[blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
Stephanie Enyart
stephanie_enyart at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 15 21:32:15 UTC 2009
Dear Bill,
I have a few suggestions for your LSAT preparation.
1) Consider buying a test prep course. Although they are costly, often they
are worth it. Nearly all the students at my law school took prep courses and
TestMasters was the most popular company. I did TestMasters and bought some
individual tutoring to figure out how to address some of my
disability-related needs. I know several blind law students/lawyers who used
TestMasters or Kaplan. Both of these companies have experience dealing with
blind students and can give you electronic copies of all their test
material. One of the major distinctions between then is that TestMasters
only uses former LSAT questions where Kaplan writes their own practice
questions. The result is that if you took TestMasters, the practice material
that is currently inaccessible and sold on the LSAC website is made
accessible as a TestMasters student. Depending on what state you live in, I
recommend working with Vocational Rehab to have this paid for as part of
your voc rehab plan.
2) Convert the printed material sold by LSAT into accessible format. I'm
unsure of whether you own a scanner and software like Kurzweil or Open book
but you could scan any practice tests you buy from LSAC.org and make them
accessible that way. If you don’t have a scanner and software, I highly
recommend getting them before law school because they are extremely handy
for bridging the gap between what your school can provide and what you need
(like scanning any paper based items the school won't provide in electronic
format). If this isn't possible right now, try to find a blind center (one
of NFB's, a Lighthouse for the Blind, or even independent living center)
where you could go and scan this. You could even turn to a local NFB chapter
to see if there are any members who would allow you to use their assistive
technology.
3) Borrow Braille practice tests from LSAC. I'm not sure if you're a
Braille user but LSAC has around 9 practice tests that you can borrow three
at a time once you've submitted your documentation for disability
accommodations for the LSAT. This isn’t advertised or explained anywhere in
their materials but if you call them and tell them you "know" there is a
program to loan Braille tests, they won't deny this request. But there are a
few things that make this option not ideal. Fist, there are only a few tests
and generally people take a ton of them so it isn't a complete solution.
Then, the really quirky thing about these tests is that they aren't titled
-- they're lacking the title of which test you are actually taking (e.g. the
June 2000 test or February 1999 test). If you're studying pretty hard and
taking lots of practice tests, it is a pretty big bummer to plan to take a 7
plus hour practice test to then find out the one you're taking is one you've
already done and you recognize the questions or you are taking a very old
test that strays from how they're testing today. Plus, few blind people opt
to take the test in Braille anyway -- roughly 5 a year -- so you might not
want to practice in Braille if you aren't planning to take it in that
medium.
4) Search Bookshare.org or RFBD for recent LSAT test prep material. Although
I haven't checked lately, I know bookshare had some scanned versions of
Kaplan materials. Just make sure you get something recent though because the
test has evolved over time. I spoke with the head of Bookshare last week and
they're very aware of the LSAT materials problem -- we just need a recent
LSAT test taker who is a member of Bookshare to post their accessible stuff
on that site . . . anyone out there?
5) Work with a reader to access printed material. Although this isn't the
easiest thing to do, nor the cheapest, it may be the only option for you.
Plus, if you are planning to take the test with one of their live readers,
being used to practicing that way is helpful. If this is your method,
certainly make sure you spend time advocating for Rehab to pay for it. I
think I racked up around $7000 in reader fees when I was practicing (this
was before TestMasters had electronic access to their materials so all my
TestMasters homework was done with readers too). Remember, there has been at
least one blind test taker who has successfully been granted the
accommodation of taking the test on a computer with Jaws so if you want
that, you'll need to fight for it and you might really want to do all your
studying or as much as possible, in the medium you're going to use on test
day.
I hope this helps. I've done quite a bit of research on LSAT/law school
admissions issues so don't hesitate to contact me off-list if you have any
questions along the way.
