If it's any usefulness PPK or to anyone, her Doctor's name is Dr. Michael W. Hoffmann, M.D.
Here's his profile: http://health.usf.edu/medicine/neurology/faculty/hoffmann.htm
Also her real life name is Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (found it on Youtube).
PROTIP: Never use your real life name in association to your active username, ever. Considering that you willfully posted your real life name online for everyone to see, it's fair game.
But I felt bad about what I said before, and decided to do some actual research into this matter myself to be fair. So I googled her real life name with "Court Cases" added to the search text. They are various court cases/statements mentioning her name, and I decided to provide some links here for easy access (it would take too long to find everything):
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2005/1001-1200/05-1181_JurisAnsCityofLargo.pdf
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2005/1001-1200/05-1181_JurisIni.pdf
http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFDCT%5CMFL%5C2006%5C20060109_0000077.MFL.htm/qx
http://www.websupp.org/data/MDFL/8:05-cv-01182-16-MDFL.pdf
http://www.websupp.org/data/MDFL/176614-MDFL.pdf
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc04-101/04-101commentsmary.pdf
http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/LegalPractice/opinions/appellatedivisionopinions/2005/03-13%20APANO%20Petrano.htm
http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/LegalPractice/opinions/appellatedivisionopinions/2005/03-44%20APANO%20Petrano.htm
I'll let you guys research the rest and judge for yourselves. But these documents should be very interesting to read, that's all I can say...
Thank you for listing all the court cases in which I was forced to litigate WITHOUT AUTISM ACCOMMODATIONS cases in paper print I cannot see to read or understand, telephones I cannot use to call the court or schedule a telephonic hearing, and CART realtime computer assisted real time transcription in the courtrooms, all of which the entirety of my medical history as written by my doctors would tell you I require in order to be able to understand and follow the speech and written communications involved in every aspect of those cases inside and outside the courthouse from start to finish -- in order to make your post not recklessly defamatory, please breakdown your list into columns of which ones of those cases I was fully autism access accommodated (all you put on my list from start to finish of the case) vs in the other column the cases where I was not. You need to make your correction because under prevailing United States Supreme Court precedent, Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), and Florida Consitution, Art. I, sec. 21, 'ALL' people in Florida have the unfettered state and federal Constitutional right to access to the courts "with" "necessary" "effective communication" "auxiliary aids and services" and "removal of architectural, communication, and transportation barriers" for autism/Asperger's and related conditions. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101, 12131-12134, 12201-12203, 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 & 35.130(b)(7), (b)( eight), 35.160.
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). Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions, Ltd., No. 01-11197 (11th Cir. 2002) (appropriate accommodations to overcome mobility barriers required); Agranoff v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., 97 F.Supp.2d 86, 88 (D.Mass 1999) (extra time required to avert irreparable harm for person who suffered from a neurological condition that cause severe cramping and fatigue of his hand when writing or holding a pen); Bennett-Nelson v. Louisiana Board of Regents, No. 03-31198, at 2-3 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2005) (disabled hearing impaired plaintiffs alleged the defendant University denied them equal access to education by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and auxiliary aids and services, sign language interpreters and note takers, as well as certain study aids, in a timely and effective manner.)
Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions, Ltd., No. 01-11197 (11th Cir. 2002), covers both tangible barriers, that is, physical and architectural barriers that would prevent a disabled person from entering a public entity’s facilities and accessing its services, programs, and/or activities, See 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), and intangible barriers, such as eligibility requirements and screening rules or discriminatory policies and procedures that restrict a disabled person's ability to enjoy the defendant entity’s services, programs, and/or activities, See 42 U.S.C. §§12132, 12134; 28 C.F.R. §35.130(a), (b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii), (b)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (b)(7), (b)(6), (b)( eight), (d), (f), & (g).
The Eleventh Circuit also observed in Ass’n of Disabled Americans, Case No. 02-10360 (11th Cir. 2005), “In Tennessee v. Lane, the Supreme Court identified that Title II seeks to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s ‘prohibition on irrational discrimination.’ 124 S.Ct. at 1998. Additionally, …Title II seeks to enforce the constitutional guarantees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment in the context of access to the courts. Id. The Lane Court concluded that these heightened rights are subject to ‘more searching review.’ Id. …[n.2] [T]he rights [of access to the courts] at stake in Lane were fundamental…” In terms of communication breakdown gaps that violate due process, the 11th Circuit established the analytical framework for ascertaining if there was discrimination, here: Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, 480 F.3d 1972 (11th Cir. 2007).
In sum, when you separate your list into the two columns of the defamation vs. First Amendment-protected cases you have listed to make your statements about me truthful, you need to follow those contraints that define in what circumstances even a posted court case opinion you find posted on the Internet is discrimination against autism --
... because if it is and you make a post without saying the court case result was based on autism discrimination that violated all of the above definitional rules, then you have only told 1/2 the truth -- and half-truths can be legally actionable as defamation -- even to a public figure. Given your scholarly efforts to dig up the rule of law, I am sure that while you or others might like to tell me to go fuck myself or call my savant autism a faggot, you would not necessarily cross the line into a reckless defamation that is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Since I am rather enjoying the skills of the debaters here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt !!!
Next, if you have some unwritten rules about the Internet that are not posted in accessible print types-styles, font sizes, and with the right color contrasts AND can show you sent that sent to an autistic person's e-mail box to provide notice and alert the person, then I would say your cited unwritten rule is discriminatory against autism and actionable on a lawsuit -- if someone decided to bring one. I am only pointing this out, because not only are all rules including unwritten rules subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act "effective communications" mandates, but ANYTHING on Internet websites and such including TOS, are not enforceable if the proper accommodations are not given to an autistic person so she can see, read, and understand them. e.g., Douglas v. U.S. District Court, 495 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2007).
Finally, the most salient fact is, what is the first-in-time court case/event regarding my autism to be given "Full Faith and Credit" res judicata recognition by a state or federal court of agency ? Feb. 1970, adjudication of adult child support for my autism, given Full Faith and Credit when my father married my step-mother in CT, and upheld by California Superor Court in a case. Every later-in-time case MUST recognize and give effective communications accommodations (as I listed my doctors say I requires, above) for my autism spectrum condition which they were required by U.S. Constitution, res judicata rules, and statutes of repose to recognize.
If you are stlill having trouble in your efforts to navigate the law governing the statements you have posted about me, might I suggest you brush up on your legal research skills before losing all impulse control in your haste to post just anything nasty you can find about a severely autistic person on the Internet ?
