Just the Facts in the Lifelong Learning Center Case
 

Here is the LLC Case documents. In the final section we see what is "ORDERED". I don't see where the LLC lost. Any retired lawyers out there who can explain this to us?

SCHWARZ v. THE VILLAGES CHARTER SCHOOL, INC. | Case No. 5:12-cv-177-Oc-34PRL. | Leagle.com

Link doesn't work.

SCHWARZ v. THE VILLAGES CHARTER SCHOOL, INC. | Case No. 5:12-cv-177-Oc-34PRL. | Leagle.com. See if this works.

I'll concede that any professional has multiple motivations to do what they do. Prestige, fame, a sense of accomplishment and all the other things you mention are certainly applicable. But the number one reason for a case such as this has got to be money. Why else would a law firm accept a massive undertaking on a contingency basis only, if they did not anticipate a huge pay day down the road. Besides, all the other motivating factors, if realized, add to the firm's earning power in the future.

yes, they are
 

I would argue that NFL players are motivated by the money. Sure they may love the game, but it wreaks havoc on their health.

I actually spent 3 days in law school before I realized it wasn't for me. The first day, the teacher came in and wrote on the board 1/3. He said that is the amount the lawyer gets in a law suit. I believe that was the first thing he told the class.

I believe there are good lawyers out there...the ones that take pro bono cases and those that work for legal aid. But huge law firms such as the one in this lawsuit are financially motivated.

I spent ten days at BYU Law School in 1982. Was there on a Merit Scholarship for non-Mormons. Dropped out. Then went to get speech training at the University of Nevada, Reno. And journeyed to the University of Denver to get a MA in Librarianship and Information Management in May of 1984. Eventually went back to law school at the U of MN (Class of 1989) to become a law librarian and fight for more practical materials in libraries for victims/survivors of crimes of all kinds. A struggle I have had to do since mid 1991 from outside of law librarianship looking in after the powers that be blacklisted me. Mainly so that the money could keep coming into these big law firms who have control of the conversation along with the conservatism of the legal profession. I had to enlist everyone I could think of to change that conversation by bringing in people from many disciplines and many walks of life. Movie stars, writers, comedians, singers, celebrities, scholars, social workers, psychiatrists, CEOs, victim/witness assistance providers, police, etc. My main motivation in this was to help survivors/victms of crimes due to a long history of personal experiences with victims/survivors of crimes. I have communicated with a lot of lawyers since 1991 about this work and with some who have been real a-holes about this; many have not. For instance, some of my fellow Law Student Class of 1989 members have not been all that friendly. And some incredibly creative hurdles have been thrown up against me over the past almost 26 years.

It is so sad that the wishes of a handful of people (especially the one man who has a history of filing lawsuits) can disrupt the lives of hundreds of people. I have heard from some of the teachers at the LLLC that the man signed up for classes and an interpreter was hired for him and then he did not show up for the classes. It seems that money is the main reason for this suit.

Fixed. Thank you.

In that case they should have sent him a bill for the interpreters services. It wouldn't fly, but it would send a message.

Interesting
 

In a number of notes the term "motivation" is mentioned regarding this case. The teaching of some motivational experts is that only 2 things will significantly motivate. They are "challenge" and "recognition/reward". Of course there are other motivations but these are the most significant if you want to motivate people. This clearly meets these qualifiers. This is probably a very challenging suit on both sides and the recognition and rewards are apparently very significant. In the case of The Village's and it's residents it is restoring the Learning Center as a challenge and receiving the residents recognition for achieviing that result. In the case of the Law Firm it could be allegedly both monetary and internal success by the attorney's, in the case of the Plaintiff it may be allegedly recognition by the other deaf persons or beating the Villages. All of this is an open for discussion?:shrug:

Does anyone really believe that TV attorneys have not put together a dossier on his postings and behavior? His Face Book page, his past history of law suits, and on and on, is all there for anyone to see and use. Have a little faith in your fellow man.

In my opinion the ADA needs tweaking.
I have two questions
1. I know certain things are required to be available to the disabled, but does it state that it has to be FREE, that the theater, ensue, class, etc, MUST pick up the expense?

2.
Can anyone sue if their needs are not met? I was under the impression that the venue could be FINED , but this 60 Minute story (that I heard about, I did not watch it) and the LLLC closure has really opened my eyes and shocked the crap out of me. I didn't realize individuals could sue for money.
Too bad 18,000 of us can't be outside the court in atlanta when the next phase is in front of a judge.

I also wonder how much of a could shoulder the plaintiffs are getting from residents now. might be time for him to find a new community to sue.

I don't want to start a new thread, but I am afraid this will get buried with so many responses in this post

There will be a meeting at Laurel Manor with regard to the closing of TV College. I will get back to everyone with more info on this!! How can 20 people put a legal suit in who never attended this College and win. The person responsible did the same thing in Treasure Island. I hope we have a large turnout of all people not just members of the POA. Please get the word out to everyone to get to this meeting. Thank you. B Nuccio

This question has already been beaten to death in the original thread on this subject.

But in a nutshell: The LLC is not a separate entity or a party to the lawsuit. The LLC is merely the name under which the charter school conducts adult education. The charter school has not lost the lawsuit, and the lawsuit did not "force" the closure of the LLC, as the December 2nd Daily Sun headline falsely claimed. Since the charter school runs the LLC and the developer controls the charter school, the LLC was closed because of a decision by the developer to discontinue adult education in this community. The present lawsuit will continue despite the closure.

Unless the developer changes his mind about adult education, it seems unlikely that merely transferring adult education to the VCCDD will result in resurrection of the program. This is because the VCCDD would run the same risk of liability as was the charter school. But we can hope.

Are you going to tell us the date and time of the meeting, who is running it, and what the agenda is? Most importantly, is there going to be somebody there with facts about the situation--beyond the sketchy ones that were published in the Daily Sun--and with some concrete proposal to convince the developer to change his mind about ceasing adult education in The Villages?