[Ohio-talk] Discrimination Continues

grob702 at gmail.com grob702 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 21:09:30 UTC 2016

Yes everyone this is Gloria Robinson I was discriminated isn't have been with Kroger's telling me I have a time limit to shop it is a shame that we are discriminated against anything I can do to help a situation I will do that thank you very much and I hope everyone understands this message have a blessed day

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 22, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Cheryl Fields via Ohio-talk <ohio-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:

> Wow! This just goes to show that we must be persistent and
> supportaative of each other!
> I encourage everyone to read this and make the phone call, even if you
> are not a guide dog user. Blessings, Cheryl
> On 2/21/16, Shelbi Hindel via Ohio-talk <ohio-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>> Please circulate the following message as widely as appropriate.
>> Sheriff's Office/State of Florida Condone Discrimination against Disabled
>>                On February 11, 2016, in a stunning blow to the rights of
>> the disabled, the State Attorney for the 13thJudicial Circuit in Tampa,
>> Florida released a two sentence statement in response to a criminal
>> complaint filed with their office as the result of a clear and unequivocal
>> denial of the rights of a person with a disability accompanied by a service
>> dog that condones discrimination against the disabled. This two sentence
>> statement, released by Mark Cox, Chief of Investigations for the state
>> Attorney, stated.
>> Please See entire article below or:
>> or Please read the entire article by visiting
>> http://www.harnessup.wordpress.com
>> Sheriff
>> <https://harnessup.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/sheriffs-officestate-of-florida-
>> condone-discrimination-against-disabled/> 's Office/State of Florida
>> Condone
>> Discrimination against Disabled
>> Posted on
>> <https://harnessup.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/sheriffs-officestate-of-florida-
>> condone-discrimination-against-disabled/> February 17, 2016 by harnessup
>> <https://harnessup.wordpress.com/author/harnessup/>
>> Sheriff's Office/State of Florida Condones Discrimination against Disabled
>> By Marion Gwizdala
>> On February 11, 2016, in a stunning blow to the rights of the disabled, the
>> State Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit in Tampa, Florida released a
>> two sentence statement in response to a criminal complaint filed with their
>> office as the result of a clear and unequivocal denial of the rights of a
>> person with a disability accompanied by a service dog that condones
>> discrimination against the disabled. This two sentence statement, released
>> by Mark Cox, Chief of Investigations for the state Attorney, stated, "This
>> case has been reviewed by numerous prosecutors.  They all agree that there
>> is no likelihood of a successful prosecution." Just as Jim Crow laws of the
>> 20th century mandated segregation of the black community through the
>> principle of separate but equal, the state of Florida is promoting an even
>> more offensive policy of unequal but equal. How a team of the brightest
>> minds in the legal field can come to such an arbitrary inference by drawing
>> a conclusion without or in spite of the evidence is summed up by the
>> repeated statement Douglas Covington, Chief of the Misdemeanor Division
>> made
>> to me: "You are not an attorney!" Mr. Covington had obviously arrived at a
>> foregone conclusion based upon unfounded claims and no factual evidence
>> would be allowed. Read on and see if you arrive at the same arbitrary
>> inference as those whose job it is to prosecute those who violate the law.
>> Florida law states, "An individual with a disability is entitled to full
>> and
>> equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges in all public
>> accommodations. A public accommodation must modify its policies, practices,
>> and procedures to permit use of a service animal by an individual with a
>> disability." (413.08(2) This statute also asserts that "Allergies and fear
>> of animals are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to
>> an individual with a service animal." (413.08(3)(f) Lastly, the statute
>> prescribes that, "Any person, firm, or corporation, or the agent of any
>> person, firm, or corporation, who denies or interferes with admittance to,
>> or enjoyment of, a public accommodation or otherwise interferes with the
>> rights of an individual with a disability.commits a misdemeanor of the
>> second degree". (413.08(4) The entire text of this statute can be viewed by
>> visiting the official website for the state of Florida
>> <http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute
>> <http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sear
>> ch_String=&URL=0400-0499/0413/Sections/0413.08.html&gt>
>> &Search_String=&URL=0400-0499/0413/Sections/0413.08.html>
>> On Monday, November 16, 2015, I scheduled a trip with the Hillsborough Area
>> Regional Transit (HART) para transit service for Wednesday, November 18
>> from
>> my residence to attend a professional grant writing conference. My
>> scheduled
>> pick-up was 7:30 a.m. with a return trip scheduled for 4:30 p.m. The
>> conference I was to attend began at 8:20 a.m. and concluded at 4:00 p.m.