Best of luck in your studies,
Stephanie Enyart
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:32 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
Well, academically speaking, the law suit could have prayed for a Temporary
Restraining Order, or a preliminary Injunction against the LSAC for folks
like you. Basically enjoined the LSAC from administering the exam until they
make the changes. The only difficulty with that I think justifies the reason
they probably did not pray for such a relief is that such a measure would
cause too much harm to the public, I.E, the thousands of law students and
schools who rely on the exam to make admissions decisions. Such an order
while it would have forced the LSAC to make the changes much faster, it
would have unreasonably halted the system for some times. If it were a class
action with thousands of members, it probably would have been easier to
argue, I think. Whether not passing an exam for the first time is considered
irreparable harm is another question -- you can still make the argument
under these circumstances.
Rod Alcidonis
Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009.
Roger Williams University School of Law
10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003
Bristol, RI 02809
Cell: 718-704-4651
Home: 401-824-8685
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Spiry" <bspiry at comcast.net>
To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
I understand. What might be done to getLSAC to authorize use of this
material as an accessible alternative to what they have to offer? I know NFB
is sueing them, but in the mean time that leaves folks like me who don't
have the Adobe skills you have, and facing the LSAT soon without accessible
matter. Any ideas or suggestions?
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of James Pepper
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:43 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
Well Bill the content is copyrighted by LSAC so I am not sure I can send
this to you. Perhaps some on this list can give that advice. I laid it out
properly.
James
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Bill Spiry <bspiry at comcast.net> wrote:
> I would appreciate receiving this as well. Thanks.
> bspiry at comcast.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of James Pepper
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:46 AM
> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
>
> Scott: I laid out the first section of the LSAT to be accessible and I
> can
> send you the files if you would like to see it. Also I made the form that
> they use accessible so the blind can fill out the test without assistance.
> This works with JAWS and Window Eyes and a combination of Adobe's Read out
> Loud and Microsoft Narrator. My process works and if you need references
> at
> NFB, AFB and the AAPD I can send them to you.
>
> It took a while to figure out how they made thier pdfs and I know where
> they
> are making their mistakes. I can correct this problem. These PDFs are
made
> to work natively with JAWS and Adobe Reader and the other screen readers
> without making any adjustments. They work with the default settings in
> Adobe Reader.
>
> Also the forms can be digitally signed and saved and all that fancy stuff
> that you expect with Adobe Acrobat Professional can be done with
> Adobe Reader, versions 8 or 9 which is the free download from Adobe.com.
> So
> we can make the LSAT accessible to anyone with a PC running Windows XP Or
> VIsta without any change of settings. This means the PC can be there for
> the sighted and the blind, with equal access for all.
>
> Also since I labeled everything, it will be a lot quicker for you to fill
> out this test!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> James G. Pepper
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Scott C. LaBarre
> <slabarre at labarrelaw.com>wrote:
>
> > Below I am sharing the complaint that we filed today in California
Court.
> > **************
> > LaurEnce W. paradis (California Bar No. 122336)
> >
> > Anna levine (California Bar No. 227881)
> >
> > Disability Rights Advocates
> >
> > 2001 Center Street, Third Floor
> >
> > Berkeley, California 94704
> >
> > Telephone: (510) 665-8644
> >
> > Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
> >
> > TTY: (510) 665-8716
> >
> >
> >
> > SCOTT LABARRE (to seek pro hac vice admission)
> >
> > LABARRE LAW OFFICES, P.C.
> >
> > 1660 S. Albion Street, Ste 918
> >
> > Denver, Colo 80222
> >
> > Telephone: (303) 504-5979
> >
> > Fax: (303) 757-3640
> >
> >
> >
> > DANIEL F. GOLDSTEIN (to seek pro hac vice admission)
> >
> > MEHGAN Sidhu (to seek pro hac vice admission)
> >
> > Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
> >
> > 120 E. Baltimore St., Suite 1700
> >
> > Baltimore, MD 21202
> >
> > Telephone: (410) 962-1030
> >
> > Fax: (410) 385-0869
> >
> >
> >
> > SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
> > COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
> >
> >
> >
> > National Federation of the Blind, the National Federation of the
> Blind
> > of CALIFORNIA, and DEEPA GORAYA,
> >
> >
> >
> > Plaintiffs,
> >
> > v.
