[PennBF]

Some things to think about. Allegedly a top law firm, (e.g. on Wall Street, etc) will never ask a question that they don't already know the answer to and have proof what the answer or expected response should be. They do their home work. Allegedly they will have cross examine books which contain the question, the expected answer and the proof of the expected answer. They will prepare their witnesses and can include extraordinary number of points to remember when and if they are deposed. Allegedly they may have experts prepare court documents which are experts in writing the documents. Their attorneys may be experts or really excellent in certain areas, (e.g. cross examinations, specific issues in the case, etc etc.)
The purpose in writing this is to ask if the Village's Counsel's are as well prepared to have the case result in a decision that would reopen the school? Allegedly these firms are outstanding and will win most cases as their opposing attorney's are no where near prepared and have sources that are experts in a number of area's. I am hopeful The Village's have top attorneys representing them so the playing field is level.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by PennBF

Some things to think about. Allegedly a top law firm, (e.g. on Wall Street, etc) will never ask a question that they don't already know the answer to and have proof what the answer or expected response should be. They do their home work. Allegedly they will have cross examine books which contain the question, the expected answer and the proof of the expected answer. They will prepare their witnesses and can include extraordinary number of points to remember when and if they are deposed. Allegedly they may have experts prepare court documents which are experts in writing the documents. Their attorneys may be experts or really excellent in certain areas, (e.g. cross examinations, specific issues in the case, etc etc.)
The purpose in writing this is to ask if the Village's Counsel's are as well prepared to have the case result in a decision that would reopen the school? Allegedly these firms are outstanding and will win most cases as their opposing attorney's are no where near prepared and have sources that are experts in a number of area's. I am hopeful The Village's have top attorneys representing them so the playing field is level.

Well said. This firm probably does have a lot of proprietary books and the like for everything that works with ADA complaints and that which does not. I have always hoped that some law firms will make works like this more accessible to lay people. Some law firms are doing this now it seems like from their web-sites I have looked at and especially law professor blogs. It is kind of liked getting a beloved chef to give up some of her recipes. Some will do it on occasion; others will never do it.

This was something in law school too. Access to Law Review outlines of various courses kind of made it quite easier to get good grades in the classes they covered. But such access was guarded very well. You still had to work your butt off but it was a lot easier to figure out what the Professor was looking for from the insider information provider by the Law Review course outlines. I got one for a Tax Course for instance that even helped me to do fairly well on the Tax Section of the Minnesota Bar Exam.

[dirtbanker]

Penn BFF- No mater how much they prepare, they still don't win all their cases. I am sure the Villages has competent legal representation, it was safer (less chance to incur expense) to close the school than to pursue a decision in court. It seems they dragged it out as long as they could (4 years) giving Schwarz an opportunity to reconsider his position, but the jackass would not, and thus they felt compelled to close the school to avoid the chance of a loss in court (precedence for future litigation?).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[dirtbanker]

Sorry for the extra F!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by dirtbanker

Penn BFF- No mater how much they prepare, they still don't win all their cases. I am sure the Villages has competent legal representation, it was safer (less chance to incur expense) to close the school than to pursue a decision in court. It seems they dragged it out as long as they could (4 years) giving Schwarz an opportunity to reconsider his position, but the jackass would not, and thus they felt compelled to close the school to avoid the chance of a loss in court (precedence for future litigation?).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

We do not really know if Schwarz calls all the shots among these 32 plaintiffs or so. My experience with groups like this is that they are often at cross purposes much like you see on TOTV. Their lawyers probably control a lot of what goes on in their interactions. The lawyers would see potential deep pockets in the Villages' developers and those others named in the lawsuit. Lawyers' greed has probably played a big part in drawing this lawsuit out for as long as it has. They have also put a great deal of work into this effort so would probably want to see a win.

[PennBF]

Of course they don't win all the cases but you can rest assure they win the majority because of preparation and organization and experts in certain fields. I worked for a few years with one of the very top law firms on Wall Street and am pretty familiar with their practices how they prepare and what to expect.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by PennBF

Of course they don't win all the cases but you can rest assure they win the majority because of preparation and organization and experts in certain fields. I worked for a few years with one of the very top law firms on Wall Street and am pretty familiar with their practices how they prepare and what to expect.

My roommate for a short time at the U of MN Law School-- Doug L.,-- worked in a Wall Street Law Firm the Summer of 1988. Not sure which one. He seemed to love it. He has a photographic memory so it was probably fairly easy for him.