>> When the vehicle - a Chrysler minivan - arrived at approximately 7:10 a.m.,
>> I approached the vehicle accompanied by my guide dog. As I reached for the
>> door handle, the driver ordered me to not open the door. When I inquired as
>> to the reason I could not open the door, I was told there were two other
>> people on the van. When I asked why this mattered, I was told there was not
>> enough room for both me and my guide dog. I waited for a few minutes while
>> the operator spoke with the Dispatcher. After several minutes, the driver
>> exited the vehicle, approached me, and told me one of the other passengers
>> was afraid of dogs and I could not ride on the vehicle. He told me the
>> dispatcher had advised him to leave to drop off the other passengers and
>> then return for me. I told him this was a violation of state and federal
>> law
>> and was advised he was following the orders of the dispatcher.
>> I called HART's customer service and spoke with Kathy who put me on hold
>> while she called the dispatcher. When she returned, she also advised me the
>> dispatcher told her there was a passenger who was afraid of dogs and he had
>> ordered the driver to leave, drop off the other passengers, and return for
>> me once they had been dropped off. I also advised Kathy this was a
>> violation
>> of state and federal law and that fear of animals was not a valid reason to
>> deny my ride. The communication between the dispatcher and the operator are
>> recorded by HART, as is the telephone conversation between the customer
>> service representative and me. The vehicle left my residence without
>> transporting me.
>> At approximately 8:40 a.m. (1-1/2 hours later), the vehicle returned to
>> pick
>> me up. I advised the operator that I was recording our conversation and
>> asked for his name and the name of the dispatcher. The operator did not
>> object to the recording but refused to give me this information. As I
>> attempted to pay for my ride, the operator told me there was no charge. I
>> insisted on paying for the trip and the driver refused to accept my fare. I
>> dropped the $4.00 fare on the floor next to the driver. I arrived at my
>> destination at approximately 9:10 a.m. and to the conference registration
>> table at approximately 9:15 a.m., nearly one hour late for the conference.
>> As I was leaving the conference at approximately 4:15 p.m., I was met by
>> Gregory Brackin, HART's ADA officer. Mr. Brackin apologized for the
>> incident, stated there was more than adequate room for me and my guide dog
>> on the vehicle, and handed me more than $200 worth of bus passes and
>> coupons
>> which I subsequently returned. I also received a telephone call from
>> Kathryn
>> Eagan, HART's Chief Executive Officer, expressing her apologies and stating
>> this incident should have never occurred. Though some may say HART
>> apologized for the incident and question my motivation for pursuing
>> criminal
>> charges against those involved, it is important to note that there have
>> been
>> several instances of HART drivers interfering with the rights of a disabled
>> person accompanied by a service dog in the past and each time we have met
>> with insincere apologies, as supported by the absence of a real resolution
>> and evidenced by this recurrent issue. Even in this instance, when HART was
>> asked in writing what steps they would take to ensure such an incident
>> would
>> not occur in the future, HART did not respond.
