[blindlaw] nfb v. target

William ODonnell william.odonnell1 at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 16 16:16:49 UTC 2009 

Greetings,
I would like to open By saying that Rod, your comments arre very well thought out; Steve, you are looking for a way over on the system and are looking for an excuse to undo an injustice that you felt done to you.  Stop looking for handouts and free passes since you are disabled.  The world does not work like this.  


--- On Mon, 3/16/09, Ford, Tim (CDPH-OLS) <Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov> wrote:

> From: Ford, Tim (CDPH-OLS) <Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Date: Monday, March 16, 2009, 10:41 AM
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/william.odonnell1%40yahoo.com

More information about the BlindLaw mailing list