[blindlaw] nfb v. target
Ford, Tim (CDPH-OLS)
Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov
Mon Mar 16 14:41:01 UTC 2009
Thank you Mr. Frye for your excellent and patient post that in my mind hits the mark exactly. This is a list for lawyers and other legal practitioners, not a list to require legal professionals to explain/justify the American legal system.
Tim Ford
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Frye, Dan
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 3:12 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
List Colleagues:
I suggest we stop engaging this gentleman as though his responses deserve a serious or thoughtful reply. Our good faith efforts to treat his comments with respect are only met with what is clearly a political commentary that he wants to express. While he is entitled to have whatever view of the world and civil rights that he wishes, I hardly think that his view warrants exhaustive coverage on this list that is designed to discuss legitimate matters of law, practice as blind lawyers, and the like. Responding to him only gives him repeated opportunities to articulate this hostile world view. He would be better suited to share his perspective on civil rights with a bunch of people who subscribe to his feelings, in a political forum designed for such a purpose.
Dan Frye
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve P. Deeley
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 4:52 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
I will guarantee most individuals in our society don't agree with the way damages are calculated. You are a lawyer, so that sort of argument from you is expected, Especially telling others who don't agree with your position or, the position of most lawyers,concerning the calculation of damages in these civil rights cases.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Alcidonis" <roddj12 at hotmail.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
If damages are not awarded as a remedy at law, the next option would be to grant some equitable relief like an injunction. No court will ask Target to shut down its website until it make it accessible to the blind. This would be considered economic waste and against the public interest if millions of people are forced to stop shopping on line.
In the law's eyes, what the plaintiffs really want is for their civil rights not to be violated. If one accept to go ahead and violate them, the least that the law can afford to those plaintiffs is money. The court knows that money is not primarily what the plaintiffs are seeking, but there must be a way for the defendant to answer to society for its wrong doing. Here, it was by making the defendant compensate the plaintiffs for the harm that it caused, I.E, by making the defendant pay for violating the plaintiffs' civil rights. Keep saying the following outloud you will get it: "the damages was for the violation of the plaintiffs' civil rights, not for any physical pain or frustration in not using the Target website."
For further edification of your understanding: Once the court can calculate a dollar amount (hence the amount of the damages award), equitable relief is not necessary and such prayers will not be entertained in a court of equity.
Here, the court was able to come up with a dollar amount for the violation of the plaintiffs' civil rights.
Steve, unless you accept to place your emotions aside and exercise a little willingness to learn, even for one day, your reactions will continue to come across as being very uninformed. I don't think you want that. That's why some of us are trying to help you here while most have resolved to ignoring your comments. If you continue to persist along the same line in light of the effort that's been made to help you out, I will have to conclude in a very respectable way that you are just an ignorant man. I am sorry.
Take care.
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: "Steve P. Deeley" <stevep.deeley at insightbb.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
I understand that, however, I just do not agree with the entire concept of awarding damages in this sort of case.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Alcidonis" <roddj12 at hotmail.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
Steve:
The effort here was to try to help your understanding and educate your
logic, not to justify the existence of the legal system. I am afraid that
you are still not willing to accept that "damage" as used in the law is a
term of art. Meaning, It has a specific legal definition different from
normal use. It is different when you say that "my bicycle was damaged, for
example. It is a legal recognition that certain harms should be compensated.
In this case, the plaintiffs are being paid not for the fact that they were
physically damage in the normal use of the term, but for violations of their
civil rights. See Denis' e-mail for what the harm was.
In the bicycle example, if someone were to break your bicycle, you can
receive "damages" as the cost of repair, or replacement of the bicycle. By
the way, you are also entitled to enforce your civil rights if you so choose
and receive damages.
Not every violations entitle someone to such remedy. When a person cannot
get damages under the law, that person has the option of seeking equitable
relief in the form of an injunction or restraining order against the
defendant. In this case damages was available as a remedy so the plaintiffs
are getting money. They are getting paid because their civil rights were
violated. I hope this further helps inform your comments.
Take care.
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: "Steve P. Deeley" <stevep.deeley at insightbb.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
That is a lawyer talking who makes his living in rediculous situations like
this one. Again, you show me how an individual was damaged and out
$4,000.00.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott C. LaBarre" <slabarre at labarrelaw.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
Violation of civil rights has long been recognized as a form of compensible
legal damage as well it should be.
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve P. Deeley" <stevep.deeley at insightbb.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> This is ridiculous! How were these people damaged?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mehgan Sidhu" <ms at browngold.com>
> To: <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:20 PM
> Subject: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
>
>
>> To answer the recent questions posted about the Target case, the final
>> settlement hearing took place on March 9th. I understand from our
>> counsel in California, Larry Paradis of DRA and Josh Konecky, that there
>> were no objectors and the Judge was pleased with the resolution of the
>> case. The settlement is not fully "final" until the time for any
>> appeals has run - which is about 30 days. Given there were no objectors,
>> it is highly unlikely that any appeals will be filed. The judge has not
>> yet made a ruling on attorneys fees, but that will not hold up
>> enforcement of the settlement.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for disbursements, assuming there are no appeals, the claims
>> administer has 45 days from the final approval date to disburse funds to
>> claimants. I do not know the final tally of approved claimants, though I
>> think there were several hundred. I will pass that information along
>> when I have it.
>>
>>
>>
>> We will now be working on enforcing the settlement commitments that
>> Target made with respect to the accessibility of the website.
>>
>>
>> Mehgan Sidhu
>> Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
>> 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
>> Baltimore, Maryland 21202
>> 410-962-1030 x1324
>> 410-385-0869 (fax)
>> ms at browngold.com<mailto:ms at browngold.com>
>> www.browngold.com<http://www.browngold.com/>
>>
>> Confidentiality Notice
>>
>> This e-mail may contain confidential information that may also be legally
>> privileged and that is intended only for the use of the addressee(s)
>> named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized
>> agent of the recipient, please be advised that any dissemination or
>> copying of this e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance on the
>> information contained herein, is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by use of the
>> reply button, and then delete the e-mail from your system. Thank you!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/1999 - Release Date: 03/13/09
> 05:59:00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/slabarre%40labarrelaw.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/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/1999 - Release Date: 03/13/09
05:59:00
_______________________________________________
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/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/2001 - Release Date: 03/14/09
06:54:00
_______________________________________________
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/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/2001 - Release Date: 03/14/09
06:54:00
_______________________________________________
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/dfrye%40nfb.org
_______________________________________________
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/tim.ford%40cdph.ca.gov
More information about the BlindLaw
mailing list