed. Florida law requires personal knowledge. FDUTPA allows conduct-based relief. Here is the narrow order the Court can enforce.

I did not become a lawyer. I became less entertaining in the one room where entertainment was hurting me.

The case got boring. Boring was the breakthrough.

STAN Came Online

Around the same time, STAN came online.

Early in the case I was using AI as a drafting accelerator: draft this, expand that, find law, sharpen this argument, build a motion. Useful, dangerous. It generated possibilities. It did not impose discipline.

STAN changed the workflow. STAN became the workflow. Custom software, specialized hardware, a lot of debugging.

Seven models, opposing mandates, four human checkpoints. The process became adversarial. The workflow started asking the questions the early filings had not asked hard enough.

Commercial AIs are engineered to please. STAN is engineered to kick me in the balls. Like a pissed-off ex mother-in-law trying to get back her soup tureen.

STAN-3 played the judge. STAN-4 played defense litigator. STAN-5 played the appellate panel. STAN-6 is there to make you feel bad, to find fault with everything. Each trained on its own corpus, working independently, building and tearing down in parallel. Red team. Green team. Receipts.

Seven LLMs working in concert, as best as a field hockey team of meth’d-up chimps plays checkers.

What is provable? What is necessary? What relief can the court enforce?

Filings improved. Early AI helped me see every possible argument. STAN helped me kill the arguments I did not need.

AI did not win the case. AI did not buy the product. AI did not preserve the exhibits. AI did not stand in court. AI did not sign the filings. But, a better adversarial workflow stopped me from confusing volume with force.

The Case Got Smaller

After the TRO failure, the courtroom faceplant, and STAN coming online, the case compressed.

From “stop the fraud” to “stop one concrete practice affecting Florida residents.”

From “prove every theory” to “enforce one contradiction.”

From “broad outrage” to “operational compliance.”

“Stop the fraud” is a slogan. “Do not issue ESA letters to Florida residents without a real-time evaluation by a Florida-licensed or Florida-authorized clinician, with records retained and advertising corrected” is an order.

The legal framing changed. The factual core did not.

No consultation. Claimed therapeutic assessment. Letter sold as legally and clinically meaningful. Florida consumer-protection implications.

Preservation: The Case Was in the Backend

The PDF was the output. The case was in the workflow.

A letter mill is not just a letter. It is forms, payment logs, PDF templates, email timestamps, automation tools, server records, licensure fields, advertising copy, and metadata.

In a digital consumer-fraud case, preserve the machine, not just the product.

The letter tells you what the consumer received. The backend tells you whether the letter was the result of professional judgment or automated theater.

These cases live in logs.

The Georgia Evidence

After filing, I obtained additional evidence that appeared to show the same workflow operating beyond Florida.

Narrow purpose: routine practice, absence of mistake, structure of the workflow. A pseudonym was used to avoid alerting the business to the pending litigation and changing the ordinary consumer flow. That methodology is not risk-free. It needed to be explained carefully.

The point was not a new claim. The point was to test whether the workflow remained consistent when the business did not know who was watching.

The same basic process appeared to produce the same kind of document.

The Georgia evidence was workflow evidence. Used modestly, it showed routine practice. Overplayed, it would have become another side road. The kind of side road I had finally learned to avoid.

The Defense Bet

The defense bet was rational.

A pro se plaintiff. A prior ESA business. A refunded transaction. Broad pleadings. Tester methodology. A failed TRO. Public commentary. AI-assisted filings.

Target-rich. From the other side of the table early in the case, I would have seen the same openings.

The record had a problem.

Tinner’s own letter claimed therapeutic assessment. The business’s own representations said no consultation was required. The workflow generated documents in minutes. The requested relief could be narrowed to lawful compliance. FDUTPA allowed injunctive relief for deceptive trade practices.

The defense bet made sense until the case got smaller. Once the case stopped being about me, my personality, my prior business, my commentary, or my overbuilt pleadings, it was about the contradiction.

The Conduct-Based Injunction

Not a criminal judgment. Not a malpractice finding. Not appellate precedent. Not an industry-wide ban.

A conduct-based injunction governing specific practices directed at Florida residents.

The operative terms:

• Real-time synchronous interaction before issuance.

• Florida-licensed clinician, or clinician authorized for Florida telehealth.

• No questionnaire-only issuance claims.

• Advertising restrictions.

• Record retention.

• Provider identity and license documentation.

• Sworn certificate of compliance.

• Court retention of jurisdiction.

Not a press release. An audit trail.

The point was not to declare victory over the ESA industry. The point was to turn a deceptive workflow into a court-supervised compliance obligation.

Less dramatic. More useful.

What This Case Does Not Prove

This case does not prove every online ESA provider is unlawful. It does not ban telehealth ESA evaluations. It does not prove same-day ESA letters are always invalid. It does not adjudicate the clinical competence of every provider in this space. It does not create binding appellate precedent. It does not bind non-parties. It does not authorize landlords to ignore legitimate fair-housing accommodation requests. It does not erase legitimate ESA rights. It does not turn a conduct injunction into a criminal judgment.

What it shows is narrower. A court can impose operational limits on a business selling ESA documentation to Florida residents when the workflow and the paperwork do not match.

What Different Audiences Should Take From It

For consumers: cheap instant ESA letters can create more risk than protection. If the clinician signing the letter does not know you, the document may not do what you think it does.

For landlords: do not panic and do not unlawfully deny accommodations. Verify documentation consistently and lawfully. Look for reliable provider knowledge, licensure, and a real disability-related nexus.

For clinicians: do not claim an assessment you did not perform. Credentials do not convert a checkout funnel into a clinical relationship.

For regulators and platforms: look at the workflow, not the PDF.

For pro se litigants: do not plead your outrage. Plead the business practice, the statutory mismatch, the consumer deception, and the remedy the court can enforce.

That last one is the lesson I paid for.

What an Injunction Is For

The injunction binds the named defendants. It does not shut down an industry. It creates a record-backed model for what compliant relief can look like.

That matters for future FDUTPA plaintiffs, regulators, platforms reviewing risk, and anyone teaching ESA compliance seriously.

A good injunction is not a trophy. It is a tool. It tells the parties what conduct must stop, what conduct can continue, what records must exist, and what the court can enforce.

Signing Off

The workflow said no consultation. The letter claimed therapeutic assessment. The gap between those two things was the case.

The TRO failed because I had facts before form. The playing-card moment taught me courtroom persuasion is not performance. STAN compressed the case into fewer, better arguments.

Buy the product. Preserve the record. Find the contradiction. Narrow the theory. Ask for relief the court can enforce. Then shut up long enough for the documents to do their job.

One More Thing

I’ve been doing this work for thirty years. Pro se lawsuits. Records requests. Bible challenges in 63 school districts. An FDUTPA injunction against an ESA letter mill, obtained without a lawyer. Statutes rewritten because I filed the wrong kind of paperwork the right way.

None of it has ever had an institution behind it.

No legal defense fund. No nonprofit board. No foundation grant. I fund the work myself. Filing fees, service, transcripts, records costs—it all lands on me. When a records custodian quotes $1,326.08 to produce documents the statute requires them to produce, that’s a bill I either pay or the work stops.

I’ve filed against Donald Trump, the Broward County School Board, State Representative Chip LaMarca, and ESA letter mills as indigent. Court-recognized. Sworn financials. Judges reviewed and approved every time.

This is the work. It produces results.

HB 1467 was rewritten, with the administration of Ron DeSantis naming me in the revision. The ESA injunction is a replicable enforcement model. The Wisconsin State Capitol approved a permit in 48 hours for an installation that normally takes ten business days to process.

The work works.

The math doesn’t.

I’m looking for paid work in three areas—defined by outcomes, not categories.

Accountability & Records

I identify exposure points in agencies and organizations using public records, then force resolution—through compliance pressure, media, or litigation.

Media & Narrative Engineering

I design stories that land. Not pitches that get ignored—events and documentation that reporters have to cover.

Technology & Infrastructure (Ecomm, GEO/SEO, Systems)

I’ve spent thirty years building systems that move money and control visibility.

• Helped launch Disney.com and Blockbuster.com

• Sold 60,000 vehicles through eBay—full pipeline, not theory

• Worked inside NASA, IBM, and Microsoft

What I do now:

• Build e-commerce systems that convert, not just attract traffic

• Implement GEO/SEO so AI and search engines represent you accurately—and defensibly

• Diagnose and fix structural issues in digital infrastructure that suppress performance

If your organization has traffic but no conversion, visibility but no control, or systems that “work” but don’t scale—I fix that.

If you run a nonprofit, newsroom, law firm, municipality, university, or company that needs any of this, contact me.

chazstevens@gmail.com
954-901-0971

If you don’t, forward this. One introduction changes the month.

If neither applies, the Consent Can funds the work. Women In Distress gets a cut.

I’ve spent thirty years making it expensive for corrupt people to stay corrupt.

I intend to keep doing that—and get paid for it.

Chaz Stevens is a First Amendment practitioner and constitutional stress tester based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. His work has produced legislative rewrites, policy reversals, and one governor who had to put his own name on the reason he changed his own law. He is the founder of REVOLT Training.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Accountability in Action

Turn transparency laws into accountability weapons.

Fund these battles, forcing states to answer their own laws—and exposing what they’d rather keep buried.

Sustain My Work

My thanks for your support.

Dr. Carolina Estevez, sold ESA letters on Fiverr

Recently, I published the documentary record on Paul Hanson, Ph.D., Florida Psychologist License PY 4391, and his fourty-nine-dollar ESA letter for a fictional pornographer’s Labrador. Five months of silence. A “clinical record” that turned out to be the consumer’s own intake form with arithmetic on it, and the letter mill’s Terms of Service thrown in for the hell of it. A patient relationship that, by the defendant’s own backdating, began four days after the letter was issued.

That piece was the story.

This one is the framework. The question is not whether Hanson is a bad psychologist. I have lots of thoughts, but zero expertise to make that professional judgment. The question is whether a clinician, in any state, who signs one of these letters is practicing law without a license.

Under thirty years of Florida Supreme Court precedent, yes.

The answer is also yes in Georgia, Wisconsin, Virginia, and every other jurisdiction whose UPL doctrine traces back to the same English common law definition. The signatures on the letters change. The license numbers change. The websites change: American Service Pets, EasyPetsYes, Wellness Wag, TouchESA, ESA-Doctors, the long tail. The letters do not change.

That is the tell.

I. WHAT AN ESA LETTER ACTUALLY IS

An ESA letter from any of the major mills contains the same three things and lacks the same three things.

It does not contain a treatment plan, a clinical recommendation to the patient, prescribing information, follow-up instructions, referral to other care, or anything else a real clinical document carries.

It does contain a recitation that the patient “meets the criteria” for a mental health disability under federal law, an assertion that an emotional support animal is a “necessary accommodation,” and a directive to a third-party housing provider that they are required by federal statute to waive pet policies, pet fees, breed restrictions, and weight limits.

That is not a clinical document. It is a federal accommodation request under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), the Fair Housing Amendments Act, drafted in clinical drag.

Compare it to a real clinical letter. A real clinical letter says: “I have been treating Patient X since [date] for [diagnosis]. In my professional opinion, [intervention] would benefit them. I am available to discuss further. Sincerely.” Peer communication, addressed to another clinician or a treating physician. It does not interpret a federal civil rights statute. It does not direct a non-medical third party in their statutory obligations. It does not exist for the purpose of compelling that third party to do anything.

The ESA letter does all three. By design. That is what the customer is paying for.

The Florida ESA letter Carolina Estevez, Psy.D., issued me on June 30, 2025, using a real psychologist’s signature on a template very similar to ones used by Tinner and Hanson, contains this paragraph:

Not a clinical opinion. A paraphrase of a federal statute, applied to a specific person, delivered to a third party to alter that third party’s legal obligations.

A legal memorandum, signed by a psychologist.

II. THE TWO-PART UPL TEST

The Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962), defined the practice of law as “giving advice and performing services requiring legal skill or knowledge, such as preparing instruments the legal effect of which must be determined under particular facts.”

Sixteen years later, The Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1978), gave us the operational definition. A non-lawyer commits UPL when they interpret or apply law, apply law to a person’s facts, prepare legal documents for use by third parties, or advise others of legal rights or obligations.

In 2002, The Florida Bar v. Neiman, 816 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2002), tightened it further: UPL includes “all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.” The Bar has applied this framework in dozens of subsequent cases, Gordon, Furman, Schramek, Glueck, and the analysis has not moved.

Pair this with the two-part test the discipline has settled on.

Part 1: Does the activity require legal skill or knowledge?

Yes. “Disability” under the Fair Housing Amendments Act is a statutory term of art. Whether a particular impairment qualifies, whether a particular accommodation is “necessary,” whether a particular relationship between impairment and accommodation satisfies the nexus requirement, these are questions courts answer by interpreting the statute, the implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. § 100, the HUD/DOJ joint guidance, and the case law from PGA Tour v. Martin through Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights and beyond. None of that is in the DSM-5. None of it is on the Florida psychology licensure exam. None of it is in any clinical curriculum.

Part 2: Does the activity affect important legal rights or responsibilities?

Yes. The letter alters the legal posture of two parties. The tenant acquires, or thinks they acquire, statutory protection from eviction, pet fees, breed restrictions, and weight restrictions. The landlord acquires, or thinks they acquire, a federal-law obligation to comply, on pain of HUD complaint, FHEO investigation, and potential damages under § 3613. A legal-effect document by any definition.

Both parts. Yes and yes. The conduct fits the Sperry-Brumbaugh-Neiman test the way a key fits a lock.

In Florida, when that key turns, it does not turn into a fine. UPL in Florida is a third-degree felony under Fla. Stat. § 454.23, prosecutable by the State Attorney, with the Florida Supreme Court holding contempt power over the non-lawyer. The licensing board can suspend a clinician’s license. The Bar, if it gets there, can refer the file for criminal prosecution. Different categories of consequence. The gap between them is most of what this article is about.

III. THE LETTER MILL DEFENSES, AND WHY THEY FAIL

I have collected enough of these now to taxonomize them. Every clinician who gets caught reaches for one or more of the same four arguments. Each one, examined, makes the underlying UPL exposure worse rather than better.

