Slashdot Mirror
Prenda's Old Copyright Trolls Are Suing People Again
New submitter Hokan writes: Paul Hansmeier and John Steele, formerly of Prenda, are suing again. Each have started nonprofits, in Minnesota and Illinois, claiming to defend disabled people, and they are suing small businesses for ADA violations. You may recall that a District Court judge issued sanctions against Prenda for their attempts to file copyright suits against a broad swath of internet users. Their new practices take a similar tack: sue a small business and generously offer to collect a settlement somewhat lower than the amount it would cost to to make changes to their establishment. A new group is fighting back by creating "an access audit for local businesses, allowing them to develop a plan to fix ADA issues and potentially to ward off litigation."
They are due for being disbarred.
...most websites are an accessibility nightmare.
A friend of mine used to own a business in CA, and his place got stung by a lawyer for a faceless handicapped person who demanded $10,000 in fees because the slope for a ramp was just a hair off the 1:12 (one foot for every inch drop), the door closer was "too heavy" (even though there was a push button to open it), and some other tiny details, such as not having a handicapped shower open to the public.
He paid the fees, then got stung again a year later because even though he had plenty of handicapped parking, there was an issue about at least two handcapped vans have to be able to open their ramps out at the same time... and he only had one handicapped spot with 4-6 feet to the side of it for that. So, the lawyer was demanding another 100 C-notes.
He closed up shop, and now has an antique shop in rural Texas, and making far better cash there.
Their new practices take a similar tack: sue a small business and generously offer to collect a settlement somewhat lower than the amount it would cost to to make changes to their establishment.
Whether you agree or disagree with the ADA, how does it make any sense to settle? The business is still in non-compliance, paying a random lawyer doesn't change that fact, some other random lawyer (or the government itself) can still step in and sue the business, and the cycle repeats, right? Am I missing something as to why it would ever make sense to simply pay off the crummy lawyer instead of making the required changes?
http://popehat.com/2009/01/06/...
And decided to make a factory out of his one-man operation.
Hey, maybe he'll sue them for infringing on his copyrighted business model.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
“The lawsuits will stop when there is no more access crime to prosecute,” he said by e-mail. Many businesses “fail to understand that we are now a zero tolerance state.”
FACEPALM
It gets worse
"He cited the state Human Rights Act, which, unlike the ADA, gives plaintiffs the authority to file a criminal misdemeanor charge, punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, or both."
90 days in jail. Woohoo
Let's see if I get this straight;
They find some (minor) ADA violation, sue the company and offer a cheaper settlement.
Now the company no longer has to fix the ADA violation and can't get sued for it again?
Just trying to figure out exactly how many parties are getting screwed by these "lawyers".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The ADA was created as a racket for lawyers to squeeze money out of small businesses. There's no way for people to really comply with the ADA as everyone has their own special illness what requires special provisions that no human could possibility satisfy all of them. This is closed as working as designed.
If you pass sledgehammer legislation like the ADA, common sense behavior gets replaced with lawyering and bad things happen. And the people who passed the legislation in the first place say that their intentions were good, blame lawyers and blame the people who opposed the legislation in the first place, and finally call for more legislation to fix the problems that the first legislation caused.
This is the result:
https://regulatorystudies.colu...
A dose of "Social Justice" irony never hurt anyone... on the contrary, may save society from stupid laws.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
... would seem to be extortionate.
I wish I could remember the case that I'm thinking of more clearly, but the behaviour was similar. I'll try to post it if I can catch a break long enough to permit me to search.
P. S. These are members of the Bar? Good heavens.
Here is an article on this practice from 2013: http://www.cairncross.com/eatdrinkshopstay/look-out-for-drive-by-ada-lawsuits-are-you-ready/
What they are doing is well within the regulations preventing ambulance chasing. Those are ethics violations. There is actually a good amount of flexibility in what an attorney can be disbarred for in almost every State. The issue is really getting the action started. This one, pulled at random, says (pardon the formatting, I'm lazy but you have the original link).
(1) His or her conviction of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, in which case the record of conviction shall be conclusive evidence.
(2) Willful disobedience or violation of an order of the court requiring him or her to do or forbear an act connected with, or in the course of, his or her profession, which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear.
(3) Violation of his or her oath as an attorney, or of his or her duties as an attorney and counselor.
(4) Corruptly or willfully, and without authority, appearing as attorney for a party to an action or proceeding.
(5) Lending his or her name to be used as attorney and counselor by another person who is not an attorney and counselor.