>> When I returned home, I contacted the Hillsborough county Sheriff's Office
>> to file a criminal complaint against HART and was told there was nothing
>> the
>> sheriff's office could do for me since this was a civil matter. I advised
>> the person I was speaking with that it was a criminal violation and was
>> transferred to a supervising deputy. This deputy also asserted there was
>> nothing that could be done, in spite of the fact I cited and quoted the
>> statute. He then transferred me to a sergeant who reiterated the same
>> uninformed response. I asked to speak with the Watch Commander and was
>> connected to Lt. Donald Morris. Lt. Morris also advised me that the
>> violation was a civil matter outside the jurisdiction of the sheriff's
>> office. I asked Lt. Morris if he had a copy of the Florida statutes and
>> requested he take the time to read the statute. He begrudgingly read the
>> statute, agreed it was a second degree misdemeanor, but asserted it was a
>> civil rights violation and, as such, not within the jurisdiction of law
>> enforcement. He then began to look up the electronic record of previous
>> cases and told me that every case he saw was nulle prosed. Null prosequi is
>> a legal term meaning "be unwilling to pursue", a phrase amounting to "do
>> not
>> prosecute". It is a phrase used to describe a prosecutor's decision to
>> voluntarily discontinue criminal charges either before trial or before a
>> verdict is rendered. I shared with lt. Morris that I was familiar with each
>> of these cases and knew that the decisions to dismiss the charges were only
>> made after the defendant agreed to and completed community service hours
>> before a verdict was rendered so as to avoid a criminal record. He then
>> became very condescending - a pattern that seems pervasive when advocating
>> to law enforcement for people with disabilities and not accepting their
>> uninformed assertion. (You will find this tactic repeated later in this
>> article when attempting to advocate with the State Attorney's office.) He
>> told me I could not possibly know about every case of this offense filed in
>> the county. I assured him I did and knew the outcomes. He again asserted
>> there was nothing he could do for me.
>> In a last ditch effort, I asked him to contact the State Attorney's office
>> and get an opinion from them. Surely I thought they would understand the
>> law
>> and agree this case had merit. Surely I was mistaken!
>> On Friday, November 20, lt. Morris called to inform me that he had spoken
>> with Rene Murrati, Assistant state Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit.
>> Lt. Morris reviewed the facts I had shared with him and asked me if they
>> were correct; I agreed they were. He told me Ms. Murrati agreed with him
>> that the case was without merit and they would not pursue it. He gave me
>> Ms.
>> Murrati's telephone number and advised me to contact her if I had any
>> questions. I called the state Attorney's office and left a message for Ms.
>> Murrati to call me.
>> Later that afternoon I received a return call from Ms. Murrati. Ms. Murrati
>> reviewed the facts with me as she said they were told to her by Lt. Morris.
>> The facts she related to me were not the same facts lt. Morris reviewed
>> with
>> me when he called to advise me Ms. Murrati gave him her opinion the case
>> lacked merit. Specifically, Ms. Murrati told me Lt. Morris advised her that
>> the vehicle was too small to accommodate me and my guide dog and that
>> another vehicle was immediately dispatched to transport me. The fact that
>> the vehicle - a minivan with the center bench and front passenger seat
>> removed and with two other passengers on board - had sufficient room for
>> both my guide dog and me is objectively verifiable; however, the state of
>> Florida refused my repeated invitations to demonstrate this fact. Also, the
>> fact that the irrational fear of dogs is not a valid reason to exclude me
>> is
>> a matter of law (413.08(3)(f)). The fact that HART did not dispatch another
>> vehicle but left me waiting for 90 minutes while the other passengers were
>> dropped off is a matter of record. All the facts as I have presented them
>> in
>> my narrative are supported by HART's audio recorded conversations between
>> the vehicle operator and the dispatcher who gave the order to deny me
>> transportation, as well as audio recorded conversations between HART's
>> customer service representatives and me. Ms. Murrati also repeated the
>> mistaken notion that all charges brought in the past were dismissed, a fact
>> she said indicated the law was unenforceable. Seemingly frustrated by my
>> persistence and the logic of my arguments, Ms. Murrati cut me off and told
>> me she would not discuss a hypothetical case with me. When I asked what she
>> meant, she adopted a very condescending tone and asked me if I had a case
>> filed with her office. I admitted I did not and expressed my frustration
>> that I could not get an unbiased person willing to consider objective
>> evidence and the provisions of the law. She advised me that, once I had a
>> case filed with her office she would be willing to discuss this further. I
>> am certain she believed this would be the final time she would hear about
>> this.
>> I then contacted Kyle Cockream, director of Hillsborough County's Public
>> Transportation Comission. Mr. Cockream, who once was a law enforcement
>> officer and with whom I had worked on other transportation-related issues
>> involving service animals, was stunned with Ms. Murrati's refusal to pursue
>> this case, as well as lt. Morris's attitude and behavior. Mr. Cockream
>> agreed to help me and, true to his word, he did!
>> On Monday, November 23, a full five days after the incident, I received a
>> call from Deputy Sheriff Raymond Clites to advise me he had a request for
>> prosecution he wanted to deliver to me. I felt relieved and encouraged that
>> this issue was being taken seriously; however, my feelings of encouragement
>> were to be short-lived.