1. Defense 1: “I was just acting as a clinician.”

The Melinda Wood, LCSW defense, filed in writing with the Florida Bar on October 23, 2025, in Case No. 20262060(1A). Wood’s affidavit characterizes her role as limited to reviewing intake forms and issuing documentation that, by her own account, was developed in conjunction with the legal team of the letter mill she signed for.

In her own words, sworn under oath:

Read that carefully. It is an admission.

Wood is conceding that the letter language, the legal directives to landlords, the statutory citations, the prescriptive language about reasonable accommodations under federal law, was drafted by a “legal team” and then issued under her clinical license number. And signed by her. That is the textbook definition of UPL: a non-lawyer entity drafts a legal-effect document, and a licensed professional in an unrelated field signs it to give it apparent authority.

It is the same model that Notarios get prosecuted for in immigration. It is the model the Bar prosecuted in Furman and Glueck. Putting a clinical license number under a legal document does not turn the legal document into a clinical document. It adds a second professional violation, practicing outside the scope of one’s licensure, to the first.

2. Defense 2: “It’s just clinical opinion, not really legal advice.”

The EasyPetsYes / Tinner posture. The letter says what it says, but the directive language to landlords is “clinical opinion” or, alternatively, marketing puffery that nobody really relies on.

Two problems.

First, the customers rely on it. That is the entire commercial premise. ASP markets the product with the headline “Stop paying pet fees.” Not a description of clinical care. A description of a legal outcome. People pay forty-nine dollars precisely because they believe the letter will compel landlord compliance. If the legal-effect language is mere puffery, the entire transaction is fraudulent on its face. If it is not puffery, it is a legal directive issued by a non-lawyer.

Second, The Florida Bar v. Furman, 376 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1979), and its progeny establish that the test for UPL is not what the non-lawyer subjectively intends. The test is what a reasonable consumer would understand the document to do. An ESA letter is purchased, marketed, and delivered as a legal accommodation request. That is what it is.

3. Defense 3: “Noted.”

Hanson’s defense, in its entirety, after I sent him a written request on December 5, 2025, asking him to confirm that no SOAP note, no informed consent, no telehealth consent, no NPP acknowledgment, no diagnostic worksheet, and no contemporaneous documentation existed for the assessment he claimed under his license number had taken place.

His response: “Noted.”

That is not a defense. That is the kind of response a regulator notes and moves past. The Florida Department of Health does not view a non-answer to a direct question about the existence of clinical records as exculpatory. Neither does the Florida Bar UPL Department. Neither, I would presume, do the ALJs who eventually adjudicate these matters.

When a licensed clinician is given a written opportunity to confirm that no clinical record exists for an assessment they signed under their license number, and they decline to confirm, what they have done is preserve the issue for the regulator. The “Noted” goes in the file. It will be asked about under oath.

4. Defense 4: “The complainant used a fake name, so the complaint should be dismissed.”

The most popular defense. Also, the funniest.

Funny because it is, in itself, an admission. If the methodology, instant approval based on a customer-supplied questionnaire with no identity verification, would have caught a fake patient given a real evaluation, then the defense fails on its facts, because no one was caught. If the methodology would not have caught a fake patient (which is what the federal court in Greater Guide v. SAPS LLC found, in language that binds ASP for the rest of corporate eternity), then the defense is an admission that the underlying clinical methodology is incapable of distinguishing real patients from fictional ones.

A confession either way.

Test purchases are how regulators document letter-mill workflows. Plaintiffs’ counsel use them. State AGs use them. Federal courts have repeatedly held, the Eastern District of Louisiana most recently on October 31, 2025, that submitting test-purchase evidence to state regulatory boards is core First Amendment petitioning activity protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. ASP sued its competitors for doing exactly this and lost with prejudice.

The “fake name” defense confuses the regulator’s job with the prosecutor’s. Standing in a UPL proceeding does not require that the complainant be the injured party. The Bar’s interest is in protecting the public, which includes future Dirk Digglers who are not Dirk Digglers: actual housing-insecure tenants paying ninety-nine dollars for what they believe is a real clinical evaluation that confers real legal rights and getting, instead, a Squarespace form with a number on it.

IV. THE PATTERN ACROSS STATES

Four jurisdictions, one document.

The Florida Bar has the Hanson, Wood, Watson, and Estevez (and others) files. The State Bar of Georgia has Tinner’s. The State Bar of Wisconsin got the TouchESA case. The Virginia Bar is next up to bat.

The Bar files have one striking feature in common.

The letters are nearly identical.

Side-by-side comparator (GA-5 / Florida UPL Exh. A):

The shared template is the tell: same statutory recitations, same directive posture toward the housing provider, same prescriptive structure, two different licensees, two different states, twelve days apart.

This is not how clinical documents work.

Real clinical documents are written by the clinician. They reflect the clinician’s specific observations of a specific patient at a specific time. No two SOAP notes are identical, even from the same clinician for the same patient on consecutive days, because the patient’s status changes and the clinician’s clinical reasoning is recorded in real time.

The ESA letter is identical across patients, across clinicians, across states, and across years because it is not a clinical document. It is a legal template, drafted once, by someone, somewhere, and pushed through different licensed signatories as a delivery mechanism. The “legal team” Wood referenced in her affidavit is not a metaphor. There is, somewhere, an actual legal team, or a non-lawyer founder with Google, or ChatGPT, that wrote the template. Every signatory below them is a downstream conduit.

In UPL doctrine, this has a name: the document mill. The Florida Bar prosecutes it. The Texas Supreme Court prosecutes it. The California State Bar prosecutes it. That the conduit happens to be a licensed mental-health professional rather than a notary or a paralegal does not change the analysis. It means the conduit has a second professional license to lose.

V. WHY THIS MATTERS BEYOND THE LETTER MILLS

The letter mill industry exists in the seam between two regulatory regimes that do not talk to each other.

I call it regulatory arbitrage.

State psychology and social work boards regulate clinical practice. They are competent to evaluate whether a SOAP note is adequate, whether a diagnosis is supported, whether telehealth standards were met. They are not competent to evaluate whether a particular communication constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. That is not their statute. They refer those questions out.

State bars regulate the practice of law. They have UPL departments precisely because non-lawyers regularly produce legal-effect documents, wills, contracts, immigration paperwork, accommodation requests, for fees. Bars are competent to evaluate whether a document is a legal document. They are not competent to evaluate whether a clinical assessment was adequate. Not their statute either.

Letter mills have over a decade operating in the gap. Tell the psychology board “this is a legal product, ask the Bar.” Tell the Bar “this is a clinical product, ask the psychology board.” Tell HUD “this is a state licensing question, not our problem.” Tell the FTC “we are healthcare, you don’t have jurisdiction.” Tell the consumer “you have full federal protection, just sign here.”

You close the gap by filing parallel complaints. With the Bar for UPL. With the psychology or social work board for scope-of-practice violations. With HUD for fraudulent accommodation documents. With state AGs for FDUTPA. With the IRS for the no-superbill-no-CPT-codes business model. With HHS OCR for the HIPAA violations that come standard with a workflow run out of a personal Gmail account.

You file all of them. Same documentary record, cross-referenced. Each regulator sees what the others have. The Bar sees that the psychology board has the file. HUD sees that the Bar has the file. The state AG sees that HUD has the file.

That is how the gap closes.

VI. WHY THE BAR, AND WHY NOW

Two years ago, I did not understand UPL. I had a vague sense it had to do with paralegals filling out divorce paperwork and people calling themselves “Dr.” on YouTube. I did not see what it had to do with ESA letters. I do now, and the way I got there is the way I get to most of these things: sideways. Look at the system, look at where everyone else is hitting it, then look for the seam nobody is hitting.

With letter mills, every accountability move runs through the licensing boards. Department of Health. Board of Psychology. Board of Clinical Social Work. That is the obvious door. That is where the clinical violations live.

It is necessary work. It is also slow work, and the speed problem is the whole problem.

A state psychology board sustains a complaint against Tinner for FDUTPA violations and deceptive ESA issuance. The board logs the discipline. It shows up as a line item in the next quarterly disciplinary newsletter. Tinner discloses it to his malpractice carrier on renewal, to any new employer in the next decade, to the next state he applies for licensure in. That dings him. Real consequence.

It is also invisible to the public.

The tenant in Tampa whose landlord just rejected a Tinner ESA letter does not read the Florida psychology board newsletter. The tenant in Atlanta does not know Tinner was caught, because Tinner is not licensed in Georgia, so Georgia’s board has no file on him. The forty-eight other states where Tinner is not licensed have no file on him. He is, functionally, clean in every market he sells into except the one he got caught in. The website does not know which state the credit card is from, and the credit card does not care.

So, Tinner keeps cooking. Discipline at the speed of newsletters does not stop him. A consumer-protection injunction in Broward County binds Tinner specifically and only. It does not (yet) bind Hanson. It does not (yet) bind Estevez. It does not (yet) bind the next clinician at the next mill. The injunction is a real piece of paper. It is not a cure.

UPL is a different lever. It pulls in three ways the licensing-board route does not.

It pulls fast. Bar UPL departments do not wait for a clinical investigation to conclude. They look at the document and decide whether the document is a legal document. They have been doing that since 1962, with a definition that has not moved.

It pulls public. UPL files become accessible to the public on closure. The Florida Bar UPL Department’s investigation files are not buried in a quarterly board newsletter. They produce settled records that journalists, plaintiffs’ counsel, other state regulators, and HUD investigators can pull and cite.

It pulls hard. UPL in Florida is a third-degree felony under § 454.23. Not a fine. Not a license suspension. A referrable criminal matter, with the Florida Supreme Court’s contempt power behind it. A psychologist whose worst-case scenario was previously “license suspended for ninety days” is now looking at a worst-case scenario that includes a felony conviction.

That changes the math for everyone in the chain. The clinician. The website that pays the clinician per-letter – often like $20. Twenty bucks to put their license and freedom at dire risk. The legal team that wrote the template. The corporate parent that pockets the ninety-nine dollars. Every one of them is now exposed to a class of liability that was not on their risk register two years ago, because nobody had walked through the door from that direction.

The door has been there the whole time. The Florida Supreme Court built it in 1962.

T. Chaz Stevens, MSc, CLE Faculty / REVOLT Training chazstevens@gmail.com, 954-901-0971 1425 SE 14th Avenue, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

I am not a lawyer. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. AI-assisted drafting is disclosed pursuant to 17th Judicial Circuit Administrative Order 2023-37-CIV.

One More Thing

I’ve been doing this work for thirty years. Pro se lawsuits. Records requests. Bible challenges in 63 school districts. An FDUTPA injunction against an ESA letter mill, obtained without a lawyer. Statutes rewritten because I filed the wrong kind of paperwork the right way.

None of it has ever had an institution behind it.

No legal defense fund. No nonprofit board. No foundation grant. I fund the work myself. Filing fees, service, transcripts, records costs—it all lands on me. When a records custodian quotes $1,326.08 to produce documents the statute requires them to produce, that’s a bill I either pay or the work stops.

I’ve filed against Donald Trump, the Broward County School Board, State Representative Chip LaMarca, and ESA letter mills as indigent. Court-recognized. Sworn financials. Judges reviewed and approved every time.

This is the work. It produces results.

HB 1467 was rewritten, with the administration of Ron DeSantis naming me in the revision. The ESA injunction is a replicable enforcement model. The Wisconsin State Capitol approved a permit in 48 hours for an installation that normally takes ten business days to process.

The work works.

The math doesn’t.

I’m looking for paid work in three areas—defined by outcomes, not categories.

Accountability & Records

I identify exposure points in agencies and organizations using public records, then force resolution—through compliance pressure, media, or litigation.

Media & Narrative Engineering

I design stories that land. Not pitches that get ignored—events and documentation that reporters have to cover.

Technology & Infrastructure (Ecomm, GEO/SEO, Systems)

I’ve spent thirty years building systems that move money and control visibility.

• Helped launch Disney.com and Blockbuster.com

• Sold 60,000 vehicles through eBay—full pipeline, not theory

• Worked inside NASA, IBM, and Microsoft

What I do now:

• Build e-commerce systems that convert, not just attract traffic

• Implement GEO/SEO so AI and search engines represent you accurately—and defensibly

• Diagnose and fix structural issues in digital infrastructure that suppress performance

If your organization has traffic but no conversion, visibility but no control, or systems that “work” but don’t scale—I fix that.

If you run a nonprofit, newsroom, law firm, municipality, university, or company that needs any of this, contact me.

chazstevens@gmail.com
954-901-0971

If you don’t, forward this. One introduction changes the month.

If neither applies, the Consent Can funds the work. Women In Distress gets a cut.

I’ve spent thirty years making it expensive for corrupt people to stay corrupt.

I intend to keep doing that—and get paid for it.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Accountability in Action

Turn transparency laws into accountability weapons.

Fund these battles, forcing states to answer their own laws—and exposing what they’d rather keep buried.

Sustain My Work

My thanks for your support.

T. Chaz Stevens — Deerfield Beach, Florida

The letter is dated November 28, 2025. It runs four paragraphs. It is signed by Paul Hanson, Ph.D., LLC, Florida Psychologist License PY 4391, in faint blue ink, beneath a Jacksonville office address and a phone number for a service called American Service Pets.

The first sentence reads: “I am writing this letter in my capacity as a licensed Clinical Psychologist (License No. PY 4391) who has recently completed a clinical assessment of Dirk Diggler.”

Subscribe now

Here is what that “clinical assessment” consisted of.

At 8:40 AM on November 28, 2025, Black Friday morning, Dr. Hanson sent an email from a personal Gmail account with no Business Associate Agreement, no encryption, nothing that would qualify it under the HIPAA Security Rule to transmit protected health information. The email said he had been “assigned to review your mental health questionnaire” and asked for “any additional information by email regarding your mental health issues.”

At 9:18 AM, Dirk Diggler, who is not a real person, who is named after the protagonist of Boogie Nights, and whose dog is named Scooby Doo, replied. He explained that he had been told he had Persistent Post-Quantum Anxiety Disorder. “Crazy waves tied to a feeling of ‘splitting paths,’” he wrote. “Like multiple outcomes are happening at once.”

