Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

May 1, 2006

Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I spoke at

length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon).

First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even

reviewed this case.

Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school

district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child

attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in on some

(at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way,

the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained

to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law

without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may

have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the

Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST investigate

the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its

investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information

from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there

were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one

another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being

investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white lie) or

not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.

The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee (related

to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with legal

related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. Woods

was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee,

however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods would

not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not respond to

Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the committee

just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. (Please

note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, but none

have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)

To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, they

came across other filings Mr. Woods had filed with the courts

(including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot elaborate

on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts because I

want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, Mr.

Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle with

the school over his son's placement.

Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to Mr.

Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their

investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information (i.e. a

deposition).

Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is clear -

you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent another.

To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. There

is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court may

grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for certiori) is

granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even if the

court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help Mr.

Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold (helping the

Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he may

still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law.

There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over matters

heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given the

right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, here, we

have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the

language of the law, it would appear (although you would still need to

have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents can

and do have the right to take their appeal to court.

Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing what

they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The person

being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with the law

as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also,

please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being

submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decide

the matter.

The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this

matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an unusual

practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. Woods

would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did

advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he helped

the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does this, he

would not have to give the committee any information and the fine(s) he

is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably does

not want to sign such a letter.

As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged PER

OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one occurrence,

and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of $10,000.

I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke with Mr.

Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current

president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I

discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the

advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not

suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting

legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when

it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school

system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation

introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the

6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore

some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need

of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).

If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please email

me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.

I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what has

transpired.

Thanks,

Debbie

May 1, 2006

<<Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in on some (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way, the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law without a license >>

I was under the impression that parents could ask anyone they wanted to attend IEP meetings as part of "the team" I have advocated for other famillies before. In fact, I have had a member of the OCECD attend our IEP meeting and I know she doesn't have a law degree. So, it appears to me that the entire investigation was based on false information in a complaint.

All one needs to do is file a complaint to start a witch hunt? If that is the case, I have a few complaints to the bar about some people I have dealt with in the past. This is another attempt to bully parents to keep their nose out of things and let the "professionals" do their work. We all have been made to feel like speed bumps in the IEP process at one time or another, this case is another example of this tactic.

<<I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST investigate the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one another. >>

We are a community. We advise one another all the time! I have spoken with parents who have NOTHING, they have very limited funds and not much education and they are shark chum in IEP meetings! They may need to know how to write a letter to request an IEP meeting. How do they do that? With an attorney? Who will pay for it? So, the message is, if you are a parent helping out another less fortunate parent, you better mind your own business or you will be investigated by the bar assoc. Why is it relevant how the families knew one another? We are a community! Most of us only have other parents to rely on. Our social lives outside of autism is LONG GONE, we talk to one another, we share information.

<<

For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).>>

I do know Rory and I'm glad to hear that you are working on this with him. I will help in any way that I can. Let me know what you need of me.

----- Original Message -----

From: ddzlaw

Sent: 4/30/2006 7:18:26 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I spoke at length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even reviewed this case. Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in on some (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way, the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST investigate the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white lie) or not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee (related to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with legal related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. Woods was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods would not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not respond to Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the committee just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. (Please note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, but none have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, they came across other filings Mr. Woods had filed with the courts (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot elaborate on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts because I want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, Mr. Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle with the school over his son's placement. Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to Mr. Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information (i.e. a deposition). Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is clear -you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent another. To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. There is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court may grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for certiori) is granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even if the court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help Mr. Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold (helping the Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he may still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over matters heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given the right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, here, we have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the language of the law, it would appear (although you would still need to have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents can and do have the right to take their appeal to court. Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing what they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The person being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with the law as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decide the matter. The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an unusual practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. Woods would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he helped the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does this, he would not have to give the committee any information and the fine(s) he is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably does not want to sign such a letter.As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged PER OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one occurrence, and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of $10,000. I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke with Mr. Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please email me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what has transpired.Thanks,Debbie

