PLEASE VISIT THE OCDAC WEBSTORE
John Bulwer
Heartland disABILITY Compliance Alliance
DeafCarolina News
Deaf Teen Network
Dear Advocates: ��� This letter is intended to inform you about a proposed amendment to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Amendment would require a plaintiff to give a business notice of alleged violations of Title III by registered mail or in person before filing a lawsuit. The Amendment would just require plaintiffs with disabilities to give notice, not all plaintiffs. Do you think this is fair? We do not! ��� In San Diego, California, a group of individuals with disabilities formed an advocacy group called the Committee for Preserving the ADA to fight the passage of this Amendment or to have it modified to require all plaintiffs to give notice before suing in federal court. We created a Web Site regarding the Amendment. The Site contains: 1) the amendment; 2) a legislative update on the amendment; 3) where is the amendment in Congress; 4) an Action Plan; 5) form letters and petitions. Go To www.save-ada.com To Visit Site PLEASE SUPPORT OUR EFFORTS: We simply are asking you to educate individuals with disabilities that Congress is considering treating them differently than plaintiffs without disabilities. We also ask you buy our Mediation book. This book teaches people with disabilities how to resolve disputes without going to court or a fair hearing. If notice is required, our population will need to learn mediation skills. Go To www.save-ada.com/book.htm To Order Book ��� Thank you for your time and attention regarding this important matter. Very Truly Yours, Theodore A. Pinnock
Richard, There is a problem with services of Tripod. I have complained to them repeatedly but never received any response from them. Maybe with yor clout in the Deaf community they will respond. http://www.tripod.org They list Open-Captioned movies for "Hearing Impaired" people. They need to correct this problem for the Deaf community! Too many theatres on the list have phone (No ttys) numbers with no live person...just a recording. The recording lists time and name of movies but NOTHING about captioned movies! When you go to the theatres' websites you find the same problem....NO INFORMATION about captioned movie. I found one or two websites that had the information but the rest don't. Often my friends and I had to drive to the theater to find out the time for showing of captioned movies! It's such an inconvience for Deaf people to find out the time! One theatre in Sherman Oaks (rearview window) we called them to find out the time of shows. They said "We don't have time for this!" and hang up on CRS! We drove 30 miles to this theatre only to find it's not showig the captioned movie ....... it'd have been a simple act to just say the movie we want see is not showing amymore. It's no wonder why some theatres we went had no Deaf people attnding their captioed movie! It was just me and my date! In the long run this will hurt the Deaf community making th movie theatres thin it's not worth the trouble to provide captioned movies f no or very few Deaf people came to watch! I don't think the theateres are doing their part in providing th information about time schedules on their phne recordings or websites! I asked Tripod to please correct this roblem the last 6 months....no response fro them. You knw on Tripod's website they only give you the date, place, and name of movie. YOU'D HAVE TO CALL YOURSELF TO FIND OUT THE TIME! You can check Tripod's website and check theatres' phone numbers and websites to see how many provide the information about captioned movie! (ANONYMOUS)
NAD LEADERSHIP Have You Seen It? What happened to NAD leadership, folks? Anybody seen it lately? When's the wake up call, folks? What happened to deaf pride and leadership? Do we get ahead by kissing up? I could use much stronger words but a lot would not be printed! Yep! I'm one of those old scorned deaf leaders who lived out of a suitcase, most of it, been there and done that, and didn't get recognized, never been regognized, and all the time I carried my ticket and it never carried me. In the last few months, I've seen more back stabbing, whining, sell you down the river for an ABC card begger type of enterpreneurship going on inside NAD than before. I remember when being a member was as much about leadership as it was about being united. Today its chaos caused by a few power hungry folks! It starts at the bottom line in the field. With the members. Look around you and what do you see, scary isnt it? Perry J.