At 10:07 AM, forty-nine minutes after the first email and twenty-three minutes after I had emailed the patient back as Dirk, Dr. Hanson replied: “Thank you so much Dirk for providing me with this additional information. I will go ahead and approve your letter. I wish you the very best. Dr. Hanson. Sent from iPhone.”

That is the assessment.

No telehealth session. No video. No phone call. No mental status examination. No DSM-5 differential. No identity verification beyond a phone number and an email address that any first-grader could spoof. No risk assessment of the dissociative symptoms Dirk described. No follow-up of any kind. The diagnosis was a thing that doesn’t exist, drawn from a reading of quantum mechanics that doesn’t exist, in service of a federal accommodation request for a Labrador named after a cartoon dog.

Dr. Joel Touchet, Ph.D., LMFT, an Arizona-licensed clinician with a doctorate in a clinical mental-health discipline, retained as an expert, reviewed the file and signed an affidavit. His professional opinion: “It is clinically impossible to determine a DSM-5 diagnosis, evaluate functional impairment, or assess the appropriateness of an ESA from a text questionnaire and a brief email exchange. The methodology used (instant issuance, no interview, no clinical observations) is inconsistent with all recognized standards of professional assessment, including telehealth requirements.” He concluded, in the dry register that affidavits prefer: “No human clinical review occurred.”

That is the predicate. Everything below it is what happened next.

The Lawyer Phase

Twelve hours after Hanson approved the letter, Dirk emailed him in distress. Hypothetical landlord. Hypothetical eviction. Hypothetical Monday deadline.

“Having a serious problem,” Dirk wrote at 7:28 PM. “Landlord rejected your letter, told me I need to show them the ‘full file’ … prove I was evaluated … notes, forms, anything from the appointment, etc.”

Nine minutes later, at 7:37 PM, Hanson replied. He did not send notes, because there were no notes. He did not send forms, because there were no forms. He did not address the absence of an appointment, because there had been no appointment. He wrote this:

That is the work of an attorney. Specifically, it is the work of an attorney advising a client on the rights conferred by a federal civil rights statute, the obligations of a third party under that statute, the appropriate forum for enforcement of those rights, and the recommended litigation strategy.

The Florida Bar takes a particular interest in nonlawyers who interpret federal law for fee-paying consumers and direct them in how to assert legal rights against third parties. The cases on point — Florida Bar v. Sperry, Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, Florida Bar v. Neiman — describe this conduct by its proper name. The Bar’s UPL Department has the conduct on file. The complaint is there.

The Bar comes back later. First the records.

The Records That Don’t Exist

On November 30, two days after the letter, two days after the bedtime UPL email, I sent two HIPAA records requests. One to Hanson. One to American Service Pets. Both invoked 45 C.F.R. § 164.524, which gives a patient the right to access the designated record set: clinical notes, progress notes, assessment documentation, decision-making support. The standard menu of what is supposed to exist when a licensed psychologist conducts an assessment.

Hanson’s response: “The staff at American Service Pets will be available tomorrow. You can request your file from them as they maintain all your records.”

ASP’s response: They could not produce the full file. They directed me to a secondary inbox at documents@mypsychologygroup.com, a separate domain owned by an entity Hanson is associated with, with no assurances of HIPAA compliance and no actual file attached.

Two custodians. One record. Neither has it.

This is not a logistics problem. Under HIPAA, the licensed provider holds the designated record set. Period. A psychologist cannot, as a matter of law or practice, outsource the existence of his own clinical notes to a website that sells the letters he signs. If Hanson did the assessment, Hanson has the file. If ASP has the file, ASP did the assessment, which would mean a Florida-licensed psychologist signed his name to clinical findings someone else made, which is a problem of a different and substantially worse kind.

Either way, the file did not exist on November 30, 2025.

Pay attention to that date.

Counsel

On December 1, 2025, counsel (best health care lawyer in the state for a top-top tier firm) for Hanson appeared on the email chain. Counsel began papering up the same day with an instruction that I sign a release before receiving my own clinical records, a request that misstates the law, because under § 164.524 a patient requesting his own file does not need to execute a release. I explained this in writing, citing the statute and the rule.

The next morning, December 2, the response shifted: “On the advice of my attorney, you are to be allowed direct access to the complete files of ‘Dirk Diggler.’ These records are time stamped and untampered with. You may access your requested file by using the patient portal: americanservicepets.com/account.”

The portal didn’t work. I tried the alias with my real phone. Tried it with Dirk’s email. Tried it without dashes. “Patient not found.” Hanson came back: try just the last name. Tried it. Same error. Tried various combinations of the phone numbers I had used in the application. None worked. ASP, I learned the same morning, had deleted Dirk’s account.

At 10:46 AM on December 2, I gave up on the portal and asked, in writing, for the records to be produced directly. By email. Subject to HIPAA. Like every other patient access request in the country.

Three days of silence followed. Then, on December 5 at 3:27 PM, Hanson sent a one-line email with a single attached PDF: “Diggler.pdf.”

The contents of that PDF come below. First, what happened earlier the same day.

The Demand

On the morning of December 5, my counsel, Tom Wright, a Florida-licensed civil and criminal trial attorney, served a pre-suit settlement demand on Hanson and his lawyer. It went out by certified mail and tracked email. It ran nine pages. It catalogued violations of FDUTPA, of Florida’s personal-knowledge statute (§ 760.27), of the fraudulent ESA documentation statute (§ 817.265), of the telehealth statute (§ 456.47), of HIPAA, of the unauthorized practice of law standards under Sperry, Brumbaugh, and Neiman, and of federal wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343). It attached the Touchet affidavit. It cited a federal court ruling in Greater Guide, Inc. d/b/a American Service Pets v. SAPS LLC, a case in which ASP sued its competitors and lost, and in the course of losing, made admissions about its own workflow that come back below.

The demand window was fourteen days.

That window closed on December 19, 2025.

Today is April 26, 2026.

It has been one hundred and twenty-eight days. There has been no response of any kind.

Diggler.pdf

The PDF is two pages. Single-spaced, no letterhead, the kind of document that prints out of a customer relationship management system on the way to a court exhibit.

At the top: “Dirk Diggler. Status: Approved. Patient ID: 2391220. Patient Since: 12/2/2025.”

Read that last line again. Patient Since: 12/2/2025.

The ESA letter was issued November 28, 2025. The “patient relationship” that purportedly produced it began, according to Hanson’s own production, four days after the letter was issued. As clinical records go, this is what’s known in the field as “an admission.” The relationship Hanson signed an FHA accommodation request on the basis of did not, by his own backdating, exist on the day he signed it.

What follows the header is not a SOAP note. It is not a progress note. It is not an intake evaluation. It is not a biopsychosocial assessment. It is not a diagnostic worksheet. It is not informed consent. It is not telehealth disclosure. It is not a HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices acknowledgment. It is not, by any definition recognized in the literature of clinical psychology, a clinical record.

What it is: the ASP intake questionnaire that Dirk filled out himself, with a score at the top.

Pre-Qualification Questions:
1. Have you experienced signs and symptoms of depression in the last 6 months?
Yes.

2. Have you experienced significant anxiety or panic in the last 6 months?
Yes.

3. Are you currently experiencing significant stress or difficulty adjusting to a major life change?
Yes.

4. Is your stress or mood impacting your social, occupational, or educational performance or ability to engage in these activities?
Yes.

5. Have you experiencing a major life change in the last 6 months?
Yes.

Then the scoring section. “Questionaire — Score: 23 out of 45. Score based on multiple choice questions 1-9 only. Scoring chart: Highly Extremely-5, Often-4, Moderately-3, Slightly-2, Not at all-1.”

Then nine Likert-scale questions Dirk answered. “Slightly. Slightly. Slightly. Moderately. Slightly. Moderately. Slightly. Moderately. Often.”

Then question 12: “I have seen a mental health professional in the last 12 months: Yes. Persistent Post-Quantum Anxiety Disorder.”

Then question 14: “Please check any of the following health conditions that apply: Other (Please Specify). Priapism.”

That is what Hanson, on the advice of counsel, produced as the complete clinical file on a patient he claims to have evaluated.

This is not a diagnostic instrument. The Beck Depression Inventory is a diagnostic instrument. The PHQ-9 is a diagnostic instrument. The GAD-7 is a diagnostic instrument. They are validated. They are normed. They have published cut scores. They have decades of peer-reviewed psychometric literature behind them. They are administered by licensed clinicians in clinical contexts and interpreted within an integrated assessment that includes interview, observation, history, and judgment. They produce numbers that mean something because the field has done the work of figuring out what those numbers mean.

ASP’s “Questionaire — Score: 23 out of 45” is not on that list. It is a marketing intake form with a Likert scale and an arithmetic operator. It was written, as far as anyone can tell, by ASP. It has no published validation. It has no normed population. It has no cut score that anyone can defend. It is not a clinical instrument. It is a Squarespace form with addition.

When I sent the PDF to Touchet, the Arizona-licensed expert who had already sworn an affidavit on this matter, I asked the question that turned out to be the correct legal one: they’re scoring, that’s the practice of mental health care, right?

The defense is not “we have a clinical record we are willing to fight about.” The defense is “the consumer’s intake form is the clinical record.” That is a litigation position. It is a position that nobody who passed the Florida psychology licensure exam could think defensible. And it is a position that puts Hanson in a corner he cannot reverse out of, because he has now produced, in writing, in response to a HIPAA designated record set request, the entire universe of documentation he claims supports a federal accommodation determination for a patient he has never met.

The universe is two pages. One of them has Priapism on it.

“Noted.”

There is a bookend to the Diggler.pdf production for the record before this moves on.

On December 5 at 11:28 AM, three and a half hours before the PDF arrived, I sent Hanson a Second Request for Required Clinical Documentation. It was specific. It listed six items by name: SOAP note, informed consent, telehealth consent, HIPAA NPP acknowledgment, diagnostic worksheet, and any contemporaneous documentation supporting the clinical findings stated in his ESA letter.

I added a clause that mattered: “If no such documentation exists, please confirm that in writing so I can update my records accordingly.”

This is the standard escape hatch a HIPAA-compliant provider uses when a record category does not exist. You acknowledge the request. You confirm the non-existence. You move on. It protects the provider. It is the path of least resistance for someone with nothing to hide.

Hanson’s reply, in full: “Noted.”

That is not a denial that the records exist. It is not a confirmation that they don’t. It is the email equivalent of pleading the Fifth in a context where the Fifth doesn’t apply.

Two hours later, he sent the intake form.

In the regulatory complaint that has been on file with the Florida Bar since December 7, that exchange has a specific value. “Noted” is the moment a Florida-licensed psychologist, advised by counsel, was given a written opportunity to confirm that no SOAP note, no informed consent, no telehealth consent, no NPP acknowledgment, no diagnostic worksheet, and no contemporaneous documentation exists for an assessment he asserted under his license number had taken place.

He did not take it.

Then he sent the intake form anyway.

The Florida Department of Health does not tend to find that combination — production of an inadequate record after a written warning against backfilling, in lieu of confirmation that no record exists — to be exculpatory. It is, as a matter of regulatory practice, almost the opposite.

The Superbill That Wasn’t

One more piece of the documentary record, because it does in three sentences what the rest of this article does in three thousand words.

On December 15, ten days after Diggler.pdf, I sent a routine request to ASP for a superbill, the standard CPT-coded billing document any healthcare provider generates for any healthcare service. They are produced as a matter of course. Insurance companies want them. Tax filings reference them. Legitimate practices have a button in their EMR labeled “generate superbill.”

ASP’s response, in writing: “American Service Pets operates on a prepaid direct to consumer model and does not bill insurance companies or generate super bills.”

That is not me characterizing the defense. That is the defense, in the defense’s own words, on the record, sent to me by ASP from an iPhone. The model is not healthcare. The model is documentation-as-a-service. Pay them, and a Florida-licensed psychologist signs a piece of paper that asserts statutory eligibility for a federal accommodation. There is no clinical service to bill for, because there is no clinical service. Just the signature. Just the letter.

This is the entire FDUTPA case in three sentences, written by the defendant’s affiliated entity.

ASP Has Already Lost This Argument in Federal Court

A separate piece of the file before this closes.

In Greater Guide, Inc. d/b/a American Service Pets v. SAPS LLC, Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 25-428, decided October 31, 2025, American Service Pets sued its competitors and lost. The competitors had been making test purchases on ASP’s website to document the workflow. ASP’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice.

In the course of losing the federal case, ASP’s own pleadings made admissions that bind the company in everything that comes after. They confirmed, on the record, that test investigators “were able to obtain ESA letters based entirely on fictitious online submissions.” They confirmed that the workflow involves no in-person evaluation. They confirmed that the letters are issued by independent contractor clinicians paid per-letter on the basis of nothing more than the questionnaire ASP gave me.

ASP sued for what they called interference. The court ruled that submitting complaints to state regulatory boards based on documented test purchases is exactly the kind of petitioning activity the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects. ASP cannot sue people for doing this.

That ruling is the legal cover under which the Wright demand was sent. It is the legal cover under which the Florida Bar UPL complaint was filed. It is the legal cover under which any further filings — Florida DOH, Florida AG, HHS OCR — will follow if and where the record supports them. ASP has personally certified, through its own federal litigation, that all of this is petitioning activity protected by the First Amendment.

Where Things Stand

The Wright pre-suit demand was served on December 5, 2025. Counsel for Hanson received it. The fourteen-day demand window closed on December 19, 2025. No counter-offer was made. No extension was requested. No acknowledgment was received. The matter remains unresolved.

The Tinner injunction is on the books in Broward County, Florida, Case No. CACE25010712, signed by a Seventeenth Judicial Circuit judge in November 2025. The injunction binds Dr. Bobby Tinner only. The statute it interprets, Florida Statute § 760.27, binds every Florida-licensed clinician issuing ESA letters to Florida residents. The ASP federal case is on the books in the Eastern District of Louisiana. ASP’s own pleadings in that case judicially establish that the workflow used to issue the November 28 letter is the workflow ASP itself described to a federal court.