May 1, 2006

Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous matters/filings the bar discovered. Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the committee! ----- Original Message ----- From: ddzlaw Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PMSubject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I spoke at length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even reviewed this case. Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in on some (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way, the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the Winkelman matter) At this point, the bar association MUST investigate the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white lie) or not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee (related to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with legal related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. Woods was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods would not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not respond to Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the committee just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. (Please note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, but none have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, they came across other filings Mr. Woods had filed with the courts (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot elaborate on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts because I want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, Mr. Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle with the school over his son's placement. Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to Mr. Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information (i.e. a deposition). Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is clear -you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent another. To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. There is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court may grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for certiori) is granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even if the court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help Mr. Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold (helping the Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he may still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over matters heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given the right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, here, we have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the language of the law, it would appear (although you would still need to have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents can and do have the right to take their appeal to court Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing what they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The person being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with the law as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decide the matter. The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an unusual practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. Woods would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he helped the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does this, he would not have to give the committee any information and the fine(s) he is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably does not want to sign such a letter.As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged PER OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one occurrence, and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of $10,000. I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke with Mr. Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please email me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what has transpired.Thanks,Debbie

May 1, 2006

I guess the bottom line is that if you give " legal advice " and you

are not an attorney AND someone files a complaint you will be

investigated. Most often these investigations do not go anywhere

especially after the committee obtains all the necessary

information. My impression is that this is not a case where someone

just gave support. There were actual legal documents involved in

this case. In their son's action, Mr. Woods (and his wife) filed

court documents and presented evidence to the court. It is my

understanding that he may have helped prepare certain documents (and

may have given legal advice to the Winkelmans, which Winkelmans used

in their own due process hearing). Please remember that these are

just allegations. The Supreme Court will look at the evidence and

decide how to proceed.

It seems that Mr. Woods has not clearly set forth his side of the

story. At least that is the impression I am getting. The law

indicates that you cannot go into court to represent another. You

also cannot assist someone else in legal matters. Unfortunately,

there is no exception to representing immediate family members (i.e.,

your own children).

I wish I could share more with you, but for the privacy of the

families involved, I cannot at this time. The best thing we can do

is try to change the law, and the only way of going about doing that

would be to introduce legislation. This is what I am suggesting.

Thanks.

Debbie

>

> Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law

or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was

that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans -

I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous

matters/filings the bar discovered.

>

> Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing

his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the

case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the

committee!

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski@...>

> <mailto: >

> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM

> Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by

the Bar Association (long email)

>

> Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I

spoke at

> length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon).

>

> First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even

> reviewed this case.

>

> Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school

> district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans'

child

> attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in

on some

> (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by

the way,

> the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney

complained

> to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law

> without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr.

Woods may

> have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to

the

> Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST

investigate

> the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting

its

> investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more

information

> from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact,

there

> were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew

one

> another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being

> investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white

lie) or

> not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.

>

> The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee

(related

> to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with

legal

> related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr.

Woods

> was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee,

> however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods

would

> not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not

respond to

> Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the

committee

> just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened.

(Please

> note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey,

but none

> have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)

>

> To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation,

they

> came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts

> (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot

elaborate

> on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts

because I

> want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say,

Mr.

> Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle

with

> the school over his son's placement.

>

> Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to

Mr.

> Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their

> investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information

(i.e. a

> deposition).

>

> Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is

clear -

> you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent

another.

> To do so would be considered practicing law without a license.

There

> is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court

may

> grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for

certiori) is

> granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even

if the

> court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help

Mr.

> Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold

(helping the

> Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he

may

> still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law.

>

> There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over

matters

> heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given

the

> right to govern the practice of law in their state. However,

here, we

> have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the

> language of the law, it would appear (although you would still

need to

> have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents

can

> and do have the right to take their appeal to court.

>

> Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing

what

> they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The

person

> being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with

the law

> as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also,

> please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being

> submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will

decide

> the matter.

>

> The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this

> matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an

unusual

> practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr.

Woods

> would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did

> advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he

helped

> the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does

this, he

> would not have to give the committee any information and the fine

(s) he

> is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably

does

> not want to sign such a letter.

>

> As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged

PER

> OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one

occurrence,

> and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of

$10,000.

>

> I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke

with Mr.

> Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current

> president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I

> discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to

the

> advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly

do not

> suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without

consulting

> legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have

when

> it comes to getting the services their child needs from the

school

> system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having

legislation

> introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of

how the

> 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to

explore

> some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents

in need

> of legal services for their children (throughout the entire

state).

