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/)

as always things start out as necessary actions to force change and it's necessary....the intent of the ADA was good...to give access to as many as possible. But as with these things, they seem to morph and become so much more. There are scads of cases brought by people with supposed "disabilities". The deaf community has been especially pro-active but they also seem to relish litigation, and in fact, seek out places to cause litigation. These cases are easily found on the internet. Some of them appear to only be motivated to create a situation to sue. There seems, to me at least, an inherent adversarial nature to their actions, almost militant. The law gives them the ammunition to do this. There is no common sense clause that can be applied to it. It makes liberal minded people like myself understand the recent election results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbussone (Post 1329506)

I doubt it. That doesn't fit his "activist" profile. The lead plaintiff is most likely to continue doing whatever he can until he can finally reach in the deep pocket he so dearly covets.

After his comment, on his Facebook page, about how the LLC "retaliated" against the deaf community in TV, I would have to agree with this. I also don't think he's done yet. The court may have thrown out the argument against the RLGs, but that won't stop him from trying to find a way to go after the rec centers and entertainment, etc. This guy definitely has an "entitled", "it's all about me" attitude, and I don't think anything, or anyone, is going to change it.

I agree Sbarron01 I Planned to buy and move to TV next year. Now having second thoughts

Quote:

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 1329482)

There are a lot of deaf people in this world that do just fine without having to raise their issue at every drop of the hat.

I am married to a hearing impaired person (a severely botched mastoid surgery as a child). It never stopped him doing an international high tech job, and I NEVER hear him complain about being unable to hear unless we are in a very noisy bar or restaurant, he has taught himself to lipread. My Grandfather was completely deaf, you only knew it when he turned off his hearing aid when my Grandmother was nagging him! My brother was hearing impaired and no one every knew it.

The very last thing any of these people would have thought about is suing because they had the misfortune to have a disability. It was just accepted as a fact of life and none of them expected the Government to take care of them.

Am I now reading that their attorneys are going after the school? I do hope I misunderstood that.

The Lifelong Learning College closing - more to the story than whats being told. There are Lifelong Learning Colleges in other states never ever heard of any such a problem. First, getting kicked out of Villages Health Care now this we are not happy Villagers.

Having read all the posts, I�ll summarize some of them and then state where I think we�re at:

� A number of posters in this thread have started to ask whether a lawsuit should be initiated against the 32 plaintiffs?

� While the 32 plaintiffs have lost the first round, they are reported to be continuing on appeal (very disconcerting)

� Most would agree that lawsuits like the Schwarz case are not appealed unless the attorneys see a pot of money at the end. TOTV poster �Wavy Chips� estimates $3million and counting �

� The RLGs were, according to some, initially a target and included in the suit, but later ruled out of bounds, although perhaps only temporarily. (there is some dispute if the RLGs were simply being described or were actually a target per se. Poster �Blueash� says the court rejected claims against them)

� No one knew anything about this issue until the surprise announcement of LLLC�s closure, but realistically, no prudent business (i.e. Developer) is going to announce the particulars of an ongoing lawsuit (i.e. that�s water over the dam.)

� The LLLC is likely gone, and not to return, although volunteer efforts to reconstruct parts of it (using Rec Centers, Churches etc) will probably be made.

� But, the real remaining issue is countering any potential future legal threats against the RLGs, Clubs etc and what constitutes the heart of The Villages� lifestyle

� The actions of the 32 plaintiffs, regardless of their motivation, has already resulted in significant harm and financial loss to 120,000 residents of TV (ironically enough, plaintiffs included), but seemingly with the potential for much more unless checked.

--Some posters on this board who are contemplating buying in / moving to TV have expressed concern and are now possibly looking elsewhere to retire. Basically, the plaintiffs� action has now created a noticeable market uncertainty.

