[nfbmi-talk] Fw: documentation of ada 504 violations

Tue Mar 11 22:25:56 UTC 2014

Terry and all, another bite at this apple here. Why on earth are we, those 
who are blind predated against by the very system that is funded to liberate 
us? Why are we who are blind put in to a position where we fight, or have to 
fight for every scrap of visually deliverred information (i.e. print) in a 
format we can discern and act upon all by ourselves if supplied which is by 
the way a civil right in every venue let alone the legal context?
'
The answer is simple. It is to literally keep us ignorant about our 
personal, collective and other affairs on par with those whom are sighted.

It is a matter of control. Pure and simple.

It is a matter of keeping us not only in our place, but also a matter of 
creating and creating systems that look upon us as commodities and not 
people. It is all about power, control, and the influence of monies at our 
expense sir!

It would be simpler an more honest if the government would simply cut a 
check to each and everyone of us who are blind than to engage in the fraud 
that is beingperpretrated upon us in this system which isn't even accessable 
and access is not only a nice thing but it is a civl right.

For one cannot understand the word if one isn't given access to the word in 
the first place.

This is no more self evident in construct than one who uses a wheelchair 
cannot have equal access to a bus if not given a lift, literally.

In fact the principle is given in the words and actions of ADAPT in its 
early days when they and we were fighting for access to the mass 
transportation system. Our slogan, while we took over bus systems like those 
in denver was, "Rosa Parks foughtrightfully to sit in the front of the bus. 
We fight to literally get on the bus."

So it goes to access to the printed word.

There is no and I repeat no due process of law if all things printed related 
to any case in any venue aren't made in real time in the most effective 
format to the individual accessable and in a timely manner.

Not one thing. Not this or that thing. But everything. And again to all 
comers in real time and in the most effective form for that individual. That 
is what 4504 says. And it is more than forty years old. That is what the ADA 
says. That is what, in effect Tennesee v. Lane says in context to court and 
legal access.

Yet, over and over again VR and adjudicatory processess violate these basic 
principles with grave damage to each and all of us.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry D. Eagle" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: documentation of ada 504 violations

> There is a more outrageous case, whereby a state hearing officer  forced 
> us
> to have the sighted reader of the opposing party, the state agency against
> the blind, read proposed printed documents to me.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe
> harcz Comcast
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:29 PM
> To: Elmer Cerano MPAS
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: documentation of ada 504 violations
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
> To: "blind democracy List" <blind-democracy at octothorp.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 11:44 AM
> Subject: Fw: [nfbmi-talk] documentation of ada 504 violations
>
>
> This thread relates to the Florida case....
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
> To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 11:35 AM
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] documentation of ada 504 violations
>
>
> This is just one segment from an MAHS BEP ALJ transcript where both MCB 
> and
> MAHS in documented fashion have violated the effective communications
> requirements of the ADA and the auxilliary aids and services provisions of
> Section 504.
>
> Fundamentally all blind folks are denied due process and equal protection
> under the law if all information related to such cases is not afforded in
> the most effective format of the individuals and in a timely manner. The
> effective date for compliance under the ADA alone in these regards was
> January 26, 1992.
>
> Joe
>
> From the record:
>
> "
> MR. HULL:  Okay, thank you.
>
> Your Honor, at this time I'd like to present into evidence a letter sent
> from the Commission to Mr. Rothenhauser in March of this last year.
>
> JUDGE BOND:  Do you have a copy for the opposing party?
>
> MR. HULL:  I do. I have a copy for Mr. Eagle, for yourself, and actually 
> for
> Mr. Rothenhauser.
>
> JUDGE BOND:  All right.
>
> Why don't you show it to your reader?
>
> MR. EAGLE:  I'm going to object to this because of the length and the fact
> that it's not a form that I can use.
>
> JUDGE BOND:  Okay, why don't you show it to your reader and --
>
> MR. EAGLE:  Then I'd ask for an adjournment so that we can go over it.
>
> JUDGE BOND:  Well, if you'd like to take a brief recess to go to the room
> out there, the so-called lawyers' room and go over it you may have a 
> recess.
>
> MR. EAGLE:  We'll take that but I want clarification from the bench. 
> You're
> saying that this is an adequate format for me as a blind person to read; 
> is
> it not?
>
> JUDGE BOND:  You have a reader, sir.
>
> MR. EAGLE:  You're saying --
>
> JUDGE BOND:  That's why you have a reader; is that not true?
>
> MR. EAGLE:  Is that what the -- my question is -- from the bench is --
>
> JUDGE BOND:  Obviously, Mr. Eagle, you can't read it. Obviously, you can't
> read that. You have a reader, don't you?
>
> MR. EAGLE:  The Americans With Disabilities Act and the Section 504 of the
> Rehabilitation Act require that these documents be put in a format that I 
> as
> a blind person can use and they're not in that.
>
> JUDGE BOND:  All right, I understand that.
>
> MR. EAGLE:  It doesn't say anything about having me required to be paid --
> to pay a reader.
>
> JUDGE BOND:  Your objection is noted on the record. Now, would you like 
> the
> recess to have the reader --
>
> MR. EAGLE:  Yes, I would.
>
> JUDGE BOND:  Okay, we're going to take a recess and we're going to come
> back --
>
> MR. EAGLE:  I would like 20 minutes.
>
> JUDGE BOND:  All right, come back at five minutes to ten. Go off the 
> record
> at this time.
>
> (WHEREUPON, a brief recess was taken at this time)."
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.n
> et
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy at octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/terrydeagle%40yahoo.
> com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net 