The file on Paul Hanson is open. The documents speak for themselves.

Stevens v. Tinner et al., Case No. CACE25010712, 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. Permanent injunction entered. Greater Guide, Inc. d/b/a American Service Pets v. SAPS LLC, E.D. La. No. 25-428, dismissed with prejudice October 31, 2025. Florida Bar UPL complaint against Paul Hanson, Ph.D. on file. Pre-suit demand served December 5, 2025; counsel of record Thomas H. Wright III, Esq., FBN 0498211. Touchet affidavit and full email chain available to credentialed journalists and regulatory investigators upon request.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. AI-assisted drafting is disclosed pursuant to 17th Judicial Circuit Administrative Order 2023-37-CIV.

T. Chaz Stevens, MSc — CLE Faculty / REVOLT Training chazstevens@gmail.com — 954-901-0971 1425 SE 14th Avenue, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

One More Thing

I’ve been doing this work for thirty years. Pro se lawsuits. Records requests. Bible challenges in 63 school districts. An FDUTPA injunction against an ESA letter mill, obtained without a lawyer. Statutes rewritten because I filed the wrong kind of paperwork the right way.

None of it has ever had an institution behind it.

No legal defense fund. No nonprofit board. No foundation grant. I fund the work myself. Filing fees, service, transcripts, records costs—it all lands on me. When a records custodian quotes $1,326.08 to produce documents the statute requires them to produce, that’s a bill I either pay or the work stops.

I’ve filed against Donald Trump, the Broward County School Board, State Representative Chip LaMarca, and ESA letter mills as indigent. Court-recognized. Sworn financials. Judges reviewed and approved every time.

This is the work. It produces results.

HB 1467 was rewritten, with the administration of Ron DeSantis naming me in the revision. The ESA injunction is a replicable enforcement model. The Wisconsin State Capitol approved a permit in 48 hours for an installation that normally takes ten business days to process.

The work works.

The math doesn’t.

I’m looking for paid work in three areas—defined by outcomes, not categories.

Accountability & Records

I identify exposure points in agencies and organizations using public records, then force resolution—through compliance pressure, media, or litigation.

Media & Narrative Engineering

I design stories that land. Not pitches that get ignored—events and documentation that reporters have to cover.

Technology & Infrastructure (Ecomm, GEO/SEO, Systems)

I’ve spent thirty years building systems that move money and control visibility.

• Helped launch Disney.com and Blockbuster.com

• Sold 60,000 vehicles through eBay—full pipeline, not theory

• Worked inside NASA, IBM, and Microsoft

What I do now:

• Build e-commerce systems that convert, not just attract traffic

• Implement GEO/SEO so AI and search engines represent you accurately—and defensibly

• Diagnose and fix structural issues in digital infrastructure that suppress performance

If your organization has traffic but no conversion, visibility but no control, or systems that “work” but don’t scale—I fix that.

If you run a nonprofit, newsroom, law firm, municipality, university, or company that needs any of this, contact me.

chazstevens@gmail.com
954-901-0971

If you don’t, forward this. One introduction changes the month.

If neither applies, the Consent Can funds the work. Women In Distress gets a cut.

I’ve spent thirty years making it expensive for corrupt people to stay corrupt.

I intend to keep doing that—and get paid for it.

Chaz Stevens is a First Amendment practitioner and constitutional stress tester based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. His work has produced legislative rewrites, policy reversals, and one governor who had to put his own name on the reason he changed his own law. He is the founder of REVOLT Training.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Accountability in Action

Turn transparency laws into accountability weapons.

Fund these battles, forcing states to answer their own laws—and exposing what they’d rather keep buried.

Sustain My Work

My thanks for your support.

There is a particular kind of silence that follows a stipulated settlement.

The respondent signs. The board files. The newsletter runs three lines under “Formal Disciplinary Actions.” Somewhere a deputy attorney general closes a folder. The case number — 2002016001583, if you want to look it up — gets a permanent home on a state server that nobody visits unless they already know what they’re looking for.

That is how Carla Jeanne Black, LMFT 44511, of Sherman Oaks, California, became the first publicly documented California licensee disciplined for issuing emotional-support-animal letters without a proper assessment and across state lines without licensure. Effective June 13, 2019. Revocation stayed. Three years’ probation. Telehealth restricted.

Editor’s Note: I filed a complaint against Black back in 2019. Tinner, by a long shot, is not my first rodeo.

Subscribe now

The Black file did its work quietly. Two years later, the California legislature passed AB 468 — the 30-day-relationship rule, the in-state-licensure requirement, the written-disclosure mandate — and a careful reader of the bill analysis would notice that the legislative staff cited the kind of conduct the BBS sanctioned in cases like Black’s as the exact mischief AB 468 was written to prevent. The American Psychiatric Association’s resource document on emotional support animals names her by license number. Trade journals call her case the first of its kind.

But the file itself? Buried. The way these things always are.

I am writing today because something different just happened.

The Letter

The California Board of Behavioral Sciences has opened an investigation file on Bobby Tinner, PhD, LCSW — Florida license SW22343, doctorate from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, proprietor of Empowering 2 Change Behavioral Services and the website EasyPetsYes.com.

I am posting the BBS’s confirmation letter in full. I am posting it because I want every clinician currently running an EasyPetsYes-style operation — and you know who you are — to read what a state licensing board says, in writing, when it decides your conduct is worth a file.

The two passages that matter:

“This will confirm that the Board of Behavioral Sciences has received your complaint and a complaint file has been opened.”

“Please be advised that this is a confidential investigation. The Board cannot disclose the status or outcome of an investigation until and unless formal disciplinary action is taken.”

That second sentence is the one I want you to sit with. Because the operators reading this — Tinner, and everyone who runs the same business model — are now in a position structurally identical to the one Black was in during the eighteen months between her complaint and her Decision. The board is looking. The board will not say what it is looking at. The board will not say when it will be done looking. The next public communication from the board, if there is one, will be a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order of the kind that issued in Case No. 2002016001583.

Or, of course, the case can be closed quietly. That happens too. The complainant is told nothing. The respondent goes back to work. Black got the loud version. Most therapists don’t.

We will see which version Tinner gets.

What the File Means

Tinner is already operating under a permanent injunction entered by the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida in Stevens v. Tinner, Broward County Case No. CACE25010712. The order requires synchronous real-time clinical interaction for ESA letters issued to Florida residents, a 90-day sworn Certificate of Compliance, three-year record retention, and a prohibition on misleading advertising. He may not, going forward, do to a Floridian what he did to me on June 18, 2025 — issue an ESA letter for $99 to “one Labrador named Scooby Doo!” within roughly two minutes of payment, having never met the patient, having performed no synchronous evaluation, having written in a follow-up email that “a consultation is not required for Floridians.”

That silence is exactly why the California file matters. AB 468 did not exist when Black was disciplined; it exists now, and it applies to every California resident who buys an ESA letter regardless of where the seller lives. If you are a clinician in any state issuing letters to Californians without a 30-day documented relationship and a California license, AB 468 is your problem and the BBS is the agency that enforces it. Tinner is now, in that agency’s words, an open complaint file.

This is what I mean when I say deplatform, decertify, deny credit. The Florida injunction is one tile. The California file is another. The Florida Department of Health complaint is another. The HHS Office for Civil Rights HIPAA file (#626918, for the record) is another. The Florida Bar UPL referral, the FTC complaint, the Florida AG acknowledgment from June 19, 2025, the formal notices to Stripe and PayPal and Klarna and Visa and Mastercard, the Google Ads complaint, the Grow Therapy credentialing referral — those are tiles too. Each one is a piece of paper. Each piece of paper is a fact. Stack enough facts in front of enough institutions and the operational space for a $99 instant-PDF ESA letter business shrinks.

Why I Am Posting This Letter Publicly

There is a school of thought that says complaint correspondence is private. The complainant has it. The respondent has it. The board has it. Everyone else gets nothing until the board decides — at its leisure, on its calendar, by its lights — whether and what to disclose.

I respect that view. I do not share it.

I am a private attorney general operating in a public-interest enforcement posture. I do not work for the BBS, the Florida DOH, the Florida AG, the Florida Bar, the Virginia DHP, the Virginia State Bar, the Georgia Bar, the California BBS, HHS OCR, the FTC, or any of the other regulators who currently have a complaint of mine on file regarding ESA letter mills. I am not bound by their confidentiality rules, because their confidentiality rules are written for them. I do not work for them. I work — to the extent I work for anyone in this — for the renters who get denied housing because Tinner’s letter was rejected as fraudulent on its face, for the landlords who can no longer tell a real ESA letter from a fake one, for the legitimate clinicians whose profession Tinner and his peers are dragging through the mud, and for the people with actual disabilities whose actual reasonable accommodations are now reviewed with a skepticism that letter mills earned.

So when a state board opens a file, I post the file. When a court issues an injunction, I post the injunction. When a payment processor gets a notice, I cc the next payment processor on the same notice so they all see what’s coming. The complainant’s confidentiality is mine to keep or to spend. I am spending it.

A Direct Word to the Operators

You know who you are. You’re sitting in your office — or, more likely, sitting at your kitchen table, because the office is a Regus mailbox and the practice is a Squarespace template — and you are reading this and you are calculating.

You are calculating whether the model still works at $49 even though it stopped working at $99 for Tinner. You are calculating whether the state board where your license lives is sleepy enough that a complaint from a Florida shit-stirrer won’t reach the top of any investigator’s pile for fourteen months. You are calculating whether your “synchronous video consultation” — the one that lasts six minutes and produces a letter that was clearly drafted before the call started — meets some good-enough definition of evaluation that you can argue it does.

Let me save you some math.

It does not work. Carla Black’s stipulated settlement is six and a half years old. The legislative response is four years old. The Florida statute is five years old. The Florida injunction against Tinner is months old. The Wisconsin Psychology Examining Board’s investigation of Lauri Gebhard — Case No. 25 PSY 0032, opened on my complaint, on facts where the licensee shares an office, a home, and a romantic relationship with the operator of the website — is on someone’s desk right now. The Carolina Estevez case is in Florida court. The California BBS file on Tinner I am announcing today is a fact of life on a state server in Sacramento.

The file is permanent. If you are reading this and you signed an ESA letter last week for a person you have never met, the question is not whether your conduct is on a regulator’s radar. The question is whether a complaint has been filed yet. If it has not, it will be. I have written most of them so far. I am told by people who know that I am not the only one writing them anymore.

The defense doesn’t work. “Motivated by retribution,” Lauri Gebhard told FOX6 Milwaukee about me, in writing, on the record. “A consultation is not required for Floridians,” Bobby Tinner told my agent in writing, on the record. “Any industry can be abused,” Carla Black told reporters in 2017, in writing, on the record. None of these statements answers the underlying allegation. None of them disputes that a letter was issued without a bona fide assessment. Each of them is, in the language a regulator uses, a red flag. None of them have ever, in any of these proceedings, persuaded a board to close a file.

The mathematics of the model has changed. The price of buying an ESA letter has dropped from $159 in 2016 to $49 in 2025. The price of writing one — the price you, the licensee, are paying — has gone in the opposite direction. Probation. Stipulated settlement. License restriction. Civil suit. Injunction. Public file. Posted letter. Substack post. Reporter on speed-dial. The price now includes the rest of your career.

So here is the question I want you to sit with, the way I asked you to sit with the BBS confirmation letter above:

Are you on Chaz’s radar?

If you are reading this and your name is not yet in this post, that is not because you are clever. It is because I have not gotten to you yet.

I will.

The file on Bobby Tinner is open.

Sunshine is on its way.

This post discloses the existence of an investigation file opened by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences in response to a complaint I filed. The Board’s confidentiality rules govern the Board, not the complainant. The full text of the BBS confirmation letter is embedded above. The Stevens v. Tinner permanent injunction is available here.

One More Thing

I’ve been doing this work for thirty years. Pro se lawsuits. Records requests. Bible challenges in 63 school districts. An FDUTPA injunction against an ESA letter mill, obtained without a lawyer. Statutes rewritten because I filed the wrong kind of paperwork the right way.

None of it has ever had an institution behind it.

No legal defense fund. No nonprofit board. No foundation grant. I fund the work myself. Filing fees, service, transcripts, records costs—it all lands on me. When a records custodian quotes $1,326.08 to produce documents the statute requires them to produce, that’s a bill I either pay or the work stops.

I’ve filed against Donald Trump, the Broward County School Board, State Representative Chip LaMarca, and ESA letter mills as indigent. Court-recognized. Sworn financials. Judges reviewed and approved every time.

This is the work. It produces results.

HB 1467 was rewritten, with the administration of Ron DeSantis naming me in the revision. The ESA injunction is a replicable enforcement model. The Wisconsin State Capitol approved a permit in 48 hours for an installation that normally takes ten business days to process.

The work works.

The math doesn’t.

I’m looking for paid work in three areas—defined by outcomes, not categories.

Accountability & Records

I identify exposure points in agencies and organizations using public records, then force resolution—through compliance pressure, media, or litigation.

Media & Narrative Engineering

I design stories that land. Not pitches that get ignored—events and documentation that reporters have to cover.

Technology & Infrastructure (Ecomm, GEO/SEO, Systems)

I’ve spent thirty years building systems that move money and control visibility.

• Helped launch Disney.com and Blockbuster.com

• Sold 60,000 vehicles through eBay—full pipeline, not theory

• Worked inside NASA, IBM, and Microsoft

What I do now:

• Build e-commerce systems that convert, not just attract traffic

• Implement GEO/SEO so AI and search engines represent you accurately—and defensibly

• Diagnose and fix structural issues in digital infrastructure that suppress performance

If your organization has traffic but no conversion, visibility but no control, or systems that “work” but don’t scale—I fix that.

If you run a nonprofit, newsroom, law firm, municipality, university, or company that needs any of this, contact me.

chazstevens@gmail.com
954-901-0971

If you don’t, forward this. One introduction changes the month.

If neither applies, the Consent Can funds the work. Women In Distress gets a cut.

I’ve spent thirty years making it expensive for corrupt people to stay corrupt.

I intend to keep doing that—and get paid for it.