--The plaintiffs� lawsuit has already degraded TV�s lifestyle given it resulted in the loss of LLLC

--However, should the RLGs be successfully attacked, that would mean a major loss, both lifestyle and financial, for the entire community. It would unquestionably impact the market value of all homes in TV in way impossible to currently predict. The impact could potentially be in the range of 10-20%. (to repeat I�m not saying the RLGs will be attacked, but if they were, it would be ugly)

� Related to this latter point, there was an interesting post on another TV forum I noticed, and that I include here because of the opinion expressed:

--�I sent the lawsuit and all the comments with my questions to a family member and thought a couple of comments might be helpful. "Our firm gets almost as many calls from retirees as the most litigious group, prisoners, because they too have a lot of time." His advice to those concerned that the plaintiffs� lawyers are supposedly saying 'this is not over' and may "spread" to reccenters, etc...."better lawyer up". �

� Given the extensive activist background (per �John W�s post #106) of the chief plaintiff, the track record as best can be pieced together on the boards, an apparent inclination to litigation, and also that the roots of this action goes back a number of years, it�s improbable this is going to be settled by sweet reason alone.

� In sum, a number of posters worry or say the RLG�s are the target, while others say, in effect, we�re safe. I don�t think we can take the risk and simply hope for the best.

Thus, I come to the reluctant conclusion that we have no choice but to seek our own proactive legal protection, given the potential stakes involved. The community would need to pitch in and fund it (GoFundMe accounts or whatever). Perhaps the old football adage applies in this instance: offense is the best defense?

The best course forward is still TBD � maybe a retired lawyer with a track record who lives here, or the HOA or POA could take the leadership role? (The POA would probably have the most credibility.) But, it now seems prudent to start marshaling legal forces of our own in whatever manner is deemed best. There is also the issue for our lawyers to consider of what, if any, legal exposure the 32 plaintiffs may now have, or could have in the future.

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexaninVA (Post 1329547)

Having read all the posts, I�ll summarize some of them and then state where I think we�re at:

�A number of posters in this thread have started to ask whether a lawsuit should be initiated against the 32 plaintiffs?

�While the 32 plaintiffs have lost the first round, they are reported to be continuing on appeal (very disconcerting)

�Most would agree that lawsuits like the Schwarz case are not appealed unless the attorneys see a pot of money at the end. TOTV poster �Wavy Chips� estimates $3million and counting �

�The RLGs were, according to some, initially a target and included in the suit, but later ruled out of bounds, although perhaps only temporarily. (there is some dispute if the RLGs were simply being described or were actually a target per se. Poster �Blueash� says the court rejected claims against them)

�No one knew anything about this issue until the surprise announcement of LLLC�s closure, but realistically, no prudent business (i.e. Developer) is going to announce the particulars of an ongoing lawsuit (i.e. that�s water over the dam.)

�The LLLC is likely gone, and not to return, although volunteer efforts to reconstruct parts of it (using Rec Centers, Churches etc) will probably be made.

�But, the real remaining issue is countering any potential future legal threats against the RLGs, Clubs etc and what constitutes the heart of The Villages� lifestyle

�The actions of the 32 plaintiffs, regardless of their motivation, has already resulted in significant harm and financial loss to 120,000 residents of TV (ironically enough, plaintiffs included), but seemingly with the potential for much more unless checked.

--Some posters on this board who are contemplating buying in / moving to TV have expressed concern and are now possibly looking elsewhere to retire. Basically, the plaintiffs� action has now created a noticeable market uncertainty.

--The plaintiffs� lawsuit has already degraded TV�s lifestyle given it resulted in the loss of LLLC

--However, should the RLGs be successfully attacked, that would mean a major loss, both lifestyle and financial, for the entire community. It would unquestionably impact the market value of all homes in TV in way impossible to currently predict. The impact could potentially be in the range of 10-20%. (to repeat I�m not saying the RLGs will be attacked, but if they were, it would be ugly)

�Related to this latter point, there was an interesting post on another TV forum I noticed, and that I include here because of the opinion expressed:

--�I sent the lawsuit and all the comments with my questions to a family member and thought a couple of comments might be helpful. "Our firm gets almost as many calls from retirees as the most litigious group, prisoners, because they too have a lot of time." His advice to those concerned that the plaintiffs� lawyers are supposedly saying 'this is not over' and may "spread" to reccenters, etc...."better lawyer up". �

�Given the extensive activist background (per �John W�s post #106) of the chief plaintiff, the track record as best can be pieced together on the boards, an apparent inclination to litigation, and also that the roots of this action goes back a number of years, it�s improbable this is going to be settled by sweet reason alone.

