The Government Should Not Increase Taxes To Enforce Access Laws For People With Disabilities - Those That Violate The Access Laws Should Pay For The Cost Of Enforcement.

Mr. Bruce Maiman wants to pay more taxes for a government body to enforce the access laws.  He believes allowing people with disabilities to sue to enforce the access laws tend to promote financial greed.  

Access laws require government and businesses to provide full and equal access to people with disabilities.  Access means access to programs, services and facilities. As to access to facilities, there are accessibility codes, which must be followed.  A government body or private lawsuit does enforcement of the access laws.  

Let's examine the United States and Philippine Access enforcement systems.

In the USA the attorney general or a private person may sue for access compliance.  In the USA the federal access law is called the Americans With Disabilities Act.  In 1992 the Philippine passed its access law called the Magna Carta.  The Magna Carta is almost the same as ADA but there is only government enforcement.  Most places where the wealthy or foreigners like me go are accessible in the Philippines.   However, most places for common folks are not accessible.  A person may complain to a government body but no action will be taken.  

In contrast, in the USA a person may file a complaint with the federal or state attorney general. The attorney general reviews the complaint for substantial public importance and to determine if its budget allows for it to take the case. Most of the time the attorney general sends a letter to the person stating it cannot take the case and recommends the person hire a lawyer.

The sole reason private lawyers take cases is to earn fees. The ADA says if a lawyer wins a case the business must pay the lawyer.   Good or bad motives have very little to do with a law practice. For the lawyer there are two questions: 1. Is the case strong? 2. How to get paid.  The US Department of Justice has stated that the only practical way to enforce ADA is through private lawsuits.  Why? Most businesses violate the access laws.  The Government would need more than the defense budget to enforce ADA.

So do we want increased taxes to enforce the access laws?  Do we want the Philippine do nothing model?   Or do want the greedy lawyer model?  Of course, we want to live in a perfect society where businesses follow the access laws.

I don't think a taxpayer should pay anything just because a business violates the access laws. The business should pay for the civil wrong. The access laws are not a public health and safety concern. The access laws are not a criminal concern. The access laws are a civil rights concern. Some civil rights are a public concern such as access to an airport.  However, most civil rights are an individual concern such as a person in a wheelchair cannot access his local drug store. Why should the taxpayer pay for access enforcement in this case?  In a free society it is up to the individual to enforce their rights through the courts.   This is not the burden of taxpayers.  

Department of Justice says private lawsuits are only real way to enforce ADA so Bruce most taxes argument is wrong

On this point, the US DOJ submitted an amicus brief in one of the ADA lawsuits holding that private enforcement is the only practical method of enforcement.  So, even if the DOJ had the money, they would enforce it more than they already do.

Bruce's Reply To Second Opinion - Bruce wants to raise taxes for ADA Enforcement and Stop lawyers from suing

Look, now you're being a nuisance by trying to win an argument. This is not a cross, so stop lawyering.

"First you asked why do businesses fail to fix the problem after being sued."

   No, I never asked that question.

"You should research the law of remedies for civil wrongs."

   You should learn not to lecture people. It's rude.

"Going back 200 years the main remedies for a civil wrong is money."

   Abuse of the recourse is unacceptable. The legal profession does little to address it. Until they do, they can't complain about a public that holds it in contempt.

"The truth is the businesses violate the agreement and they get sued again."

   Maybe it's because they resent lawyers who are perceived to be motivated only by the easy money of a lawsuit.

"Kindly, give me a case where a lawyer failed to get a businesS to agree to access compliance."

   Yuba City, to begin with. That's why they paid the blackmail fee of $15,000, to make the threat of litigation go away. Until perhaps, the next attorney shows up.

   Extortion is not a public business. Someone waves a threat in the face of an individual because the handicapped sticker is an inch too low. The business owner pays him off, he goes away, the stick is unchanged. You're going to tell me this doesn't happen? Try beating the bushes and talking to extorted businesses before you make such a statement.

"You failed to analyze my second email."

   Not really. I just wasn't interested in continuing the conversation. You seem only to be motivated by a conclusion that says, "You're right and everyone else is wrong." I don't care to converse with people lacking the humility required to say, yes, there are lots of examples of where my profession can really suck and something should be done to remedy that.

"you willing to pay more taxes for access enforcement or do you want businesses to pay legal fees for failing to comply."

   Consider how bad it is for the legal profession when, in this Hobson's Choice, one is impelled to choose the government over lawyers. Yes, I would gladly allocate tax dollars to a regulatory agency to keep lawyers out of the process given that the legal profession is pathetic, embarrassing and unconscionable when it comes to regulating itself. If even ONE attorney is carrying out extortionist behavior, that's one too many.