>

> If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please

email

> me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.

>

> I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what

has

> transpired.

>

> Thanks,

> Debbie

>

May 1, 2006

Debbie - Thank you for clearing that up! If I have further questions, I could always ask my lawyer. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that the law needs to be changed!! Chris----- Original Message ----- From: ddzlaw Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 9:40 PMSubject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)I guess the bottom line is that if you give "legal advice" and you are not an attorney AND someone files a complaint you will be investigated. Most often these investigations do not go anywhere especially after the committee obtains all the necessary information. My impression is that this is not a case where someone just gave support. There were actual legal documents involved in this case In their son's action, Mr. Woods (and his wife) filed court documents and presented evidence to the court. It is my understanding that he may have helped prepare certain documents (and may have given legal advice to the Winkelmans, which Winkelmans used in their own due process hearing). Please remember that these are just allegations. The Supreme Court will look at the evidence and decide how to proceed.It seems that Mr. Woods has not clearly set forth his side of the story. At least that is the impression I am getting. The law indicates that you cannot go into court to represent another. You also cannot assist someone else in legal matters. Unfortunately, there is no exception to representing immediate family members (i.e., your own children). I wish I could share more with you, but for the privacy of the families involved, I cannot at this time. The best thing we can do is try to change the law, and the only way of going about doing that would be to introduce legislation. This is what I am suggesting. Thanks.Debbie>> Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous matters/filings the bar discovered.> > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the committee! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski@...> > <mailto: > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)> > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts I spoke at > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even > reviewed this case. > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school > district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child > attends the same school as the Woods' child Mr. Woods' sat in on some > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way, > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST investigate > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white lie) or > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.> > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee (related > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with legal > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. Woods > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods would > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not respond to > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the committee > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. (Please > note that Mr Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, but none > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, they > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot elaborate > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts because I > want to protect Mr Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, Mr. > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle with > the school over his son's placement. > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to Mr. > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information (i.e. a > deposition). > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is clear -> you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent another. > To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. There > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court may > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for certiori) is > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even if the > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help Mr. > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold (helping the > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he may > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over matters > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given the > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, here, we > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the > language of the law, it would appear (although you would still need to > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents can > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing what > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The person > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with the law > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decide > the matter. > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an unusual > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. Woods > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he helped > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does this, he > would not have to give the committee any information and the fine(s) he > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably does > not want to sign such a letter.> > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged PER > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one occurrence, > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of $10,000. > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke with Mr. > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).> > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please email > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.> > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what has > transpired.> > Thanks,> Debbie> > > > > > > > >

May 1, 2006

Debbie, I've been thinking about this, and if you take this case and put it along side the case before the US Supreme Court now ( v Arlington), what you effectively get is only rich parents will be able to challenge school placements for their children. It seems the Court will rule in favor of the school district in this most recent case. The Ohio bar thinks it's unlawful for a parent to represent their child in court and soon, the Court will rule that parents cannot be reimbursed for expert witnesses. Well, expert witnesses are expensive. Ask anyone without health insurance or who seek experts in autism that are not covered by their insurance. It's a miscarriage of justice that will favor only the rich while the poor (whether poor because of low income or poor because so much of the family budget is poured into services for the child with autism) will be left in the dust. ----- Original Message ----- From: ddzlaw Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 9:40 PMSubject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)I guess the bottom line is that if you give "legal advice" and you are not an attorney AND someone files a complaint you will be investigated. Most often these investigations do not go anywhere especially after the committee obtains all the necessary information. My impression is that this is not a case where someone just gave support. There were actual legal documents involved in this case. In their son's action, Mr. Woods (and his wife) filed court documents and presented evidence to the court. It is my understanding that he may have helped prepare certain documents (and may have given legal advice to the Winkelmans, which Winkelmans used in their own due process hearing). Please remember that these are just allegations. The Supreme Court will look at the evidence and decide how to proceed.It seems that Mr. Woods has not clearly set forth his side of the story. At least that is the impression I am getting. The law indicates that you cannot go into court to represent another. You also cannot assist someone else in legal matters. Unfortunately, there is no exception to representing immediate family members (i.e., your own children). I wish I could share more with you, but for the privacy of the families involved, I cannot at this time. The best thing we can do is try to change the law, and the only way of going about doing that would be to introduce legislation. This is what I am suggesting. Thanks.Debbie>> Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous matters/filings the bar discovered.> > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the committee! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski@...> > <mailto: > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)> > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I spoke at > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even > reviewed this case. > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school > district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in on some > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way, > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST investigate > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white lie) or > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.> > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee (related > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with legal > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. Woods > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods would > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not respond to > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the committee > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. (Please > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, but none > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, they > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot elaborate > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts because I > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, Mr. > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle with > the school over his son's placement. > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to Mr. > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information (i.e. a > deposition). > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is clear -> you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent another. > To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. There > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court may > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for certiori) is > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even if the > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help Mr. > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold (helping the > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he may > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over matters > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given the > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, here, we > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the > language of the law, it would appear (although you would still need to > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents can > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing what > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The person > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with the law > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decide > the matter. > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an unusual > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. Woods > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he helped > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does this, he > would not have to give the committee any information and the fine(s) he > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably does > not want to sign such a letter.> > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged PER > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one occurrence, > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of $10,000. > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke with Mr. > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).> > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please email > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.> > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what has > transpired.> > Thanks,> Debbie> > > > > > > > >

