Talk of The Villages Florida - Lifelong Learning Center

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)

- The Villages, Florida, General Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/)

- - Lifelong Learning Center (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/lifelong-learning-center-220823/)

Ask Mr. X (you can find his name on thevillages-news.com) what his problem is/was. I've been trying to get him to tell us all EXACTLY, in PLAIN ENGLISH, what he was asking for that he wasn't being given. All I've gotten was crickets. Obviously nothing satisfied him so he went and hired a NY lawyer. So, as they were unsuccessful in getting any money from the LLLC, it's a non profit, I hope they all have a huge legal bill to pay. However, knowing how the entitled people operate, they'll get someone else to pay it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-325 (Post 1329669)

Interesting link

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/mcdhh...ns-medical.rtf

----------------
ADA Title III Places of Public Accommodation
A pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment are considered �places of public accommodation� meaning a facility, operated by a private entity, whose operations effect commerce. Doctor�s offices and nursing homes are covered under Title III. Congregate care facilities, independent living centers and retirement communities are covered by Title III, if, they provide significant enough level of social services that they can be considered social service establishments. Social services in this context include medical care, assistance with daily living activities, provision of meals, transportation, counseling and organized recreational activities.
-----------------

key question/key interpretation .. 2000 plus clubs

the Rec centers provide space..they don't organize activities... or do they?

that may be the question

If you read the lawsuit the Court ruled that the clubs are run by volunteers, not The Villages, so they are not part of the litigation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee (Post 1328273)

Just read this on the front page of The Sun ........... I am so angry that if I say anything it could get me into big trouble. What a dreadful loss for TV. If you read the article it states that TV have been trying to placate these people for 8 years and NOTHING was enough.

Note to me : get off this computer before you put into writing something you will regret!

Codeysmom - you're not alone !!!

Last night on 60 minutes

Did anyone see the 60 minutes piece on these law firms that recruit handicapped people to sue different entities? I would like to know how many ADA law suits this firm has filed. Were some of the Plaintiff's recruited to be part of this suit?

I have numerous disabling conditions including hearing impairment. But I refuse to be a VICTIM. I appreciate the ADA, but I don't sue anyone over it.

Watch 60 Mins re: ADA lawsuits

The most recent 60 Minutes program had a very interesting segment on rampant ADA lawsuits which are driven more by lawyer greed than the handicapped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theorem painter (Post 1329676)

If you read the lawsuit the Court ruled that the clubs are run by volunteers, not The Villages, so they are not part of the litigation.

but can't they appeal that ruling? they won the motion that they can go to jury trial against the charter school--so there's nothing to appeal there. This appeal is in Atlanta so they must be appealing something they were denied....which could be the RLGs. Theoretically, they can appeal that up to the Supreme Court.

The Amish have a practice that "shuns" members who violate their religious rules. Whyt can't this practice be used when someone violates community standards in The Villages. I have no doubt that 90% + of the residents would do what is right for the impaired residents when it is recognized. For them to deny residents the same consideration is a true violation of what is fair and equitable. It would appear that denying 18,000+ residents the ability to extend their education and to cause 200 + residents to be denied the ability to earn a living is basis enough for "shunning". I have close relatives who are profoundly deaf and there is no way in gods creation they could sleep at night knowing they caused such terrible harm to people to lose work and education. :mad:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonnevie (Post 1329708)

Which could be a good thing, and precedent setting as well, AFTER the PEOTUS appoints a new justice.

There is "more than meets the eye" here. Serioulsy! I do not believe money was the issue. Funds could have been generated in ANY number of ways. 1. Grants 2. Private fund raising 3. Charging more for course 4. One time registration fee. Another option would be a "gratus" Subsidy by Morris family even though they are legally not affiliated with the LC In my opinion, this is is a major major marketing blunder and lack of foresight on THEIR part, to let this " its a lifestyle" feature of the villages go "belly up". Love to hear the villages realtors explain this one, on top of health care decision at he peak of the sales season. Looks like They will have to update their video and marketing packets! Wonder what the cost of that is. The $$ to them, would have been inconsequential in the scheme of things !

Also, There could have been a plan B in place, in the event that the LC lost the lawsuit, or did they think they would win? There is something array here. Why keep issue quiet for so many years. Notice: 0nly one article in daily sun. No follow up !!!

Without knowing all the facts, ( I read the lawsuit, hard to discern the REAL issue) therefore hard to draw rational understanding. In the absence of this, speculation ( this is an example) will run rampant. SOMETHING SMELLS HERE,

Anybody watch "60 Minutes" last night (Dec. 4)? Anderson Cooper reported on ADA and lawsuits. Not siding either way on the situation in TV, but it was an interesting segment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dolphin (Post 1329731)

It may be as simple as an attempt to stop the madness and not cave in to extortion. What's next if they cave---REC Centers, RLGs, nightly entertainment on the squares, all the pools. How can I shop at Publix if I can't ask where the anchovies are located---they should provide a full time ASL interpreter at every retail location! How can I ask to join a shuffleboard game at the neighborhood pool without an interpreter at all times? And how many other little groups with a disability will want their own special accommodations?
The problem does not lies solely with this (fill in the blank) or his (fill in the blank) lawyers. The problem is not even the ADA in and of itself, although it is vaguely written. The problem is with the bureaucrats and regulators who spell out the law and a judiciary that makes insane rulings. If it is ever to change, it will take a long time.
Meanwhile, it gives me an idea as to how to fight the terrorists. We don't need guns and tanks and cruise missiles. We just need to infiltrate their ranks with lawyers and ###holes, then sit back and watch the carnage. Unfortunately, we are beating them to the finish line in that regard. Can anyone say "Roman Empire"???