�In sum, a number of posters worry or say the RLG�s are the target, while others say, in effect, we�re safe. I don�t think we can take the risk and simply hope for the best.

Thus, I come to the reluctant conclusion that we have no choice but to seek our own proactive legal protection, given the potential stakes involved. The community would need to pitch in and fund it (GoFundMe accounts or whatever). Perhaps the old football adage applies in this instance: offense is the best defense?

The best course forward is still TBD � maybe a retired lawyer with a track record who lives here, or the HOA or POA could take the leadership role? (The POA would probably have the most credibility.) But, it now seems prudent to start marshaling legal forces of our own in whatever manner is deemed best. There is also the issue for our lawyers to consider of what, if any, legal exposure the 32 plaintiffs may now have, or could have in the future.

.

An excellent and concise summary. I proposed earlier, perhaps on another similar thread, that a gofundme account might be appropriate to begin raising money. Your last sentence speaks directly to a position I have taken on a number of occasions. Go on the attack when you are dealing with plaintiffs who are being unreasonable. My educated guess is that few on the list of this action would ever dream they might be personally sued and held liable.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I really wish we knew what the appeal is that's scheduled in Atlanta later in the December court. I really worry it's the RLGs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexaninVA (Post 1329547)

Having read all the posts, I�ll summarize some of them and then state where I think we�re at: . . . . .

� Most would agree that lawsuits like the Schwarz case are not appealed unless the attorneys see a pot of money at the end. TOTV poster �Wavy Chips� estimates $3million and counting �

. . . . . The best course forward is still TBD � maybe a retired lawyer with a track record who lives here, or the HOA or POA could take the leadership role? (The POA would probably have the most credibility.) But, it now seems prudent to start marshaling legal forces of our own in whatever manner is deemed best. There is also the issue for our lawyers to consider of what, if any, legal exposure the 32 plaintiffs may now have, or could have in the future.

.

Very good points, but to clarify, my estimate is purely speculation, but if I speculate further I actually think that number is higher. In addition, the Developer beat the IRS to protect it's "financial lifestyle" at a time where conservative groups were under attack by the IRS. I have no doubt that the Developer/School et.al. can go toe to toe with this situation to protect its "residents lifestyle" and prevail - how ever long it takes. Now that this is out in the open, there will be thousands of Villagers following every inch of this case. Once the December hearing is over, we will obviously know where we are headed.

Might be a good time for an LLC class to take a road trip to see first hand how our legal system works at the U.S. District Court level. Hmmmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonnevie (Post 1329561)

I really wish we knew what the appeal is that's scheduled in Atlanta later in the December court. I really worry it's the RLGs.

I am only guessing but I would say it is for monetary damages for the LLLC not providing interpreters.

I wonder how many disabilities types are within TV, and how many accommodations we can come up with to sue for. WHY NOT !!!!:D:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by theorem painter (Post 1329587)

I am only guessing but I would say it is for monetary damages for the LLLC not providing interpreters.

no, they won that motion. they were denied the RLGs motion.

Wow! Did anyone see 60 Minutes tonight. Segment about lawyers filing ADA lawsuits. Florida is one of two states that allow cash awards for ADA suits. Could help explain why LLC closed the doors. I would be worried about all the pools not being ADA compliant!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mleeja (Post 1329604)

I did see it and noted that Florida is a prime place for lawsuits because it allows compensation. So perhaps we all need to contact our state legislators and say we want the law changed. Of course, winning of such suits by the plaintiffs should require compliance but compensatory and punitive damages should no longer be awarded. Then maybe the suits will truly be about righting a wrong, not lining pockets. I intend to write to my representative tomorrow requesting this change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonnevie (Post 1329609)

That's a good idea. And they should make the Federal law more simple so that business people can understand it. Some of these people who write laws seem to have lost all their common sense and reasonableness. Some of the case decisions I have read are even worse in that regard.

These lawyers, though, are basically ambulance chasers of the 2000s and 2010s. Very predatory it looked like.