May 1, 2006

That sounds like the plan to me, to restrict what all these parents of autistic children have access to. Over and over I have heard parents ask "don't they know how expensive this (care for ASD children) will be?"

Sounds like they do know how expensive it will be and sounds like they do know how to erradicate it. They will make a religious/moral stand worrying about abortions, but once the baby is born you are left to pick up the pieces by "pulling yourself up by your boot straps" no matter if the state sponsored vaccinations damage them, or not. Honestly, that doesn't smack of any compassion that I am aware of.

----- Original Message -----

From: The Marotta Family

Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:19 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

Debbie, I've been thinking about this, and if you take this case and put it along side the case before the US Supreme Court now ( v Arlington), what you effectively get is only rich parents will be able to challenge school placements for their children. It seems the Court will rule in favor of the school district in this most recent case.

The Ohio bar thinks it's unlawful for a parent to represent their child in court and soon, the Court will rule that parents cannot be reimbursed for expert witnesses. Well, expert witnesses are expensive. Ask anyone without health insurance or who seek experts in autism that are not covered by their insurance.

It's a miscarriage of justice that will favor only the rich while the poor (whether poor because of low income or poor because so much of the family budget is poured into services for the child with autism) will be left in the dust. Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: ddzlaw

Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 9:40 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

I guess the bottom line is that if you give "legal advice" and you are not an attorney AND someone files a complaint you will be investigated. Most often these investigations do not go anywhere especially after the committee obtains all the necessary information. My impression is that this is not a case where someone just gave support. There were actual legal documents involved in this case. In their son's action, Mr. Woods (and his wife) filed court documents and presented evidence to the court. It is my understanding that he may have helped prepare certain documents (and may have given legal advice to the Winkelmans, which Winkelmans used in their own due process hearing). Please remember that these are just allegations. The Supreme Court will look at the evidence and decide how to proceed.It seems that Mr. Woods has not clearly set forth his side of the story. At least that is the impression I am getting. The law indicates that you cannot go into court to represent another. You also cannot assist someone else in legal matters. Unfortunately, there is no exception to representing immediate family members (i.e., your own children). I wish I could share more with you, but for the privacy of the families involved, I cannot at this time. The best thing we can do is try to change the law, and the only way of going about doing that would be to introduce legislation. This is what I am suggesting. Thanks.Debbie>> Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous matters/filings the bar discovered.> > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the committee! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski@...> > <mailto: > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)> > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I spoke at > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even > reviewed this case. > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school > district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in on some > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way, > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST investigate > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white lie) or > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.> > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee (related > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with legal > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. Woods > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods would > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not respond to > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the committee > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. (Please > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, but none > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, they > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot elaborate > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts because I > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, Mr. > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle with > the school over his son's placement. > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to Mr. > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information (i.e. a > deposition). > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is clear -> you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent another. > To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. There > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court may > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for certiori) is > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even if the > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help Mr. > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold (helping the > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he may > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over matters > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given the > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, here, we > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the > language of the law, it would appear (although you would still need to > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents can > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing what > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The person > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with the law > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decide > the matter. > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an unusual > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. Woods > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he helped > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does this, he > would not have to give the committee any information and the fine(s) he > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably does > not want to sign such a letter.> > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged PER > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one occurrence, > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of $10,000. > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke with Mr. > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).> > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please email > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.> > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what has > transpired.> > Thanks,> Debbie> > > > > > > > >

May 1, 2006

Yup.