Our clinic-- Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners-- had guidebooks and the like for various kinds of cases which made things a lot easier when representing prisoners. I would assume Wall Street firms have many such guidebooks about what works in cases and what does not.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by dirtbanker

Penn BFF- No mater how much they prepare, they still don't win all their cases. I am sure the Villages has competent legal representation, it was safer (less chance to incur expense) to close the school than to pursue a decision in court. It seems they dragged it out as long as they could (4 years) giving Schwarz an opportunity to reconsider his position, but the jackass would not, and thus they felt compelled to close the school to avoid the chance of a loss in court (precedence for future litigation?).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

I'm a lawyer and have looked over the court decision on the motion for summary judgment.

Would somebody please explain to me how closing the LLC is going to end the lawsuit, as is often asserted in this thread. I just don't understand it. The LLC is not a defendant and does not even exist as a separate entity.

"The Villages Lifelong Learning College" is merely a fictitious name, registered to the Charter School, under which the Charter School conducts adult education classes. Ceasing to provide those classes will not stop the plaintiffs from claiming damages for the alleged past violations of the ADA. All it will do is prevent liability to the School for alleged FUTURE violations-- but the lawsuit against the Charter School will continue, unless the plaintiffs (and their attorneys) have a change of heart for some reason. That seems unlikely since they they are clearly after the money they hope to be awarded. But maybe the community outrage that is building over their lawsuit will cause at least some of the plaintiffs to rethink what they are doing and withdraw.

I will also be interested in seeing how it is possible that transferring adult ed to the VCCDD would avoid the same kind of risk of lawsuits under the ADA that confronted the Charter School. The decision to have the VCCDD run the risk will require a change of heart by the Developer, who, after all, really made the decision to shut down the LLC. Why would he feel differently if the VCCDD (which he controls) is running risk instead of the School that he also controls.

In this regard, realize that the December 2 Daily Sun headline stating that the lawsuit "forced" the closure is misleading. School systems throughout the country conduct adult ed classes despite the risk of ADA lawsuits. There is no real reason why the Charter School here could not also do so if so inclined. The closure was a result of a decision by the Developer. You can argue about whether or not it was justified under the circumstances.

In the end, the real solution to this kind of problem is to amend the ADA in order to stop this kind of lawsuit from even be brought. However, that is a long run solution. And, in the long run, we're all dead.

[Wavy Chips]

I'm a lawyer and have looked over the court decision on the motion for summary judgment.
I'm not a lawyer, but here is my $0.02

Would somebody please explain to me how closing the LLC is going to end the lawsuit, as is often asserted in this thread. I just don't understand it. The LLC is not a defendant and does not even exist as a separate entity.
I completely agree with this assertion.

"The Villages Lifelong Learning College" is merely a fictitious name, registered to the Charter School, under which the Charter School conducts adult education classes. Ceasing to provide those classes will not stop the plaintiffs from claiming damages for the alleged past violations of the ADA. All it will do is prevent liability to the School for alleged FUTURE violations-- but the lawsuit against the Charter School will continue, unless the plaintiffs (and their attorneys) have a change of heart for some reason. That seems unlikely since they are clearly after the money they hope to be awarded. But maybe the community outrage that is building over their lawsuit will cause at least some of the plaintiffs to rethink what they are doing and withdraw.
Agreed, closing the LLC only stops the potential of future violations/issues. The courts will decide if there were past violations and if so, what the penalties are. Closing the LLC also gets public sentiment on your side "to try the case in the court of public opinion" and potentially influence the plaintiffs to drop the case

I will also be interested in seeing how it is possible that transferring adult ed to the VCCDD would avoid the same kind of risk of lawsuits under the ADA that confronted the Charter School. The decision to have the VCCDD run the risk will require a change of heart by the Developer, who, after all, really made the decision to shut down the LLC. Why would he feel differently if the VCCDD (which he controls) is running risk instead of the School that he also controls.
My understanding is that the RLG's are exempt from the ADA and RA requirements (correct me if I'm wrong). So, all of the classes would/could be reorganized as RLG's.

In this regard, realize that the December 2 Daily Sun headline stating that the lawsuit "forced" the closure is misleading. School systems throughout the country conduct adult ed classes despite the risk of ADA lawsuits. There is no real reason why the Charter School here could not also do so if so inclined. The closure was a result of a decision by the Developer. You can argue about whether or not it was justified under the circumstances.
Again, just my speculation, but the closure was done primarily to get public outcry. You have already read that they are trying to create LLC 2.0


The curious thing to watch is if the school wins on all counts, will the LLC reopen in the same structure as before?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Wavy Chips

I'm a lawyer and have looked over the court decision on the motion for summary judgment.
I'm not a lawyer, but here is my $0.02

Would somebody please explain to me how closing the LLC is going to end the lawsuit, as is often asserted in this thread. I just don't understand it. The LLC is not a defendant and does not even exist as a separate entity.
I completely agree with this assertion.

