| SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| GreatSchools, Inc. threat against this website |
| Parent to Parent Message Boards GreatSchools, Inc. says I'm not allowed to use their content to discuss on the Internet the possibility that school district attorneys use parent message boards to undermine parents suing schools |
| In this space I originally posted comments about my suspicion that "aseachers" was trying to give one special ed mom a bad name by acting as a messenger for a school district law firm. Then after hearing from asearchers, I decided I was wrong about this. A lot of people contacted me and told me that asearchers was innocent and I was wrong. I figured out that I was wrong. Here is my retraction and apology: To asearchers: I am sorry for the mistakes I made about you. I now believe that you are a real mother of a special education student, and that you never intended to make fun of special education parents. I understand that you have some communication problems which prevent you from responding to certain questions. I have eliminated the possibility that you were connected to anyone involved in the Stewart case. I see that people in the community who have been in contact for a long time have a reflexive loyalty to each other. I admit that Lindsey went overboard with the faxing, but the $25,000 warrant for her arrest was clearly intended to intimidate all of us who challenge the decisions of school districts. Special ed parents shouldn't be criminalized for trying to help their children. Good luck with your case. I like the idea you have discussed about cyber high schools. Heaven knows that schools can be very rough on kids, especially special ed kids. Best regards, Maura Larkins |
| Reply 1 of 20 Sent On: 5/18/07 at 12:13 PMFrom : explorer What does this mean? Is this you? Under what circumstances did this occur? Reply 2 of 20 Sent On: 5/18/07 at 12:15 PM From : asearchers she owes the school. no. hard to rewrite the 14 pages of the decision . Reply 3 of 20 Sent On: 5/18/07 at 12:30 PM From : SISDParent I'd be really curious to hear the "whole story on this one. Here's the part regarding the sanctions: Issue 4: Should the District's Motion for Sanctions be granted? 16. Parent faxed to District's counsel's office 651-pages of exhibits Parent intended to use at hearing. Only a small percentage of these exhibits faxed were actually discussed at hearing. District requested sanctions be imposed on Parent in the amount of the costs it incurred as a result of Parent faxing this many documents. District's motion was taken under submission, and the parties were given an opportunity to file written briefs and documentation that supported their respective positions. As stated above, the District's moving papers and Parent's opposing papers were received by OAH and made part of the record. 17. District's declarations established Parent faxed the documents to District's counsel between February 19, 2006, and February 21, 2006. District's declarations also established that it is billed $2.00 per page for facsimiles received on its behalf by its counsel. Sandra Holquin, the fax operator employed at counsel's office, declared that in the six years she worked as a fax operator, she never received such a series of faxes. She further declared that it would have cost Parent approximately $25.00 to have sent the documents via overnight mail. District's counsel represented that Parent did not contact him or his office prior to faxing the documents. 18. Parent does not dispute faxing the documents. Parent contended that a charge of $2.00 per page was an excessive fee. Parent failed to establish credible evidence on this point. Accordingly, the ALJ finds that the $2.00 per page charge was reasonable. Accordingly, the total cost incurred by District as a consequence of Parent sending the facsimiles was $1302.00. 19. Parent is an experienced practitioner in special education matters. Since 1999, no less than ten cases have been filed regarding Student.2 Parent represented Student in each matter. These matters resulted in the issuance of seven decisions (District prevailed on all issues, in each case), two orders that dismissed matters filed on behalf of Student, and an order that imposed monetary sanctions against Parent, because she acted in bad faith. Based on Parent's experience, it may be fairly inferred that Parent knew faxing 651 pages of documents fell outside the bounds of reasonable conduct imposed on one representing a party in a proceeding such as this. Sending the faxes constituted frivolous and harassing conduct. Parent displayed an antagonistic demeanor toward District and its counsel at hearing. Additionally, much of the materials faxed to District related to allegations parent raised in previous hearings where District prevailed. Student's exhibits are replete with accusatory letters, e-mails, and transcribed phone calls that