My position on a very specific matter is firm and, I'm convinced, completely justified. Predatory practitioners have no business filing lawsuits and must be exorcised from the legal profession. Until the profession does this, you're going to find yourself on the losing end of a public relations battle on a permanent basis. You are not liked. Only you can fix that.

Second Opinion in response to Bruce Anti-ADA Argument

Let me address your responses to my emails. First you asked why do businesses fail to fix the problem after being sued. You should research the law of remedies for civil wrongs. Going back 200 years the main remedies for a civil wrong is money. The other remedy is called specific performance - ordering a person or business to do an act or not to an act. The courts disfavor specific performance because it is hard to enforce. Access compliance is a specifiC performance remedy. Therefore, lawyers are not require to obtain access compliance. However, I know most of the lawyers and I know that they have access compliance in all settlement agreements. The truth is the businesses violate the agreement and they get sued again. Kindly, give me a case where a lawyer failed to get a businesS to agree to access compliance. 

Second, you state "I don't agree with you.". You failed to analyze my second email. You state there should be a government body to enforce the laws. Actually there two - the U.S. Department of Justice and the state attorney general. These bodies need more tax funds to increase access enforcement. So are you willing to pay more taxes for access enforcement or do you want businesses to pay legal fees for failing to comply. The politicians decided not to increase taxes for government enforcement. Your arguments are emotional and don't addRess how to get businesses to comply without lawyers or how the government body can enforce access lAws wiThout a tax hike. Please respond with sound reasoning based on facts in light of the reluctance of the public to pay more taxes.

Bruce's Reply as to Opinion 1

I don't agree with you.

Reply to Bruce's Response

In the United States and in many nations there are civil rights laws for people with disabilities.  But these laws are not followed unless a fine is imposed.  For example, in the United States the “fine” is a private lawsuit by a person with a disability to enforce the laws.  Businesses say lawyers are profiting off of the disabled. So why is it acceptable for a business to profit off of the public but it is bad for a lawyer to profit from disability civil rights lawsuits.

Lesson 3 of the Law of Success on Self-Confidence answers the question.  When you assert a civil right you are exercising self-confidence.  A civil right means equal opportunity and treatment, not special treatment.  However, many believe people with disabilities need special treatment.  Special treatment kills self-confidence.

In general, where does the lack of self-confidence come from in people with disabilities and their families?

Nature

In the jungle or on the farm people had to use their bodies to work.  The stronger person was more important.  The weaker person was a burden. People who were disabled were weaker and were left to die.

Social

When a child is born her mind is plastic, open, clean and free. Those that control the child teach him their superstitions, beliefs, legends and ideas. The beliefs about disability come from ancient teachings to throw away disabled animals. So disabled people were thrown away. After a while the disabled were allowed to live but in ancient text they are they beggars, and require pity and healing. Pity is the main reason for the idea of donations. So disabled people are taught to seek pity. The non-disabled are taught to give pity. When a person becomes disabled they already have the pity belief.  The pity belief says to you "you can't".  This "you can't" belief is why people fear disability from early childhood.  This is why most disabled do not start a business because they fear they cannot do it. This fear is from the pity belief.  

So lawyers who care for the “disabled” should represent them for free. The government should enforce disability civil rights laws for free.  Businesses should be given multiple chances to follow the laws without a fine.  All these ideas come from the pity belief.   Some people with disabilities buy into the pity belief because they lack self-confidence - they want free government enforcement, they frown upon lawsuits, they want a free handout. All other people enforce their civil rights by protests, voting, lobbying and lawsuits.  People with disabilities need the self-confidence to do the same.

Bruce's response to opinion 1

Rapacious lawyers out to make a buck rather than insuring compliance by businesses is no way to enforce the law. Lawyers like this don't care about the law or the disabled. Be honest and admit that some in the profession are a shame to the profession. The profession should clean up its act.If you really want to do something for the handicapped, explain to me why lawyers make threats, get paid off, and the problem at the place of business remains.

Response To Anti-ADA Opinion 1

It very disheartening to realize that folks do not know the history behind why ADA lawsuits are allowed. In 1971, the Urban Mass Transit Act  was passed to  make buses accessible without any private enforcement. The Act was ignored. Also, in 1970's we had the tax revolt.  The voters wanted lower taxes and less government.  The government does not have the money to enforce all of the laws.  Therefore, the private lawsuits was created which allowed the party that won to receive the attorney's fees from the other party. Greed, money and self-interests  of lawyers was found as a way of reducing big government enforcement.  Self-interest and incentives runs the private sector not altruistic deeds. The underlining problem is businesses fail to comply with ADA and not the greedy  lawyers that feast on disputes and fees. Further, the government does not have the tax funding to  enforce ADA.   Stopping blaming lawyers from making money from legal disputes. Stop blaming people with disabilities from asserting their rights. Be  real - the government cannot afford to enforce ADA because we, the people, do not want more taxes.

