Interesting… I wrote the court about this Suris case in July and said what I did here. I addressed my concerns. In fact, linked them to my comments here. They read the email and visited the link. (email receipt). In fact was sent receipt of complaint. I did not file a complaint though, lol. These cases come to the courts by the 100’s I am sure, so it was quick for the court to grab one, and protect the Judge’s decision in Suris.

This Judge was simply covering up for the first Judge. Scribd is second circuit precedent. It is a place of public accommodation and internet only. He did not bring up the Sullivan case and apply it nor distinguish why he would not apply it. Why a NYCHRL, NYSHRL case as in Sullivan does not apply to ADA. I presume declining to address the ADA claim was the easy way out of that. The Sullivan case should apply to an ADA case. The three should not be distinguishable.

The DOJ finds that websites only are places of accommodation contrary to this Judge and others decisions.

“The DOJ still believes the ADA applies to websites, even if it is not acting to issue regulations. The lack of regulations doesn’t release anyone from the need to make their websites accessible.” https://www.levelaccess.com/doj-reaffirms-position-that-ada-applies-to-websites/

In fact, articles even say because the internet had not evolved yet the act is behind the times contrary to the Judges comments and needs to catch up with technology.

There are many other instances including settlements the DOJ finds websites only places of public accommodation. The DOJ really has to address this matter. There should not be this vast array of opposing decisions in this country. It would be so much easier for the DOJ to amend the act.

I have to wonder why this court has not labeled Winegard as a vexatious litigant? I do disagree with the serial filers like this though.

I hope the attorney is smart enough to bring the case in state court under the NYCHRL and NYSHRL and use the Sullivan Vs BDG Media case. He can still bring this case in state court per 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). I believe he still has a few days to do so?

I am glad to see that if the website involves goods and services it will be taken into consideration as a place of public accommodation.

My issue is with a website that involves goods and services. However, if I proceed further I am not going the discrimination route, but consumer laws, and antitrust laws route in order to get the case into court via antitrust. I could plead this case against the business and win in an honest legal system, but I won’t pro se. If I bring it, I will find the best NY business attorney $ can buy, that is respected by the court and wins in the E.D.N.Y. That is the only way to proceed in courts if you want to win. Because pro se are not respected. You would think the court would be impressed by and respect a knowledgeable one. But, they do not. My money as a pro se that I pay to the court deserves the same respect and decision as one whom has the attorney or better yet as the business. The legal system in this country is majorly flawed and I have no respect for it.

Pro se, not throw away your money to the courts. You will never win, no matter how well you can plead your case. In my bankruptcy case in 2016 the court created new precedent and ignored binding… Told me to come back in 7 years, lol. I properly pleaded my case. The appeal was full of speculation and clearly written by a law clerk.

Bring your discrimination case against a website only under NYCHRL, NYSHRL in state court using Sullivan Vs. BDG Media, and other precedent as precedent. Since this court would rather protect a previous judges decision instead. If goods and services website – attempt to bring it under ADA – then if that fails proceed to state under the state claims.

The plaintiff in this case had counsel. Same result. https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/09/the-ada-doesnt-apply-to-online-newspaper-website-again-winegard-v-newsday.htm

Furthermore, look at the prior Sullivan Vs BDG Media 2021 in NY Supreme court which is binding precedent. This is a newspaper only website. The judge found in this case the newspaper website only was a place of public accommodation. This case had an attorney. Things that make you go hmm…

Find me cases where the opinions are in complete opposition simply because they are ADA vs. NYCHRL, NYSHRL. I cannot find any. There should not be a distinction. If you need to bring a website only case in the second circuit bring it only under the NYCHRL, and NYSHRL.

This judge because pro se parties have no rights in this country is turning the second circuit away from what it is/was that website only are places of public accommodation.

Also, the judge states that the second circuit has not addressed the issue even though he brought up the Scribd case. Last I checked Vermont was second circuit, so this website only has been addressed.

I am not an attorney, but someone with a potential case website only that I will not bring. I have done extensive research. I will not throw away money into NY courts for a bias, corrupt decision. If you are pro se do not go into the court alone regardless of how well you can plead your case. You will never win. I am writing the Chief Judge. Everyone else should as well. Fight back against the injustice and pro se parties have rights or should, equal at that. Why is this case not marked as unpublished? I thought pro se cases were supposed to be labeled as such?

I am working on a website in which I will watch cases around the country and publish them when the decision does not follow precedent, or rules, when the party is pro se, and other criteria. Hold the courts accountable.

Pro se parties, stay out of the court. Do not throw away your money. You will NOT win even if you legally should.

As for section 230 it is not as black and white as it seems. However, this needs reform. There is too much protection for the big businesses and none for the little person.