Parent made to District with an unnecessary and burdensome frequency. Parent's communications alleged a multitude of misdeeds that she believed District committed. As was established by the findings made in this and prior decisions, these allegations lacked any basis in fact. [Note: There is now some serious question as to whether the OAH hearing officers were trained or competent to make decisions like this one. 90% of the time they found in favor of the district. Are 90% of special ed parents making false claims? I doubt it.] The ALJ's conclusion in this regard is consistent with the findings made by the hearing officer who issued a decision in favor of District arising from Parent's claim that District violated her civil rights. The decision issued by the Office of Civil Rights is cited at 37 IDELR 164.3 The ALJ finds Parent sent the faxes at issue in an attempt to continue her pattern of harassing District. As a result, District incurred the unnecessary cost discussed above. Accordingly, Parent's conduct in this regard was in bad faith. Reply 4 of 20 Sent On: 5/18/07 at 12:34 PMFrom : asearchers guess she felt postal but didn't want to actually go ahead and physically hurt anyone. seems like this was the end of the road since i see transition was part of this. Reply 5 of 20 Sent On: 5/18/07 at 06:30 PMFrom : pandoraslp Faxing that many pages is outrageous...and she knew exactly what she was doing, so the next time she goes "postal" let's hope she puts some stamps on the envelope. |
| This case was posted the following on the now-defunct Schwablearning.org parent message board: Subject: Parent shall pay District $1302.00 within 30 days of the issuance of this decision as a consequence of her bad faith. This order is enforceable in the same manner as a money judgment. On: 5/18/07 at 12:08 PM Message created by: asearchers This message has been viewed 1219 times and has 20 replies Parent shall pay District $1302.00 within 30 days of the issuance of this decision as a consequence of her bad faith. This order is enforceable in the same manner as a money judgment. http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/oah/s eho_decisions/2005080077.pdf http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_discussion.aspx? thread=22157&pg=1&sortBy=dDate |
Reply 6 of 20 Sent On: 5/18/07 at 07:22 PMFrom : Zippity You have to present any and all documents that might be introduced in a hearing, there is no saying they will all be used. Why would a judge behave and act like this was unusual. Oh yeah he never actually handles the paper trail his assistant does. I can say this I have a judge for a brother in law. He thinks this is preposterous on the judges part. He sees some things in how it was written up that is just not all of it. He gets hundreds of pages from other lawyers and some cases are in the thousands. Lawyers do it too. PUHLEEZE and how many times has our district harrassed me in ways I will never be able to bill them for my lost time over their harassment having to jump through hoops to prove or provide. I just don't feel sorry for the district, boohoo. The parents should claim burdensome financial loss or whatever it is called. The district lawyers fax so they don't have to make double documents. They keep the set they fax and file it yet they charge for a set for me and a set for them. Oh yeah I have seen the bills for another case. Courts are hostile to the parents. I know how many cases of paper I have spent and that is called cost to pursue. Districts think nothing of saying SO SUE ME it is not my money. Our district lawyers got paid $300,000 last year and he has a beautiful building to boot for years of service we all paid for. Bad faith, this parent knows what a pain it is to keep xeroxing and having to go pay one more time. My kid has a huge IEE report. The school has repeatedly said they would send it to this person or that. When it isn't in their favor they never send it. Only a letter. No they never do so then the person contacts me and asks me to copy and send it. Do you think I will ever get that time and money back? I am not unhappy I am doing this DP and it isn't a waste of time in the sense it has helped me learn more about our govt and the public schools, and teachers unions. I write letters to our legislature now. I finally bought a fax machine because of the weekly trips to get yet another ream of paper. My floor is full from one end to the other because we are amending our due process. Now I will file it all back in the tidy notebooks and their respective boxes. Reply 7 of 20 Sent On: 5/18/07 at 08:37 PMFrom : OneOutOf5 I agree with Zippity. Based on the research that I've been doing over the last few months, the judges who do the Due Process hearings are very much against parents seeking anything for their kids. I think the school districts know that the judges favor them 90-some percent of the time. (The statistics for