>> A request for prosecution requires a complainant to wait at least ten days
>> but no more than twenty-one days to file the complaint. This is known as a
>> "cooling off" period and is meant to clear the docket of cases filed out of
>> emotion. Since the tenth day (November 28) was a Saturday, I filed my
>> request for prosecution on Monday, November 30. I was advised I would be
>> contacted in about two weeks with a decision. As the two-week period
>> expired
>> without any response, I was still feeling optimistic, trusting the State
>> Attorney was performing due diligence to ensure their case was well
>> supported. Once again, my optimism in the legal system meant to ensure our
>> civil rights was misplaced.
>> In early January I decided to call the State Attorney's office to find out
>> how the case was proceeding. I received a return call from Assistant State
>> Attorney Allison Hearn who advised me charges would not be filed. When I
>> inquired about how the decision was made, Ms. Hearn told me that her office
>> agreed there was not enough room in the vehicle to accommodate the two
>> passengers on the vehicle and me and that one of the passengers was afraid
>> of my dog. I advised her that it was absolutely untrue that there was not
>> enough room and this could be objectively verified, again offering to
>> demonstrate that my dog and I were able to comfortably fit in the van
>> without encroaching upon the space of other passengers. I also once again
>> cited Florida law that fear of animals was not a valid reason to deny my
>> access. Then Ms. Hearn made a statement that literally took my breath away;
>> she told me one of the witnesses made a statement that I became very angry
>> and made racial slurs toward the driver. Such a statement is very offensive
>> to me and, without mincing words, is a bold-faced lie! As a matter of fact,
>> after the initial approach to the vehicle when I was told to not open the
>> door, I never came within twenty feet of the vehicle. How could someone
>> inside a closed vehicle twenty feet away with the engine and air
>> conditioning running hear what I said. Furthermore, until Ms. Hearn told me
>> of this statement, I knew nothing about the driver except his name which
>> was
>> given to me by Gregory Brackin. It is also a matter of record, as reported
>> in the criminal complaint, that the second passenger on the vehicle stated
>> he could not hear any part of the conversation between the driver and me.
>> Furthermore, the driver to whom these racial slurs were allegedly directed
>> made no such accusations. In the typical manner in which those who employ
>> arbitrary inference, only the details that support the faulty, fallacious
>> conclusion are considered no matter how untenable. Ms. Hearn then advised
>> me
>> the case was closed and no further action would be taken.
>> Dissatisfied with this decision, I once again contacted the State
>> Attorney's
>> office and asked to speak with mark Ober's office. Mr. Ober is the elected
>> State Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit. I left a message at the
>> extension to which I was transferred and received a return call from
>> Douglas
>> Covington, chief of the misdemeanor division. I could tell from Mr.
>> Covington's tone of voice he had adopted the same arrogant, condescending
>> tone as Lt. Morris and Ms. Murrati. I had the feeling Mr. Covington was
>> unwilling to consider anything that was to be said, yet still held out
>> optimism that he might have an open mind to consider a reasonable argument.
>> My assessment of his attitude was correct but my optimism was misplaced.
>> Throughout the call, Mr. Covington reiterated the previous false assertion
>> that there was not enough room on the minivan. I asked if he had
>> objectively
>> verified this and offered to get two of my biggest friends and demonstrate
>> there is plenty of room for three people and a guide dog. He refused to
>> objectively verify this, apparently unwilling to be confused by the facts.
>> He stated both passengers and the driver all contend there was not enough
>> room. I asked what expertise they had to make this assessment and was told
>> they were both on the minivan. Again I inquired about their ability to make
>> this assessment and he reiterated the same answer.
>> After reading the sworn statements of the passengers, I now know how the
>> passengers were able to make this assessment; they were told so by the
>> driver. In fact, the driver asked the passengers if they minded the dog
>> sitting on their feet or on their laps! Again, this is a Chrysler Minivan
>> with the center bench seat and the front passenger seat removed. There was
>> more than adequate room for both my dog and me without encroaching on the
>> space of another passenger. Mr. Covington was still unwilling to consider
>> the facts!
