[conspire] Contact DOJ and tell them to blow it out their ass

[Ivan Sergio Borgonovo]

On 03/21/2017 07:17 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Paul Zander (paulz at ieee.org):

>> Unfortunately, instead of constructive discussions too many people
>> shouting and no one is listening. I am reminded of a lawyer in SF who
>> was going to small restaurants and businesses. If he found a restroom
>> sign that wasn’t in the proper size and type font, he would file a
>> lawsuit. He justified his actions on wanting to make the world better
>> under ADA. He also got paid thousands for each suit.
>
> This also happened in 2015 just downhill from my house, at the Dutch Goose.
> http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/07/08/dutch-goose-reopens-after-forced-upgrades/

> Dutch Goose reopens after forced upgrades
> By KEVIN KELLY | kkelly at bayareanewsgroup.com |
> July 8, 2015 at 3:28 pm

[snip]

> Hernandez got $64,000 as part of the settlement.
> http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020140514908/HERNANDEZ%20v.%20DUTCH%20GOOSE,%20INC.

[long list snipped]

> 2012 Hernandez ADA suit against Dehoff Enterprises, Inc:
> https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2012cv01467/252922


> Court records show that Hernandez got settlement payoffs ranging from
> $10,000 to $53,000 in his various suits, according to local paper _The
> Almanac_:
> http://www.almanacnews.com/print/story/2015/03/04/dutch-goose-racing-to-finish-ada-improvements
>
>
> Another gentleman, Scott Johnson of Carmichael, owner of Disabled Access
> Prevents Injury, Inc., is said to have filed _thousands_ of ADA lawsuits
> across Northern California and reaped millions of dollars in settlement
> fees and attorney fees:
> http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/10/serial-ada-lawsuit-filer-striking-bay-area/

Would it have been different if it was a public officer to sue for non 
compliance?
Would it have political consequences (someone not being re-elected)?
Does suing expose the plaintif to any risk?

> There are efforts to ameliorate this situation with legal reforms,
> usually by permitting businesses a 90- or 120-day grace period to fix
> alleged problems before civil litigation can be filed:
> http://www.modbee.com/news/article139543763.html
> http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20160425/its-time-for-california-to-curb-enthusiasm-for-ada-lawsuit-abuse
> http://norcalrecord.com/stories/510739270-california-is-ground-zero-for-ada-lawsuit-abuse

I found these excerpt interesting:

«
“They target small businesses that lack the financial resources to fight 
in court.”

Some advocates of the disabled say businesses have had 27 years of 
notice – since the ADA became law.

“Forty percent of the cases in 2015 were filed by just two firms who are 
exploiting ADA lawsuits for their own personal gain."
»
So is not a problem of some paedophile on food stamps.


I wouldn't say it is a problem of the specific group of laws... it's an 
intrinsic problem of your legal system (I'm not saying we don't have our 
problems, they just come in different colours).

And remedies seems worse than the cure:
«His Assembly Bill 913 would clamp down on frequent filers»

This seems a more interesting clue about how to fix the law:
"California is a particular magnet for frivolous ADA litigation, thanks 
to state law which mandates a minimum $4,000 penalty for each violation 
— no matter how small — plus the plaintiff’s attorney fees."

I don't understand how giving more time to business is going to help.

>> Closed captioning. Virtually all broadcast TV has closed captioning.
>> How difficult /expensive would it be to add CC to the lectures?
>> Admittedly CC sometimes is pretty bad with uncommon words.  Prof. Smith
>> has beenteaching math for some years by working out examples on the
>> whiteboard. Now there a blind student enrolls. How is that supposed
>> to work?
>
> Part of the point about the recent DoJ enforcement letter to University
> of California is that it concerned a set of tens of thousands of
> instructional videos that are _not_ used in educational curricula, but
> instead were hosted online for public benefit.
>
> Here's how my acquaintance Beth (who works for the Minnesota library
> system) put it, on the Skeptic mailing list:
>
> ---<snip>---
>
> It's not just these lectures, it's bigger than that. It's everything
> that every institution wants to digitize in order to make it available
> to the public. Thing is, that's the essential first step. It's not
> perfect, but those items are one hell of a lot more accessible than
> they were before they were digitized. Yes, we want to make them fully
> accessible to everyone. But if we're no longer allowed to digitize
> now, caption (hopefully) later, then a lot fewer things are going to
> get digitized. The funding only goes so far.

I'd ask in the first place why some courses are recorded and made 
available on the net.
I'm aware I'm judging by my limited experience but I didn't find them 
useful. I think I've insisted in following more than 80 hours of physics 
courses in the hope to learn something.
I admit Susskind is fun but I'd consider all the video I saw promotional 
rather than educational. I wonder if ADA apply to advertising.
I don't feel that comfortable about Universities needing advertising 
neither costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
MIT Opencourseware lecture notes and assignment were more useful and 
lower the investment on books if you want to learn the subject.

Again if you're arguing about where it is better money go, if in 
digitalizing stuff or captioning stuff you'd better reconsider if it is 
better to put money in education or EPA or or healthcare or defense or 
Homeland Security...

But it is better increase the competition between people that can't 
afford university and people that have disabilities. Believe me!

-- 
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it http://www.borgonovo.net