> >
> > LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNCIL, INC.,
> >
> > Defendant.
> >
> >
> >
> > Case No.:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF
> THE
> > CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT AND UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > INTRODUCTION
> >
> > Plaintiffs complain of Defendant and allege herein as follows:
> >
> > 1. This action, brought by the National Federation of the Blind,
> > the National Federation of the Blind of California, and Deepa Goraya,
> seeks
> > to put an end to civil rights violations committed by defendant Law
> School
> > Admissions Council (hereafter "LSAC") against blind persons seeking to
> take
> > the LSAT exam and apply to law schools. Plaintiff Deepa Goraya, a blind
> law
> > school applicant in California, has been and is being denied equal
access
> to
> > the accommodations, advantages, and facilities LSAC provides its
> > non-disabled customers through http://www.lsac.org (hereafter "lsac.org"
> > and "the website"). Plaintiffs National Federation of the Blind and the
> > National Federation of the Blind of California have members who are
> > similarly denied full and equal access to such accommodations,
advantages
> > and facilities. Lsac.org is currently the only place online where
> > prospective law students can register for the Law School Admissions Test
> > ("LSAT"), apply to law schools, and obtain official LSAT test
preparation
> > materials and information. Lsac.org contains multiple access barriers
> that
> > make it difficult if not impossible for blind law school applicants and
> LSAT
> > test takers to use the website and to obtain practice materials without
> > sighted assistance. LSAC thus excludes the blind, including Ms. Goraya,
> > from full and equal access to the accommodations, advantages,
facilities,
> > and privileges of lsac.org.
> >
> > JURISDICTION
> >
> > 2. This is a civil action under California's Disabled Persons
Act
> > (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, et seq.) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal.
Civ.
> > Code §§ 51, et seq.) and for declaratory relief. This Court has
> > jurisdiction over the claims alleged herein pursuant to California Civil
> > Code §§ 54, et seq. and California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. and
> California
> > Code of Civil Procedure section 1060.
> >
> > 3. This Court has jurisdiction over LSAC because LSAC is a
> > corporation authorized to do business in California and LSAC conducts
> > substantial business in California. LSAC owns, maintains and operates
its
> > website, lsac.org, throughout California and in Alameda County.
> >
> >
> >
> > VENUE
> >
> > 4. Venue is proper in Alameda County because liability arises in
> > part in Alameda County, where the National Federation of the Blind of
> > California has its headquarters. LSAC has been and is committing the
> acts
> > alleged herein in Alameda County, has been and is violating the rights
of
> > patrons in Alameda County, and has been and is causing injury to patrons
> in
> > Alameda County.
> >
> > 5. Plaintiff Goraya is a California citizen and has experienced
> > injury in California as a result of LSAC's inaccessible website and
> practice
> > materials.
> >
> > PARTIES
> >
> > 6. Plaintiff the National Federation of the Blind (hereafter
> "NFB")
> > is a national advocacy organization. The NFB, the oldest and largest
> > national organization of blind persons, is a non-profit corporation duly
> > organized under the laws of the District of Columbia with its principal
> > place of business in Baltimore, Maryland. It has affiliates in all 50
> > states (including California) as well as Washington, D.C. and Puerto
> Rico.
> > The vast majority of the approximately 50,000 members are blind
persons.
> > The NFB is widely recognized by the public, Congress, executive
agencies
> of
> > government and the courts as a collective and representative voice on
> behalf
> > of blind Americans and their families. The purpose of the NFB is to
> promote
> > the general welfare of the blind by (1) assisting the blind in their
> efforts
> > to integrate themselves into society on terms of equality and (2)
> removing
> > barriers and changing social attitudes, stereotypes and mistaken beliefs
> > that sighted and blind persons hold concerning the limitations created
by
> > blindness resulting in the denial of opportunity to blind persons in
> > virtually every sphere of life. The NFB and many of its members have
> long
> > been actively involved in promoting adaptive technology for the blind,
so
> > that blind persons can live and work independently in today's
> > technology-dependent world. NFB members reside throughout the United
> > States, including the state of California, and many of its members would
> use
> > the services of lsac.org if this website is made independently usable by
> > the blind.
