[blindLaw] (no subject)

[omar duncan]

Dear colleagues (legal professionals and aspiring legal professionals), I
have something critical for our career prep success to share among that I
am taking this week to share with you all.

 As some of us may know, a key aspect of lsat prep (and other standardized
tests but especially the LSAT) hinges on completing many, countless
practice tests and prep tests consisting of test questions from previous
years and administrations.

 Unfortunately, a lot of us in this community rely on text to speech
programs like jaws and zoomtext to achieve necessary outcomes and elevate
our situation to a state I like to call, “level playing field.” Further,
these practice test questions on myriad prep platforms and other databases
are not accessible with text to speech programs because, for lack of a
better way to put it, nonsense arbitrary doctrines are cited to prevent us
from equal access to material and bringing about an equitable atmosphere
for visually impaired peoples and others with print disabilities such as
dyslexia and other predicaments that preclude equal access.

 They hide behind the cover of pathetic covers like  intellectual property
and other arbitrary frivolities  and grounds to deny us equal access—as if
there is any difference as these tests are already widely available and
public and tests of the past.


 We are basically dealing with a conflict of epic proportions between two
core bodies of law—to be exact, those would be disability law and Americans
with Disability act (1) and intellectual property and proprietary access
laws (2). It is essential Godzilla versus King Kong type of stuff.
Nevertheless, I want to get my colleagues views on the prospects of
drafting legal actions that would seek to abolish such rules that prevent
text to speech capability on the grounds of the above-intellectual property
and other exclusionary considerations Given these circumstances and my
extensive knowledge of the legal system, it is worth considering escalating
this issue before courts of law to reconcile this inherent conflict—akin to
a knife lodged against the body. We need to consider that the fight may be
lengthy given the lag of the legal system. It might be tough. We must never
lose sight of the fact that The benefits of efficiency from being able to
utilize text to speech more freely in such an important area of test prep
that puts us at equal footing with other test takers is all the reason to
embark on this worthy journey. It will tremendously benefit ALL visually
impaired test takers regardless of their level of impairment and other non
visually disabled people that are print disabled and have other issues.
This necessary, positive development will pave the way for many people that
follow in our foot steps and will put them at an equal footing to be able
to praise their dream like us. I encourage you all to remember The visually
impaired plaintiff that sued on legitimate grounds like the above to remove
logic games as will be happening after this June with the LSAT. It was
long, time consuming but he was victorious and paved the way for a positive
future for all of us going forward.

 Taking everything into account I have stated, I am asking if this is
something that we can embark on and an organization take legal actions on
these grounds to advocate for this position like the national federation of
the blind or national association of blind lawyers or even sue
individually.

 Any insight and commentary on moving forward with such necessary action
affects positively and benefits all of us and I appreciate any feedback on
what we are able to do in this arena going forward.


This is something we have tremendous legal, backing based on the existing
legal framework of laws to be able to pursue a meaningful way. I hope we
can take out our swords and guns and cannons and move forward on this
journey with a level of intensity in energy that will allow us to achieve
this




We need to come up with a solution that involves allowing us to use text to
speech with our softwares without allowing  search and copy and  paste
 features and the other stuff that they  allege as   supposedly undermining
their  so called pathetic
intellectual property.



Let’s move forward with this and see where we stand and where we are going
with this.

Thanks for everyone’s attention and consideration, and I appreciate any
feedback and further discussion and being able to discuss this further
let’s move forward into the future with good results God willing.

Reasons are straight up, ridiculous, pathetic and completely a foul to the
various statutes in place that protect our communities from discrimination.
Even if they are true, like I said, we need to find the balance that
reconcile the conflict and provide an adequate solution.

Ha ha I know my thought process and methodology must be lawyery


After all, all of us are going into this business and traits to be able to
solve complex problems, such as this one, if y’all know what I mean ha ha
lol.

Best,