[mcs-america-members] Judges, Courts and the ADA (fwd)

[Guest guest]

I released the following press release after dealing with the judicial

system here in Vegas.....

: Judges, Courts and the ADA.

http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail & ID=1\

5875

If justice is blind, does that mean that the judges or courts

are exempt from overseeing that disabilities are not exacerbated or disabled

persons alienated. No. Judges and the courts need to insure that all people

regardless of disability have access to the Judicial system.

Who made the ever-popular blanket observation that all

disabilities have to be visual to be accepted and or recognized by the general

public? Hidden disabilities, which are also fully covered by the Americans for

Disabilities Act, at times can be more restrictive. They are deserving of the

same recognition and accommodation as those who have the observable

disabilities, such as those in wheelchairs or those with seeing eye dogs.

In parts of Canada, they honor requests for accommodations

with the emphasis on the citizen's health and safety when applying for

provincial disability benefits.

Most people are looking for that Holy Grail, the elusive get

out of jury duty card. For those with disabilities, they are more than willing

to perform their civic duty but some are immediately excused when they ask for

accommodations.

For that segment of the population who have hidden

disabilities, which are either respiratory or cognitively related, they tend to

be denied participation in the legal process.

What exactly constitutes reasonable accommodations in the

courtroom? Smoking is banned in all courts, but, they still contaminate both the

courtrooms indoor air quality and public facilities with unsafe pesticides,

synthetic chemicals, carcinogenic laden furniture (presswood or particleboard

that emit formaldehyde), air fresheners, fragrances and furniture polish to cite

a few.

Most people are under the misguided impression that seeming

" safe " products such as fragrances, air fresheners and pesticides are tested for

safety. Fragrances are not required to be fully tested for safety as they are

regulated by the Food and Drug Administration under the classification of food

and nutrition. There are an extraordinary high percentage of ingredients in

fragrances that carry warnings such as (carcinogenic, risk of harm to the unborn

child, respiratory irritants, banned substances to cite a few), which are not

disclosed on their label. For those with respiratory and or environmental

sensitivities chemicals such as these create a major accessibility barrier.

Under federal law, it is illegal to state that a pesticide is

safe, as by it's very design it is made to be toxic. Numerous pesticides have

been determined to be hazardous to the public's health and they are starting to

be pulled from the shelves. Because of the potential neuro-toxic effects from

pesticides schools are now informing parents before their application, so that

the parents can elect to keep their child at home during their utilization.

Those who have disabilities that are related to indoor air

quality issues tend to be treated more with suspicion than with the same level

of acceptance as those who disabilities are more visually apparent.

No one in a legal proceeding would tell a person who is blind

to go into a courtroom without the ability to safety maneuver without the aid of

a cane or seeing eye dog. Those with respiratory related disabilities should not

be assaulted with known respiratory irritants that have proven to that person to

exacerbate their disability and could result in an emergency room visit. These

chemicals in the indoor air quality environment cause those with environmentally

related disabilities cognitive dysfunction and other neurological symptoms,

which can actually affect their performance in the courtroom. If these chemicals

interfere with their cognitive thinking and result in their loss of memory or

the inability to speak, their right to a fair trial is immediately suspect.

When they present themselves at metal detectors most are

viewed with " suspicion, when they have their respirators or gas masks with

them " . Most people equate respirators with chemical or biological terrorism.

When in reality these are the " white cane or wheelchair " of the respiratory or

environmentally challenged person.

For the ever increasing segment of the United States

population, with the lowest estimate being 15%, who have environmentally related

disabilities, the courts frown upon the accommodations that they request. They

are automatically excused from jury duty without any attempt at trying to

accommodate them.

There is absolutely no reason to create these barriers when

there are more easily accessible alternatives that both grant accessibility to

this segment and protects the future health of those who are currently not

affected by these known toxins. While professional attire is required in a

courtroom fragrances are not.

There are safe products that would satisfy all the courts

needs along with benefiting all concerned.

If these people are litigants in a court action, they can

petition the court for telephonic appearances and in states such as

Massachusetts and Nevada, some have been granted this accommodation. Some judges

have even granted telephonic or in-home depositions.

For those judges who insist that these litigants appear in

person and they have their disabilities exacerbated is the judge personally

liable or is the court system in that county responsible as their employer? Have

judges been held accountable for their overt refusal to accommodate this segment

of the disabled population? Judges are there to uphold the law and if their

ruling creates harm to a litigant they should be held accountable and be brought

forth before their governing board such as a judical review committee.

Judges in California and on the east coast have had to retire

from the bench due to their disabilities related to indoor air quality issues.

This is a travesty as they are being denied their livelihood over health issues

that can be resolved with simple alternatives that protect everyone.

The courts and judges need to remember the robe is not their

cloak of immunity. There is no justification that allows them to inflict further

harm upon a disabled person.

Angel De Fazio, B.S.A.T. (Angel@...)

President

National Toxic Encephalopathy Foundation (NTEF)

POB 29194

Las Vegas, NV 89126

Phone : 702.598.3382

Fax : 702.247.4606

Contact Angel De Fazio, B.S.A.T.