sex/race discrimination are quite similar.) Sometimes I wonder why laws are set up and then rarely followed when it comes to "doing the right things" -- such as treating people fairly and providing an FAPE for a child. The school officials know the score and have full-time counsel. Maybe the mother who did this horrible faxing behavior -- Which really hurt whom, I wonder? -- may have "gone postal" but then again, she may not have. There is lots of paperwork required in court hearings. Besides, after enduring the gauntlet since 1990 (16 years, not sure how that could be correct that child was only 2 when identified for services) -- even Job himself would have lost patience. If the parent was really skipping meetings or refusing to attend meetings and the student really did have excessive "absenteeism," as was stated, then it seems that family had started to give up. (School districts count on parents giving up -- they count on being able to bully families out of the system. How many times do have we all read the same story now: Parent request FAPE for student, School feigns effort to meet IDEA requirements, School give student and family major run-around; Student gets seriously inadequate services; Parent complains: School blames kid and then blames parent(s) or guardian(s); if legal issues get started, then the school bombards the parent and student -- switching dates back and forth and subjecting the kid to tons of unnecessary nonsense --- I think I've now read the scenario hundreds of times at this point. It is sad to think that a parent even is forced to do Due Process to get their child's educational needs met -- why don't schools just DO the right thing in the first place? Reply 8 of 20 Sent On: 5/18/07 at 08:40 PMFrom : ABM Much of this decision reads like a direct quote of the briefs that were probably presented by the school. I can imagine the possible misrepresentations that are likely included. And that fact is precisely why this system is so broken now. Too many decisions that are made have been based on case law, that may or may not have been the result of truthful testimony. Who is more likely to know what can be gotten away with at these hearings-the parents or the lawyers who do this for a living? On page 5 the discussion of the "transition plan" that the school provided is typical of what our district would provide. Make a list of all the student's failings and make those his goals. I wonder if he ever reached any of his IEP/transition goals. ABM Reply 9 of 20 Sent On: 5/19/07 at 06:37 AM From : asearchers because she has done dp before, she knew what she doing. i'd have to look it up, but i don't think the regs say how the documents must be recieved. abm. 1 reason i have our 2003 dp decision in fed ct is to try and get it reversed because it gets used to hurt other kids. unfortunately i don't believe i have the resources needed as fed ct is time consuming and costly. i just had to recently withdraw the fed ct case on the st doe due to lack of resources. Reply 10 of 20 Sent On: 5/19/07 at 12:58 PM From : ABM asearchers I feel the same way when I read where our decision in the 4th Circuit is used to deny some other child his rights. ABM |
| Sent On: 5/19/07 at 01:13 PM From : asearchers sorry, do you have the link? Reply 12 of 20 Sent On: 5/19/07 at 07:45 PMFrom : ABM asearchers, I would rather not post the case here, but would be happy to share it privately. It contains so much misinformation and spin that it would be a disservice to my son not to include certain explanations. Check my profile to email me. ABM Reply 13 of 20 Sent On: 5/20/07 at 04:12 AMFrom : henleys4 if the lawyers charge $2.00 a page, she was kinda outrageous faxing all those pages. it took her time - you can't jam that many pages in a machine, any machine. you have to stand there and feed the machine. there's no reason she couldn't have mailed the documents. fedexed them, certified mail. if it's the school's perception, or the judge's or anyone's - this is important: Additionally, much of the materials faxed to District related to allegations parent raised in previous hearings where District prevailed. Student's exhibits are replete with accusatory letters, e-mails, and transcribed phone calls that Parent made to District with an unnecessary and burdensome frequency. Parent's communications alleged a multitude of misdeeds that she believed District committed. As was established by the findings made in this and prior decisions, these allegations lacked any basis in fact. 651 page fax - makes me wonder - is she complaining about real issues? then fight, fight, fight - but if she's nit picking (which i can't gather at this point) about homework assignments, or report cards, or misconstrued emails (which as an outsider looking in it looks like that to me) - she's taking PRECIOUS time and RESOURCES away from the kids who really do NEED it/them. jmo she complained no less