(6) For the commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, whether the same be committed in the course of his or her relations as an attorney or counselor at law, or otherwise, and whether the same constitute a felony or misdemeanor or not; and if the act constitute a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding shall not be a condition precedent to disbarment or suspension from practice therefor.
(7) Misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact made in his or her application for admission or in support thereof.
(8) Disbarment by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction.
(9) Practicing law with or in cooperation with a disbarred or suspended attorney, or maintaining an office for the practice of law in a room or office occupied or used in whole or in part by a disbarred or suspended attorney, or permitting a disbarred or suspended attorney to use his or her name for the practice of law, or practicing law for or on behalf of a disbarred or suspended attorney, or practicing law under any arrangement or understanding for division of fees or compensation of any kind with a disbarred or suspended attorney or with any person not a licensed attorney.
(10) Gross incompetency in the practice of the profession.
(11) Violation of the ethics of the profession.
Items 10 and 11 are why attorneys don't pursue cases of people spitting on sidewalks even such a Law exists. They are also the reason that attorneys have been disbarred for "ambulance chasing". It may be hard to get things started because attorneys starting these always fear retribution (and some of the pot calling the kettle black).
Further, if they are not actually filing court cases and just settling things out of court.. the Police could arrest them for blackmail and press charges. The charges alone could surely result in them being disbarred.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Unlike a copyright claim that only has one potential plaintiff, EVERY disabled person in America is a potential plaintiff, as well as your state's Attorney General and the US Attorney General.
Plus, once you've been sued, you can no longer claim ignorance if someone else sues you over the same issue later.
The only proper response is to say "thank you for informing us of the problem" and if there is an actual violation, fix it or find some legal work-around (You have excess bathrooms that aren't ADA-compliant? Close them down. Is there a way to apply for a waiver? Apply. Etc. etc.). But do not pay the dane-geld or you will never get rid of the "Dane".
Oh, and yes, these guys should be disbarred for offering to settle a claim when they know good and well they cannot speak for all potential plaintiffs AND they know good and well that if a settlement is reached, it will at least temporarily defeat the purpose and intent of the law.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Is this ADA-helpful new company related to Paul Hansmeier and John Steele? That would make sense.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
In the case of the BSA, you can easily identify all legitimate plaintiffs - there is usually only 1 per possible violation - and it or they can authorize the BSA to act on its behalf.
Even if every ADA-advocacy-group signed on with Prenda, Prenda could still not speak for individuals who were not members of these groups, and it could not speak for those who were members of the groups unless the individuals had authorized the groups to act as their legal representatives in such cases.
In short, Prenda is saying "settle with us" without saying "but oh by the way there are millions of potential plaintiffs out there who can sue you over this same issue tomorrow."
If that isn't worthy of sanctions by the state bar associations, it should be.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Our org got hit with an ADA lawsuit recently. Our group's focus is on the web side of the lawsuit, although it encompasses many other aspects. One problem is that there are no hard-and-fast rules for what an "ADA-compliant" website is.
For one, the visual-impaired assisting "reading" software is all different. Each brand reads HTML/CSS/JavaScript differently. In theory they shouldn't need to read JavaScript-generated content, but in practice they sometimes do. And building a website without reliance on JavaScript can be really tricky and limiting. If we need to accommodate all brands of reading software, we are truly F'd and might as well file bankruptcy now.
And whether an image is merely "decorative" or "informative" is fuzzy and subject to interpretation. We are starting to toss images altogether so that we don't have that risk. But our web content is growing bland, making us "look" bad to normal readers.
And we have boatloads of content that needs to be redone.
Where's the Tums! I should sue the ADA lawyers for not being "stomach friendly". Indigestion is a disability.
Table-ized A.I.
Start filing suits against them for every little thing that is a violation and don't settle. Bury them in paperwork. This image on your website doesn't have an alt tag so it doesn't comply with ADA. Lawsuit. The fluorescent lights in your office flicker and cause me migraines. Another lawsuit. Anything and everything you can think of.
Blue- and red-pixels adjacent or lined up on top of each other? Unless we are looking at them straight on, those get cross-ways and overlap or no longer line up for those of us wearing thick glasses. Not only can this cause distractions and headaches, but in some cases like a poorly-done bar chart it can actually lead to me reading the bar chart differently than a person with thinner glasses, contacts, or 20/20 vision.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This sort of abuse is rampant with the ADA. It's designed to be abused because it allows private parties to sue in a weird not quite Qui Tam type lawsuit to get people to fix up their buildings. In fact, there are disabled people who make a living by parasitically going from store to store suing the Hell out of small businesses like this.
