Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a district court opinion finding that "the Treasury Department's failure to design and issue paper currency that is readily distinguishable to the visually impaired violates section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act." Judge Judith Rogers wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. Judge Raymond Randolph dissented.
The divided ruling in American Council of the Blind v. Paulson held that the failure to design currency more readily usable by the visually impaired denies them "meaningful access" to this government program.
The current design of paper money springs from the world of the sighted. Upon casual inspection, anyone with good vision can readily discern the value of U.S. currency; yet even the most searching tactile examination will reveal no difference between a $100 bill and a $1 bill. The Secretary has identified no reason that requires paper currency to be uniform to the touch. Instead, the fact that U.S. paper currency does not include features that are detectable by the visually impaired appears to have been a result of the type of “thoughtlessness and indifference” that Congress targeted under section 504. (citation omitted)That the blind and other visually impaired often develop "coping mechanisms" does not mean they lack "meaningful access" to the use of U.S. currency.
The Treasury Department defended its failure to accommodate the visually impaired by arguing that adopting such currency designs would impose an "undue burden," but the court wasn't buying it. According to Judge Rogers' majority opinion, "section 504 requires only that the least burdensome accommodation not be unduly burdensome," and the government failed "to demonstrate that all accommodations found by the district court to be facially reasonable would pose an undue burden." The court also concluded that the impact on third parties of a redesign of U.S. currency, such as by changing the sizes of various bills, was not relevant to determining whether complying with section 504 would impose an "undue burden." This is certainly unwelcome news for the vending machine industry, one of the groups that filed a brief in support of the government.
In dissent, Judge Randolph argued both that the court should have dismissed the case as an improper interlocutory appeal, and that it was wrong to uphold the district court's grant of summary judgment without finding that there was an "effective accomodation the government implement without imposing an 'undue burden' on itself or the private sector." Many potential currency modifications that would help the visually impaired are impractical or unreliable, and those that remain may be unduly expensive. Thus, Judge Randolph argued, the majority had "not identified a single accomodation that is undisputedly 'reasonable effective, and feasible,' and for which there is no material issue about an undue burden."
This decision is potentially quite significant. Among other things, it could result in the redesign of all bills larger than $1. The decision was also not uniformly supported by advocates for the blind and visually impaired. While the American Council of the Blind initiated the suit against the Treasury Department, the National Federation of the Blind supported the government's position.
One interesting bit of the opinion is footnote 16, which discusses the nature of currency as a universal medium, and cites Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, a committee report of the Continental Congress, and Montesquieu. Also interesting, and somewhat ironic, as Howard Bashman notes, the opinion itself is no more friendly to the visually impaired than U.S. currency.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Impact of the Currency Decision:
- Money for the Visually Impaired:
- D.C. Circuit Affirms Trial Court Ruling that Paper Money Discriminates Against the Blind:
This decision, frankly, is, to use an unprofessional bit of jargon, nuts.
Anyway, it might be fairly easy to encode tactile information, but there's also the problem of counterfeit bills. The blind would be at a disadvantage there, and I don't know how you overcome that.
This is not actually true. Thanks to intaglio printing process used in federal reserve notes, the inked areas on bills are raised, so with a little bit of practice you can feel the printing. I just tried with a crisp new $1 bill and a crisp new $100 (shuffling them under the table), and I can correctly identify the $100 by feel every time.
Cash is still necessary for many transactions.
So you think blind people should not handle money?
American currency is one of the few that does not have any sort of identification technology for blind people. What I don't understand is why these concerns were not voiced when the Treasury department was redesigning the dollar bills.
Debit cards are actually even less accessible in my experience, many locations are going to readers with touch screens that the user is expected to punch in their pin on. Writing within a proscribed box is nearly as bad.
I haven't tried accessing the opinion in this case (I feel it is far too early to be worthwhile), but most PDF documents issued by courts that I've taken a look at allow for the acrobat Read Out Loud feature to work. There are sadly still some exceptions where the practice is to scan in printed pages and distribute that as a pdf, but it is less prevelant than it once was.
There are other issues besides just vending machines, every retail outlet currently has equipment geared toward single size bills which altering could prove to be highly inconvient.