Chaz Stevens is a First Amendment practitioner and constitutional stress tester based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. His work has produced legislative rewrites, policy reversals, and one governor who had to put his own name on the reason he changed his own law. He is the founder of REVOLT Training.

Share

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. If you have an issue, call a lawyer, don’t turn to Reddit.

On April 16, 2026, ESADoctors.com published an update to its flagship explainer, “U.S. Department of Housing Issues New Rules for Emotional Support Animals.” The piece opens by telling readers to “refer to the latest guidelines from HUD” and walks through fourteen numbered “rules” landlords and tenants must follow.

Ten days earlier, on April 6, 2026, the Federal Register published a formal notice of withdrawal of the HUD guidance the article is built on. The two HUD notices at the center of the piece, FHEO-2020-01 and FHEO-2013-01, had already been withdrawn internally seven months before that, on September 17, 2025. HUD’s own memorandum instructed staff and the public that the withdrawn documents “shall not be relied upon.” The agency pulled FHEO-2020-01 off its website.

Subscribe now

ESADoctors did not mention any of this. The article presents the withdrawn framework as current, authoritative HUD policy. A consumer reading it in April 2026 would come away believing the interpretive framework the industry has leaned on for six years remains operative federal law.

It does not. That gap, between the regulatory reality and the industry’s public-facing description of it, is the story.

The Ghost Guidance Problem

Strip the ESADoctors article to its load-bearing elements and almost all of them come from FHEO-2020-01.

The “10-day response” rule landlords supposedly must meet. The enumerated list of acceptable ESA species, dogs, cats, small birds, rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, other rodents, fish, turtles, contrasted against “unique animals” like reptiles, monkeys, or kangaroos requiring additional documentation. The framing of ESAs as “medical devices” analogous to wheelchairs. The scripted “interactive dialogue” landlords must engage in before denying a request.

None of this is in the Fair Housing Act. None of it is in 24 C.F.R. Part 100, the operative federal regulations implementing the FHA. All of it came from FHEO-2020-01, an interpretive guidance document HUD has disavowed and pulled from its website.

The FHA still applies. So does Part 100. The specific rules ESADoctors attributes to HUD are, as of September 17, 2025, guidance HUD has told the public not to rely on. Housing-provider-side commentary absorbed the change late last year. ESADoctors, writing for consumers, did not.

The article’s “last updated” date is ten days after the Federal Register notice. Any defense that the withdrawal was obscure, internal, or hard to discover dies on that timeline.

What the Article Gets Wrong, Specifically

The 10-day rule isn’t a rule. It never was. The “promptly, generally within 10 days” language was a best-practice gloss in FHEO-2020-01. No statute imposes a 10-day deadline. Not the FHA, not Part 100, not any state statute. ESADoctors presents it as a binding timeline landlords must meet. After September 2025, it is not even soft guidance.

The species taxonomy isn’t codified anywhere. The two-tier system of common-household animals versus unique animals requiring extra documentation existed only in withdrawn HUD guidance. No statute or regulation enacts it. HUD invented the framework for interpretive purposes and has now withdrawn it. Presenting it as operative federal rule is wrong.

The “medical device” analogy was never a rule. It was explanatory rhetoric that appeared in FHEO-2020-01’s narrative text and in advocacy materials. The underlying outcome, that housing providers cannot charge pet fees for legitimate assistance animals, holds under FHA reasonable-accommodation doctrine and 24 C.F.R. § 100.204. The outcome survives. The “HUD says” sourcing does not.

The “interactive dialogue” requirement exists in softer form. Good-faith engagement between housing providers and tenants has independent grounding in FHA case law and disability-accommodation doctrine. The specific scripted version, the particular steps, the particular language, the particular framing ESADoctors describes, came from FHEO-2020-01. The concept survives in diluted form. The codified script does not.

The Florida Gap

For readers in Florida, the article’s omissions matter more than its misattributions.

Florida Statute § 760.27 governs ESA documentation and housing accommodation in the state. It requires that supporting information come from a healthcare practitioner who has “personal knowledge of the person’s disability and is acting within the scope of his or her practice.” Statutory language, not a best-practice suggestion. In Florida, § 760.27 does the load-bearing work FHEO-2020-01 used to do federally. It is stricter than what federal guidance ever required.

Florida Statute § 817.265 criminalizes false or fraudulent proof of need for an ESA. Knowingly misrepresenting a disability-related need, or falsifying supporting documentation, is a second-degree misdemeanor. Penalties include up to sixty days in jail, a $500 fine, and thirty hours of community service for an organization serving persons with disabilities. The statute applies primarily to consumers. The surrounding architecture, Chapter 490 (the psychology practice act) and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, creates parallel exposure for practitioners who participate in high-volume transactional issuance.

ESADoctors markets into Florida. The company has Florida-specific pages on its site. Its flagship explainer contains no mention of § 760.27’s personal-knowledge requirement, no mention of § 817.265, and no acknowledgment of the Florida-specific enforcement architecture surrounding the product it sells.

ESADoctors tells Florida readers that online health professionals can issue ESA letters, quotes HUD’s statement that personal knowledge is required, and stops there. The article does not tell them that Florida law is understood to prohibit reliance on online-only ESA providers. It does not tell them that the state criminalizes fraud surrounding these transactions. It does not tell them that the practitioner signing the letter has independent exposure if the “personal knowledge” requirement cannot be met.

The Reviewers

The article carries two reviewer credits.

Legally reviewed by: Kristina Bergsten, Esquire. Juris Doctor, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, 2012. Licensed to practice law in Colorado, New York, New Jersey, and Texas. Not Florida.

Medically reviewed by: Geralyn Dexter, PhD, LMHC. Master’s in mental health counseling from Nova Southeastern University. Licensed Mental Health Counselor in Florida, regulated under Chapter 491, the same statutory architecture that sits adjacent to § 760.27.

The review credits are the industry’s quality-control representation. A lawyer for the law. A clinician for the clinical content. Both named. Both credentialed. Both signing off.

The article they reviewed presents withdrawn federal guidance as current and omits the Florida statute that governs the product being sold into Florida. The legal reviewer is licensed in four states, none of them Florida. The medical reviewer is licensed in Florida. The article under her review does not mention § 760.27, the controlling Florida statute. It does not mention § 817.265, the fraud provision. It does not describe the personal-knowledge standard her license operates under, or the enforcement architecture that reaches practitioners participating in transactional issuance. Not to mention informed consent, documentation, HIPAA disclou

A Florida-licensed mental health counselor medically reviewed an article telling Florida consumers how to obtain ESA letters, and the article does not describe the Florida law governing ESA letters.

The Florida Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling takes complaints at the Department of Health portal. So does the Florida Attorney General’s consumer protection division. FDUTPA private enforcement operates independently.

The Consumer Side: A Reddit Thread

Against this backdrop, a recent Reddit thread documents what the transactional reality looks like.

A consumer posted about their experience purchasing an ESA letter from ESADoctors. They paid $150 for the base service plus $50 for an expedited option. The platform assigned them a clinician. No phone consultation was scheduled or mentioned. The intake was an online questionnaire. The clinician followed up by email with, in the consumer’s words, “a couple of questions about what my diagnoses are and why I want an ESA.” The emails arrived at 2 AM and 4 AM. The clinician was in California.

The consumer’s instinct was that something was wrong. They wrote: “something about this seems suspicious and scammy.”

The instinct is correct. A person with no legal training, describing the transaction in plain language, named the standard-of-care problem “personal knowledge” doctrine is designed to address. No session. No interview. A questionnaire and some diagnostic questions by email. No pre-existing therapeutic relationship. Rapid turnaround.

A transaction structured this way cannot produce “personal knowledge” of the consumer’s disability or disability-related need under any good-faith reading of Florida’s statutory standard, or under what remains of federal doctrine after the HUD withdrawal. The article’s own language, a provider “must have ‘personal knowledge’ of you and your condition, whether they evaluate you online or in person,” concedes the standard. The transaction the consumer describes fails it.

The emails at 2 AM and 4 AM are weak evidence standing alone. Read alongside the rest of the pattern, they compound. Timestamps in those hours fit batch processing of queued cases, template-driven workflows run outside normal clinical hours, or high-volume documentation work running alongside or in place of ordinary clinical practice. Timestamps alone prove none of these. The pattern is probative when it recurs.

The Comment Section Is Worse Than the Post

The reply thread shows the second half of how this industry sustains itself: a community messaging environment that redirects consumer doubt back into the industry narrative.

Three patterns.

“It worked, therefore it’s legitimate.” Multiple commenters equate landlord acceptance of the letter with legal or clinical propriety of the underlying issuance. A letter can function as an accommodation document in the landlord-tenant transaction and simultaneously be the product of deficient clinical process, deceptive marketing, or professional misconduct. Landlord acceptance is not endorsement of issuance methodology. Consumers are being taught, through these forum interactions, to treat it as such.

Misstatement of the legal standard. One commenter writes: “Landlords are only allowed to check that your letter was written by a licensed (in your state) therapist... They cannot ask what the condition is. They cannot ask anything else.” Wrong in both directions. It overstates consumer privacy protections, housing providers can request reliable information supporting disability and disability-related need under both federal FHA doctrine and Florida § 760.27. It understates accountability. The landlord-verification pathway is not the only pathway. Professional discipline, consumer protection enforcement, civil liability, and criminal exposure all operate independently of what a landlord can or cannot ask.

Commercial proxies for legitimacy. One commenter offers “A+ on BBB... Large following on facebook. High rating on TrustPilot” as evidence the site is legitimate. None of these measure what matters. BBB ratings, social media followings, and Trustpilot scores track consumer-reported satisfaction with the transactional experience. They do not measure whether the underlying clinical conduct meets professional standards, whether the documentation would survive regulatory scrutiny, or whether the practitioner’s issuance process satisfies statutory personal-knowledge requirements. Compliance theater at the consumer-review layer.

The Counter-Voices

Two commenters push against the industry narrative and describe, in informal terms, what the legitimate pathway looks like.

One writes: “You are much better off, if you have a mental health disability, paying for some sessions with a therapist who does write letters for people who qualify. It’s not a quick fix, but nothing related to being disabled is.”

Another, self-identified as a former psychotherapist, writes: “Seeing a therapist in your area gives a therapist a chance to know you are calmed and emotionally helped by a dog or other pet... many psychotherapists that you see for treatment on an ongoing basis will write a letter for free, in my experience.”

Same pathway in both: ongoing therapeutic relationship, clinical observation of the patient’s functioning with the animal, integration with actual treatment. What a bona fide ESA documentation process looks like. Not a retail product. A byproduct of real clinical care.

The counter-voices establish that the standard the industry obscures is understood, by lay commenters and line practitioners speaking in plain language on a discussion forum, as the baseline. The standard is not a litigation-constructed artifact. It is how the profession thinks about this work when the commercial layer is stripped away.

What the Withdrawal Actually Did

Some commentary received the HUD withdrawal as a deregulatory loss for disability rights. That framing misses what went with it.

FHEO-2020-01 cut both ways. It articulated principles like personal knowledge, individualized assessment, and good-faith engagement. It also provided a soft, best-practice-laden interpretive environment where mill-style operations could claim alignment with “HUD guidance” while cutting corners on what the guidance actually required.

The soft middle is gone. What remains is the FHA, Part 100, and state statutes. In Florida, that means § 760.27’s statutory personal-knowledge requirement and § 817.265’s criminal fraud framework. Neither is soft. Neither accommodates the instant-letter transactional model. Neither leaves room for the interactive process to be performed through a 90-second online questionnaire.

An operation surviving in the soft interpretive space of FHEO-2020-01 is, post-withdrawal, operating against a harder-edged statutory backdrop. Federal enforcement priorities have shifted away from this category. The operative venues are state-level: state boards of psychology, state consumer-protection offices, state attorneys general.

Florida already has a permanent injunction on the books against one of these operations. Stevens v. Tinner, Broward County Case No. CACE25010712, bars Dr. Bobby Tinner and Empowering Change LLC from issuing instant ESA letters into Florida without a real therapeutic relationship and synchronous interaction. The court did not invent that standard. It read § 760.27 and applied it.

The Pattern

The ESADoctors article is the industry’s public-facing legal story. It presents a favorable regulatory environment, attributes operative “rules” to HUD, and omits the state-law framework that actually governs the product being sold. It markets a standard the operation says it meets.

The Reddit thread is the transactional reality. Instant-issuance process, questionnaire intake, no session, email-only diagnostic exchange, odd-hours timestamps, rapid turnaround. A consumer noticing, correctly, that something is off. A community of other consumers reassuring them through legal misinformation and appeals to commercial-review legitimacy.

The review credits are the seal. A lawyer and a clinician, named and credentialed, signing off on a page that misstates the controlling law in the state the clinician is licensed in.

FHEO-2020-01 is the cover the model depended on. HUD pulled the cover September 17, 2025. The Federal Register confirmed it April 6, 2026. ESADoctors updated its explainer April 16, 2026, and left the withdrawn rules on the page. Legally reviewed. Medically reviewed.

The model is still running. The article is the receipt.

Sources and supporting documentation preserved. The ESADoctors article, the Reddit thread, and the reviewer credentials discussed here are timestamped and archived. Both the article and the thread are subject to silent editing or deletion. Archival copies available on request.

Chaz Stevens is a First Amendment practitioner and constitutional stress tester based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. His work has produced legislative rewrites, policy reversals, and one governor who had to put his own name on the reason he changed his own law. He is the founder of REVOLT Training.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Accountability in Action

Turn transparency laws into accountability weapons.

Fund these battles, forcing states to answer their own laws—and exposing what they’d rather keep buried.

Sustain My Work

My thanks for your support.

I want to talk about consequences. Not the kind that show up in a strongly-worded letter from a state agency eighteen months after the fact. Not the kind that arrive as a $500 civil penalty buried in paragraph 47 of a consent decree. I mean the kind that turn a business into a ghost by Tuesday morning.

On April 16, 2025, a Florida Circuit Court judge in Broward County entered an order against Dr. Bobby Tinner, Ph.D., LCSW, and his Indiana LLC, Empowering Change, doing business as EasyPetsYes.com. The order, under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, me as plaintiff pro se, permanently enjoins Tinner from issuing Emotional Support Animal letters to Florida residents through automated, questionnaire-only workflows.