than 10 times, and the district has prevailed each time. the 651 page fax at this point looks really petty. (to me) Reply 14 of 20 Sent On: 5/20/07 at 06:17 AM From : Neat even if the parent did fax too many pages, or did display any type of behavior that would require a label of "bad faith"....in the end think about the point that the district is charging the parent??? hasn't this parent, and all of us parents, paid enough to our school districts? i mention this because i was involved in a (failed) due process where the district claimed i, by filing due process in the first place, was "abusing the process".....they requested i pay for copying and phone calls involved with the case (approx. $500.00) AND the hearing officer agreed (!!!!!)and as part of the "settlement" declared we, the parents did need to pay the district (!!!). the district never came up with the receipts to bill us, so it did not happen, but just the principle of all this - as a parent i had NO other choice but to file d.p. and then to be declared we had "abused the process???? jeez..this system is messed up. -neat Reply 15 of 20 Sent On: 5/20/07 at 06:43 AM From : henleys4 what if i'm trying to fax a consent to evaluate, or the consent for an iep, but i can't get through because this woman is faxing 651 pages of past complaints that the district previously prevailed on? What about my kid then? you know? Reply 16 of 20 Sent On: 5/20/07 at 07:31 AM From : asearchers why would you be faxing their atty? she was at the end and went postal without physically hurting anyone. in another ca. case. i see the parent's attys scanctioned for making what was called a frivilous motion. this all can open the door for even more from actions of a lesser degree. there's another one where the parent is suing because they ended up emotionally harmed over the sd actions. a parent i know had a stroke but isn't suing as it is hard to prove that the sped dir actions brought on the stroke. another parent i know makes sure to stay physically far away from a particular sd person . here, i just brought the books in at the hearing. with the lists submitted by the 5 days. i tried to act with as much integrity as possible. act that i was representing his ed. interests and not some emotional parent. [during a break at the 2nd i did have to go outside and starting crying. they wouldn't accomodate so i could see the words/tangents. i was crying because i could not do my job very well but with the help of my 3 friends there, got back on the horse cuz if i did not try, who else would]. maybe she felt her integrity didn't matter, that it was hopeless. it is not something i would do or promote doing. maybe she would have had a chance to prevail on the transition part but she blew it . i don't feel she was thinking of her child's ed interests, she let her own come first. Reply 17 of 20 Sent On: 5/20/07 at 08:23 AM From : henleys4 but why fax 651 pages of past complaints that she already lost? i don't know asearchers, i think sometimes we parents let our own anger/frustration interfere and it gets to the point where anything the district does, no matter what the district does, it isn't good enough. you know? 'you' get services (not you asearchers, but you in general), but you still complain because you didn't get them fast enough, or by the provider you wanted, or it interferes with this/that... it gets to the point where you're fighting just for the sake of fighting - just for the sake of proving the district wrong. and you lose focus of what's important. your child. and you become bitter, and miserable. you get the services, but you had to fight for 3 months - and you focus more on the 3 months than on the fact that you got the services. it becomes a nothing is good enough issue. a bitter festering cancer. you become joyless, where the only thing you ever talk about is this fight - or that person's fight. there's no happiness. there's just complaint, after complaint. miserable event after miserable event - and eventually your self-prophecy of never seeing victory becomes fact because that's become the habit. i think this woman would be better off spending her time getting a massage, or going to an all day pampering place. truly. Reply 18 of 20 Sent On: 5/20/07 at 08:55 AMFrom : SouthOCMom I haven't read this whole thread, but I can understand how someone can go over the edge. When your child's situation is complicated, and you are the one responsible for getting them help, which means you are the one doing all of the asking and fighting to get that help, when you only have a limited amount of resources ($$$$$) to get that help..... I have wanted to walk away so many times. I can see why some go over the edge. They may have been pushed. Reply 19 of 20 Sent On: 5/20/07 at 10:07 AMFrom : asearchers a mom recently told me that she wants her child to have recess, there is no recess at the upcoming middle school. i