Anti-ADA Opinion By Bruce: Bruce Maiman is a former radio show host who lives in Rocklin. Reach him at brucemaiman@gmail.com.

Since its passage in 1990, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act has gone from a well-intended idea to an abused one to a tool for wholesale extortion.

Last week, Yuba City agreed to pay $15,000 to George Louie, a West Sacramento man who "has sued hundreds of Northern California cities and businesses for failing to comply with the ADA," The Bee reported.

Recently passed bipartisan legislation was supposed to constrain lawyers like Louie. Signed into law in September, Senate Bill 1186 barred so-called "demand letters," missives sent to businesses by plaintiffs demanding money in exchange for not filing suit over potential ADA violations.

Until last month, California was one of only three states allowing demand letters. I doubt the ban will impede the ambulance-chasing.

Forty percent of all ADA lawsuits are filed in California. The San Diego-based Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse calculates that roughly 1,000 ADA suits are filed annually in the state's federal courts. Hundreds more are filed in state courts, and even some in small-claims divisions.

The lawyers group conservatively estimates that such suits cost California businesses $20 million each year.

With lawyers using disabled people like sock puppets – Louie works with the Cable Gallagher law firm in Folsom – Yuba City's decision demonstrates that you don't need simple demand letters to cash in. A little more time and money spent drafting and filing a lawsuit assures an easy payday.

What's to stop a different law firm and their disabled confederates from filing suit? Attorneys are only too willing to enable a cottage industry casting about for violations and then suing. Los Angeles-based Morse Mehrban asks potential clients on his website, "Confined to a wheelchair in California? You may be entitled to $4,000 each time you can't use something at a business because of your disability."

For unsuspecting businesses, "each time" is like legal Whack-a-Mole. ADA regulations contain a hellish thicket of requirements governing nearly every aspect of designing, building, stocking and running anything that can be construed as a public accommodation: a parking lot with blue-striped access lanes narrower than 8 feet, a threshold too high for a wheelchair, a condiments counter a half-inch over compliance, a public restroom with a coat hook beyond reach.

Don't laugh. One man, Thomas Mundy, filed all those complaints, as chronicled in a 2009 Los Angeles Times profile. Divorced and jobless, Mundy became a serial litigant and made an estimated $300,000 in little over a year, not by sending demand letters but by filing lawsuits – over 150 of them – through his attorney, Morse Mehrban.

Often, ADA violations are the unintended work of third-party architects and contractors rather than property owners. There's no guaranteed protection even when local government declares you in compliance.

Sacramento County inspectors had certified the Basketball Town community center in Rancho Cordova as ADA compliant because the same amenities were available both upstairs and down. Yet, a wheelchair-confined man sued in 2006 because there was no access to the upper level. He wanted an elevator installed. Unable to afford the installation costs, the facility closed.

The man's attorney said this was never his client's intention, but here's what he told The Bee: "All they have to do is agree to put in a lift so that disabled people can use (the facility) just the same as everyone else, and we'll be happy to talk about settlement."

Why should he get a settlement? If all they have to do is put in an elevator, they can put in an elevator and his work is done. He shouldn't get a dime.

If these morally bankrupt legal contortionists really cared about the disabled, their goal would be securing equal access for the physically or mentally disabled, not cash-inducing shakedown lawsuits.

This is what happens when good intentions get in the hands of bad people. This not only gives the legal profession a bad name, it gives the disabled a bad name.

Solutions? Perhaps. How about no contingency fees based on ADA awards? That way, attorneys won't have incentive to abuse the law for money because they'll always be getting a set fee from clients. Or use some of that $20 million made annually in ADA lawsuits to fund construction projects that get businesses compliant. You'd do that if you really cared about the handicapped, no?

Limit the damage awards only to victims who suffer actual physical harm, and limit the damages themselves to paying medical bills.

Enforce compliance through a government agency, not the courts. Granted, there's little love for another government bureaucracy, but leaving enforcement to profit-seekers in a hopelessly flawed legal system is arbitrary, capricious and unconscionable.

Sorry, the joke about the lawyer at the bottom of the ocean isn't an option.