"The Villages Lifelong Learning College" is merely a fictitious name, registered to the Charter School, under which the Charter School conducts adult education classes. Ceasing to provide those classes will not stop the plaintiffs from claiming damages for the alleged past violations of the ADA. All it will do is prevent liability to the School for alleged FUTURE violations-- but the lawsuit against the Charter School will continue, unless the plaintiffs (and their attorneys) have a change of heart for some reason. That seems unlikely since they are clearly after the money they hope to be awarded. But maybe the community outrage that is building over their lawsuit will cause at least some of the plaintiffs to rethink what they are doing and withdraw.
Agreed, closing the LLC only stops the potential of future violations/issues. The courts will decide if there were past violations and if so, what the penalties are. Closing the LLC also gets public sentiment on your side "to try the case in the court of public opinion" and potentially influence the plaintiffs to drop the case

I will also be interested in seeing how it is possible that transferring adult ed to the VCCDD would avoid the same kind of risk of lawsuits under the ADA that confronted the Charter School. The decision to have the VCCDD run the risk will require a change of heart by the Developer, who, after all, really made the decision to shut down the LLC. Why would he feel differently if the VCCDD (which he controls) is running risk instead of the School that he also controls.
My understanding is that the RLG's are exempt from the ADA and RA requirements (correct me if I'm wrong). So, all of the classes would/could be reorganized as RLG's.

In this regard, realize that the December 2 Daily Sun headline stating that the lawsuit "forced" the closure is misleading. School systems throughout the country conduct adult ed classes despite the risk of ADA lawsuits. There is no real reason why the Charter School here could not also do so if so inclined. The closure was a result of a decision by the Developer. You can argue about whether or not it was justified under the circumstances.
Again, just my speculation, but the closure was done primarily to get public outcry. You have already read that they are trying to create LLC 2.0


The curious thing to watch is if the school wins on all counts, will the LLC reopen in the same structure as before?

There are many political aspects of this case as well as public relations and marketing of the Villages.

One thing. We should continue to fight to get something like the Lifelong Learning College back with reasonable accommodations for the deaf and others who need some kind of special assistance or equipment. And the size of the Villages makes it very reasonable that people will listen to us especially politicians and certainly in 2017. If you want to stand up to a bully go get a troop of bigger bullies to help you out. I learned that in Junior High School. Made friends with a bigger Paiute when a smaller Paiute threatened me with a knife. The unfairness of the knife angered the bigger Paiute. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe

With my 224 613 Project too I tried to enlist a more powerful group of people to help me take a stand against the gross injustices I started to experience in 1991 while trying to be honest with potential employers about my experiences dealing with the 2-24-1976 murder investigation in the slaying of Michelle Mitchell near the University of Nevada, Reno campus. I was a student of her mother Barbara Mitchell at Earl Wooster High School at that time in Reno, Nevada. 2-24 is also my birthday. I met a lot of people interested in this murder investigation or who had some connection to it. Gypsy Hill Murder Suspect Charged Nearly 40 Years After Killings | NBC Bay Area

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Wavy Chips

I'm a lawyer and have looked over the court decision on the motion for summary judgment.
I'm not a lawyer, but here is my $0.02

Would somebody please explain to me how closing the LLC is going to end the lawsuit, as is often asserted in this thread. I just don't understand it. The LLC is not a defendant and does not even exist as a separate entity.
I completely agree with this assertion.

"The Villages Lifelong Learning College" is merely a fictitious name, registered to the Charter School, under which the Charter School conducts adult education classes. Ceasing to provide those classes will not stop the plaintiffs from claiming damages for the alleged past violations of the ADA. All it will do is prevent liability to the School for alleged FUTURE violations-- but the lawsuit against the Charter School will continue, unless the plaintiffs (and their attorneys) have a change of heart for some reason. That seems unlikely since they are clearly after the money they hope to be awarded. But maybe the community outrage that is building over their lawsuit will cause at least some of the plaintiffs to rethink what they are doing and withdraw.
Agreed, closing the LLC only stops the potential of future violations/issues. The courts will decide if there were past violations and if so, what the penalties are. Closing the LLC also gets public sentiment on your side "to try the case in the court of public opinion" and potentially influence the plaintiffs to drop the case

I will also be interested in seeing how it is possible that transferring adult ed to the VCCDD would avoid the same kind of risk of lawsuits under the ADA that confronted the Charter School. The decision to have the VCCDD run the risk will require a change of heart by the Developer, who, after all, really made the decision to shut down the LLC. Why would he feel differently if the VCCDD (which he controls) is running risk instead of the School that he also controls.
My understanding is that the RLG's are exempt from the ADA and RA requirements (correct me if I'm wrong). So, all of the classes would/could be reorganized as RLG's.