MEDIA REVIEW: "60 MINUTES" BROADCAST ON 02/27/00 The first segment of the "60 Minutes aired on 02/27/00 was devoted to National Security Agency project Echelot, is executing global electronic surveillance that intercepts practically all electronic communications on the Earth. After that, supercomputers search them for specific addresses, words, speech, and image patterns and expose whole communications that contain those words and patterns for further manual study. In the most cases parties those communications are simply included in list of surveillance by their names and addresses. The report also reveals use this project for industrial and business espionage for benefits US monopolies, which irritates particular European allies. It particular points that in 60th NSA was banned to intercept US citizens communications without proper prior authorization. The program revealed that Chief Surveillance Senate Committee was upset once by denial NSA to reveal him its internal regulations and he used blackmail to cut funding in order force NSA to comply his demand. It also revealed by mostly former staff members that NSA practically ignored those restrictions. Particular, one female staff member of England based facility, testified that she once heard intercepted conversation of Chief Surveillance Senate Committee himself that features distinctive speech characteristics. The Chief Surveillance Senate Committee downplayed the event, stating that on such scale surveillance everybody's conversation can be intercepted and he is being abroad used cell phone regularly. But he omitted the point, NSA doesn't expose every intercepted communication; it's simply impossible! The staff member England based facility couldn't find his conversation on her own. It's a supercomputer fished out and exposed his conversation, and the computer can do it only if it was programmed to fish out his or his party communications! Therefor it rises questions: If interceptions his communications were legitimate? If so, how a man under legitimate surveillance can oversee NSA? Was he involved in espionage, drug trade, or terrorism? Did he tried to blackmail NSA in order force them stop interception his communications? Such questions aren't rhetoric! It's a realm of "politics as usual" where one says something but does the opposite even if it's a formal crime. It also reminds an accident in which famous Senator was caught with drugs by Custom Service as they claimed by accident. It didn't ring as a bell and his colleagues passed a law with retrospective power banning prosecution legislators if law enforcement refuses to reveal name of informant. This concept might drive his efforts to stop NSA interception communications of legislators. There is nothing new in selective approach to law in this country. Say, US Constitution claims that all citizens are equal under law and there are numerous prepositions in legislation targeting assurance impartiality judges. They require withdrawal judge from a case if there is conflict of interests. More over, legislation requires withdrawal judge from a case even there is an appearance of conflict of interests or corruption. Yet there are cases in which judges openly adopt duties of counsel of one party of a suit or prosecution. Say in my Small Claims Court suit against state owned NJ Institute of Technology with about 100M annual budget, Judge Carol Ferentz, that seems me NJ Superior Court Judge now, practically adopted duties counsel of record defendant in serving its interests in legalization abuse funds received on behalf students, defiance Civil Rights legislature such as ADA, Equal Employment Opportunity, and Affirmative Action Program and managing precedent for prosecution students attempting to sue any staff member or entity of high education industry. She ignored my disqualification her based on her exclusive partiality on behalf the same defendant demonstrated as in and so out courtroom in two previous cases. She didn't allow practically say me anything during entire hearing, obviously due her awareness from counsel of record of defendant, that during time passed since two previous cases were heard, I managed to get a copy of handbook of Federal Work-Study Program and was going to present it. The Federal Work Study Handbook of US Department of Education particular requires secure job that provides its students-participants gaining hands on experience in relevant their career and/or job objectives areas. NJIT, contrary it, claimed under oath that bellow 50% students received Federal Work-Study Program as a component their Financial Aid Package were actually given a job that allowed them to collect at least some part of the amount. More over, NJIT in violation those provisions, gives such jobs to students from wealthy and/or influential families instead disadvantaged ones. In my case NJIT included in my Financial Aid Package in two academic years Federal Work-Study Program with summary earning about $1500. However I was allowed to collect only about $300.00 by placing returned books on shelves at college library. The Handbook directly prohibits use such works for the program, since it takes away job from permanent workers and has no any educational value for students, particular, "gaining hands on experience relevant their career objectives and job goals." Judge Carol Ferentz heard and dismissed the case # SC-004590-96 on 12/11/96. She didn't allow saying a single word related to litigation to counsel of record the defendant: Ms. Fries: "Leslie Fries for defendant NJIT." [p. 3, l. 7] Ms. Fries: "Your Honor, thank you very much." [p. 6, l. 15] That has a little, if any, relation to a matter of litigation! The Appellate Division judges Kleiner and Long deliberately distorted content