I previously posted Part I in my new series on The Florida Bar’s pervasive Autism bullying and Autism discrimination, officially through itself and more widely through the Florida lawyers it licenses. As mentioned, I was forced to post my series in reverse order, due to the Autism hacking and hackers having been caught hacking my Internet firewall Security Key to prevent me from publicizing my posts about Autism discrimination and bullying that affects not only myself as an adult with Autism but the entire Autism community.
This is part II, concerning the e-mail public records response I received this morning from Jenny Jolinski JJolinski@flabar.org, public records custodian for The Florida Bar that serves under Federal Rules of Evidence as a declaration against interest (ADMISSION) by The Florida Bar that, despite the trade guild’s mission of “administration of Justice” and requirement that every Florida lawyer take an Oath to uphold the federal civil rights laws and United States Constitution Bill of Rights, The Florida Bar is NOT requiring specific Autism education and training and Title II Americans With Disabilities Act specific Autism disability training of the lawyers it licenses in Florida.
The Florida Bar record’s custodian was responding to a public records request I made concerning the specific Autism developmental disability education and training of Amanda Heystek, Esq., FBN 285020, who is the plaintiff class lawyer purporting to represent all developmentally disabled people in Florida including those of us with an Autism diagnosis who are entitled under Florida law to be receiving Medicaid and wait list services under the Olmstead mandate (Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 598 (1999)) -- Florida lawyer Amanda Heystek is representing the plaintiff class and Disability Rights Florida Org. in the Dykes v. Dudek, N.D. Fla. Case 4:11-cv-00116-SPM -WCS lawsuit in Tallahassee seeking a remedy for funding Florida’s Medicaid wait list.
When I initially approached Florida Bar-licensed lawyer Heystek, she gave me written e-mail admissions and admissions by act or conduct that she had NO recent specific Autism developmental disability education or training, and displayed COMPLETE IGNORANCE that people with severe non-verbal Autism frequently cannot use telephones or black & white paper print in small fonts, complex language, or forms.
Specifically, Heystek apparently had NO knowledge of the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ findings that the plaintiffs in Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions, Ltd., No. 01-11197 (11th Cir. 2002), were screened out by an automated telephone system, rather than by an admission policy administered at the studio door, was of no consequence under the statute; “eligibility criteria are frequently implemented off site-for example, through the mail or over the telephone. Indeed, Congress specifically noted in the ADA’s ‘findings of fact’ that ‘individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers,’ the very sorts of discrimination the statute seeks to redress. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5) (emphasis added),” Id. (citing Ferguson v. City of Phoenix, 157 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 1998) (discriminatory 9-1-1 emergency response system)).
When I attempted to explain to Ms. Heystek that many severely Autistic people including myself use AAC computer Internet communication devices, PECS, iPads and similar alternative communication systems, she could not understand the alternative communications format concept, or that the way she framed the lawsuit purportedly representing me as a class member entitled to receive such Medicaid and wait list services under Florida law deliberately and intentionally violated Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act by leaving out thousands of us – including myself, people with severe Autism being systematically denied meaningful access to Florida’s Medicaid wait list. She instead engaged in a Neuro-typical social-norming exclusion behavior and demonstrated a woeful lack of training to handle Autism behaviors with a severely Autistic person (myself) she was required by law to be HELPING not excluding.
Title II of the ADA requires public entities to: (1) “make reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices;” (2) “remov[e] … architectural, communication, or transportation barriers;” and (3) “provi[de] auxiliary aids and services” so as to enable disabled persons to participate in programs, services, or activities. See, 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). Consistent with these principles, in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985), the Supreme Court established that a “public entity” must do more than merely provide access to the benefits that it offers. Instead, a “qualified individual with a disability” must be provided with meaningful access to the benefit that the public entity offers. Id., at 301. This entire well settled Title II Americans With Disabilities Act law governing meaningful access, that also applied to Florida’s Medicaid wait list services, was entirely LOST on Ms. Heystek – she did not appear to have the cognitive capacity to comprehend the extent or neurological nature of severe Autism language - communication barriers affected by appx. 500 genes differently expressed in the frontal and temporal lobes of her plaintiff clients with Autism including myself.
