Violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act Complaint Filed Against

The University of Virginia�

It's

�� President

�� Rector

�� Lawyer

�� Virginia Attorney General

�� Freedom of Information Officer

�� Board of Visitors

The Virginia Unalienable Rights Foundation's Donnie Edwards filed with the U.S. Department of Justice a complaint Friday afternoon, October 7, 2016. In that complaint Edwards says UVA has violated Title II of the ADA.

What Edwards had to say:

The University of Virginia [UVA] via its President, UVA Rector, UVA Board of Visitors [BOV], UVA Office of University Counsel (Roscoe Roberts and Robert Tyler), UVA Secretary to the Board of Visitors [BOV] Susan Harris, Virginia Attorney General and UVA�s Freedom of Information Act Officer (Faith Hill) have individually and in concert have denied the membership of Virginia�s Unalienable Rights Foundation [UARF] their Civil Rights granted to them and all citizens of the United States by it�s/their [UVA] refusal to comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) /28 CFR Part 35 [CRT Docket No. 105; AG Order No. 3180� 2010] RIN 1190�AA46 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, by not providing the aforesaid requested services to deaf and hard of hearing individuals.

On the 20^th day of September, 2016 UARF sent to Susan G. Harris, Esq., Attorney and Counselor at Law, who serves as the Secretary to the UVA Board Board of Visitors the following request, which all members of the BOV were sent copies at the email addresses UVA provided on its web site:

We are requesting that the Board of Visitors [BOV] of the University of Virginia [UVA] provide CART and a written transcription of the University of Virginia�s Board of Visitors meetings to the Unalienable Rights Foundation�s membership that are deaf and hard of hearing, henceforth. The UVA BOV�s failure to do so would make the aurally delivered information unavailable to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing which to us appears would be be a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) /28 CFR Part 35 [CRT Docket No. 105; AG Order No. 3180� 2010] RIN 1190�AA46 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, by not providing the aforesaid requested services to deaf and hard of hearing individuals.

The BOV can obtain a list of certified providers of the services from Mr. Karl Hade, Executive Secretary of the Virginia Supreme Court.

At this time we would also like to request that the BOV provide written transcriptions [not minutes] of its:

November 2015 meetings;

January 2016 meetings.

To which UARF received [in part / the full text of the email and other supporting documents are being sent to your office under separate cover as you have directed in your instructions] the following reply from UVA via its lawyer Robert Taylor that sets out UARF�s membership�s claim for denial of the membership�s civil rights under both the ADA and 42 U.S.C. � 1983 � Civil action for deprivation of rights;

"While FOIA does not require a public body to create a record that does not already exist. . . "

The above account for UVA�s failure to provide the requested transcriptions of the BOV proceedings from Tyler clearly makes our case for our claim of the violation of ADA [denial of civil rights by UVA found in the laws of the United Sates and Virginia Code. Virginia Code � 1-248. Says as much:

Title 1 General Provisions

Chap. 2.1 Common Law and Rules of Construction, �� 1-200 � 1-257

Art. 2 Rules of Construction and Definitions, �� 1-202 � 1-257

Supremacy of federal and state law. � The Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth shall be supreme. . . .

The ADA is the law of the U.S. and Va Code Sec. 1-248 says it is supreme and the assertion that the AG�s office makes that Virginia�s FOIA laws trump the ADA is incorrect.

We further find in Tyler�s email the assertion:

"The University has not refused to provide requested transcripts"

As of this date the membership of UARF has not found that the ADA mandated transcripts of the meetings have been provided.

But what we do find in Tyler�s email these words:

�

. . . [t]he University has agreed to provide transcripts for the November 2015 meetings and simply needs to know if the Foundation wishes to have the entire two-day session transcribed or whether there are particular sessions of interest to the Foundation.

If UVA had met its burden as required under Virginia Code �42.1-86 and 42.1-87 we would not be having this discussion. We would just have look at the required/mandated indexes of records and would merely request the one that the index reflected contained the subject matter we were interested in. Its just that simple. However when we have no guidance from an index/inventory as to what is contained in a public record we must by default read the entire document. No one at UARF has Johnny Carson�s CARNAC THE MAGNIFICENT ability to guess what is contained in what is hidden.