> >
> > 7. Plaintiff the National Federation of the Blind of California
> > (hereafter "NFB of California") is a state affiliate of the National
> > Federation of the Blind. NFB of California is a California corporation
> and
> > carries out NFB's objectives at the state level. It has local chapters
> > throughout California, including Alameda County, and has its
headquarters
> in
> > Fremont, California, in Alameda County.
> >
> > 8. Plaintiff Goraya is a member of the NFB and the NFB of
> > California. She is blind and has been denied full and equal access to
> the
> > accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of lsac.org.
> >
> > 9. Defendant LSAC, is a non-profit corporation
> > established to coordinate, facilitate, and enhance the law school
> admissions
> > process. LSAC owns, operates and/or maintains the website lsac.com, a
> > public accommodation. Plaintiffs seek access to the services provided
by
> > LSAC in California through lsac.org.
> >
> > FACTS
> >
> > 10. Lsac.org is owned, controlled and/or operated by LSAC.
> Lsac.org
> > is a public accommodation that offers its visitors comprehensive
services
> > for applying to law school. The website functions as the official
> > destination for guiding prospective law school applicants through the
> > fundamental steps of applying to law school. Among its services,
> lsac.orgoffers information about the LSAT and law school application
> process, and
> > extensive LSAT preparation materials and resources. Lsac.org also
serves
> as
> > the exclusive online means for registering for the LSAT and applying to
> > ABA-accredited law schools.
> >
> > 11. According to the website, lsac.org's online services enable
> > prospective law students to do the following, among other things:
> >
> > a.. Register for the LSAT
> > b.. Register for the LSDAS (Law School Data Assembly Service)
> > c.. Purchase publications and test preparation materials
> > d.. Have access to electronic applications for all ABA-approved law
> > schools
> > e.. Apply online to law schools
> > f.. Register for law school forums
> > g.. Have 24-hour file access
> > 12. In addition to facilitating the LSAT and law school application
> > processes, a significant portion of the lsac.org website is devoted to
> > preparing students to take the LSAT. Among the services offered in that
> > regard are online information guides that explain how to prepare for the
> > LSAT and free, downloadable sample practice tests and test questions.
> > Lsac.org also offers for a fee an online LSAT practice test tool and
the
> > opportunity to purchase more than 40 official LSAT practice tests.
> >
> > 13. While sighted visitors to lsac.org can easily obtain the benefits
> and
> > advantages offered by the website, blind individuals, including Ms.
> Goraya,
> > have been and are being denied access to lsac.org due to LSAC's failure
> > and refusal to remove access barriers to lsac.org. Specifically, blind
> > visitors to the website, including Ms. Goraya, cannot independently
apply
> to
> > law school, register for the LSAT, or obtain in an accessible format the
> > LSAT preparation materials and practice tests available through lsac.org
> .
> >
> > 14. The blind access websites by using keyboards in conjunction
> with
> > screen-reading software. This software vocalizes or conveys to a
> refreshable
> > Braille display information that appears visually on a computer screen.
> > Unless websites are designed to allow for use in this manner, blind
> persons
> > are unable to fully access the internet websites and the information,
> > products and services contained therein.
> >
> > 15. There are well-established guidelines for making websites
> > accessible to the blind. These guidelines have been in place for at
> least
> > several years and have been followed successfully by other public
> > accommodations in making their online services accessible. The Web
> > Accessibility Initiative (WAI), a project of the World Wide Web
> Consortium,
> > which is the leading standards organization for the Web, has developed
> > guidelines for making information that is reached via the internet
> > accessible. The federal government has also promulgated accessibility
> > standards under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These guidelines
> > have long been readily available via the internet so that any public
> > accommodation could easily secure the necessary information.