replied, well, even if somehow you get recess put in the iep, how do you think b will feel out there all by himself ect.. she had to look into it more was her reply. there were other things she wanted too but i think the point is made. Reply 20 of 20 Sent On: 5/20/07 at 01:20 PM From : ABM Two years ago I asked for a self advocacy goal for my then freshman. Although the IEP team agreed at the meeting, when the final draft came home, there was no such goal. We talked about it at length so I don't think it was an oversight. I pushed to get it added. Last week at the IEP meeting, the chair made the statement that "they" felt it was very important to have that goal in place and that's why "they" asked for it in the first place. This person only got involved last year and had no personal knowledge of when this goal came about, but she insisted she was right. I'll be sending a copy of the email I sent two years ago asking what happened to my self advocacy goal! Love that paper trail! ABM |
| I made a mistake regarding school attorney involvement in posting this case incident, but I insist on my right to continue to investigate and report on the actions of school district attorneys against parents. |
| ..... SEHO Fait, Director of McGeorge School retaliated and sanctioned parent in the amount of $3,091.25 for April 27,2005 Hearing Dated that Parent had a medical certificate issued for a medical emergency. Nine subpoened district employees were scheduled for hearing dated March 10th, 2005 and April 14,2005 but failed to appear. Transcripts of AALRR motion on the March 10th,2005 Hearing Date,before Defendant Fait, to deem Lindsey Stewart a vexatious litigant, and that in order to go to hearing, has to post a security bond.... Records, and transcripts, are lodged in PUSD v. Lindsey Stewart 07 CV1060, before Judge Hayes...... Read the full story, of PUSD and Superior Court Judge issuing a $25,000 Bail, for the arrest of parent..... at a Due Process Hearing Location, at the PUSD.................... It just so happens, that Geren graduated from McGeorge School of Law, and Fait, and Geren attacked parent.... in retaliation, and used the Due Process to promote defamation of character ,,,, for the parent that aggressively advocates..... against attorney's in the IEP process, that involves conspiracy, tampering with witnesses......... Please read how AALRR and Emily Shieh, worked together concealing records from parent before Due Process Hearings, in a memo, concealing records of physical attack against minor son..... This document is found at 07 CV0971 Opposition in Response to AALRR Motion to Dismiss. Read the financial records, and memo of five ways attorney's concealed records during due process........ |
| Reply 6 of 12 Sent On: 10/05/07 at 09:10 PM From : momspeaks Asearchers posted a 4th Appellate Case No. not known to the community. What was not stated is that prior to PUSD seeking attorney's fees in SN05-00258, SEHO Fait, and PUSD were being sued in Federal by Lindsey Stewart...... |
| [Maura Larkins' note: Good point. The matter stinks of retaliation from top to bottom. |
| [Maura Larkins NOTE: I know from personal experience that Poway USD's lawyer Daniel Shinoff brazenly refuses to produce documents, even when it's clearly established that he has them. One of the excuse in my case was, "The paralegal couldn't find them." San Diego public school boards should be ashamed of the dishonest and wasteful channeling of tax funds to lawyers that goes by the misnomer of "due process." --Maura Larkins] |
| From Schwab Learning Message Board Subject: POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LINDSEY STEWART, No. D048901 (107 LRP 31437 (Cal. Ct. App. 6/06/07) On: 9/05/07 at 08:31 AM Message created by: asearchers |
The Poway Unified School District can enforce its 2005 sanctions order it obtained against parent Lindsey Stewart in an administrative proceeding. Since 1999, Stewart has filed at least 10 unsuccessful administrative actions on her son's behalf against the District. On August 11, 2005, the California Special Education Hearing Office granted in part the District's motion in one of the actions for sanctions against Stewart for her failure to notify it and SEHO in a timely manner of her withdrawal of her request for a hearing. On August 31, SEHO issued an order granting the District $3,091.25 in sanctions and costs. Stewart refused to pay. |
| NOTE: This cost was calculated using a charge of $2 per page of faxes sent. --Maura Larkins |
| NOTE: Refused to pay?! More likely, she couldn't pay! The taxpayers haven't bestowed millions of dollars on Lindsey Stewart as they have on Daniel Shinoff. --Maura Larkins |
| After two hearings in May and June 2006, the court entered a judgment granting the District's petition and ordering Stewart to pay the District $3,091.25 by June 16, 2006. Stewart also failed to appear at a debtor's examination in October 2006. |
