Accepting Amicus Briefs 19- 5240 for Writ of Mandamus in DC Circuit |U.S. District Court of DC's so-called liberal Judge James E. Boasberg MOCKED and DEGRADED an Intellectually Disabled American for trying to enforce her federally protected rights. (On September 17, 2019, at 10:30am.) Intellectually Disabled American woman who won circuit appeals in the DC Circuit, 4th Circuit, and 2nd Circuit all proven the judge acted as Jury, Judge and Defense Lawyer. When the intellectually disabled woman complained about being attacked by Frederick Douglas from Douglas & Boykin PLLC after August 30, 2019 Hearing which was recorded and uploaded to YouTube.com. Judge James E. Boasberg justified Frederick Douglas's abuse by saying the pro se also mocked "the court" by pointing out judicial misconduct abuses that were proven by the DC Circuit Court as facts. Judge James E. Boasberg failed to realize it is against the law and Attorney Code of Conduct for a lawyer to verbally assault, mocked, or degraded an intellectually disabled person due to her disabilities. ADA title This is Everyday #Ableism where government officials believe they have the right to deny federally protected rights. In 1990, when the United States Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA“), it recognized the long history of mistreatment to which people with disabilities had been subjected. As the preamble of the ADA states, “individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness … based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society.” Accordingly, the ADA prohibits discrimination in a range of areas including employment, public life, transportation, telecommunications, and public accommodations The law recognizes that the “[n]ation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals.
Part 35 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services (as amended by the final rule published on August 11, 2016)
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 42 U.S.C. 12134, 12131, and 12205a.
Subpart A—General
§ 35.101 Purpose and broad coverage.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to implement subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S. C. 12131–12134), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADA Amendments Act) (Public Law 110–325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008)), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.
(b) Broad coverage. The primary purpose of the ADA Amendments Act is to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA. Consistent with the ADA Amendments Act’s purpose of reinstating a broad scope of protection under the ADA, the definition of “disability” in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of disability.
#JudicialMisconduct #IMPEACH #Classism #CivilRights #WhenTheySeeUs #deprivationOfRights #ColorofLaw #Amendment #court #laws #EqualRights #Retaliation #AccessToJustice #CourtsMatter #AbuseofPower #livingwhileblack #DueProcess #VoterSuppression #DC #DistrictCourt #OurRightsMatter #BlackLivesMatter #NeverthelessShePersisted #kavanaugh #CivilJusticeSystem #America #news
0 Comments