----- Original Message -----

From: The Marotta Family

Sent: 5/1/2006 4:19:56 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

Debbie, I've been thinking about this, and if you take this case and put it along side the case before the US Supreme Court now ( v Arlington), what you effectively get is only rich parents will be able to challenge school placements for their children. It seems the Court will rule in favor of the school district in this most recent case.

The Ohio bar thinks it's unlawful for a parent to represent their child in court and soon, the Court will rule that parents cannot be reimbursed for expert witnesses. Well, expert witnesses are expensive. Ask anyone without health insurance or who seek experts in autism that are not covered by their insurance.

It's a miscarriage of justice that will favor only the rich while the poor (whether poor because of low income or poor because so much of the family budget is poured into services for the child with autism) will be left in the dust. Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: ddzlaw

Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 9:40 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

I guess the bottom line is that if you give "legal advice" and you are not an attorney AND someone files a complaint you will be investigated. Most often these investigations do not go anywhere especially after the committee obtains all the necessary information. My impression is that this is not a case where someone just gave support. There were actual legal documents involved in this case. In their son's action, Mr. Woods (and his wife) filed court documents and presented evidence to the court. It is my understanding that he may have helped prepare certain documents (and may have given legal advice to the Winkelmans, which Winkelmans used in their own due process hearing). Please remember that these are just allegations. The Supreme Court will look at the evidence and decide how to proceed.It seems that Mr. Woods has not clearly set forth his side of the story. At least that is the impression I am getting. The law indicates that you cannot go into court to represent another. You also cannot assist someone else in legal matters. Unfortunately, there is no exception to representing immediate family members (i.e., your own children). I wish I could share more with you, but for the privacy of the families involved, I cannot at this time. The best thing we can do is try to change the law, and the only way of going about doing that would be to introduce legislation. This is what I am suggesting. Thanks.Debbie>> Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous matters/filings the bar discovered.> > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the committee! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski@...> > <mailto: > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)> > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I spoke at > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even > reviewed this case. > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school > district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in on some > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way, > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST investigate > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white lie) or > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.> > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee (related > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with legal > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. Woods > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods would > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not respond to > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the committee > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. (Please > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, but none > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, they > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot elaborate > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts because I > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, Mr. > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle with > the school over his son's placement. > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to Mr. > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information (i.e. a > deposition). > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is clear -> you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent another. > To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. There > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court may > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for certiori) is > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even if the > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help Mr. > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold (helping the > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he may > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over matters > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given the > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, here, we > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the > language of the law, it would appear (although you would still need to > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents can > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing what > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The person > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with the law > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decide > the matter. > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an unusual > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. Woods > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he helped > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does this, he > would not have to give the committee any information and the fine(s) he > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably does > not want to sign such a letter.> > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged PER > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one occurrence, > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of $10,000. > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke with Mr. > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).> > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please email > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.> > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what has > transpired.> > Thanks,> Debbie> > > > > > > > >

May 1, 2006

Meanwhile, the state will allow adoptive and foster parents care for multiple children with autism and PAY them for it. They are advised by their state social worker to keep them in cages "for their own good". I wonder if they got a court appointed attorney? For those of us who happen to be biological parents of ASD children, well, we're on our own to muddle through all the muck stirred up by this mucked up system.

Does it burn your ass that we have to fight the schools for services through their attorneys that are paid through OUR TAX MONEY? All I can say, is thank GOD for charter schools. They somehow are able to find the money to give my son all the services he needs without ever blinking an eye. The public schools are sweating charter schools and they should.

BTW, as an aside, talking about politicians and their religious/moral stands. Has anyone noticed the commercials for governor? Petro and Blackwell are in a war over who has more "american values" touting their stand on abortion and gay marriage, yet I haven't heard one word about what they plan to do about the public school funding that was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court several years ago or about the workman's compensation/coin scandal, corruption, job losses, etc. Are Ohioans really going to buy into their line of crap? It's as if they think that the public is so easlily fooled. They just wave something shiny (moral values) and the public will move their attention from the real issues (education, corruption, employment)?