�

CARNAC THE MAGNIFICENT

ED McMAHON: Heaven has no brighter star than our next stellar guest, that omnipotent master

of the east and former manicurist to Howard Hughes, Carnac the Magnificent...

Welcome once again, O Great Sage... I hold in my hand these envelopes. As a child of four can

plainly see, these envelopes have been hermetically sealed. They've been kept in a #2 mayonnaise

jar since noon today on Funk and Wagnell's porch. No one knows the contents of these envelopes,

but you, in your divine and mystical way, will ascertain the answers to these questions having never

seen them before.

�

CARNAC: I must have absolute silence...

ANSWER: Nestea Plunge.

QUESTION: What does the president of Nestea use when his toilet is stopped up?

A: Peter Pan.

Q: What do you use to fry a peter?

A: Mount Baldy.

Q: How do you play piggyback with Telly Savales?

A: The ZIP Code.

Q: What do CIA agents have to remember to go to the bathroom?

A: A, B, C, D, E, F, G.

Q: What were some of the earlier forms of Preparation H?

Accordingly we must see/have all the meetings transcribed. From reading the transcribed meetings we can ascertain which meeting, if any contains the information.

Contact information and the list of UVA�s principals/individuals that violated our membership�s civil rights by their/UVA not conforming to the aforesaid provisions of the ADA:

Ms. Teresa A. Sullivan

President

The University of Virginia

Office of the President

University of Virginia

Post Office Box 400224

Charlottesville, VA 22904-4224

�

Members of the University of Virginia Board of Visitors;

�

William H. Goodwin Jr.

800 East Canal Street, Suite 1900

Richmond, VA

�

Frank M. Conner III

One City Center

850 Tenth Street NW

Washington DC 20001-4956

�

Mark T. Bowles

Gateway Plaza

800 East Canal Street

Richmond, VA 23219-3916

�

L.D. Britt, MD, MPH

825 Fairfax Avenue,

6th Floor

Norfolk, VA 23507

�

Whittington W. Clement

951 East Byrd Street

Richmond VA 23219

�

Elizabeth M. Cranwell

1911 Mountain View Road

Vinton, VA

�

Thomas A. DePasquale

7615 Southdown Road

Alexandria, VA 22308-1338

�

Kevin J. Fay

1101 Ingleside Avenue

McLean, VA 22101-2131

�

Barbara J. Fried

5924 Fried Farm Road

Crozet, VA 22932

�

Frank E. Genovese

2706 Stonegate Court

Midlothian, VA

John A. Griffin

660 Madison Ave, 20th Floor

New York, NY 10065

�

Babur B. Lateef, M.D

13001 Chaddsford Terrace

Manassas, VA 20112

�

John G. Macfarlane III

4626 Slam Gate Road

Crozet, VA 22932

�

Tammy S. Murphy

21 East Front Street, Suite 700

Red Bank, NJ 0701

�

James B. Murray Jr.

427 Park Street

Charlottesville, VA 22902

�

James V. Reyes

3500 Fort Lincoln Drive NE

Washington DC 20018

�

Jeffrey C. Walker

15 Central Park West #14D

New York, NY 10023

�

Nina J. Solenski, M.D. / Faculty Member /

University of Virginia Health System

Department of Neurosurgery

P.O. Box 800394

Charlottesville, VA 22908

1215 Lee St

Charlottesville, VA 22908

�

Phoebe A. Willis / Student Member

1824 University Circle

Charlottesville, VA 22903

�

��

�

John Kuchta, The President of the Virginia Marine Resources Foundation has notified the Virginia Beach City Council that its proposed Oyster Oyster Restoration project is in violation of federal and Virginia State law;

The Members of the Virginia Beach City Council
2401 Courthouse Drive
Building 1
Virginia Beach, VA 23456

The Honorable Mayor William Sessoms and his fellow Virginia Beach Council Members:

After having reviewed the proposed Virginia Beach Oyster Plan which is being presented to you for your approval on July 12, 2016, it appears to the Virginia Marine Resources Foundation that said plan is not in compliance with:

The laws of the United States:

May 12, 2009, President Barack Obama Executive Order/Presidential Executive Order 13508