When I questioned Ms. Heystek further, she made the material representation to me that she had Florida Bar CLEs specific to Autism and the Americans With Disabilities Act sufficiently to make her competent to represent the plaintiff severe Autism class that included myself under Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.1. At that point, I KNEW there was a severe Autism developmental disability access problem. (I had previously obtained public records responses from the Florida Bar under Florida’s open-Government laws whereby Florida Bar records custodians previously ADMITTED The Florida Bar does NOT offer or provide the lawyers it licenses in Florida to undertake SPECIFIC Autism and Title II Americans With Disabilities Act education or training.)
As a result of the material representation made to me by Ms. Heystek contradicting The Florida Bar’s written public records response to me at the same time she could not seem to (or was unwilling to) understand Autism, I exercised my legal right to inquire of The Florida Bar records custodian for Ms. Heystek’s CLE (Continuing Legal Education) record qualifying her to undertake representation of a plaintiff class suing Florida’s developmental disability Medicaid wait list officials that included class members with severe non-verbal Autism who have systematically been denied ALL meaningful access to get themselves on the wait list such as myself.
In response to exercising my LEGAL RIGHT to obtain the specific Autism education and training of the Lawyer representing severely Autistic people including MYSELF who are not only not getting Florida Medicaid wait list services but being deliberately denied meaningful access for YEARS to be ON the wait list, Amanda Heystek’s supervisors at Florida Disability Rights Organization, through Maryellen Mcdonald, viciously retaliated against me in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12203(a) & (b), -- the Americans With Disabilities Act prohibition against retaliation, trying to intimidate and coerce me to drop me right to be in the plaintiff class to get meaningful access to Autism developmental disability services to which I am entitled, indicative they did not want to inform the Federal Judge assigned to the Dykes case that there are potentially THOUSANDS of VICTIMS with Autism developmental disabilities being deliberately denied all meaningful access to Florida’s Medicaid wait list services.
On a Neuro-tyical neurological level, this resistance by Ms. Heystak can be understood as not wanting to encounter the stigma and unpopularity of having to sue the state of Florida during its budget-cut frenzy for potentially millions or billions of dollars of unfunded Autism supports and services the Title II Americans With Disabilities Act unfunded federal mandate on the state of Florida REQUIRES it to fully and promptly fund. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1503(a) & (b). Nevertheless, it constitutes discrimination against the very disabled people she is purporting to represent !~!!! Every lawyer is taught in LAW SCHOOL that undertaking to enforce civil rights may be an unpopular cause - However, it is NOT an excuse or defense to Discriminate against the most vulnerable peopel with severe Autism !
(See recent Yale South Korean Autism study findings the Autism rate is 1 in 38 people in the population (http://ghi.yale.edu/study-shows-high-autism-rates-s-korea); and COMPARE to Florida’s 2011 population of 18,800,000 people (http://www.nbc-2.com/story/14271770/2011/03/17/florida-population-grows-to-18-million?redirected=true), vs. the woeful appx. 20,000 wait list person undercount alleged by Ms. Heystek in Dykes resulting from Title II Americans With Disabilities Act Autism disability language-communication meaningful access barriers and inability to fill forms --> by CALCULATION, given an 18,800,000 population with a 1 in 38 people Autism rate = 494,736 people SHOULD be on Florida's developmental disabilities Medicaid wait list in the class of plaintiffs alleged by Ms. Heystek in the Dykes case); See also Clarkson v. Coughlin, 4 A.D. Cases 1056 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (public entities have an affirmative duty to implement a method of reception and classification for individuals with disabilities to ensure that no such individual will be deprive of timely and effective necessary reasonable accommodations). And see, Weixel v. Bd. Of Educ. Of New York City, 287 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2002) (prohibiting unlawful retaliation against people for seeking to exercise their ADA civil rights; Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003) (same)).