Quote:

Originally Posted by VillagerNut (Post 1328279)

I have lived in The Villages for 11 years. Not once have I heard about this lawsuit that has been going on for eight years. Why? If there would've been some public notice about this lawsuit, I am sure villagers would have stepped up to raise funds to accommodate whatever needed to happen to resolve this lawsuit. I have a hard time understanding how the accommodations could not happen. If they needed a hearing loop installed or whatever within the building I'm sure the money could've been raised to make that happen. But without the public knowing the situation we could not help. Now I hope someone will step up to the plate to figure out what can be resolved to rectify and revive the Lifelong Learning College.

Don't understand why the hearing impaired could really care about what other people did in their spare time & how they spent their money, but I do agree with you VILLAGERNUT, why didn't this group of people present their arguments to us. Or are they so afraid someone is making money off of it.chilout

We recently bought our dream house in The Villages. Our house is very nice, but there are a lot of nicer houses outside The Villages that can be had for considerable less money. The tipping point that gave us a reason to buy here was the amenities package. The amenities are what make The Villages stand out from the countless other developments. One of my favorite amenities was The Life Long Learning Center.
What a shame that such an unique attribute which so many people enjoyed and benefited from can be so easily and senselessly ended.
I urge everyone that feels the way I do to join in a letter writing campaign. If we are to go down, at least go down fighting.

While I concur the ADA regs appear to be extreme, however, for the time being, it is what it is. the LC achieves little by "not caving in to the supposed extortion". Still think something else is going on. We will see how it all shakes out

Quote:

Originally Posted by txfan (Post 1329740)

Anybody watch "60 Minutes" last night (Dec. 4)? Anderson Cooper reported on ADA and lawsuits. Not siding either way on the situation in TV, but it was an interesting segment.

Yes. I saw that. There seemed to be something in it about damages in Federal ADA cases in contrast to State ADA cases????

ADA defense lawyer: A blast against frivolous, serial ADA lawsuits in striking the right balance — Hotel Law Blog — April 7, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1329764)

Speaking of damages, I'd be interested in just what the plaintiffs felt their damages were, at the time the lawsuit was filed. Was it that they could not take a class they wanted, when they wanted it? Well, boo-hoo, how is that different from a college student closed out a class that filled? They could take it next time with an ASL interpreter that the LLLC apparently offered. Did they pay a registration fee and then find out they could not effectively participate? Fine, give them their $70 back. It looks like they are more interested in PUNITIVE damages than equity and participation, and now enormous legal fees as well. I'm sorry, but 120,000 Villagers did not cause you to lose your hearing. And wouldn't it really be a kick in the rear if it turned out any or all of these people lost hearing due to their own actions----loud concerts/band members, failing to wear hearing protection in a job that recommended it, etc.

the link above is interesting because it actually gives figures for what a plaintiff can ask for in Calif. $1000 for each time they were unable to avail themselves of the services. So if the LLC has 200 courses per semester and 3 semesters a year x number of years plaintiff has been a resident, then if the same is similar in Florida, it would be an astronomical amount for each plaintiff. Maybe we need to contact the Orlando paper to do an in depth article on what's going on since we can get no information from here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonnevie (Post 1329769)

Do you really think each of 32 residents signed up for 200 courses/semester?????? There's only 168 hours in a week!!!

In case people want to know who to thank:
View Case Cited Cases Citing Case
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Louis Schwarz, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Doris Schwarz, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Janice Hickey, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Thomas Hickey, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Bernie Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Elizabeth Holst, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Stephen Holst, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Francis Langlais, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Patricia Smart, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Robert Smart, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Richard McElwain, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Byron Zimmerman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Shirley Zimmerman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

John Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Charles Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Randall Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Evelyn Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Maureen Osgood, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Mary Kay Pickering, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Andrew St. John, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Karen Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Clarence Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Richard Woods, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Linda Woods, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Robert McDevitt, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Lynn Stirling, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg and Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group, Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP & Sagar Shah, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice.

Kathleen McElwain, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group & Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP.

Herbert Pickering, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group & Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP.

Barbara Achin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group & Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP.

Richard Achin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group & Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP.

Diane St. John, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group & Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP.

Kenny Hynes, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group & Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP.

Mary Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Carter Miller, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Rozynski, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Leonardo Daniels, Daniels Law Group & Paul Kyu Kim, Shapiro & Kim LLP.

