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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ivan Sergio Borgonovo (mail at webthatworks.it):

> 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.

Fair enough.  I didn't (and don't) put much work into this, either.
Can't worry about everything -- and some things we just hope the
legislators and courts will sort out.

To be honest, on reflection there are aspects of this ADA-reform topic
that are puzzling, and it would require more effort than I can
reasonably justify to sort it out.  For example;  ADA was a 1990 statute
passed by the US Congress -- i.e., nationwide, Federal law.  According
to what is called the 'Preemption Doctrine', Federal law trumps state
statutes if they conflict.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption )  So, in what sense
is California legislative reform going to modify the operation of the
ADA?  I'm sure there's a rational explanation of that, but offhand I
admit I don't know.


> Here it is generally the norm to be fined for similar violations.

Well, again, Federal and state (and county and local) officers are
empowered to impose fines as part of administrative law _if_ the
enabling legislation delegates that power to them -- all the way down to
the parking control officer who leaves a citation on your car windscreen
for a parking violation.

> Public officers and citizen could trigger an investigation.

Public officers such as municipal officials in the USA love little as
much as conducting an investigation.  ;->  How much they can accomplish
depends on the powers of their offices.  Private citizens of course can
investigate all they want, but in the general case have no particular
powers.

> 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.

Interesting.

> So why you'd be angry at Gerardo?

At the risk of sounding evasive, I don't think anger at the Gerardo
Hernadezes of the world is particularly constructive, either.  He and
similar serial ADA plaintiffs are merely taking advantage of an
ill-considered legal construct.  The problem to be addressed is the bug
in the legal code, not the user who exploits it.