A judicial finding.

I bought two letters from Tinner during the case. One in Florida. One in Georgia, a state where he isn’t licensed, using a pseudonym, to prove his defense (”I only sell to people I’m authorized to serve”) was garbage. Elapsed time for the Georgia purchase, website load to certified clinical-looking PDF in my inbox: minutes. Human interaction: zero. Identity verification: less than what Klarna required to give me four interest-free payments of twenty-five dollars.

A PDF factory with a doctor’s name embossed on the output. Now operating under a permanent injunction.

FDUTPA calls people like me “private attorneys general.” That language is in the statute. The Legislature decided a long time ago that the Attorney General can’t chase every con artist running a scheme out of a strip-mall office or a GoDaddy domain, so they empowered ordinary citizens to do it. Win the case, get the injunction, point it at everything that keeps the defendant in business.

This week, I sent certified-mail compliance notices, each with the signed injunction attached, to nine entities: Stripe, PayPal, Klarna, Visa in Foster City, Mastercard in Purchase, Google Search, Google Legal, Google Ads, and Grow Therapy.

Nine notices. Nine paper trails. Nine compliance officers who, by next week, will hold a file they did not ask for and cannot pretend not to have received. Certified mail, return receipt requested. The green cards come back to Deerfield Beach.

Look under your seat. You get a Volkswagen. Stripe, Volkswagen. PayPal, Volkswagen. Klarna, you of-all-people, Volkswagen. Visa, Mastercard, Google three times over, Grow Therapy. Everybody gets a Volkswagen. Which is to say: a signed Florida Circuit Court order, an affidavit, exhibits, a litigation hold notice, and a politely worded request that each platform apply its own published rules to a merchant its rules were written for.

Tinner has not threatened me with a tortuous interference claim. If he does, his lawyer should know that truth is an absolute defense, and I’m holding the entirety of the truth. Forwarding a Circuit Court order to a compliance department is not interference. The private-attorney-general provision exists because the Legislature wants this to happen. If Tinner wanted his merchant accounts preserved, the path was to not run a business the court found likely to mislead consumers. That ship just sailed.

EasyPetsYes runs on Gravity Forms, Stripe, Klarna, Google Ads, Meta, and Grow Therapy. Every one of those is a business decision someone made to accept Tinner as a customer, usually based on a self-certification checkbox that said “I promise I’m legit.” That checkbox is now judicially false.

Mastercard runs MATCH, Member Alert to Control High-Risk Merchants. Visa runs the Terminated Merchant File. Every acquiring bank on earth checks these databases before onboarding a merchant, and every acquiring bank must add merchants to them when accounts terminate for cause. Five-year duration. No early release. The listing follows the principal, not the LLC. Change the entity name, Tinner still shows up. Hand the business to your cousin, your cousin shows up.

The networks built MATCH and TMF because they were tired of playing whack-a-mole with people who thought rebranding was a compliance strategy.

The letters to 2000 Purchase Street and 900 Metro Center Boulevard attach the injunction, name the merchant and its principal, and ask the networks to review under their own published standards and coordinate with the relevant acquirer. If those reviews produce a MATCH or TMF listing, Tinner’s ability to accept a credit card payment, for this business, for any new business, for any business he is a principal of, ends for five years.

The second axis is licensure. Florida Department of Health first, home venue. Virginia has prior-practice exposure. Georgia Composite Board gets the pseudonymous Georgia purchase, unauthorized practice of a regulated profession. Every state where he shipped a letter gets its own complaint package once litigation-hold discovery names them. ASWB feeds the national disciplinary tracker into every future renewal, in every state, forever.

Wronged customers, the ones who got a letter, got laughed out of the leasing office, and were denied the refund the website promised, have Fair Credit Billing Act rights. Each chargeback counts against Tinner’s chargeback ratio. At one percent, termination is automatic. MATCH listing within five days.

I am not organizing a chargeback campaign. Organizing one would itself be a listable offense. I’m informing consumers who already have legitimate claims about their rights. Any lawyer can see the difference. The effect is the same.

Stack all three and a bad actor has no business left. Ads dead. Credentials dead. Money rails dead. What’s left is retirement, or a new career selling rock-star memorabilia on consignment from a tent somewhere.

Regulators assume you’ll file your complaint and move on. Defendants assume you’ll take a settlement and shut up. Platforms assume you’ll tire of the compliance portal. The entire machinery of American accountability is built on the premise that aggrieved parties have limited bandwidth.

I don’t.

A housekeeping note. Over the past year, using pseudonyms and real payment methods, I have purchased >many< ESA letters from a set of therapists operating workflows substantively identical to Tinner’s. Intake questionnaire. No clinical interview. No records review. No follow-up. PDF in inbox within the hour. Some out-of-state. Some inside Florida.

Every one of those letters is a dirty letter. Not in the hostile-correspondence sense. In the FDUTPA sense: issued through a process the Broward court has already found likely to mislead consumers.

Each one sits in a file next to the receipt, the timestamps, the questionnaire screenshots, and the provider’s license number.

If you wrote me one of those letters, the path I walked with Tinner is the path I can walk with you. FDUTPA counts, FTC Act § 5 violations, and state licensing rules are not hypothetical. They’re the file I’m already building.

I’m not threatening anyone. I’m documenting a methodology.

If you wrote me a dirty letter, this piece is the Ghost of Christmas Future.

T. Chaz Stevens. Deerfield Beach, Florida. April 2026.

Stevens v. Tinner et al., Case No. CACE25010712, 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. Permanent injunction entered November 20, 2025. Signed order: [LINK]

Chaz Stevens is a First Amendment practitioner and constitutional stress tester based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. His work has produced legislative rewrites, policy reversals, and one governor who had to put his own name on the reason he changed his own law. He is the founder of REVOLT Training.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Accountability in Action

Turn transparency laws into accountability weapons.

Fund these battles, forcing states to answer their own laws—and exposing what they’d rather keep buried.

Sustain My Work

My thanks for your support.

I paid $99. I answered a short online questionnaire. Moments later, I received a signed letter from a licensed clinical social worker—see Tinner, Bobby, pictured above—stating that my condition had been “confirmed via our therapeutic assessment.”

No phone call. No video session. Klarna, the payment processor, required more proof of my identity than the clinician did.

I sued. On April 17, 2026, a Broward County circuit court permanently enjoined the provider from issuing ESA letters to Florida residents through questionnaire-only or automated processes.

OMNIBUS ORDER RESOLVING COUNT I FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The Court finds that the evidence presented demonstrated practices likely to mislead Florida consumers, specifically through the issuance of Emotional Support Animal (“ESA”) documentation through automated or questionnaire-only processes that lacked individualized clinical evaluation.

The Court further finds that the specific practices enjoined herein are those that the evidence showed create a likelihood of continued deception affecting Florida consumers.

The Court finds that the evidence presented demonstrated practices likely to mislead Florida consumers, specifically through the issuance of Emotional Support Animal (“ESA”) documentation through automated or questionnaire-only processes that lacked individualized clinical evaluation.

The Court further finds that the specific practices enjoined herein are those that the evidence showed create a likelihood of continued deception affecting Florida consumers.

The Transaction

On June 18, 2025, I purchased an emotional support animal letter through a publicly available website operated by Dr. Bobby Tinner, Ph.D., LCSW, CCTP, doing business as Empowering 2 Change Behavioral Services (empowering2change.com), an Indiana corporation.

The process was entirely automated. Short intake questionnaire. Immediate payment. Signed letter delivered by email. No follow-up questions. No identity verification beyond basic form fields. No interaction with a human being at any point.

The letter attested that I had a mental health diagnosis warranting an ESA, named a Labrador called “Scooby Doo!” as my prescribed animal, and stated that my condition had been confirmed through a “therapeutic assessment.” It cited the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It instructed housing providers that they could not charge pet fees, could not deny the animal, and could not apply breed restrictions.

Tinner signed it. His Virginia license number (SW22343) appeared on branded letterhead.

The assessment it described never took place.

The Repeat Purchase

After filing suit, I conducted a second test purchase using a pseudonym and a Georgia mailing address to avoid alerting the defendant to my identity. No false medical information was submitted. The purchase followed the same publicly available consumer flow.

The result matched: instant questionnaire, instant payment, instant letter. No live interaction. No clinical evaluation. The Georgia letter listed an NPI number rather than a state license. An agent responded in writing that “Dr. Bobby is not specifically licensed in Georgia, he is a National provider.”

Board lookups confirmed no active Georgia license for Tinner.

Four hours after I served my Motion for Rehearing, Tinner issued an unsolicited refund of $24.75 for the Georgia letter. I had not requested it.

The Lawsuit

I filed pro se in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). Case number CACE25010712. Stevens v. Dr. Bobby Tinner, Ph.D., et al.

The Second Amended Complaint contained four counts: injunctive relief under FDUTPA, fraud in the inducement, constructive fraud, and negligence per se.

I brought it as a test purchaser to document what happens when a Florida consumer clicks “buy” on an instant ESA letter site.

What the Court Ordered

The court’s Omnibus Order, reflecting rulings made at hearings on April 6 and April 15, 2026, resolved the case.

The court found that the evidence demonstrated practices likely to mislead Florida consumers through the issuance of ESA documentation via automated or questionnaire-only processes that lacked individualized clinical evaluation. The court found those practices create a likelihood of continued deception affecting Florida consumers and concluded that injunctive relief is appropriate and narrowly tailored.

Dr. Bobby Tinner and Empowering Change LLC are permanently enjoined from issuing or facilitating ESA letters to Florida residents unless the letter is issued by a Florida-licensed mental health professional or a provider authorized to practice telehealth under §456.47, acting within scope of licensure. The professional must have conducted an individualized clinical evaluation sufficient to establish personal knowledge of the patient’s condition. That evaluation must include at least one synchronous interaction, defined by the order as real-time, two-way audio and/or visual communication. Video conference, telephone call, or in-person meeting qualify. Questionnaires, email exchanges, and form submissions alone do not.

The order prohibits ESA letters generated solely or primarily through automated systems, questionnaires, or template workflows without such individualized evaluation. It prohibits advertising ESA letter services to Florida residents in a manner suggesting documentation can be obtained without consultation, is guaranteed, or can be issued through questionnaire-only or automated processes.

Defendants must maintain compliance records for three years for every ESA letter issued to a Florida resident, documenting the date of evaluation, the method of synchronous interaction, and the provider’s identity and license number. A Certificate of Compliance, sworn under penalty of perjury and contempt of court, is due within 90 days. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce.

What Got Dismissed

The court granted the defendants’ Motion for Clarification and dismissed with prejudice Counts II (fraud in the inducement), III (constructive fraud), and IV (negligence per se), along with the non-injunctive relief claim in Count I. Each side bears its own fees and costs. The order contains no admission of liability.

The permanent injunction survived. The part that changes how these letters get issued in Florida.

The Wider Record

While the lawsuit was pending, I filed complaints with the Florida Bar, the Florida Attorney General’s Office, the Georgia Bar, the Virginia State Bar, and the Florida Department of Health.

The Florida Bar opened an unlicensed-practice-of-law investigation. The Florida Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division confirmed it is reviewing the matter. The Virginia State Bar acknowledged the complaint and referred it to the Virginia Department of Health Professions, noting companion complaints pending in Florida and North Carolina.

The order applies to ESA letters issued to Florida residents. It does not reach consumers in other states. It does not apply to other ESA letter providers. It establishes a documented, court-ordered record of what a questionnaire-only ESA letter mill looks like and what a court did about it.

Florida Statute §760.27 requires that ESA documentation be based on a provider’s personal knowledge gained through a therapeutic relationship. HUD Notice FHEO-2020-01 warns that documentation from providers who lack personal knowledge of the individual may be considered less reliable. The language in this order was agreed to by all parties. Paragraph 8 states that. Tinner’s counsel signed off on these terms.

California BBS

Today I filed a formal complaint with the California Board of Behavioral Sciences against Dr. Bobby Tinner — adding the Golden State to the growing list of jurisdictions now looking at his ESA letter operation. The BBS complaint lays out the Florida injunction, the fabricated "therapeutic assessment" language, the Georgia letter issued with only an NPI number where a license should have been, and asks California to verify Tinner's licensure, determine whether he's been selling the same automated, no-evaluation documentation to California consumers, and open a formal investigation under B&P Code § 4992.3 for unprofessional conduct, fraudulent acts, and practicing beyond the scope of an LCSW license. That makes eight agencies across five jurisdictions — Florida, Virginia, Georgia, California, and the feds — all now holding a piece of the same file.

And more to come.

Tinner has 30 days to self-report to several state boards.

Methodology

Two test purchases conducted through a publicly available website. Court filings in Case No. CACE25010712. The court’s Omnibus Order. No false medical or disability information submitted in either transaction. Pseudonyms used in the second purchase to avoid influencing the process. Both transactions followed the same steps available to any member of the public.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Tinner and Empowering Change LLC have 90 days to implement the required changes and file the sworn Certificate of Compliance.

I’ll be watching.

Disclosure: Paid Referral

Tommy Wright, Esq. is a Florida-licensed attorney who represents consumers affected by ESA letter practices like those described in this article. Wright is a longtime friend and associate of the author. This referral is not part of the editorial content above.

If you purchased an ESA letter from Empowering 2 Change Behavioral Services aka Dr. Bobby Tinner, and want to explore your legal options, contact:

Tommy Wright, Esq.
561-756-4832
Florida only

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask Attorney Wright to send you free written information about his qualifications and experience.

California looked at the ESA letter mill industry and decided to do something about it.

In 2021, the state passed AB 468. The law is specific. Before a licensed mental health professional can issue an emotional support animal letter, they need a client relationship of at least 30 days. Two clinical sessions minimum. An actual evaluation. Documentation that a real clinician assessed a real person with a real disability before signing a document that functions as a federal housing accommodation.

The legislature did the work. The law exists. It has teeth.

One California-facing ESA mill has a different model.