Well, a giant thank you to all involved. Have a Merry Christmas, the other 120,000 of us certainly enjoyed your Christmas "gift".

PS. I believe Santa has added you to his naughty list

Talk about packing the Plaintiff list! Husbands and Wives abound. The submitted list above, I would assume, is freely accessible to the public as are phone books, property records, court/criminal records, etc. FREE advice - do not harass these people. Let the system run it's course.

Xavier

Very, very, very disappointed. Fear Recreation Centers will become overcrowded as a result.
First health care changes. What next?

when I founded The Hospice at The Texas Medicaal Center in Houston in the 70's we wanted to have our own inpatient hospice as well os the home care, but we couldn't afford a building since we were just starting out. I talked with a local hospital that had a floor that was closed and we rented the floor from them for a dollar a year. It was something that had never been done before that time. My point being, maybe a small group in The Villages could form a not for profit group and see if they could rent the charter school for a token annual amoun t and continue with the LLC set up pretty much the way it has been functioning all of these years. Just a thought.

It is rather curious that there appears to be multiple husband and wife plaintiffs, indicating that both are hearing impaired to the extent that they were both aggrieved. Seems too convenient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dotsie25 (Post 1329814)

Very, very, very disappointed. Fear Recreation Centers will become overcrowded as a result.
First health care changes. What next?

Transgender bathrooms?????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Broken opportunity

I would bet we have not heard the REAL story !
If there is anything we can do as a community , TO THOSE WHO ARE IN THE KNOW , please let us know ! ❗️❗️❗️
This is an OUTRAGE

A SMALL STORY supporting our stance :
My husband and I attended a private party at Katie Belles recently , we were seated with 2 gentlemen , they were signing to each other as we sat down . As we tried to converse with our limited abilities ,the gentlemen taught us a few words to communicate with them , we decided we needed to take a class in a Signing Class . We felt the whole evening was enriched with our 'happen chance' seating arrangement .
On the way home we talked about enrolling in the Life Long Learning College , only to read the next morning about the lawsuit . I feel the community as a whole will experience the lack of education and enriching opportunity .
A piece of the 'Perfect Retirement Place To Live ' Has been broken ❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️ ❗️:posting::

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wavy Chips (Post 1329819)

It is rather curious that there appears to be multiple husband and wife plaintiffs, indicating that both are hearing impaired to the extent that they were both aggrieved. Seems too convenient.

Quite possible these people are miserable in general, have a giant chip on their shoulder, and feel the world "owes" them because they can't hear. Luckily, they are a small minority of those that are hearing impaired. God bless their spouses for just having to live with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 1329817)

What are RLG's?

Resident Lifestyle Groups, ie; clubs that meet at the rec centers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1329822)

The spouses are in the lawsuit with each other! :shocked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow (Post 1329827)

The spouses are in the lawsuit with each other! :shocked:

I would pity the spouse who was asked to join as a plaintiff and refused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carla B (Post 1328996)

Dillywho, according to the court documents (see DuhBear's post) beginning in 2008 Louis Schwarz requested that the District (VCCDD and SLCCD) provide sign language interpreters for Resident Lifestyle Group activities. I don't know how he requested this. But yes, this has been going on for eight years.

You are right, it has been going on for eight years, with the LLLC attempting all that time to accommodate these people to no avail.

My point was that the lawsuit itself, according to the newspaper source, was only filed three years ago, not eight.

The Lifelong Learning College was one of the things that attracted us to The Villages... I was looking forward to learning Spanish and taking other classes. This is a real shame. So sorry.

We ALL need to send the letter , PLEASE POST THE LETTER IF YOU GET ONE COMPOSED !!
I would line up for SUCH A CAUSE !!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow (Post 1329827)

The spouses are in the lawsuit with each other! :shocked:

And yet the lawsuit says all the plaintiffs are deaf. I don't buy that for one second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1329771)

Do you really think each of 32 residents signed up for 200 courses/semester?????? There's only 168 hours in a week!!!

no, but they were denied the "opportunity" to sign up for those courses. Some courses are one time on one day. some are once a week, or twice a week. I think they could still be asking for a ton of money each.

as for the spouses, I would think some are also deaf.
I suppose the others could contend they were denied being able to have their spouse accompany them.

I question whether all the plaintiffs (I counted 34) are deaf. So many couples; did the spouses just jump on the bandwagon? Are all the plaintiffs still alive? Do they all live in The Villages? What is their bottom line? Money? Or are they trying to make a negative impact on their neighbors without regard to anyone other than themselves?

So many unanswered questions.

The letter writing campaign is an interesting idea, but who would the letters go to? I will be contacting the VHA, Home Page - The VHA in regard to this matter. I have already written to Ms Tutt and the CDD supervisors (for my CDD), and posted the letter and the reply. Since we were kept out of the loop on this, I am not sure who to write to now or what to say. There is another hearing in mid December in Atlanta, do we write to the court, would we have standing. While I am very disappointed in how I think this was handled, I am taking the approach that the original LLLC is probably gone, and we now need to focus on a replacement.