I'd gladly sign a petition asking for currency accommodations if I could be convinced that this situation is truly is a hardship and not just a nuisance for blind people. We all face nuisances due to our limitations from time to time and it is ridiculous to go to the courts to try and remove every difficulty from our life
As for blind people handling money -- Is the choice really between changing our money and not having the blind use money at all? Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. There are accommodations that they can take for themselves without asking everyone else to change their money.
Yes, and there are those who think blind people should not litigate cases, especially not in the United States Supreme Court.
e.g.: cert petition Petranos (et vir) v. Vessel Mistress, no docket # assigned yet, where Order to Show Cause in willful contempt was issued on case previously determined to be meritorious by Magistrate was dismissed because: Trial Judge pointed and excitedly uttered "Are you blind?" and failed to provide accommodations for meaningful court access.
DEAL WITH IT.
I believe THAT nutty-ness is the reason Rochesterian is advocating neuropsychological testing for Article III judicial officers.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, Rogers's opinions, while full of good intentions, do not have a great reputation for holding up upon closer scrutiny. (See, for example, the Abigail Alliance decision, later overturned en banc.) I haven't had a chance to read this opinion yet, but given the importance of the issue, I give it a more than 50% chance of going en banc.
I'm sorry to say this, especially since my brother is almost blind and would be had it not been for Wills Eye Hospital in Philly back in the 70's, but the blind have to deal with many things that those with sight do not. No amount of law and/or legal decisions can change that. And nor should the general public have to put up with the financial burden or any other type of burden for what is in effect attempts to deny reality in the name of equality. I am sure those judges are real proud of themselves right now.
FWIW I tend to prefer synthisized speech to an actual human reading such documents. Modern TTS voices are vastly superior to those available just a few years ago and the absolute regularity in tempo increases my ability to understand what is being conveyed.
I have zero idea what sort of remedy would be appropriate for that problem, if it becomes one.
A reader isn't a perfect solution but it avoids having to redesign all the vending machines and cash drawers.
This is not a comment on the legal issues here. In particular, courts are not the best government agency for making policy choices like designing bills.
Let's see, 1.3 million legally blind in the US, divide into the $3.5 billion estimated cost of retooling vending machines alone for a new currency, (Forget the ATMs for the moment, and the cost to the treasury.) $2700. Ok, I guess it passes that test, but couldn't somebody come up with a portable currency scanner for a lot less than that?
There are only seven denominations in circulation ($1, $2, 5$, $10, $20, $50 and $100) with no plans for more. The most common, the one dollar bill, can be 'marked' by being left alone. That leaves six notch patterns to be designed and while I won't go into it here, it can be done with a maximum of three notches on two edges.
Notching should wear well and allow for bills of unchanged size. Given the short life of bills it may not be a useful feature but notching could also be applied to bills already in circulation.
You know, I've handled cash that was literally torn in two. And it is acceptable. I've handled cash that had been inadvertently washed so that the raised ink was no longer noticeable by touch. It is also acceptable. I've handled cash that had pieces of tape on it, stuff written on it, etc. etc. All acceptable for use at any retail store.
I'm not sure there's a quick and easy solution to this problem.
It seems to me we ought to seriously consider an alernative solution where we measure the total economic cost to implementing these ADA type requirements and instead just directly hand the money over to the disabled. Their extra wealth should now drive market forces to happily (rather than grudgingly) make accessibility changes that are most desired by the actual disabled and let each person decide whether they want to go to a store that charges more but provides greater accessibility/services or save their cash.
I'll take the 99% solution; for bills so severely mangled as to be 'unreadable', the blind person can ask a trusted friend to exchange them for ones in better shape.
Someone hasn't hit the casinos in the better part of a decade. ;)
As Soronel Haetir points out above, many things are inaccessible to the blind, but for other technology (i.e. readers for web sites and "read out loud" features). (On a side note, Target was recently sued under the ADA because its website does not work with read-out-loud devices currently on the market.) Wouldn't the question then be whether or not U.S. currency could be distinguished using a hand-held reader (regardless of whether or not the technology has developed, and whether or not a private entity would design and market the reader), not whether or not the currency, as it is made now, is distinguishable by touch?
I have 20/200 in one eye (probably 20/300 by now... who knows...), and, without glasses, can read what is on this monitor (normal-sized computer, non-laptop, monitor), easily distinguish bills, dial my cell phone, and function fairly well. There must be many persons who are "legally blind" but still able to distinguish Treasury bills.