In this regard, realize that the December 2 Daily Sun headline stating that the lawsuit "forced" the closure is misleading. School systems throughout the country conduct adult ed classes despite the risk of ADA lawsuits. There is no real reason why the Charter School here could not also do so if so inclined. The closure was a result of a decision by the Developer. You can argue about whether or not it was justified under the circumstances.
Again, just my speculation, but the closure was done primarily to get public outcry. You have already read that they are trying to create LLC 2.0


The curious thing to watch is if the school wins on all counts, will the LLC reopen in the same structure as before?

As regards your two cents, I think that you are spot on.

Regarding your suggestion that the classes might be re-organized and recharacterized as RLG's: That could've been tried under the auspices of the charter school if the developer had wanted to do so. However, the operation of the adult education program would require a degree of involvement by the VCCDD or charter school that might make it hard to sustain the argument that it is a genuine club.

Remember, also, that the plaintiffs have not given up on screwing over the clubs. Plaintiffs are appealing the summary judgment dismissal of their claims against the clubs.

Personally, I would like to see the developer have the charter school keep the LLC open, continue to fight the lawsuit, and enlist the help of business groups like the Chamber of Commerce as well as citizens groups like the POA and VHA to mount an effort to amend the ADA to prevent this kind of lawsuit in the future--and maybe amend the laws throughout the US so that, as in other countries, the loser in a lawsuit pays the winner's attorney fees. That last change would stop a whole bunch of frivolous lawsuits. Little chance of any of this happening.

[wisemaj]

Originally Posted by rexxfan

And requiring interpreters for each and every class be paid for by everyone is reasonable? No matter the cost? Sorry, that's where I part ways with you.
--
Bob C

Bob,

I believe you are making an assumption that invalidates your argument here. Interpreters would not be required for "each and every class", only those attended by a hearing-impaired resident requesting assistance, a very small percentage of the total class offerings. Your assumption grossly overstates the costs involved.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Advogado

As regards your two cents, I think that you are spot on.

Regarding your suggestion that the classes might be re-organized and recharacterized as RLG's: That could've been tried under the auspices of the charter school if the developer had wanted to do so. However, the operation of the adult education program would require a degree of involvement by the VCCDD or charter school that might make it hard to sustain the argument that it is a genuine club.

Remember, also, that the plaintiffs have not given up on screwing over the clubs. Plaintiffs are appealing the summary judgment dismissal of their claims against the clubs.

Personally, I would like to see the developer have the charter school keep the LLC open, continue to fight the lawsuit, and enlist the help of business groups like the Chamber of Commerce as well as citizens groups like the POA and VHA to mount an effort to amend the ADA to prevent his kind of lawsuit in the future--and maybe amend the laws throughout the US so that, as in other countries, the loser in a lawsuit pays the winner's attorney fees. That last change would stop a whole bunch of frivolous lawsuits. Little chance of any of this happening.

I have been trying to get more people interested in this by copying and pasting the link to this thread on Facebook. I use Facebook heavily in my 224 613 Project. I would never sell social media short even if there are many dangers to Free Speech with no real limitations on it. Not TOTV that much but Facebook where there are many many people spreading false information.

[Carla B]

Originally Posted by wisemaj

Bob,

I believe you are making an assumption that invalidates your argument here. Interpreters would not be required for "each and every class", only those attended by a hearing-impaired resident requesting assistance, a very small percentage of the total class offerings. Your assumption grossly overstates the costs involved.

Well, how about the other point brought out in defendant's argument: the difficulty in locating and scheduling certified interpreters plus paying for travel expense?

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Carla B

Well, how about the other point brought out in defendant's argument: the difficulty in locating and scheduling certified interpreters plus paying for travel expense?

Furthermore, one can argue that an adult ed program should have no obligation at all to provide signers. "Reasonable accommodation" by an adult ed program run by a nonprofit could just involve allowing a deaf student to bring his own signer to class, at the student's expense. Why should the school, i.e., the other students, be required to pay? You can argue it either way.

But where does it all stop? Do adult ed programs have to pay for describers, who can describe for a blind student what is written on a blackboard? Do theaters have to pay for both signers for the deaf and describers for the blind?