>> Mr. Covington then said, continuing his mocking tone of voice, "Do you know
>> what they are saying about you?" I told him I realize one passenger said I
>> made racial slurs and that this was a lie. He replied the witness would
>> testify to this fact. I asked how this excused the conduct and he told me
>> it
>> brought my character into question. I asked him why, if I had made such an
>> inflammatory statement, neither the other passenger nor the driver made
>> such
>> an allegation and received no reply. He then stated that HART made a
>> reasonable accommodation for me by returning to transport me ninety minutes
>> later. I attempted to tell Mr. Covington the law does not provide for a
>> reasonable accommodation; rather, it requires a modification of policies,
>> practices, and procedures to allow a person with a disability accompanied
>> by
>> a service dog full and equal access but he refused to consider what I had
>> to
>> say. I asked him what part of being left for ninety minutes was full and
>> equal to which he again replied, "And you are not an attorney!" I admitted
>> I
>> was not but was a primary advocate for this statute and understood its
>> purpose and provision. He told me again that, since I was not an attorney,
>> my opinion was irrelevant. I told him I was not satisfied, that I believed
>> his interpretation was incorrect, and I would pursue this further. Again he
>> said, "And you are not an attorney!" He offered to give me his supervisor's
>> name and I advised him I would be seeking a meeting with mark Ober. He
>> wished me luck and terminated the call.
>> It is my firm opinion that the State Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit
>> made a decision to not prosecute this case long before the facts were
>> presented to them and they persist in their refusal despite the
>> availability
>> of objective evidence. The discrimination began with the refusal of HART to
>> transport me, continued with the individual at the Hillsborough county
>> sheriff's Office who took my original call, was promulgated by the
>> supervising deputy, reinforced by the Sergeant, and entrenched By Lt
>> Morris.
>> Rene Murrati decided before she saw the facts that the law was
>> unenforceable, and every attorney who reviewed the case, as the reply from
>> Mr. Cox asserts, was likely influenced by the reliance on inaccurate
>> information about previous cases.
>> In their refusal to consider the objective evidence, the state of Florida
>> not only denies the remedies available by law, they condone and support
>> discrimination, marginalizing disabled people and relegating us to
>> second-class status, unworthy of equal rights and equal protection. They
>> set
>> a precedent that a taxicab driver can violate state criminal law by
>> refusing
>> to transport a disabled person accompanied by a service dog provided
>> another
>> vehicle is dispatched ninety minutes later. And if that driver refuses to
>> carry us, I guess the state of Florida would have us wait another ninety
>> minutes; after all, they are making an accommodation! The state of Florida
>> is telling us that a restaurant can refuse to seat those of us who use
>> service dogs inside if they make an accommodation for us by serving us
>> outside the restaurant. The state of Florida is telling us that, if a
>> retail
>> establishment refuses to allow us in the store, they can make an
>> accommodation for us by bringing our purchase outside and letting us pay
>> for
>> them there. Perhaps the state of Florida also believes disabled people
>> should live in our separate communities where we would not have the need to
>> interact with our nondisabled peers, should have our own seating areas in
>> restaurants, our own water fountains, be required to sit in the back of the
>> bus (or in the front of the bus, as often attempted by HART drivers),
>> should
>> only be able to marry other disabled people, and, if the law does not
>> require us to be sterilized, should we have children, we should not have
>> the
>> right to raise them! The legal decision by the state of Florida that the
>> disabled are not entitled to participate in society on terms of equality is
>> archaic and offensive. Every citizen in this state should be appalled by
>> the
>> treatment we are receiving by those who have the power to make an impact on
>> this sort of discrimination, namely our law enforcement agencies and the
>> state of Florida through their agents at the state Attorney's office.
>> I am confident in my understanding of Florida statute and we cannot stay
>> silent while the state pursues a pattern of discrimination against the
>> disabled. There is no more graphic illustration of discrimination in
>> violation of Florida law and no stronger evidence of the state's support of
>> our second-class status than is demonstrated by these facts. The contention
>> that HART did not deny this right by leaving me in my driveway is
>> irrational. The further contention that returning for me ninety minutes
>> later was a reasonable accommodation, even if the law did allow it, is
>> equally absurd! Mr. Covington told me he could not convince a jury of six
>> reasonable people that HART denied my right of full and equal
>> accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges by leaving me
>> standing in my driveway. The only reason this would be so is because Mr.