| Please read Opposition to Response from OAH Motion to Dismiss and Strike Complaint in 07CV0971..... Reply 7 of 12 Sent On: 10/05/07 at 09:21 PM From : momspeaks Just to be clear regarding 37 IDELR 164 publication, involving PUSD, AALRR, Shieh and Geren with OAH, this 2002 publication, does not contain Stewart's name.............. Reply 8 of 12 Sent On: 10/06/07 at 06:40 AM From : asearchers thanks for more info on this. [was only the messenger of what i thought to be an important matter.] Reply 9 of 12 Sent On: 10/06/07 at 02:50 PMFrom : pacer Momspeaks- I recall reading recently that another mom is suing Daniel Shinoff from Artiano, Stutz, & Holtz for some similar stuff in case No. 06 cv. 1285 IEG (AJB) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Then I was also reading in http://mauralarkins.com/ that Daniel Shinoff is involved in another scandal with another lady with similar allegations. Just yesterday the newspaper in this article is about some back alley mediation between Daniel Shinoff, a former San Diego Judge Superior Court Judge David Moon, former president Victoria Munoz Richart and her attorney Bob Ottlie, plus 2 board members from the Mira Costa College to give Richart a $1.5 million gift of PUBLIC FUNDS to buy her silence. In the meantime the rest of the board members for Mira Costa College did not have a clue about the back alley deal. [http://nctimes.com/ articles/2007/10/04/news/coastal/2_01_ 4610_3_07.txt] One would think that San Diego has a District Attorney that monitors this type of questionable activity and allegations of attorney impropriety. One has to question what in the world is going on in San Diego County and why millions of dollars of Public Funds are dissapearing. Reply 10 of 12 Sent On: 10/06/07 at 06:09 PM From : pacer Here is another case against Daniel Shinoff in the Southern California Superior Court this one is for SLANDER in Alberts vs. Shinoff case No. GIE014186 (from Gallagher Shinoff, Artiano, Stutz, & Holtz). Hum, I guess he is not so popular after all. This message has been viewed 354 times and has 12 replies http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/ view_messages. aspx?thread=22157&pg=1&sortBy=dDate#R http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/ view_discussion.aspx?thread=23877&message=23 8507] |
| [Maura Larkins' note: As Eeyore would say, thanks for noticing me!] |
| In obvious retaliation for her lawsuit against the Poway Unified School District, Shinoff went to court to make parent Lindsey Stewart pay $2 per page for faxing a court document. |
| Poway Unified School District v. Lindsey Stewart |
| GreatSchools, Inc. reinforced my belief that there was a connection between attorney Dan Shinoff and posts on their site about Lindsey Stewart when they sent me a legal threat. |
GreatSchools, Inc. is immune from
liability for the postings of its users.
Yet it wants to prevent discussion on
other boards regarding what it posts.
liability for the postings of its users.
Yet it wants to prevent discussion on
other boards regarding what it posts.
"Fair" Housing Lawsuit Has Been
Dismissed
Update:
This case has been dismissed by
the US District Court in Chicago, as
of November 14, 2006.
We're pleased the Court agreed
that online service providers like
craigslist should not be held liable
as "publishers" of content submitted
by their users, and view this
outcome as a win for the general
public's ability to self-publish
content (such as free classified ads)
on the internet.
Just as importantly, this ruling is a
victory for fair housing in the city of
Chicago, since this misguided suit
sought to force craigslist to regress
to ineffective and intrusive "horse
and buggy" technologies, which
would have resulted in a big step
backward for fair housing from the
industry-leading standard that
craigslist users have set through
fair housing education and
community self-moderation.
Summary:
A group of lawyers is suing craigslist
over a handful of allegedly
discriminatory housing ads posted
by our users, ignoring the fact that
craigslist is not a publisher, but
rather a community-moderated
commons run by and for its users,
who self-publish and manage their
own ads and use a flagging system
to police the site. These lawyers
demand that we impose
ill-conceived, mistake-prone, and
potentially illegal controls on the
craigslist community, which if
adopted would actually reduce fair
housing opportunity, while eroding
important free speech and privacy
rights. In reality, the craigslist
community already excels at
ensuring equal opportunity housing,
and continues to improve in this
regard, earning praise from fair
housing groups. This lawsuit will
likely be dismissed as groundless,
but more importantly the craigslist
community will be recognized for its
exemplary record in promoting fair
housing for all, while fully respecting
each person's constitutional right to
free speech and free association.