I can't help but wonder how many people have such limited vision as to be unable to distinguish Treasury bills - it certainly must be less than the 1.3 million figure cited above.
The cost argument is one which is not irrelevant, but as has been pointed out the solution adopted must not be "unduly burdensome". Is adapting every single machine in the United States which can accept notes unduly burdensome? That is the question upon which this hangs.
By the way, I thought one of the major achievements in designing the new bills was making Andrew Jackson semi-good looking. I could almost see him striding across a moor.
*waves hand*
I prefer cash. I use it for nearly every transaction under, say, $500, modulo online purchases. It fits the way I budget better, and I like not every transaction in my life being a row in someone else's database. Maybe that's because of my career (software engineer dealing with large amounts of usually personal data).
To preempt the "what do have to hide?", I answer "cash is legal, and why is it your business?"
On a side note (no pun, etc.), when I lived in Germany, I actually found the different-sized notes really convenient, and I'm not blind. Makes it easy to pick the right note out of your pocket, once you get used to it, and stop folding them together.
To those declaring that intaglio on fresh, crisp bills means this is unnecessary, I'd like to see you do that after the bills are in circulation for a few years, have gone through someone's laundry machine, been rolled up to snort coke, and scribbled on by some politico.
And...
Photographic sheet film, which has to be loaded in holders in the dark before it can be used, is type-marked by a series of notches cut along one edge. Something similar could be done with US bills.
The problem here is that you're assuming a security issue away. Sheet film producers and photographers have aligned interests - if a producer lied by mis-notching film, the photographer would screw up once, and never buy from that provider again. A corner deli cashier has a much greater interest in changing the pattern to make a $1 look like a $20. Off the top of my head (meaning I'm not going to do the math), and omitting the $2, one _could_ come up with a nonforgable pattern for the six major denominations, but I think it would be complicated enough to (a) make it hard to learn and (b) substantially increase costs to those standing in line behind blind people and those who want to take those other people's money. Also, you're assuming that notching paper that otherwise feels like money but isn't won't happen. Same goes for those who like braille dots as an alternative. Plus, I'm pretty sure notching would still break vending machines.
Security is hard.
We could (finally) replace the dollar bill with a coin. We could clip corners. Say clip all four off the $5 bill, and two opposite corners off the $10; leave the $20 as is. If a blind person is receiving multiple hundreds of dollars in change, probably they should be getting a check rather than a stack of $50 or $100 bills.
And please, no dollar coins. It's been tried before in the US and has failed each time. There's a reason why those Coinstar machines have become so popular: Americans, especially men, do not like carrying coins.
Which is why every country with different sized denominations makes smaller bills worth less than larger ones.
See the dissenting opinion about error probabilities after a year's use for raised indicators.
I don't know of any currency that uses raised indicators, but I'm not an expert (I just travel a lot). I know they're a bad idea for a variety of practical reasons, not just currency fraud.
Making denominations of noticeably different sizes might work, except then - as pointed out -wallets and the like would need redesign. I guess that would include machines that accept currency, cash register drawers, even those goofy gift envelopes so popular this time of year for graduates.
Yes, many things would need redesign. (Wallets are the easiest: step down sizes from the current size. The old German one Mark bill was pretty tiny - I'd measure one I have, but it is in storage.)
Hm... you're right. It may be possible to design the system so that any alteration decreases the signaled value of the bill but I'm not going to try to do it off the top of my head.
This problem, unless I'm mistaken, can be transformed into a number of related problems in graph theory, and in theory it can be done. What I was hinting at is that the intended applier (a blind person) wouldn't enjoy learning the system, there would be severe externalites measurable in pissed off people in lines and cashiers, very likely vending machines still wouldn't take them, and it still doesn't solve the problem of currency fraud in re: passing non-currency paper to blind people.
Varying the size of currency makes a lot of sense, but it will never happen, or not for a long time, for one reason I'll point to in a bit. It is funny, to me, to see all the people who can't imagine such a thing, when other countries seem to do just fine with it. Vending machines are probably the largest sunk cost to take a hit that is quantifiable (thus the lobby), but retraining everyone to deal with it is probably larger, not just in moronic ads and whatnot, but also confusion ("this ain't money! Gimme real change!"). So? Not that these are directly comparable, but nobody cares about retraining people when talking about a national ID.