>> Covington has convinced himself and the other prosecutors in his office of
>> the erroneous conclusion of law to which he has arrived. No matter how Mr.
>> Covington rationalizes, justifies, or intellectualizes HART's behavior, The
>> law does not allow an entity to make an arbitrary, capricious unreasonable
>> discriminatory decision he is calling an accommodation; rather, it requires
>> the modification of policies, practices, and procedures so that the
>> disabled
>> have the rights to which all citizens are entitled: Full and equal
>> accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges. This is what the
>> law
>> protects, this is what the law requires, and this is what disabled people
>> should demand. Anything less is bigotry, plain and simple!
>> The state is not providing us equal treatment but telling all of us we
>> should settle for less than equal
>> The state obviously believes disabled people are not entitled to equality
>> but only the unreasonable accommodations those who know better what we need
>> and deserve are willing to dole out to us. They have sent the clear,
>> unambiguous signal that we should not expect equality but lower our
>> expectation to the level of those, such as the state of Florida, who still
>> hold low expectations for us
>> We should not live the life we want; we should be gracious and humble,
>> living the life of low expectations, unequal treatment, and second-class
>> status. They expect we should not be drivers in our own lives but be
>> relegated to and settle for simply being passengers driven by those with an
>> arrogant sense of authority who disregard our civil rights and our efforts
>> of self-determination and self-advocacy. Unless all citizens stand up for
>> the rights of others and demand the State Attorney prosecute those who
>> violate these civil rights, we leave the door wide open for future
>> discrimination and the undermining of our civil rights by the state
>> If you think this is only happening in Florida, you would be very wrong. I
>> have faced the same arrogant condescension when advocating for guide dog
>> users across the country. Our civil rights are minimized and trampled upon.
>> We are seen as angry malcontents who should be grateful for the charity we
>> receive and ignore the demeaning disregard with which we are treated.
>> The state of Florida has the strongest, most sound statute in the nation.
>> We
>> have used it as a model throughout the country; however, Mr. Covington and
>> the staff of the State Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit are summarily
>> nullifying it. By doing so, Mr. Covington, as an agent of the state of
>> Florida, is actively sponsoring discrimination against the disabled. Unless
>> we demand the state of Florida prosecute this case, we are condoning
>> discrimination by our passivity. Unless our judicial system stands behind
>> our fundamental civil rights, including our right of liberty, we will be
>> unable to travel freely, unobstructed by arbitrary decisions borne of
>> ignorance and will be relegated to second-class citizenship.
>> I urge every person who reads this article to do three things: first, call
>> the State Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit at (813-272-5400 and tell
>> them you are appalled that they condone and support discrimination against
>> the disabled. Secondly, send this to someone else and ask them to take
>> action. Lastly, stand up and stand behind those working to ensure the
>> rights
>> of the disabled by getting involved in making the change. The best way to
>> get involved in shifting public attitudes about the blind is to become a
>> part of the oldest and largest organization of the blind in the world - the
>> National Federation of the Blind.    The National Federation of the Blind
>> knows that blindness is not the characteristic that defines you or your
>> future. Every day we raise expectations because low expectations are the
>> obstacles that stand between blind people and our dreams. You can live the
>> life you want. Blindness is not what holds you back.
>> Fraternally yours,
>> Marion Gwizdala, President
>> National Association of Guide Dog Users Inc.
>> National Federation of the Blind
>> (813) 626-2789
>> (888) 624-3841 (Hotline)
>> President at nagdu.org
>> http://www.nagdu.org
>> High expectations create unlimited potential for the blind!
>>  _____
>> For more information about the blind, the National Association of Guide dog
>> Users, or the National Federation of the Blind, please call (813) 626-2789,
>> email us at info at nagdu.org or visit our websites >http://www.nagdu.org
>> <http://www.nagdu.org/> > or http://ww.nfb.org <http://www.nfb.org/> .
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ohio-talk mailing list
>> Ohio-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> Ohio-talk:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/cherylelaine1957%40gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Ohio-talk mailing list
> Ohio-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ohio-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/grob702%40gmail.com

More information about the Ohio-talk mailing list