----- Original Message -----

From: Cochran

Sent: 5/1/2006 6:05:21 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

That sounds like the plan to me, to restrict what all these parents of autistic children have access to. Over and over I have heard parents ask "don't they know how expensive this (care for ASD children) will be?"

Sounds like they do know how expensive it will be and sounds like they do know how to erradicate it. They will make a religious/moral stand worrying about abortions, but once the baby is born you are left to pick up the pieces by "pulling yourself up by your boot straps" no matter if the state sponsored vaccinations damage them, or not. Honestly, that doesn't smack of any compassion that I am aware of.

----- Original Message -----

From: The Marotta Family

Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:19 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

Debbie, I've been thinking about this, and if you take this case and put it along side the case before the US Supreme Court now ( v Arlington), what you effectively get is only rich parents will be able to challenge school placements for their children. It seems the Court will rule in favor of the school district in this most recent case.

The Ohio bar thinks it's unlawful for a parent to represent their child in court and soon, the Court will rule that parents cannot be reimbursed for expert witnesses. Well, expert witnesses are expensive. Ask anyone without health insurance or who seek experts in autism that are not covered by their insurance.

It's a miscarriage of justice that will favor only the rich while the poor (whether poor because of low income or poor because so much of the family budget is poured into services for the child with autism) will be left in the dust. Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: ddzlaw

Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 9:40 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

I guess the bottom line is that if you give "legal advice" and you are not an attorney AND someone files a complaint you will be investigated. Most often these investigations do not go anywhere especially after the committee obtains all the necessary information. My impression is that this is not a case where someone just gave support. There were actual legal documents involved in this case. In their son's action, Mr. Woods (and his wife) filed court documents and presented evidence to the court. It is my understanding that he may have helped prepare certain documents (and may have given legal advice to the Winkelmans, which Winkelmans used in their own due process hearing). Please remember that these are just allegations. The Supreme Court will look at the evidence and decide how to proceed.It seems that Mr. Woods has not clearly set forth his side of the story. At least that is the impression I am getting. The law indicates that you cannot go into court to represent another. You also cannot assist someone else in legal matters. Unfortunately, there is no exception to representing immediate family members (i.e., your own children). I wish I could share more with you, but for the privacy of the families involved, I cannot at this time. The best thing we can do is try to change the law, and the only way of going about doing that would be to introduce legislation. This is what I am suggesting. Thanks.Debbie>> Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous matters/filings the bar discovered.> > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the committee! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski@...> > <mailto: > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)> > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I spoke at > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even > reviewed this case. > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school > district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in on some > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way, > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST investigate > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white lie) or > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.> > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee (related > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with legal > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. Woods > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods would > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not respond to > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the committee > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. (Please > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, but none > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, they > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot elaborate > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts because I > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, Mr. > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle with > the school over his son's placement. > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to Mr. > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information (i.e. a > deposition). > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is clear -> you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent another. > To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. There > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court may > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for certiori) is > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even if the > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help Mr. > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold (helping the > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he may > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over matters > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given the > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, here, we > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the > language of the law, it would appear (although you would still need to > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents can > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing what > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The person > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with the law > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decide > the matter. > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an unusual > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. Woods > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he helped > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does this, he > would not have to give the committee any information and the fine(s) he > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably does > not want to sign such a letter.> > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged PER > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one occurrence, > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of $10,000. > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke with Mr. > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).> > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please email > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.> > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what has > transpired.> > Thanks,> Debbie> > > > > > > > >

May 1, 2006

" You say you want a revolushu-u-n wellll you know- we all wanna save the world. They tell me that it's evolushu-u-n welll you know......" -- Lennon

Was is Jefferson who said that there should be a revolution every seven years?

In a time where we are lectured by Tom Cruise on the evils of psychiatry and Angelina Jolie has to become embassador to

I don't know what to do honestly. As I said before I always end up voting AGAINST someone when there is no one to vote FOR.

----- Original Message -----

From: Cochran

Sent: 5/1/2006 10:11:54 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

The short answer is yes, they will buy into that load of crap. Honest, not political, have a PERSONAL ethical/moral dilemma with abortion, and that is what they play on, people like me.