Background: (about craigslist)
The Chicago Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law is suing
craigslist for 100 allegedly
discriminatory ads posted by our
Chicago users in a 6 month period,
out of 200,000 housing ads
submitted to chicago.craigslist.org
in that timeframe. While craigslist
takes fair housing issues very
seriously, and we want to do
everything we can to assist our
users in promoting fair housing for
everyone, the 100 ads cited were a
little surprising. Some were
roommate ads involving
constitutionally protected speech
and the right to free association,
such as "prefer christian
roommate", or were ads containing
incidental and harmless remarks
such as "near St Gertrude's
church," and "Buddhist temple
nearby." Others simply celebrated
the diversity and tolerance of the
local community ("vibrant southwest
Hispanic neighborhood offering
great classical Mexican culture,
restaurants, and businesses"), or
sought to appeal to some groups
without excluding anyone ("Great
apartment for graduate students,
married couple, or small family").
And for a few it is difficult to
determine what protected
classification is at issue ("wants one
nice quiet person").
Although in all likelihood this suit will
be dismissed on the grounds that
internet sites can not legally be held
liable for content posted by users,
craigslist has no need to hide
behind this well-established
immunity. We are extremely proud
of the extraordinary results the
craigslist community has achieved
in ensuring equal housing
opportunity on an unprecedentedly
massive scale, while fully respecting
constitutionally protected free
speech rights. Discriminatory
postings are exceedingly
uncommon, and those few that do
reach the site are typically removed
quickly by our users through the
flagging system that accompanies
each ad.
We have worked closely with
several fair housing groups over the
years on educating craigslist users
about fair housing issues, and
every page in our housing section
has highlighted fair housing
messages, linked to extensive
educational materials and
resources for learning more, and
craigslist has been praised by fair
housing advocates for our efforts in
this regard. We will continue to work
with such groups on fair housing
issues, and remain open to genuine
suggestions on how to improve,
despite the needless distraction and
counterproductive waste of
resources this litigation will bring.
Though possibly well-intentioned,
this lawsuit ignores the essential
nature of craigslist, demanding that
we cease treating our users with
trust and respect, and instead
impose inappropriate,
mistake-prone, and generally
counter-productive centralized
controls (such as manual review by
our staff of the nearly 2 million free
housing ads of unlimited length
posted each month, a volume of
ads greater than that received by all
US newspapers combined), controls
which would actually be less
effective in catching discriminatory
ads than what we have in place
currently, and which would vastly
reduce the number of legitimate
non-discriminatory ads that the site
could process.
Overreaching further, the suit
demands that craigslist proactively
volunteer personal information
about posters who post a
discriminatory preference (e.g.
"church next door") to regulatory
authorities for prosecution, without
subpoena or warrant -- clearly a
violation of privacy rights, this
demand may actually run counter to
federal law governing the handling
of user information.
Ironically, if this lawsuit were to
succeed the net effect would be to
deal multiple blows to everyone's
hard won civil rights - by
significantly reducing access to
equal opportunity housing, by
undercutting our fundamental free
speech rights, and by intruding on
important privacy rights - thereby
doing a great disservice to the very
persons these lawyers purport to
represent.
Putting aside the fact that craigslist
legally can not be held liable in this
suit, we feel very strongly that the
craigslist community of users is on
the very highest moral high ground
with respect to fair housing, setting
an example more worthy of
emulation than litigation.
Jim Buckmaster
CEO, craigslist
http://www.craigslist.org/about/fair.housing.html
Dismissed
Update:
This case has been dismissed by
the US District Court in Chicago, as
of November 14, 2006.
We're pleased the Court agreed
that online service providers like
craigslist should not be held liable
as "publishers" of content submitted
by their users, and view this
outcome as a win for the general
public's ability to self-publish
content (such as free classified ads)
on the internet.
Just as importantly, this ruling is a
victory for fair housing in the city of
Chicago, since this misguided suit
sought to force craigslist to regress
to ineffective and intrusive "horse
and buggy" technologies, which
would have resulted in a big step
backward for fair housing from the
industry-leading standard that
craigslist users have set through
fair housing education and
community self-moderation.