The concept of discrimination under Title II is “more comprehensive” than the “traditionally recognized categories of intentional and disparate impact discrimination;” “…Title II imposes affirmative obligations on public entities and does not merely require than to refrain from intentionally discriminating against the disabled.” Ability Center, Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901, 910 (6th Cir. 2004). The regulations adopted pursuant to Congressional directive, 42 U.S.C. §12134, are plain and controlling, 28 C.F.R. §35.130(a), (b)(vii), (b)(3)(i), prohibiting The Florida Bar, Florida lawyers including Amanda Heystek, Disability Rights Organization, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Florida Agency for Persons with Disabilities, Florida administrative hearings and administrative law judges, and officials from “[o]therwise limit[ing] a qualified individual with a disability in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefits, or service.” The failure to provide reasonable accommodations … constitutes discrimination under the ADA. Pritchard v. Southern Company Services, No.95-6312 at n.5 (11th Cir. 1996).
Incredibly, Ms. Heystek and Disability Rights Florida Org. even appeared Ignorant of the fact that at least one administrative law judge who decided an Autism developmental disability Medicaid wait list case, Eleanor Hunter, admitted with all present on public record at a December 2006 Florida Supreme Court Public Hearings On Fairness & Diversity that they had NO Title II Americans With Disabilities Act or Autism training and had never even bothered to read Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). Significantly, Eleanor Hunter was former Executive Director of the Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners while she discriminated THERE in the Florida attorney licensing qualifications process against people with Autism including myself. So much for the lawyers purporting to represent the plaintiff class in Dykes diligently investigating the facts of their Autism Medicaid wait list case.
Finally, I got my husband, a Florida Bar member to intervene with Ms. Heystak and Disability Rights Florida Org., to explain that when they bullied me they were retaliating in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and had a duty to inform the Federal Judge in Dykes the REAL Autism developmental disability numbers both on and off (as a result of unlawful Title II Americans With DIsabilities Act exclusion) Florida’s Medicaid wait list who are not getting services; ultimately, they relented, told us I was part of the plaintiff class, and sent him an Autism-inaccessible application Questionnaire form to fill out containing a Question overtly in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act designed to exclude the far more severely Autistic developmentally disabled people from being in the plaintiff class by requiring the person to state they were able to access the wait list process in order to receive ACCESS in the first place (an Autism Access non-sequitur). See Ellen S. v. Fla. Bd. of Bar Examiners, 859 F.Supp. 1489 (S.D.Fla. 1994) (discrimination under Title II of the ADA need not be intentional nor need there even be a showing of discriminatory intent, and even an application question can discriminate against a person with a disability in violation of Title II of the ADA).
Meanwhile, while we are trying to address those matters, this morning I received the following public records response to my inquiry for Amanda Heystek’s specific Autism education and training that qualified her as “competent” under Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.1 to undertake representation of the plaintiff class in the Dykes case that is required by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act to include even the most severely non-verbal people with Autism developmental disabilities.
It is both Shocking and Appalling that with the Epidemic numbers of Autism bullying events such as the child being voted out of Kindergarden, Autism service dogs being denied entrance to classes, and physical violence being perpetrated against people with Autism in Florida EVERY DAY, that The Florida Bar would NOT be making it a MANDATORY LICENSING REQUIREMENT TO ACHIEVE AND KEEP A LAWYER LICENSE for each and EVERY Florida lawyer to undertake specific Autism and Title II Americans With Disabilities Act Autism disability-specific education and training.
FLORIDA BAR’S RESPONSE (THAT GAVE RISE TO MY REPLY POSTED IN PART I)
Jenny Jolinski JJolinski@flabar.org, public records custodian for The Florida Bar wrote me in her e-mail of this morning, “My responses follow each request.
1.) All CLEs for Amanda Heystek, FBN 285020 in Autism, Autism genetics, Autism epigenetics, Brain Injury, Vaccine Injury, Title II ADA, ADA, Sec. 504, Language Interpreters, and
* * *
The Bar's continuing legal education (CLE) requirement began in 1988. Consequently, the Bar kept no comprehensive records of members' educational history prior to that date. Further, our records reflect only those courses that have been reported to The Florida Bar by the member or course sponsor. Records retention periods specified by this organization and consistent with official policy of the Supreme Court of Florida's Judicial Branch Records Retention Schedule for Administrative Records require that the Bar retain members’ continuing education records for 10 years, and course providers’ evaluation requests and accreditation documentation (which show course detail) for 2 years.
