Beyond the Cases: 26 Years of the Americans with Disabilities Act

[mark handler]

Department of Justice published "Beyond the Cases: 26 Years of the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Lives, Faces, and Stories Behind the ADA, " an eight-page publication which provides brief case highlights and anecdotal stories of people with disabilities whose lives were changed by the Department's ADA enforcement efforts. This document follows Principal Deputy Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Vanita Gupta's Tuesday's blog marking the ADA's 26th anniversary. In that blog, she wrote about the Department's pivotal role in ensuring that the promise of the ADA is made real in the lives of people with disabilities throughout the country.

https://www.ada.gov/beyond_cases_26yrs.html

 

[conarb]

The ADA is a division or our increasingly corrupt Department of Justice, the DEA is another division of the same corrupt Department of Justice. If you are going to enforce ADA shouldn't you also be enforcing DEA? The DEA says
:

Marijuana will remain a Schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Substances in Schedule 1 are determined by the Food and Drug Administration to have no medical use. States that allow marijuana for medical use or legalize recreational use remain in defiance of federal law.

The announcement to be published Friday in the Federal Register relaxes the rules for marijuana research to make it easier for institutions to grow marijuana for scientific study. The DEA currently authorizes just one grow facility in Mississippi.

In reaching its conclusion, the DEA said a Health and Human Services evaluation shows marijuana has no ‘‘currently accepted medical use’’ because "the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available."

"There is no evidence that there is a consensus among qualified experts that marijuana is safe and effective for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder," the report added.¹

On the subject of the corrupt Justice Department, I'm sure all saw FBI (another department under the Justice Department) Director Robert Comey refuse to recommend the indictment of Hillary Clinton after listing her crimes, there is evidence now of a revolt within the FBI and they are taking their evidence to three District Offices of the Justice Department to initiate prosecution of the Clinton Foundation:

At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to the official.

FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure.

The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book "Clinton Cash," but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.

The investigation centers on New York City where the Clinton Foundation has its main offices, according to the former official who has direct knowledge of the activities.

Prosecutorial support will come from various U.S. Attorneys Offices — a major departure from other centralized FBI investigations.

The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

The former official said the investigation is being coordinated between bureau field offices and FBI managers at headquarters in Washington, D.C. The unusual process would ensure senior FBI supervisors, including Director James Comey, would be kept abreast of case progress and of significant developments.

The reliance on U.S. attorneys would be a significant departure from the centralized manner in which the FBI managed the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server and email addresses.

That investigation was conducted with agents at FBI headquarters, who coordinated with the Department of Justice’s National Security Division (NSD).

While Nicholas Biase, a spokesman for Bharara, said he would “decline comment," and FBI spokeswoman Samantha Shero said, “we do not have a comment on investigative activity,” we wonder if the unusual procedures and the tone of that comment suggests a mutinous FBI standing up to the politicized DoJ?²

At this point in time this administration is so corrupt that any enforcement is selective enforcement, now we have several entire states refusing to obey federal drug law.


¹ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...a-remains-illegal-under-federal-law/88550804/

² http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...on-foundation-corruption-probe-despite-doj-ob

 

[conarb]

After the Justice Department refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton because she lacked "intent" to violate the law I stated this could be used as precedent for defending against an ADA lawsuit since the defendant could plead "lack of intent", go into any law library and ask the librarian to show you the "Attorneys' General Opinions", they are cited for precedence all the time, Attorney General Lynch didn't issue a written opinion but an attorney could put into evidence a slew of articles referencing her opinion, it has already happened a lot faster then I thought.

Convicted Spy Is Using Hillary's "Lack Of Intent" Defense To Seek Leniency

“Most recently, Democratic Presidential Candidate and former Secretary of State Hilary [sic] Clinton … has come under scrutiny for engaging in acts similar to Mr. Saucier,” his legal team claimed.
The FBI has criticized Clinton’s “homebrew” setup, attorney Derrick Hogan noted, “however, the FBI recently recommended Mrs. Clinton not be brought up on any charges as she lacked ‘intent.’”

Amusingly, Saucier pleaded guilty to possessing just six sensitive photographs, Hogan added, “far less than Clinton’s 110 emails.” Further, his attorney added that "Mr. Saucier pled guilty to [a legal prohibition] which does not require intent.”

“Wherefore, it will be unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid.”¹

it could be argued that there is no reason to obey any law now, especially unconstitutional regulations written by our corrupt Justice Department, like ADA regulations.



¹ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ng-hillarys-lack-intent-defense-seek-leniency

 

[sergoodo]

a litigation boon for the drive by lawyers and sadly...less employment of disabled

"The mandates of the ada have a major effect on employment decisions because of the costs they can impose..."
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2000/4/deleire.pdf

 

[conarb]

Every group that has been given special privileges under civil rights law has been harmed far more than they have ever been helped, the late great George Carlin on disability.

 

[tmurray]

Not to hijack the thread but,

...Substances in Schedule 1 are determined by the Food and Drug Administration to have no medical use...

BACKGROUND & AIMS:
The marijuana plant Cannabis sativa has been reported to produce beneficial effects for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases, but this has not been investigated in controlled trials. We performed a prospective trial to determine whether cannabis can induce remission in patients with Crohn's disease.

METHODS:
We studied 21 patients (mean age, 40 ± 14 y; 13 men) with Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores greater than 200 who did not respond to therapy with steroids, immunomodulators, or anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents. Patients were assigned randomly to groups given cannabis, twice daily, in the form of cigarettes containing 115 mg of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or placebo containing cannabis flowers from which the THC had been extracted. Disease activity and laboratory tests were assessed during 8 weeks of treatment and 2 weeks thereafter.

RESULTS:
Complete remission (CDAI score, <150) was achieved by 5 of 11 subjects in the cannabis group (45%) and 1 of 10 in the placebo group (10%; P = .43). A clinical response (decrease in CDAI score of >100) was observed in 10 of 11 subjects in the cannabis group (90%; from 330 ± 105 to 152 ± 109) and 4 of 10 in the placebo group (40%; from 373 ± 94 to 306 ± 143; P = .028). Three patients in the cannabis group were weaned from steroid dependency. Subjects receiving cannabis reported improved appetite and sleep, with no significant side effects.

CONCLUSIONS:
Although the primary end point of the study (induction of remission) was not achieved, a short course (8 weeks) of THC-rich cannabis produced significant clinical, steroid-free benefits to 10 of 11 patients with active Crohn's disease, compared with placebo, without side effects. Further studies, with larger patient groups and a nonsmoking mode of intake, are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01040910.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23648372

I'll admit that the sample group is small, but the results are very promising. The FDA saying marijuana has no medicinal value in the face of studies like this means they are either incompetent or subject to influence by the pharmaceutical industry.

Back on track: I don't think anyone could honestly say that laws intended to be used to prevent discrimination (in Canada is illegal to discriminate against any identifiable minority) don't do some good, however, they should do more good than bad. I would be interested to see a study on the people who have benefited from this law and those that have been harmed by it (drive-by lawsuits). There certainly does appear to be some work needed in that regards; for instance, requiring proof that someone was actually discriminated against, rather than someone just showing up and measuring things and someone who has an impairment filing a lawsuit.

 

[ADAguy]

"Harm" a four letter word meaning __________? Degree of harm suffered?
ADA says based on ability to pay and no more. It is the "no more" that most are unable to pay vs doing the barrier removal.