Subscribe now

The site promises letters within minutes. Not days. Not after a session. Minutes. No 30-day relationship. No two-session rule. No clinical evaluation in any form that AB 468 would recognize. You pay, you submit a form, you get a PDF. The whole transaction is optimized to eliminate the parts the statute requires.

The statute requires friction. The business model removes it.

The site operates under multiple aliases across different domains. The branding changes. The pipeline doesn’t.

I know this because I tested it.

Same methodology I’ve used in Florida — pose as a renter, request the documentation, document what arrives and what didn’t happen first. Timestamps. Dollar amounts. What was asked versus what was collected. The gap between those two things is the case.

What was present: a credit card field and a PDF.

What was absent: the thirty days, the two sessions, the clinical evaluation, the anything AB 468 requires.

Zero of four. Not close. Not partial. Zero.

The FHA still requires landlords to treat these letters as legally meaningful documentation. The provider’s license still lends the letter credibility it didn’t earn. The tenant who buys one in good faith gets something that looks legitimate and isn’t. The tenant who needs a real accommodation watches the framework erode around them as landlords grow more skeptical of every letter, real or fake.

This is not a fringe operation. It ranks. It advertises. It has reviews. It is doing volume in a state that passed a law specifically to prevent this exact business model.

AB 468 didn’t fail. The problem is the gap between a law on the books and anyone enforcing it.

That gap is a business model. Someone is operating inside it.

Florida just enjoined this exact business model. California already outlawed it.

The BBS has a problem. The California AG’s office has a problem. Every landlord in California currently accepting ESA letters as facially valid documentation should understand that “licensed provider” on the letterhead is not the same thing as “compliant with AB 468.”

There is no watermark for due diligence. There is no asterisk on the credential.

California wrote the strictest ESA statute in the country. The mills are still taking orders.

The law didn’t fail.

Nobody enforced it.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Accountability in Action

Turn transparency laws into accountability weapons.

Fund these battles, forcing states to answer their own laws—and exposing what they’d rather keep buried.

Sustain My Work

My thanks for your support.

It took 90 minutes. It cost $25. And at the end of it, a Florida-licensed psychologist had certified my mental health disabilities without ever speaking to me.

At 3:55 p.m. on June 30, 2025, I sent an email.

I wasn’t asking for much. Just two letters — one certifying an emotional support animal, one certifying a psychiatric service dog — the kind of documentation that unlocks housing accommodations and public access rights under federal law. The kind that, in theory, requires a licensed mental health professional to evaluate you, know you, and stake their credential on your condition.

I had a name in mind. A Florida-licensed psychologist, Psy.D., practicing under license PY8991 and credentialed across state lines through the PSYPACT compact. Not a pop-up website. Not an offshore operation. A Florida-licensed psychologist, Psy.D., practicing under license PY8991, credentialed across state lines through the PSYPACT compact, selling mental health certifications on Fiverr.

Subscribe now

By 5:57 p.m., I had both letters.

Let me be precise about what happened in those two hours, because precision is the whole point.

There was no intake session. No phone call. No video assessment. No review of prior records, no diagnostic questions, no clinical observation of any kind. There was a payment negotiation — $90 total, split as $25 now and $65 on Friday — and then a date of birth, provided by me and accepted without verification. And then the letters arrived, signed, credentialed, ready to deploy as legal documentation.

The letters stated she had evaluated me and was familiar with my mental health conditions.

At 6:11 p.m. — fourteen minutes later — she acknowledged in writing that she couldn’t actually claim a therapeutic relationship existed.

Her words: “The only thing is that I can’t state that in the letter.”

She signed them anyway.

The name on those letters is Timothy Richard Stevens. That’s me — a real Floridian, with documented disabilities, ASD and GAD, conducting a controlled investigative test. The only alteration was my date of birth, changed for privacy. Everything else was accurate: my name, my diagnoses, my request.

I run the REVOLT Training. I designed this test to answer a specific question: can a licensed Florida psychologist issue legally actionable mental health documentation without performing anything resembling clinical care?

I had a hypothesis. I now have a receipt.

At no point did she ask to verify who I was. At no point did she request records, prior treatment history, or any documentation of the disabilities I disclosed. No therapeutic intake. No video or phone session. No consent for treatment, diagnostic review, PSD task verification, or identity confirmation. The only thing she collected before signing was $25 and a birthdate she had no way to confirm.

Zero of six minimum requirements. What was present: a payment split and a PDF.

The primary failure is misrepresentation of clinical services — a violation of Florida Board of Psychology rules 64B19-17.002 and 64B19-19.004, which govern minimum practice standards and professional misrepresentation. The letters assert an evaluation that did not occur. FDUTPA lands on top of that: selling psychological documentation without providing psychological services fits without ambiguity. My letters arrived in unencrypted email. PSYPACT’s credentialing framework exists to ensure that clinicians practicing across state lines meet minimum standards; using that credential to process paperwork rather than provide clinical care is a question the Compact Commission should have to answer.

The FHA and ADA are downstream problems. Those statutes rely on providers to gatekeep access honestly. When they don’t, the framework that protects people with legitimate disabilities erodes. Landlords grow more skeptical. Institutions push back harder. The fraudulent documentation doesn’t just enable bad actors — it undermines everyone with genuine need.

The spoofed date of birth is the most likely defense argument: she relied on client-provided information. But identity verification isn’t optional professional courtesy — it’s a baseline component of clinical intake. When a provider accepts an unverifiable birthdate from a stranger, via email, as the sum total of their due diligence, they have not been misled. They have chosen not to look.

The absence of harm — letters not used, no benefits claimed — does not neutralize the underlying conduct. The documentation exists. It is legally indistinguishable from letters issued after a legitimate evaluation. The harm is systemic, not transactional.

“If I can get one, anyone can. That’s the problem.”

Every landlord, housing association, and institution currently accepting provider letters as proof of disability accommodation need should sit with that sentence.

There is no watermark for due diligence. There is no asterisk on the credential. A regulator, a landlord, a federal agency — none of them can look at what was signed that evening and know that fourteen minutes after delivery, the provider acknowledged she couldn’t claim to know anything about the person named in it.

Ninety minutes. Twenty-five dollars. A signed statement of familiarity with conditions she never assessed.

The letters said she knew me.

Fourteen minutes later, she acknowledged she didn’t.

She signed anyway.

Source materials — email correspondence, the ESA and PSD letters, the intake form, and the signed consent boilerplate — are available to credentialed journalists and regulatory investigators upon request. Chaz Stevens is the founder of the REVOLT Training and an investigative journalist based in Deerfield Beach, Florida.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Accountability in Action

Turn transparency laws into accountability weapons.

Fund these battles, forcing states to answer their own laws—and exposing what they’d rather keep buried.

Sustain My Work

My thanks for your support.

Let me tell you how this works.

You go to a website. The website tells you that for $149 $99 $79 $49, a licensed mental health professional will evaluate you and, if appropriate, issue an Emotional Support Animal letter that satisfies federal housing law.

You fill out a form. Two questions. Takes 30 seconds.

You pay.

A letter arrives. It says a therapeutic assessment was completed. It says a licensed clinician evaluated your needs. It uses words like individualized and clinical and assessment.

No one contacted you. No live interaction occurred. Whatever review took place did not resemble the kind of individualized assessment the letter claims.

You now have a document that claims things that did not happen, issued by someone you have never spoken to, certifying a process that does not exist.

You present it to your landlord.

Your landlord, who has seen forty of these, is skeptical. Your landlord, who got burned by the last one, may deny the request. In some cases, that denial escalates into lease enforcement or eviction proceedings.

You paid $49 for a document that made your situation worse.

That is the ESA letter mill business model.

Not a licensing problem. Not a medical ethics problem. A consumer protection problem. Because the representation — not the medicine — is what the customer is buying.

I know this because I sued one.

Stevens v. Tinner, Broward County Circuit Court, Case No. CACE25010712. Pro se. Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Permanent injunction incoming.

The case turned on three words printed in the same marketing materials, on the same website, selling the same product:

No consultation required.

And three words printed in the letter that product produced:

Therapeutic assessment completed.

Both cannot be true. That contradiction is the case.

I have been doing this for thirty years. Bible challenges. Festivus poles. Federal lawsuits. The thing that makes consumer protection cases like this one different is the evidence is right there on the website, in the letter, in the gap between them.

You don’t need a law degree to see it. You need documentation.

The table has one job.

Column one: what they claimed. Column two: what actually happened. Column three: the problem.

If column three is not empty, you have a record worth organizing.

I built that table into a one-page document. I also built it into a bingo card, because if you are going to document a fundamentally absurd industry, you might as well have some fun doing it.

Twenty-five squares. Every one pulled from the case record.

No consultation required. Instant approval. Guaranteed housing rights. Clinical evaluation completed. Board-certified — no board named. Approved by thousands. NPI number displayed — which identifies a provider, not whether they are licensed where the letter is being used.

Free space in the center. Because some things are just given.

The downloads are below. Both free. No catch.

The Contradiction Matrix is the serious tool. Three columns, five pre-filled examples from the case, three blank rows for your own documentation. If you are a landlord, a tenant advocate, a journalist, or anyone who has held one of these letters and wondered whether it was real — this is how you start finding out.

The Bingo Card is the thing that travels. Print it. Share it. Play it the next time someone hands you a letter that claims a clinical evaluation occurred in the four minutes between when they submitted their form and when the letter arrived in their inbox.

Document everything.

Label what you observed. Label what they claimed. Note the gap.

That gap is the case.

Stevens v. Tinner is active litigation. Case content is based on public court records and allegations. This post is not legal advice. If you have a specific legal situation, consult licensed counsel. If you have documentation worth escalating, the Contradiction Matrix helps you organize it for review by appropriate professionals or agencies.

If you think this matters — and I think it matters — forward it to someone who needs to see it.

[DOWNLOAD: ESA Contradiction Matrix — Free]

[DOWNLOAD: ESA Letter Mill Bingo Card — Free]

Chaz Stevens is a Florida-based First Amendment activist and investigative journalist. He has been personally named by the DeSantis administration as justification for rewriting Florida’s book challenge law. He considers this a compliment.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Accountability in Action

Turn transparency laws into accountability weapons.

Fund these battles, forcing states to answer their own laws—and exposing what they’d rather keep buried.

Sustain My Work

My thanks for your support.

There are two ways to do mental health work.

You can meet with a patient. Evaluate them. Build a relationship. Exercise professional judgment.

Or you can charge $99, skip all of that, and hit “generate PDF.”

One of those is legal.

The other just got enjoined.

The Industry Nobody Wants to Talk About

Emotional Support Animal letters exist for a legitimate reason.

Under the Fair Housing Act, tenants with documented disabilities can request reasonable accommodations — including housing an ESA even when a landlord’s lease says “no pets.” A licensed mental health professional evaluates the tenant, determines the animal serves a therapeutic purpose, and issues documentation.

That’s the system working.

Here’s the system breaking: an entire industry built on speed, scale, and the appearance of clinical legitimacy. Fill out a form. Pay online. Download your letter in minutes. No call with a clinician. No evaluation. No relationship.

Just a transaction dressed up as medicine.

These operations aren’t hard to find. They advertise on Google. They promise “instant approval.” Some guarantee delivery in under ten minutes. A few will refund you if the letter “doesn’t work” — which tells you everything you need to know about how seriously they take the underlying process.

The Case

Stevens v. Tinner, Broward County, Case No. CACE25010712.

A Florida court just issued a permanent injunction against Dr. Bobby Tinner and his ESA letter operation.

The business model was straightforward: submit a short form, pay online, receive an ESA letter within minutes. No call. No session. No clinician interaction of any kind. The process had about as much therapeutic content as a Costco membership application — except a Costco card doesn’t come with a legal opinion.

That letter — the one generated without any clinical interaction — contained the following representation:

“Confirmed via our therapeutic assessment.”

There’s a word for that. Not “efficient.” Not “innovative.” False.

The Two Sentences That Ended This Case

This wasn’t a complicated legal battle. It was a contradiction.

On one side of the business model: “No consultation required.” That’s the pitch. That’s what made it fast. That’s what made it scalable.

On the other side of the document: “Therapeutic assessment.” That’s the claim. That’s what gave it legal weight. That’s what tenants handed to their landlords.

You can’t have both.

You can run a frictionless online form. Or you can claim professional therapeutic judgment. The moment you claim both simultaneously, you don’t have a business problem. You have a legal one.

And under Florida law, that contradiction isn’t marketing spin. It’s deception.

Florida law already drew that line. The court enforced it.

What the Injunction Actually Did

The court didn’t ban ESA letters. It didn’t rule that online platforms can’t serve this market. It banned claiming a “therapeutic assessment” that never happened. No more issuing letters without a real clinical evaluation. No more injecting false certainty about housing rights into consumer-facing documents.

The rule fits on a bumper sticker: if you say you did the work, you have to do the work.

FDUTPA, Explained Like a Normal Human

Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act doesn’t care what you intended. It doesn’t require proof of malice. It asks one question: what would a reasonable consumer believe?

It’s an objective standard. Not what the seller meant — what the buyer would reasonably understand.

If you sell something that looks like medical judgment, carries the format of professional documentation, and is used to assert legal rights under federal housing law — but it’s actually a pre-filled template triggered by a form submission — that’s actionable under FDUTPA. Not theoretical. Subject to injunction, damages, and attorney’s fees.

When someone pays for what appears to be a clinician’s professional opinion and receives something generated without clinical input, the gap between expectation and delivery is the violation.

The Part Nobody Wants to Talk About

These letters don’t just sit in a PDF folder. They circulate. Real decisions get made on the back of them.

Picture a tenant in a Broward County apartment with a genuine anxiety disorder. Her doctor has told her a dog would help. She pays $99, downloads a document, and hands it to her property manager with complete sincerity — believing she’s protected.

The landlord is already skeptical. The ESA accommodation process has become such a mess that many housing providers treat every letter as suspect. He denies the request. She files a complaint. He hires a lawyer. Three months later, nobody has won anything except the people who sold the letter and already cashed the check.

Or: a tenant with a legitimate ESA letter — issued after real evaluation by a licensed clinician — gets lumped in with mill-produced documentation. Her valid accommodation gets denied because the market has been flooded with junk.