Magnuson Act [MA], U.S. Code TITLE 16 � CONSERVATION / Chapter 38 � Fishery Conservation And Management, 16 U.S.C. � 1801 � 16 U.S.C. � 1891d [including and not limited to U.S. Code 16 U.S.C. � 1851]

Anti-Trust Laws

Sherman Act

Combinations is restraint of Trade

Monopolization

Clayton Act:

TITLE 15 � COMMERCE AND TRADE

Chapter 1 � Monopolies And Combinations In Restraint Of Trade

15 U.S.C. � 1 � 15 U.S.C. � 38

Price discrimination

Predatory Pricing

Exclusive Dealing and tying arrangements Interlocking directories

Federal Trade Commission Act

Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are declared unlawful [15 U.S.C. �45 ~ INTRODUCTORY SENTENCE IN � 5.

And that the City�s agency forwarding this plan to you for your approval, or the City�s Attorney�s office has not completed:

Audits of Compliance with the

Sherman / Clayton / and FTC Acts by the City of Virginia Beach and its Agencies;

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA);

Presidential Executive Order 13508;

As you and the City knows that it is the responsibility of the City Council to insure the Compliance:

� 1-213. Delegation of duties assigned to political subdivision. � The governing body of a political subdivision shall be responsible for any duty or responsibility imposed upon its political subdivision. (1986, c. 239, � 1-17.2; 1987, c. 471; 1988, c. 273; 2005, c. 839.);

You are visiting/addressing this ordinance today because this ordinance�s predecessor plan tuned out to be non-existing. Accordingly it appears to the Foundation that all prior acts somewhere up the City�s food chain of Agencies involves contracts, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce . . . [i]s declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. (U.S. Code 15 U.S.C. � 1.).

It appears to the Foundation that your Agencies are continuing the same unlawful practices that brings this matter before you this day and accordingly you are continuing a legacy of turning your back on the very laws that you swore to uphold when you took your oath of office.

It would be easy for the Foundation to put this on your shoulders alone, but the truth be told there are many Agencies of the City involved in this. The Council has been duped by it own agencies, and those agencies that are in place to catch these defalcations of the City�s operations look the other way or in the alternative their personal are just incompetent, or maybe its both and that can be reduced to one word, incompetence.

Chief among these agencies if the City Attorney�s office. That agency should be making sure that any legislative act the Council is:

Legally Sufficient;

Content is appropriate;

In Proper Form;

Several requests have been sent to the City Attorney�s Office [Department of Law] over a long period of time asking that Agency for its policies and procedures for determining:

Legally Sufficient;

Content is appropriate;

In Proper Form;

As of date we have never been provided any criteria that agency uses to determine:

Legally Sufficiency of the ordinance;

If the Content of the ordinance is appropriate;

If the ordinance is in Proper Form;

Because the Department of Law can not produce any policy and procedures that shows uniformity in making any of the aforesaid criteria, following the rules of Constitutional Construction, it appears to the Foundation that the City�s ordinances may very well be an ultra-vires acts, void, not voidable. This however is a matter to be determined in-bar and in the upcoming Qui Tam suits [(Commonwealth, et., al. v City of Virginia Beach, et. al. And (The United States, et.al. v City of Virginia Beach)] the courts will be asked to address this issue. For the issues raised in lines 69- 85 above addressing policies and procedures it is the Foundation�s position that there are no standards/uniformity and no compliance with the Dillion Rule standards in any Legislative Acts passed by the city of Virginia Beach, and accordingly the acts should be viewed to be void.

If City Attorney�s Office had preformed its duty years ago you would not be addressing this issue again today. And now it appears to the Foundation that this agency has again failed in its duties to you its Client.

We have asked the City Clerk for any document the Virginia Beach City Attorney�s office has sent to the Council that address the rule of Virginia�s Supreme Court:

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

Part 6. Integration of the State Bar

Section II Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct

Area 1 Client-Lawyer Relationship

[9] The duty defined in this Rule applies to government organizations. However, when the client is a governmental organization, a different balance may be appropriate between maintaining confidentiality and assuring that the wrongful official act is prevented or rectified, for public business is involved.