You specifically seek CLEs for Ms Heystek in "autism, autism genetics, autism epigenetics, brain injury, vaccine injury, Title II ADA, ADA, Sec. 504, Language Interpreters;" however, our member CLER records are maintained in a manner that may not fully reflect the content of each credited educational offering. Nor does the Bar separately allocate hours or label courses in specific "ADA," "brain injury," vaccine injury," or "autism" categories as we have indicated to you in other similar public record requests. Nonetheless, upon your further review of Ms Heystek's CLER status report, should you desire further specificity as to any course offerings within the above-noted time parameters (2 years for course evaluations and accreditation documentation), please let me know. However, the nature and volume of any such additional search may necessitate special service charges, as authorized by Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.420(e)(3) and consistent with §119.07, Fla.Stat.
The Bar considers the attached to be public information and, to my knowledge, it accurately reflects the current state of our records.”
Analysis of The Refusal Of Florida Bar To Properly Address The Autism Title II Americans With Disabilities Act Violations And Imposition Of Impermissible Costs To Hide Their Records Discrimination And Bullying By Florida’s Licensed Lawyers
With respect to the Florida laws cited to me (Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.420(e)(3) and consistent with §119.07, Fla.Stat.), The Florida Bar’s records custodian raised to me to obstruct my ability to get “non-discrimination” specific Autism education and training records for a lawyer purporting to represent one of the most vulnerable severe Autism developmental disability plaintiff class members including myself necessary for her to acquire Autism-specific competence to take on the Dykes plaintiff class representation, TFB’s records custodian knew or should have known that Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act expressly prohibits any type of cost charges for such Autism disability education and training compliance records such as those I requested (see 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.130(f)) and most especially when the Florida cost imposing laws CONFLICT with the anti-surcharge prohibitions of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. See Barry v. Burdines, 675 So.2d 587 (Fla. 1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 966 (1996) (Florida laws and rules in conflict with any of the rights, remedies, or procedures of the ADA are void and unenforceable subject to federal pre-emption pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12201(b)); Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003) (same).
See also, lineage of cases pre-empting ENTIRE administrative hearings / appeals processes in FLorida, “…[T]he exclusive remedy provision of the Florida Worker’s Compensation Act…is preempted by the ADA.” Mangin v. Westco Security Systems, Inc., 922 F.Supp. 563, 567 (M.D.Fla. 1996). See, also Harding v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 907 F.Supp. 386 (M.D.Fla. 1995).
It is beyond dispute, the ADA preempts conflicting State laws. For example, T.E.P. v. Leavitt, 840 F.Supp. 110, 111 (C.D.Utah 1993), invalidated that portion of the Utah marriage statute which prohibited marriage of persons with AIDS and enjoined further enforcement of the statute: “In that regard, the ADA provides that a public entity may not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. 42 U.S.C. §12132. Disability has been defined as a ‘physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities.’ 28 C.F.R. §35.104.” Autism is such a physical neurological impairment. See, also U.S. Department of Justice Title II Technical Assistance Manual, §§II-2.1000 & II-1.4200.
The most Revealing ADMISSION Against Interest of The Florida Bar, however, was this: “Nor does the Bar separately allocate hours or label courses in specific "ADA," "brain injury," vaccine injury," or "autism" categories as we have indicated to you in other similar public record requests.” AS COMPARED TO: the state of Connecticut recently criminally prosecuting licensed professions holding themselves out as able to handle or provide services to people with Autism without proof of specific Autism educational training. See http://www.wfsb.com/news/23862562/detail.html and http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001644-504083.html.
In sum, The Florida Bar trade guild believes itself above the law and that the Oath every Florida attorney takes to “uphold federal law” – Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act passed by Congress appx. 21 YEARS ago, means NOTHING.
In essence, The Florida Bar does NOT believe it should require the SAME Title II Americans With Disabilities Act specific Autism education and training U.S. Dept. of Justice and other states are requiring of EVERY OTHER entity and individual handling any matter involving a person with Autism despite CRISIS PROPORTIONS of Autism bullying, hate crimes, meaningful access exclusions, and unlawful discrimination and/or retaliation against people with Autism disabilities being expressly prohibited by Tennessee v. Lane's, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), application to State Court services in the Judicial Branch – including The Florida Bar and lawyers it licenses who are representing plaintiff classes in suing a state for Autism developmental disability services and funding.