Is greater accessibility good? Yeah, but it should be brought about through tax credits and government officials initiating action. The money recovered should go into coffers to fund tax credits for businesses that want/need help complying, not lining some disabled, lawyer-loving parasite's wallet or writing a private attorney's paycheck.
Suing businesses for ADA non-compliance is a years old, very successful lawyer scam and none are ever disbarred! Please, let someone come up with actual instances where they have, I would love to hear about them. Remember, the fundamental purpose of the American legal system to keep lawyers wealthy, and judges are nothing but lawyers in robes. Just as dishonest.
I can just see these Predna scumweasels sitting down to lunch with a notebook and saying, "Shakedown ideas, go!"
...
"Ok, copyright. Got it. Patent? No we'd have to understand science stuff. Asbestos claims? Oversaturated. Same for good ol ambulance chasing. We could run the Nigerian prince scam... yeah put that in the maybe column. What about an actual, old school mafia protection racket? Too messy, plus we look like chodes, no one's going to be scared of us."
"Well the bathroom here has a handrail that's a half inch shorter than the Americans With Disabilities Act requires..."
Nothing posted to
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04...
Disabilities Act Prompts Flood of Suits Some Cite as Unfair
By MOSI SECRET
New York Times
APRIL 16, 2012
The lawyers are generally not acting on existing complaints from people with disabilities. Instead, they identify local businesses, like bagel shops and delis, that are not in compliance with the law, and then aggressively recruit plaintiffs from advocacy groups for people with disabilities.
The plaintiffs typically collect $500 for each suit, and each plaintiff can be used several times over. The lawyers, meanwhile, make several thousands of dollars, because the civil rights law entitles them to legal fees from the noncompliant businesses. ...
All of those suits were filed by Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, a lawyer based in Florida, who has a regular group of people with disabilities from whom he selects plaintiffs. One of them, Todd Kreisler, a man in a wheelchair who lives on the East Side of Manhattan, sued 19 businesses over 16 months — a Chinese restaurant, a liquor store and a sandwich shop among them. ...
Mr. Weitz is leading the charge into New York’s courtrooms. Since October 2009, he has sued almost 200 businesses in the state, mostly in Federal District Court in Manhattan. He has eight years of experience filing these suits in Florida, where his practice does not seem to be lagging. Two weeks ago, he brought claims against four Tampa businesses — a strip mall, a convenience store, a bar and a print shop.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03...
Judge Rebukes 2 Lawyers Profiting From U.S. Disability Law
By MOSI SECRET
MARCH 29, 2013
Now a Brooklyn federal court judge has ruled squarely against two lawyers who bring most of such lawsuits in New York, writing in a cutting opinion on Thursday that their tactics lacked expertise, possibly violated the rules of professional conduct and were “disingenuous at best.” The judge, Sterling Johnson Jr., denied them legal fees and took the rare step of ordering them to stop filing such cases. ...
Though such arrangements have typically been shielded by confidentiality agreements, Judge Johnson revealed how much money the lawyers — Adam Shore and B. Bradley Weitz — claimed in fees, typically $425 per hour for a total of $15,000 per case even though the cases were so similar that he described them as boilerplate. The two lawyers had filed as many as 10 cases in a single day.
Kill all the lawyers. The world would be a better place without them.
The business owners should simply refuse to comply with the court. The second amendment exists for a reason and it isn't for shooting ducks. It is their property and they have the right to construct it as they see fit without violence from the state.
Remember, kids, we do not have a justice system. We have a legal system.
If only one or the other (or both) of them were actually disabled. Wink wink nudge nudge.
All state legislatures and senates must follow an "every voter is equal" rule. In the old days before either Congress changed things or the Supreme Court told the states "you are doing it wrong according to the federal constitution" many states did have state senators that represented people by something other than "equal-population" districts.
Not any more. Not even in Texas.
WHY are these asshole not in prison yet. The last judge they were before said they were running a crooked extortion operation. Doesn't the government have enough evidence on these two to lock them up and throw away the key?
Steele/Hansmeier, in both copyright trolling and in ADA-trolling, are exploiting the most basic flaw in the court system: It is set up so the richer party has the advantage. If an individual or a small business could have its case fully heard by a court without having to spend oodles of money, the trolls would be out of business.