As a more extreme example, our brave heros at airports famously freaked out with the ironically named Macbook Air came out, declaring that it didn't look like a computer. If a new executive toy trips national security apparatus, that tells me we have a long way to go before we can actually do anything sane about currency for blind people.
As stated in a related thread, issuing only gold/silver coinage resolves the problem entirely, but then politicians couldn't game the system.
OK, a little design work: let's orient the bill: it's in front of us, right side up, long side horizontal. The three notch points are:
A: on the left of the top edge, above the denomination number.
B: on the top of the left edge, next to the denomination number.
C: on the bottom of the left edge, next to the bottom denomination number.
The $100 bill gets no notches.
The $50 bill gets one notch, at C.
The $20 bill gets one notch, at B.
The $10 bill gets one notch, at A.
The $5 bill gets two notches, at A and C.
The $2 bill gets two notches, at A and B.
The $1 bill gets all three notches.
This is a semi-logical progression and should be easy to learn. Just eyeballing it, it looks like it wouldn't be possible to alter the notch coding without reducing the apparent value of the bill.
The notch code can be mirrored at the other end of the bill, for convenience.
Just to be clear, the 'notch' is just a small triangular or semicircular cutout in the edge of the note. Semicircular would probably be more durable.
How do you orient it face front and right side up if your're blind?
Why is it Sooooo HARD for A-B-C-D bar exam test takers to understand these disability laws and the nature of different types of disabilities?
This is one of the STUPIDEST comments I have ever seen!
Query: If a blind person cannot see PAPER dollar bills ...
what makes anyone thing a blind person is going to be able to see what $ amount is written upon PAPER checks?
Duh.
Why is it Sooooo HARD for A-B-C-D bar exam test takers to understand these disability laws and the nature of different types of disabilities?
This is one of the STUPIDEST comments I have ever seen!
Query: If a blind person cannot see PAPER dollar bills ...
what makes anyone think a blind person is going to be able to see what $ amount is written upon PAPER checks?
Duh.
rephrased for more accuracy by a disabled American with first-hand personal experience:
I also find Bashman's statement that online publishing discriminates against those without internet access a bit silly. For the typical lay person, law school student, bar applicant, lawyer, judge, the internet is the only method for gaining access to legal materials and our courts.
"I suppose the printed material becomes an issue for those who actually practice law, which I do not. Regardless of being from the same source, the printed version always controls.
I have zero idea what sort of remedy would be appropriate for that problem, if it becomes one." ----->
Hello. Meet Petranos v. Vessel Mistress, petitioned for cert to U.S. Supreme Court, where Federal District Court judge pinted and uttered "Are you blind?" but failed to properly accommodate the disabilities denying meaningful access to the courts (to litigate an admiralty case by a disabled salvor).
What sort of remedy? How about an option for disabled folks who rely upon assistive technologies for access to obtain PAPERLESS electronic format Internet filing, service, etc. of all pleadings, notices, documents, communications, etc etc (and CART realtime) in ALL State and Federal Courts in the U.S.
"No amount of law and/or legal decisions can change that" -----> Wrong, access to print PAPER is a HUGE and significant issue of public importance to this Nation. And there ARE certain litigants with standing who have just such a justiciable case and controversy.
"We all face nuisances due to our limitations from time to time and it is ridiculous to go to the courts to try and remove every difficulty from our life" -----> Denial of access to literally EVERY daily activity all other Americans engage in sue to a print PAPER disability, including denial of ALL Court and agency access, is a LOT MORE than a "nuisance" -- to quote what one team of predatators told me when they stole $400 cash I had given them to feed my equine disability service horse,
"we can steal whatever we want from you, hurt you, do whatever we want to you, starve your service animal, because we know your autism/vision disabilities are types of disabiltiies the Florida Courts don't accommodate, so you can't get Court access anywhere to hold us accountable."
"No one wonder the general public thinks lawyers are idiots and the legal system is a joke. ... I am sure those judges are real proud of themselves right now" ----->
The reason the public thinks lawyers are idiots and the legal system is a joke is because both REFUSE TO PROVIDE PAPERLESS ELECTRONIC FORMAT INTERNET ACCESS TO DISABLED BLIND/VISION IMPAIRED AMERICANS -- i.e., NO Court access for this group.