Although in some circumstances the client may be a specific agency, it is generally the government as a whole. For example, if the action or failure to act involves the head of a bureau, either the department of which the bureau is a part or the government as a whole may be the client for purpose of this Rule. Moreover, in a matter involving the conduct of government officials, a government lawyer may have authority to question such conduct more extensively than that of a lawyer for a private organization in similar circumstances. This Rule does not limit that authority. See note on Scope. Organization as Client., Prof. Conduct Rule 1.13 (2000)

The response from the clerk via the City Attorney was that the Department of Law has never provided the City Council with any notice that reflects the City Attorney�s obligation to act under Conduct Rule 1.13[9].

Not having such policies and procedures this says to the Foundation there are no standards/uniformity in any Legislative Act passed by the city of Virginia Beach, and accordingly the acts should be viewed to be void.

Any government entity / agency / employee / agent / contractor in receipt of this email is to consider this e-mail written under; The rights granted to UARF and the sender under the umbrella of [1] the Constitution of the United States; [2] its 14th amendment; [2.A.] the Federal Freedom of Information Act (Enacted on July 4, 1966); [2.B.] Federal Whistle Blower Acts, by whatever names they might be called; [3] Virginia's Constitution; [4] The Virginia Freedom of information Act (VA. CODE Sec. 2.2-3700 to 2.2-3714); [5] The Virginia Public Records Act (VA. CODE Sec. 42.1-76 to 42.1-91.1); [6] The Virginia Fraud and Abuse Whistle Blower Protection Act [VWBA] (�� 2.2-3009 � 2.2-3014) [and by a copy of this document to Virginia's Inspector General this writer is making a claim for a reward as set out and provided for in the VWBA ]; and [7] the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayer Act (Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, �� 8.01-216.1 � 8.01-216.19) ].

Be aware that this request may be in the UARF�s best efforts to gather evidence in accordance with the Qui Tam promulgations of;

1. The Federal Government of the U.S.;

2. The Commonwealth of Virginia;

in the instant and/or other matter(s).

In your response please be sure to preserve your rights as stated/provided for in the 5th. amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Art. 1 and Sec. 8 of the Virginia Constitution.

Take due notice thereof and govern yourself accordingly.

As it is written

* John Kuchta / President
The Virginia Marine Resources Foundation [VMRF]
P.O. Box 65002
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23467-5002
757-468-9020

E-Mail Contacts
contact.us@vmrf.us
Our Web Page
http://www.VMRF.us

VMRF /P. O. Box 65002 / Virginia Beach / Virginia / 23467-5002 / 757 - 818 - 8003

Product quality is one of key performance indicators canada pharmacy >.^/ order effexor Each of our buyer is entitled to obtain information about the source of any medicine. A catalog of medical and cosmetic products with descriptions. Thematic categories, search by alphabet and key words. All in Canadian pharmacy ;??] purchase levitra very low prices for all drugs. Full details of the medication: composition, manufacturer, purpose, use, contraindications, located on the on line pharmacy {|* Canada drugs pharmacy : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.


	Home · Topics · Top 10

Can anyone confirm that this a good address for Waverly Woods to Get Good Posted Service: 2035 Lyndora Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464

Rouge City Manager !!!!

Where is John Moss's Voice/His Vote / His Motion / His Out Cry

At the Virginia Beach City Council's Meetings?

There are none and that speaks volumes !!

His failure to act, his silence, show he is agreement with the acts he says are wrong.

His silence is Acquiescence

Albert Einstein Spoke of John Moss

John Moss's Facebook Post below

Of special interest to Beach voters and City employees

A tale of two approaches of the City Manager and you be the judge of the take-always (I personally shared this with my Council peers - you guess the response)

Dec 1, 2016 Department of Labor ruling on increasing the income threshold below which employees would be entitled was to be effective.

1. 20 states not including Virginia joined with Texas and received a preliminary injunction for its enforcement as a Texas Federal District Court ruled it unconstitutional

A. There is differing opinions as to the nation wide applicability of a district court ruling, but that is not germane to the facts to follow.

2. Less than 20 City employees would be affected by the rule and maintaining their exempt status (increasing their salaries above the proposed new threshold) would have cost an estimated $27,000.