case record and dismissed with prejudice my appeal. They ignored my motion for proceeding as indigent and a court clerk that is obviously under influence Superior Court judges demanded pay $175.00 filling fee, although judges never ruled at all regarding my motion for proceeding as an indigent. THERE MUST BE APPEARANCE OF IMPARTIALITY WHICH FOSTERS CONFIDENCE OF LITIGANT IN JUSTICE SYSTEM; ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THAT IMPARTIALITY THREATENS INTEGRITY OF JUDICIAL PROCESS. Those judges particular, contrary facts, claimed that record on appeal does contain a copy plaintiff's prior complaints although I never submitted them. They claimed that record on appeal does not contain copy plaintiff's third complaint although it attached to his corrected Brief and Appendix. They cited from the transcript of the processing, "...the judge inquired whether plaintiff's claim was the same claim encompassed in the first two complaints to which we have referred. Plaintiff admitted the claim was the same." However they deliberately took it out of content the citation by ignoring the end plaintiff's sentence, "...Yes. With additional information appeared during this time." The judges ignored explanation Procedural History in which plaintiff stated that the trial judge demonstrated exclusive partiality on behalf defendant as in and so out courtroom. Particular she treated my suit as labor dispute instead contract violation case and she forced me miss deadline for appeal by failing supply me her Court Order and with help Supervisor of court reporters, exploiting my inability to afford an attorney and problems with handling legal issues as a litigant Pro Se. The judges ignored the fact that Ms. Ferentz deprived me possibility to finish presentation the case with admitted prejudice. They claimed particular, "We have not been provided with a transcript of two prior proceedings in which plaintiff sued defendant in the Small Claims Division..." Such claim violates presumption innocence! It's Judge Ferentz, that adopted duties counsel of defendant, was supposed to prove that all three suits are the same and therefore frivolous! It would be logical require her submit transcripts, since it does she imposes penalty seems for frivolousness. More over, judges Kleiner and Long cite content two previous suits that have literally nothing common as legal ground for penalty for frivolousness. Further they claim contrary the fact, "The record on appeal does not contain a copy of plaintiff's third complaint, which was heard and dismissed on 2/11/96." Arguments based on the supplemented record: The institutional bias in NJ judicial system systematically works against litigants Pro Se depriving their Constitutional right on fair trial. More specifically NJ State judicial system has perverted idea of relieving access to justice litigants Pro Se, at least, in Small Claims Courts. Instead it was created opposite working system with exclusive partiality on behalf litigants-counsel. It's they forced me to rewrite Appeal-Brief in strictly formal format, although allowing the defendant with staff counselors use letter format with 88 characters/line for appeal papers instead 64 allowed for formal papers! It's they forced me to pay for transcript only for selection and distortion portions citations supporting their exclusively partial decision. It's they forced me to pay court fees without review my motion to process as indigent. The institute of Small Claims Court was created exactly for relieving access at least for suits under $2000.00 for litigants Pro Se in NJ. It includes simplification paper work for them. However this privilege was transferred to counsel entities. Judges of Appellate Division Kleiner and Long supported their decision in Per Curiam on 02/25/98 with citing distorted portions transcript that can be presented as looking like legal ground for their decision. They further claimed, "We have not been provided with a transcript of two prior proceedings in which plaintiff sued defendant in the Small Claims Division, although the record on appeal does contain a copy of plaintiff's prior complaints: [a] On 03/05/96 plaintiff sought damages of $930 alleging "Failure to provide job under Federal Work-Study Program by NJIT in 1994-95 Academic Year;" and b] On 05/24/96, plaintiff sought damages of $400 alleging "NJIT promised Federal Education opportunity grant $400 for me for 1994-95 but never transferred it me, although it got from US Department of Education." Analysis statistics show practically 100% dismissal appeals of litigants Pro Se and outrageous manner treatment all three my suits against NJIT gives strong evidence for supposition that defendant enjoys institutional bias in NJ judicial system against litigants Pro Se employing management "lack proper prosecution" camouflaged rhetoric in legal jargon that impossible for understanding in plain English. Judges Long and Kleiner ignored fact that on 12/11/96 Judge Small Claims Court Carol Ferentz practically adopted duties counsel of record defendant and claimed without any proof that this suit is the same as two previous she dismissed several months before, to wit: Ferentz: "Mr. Pribytkov, this is the third case that you've brought lawsuit against NJIT. How is this one different from prior two?" Pribytkov: "Your Honor, I feel you're not suitable for hearing this case." ... Ferentz: "Now answer my question. You had two prior suits against NJIT. What is different about this one from those two?"