Janice Rogers Brown is a GREAT judge, and a superb candidate for elevation to the United
States Supreme Court. California made a HUGE mistake when it elevated Chief justice ronald George to the State Supreme Court Chief Justice-ships, instead of Janice Rogers Brown. Here's some food for thought:
While Chief Justice George is running around strutting his Gay Marriage Foo Foo Dust, ...
Chief Justice George is more famously known for directing his Clerk of Court, Frederich Olrich to announce that PAPERLESS electronic format Internet filing and service accommodations of a Petition to the California Supreme Court to achieve access to an autistic vision impairmed bar applicant's California attorneys license would be denied access to the full Court -- including Janice Rogers Brown (then a Justice of the California Supreme Court) --because ...
'People with learning disabilities, people without arms, quadraplegics, people who cannot see, who rely upon PAPERLESS machines to write down and file their pleadings --- NO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LICENSE ANYONE LIKE THAT AS AN ATTORNEY IN THIS STATE.'
Gay Marriage Foo Foo Dust to hide the Bigotry of a State Chief Justice against people who cannot see print PAPER!!!!
Waaaayyyy too bad Janice Rogers Brown is no longer on the California Supreme Court, but then again ...
she left that LOSER disabled American Bigot Chief Justice who denies access to California attorney licensure and the California Supreme Court to the blind/vision impaired behind and got a better job on the D.C. Circuit.
The decision to deny access EVERYWHERE (not just money), "frankly, is, to use an unprofessional bit of jargon, nuts."
rephrased for more accuracy by a disabled American with first-hand personal experience:
I also find Bashman's statement that online publishing discriminates against those without internet access a bit silly. For the typical lay person, law school student, bar applicant, lawyer, judge, the internet is the only method for gaining access to legal materials and our courts.
"I suppose the printed material becomes an issue for those who actually practice law, which I do not. Regardless of being from the same source, the printed version always controls.
I have zero idea what sort of remedy would be appropriate for that problem, if it becomes one." ----->
Hello. Meet Petranos v. Vessel Mistress, petitioned for cert to U.S. Supreme Court, where Federal District Court judge pinted and uttered "Are you blind?" but failed to properly accommodate the disabilities denying meaningful access to the courts (to litigate an admiralty case by a disabled salvor).
What sort of remedy? How about an option for disabled folks who rely upon assistive technologies for access to obtain PAPERLESS electronic format Internet filing, service, etc. of all pleadings, notices, documents, communications, etc etc (and CART realtime) in ALL State and Federal Courts in the U.S.
"No amount of law and/or legal decisions can change that" -----> Wrong, access to print PAPER is a HUGE and significant issue of public importance to this Nation. And there ARE certain litigants with standing who have just such a justiciable case and controversy.
"We all face nuisances due to our limitations from time to time and it is ridiculous to go to the courts to try and remove every difficulty from our life" -----> Denial of access to literally EVERY daily activity all other Americans engage in sue to a print PAPER disability, including denial of ALL Court and agency access, is a LOT MORE than a "nuisance" -- to quote what one team of predatators told me when they stole $400 cash I had given them to feed my equine disability service horse,
"we can steal whatever we want from you, hurt you, do whatever we want to you, starve your service animal, because we know your autism/vision disabilities are types of disabiltiies the Florida Courts don't accommodate, so you can't get Court access anywhere to hold us accountable."
"No one wonder the general public thinks lawyers are idiots and the legal system is a joke. ... I am sure those judges are real proud of themselves right now" ----->
The reason the public thinks lawyers are idiots and the legal system is a joke is because both REFUSE TO PROVIDE PAPERLESS ELECTRONIC FORMAT INTERNET ACCESS TO DISABLED BLIND/VISION IMPAIRED AMERICANS -- i.e., NO Court access for this group.
Janice Rogers Brown is a GREAT judge, and a superb candidate for elevation to the United
States Supreme Court. California made a HUGE mistake when it elevated Chief justice ronald George to the State Supreme Court Chief Justice-ships, instead of Janice Rogers Brown. Here's some food for thought:
While Chief Justice George is running around strutting his Gay Marriage Foo Foo Dust, ...
Chief Justice George is more famously known for directing his Clerk of Court, Frederich Olrich to announce that PAPERLESS electronic format Internet filing and service accommodations of a Petition to the California Supreme Court to achieve access to an autistic vision impairmed bar applicant's California attorneys license would be denied access to the full Court -- including Janice Rogers Brown (then a Justice of the California Supreme Court) --because ...