> >
> > 16. Lsac.org contains a variety of access barriers that prevent
> free
> > and full use by blind persons using keyboards and screen reading
> software.
> > These barriers include but are not limited to: lack of or improperly
> > labeled form controls; faulty keyboard navigation; and use of tables and
> > charts that are not formatted for accessibility. Form controls allow
> users
> > to input data on online forms and applications. These controls must be
> > coded and labeled to allow screen-access software to detect and vocalize
> the
> > requested information. Keyboard navigation refers to the ability to
> > successfully navigate a website using keyboard commands, as opposed to
> > requiring a mouse as the exclusive means for navigation of the site.
> > Further, charts and tables must be formatted to work with screen-access
> > software. Much of the lsac.org website, and in particular the online
> law
> > school application and LSAT registration sections of the website, lack
> these
> > fundamental accessibility components. As a result, blind visitors to
the
> > website cannot independently use those and other critical features.
> >
> > 17. Lsac.org's test preparation materials that are available on
the
> > website in Adobe Portable Document (PDF) format, are not properly
> "tagged."
> > This means that the headings, paragraphs, tables, image descriptions
and
> > form controls are not easily discernable to screen-reading software. As
> a
> > result, these materials are cumbersome, if not impossible, for a blind
> > visitor to navigate.
> >
> > 18. Finally, lsac.org fails to offer LSAT practice tests,
> available
> > as part of its test preparation services, in formats accessible to the
> > blind. While the sighted can easily use the website to obtain more than
> 40
> > formerly administered LSAT practice tests, the website fails to offer
the
> > opportunity to purchase these practice materials in formats accessible
to
> > the blind, such as Braille or an accessible electronic format.
> >
> > 19. As a result of lsac.org's accessibility barriers, blind law
> > school applicants, including Ms. Goraya, must go over extraordinary
> hurdles
> > to register and prepare for the LSAT and to apply to law school compared
> to
> > their sighted counterparts. After unsuccessfully attempting to use
> > lsac.org independently to register for the LSAT and fill out her law
> > school applications, for example, Plaintiff Goraya was forced to select
> and
> > rely upon a reader for over 50 hours simply to read aloud the content of
> the
> > website and complete her law school applications. Moreover, none of the
> > LSAT practice materials, which include previously administered versions
> of
> > the test, were available to her in accessible electronic formats.
> Lsac.org
> > thus contains numerous access barriers which deny full and equal access
> to
> > Plaintiff, who would otherwise use the accommodations, advantages, and
> > facilities of lsac.org.
> >
> > 20. On December 10, 2008, Plaintiff National Federation of the
> Blind
> > notified LSAC of the unlawful accessibility barriers on its website.
> LSAC
> > responded by setting up and then canceling a meeting with the NFB. On
> > January 22, 2009, the NFB notified LSAC that it intended to pursue legal
> > action against LSAC for the unlawful barriers on its website.
> >
> > FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
> >
> > (Violation of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, et seq. - the Disabled Persons Act)
> >
> > 21. The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are
> > incorporated by reference.
> >
> > 22. The Disabled Persons Act ("DPA") requires that individuals
with
> > disabilities have "full and equal access, as other members of the
general
> > public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, . . . and other
places
> to
> > which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and
> > limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and
> > applicable alike to all persons." Cal. Civ. Code 54.1(a)(1).
> >
> > 23. Lsac.org, which is owned, operated and/or maintained by LSAC,
> is
> > an
> >
> > accommodation, advantage, facility and/or place to which the general
> public
> > is invited, as those terms are used in Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a)(1).
> >
> > 24. Defendant's conduct alleged herein violates the DPA, including
> > Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a)(1), by denying the Plaintiffs full and equal
> access
> > to the accommodations, advantages and facilities of lsac.org.