... Ferentz: "Mr. Pribytkov, are you asking for the same relief in this case that you asked in the other two?" ... Ferentz: "Mr. Pribytkov, is this the same claim that you made the prior two times?" ... These lines expose her exclusive partiality and determination to prevent any litigation against NJIT. Pribytkov: "Yes. With additional information appear during this time." She further exposed incredible familiarity with content case SC-650-96 she heard 9 and case SC-001676-96 she heard 6 months before! To wit: Ferentz: "Mr. Pribytkov, I've read what you just gave me. We marked it for the court records as P-1, but it's nothing more then restatement of what you've already claiming... Mr. Pribytkov, all these two letters state is the same thing we have gone through before....Mr. Pribytkov, I find that what you're doing is an abuse of the system. This case has been heard once, twice and now a third time. I am again going to dismiss the case as being the same claim you brought before...I'm going to tell counsel, to direct her to submit an order indicating this and in the order to provide that you are prohibited from filing any further lawsuits against NJIT for this same claim. If you do it there's going to be sanction imposed against you, Mr. Pribytkov...The matter is closed." Judges Kleiner and Long failed to note that Judge Carol Ferentz completely deprived plaintiff possibility present his arguments and dismissed the case. More over, the defendant added and she signed,"...with prejudice." with order, "2. Mr. Pribytkov is prohibited from filing any lawsuit against NJIT... or any person, ... relating to the issue of Federal or Institutional Work Study money." She acted ultimately as a counsel of defendant. Judges Kleiner and Long failed to note that Judge Carol Ferentz deprived plaintiff completely possibility present his arguments. Her Small Claims Judgment violates core right American judicial system on fair hearing with impartial judge for all litigants in this country. Further, Clerk of NJ Supreme Court wrote a letter to defendant with extension time for its Response-brief, although NJIT exposed perjury by claiming my failure to supply them copy my Appeal-Brief, that mandates dismissal a case and never asked extension the time. I asked extension for my Respond-Brief and Case Manager told me that I have to submit it as Motion and along with Respond-Brief. I sent my Respond-Brief couple days before deadline but literally next day got a letter with dismissal case and denial indigent status. The case was never proper furnished - I didn't pay court fees required prior review a case! Request for Reconsideration was denied again with violation procedure too, to wit together with denial indigent status and demand to pay court expenses. The case was never proper furnished either - I have never paid court fees required prior review a case if status indigent was denied! More over, Case Manager engaged in forgery by claiming at the end July that case wasn't reviewed yet and there is no any idea when it'll be reviewed. More over, at the end August she told that the case was dismissed at the last days of July and she were sent it to me. She sent me the order in response to that my phone made request with obvious sign of forgery. The upper date stamp was forged in order look as July 30 and considering her phone claims, I was sure that the date of the order was the July, however later I found that low side date is June 30 and it happened after expiration deadline for appeal at US Supreme Court. NJ has Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, "a disciplinary panel of private citizens" at its Supreme Court containing two retired Justices of the NJ Supreme Court: Mr. Clifford[Chairman]; Mr. Pashman[V. chairman]; four lawyers[acting?]: Mr. McAllster; Mr. Perretti; Mr. Thompson; Mr. Zazzali; Mr. Kamin, a newspaper reporter; Theresa Kluck, a real estate agent; and Mr. Schenck, a management consultant. They require confidentiality during review complaint and thereafter from complainants! "All correspondence from this office about a particular matter is marked confidential unless and until the members decide to file a formal complaint against a judge, in accordance with Rule 2:15-20." The very democratic Clause! I wonder if all US states have such, "The very democratic Clause?" Anybody has a clue what other/additional purpose carries Rule 2:15-20 except cover up of scale Black Robe underground in the best democracy on the Earth to date? In case wrongdoing found, the matter is reviewing by NJ Supreme Court for possibility disciplinary action. Amazingly, they didn't find any wrongdoing by judge Ferentz, Long and Kleiner and therefore left complaints against them without any action, however they are keeping the complaints confidential under Rule 2:15-20 even after release their conclusion! In such environment there is no any sense to explore avenue of complaining against judges of NJ Supreme Court, that exists too by filing complaint to Supreme Court Clerk that can refer it to the same Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct! In conclusion should be noted, that although "Per Curiam is signed only by Judges of Appellate Division Kleiner and Long, it represents unanimous decision of all judges Superior Court[list unavailable]. And although decision NJ Supreme Court regarding Certification and Reconsideration is signed only by Chief Justice Poritz, it represents unanimous decision of all seven judges of NJ Supreme Court at that term: Justice Handler; Justice Pollock; Justice O'Hern; Justice Garibaldi; Justice Stein; Justice Coleman. NJ legal system possesses one more spectacular feature, in spite existence in the state several hundreds public lawyers with number never serving a single case, there is no available any public lawyer for handling cases of misconduct any court staff member! Lev Pribyktov
Copyright � 2000 Deaf Watch Newsletter - All Rights Reserved
Designed and Maintained by Deaf Watch Newsletter
Return to Deaf Watch Maingate Page