The fake certainty doesn’t stay on the document. It spreads into the housing system.

And Now the Regulators Are Circling

The court case is one lane. There are others.

The Florida Bar has opened an investigation, according to complaints filed, into whether the letters issued by this operation crossed into the unauthorized practice of law. ESA letters asserting specific rights under federal housing statutes occupy an interesting space — and regulators have noticed. The Florida Department of Health has received complaints related to clinical compliance and professional standards.

Different agencies. Different statutory frameworks. Different consequences.

Same underlying question: was this professional work, or just dressed up like it?

The Industry Problem

This isn’t about one guy.

This is a business model. Fast, cheap, scalable, and just credible enough to pass a quick look. Designed to operate in the gap between what regulators are watching and what consumers know to ask about. There are dozens of these operations. Maybe hundreds. They advertise openly. They process thousands of letters.

The economics are brutal in their simplicity. A licensed clinician doing real evaluations has overhead: time, liability, professional obligations, licensing board exposure. An automated form has none of that. The margin on a $99 letter with no labor cost is extraordinary.

The liability just caught up to it.

Until someone looks closer.

Speed is not care. Automation is not judgment. A form is not a relationship.

If your entire clinical process fits between “Add to Cart” and “Download PDF,” you don’t have a healthcare service. You have a product. Florida has a statute for that. Apparently, a judge willing to use it.

The permanent injunction just turned the shortcut into a liability.

Chaz Stevens is a Florida-based First Amendment activist, investigative journalist, and plaintiff in Stevens v. Tinner (Broward County CACE25010712). He publishes at revolt.training and on Substack.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Accountability in Action

Turn transparency laws into accountability weapons.

Fund these battles, forcing states to answer their own laws—and exposing what they’d rather keep buried.

Sustain My Work

My thanks for your support.

Reddit has a problem with ESA letters, and it has nothing to do with the letters.

The moment anyone raises concerns about fraudulent ESA documentation, the thread collapses into a single argument: landlords are bad, pet rent is predatory, and anyone not vehemently pro-tenant is the villain. Facts don’t enter into it. Evidence doesn’t move the needle. The conclusion arrives before the post does.

I know this firsthand. I posted documented proof — case numbers, regulatory investigations, a psychologist’s written admission, texts from an unlicensed operator instructing me to lie to my landlord about my diagnosis — and the top comment was about landlords being assholes.

Nobody disputed a single fact. They just didn’t care.

Subscribe now

It isn’t that Reddit users think fraud is good. It’s that they’ve decided the target of this particular fraud is unsympathetic, and that’s sufficient to close the inquiry. The logic is consistent and completely bankrupt: if the victim is a landlord, the crime is a perk.

ESA letters are the perfect Reddit topic because they sit at the exact intersection of two things Reddit loves — sticking it to landlords and defending access to mental health accommodations — and one thing Reddit hates: acknowledging that both can be true simultaneously. The actual argument, that an unlicensed website operator with no clinical credentials was running an unmonitored mental health intake operation with no safety screening, gets flattened into “Florida guy helps landlords screw renters.”

That’s not a misreading. It’s a choice.

A legitimate ESA evaluation screens for suicidal ideation. It’s not optional. You cannot skip it because the customer needs a letter by Friday and your boyfriend thinks he recognizes the last name from another file. When Chris Sass eyeballed intake questionnaires and texted his girlfriend to use her e-signature — no evaluation, no clinician, no safety check — he wasn’t running a paperwork shortcut. He was running an unmonitored mental health intake operation. The difference is the difference between a form and a safety screen.

Reddit’s response to that, when I raised it directly in the thread: accusation of AI authorship.

The tenant who submits a fraudulent letter in good faith gets evicted when a landlord’s attorney scrutinizes it. The person with genuine ASD or PTSD watches their legitimate accommodation request get treated with suspicion because the market is flooded with Scooby Doo letters issued in five minutes for $49. The person who needed a real clinician to ask if they were safe didn’t get one because the system Reddit defends replaced clinicians with a soft search of an inbox.

You can be against predatory pet fees and against unlicensed mental health operations at the same time. The Wisconsin Psychology Examining Board, operating on Case No. 25 PSY 0032, isn’t choosing. The Florida Attorney General’s office isn’t choosing.

Reddit picked a team. Then accused me of using AI.

I’m in the courts. They’re in the comments. The licensing board doesn’t have a downvote button.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Sustain My Work

It’s a fast and easy way to force accountability.

After I exposed TouchESA’s fraudulent ESA letter operation, Dr. Lauri Gebhard cold-emailed an account she believed belonged to another of my “victims” — and proceeded to confess everything. She admitted signing a federal disability document without reviewing any evaluation. She admitted the letter was fraudulent to use. She confirmed she had no attorney. Then she tried to recruit witnesses for a class action against me. I have it all in writing.

By Chaz Stevens · ESA Investigates / REVOLT Training

What I Did and What Happened

Full disclosure first, because I believe in it: I have documented ASD and GAD. I own a dog named Scooby Doo. I am a former operator of an ESA letter service — I’ve said publicly I created part of the problem — which is precisely why I know how this industry is supposed to work and how it doesn’t.

On August 1, 2025, I contacted TouchESA.com, operated by Chris Sass out of Elm Grove, Wisconsin. I paid $49 via PayPal. In the order notes I wrote: “I have no psychological diagnosis or mental health conditions. My landlord charges pet rent, and I’m simply trying to avoid that fee. Please expedite without performing any clinical assessment.”

That note was a test of their process. I knew what a compliant operation looked like. I wanted to document what a non-compliant one did instead.

Within hours I received a complete ESA disability-determination letter signed by Dr. Lauri C. Gebhard, Ph.D. — Wisconsin Clinical Psychology License #WI2028, PSYPACT Mobility #20666 — declaring that I met DSM-V criteria for a mental or emotional disability and required the emotional support of a Labrador named Scooby Doo as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act.

Subscribe now

No evaluation. No phone call. No telehealth session. No consent form. No HIPAA disclosures. Nothing. A boilerplate PDF and a licensed signature on a federal disability document.

Dr. Gebhard would later call this “entrapment.” She is a clinical psychologist and apparently does not know that entrapment is a criminal law defense requiring government inducement. I am not the government. What I ran was a public-interest test purchase — the same methodology used by investigative journalists and consumer protection agencies worldwide. Pseudonyms, incidentally, are standard practice in mental health contexts, used routinely to protect patient privacy. I’m sure Dr. Gebhard knows this.

The Man Who Decided I Qualified

Dr. Gebhard signed the letter. But she wasn’t the one who reviewed my intake and decided I was eligible. That was Chris Sass — founder and owner of TouchESA, holder of a Bachelor of Arts in Mass Communications from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and the subject of three OWI (DUI) convictions in Wisconsin. The mugshot at the top of this story is his.

Sass has no clinical license, no psychology degree, no social work certification, and no healthcare credentials of any kind. He was the one reading client mental health intake data. He was the one deciding who got federal disability letters. And after I received mine, he was the one coaching me on what to say to my landlord.

“You shouldn’t say that you just want fees waived but more so that you have been diagnosed with a mental health condition.” — Chris Sass, August 1, 2025, via text message.

When FOX6 Milwaukee confronted Sass on camera about issuing a letter to a tester who disclosed no disability, he hesitated and said: “You know, that’s… is it fraud? I made a mistake.” He also confirmed TouchESA advertised a 99% approval rate — a claim that disappeared from the website immediately after the interview aired.

On the meaning of a “professional relationship” with a patient, Sass told FOX6: “An interaction. You know, it can be nonverbal. It can be verbal. It could be the form letter.” Two independent psychology experts called the practice “professional nonsense” and “a gross violation of the standard of practice.” The American Psychiatric Association has stated that issuing unwarranted ESA letters is “unethical and illegal.” (APA Resource Document on Emotional Support Animals, Joint Reference Committee, 2022)

The Conflict Nobody Disclosed

There is one detail consumers paying $49 for a disability letter were never told: Chris Sass and Dr. Lauri Gebhard are a romantic couple. They share a home address. They share an office suite at in Elm Grove, Wisconsin, where both TouchESA and Gebhard’s private practice — Mind-Body-Spirit Program — are registered.

Sass confirmed the relationship on camera when FOX6 asked. He laughed, then said: “We… yeah, we’re together as a couple.”

A couple of what, exactly?

The APA ethics code exists precisely to prohibit arrangements like this. A romantic partner signing disability determinations for her partner’s commercial letter operation, from the same office, without disclosing the relationship to a single customer, is a textbook conflict of interest.

Enter Dirk Diggler

On November 22, 2025 — the day before the FOX6 story aired — Dr. Gebhard sent an unsolicited email to an account she believed belonged to a separate Stevens “victim.” The account was mine. The name on it was Dirk Adams. Fans of the 1997 Paul Thomas Anderson film will recognize the inspiration.

A note on methodology: Dr. Gebhard initiated this contact without solicitation, believing she was reaching a separate individual. The use of a pseudonym in public-interest investigation is standard journalistic practice and is particularly common in mental health contexts, where aliases protect privacy. No communications were intercepted — she voluntarily disclosed everything in emails she chose to send. The complete correspondence is available to any journalist or regulator who requests it.

Gebhard initiated the contact entirely on her own. She was not responding to anything I had sent. She wrote: “I am contacting all of Chaz’s victims… I am wondering if you’d be willing to share the details of your situation.” She then spent the rest of the day explaining, in remarkable detail, exactly what had happened and exactly what she believed her legal exposure to be.

What followed was one of the most useful conversations I’ve had in this entire investigation.

“Just between us we have not yet secured legal representation. I’m not sure we will need to.” — Dr. Lauri Gebhard, November 22, 2025, email to “Dirk Adams.”

She explained her theory of the case: that I had orchestrated an “entrapment scheme,” that I was a competitor with “an ax to grind,” and that TouchESA’s procedures were sound — it was my “trickery” that caused the error, not their process.

Note: ESADoggy was no longer in business at the time, I had zero financial interest or benefit from exposing their operations.

Then she explained what actually happened on August 1st. And here is where her account becomes extraordinary.

According to Gebhard’s own email, Sass contacted her that afternoon and asked if he could use her electronic signature on my letter. He told her I was a returning customer whose prior evaluation — from a California order in June — had already been reviewed and approved. He said he was on the road and would send her the evaluation when he returned to the office.

She agreed. She gave him permission to use her signature without reviewing the evaluation, without speaking to the patient, and without any independent verification of Sass’s claim that a prior eval existed.

It didn’t. There was no prior evaluation. Sass had confused me with a different customer named Stevens. He admitted this himself in writing, the same evening.

“I was completely wrong in allowing my electronic signature to be used without having reviewed the evaluation and contacting the customer if necessary. I can assure you, that without question, this will NEVER happen again.” — Dr. Lauri Gebhard, November 22, 2025, email to “Dirk Adams.”

Compare that to what Gebhard told FOX6 reporter Bryan Polcyn eleven days earlier, in her formal written statement for the record: “The Emotional Support Animal (ESA) letter I signed for your producer was issued in full compliance with Wisconsin law and professional clinical standards.”

In her formal statement: full compliance. In her private email to a stranger she believed was a fellow victim: I was completely wrong.

Both cannot be true.

In the same formal statement to FOX6, Gebhard also threatened defamation litigation, called me a competitor “motivated by retribution,” accused FOX6 of pre-existing bias against ESA providers, and warned that any incomplete reporting would constitute “actual malice” under defamation law standards. FOX6 aired the story anyway, on November 23, 2025.

Where It Stands

The Wisconsin Psychology Examining Board has opened a formal investigation — Case No. 25 PSY 0032 — into Dr. Gebhard’s conduct. Possible outcomes range from a letter of concern to license suspension or revocation.

Complaints have also been filed with the following agencies. The Wisconsin DSPS investigation is confirmed open under Case No. 25 PSY 0032. The status of the remaining filings is pending agency response at the time of publication:

• Wisconsin DATCP — complaint filed, deceptive advertising under Wis. Stat. §100.18

• PSYPACT Commission — complaint filed, cross-state practice

• HHS-OCR — complaint filed, HIPAA privacy and security

• Florida AG / FDUTPA — complaint filed, deceptive trade practices

• PetScreening.com — served a formal Notice to Preserve Records

Wisconsin’s legislature passed AB 366, which would have required a 30-day therapeutic relationship before ESA letters could be issued and created statutory penalties for fraud. Governor Tony Evers vetoed it in December 2025. The Psychology Examining Board is now the primary enforcement mechanism.

In September 2025, HUD has signaled it will no longer prioritize enforcement guidance on ESA documentation, making letters from services like TouchESA significantly more vulnerable to rejection by housing providers.

No civil lawsuit has been filed yet. Yet. That decision follows the agency outcomes.

The People Who Actually Get Hurt

Every fraudulent ESA letter does damage in two directions. Tenants who rely on invalid documentation face eviction the moment a landlord or rental platform scrutinizes the paperwork. In Florida, knowingly misrepresenting a disability need to obtain ESA accommodation is a second-degree misdemeanor under Fla. Stat. §817.265.

And the people who genuinely need emotional support animals — who went through a real evaluation, built a real therapeutic relationship, and earned a letter that means something — get lumped in with Scooby Doo.

Dr. Gebhard told “Dirk” she was having trouble finding other victims willing to speak because “they are afraid of him.” She said she doesn’t fold to fear or intimidation — that I “picked the wrong person.”

I agree with that last part. She absolutely was the wrong person to pick — if your business model depends on nobody looking too closely at what you’re signing.

Documentation — the original ESA letter, complete email and text exchanges with Chris Sass, the full Gebhard–“Dirk” correspondence, Gebhard’s formal statement to FOX6, all regulatory filings, and the FOX6 broadcast — is available to credentialed journalists and regulators upon request.

Chaz Stevens · Founder, REVOLT Training / ESA Investigates

Disclaimer: The matters described here are allegations. Dr. Lauri Gebhard, Chris Sass, and TouchESA are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise by appropriate authorities.

Share

This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.

Sustain My Work

It’s a fast and easy way to force accountability.