A. The City Manager consulted the City Attorney

B. The City Manager based on "A" sent an email to City Council providing summary background and his plan to take no action until litigation was resolved

C. Based on my queries the City Attorney briefed City Council and Council adopted a position of sustain the status quo for now.

Now how did the City Manager handle another policy issue involving current compensation for his inner circle -

1. When City Council adopted the current budget - a budget I did not support for a number of reasons - the position of Deputy City Manager for Public Safety was re-established

A. Former City Manager Spore eliminate it some years back and assumed those duties back, as he had exercised them previously.

B.Never in the discussion of re-establishing the position or in the appropriation of funding for the new position was it mentioned that we would be departing from precedent by having a deputy city manager classified as public safety for the purpose of VRS retirement

C. To my knowledge (I have requested copies of the position description, position solicitations, etc.) the position upon which the recruitment took place made no representation of the selectee being eligible for a generous public safety VRS pension.

G. The City Manager's letter of course did not reveal the full history nor did he disclose that the nature of letter had not been discussed with City Council and City Council had not endorsed his request.

H. Over the retirement of the now Deputy City Manager and former Fire Chief I suspect that more than $27,000 is involved

The City Manager when dealing with compensation and benefits for the deck plate seeks out the City Attorney and keeps City Council fully informed.

The City Manager when seeking to get a rule change to benefit his inner circle does not consult the City Attorney fully and notifies City Council after the fact.

Oh I did not mention yet that should the City Manager's letter be favorably acted on, it could undermine on-going litigation that could create a significant liability for taxpayers. If only the City Manager thoroughness and collaboration was equally applied to all positions.

Unfortunately City Council was rather indifferent to the issue. I am going to bring it up again with more documentation that I have requested from the City Manager.

I am also as single Council Member only speaking for me asking our Virginia Beach General Assembly Delegation to do just the opposite of what Mr. Hansen has requested.

His actions are the very self-serving senior appointed official actions that undermines the public's trust and confidence in local government, in my judgment.

There is no wonder why there is a huge gap between the insulated governing elite and everyday Americans. The public knows this type of self-serving enrichment at the taxpayers' expense is going-on, generally out of public view, and that they are usually powerless to stop it.

Let your members of the House of Delegates and State Senate know how you feel. Your voice can stop it.

Time To Replace John Moss

Time To Look For Moss' Replacement

His True Voice, His Vote a Councilman, does not match his rhetoric

He writes all types of anti-Virginia Beach Government Grandiosity

But his votes are nothing short than that of allowing graft and corruption to continue

John Moss is not Against, he is part of:

As his votes on Council indicate His Votes on Council demand that we ask him, Mr. Moss;

His Votes on Council demand that we ask him, Mr. Moss do you believe in the ideologies of:

Violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act Complaint Filed Against

The University of Virginia�

It's

��� President

��� Rector

��� Lawyer

��� Virginia Attorney General

��� Freedom of Information Officer

��� Board of Visitors

The Virginia Unalienable Rights Foundation's Donnie Edwards filed with the U.S. Department of Justice a complaint Friday afternoon, October 7, 2016. In that complaint Edwards says UVA has violated Title II of the ADA.

What Edwards had to say:

On the 20th day of September, 2016 UARF sent to Susan G. Harris, Esq., Attorney and Counselor at Law, who serves as the Secretary to the UVA Board Board of Visitors the following request, which all members of the BOV were sent copies at the email addresses UVA provided on its web site:

The BOV can obtain a list of certified providers of the services from Mr. Karl Hade, Executive Secretary of the Virginia Supreme Court.

At this time we would also like to request that the BOV provide written transcriptions [not minutes] of its:

November 2015 meetings;

January 2016 meetings.

"While FOIA does not require a public body to create a record that does not already exist. . . "

The above account for UVA�s failure to provide the requested transcriptions of the BOV proceedings from Tyler clearly makes our case for our claim of the violation of ADA [denial of civil rights by UVA found in the laws of the United Sates and Virginia Code. Virginia Code � 1-248. Says as much:

Title 1 General Provisions

Chap. 2.1 Common Law and Rules of Construction, �� 1-200 � 1-257

Art. 2 Rules of Construction and Definitions, �� 1-202 � 1-257