Florida State judges, administrative hearing / appeal judges and lawyers taking on the representation of severe Autism plaintiff class members including myself, as well as agency officials such as, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and Florida Agency for Persons With Disabilities, in their official capacity are public entities, e.g., Mincewicz v. Parker, 2001 WL 256162 (D.Conn. 2001); Becker v. Oregon, 170 F.Supp.2d 1061, 1066 (D.Ore. 2001); Badillo v. Thorpe, Case No. 6:03-cv-1830-Orl-22DAB, Order, Jun. 1, 2004 (M.D.Fla. 2004) (“Florida circuit judges are state officials”). Additionally, when a “disability rights” organization such as Disability Rights Florida Org. serves as a state instrumentality to assist in representing an Autism developmental disability class members including myself, it also may be construed as a Title II public entity. See e.g., Lundstedt v. City of Miami, 1995 U.S. Dist LEXIS 21884, at *47 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (holding that Retirement Trust and the Trust’s Board of Trustees was not excluded form the definition of “public entity” for purposes of Title II liability); Holmes v. City of Aurora, 1993 U.S. Dist LEXIS 17368, *5 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (holding that pension board was not excluded from the definition of “public entity” for purposes of Title II liability).
FLORIDA BAR’S RESPONSE (THAT GAVE RISE TO MY REPLY POSTED IN PART I) – Their Autism IGNORANCE Takes The Cake
Jenny Jolinski JJolinski@flabar.org, public records custodian for The Florida Bar additionally wrote me in her e-mail of this morning, “My responses follow each request.
* * *
“2.) all Florida Bar 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.105 self-evaluation updates specific to Autism, Autism genetics, Autism epigenetics, Brain Injury, Vaccine Injury, Title II ADA, ADA, Sec. 504, Language Interpreters your General Counsel, Paul Hill, Esq. previously informed me Florida Bar members and The Florida Bar are "mindful" to.
The Florida Bar has no records that would be responsive to this request. However, as stated by our General Counsel, Paul F. Hill, the Bar is aware of, and will fully comply with, the Americans with Disability Act Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAA”). As you may know, that law clarified the definition of “disability” provided by the original ADA, by explaining the analysis by which the existence of a protected impairment will be determined. The Florida Bar understands that, under law as amended, more persons will likely be able to obtain the protection of the ADA. But the ADAA did not alter the obligation of public entities to conduct the self-evaluation described by 28 C.F.R. §105.”
Analysis of The Florida Bar’s Autism and Title II Americans With Disabilities Act Duties Owing To People With Autism Disabilities IGNORANCE Is Proven By Its Inability For A Trade Guild Licensing Over 80,000 Lawyers To Even Cite The Title II ADA Regulation Correctly
The Americans With Disabilities Act was passed appx. 21 YEARS ago. People with severe Autism and related disabilities are among the MOST VULNERABLE and most severely disabled of ALL Americans With Disabilities. Is there ANY defensible excuse for the PATHETIC failure and REFUSAL of The Florida Bar to REQUIRE each and every one of the lawyers it licenses to undertake IMMEDIATE Autism and Title II Americans With Disabilities Act Autism disability-specific education and training ?
How many criminal, civil, family law, and administrative cases are going forth EVERY DAY in Florida with lawyers who have NO Autism-specific education or training, know NOTHING about the Title II Americans With Disabilities Act Autism disability language-communication duties owed to each and every person with Autism in Florida, and … DON’T CARE !~!!!
The pervasive Autism abuse, Autism bullying, and Autism hate crimes occurring in Epidemic levels in Florida are happening because The Florida Bar REFUSES to educate and train its lawyers specifically in Autism.
This is why we who have Autism continue to be routinely mis-treated, threatened, attacked, bullied, and our legal, civil, and human rights and dignity violated every single day in the state of Florida.
It is CLEAR we are considered as sub-human and not entitled to equal respect or Equal Protection under the Law
And that is why I have and will continue to share my personal Journey through life as a person with Autism and the many, many ways we are both msunderstood and mis-treated with the rest of the Autism community.