'People with learning disabilities, people without arms, quadraplegics, people who cannot see, who rely upon PAPERLESS machines to write down and file their pleadings --- NO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LICENSE ANYONE LIKE THAT AS AN ATTORNEY IN THIS STATE.'
Gay Marriage Foo Foo Dust to hide the Bigotry of a State Chief Justice against people who cannot see print PAPER!!!!
Waaaayyyy too bad Janice Rogers Brown is no longer on the California Supreme Court, but then again ...
she left that LOSER disabled American Bigot Chief Justice who denies access to California attorney licensure and the California Supreme Court to the blind/vision impaired behind and got a better job on the D.C. Circuit.
The decision to deny access EVERYWHERE (not just money), "frankly, is, to use an unprofessional bit of jargon, nuts."
rephrased for more accuracy by a disabled American with first-hand personal experience:
I also find Bashman's statement that online publishing discriminates against those without internet access a bit silly. For the typical lay person, law school student, bar applicant, lawyer, judge, the internet is the only method for gaining access to legal materials and our courts.
"I suppose the printed material becomes an issue for those who actually practice law, which I do not. Regardless of being from the same source, the printed version always controls.
I have zero idea what sort of remedy would be appropriate for that problem, if it becomes one." ----->
Hello. Meet Petranos v. Vessel Mistress, petitioned for cert to U.S. Supreme Court, where Federal District Court judge pinted and uttered "Are you blind?" but failed to properly accommodate the disabilities denying meaningful access to the courts (to litigate an admiralty case by a disabled salvor).
What sort of remedy? How about an option for disabled folks who rely upon assistive technologies for access to obtain PAPERLESS electronic format Internet filing, service, etc. of all pleadings, notices, documents, communications, etc etc (and CART realtime) in ALL State and Federal Courts in the U.S.
"No amount of law and/or legal decisions can change that" -----> Wrong, access to print PAPER is a HUGE and significant issue of public importance to this Nation. And there ARE certain litigants with standing who have just such a justiciable case and controversy.
"We all face nuisances due to our limitations from time to time and it is ridiculous to go to the courts to try and remove every difficulty from our life" -----> Denial of access to literally EVERY daily activity all other Americans engage in sue to a print PAPER disability, including denial of ALL Court and agency access, is a LOT MORE than a "nuisance" -- to quote what one team of predatators told me when they stole $400 cash I had given them to feed my equine disability service horse,
"we can steal whatever we want from you, hurt you, do whatever we want to you, starve your service animal, because we know your autism/vision disabilities are types of disabiltiies the Florida Courts don't accommodate, so you can't get Court access anywhere to hold us accountable."
"No one wonder the general public thinks lawyers are idiots and the legal system is a joke. ... I am sure those judges are real proud of themselves right now" ----->
The reason the public thinks lawyers are idiots and the legal system is a joke is because both REFUSE TO PROVIDE PAPERLESS ELECTRONIC FORMAT INTERNET ACCESS TO DISABLED BLIND/VISION IMPAIRED AMERICANS -- i.e., NO Court access for this group.
Janice Rogers Brown is a GREAT judge, and a superb candidate for elevation to the United
States Supreme Court. California made a HUGE mistake when it elevated Chief justice ronald George to the State Supreme Court Chief Justice-ships, instead of Janice Rogers Brown. Here's some food for thought:
While Chief Justice George is running around strutting his Gay Marriage Foo Foo Dust, ...
Chief Justice George is more famously known for directing his Clerk of Court, Frederich Olrich to announce that PAPERLESS electronic format Internet filing and service accommodations of a Petition to the California Supreme Court to achieve access to an autistic vision impairmed bar applicant's California attorneys license would be denied access to the full Court -- including Janice Rogers Brown (then a Justice of the California Supreme Court) --because ...
'People with learning disabilities, people without arms, quadraplegics, people who cannot see, who rely upon PAPERLESS machines to write down and file their pleadings --- NO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LICENSE ANYONE LIKE THAT AS AN ATTORNEY IN THIS STATE.'
Gay Marriage Foo Foo Dust to hide the Bigotry of a State Chief Justice against people who cannot see print PAPER!!!!