Summary:
A group of lawyers is suing craigslist
over a handful of allegedly
discriminatory housing ads posted
by our users, ignoring the fact that
craigslist is not a publisher, but
rather a community-moderated
commons run by and for its users,
who self-publish and manage their
own ads and use a flagging system
to police the site. These lawyers
demand that we impose
ill-conceived, mistake-prone, and
potentially illegal controls on the
craigslist community, which if
adopted would actually reduce fair
housing opportunity, while eroding
important free speech and privacy
rights. In reality, the craigslist
community already excels at
ensuring equal opportunity housing,
and continues to improve in this
regard, earning praise from fair
housing groups. This lawsuit will
likely be dismissed as groundless,
but more importantly the craigslist
community will be recognized for its
exemplary record in promoting fair
housing for all, while fully respecting
each person's constitutional right to
free speech and free association.
Background: (about craigslist)
The Chicago Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law is suing
craigslist for 100 allegedly
discriminatory ads posted by our
Chicago users in a 6 month period,
out of 200,000 housing ads
submitted to chicago.craigslist.org
in that timeframe. While craigslist
takes fair housing issues very
seriously, and we want to do
everything we can to assist our
users in promoting fair housing for
everyone, the 100 ads cited were a
little surprising. Some were
roommate ads involving
constitutionally protected speech
and the right to free association,
such as "prefer christian
roommate", or were ads containing
incidental and harmless remarks
such as "near St Gertrude's
church," and "Buddhist temple
nearby." Others simply celebrated
the diversity and tolerance of the
local community ("vibrant southwest
Hispanic neighborhood offering
great classical Mexican culture,
restaurants, and businesses"), or
sought to appeal to some groups
without excluding anyone ("Great
apartment for graduate students,
married couple, or small family").
And for a few it is difficult to
determine what protected
classification is at issue ("wants one
nice quiet person").
Although in all likelihood this suit will
be dismissed on the grounds that
internet sites can not legally be held
liable for content posted by users,
craigslist has no need to hide
behind this well-established
immunity. We are extremely proud
of the extraordinary results the
craigslist community has achieved
in ensuring equal housing
opportunity on an unprecedentedly
massive scale, while fully respecting
constitutionally protected free
speech rights. Discriminatory
postings are exceedingly
uncommon, and those few that do
reach the site are typically removed
quickly by our users through the
flagging system that accompanies
each ad.
We have worked closely with
several fair housing groups over the
years on educating craigslist users
about fair housing issues, and
every page in our housing section
has highlighted fair housing
messages, linked to extensive
educational materials and
resources for learning more, and
craigslist has been praised by fair
housing advocates for our efforts in
this regard. We will continue to work
with such groups on fair housing
issues, and remain open to genuine
suggestions on how to improve,
despite the needless distraction and
counterproductive waste of
resources this litigation will bring.
Though possibly well-intentioned,
this lawsuit ignores the essential
nature of craigslist, demanding that
we cease treating our users with
trust and respect, and instead
impose inappropriate,
mistake-prone, and generally
counter-productive centralized
controls (such as manual review by
our staff of the nearly 2 million free
housing ads of unlimited length
posted each month, a volume of
ads greater than that received by all
US newspapers combined), controls
which would actually be less
effective in catching discriminatory
ads than what we have in place
currently, and which would vastly
reduce the number of legitimate
non-discriminatory ads that the site
could process.
Overreaching further, the suit
demands that craigslist proactively
volunteer personal information
about posters who post a
discriminatory preference (e.g.
"church next door") to regulatory
authorities for prosecution, without
subpoena or warrant -- clearly a
violation of privacy rights, this
demand may actually run counter to
federal law governing the handling
of user information.
Ironically, if this lawsuit were to
succeed the net effect would be to
deal multiple blows to everyone's
hard won civil rights - by
significantly reducing access to
equal opportunity housing, by
undercutting our fundamental free
speech rights, and by intruding on
important privacy rights - thereby
doing a great disservice to the very
persons these lawyers purport to
represent.
Putting aside the fact that craigslist
legally can not be held liable in this
suit, we feel very strongly that the
craigslist community of users is on
the very highest moral high ground
with respect to fair housing, setting
an example more worthy of
emulation than litigation.
Jim Buckmaster
CEO, craigslist
http://www.craigslist.org/about/fair.housing.html