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

[Ivan Sergio Borgonovo]

On 03/22/2017 07:51 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ivan Sergio Borgonovo (mail at webthatworks.it):

> To put it another way, I sometimes talk about a dichotomy between
> 'process people' and 'non-process people'.  Process people can and do
> concentrate on the successive steps that must be achieved in the right
> order to achieve goal X.  Non-process people instead enthusiastically
> advocate goal X and assume some sort of magic will bring it about if
> enough people want it deeply.

You're way too optimistic.
I see to many people unable to rationally chose their goal.

>> In my opinion giving a grace period to business opens another can of
>> worms and doesn't fix the issue.

> Well, your opinion is entirely your right, and I have no horse in this
> race -- but from my amateur perspective it looks like it might.

> As is my habit, I'll revert to discussing process.  Consider Mr.

[snip]

> To me, that looks a lot like fixing the issue, just with a grace period
> so that businesses caught unaware are not obliged to make huge
> multi-thousand-dollar payouts to the likes of Hernandez _and_ fix their
> problems.

 > But if you think otherwise, I respect your right to your view.

I did exactly your simulation but I continue to see some problems.
I didn't invest enough time to see I'm introducing even more problems 
with a different approach but I'm not really that interested in 
discussing this specifically and the knowledge required to seriously 
discuss the topic doesn't look as a good investment on my part.

>> OK, I got my mistake.
>> Public officers can't sue, but what if they could fine?

> Here, I thank you for that question, because I meant upthread to include
> a rundown on what sort of law exist in an English-derived legal system,
> what they're for, and how they work.

> I count (and, disclaimer, I'm just an interested amateur) three broad
> categories of law:  criminal, civil, and administrative.

Thanks for your time.

> In order to know if ADA Title III gives any public officers a power to
> assess a fine, I'd have to read it more carefully, and I hadn't really
> read it at all until a couple of days ago.  But I rather strongly
> suspect 'no'.

Here it is generally the norm to be fined for similar violations.
Public officers and citizen could trigger an investigation.
Generally there is no economic incentive for citizens unless they 
actually suffered some damage due to non compliance.

> By the way, don't feel even a tiny bit sheepish about not being familiar
> with these particulars of American law.  Most Americans badly
> misunderstand it -- especially the key distinction between criminal and
> civil law (which is why I dwelled on that).

Here is a bit different but not that much.
Eg we make a difference between crime with a punishment and crime with 
compensation/fine and the same crime may be discussed in 2 courts one 
for deciding the punishment the other to decide compensation/fine.
I don't think it is the same in all european countries and of course I'm 
missing a lot of details.

Here we also make a difference between crimes that can be automatically 
prosecuted by the police and crimes that need to be denounced by the victim.

>> I point again to:
>> “Forty percent of the cases in 2015 were filed by just two firms
>> who are exploiting ADA lawsuits for their own personal gain."
>> So probably it's not a problem of some Gerardos.

> But the two law firms do this work at the behest of an only slightly
> larger number of Gerardo plaintiffs, I'll just mention.  (IMO, it's
> fruitless to be angry at law firms for seeking money.  ;->  )

So why you'd be angry at Gerardo?

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