Waaaayyyy too bad Janice Rogers Brown is no longer on the California Supreme Court, but then again ...
she left that LOSER disabled American Bigot Chief Justice who denies access to California attorney licensure and the California Supreme Court to the blind/vision impaired behind and got a better job on the D.C. Circuit.
The decision to deny access EVERYWHERE (not just money), "frankly, is, to use an unprofessional bit of jargon, nuts."
rephrased for more accuracy by a disabled American with first-hand personal experience:
I also find Bashman's statement that online publishing discriminates against those without internet access a bit silly. For the typical lay person, law school student, bar applicant, lawyer, judge, the internet is the only method for gaining access to legal materials and our courts.
"I suppose the printed material becomes an issue for those who actually practice law, which I do not. Regardless of being from the same source, the printed version always controls.
I have zero idea what sort of remedy would be appropriate for that problem, if it becomes one." ----->
Hello. Meet Petranos v. Vessel Mistress, petitioned for cert to U.S. Supreme Court, where Federal District Court judge pinted and uttered "Are you blind?" but failed to properly accommodate the disabilities denying meaningful access to the courts (to litigate an admiralty case by a disabled salvor).
What sort of remedy? How about an option for disabled folks who rely upon assistive technologies for access to obtain PAPERLESS electronic format Internet filing, service, etc. of all pleadings, notices, documents, communications, etc etc (and CART realtime) in ALL State and Federal Courts in the U.S.
"No amount of law and/or legal decisions can change that" -----> Wrong, access to print PAPER is a HUGE and significant issue of public importance to this Nation. And there ARE certain litigants with standing who have just such a justiciable case and controversy.
"We all face nuisances due to our limitations from time to time and it is ridiculous to go to the courts to try and remove every difficulty from our life" -----> Denial of access to literally EVERY daily activity all other Americans engage in sue to a print PAPER disability, including denial of ALL Court and agency access, is a LOT MORE than a "nuisance" -- to quote what one team of predatators told me when they stole $400 cash I had given them to feed my equine disability service horse,
"we can steal whatever we want from you, hurt you, do whatever we want to you, starve your service animal, because we know your autism/vision disabilities are types of disabiltiies the Florida Courts don't accommodate, so you can't get Court access anywhere to hold us accountable."
"No one wonder the general public thinks lawyers are idiots and the legal system is a joke. ... I am sure those judges are real proud of themselves right now" ----->
The reason the public thinks lawyers are idiots and the legal system is a joke is because both REFUSE TO PROVIDE PAPERLESS ELECTRONIC FORMAT INTERNET ACCESS TO DISABLED BLIND/VISION IMPAIRED AMERICANS -- i.e., NO Court access for this group.
Janice Rogers Brown is a GREAT judge, and a superb candidate for elevation to the United
States Supreme Court. California made a HUGE mistake when it elevated Chief justice ronald George to the State Supreme Court Chief Justice-ships, instead of Janice Rogers Brown. Here's some food for thought:
While Chief Justice George is running around strutting his Gay Marriage Foo Foo Dust, ...
Chief Justice George is more famously known for directing his Clerk of Court, Frederich Olrich to announce that PAPERLESS electronic format Internet filing and service accommodations of a Petition to the California Supreme Court to achieve access to an autistic vision impairmed bar applicant's California attorneys license would be denied access to the full Court -- including Janice Rogers Brown (then a Justice of the California Supreme Court) --because ...
'People with learning disabilities, people without arms, quadraplegics, people who cannot see, who rely upon PAPERLESS machines to write down and file their pleadings --- NO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LICENSE ANYONE LIKE THAT AS AN ATTORNEY IN THIS STATE.'
Gay Marriage Foo Foo Dust to hide the Bigotry of a State Chief Justice against people who cannot see print PAPER!!!!
Waaaayyyy too bad Janice Rogers Brown is no longer on the California Supreme Court, but then again ...
she left that LOSER disabled American Bigot Chief Justice who denies access to California attorney licensure and the California Supreme Court to the blind/vision impaired behind and got a better job on the D.C. Circuit.
The decision to deny access EVERYWHERE (not just money), "frankly, is, to use an unprofessional bit of jargon, nuts."
" pinted and uttered " = pointed and uttered
" sue" = due
"Chief justice ronald George" = Chief Justice Ronald George