> >
> > 25. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the NFB, the NFB of
> > California, and Ms. Goraya are entitled to injunctive relief requiring
> > Defendant to make lsac.org accessible to blind individuals, and to make
> > the LSAT test practice materials offered to lsac.org patrons available
> to
> > blind people in an accessible format.
> >
> > SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
> >
> > (Violation of Cal.Civ. Code §§ 51, et seq. - The Unruh Act)
> >
> > 26. The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are
> > incorporated by reference.
> >
> > 27. California's Unruh Act requires that individuals with
> > disabilities have "full and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities,
> > privileges or services in all business establishments of every kind
> > whatsoever." Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b).
> >
> > 28. LSAC and Lsac.org are business establishments as that term is
> > used in Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b) and lsac.org is an accommodation,
> > advantage, facility, privilege and service of LSAC.
> >
> > 29. Defendant's conduct alleged herein violates the Unruh Act,
> > including Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b), by denying Plaintiffs the full and
> equal
> > accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services of LSAC
> and
> > lsac.org.
> >
> > 30. Defendant violated the Unruh Act intentionally and/or with
> > deliberate indifference to the likelihood that it was violating the
> rights
> > of blind people and/or Defendant's violations were so intuitive or
> obvious
> > that noncompliance could not be other than intentional.
> >
> > 31. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the NFB, the NFB of
> > California, and Ms. Goraya are entitled to injunctive relief requiring
> > Defendant to make lsac.org accessible to blind individuals, and to make
> > the LSAT test practice materials offered to lsac.org patrons available
> to
> > blind people in an accessible format.
> >
> >
> >
> > THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
> >
> > (Declaratory Relief, Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1060 )
> >
> > 32. The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are
> > incorporated by reference.
> >
> > 33. On information and belief, Defendants contend that they may
> > lawfully deny Plaintiffs access to their website and its contents.
> > Plaintiffs contend that lsac.org, which LSAC owns, operates, and/or
> > controls, must provide blind patrons access to its website and website
> > contents under California Civil Code §§ 54, et seq. and California Civil
> > Code §§ 51, et seq., which prohibit discrimination against the blind.
> >
> > 34. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this
> time
> > in order that each of the parties may know their respective rights and
> > duties and act accordingly.
> >
> > WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as set forth below.
> >
> > RELIEF REQUESTED
> >
> > WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
> >
> > 1. An order enjoining LSAC from violating California
> > Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. and §§ 54, et seq.;
> >
> > 2. A declaration that LSAC is owning, maintaining
> and/or
> > operating lsac.org in a manner which discriminates against the blind and
> > which fails to provide access for persons with disabilities as required
> by
> > law;
> >
> > 3. Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
as
> > authorized by California California Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.,
California
> > Civil Code §§ 51, et seq., and pursuant to California Code of Civil
> > Procedure § 1021.5.
> >
> > 4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems
> just
> > and proper.
> >
> >
> >
> > DATED:
> > DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
> >
> >
> >
> >
> By:
> > ____________________________
> >
> >
> > Laurence W. Paradis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.
> >
> > LaBarre Law Offices P.C.
> > 1660 South Albion Street, Ste. 918
> > Denver, Colorado 80222
> > 303 504-5979 (voice)
> > 303 757-3640 (fax)
> > slabarre at labarrelaw.com (e-mail)
> > www.labarrelaw.com (website)
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message may contain confidential and
> > privileged information. If you are not the designated recipient, you may
> not
> > read, copy, distribute or retain this message. If you received this
> message
> > in error, please notify the sender at 303) 504-5979 or
> > slabarre at labarrelaw.com, and destroy and delete it from your system.
> This
> > message and any attachments are covered by the Electronic
> > Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521.
> > _______________________________________________
> > blindlaw mailing list
> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > blindlaw:
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b75205%40gmail.com
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/bspiry%40comcast.n
> et
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b75205%40gmail.com
>
_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/bspiry%40comcast.n
et
_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail.
com
_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stephanie_enyart%4
0yahoo.com
More information about the BlindLaw
mailing list