Where do you choose, the people who believe it is okay to abort but will help a dd child, or the other people who once the baby is born, won't do a thing to help/assist even if that child is dd or handicapped?

And when they really get into trouble, they trot them out to spout a few Bible verses, and yes, people do buy it, a lot of them. But the low poll numbers might just be an indication that people have caught onto the game.

But when you know their game, just what do you do? The other side runs such reprobate, openly amoral weirdos, who can support them?

I don't know what is worse, People who don't know any better, or people who do know better and don't do it? And yes, noticing that diversion tatics are used frequently.

I cannot vote for any of them, not and sleep at night, that is.

----- Original Message -----

From: rmaher1969@...

Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:35 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

Meanwhile, the state will allow adoptive and foster parents care for multiple children with autism and PAY them for it. They are advised by their state social worker to keep them in cages "for their own good". I wonder if they got a court appointed attorney? For those of us who happen to be biological parents of ASD children, well, we're on our own to muddle through all the muck stirred up by this mucked up system.

Does it burn your ass that we have to fight the schools for services through their attorneys that are paid through OUR TAX MONEY? All I can say, is thank GOD for charter schools. They somehow are able to find the money to give my son all the services he needs without ever blinking an eye. The public schools are sweating charter schools and they should.

BTW, as an aside, talking about politicians and their religious/moral stands. Has anyone noticed the commercials for governor? Petro and Blackwell are in a war over who has more "american values" touting their stand on abortion and gay marriage, yet I haven't heard one word about what they plan to do about the public school funding that was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court several years ago or about the workman's compensation/coin scandal, corruption, job losses, etc. Are Ohioans really going to buy into their line of crap? It's as if they think that the public is so easlily fooled. They just wave something shiny (moral values) and the public will move their attention from the real issues (education, corruption, employment)?

----- Original Message -----

From: Cochran

Sent: 5/1/2006 6:05:21 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

That sounds like the plan to me, to restrict what all these parents of autistic children have access to. Over and over I have heard parents ask "don't they know how expensive this (care for ASD children) will be?"

Sounds like they do know how expensive it will be and sounds like they do know how to erradicate it. They will make a religious/moral stand worrying about abortions, but once the baby is born you are left to pick up the pieces by "pulling yourself up by your boot straps" no matter if the state sponsored vaccinations damage them, or not. Honestly, that doesn't smack of any compassion that I am aware of.

----- Original Message -----

From: The Marotta Family

Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:19 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

Debbie, I've been thinking about this, and if you take this case and put it along side the case before the US Supreme Court now ( v Arlington), what you effectively get is only rich parents will be able to challenge school placements for their children. It seems the Court will rule in favor of the school district in this most recent case.

The Ohio bar thinks it's unlawful for a parent to represent their child in court and soon, the Court will rule that parents cannot be reimbursed for expert witnesses. Well, expert witnesses are expensive. Ask anyone without health insurance or who seek experts in autism that are not covered by their insurance.

It's a miscarriage of justice that will favor only the rich while the poor (whether poor because of low income or poor because so much of the family budget is poured into services for the child with autism) will be left in the dust. Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: ddzlaw

Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 9:40 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

I guess the bottom line is that if you give "legal advice" and you are not an attorney AND someone files a complaint you will be investigated. Most often these investigations do not go anywhere especially after the committee obtains all the necessary information. My impression is that this is not a case where someone just gave support. There were actual legal documents involved in this case. In their son's action, Mr. Woods (and his wife) filed court documents and presented evidence to the court. It is my understanding that he may have helped prepare certain documents (and may have given legal advice to the Winkelmans, which Winkelmans used in their own due process hearing). Please remember that these are just allegations. The Supreme Court will look at the evidence and decide how to proceed.It seems that Mr. Woods has not clearly set forth his side of the story. At least that is the impression I am getting. The law indicates that you cannot go into court to represent another. You also cannot assist someone else in legal matters. Unfortunately, there is no exception to representing immediate family members (i.e., your own children). I wish I could share more with you, but for the privacy of the families involved, I cannot at this time. The best thing we can do is try to change the law, and the only way of going about doing that would be to introduce legislation. This is what I am suggesting. Thanks.Debbie>> Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous matters/filings the bar discovered.> > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the committee! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski@...> > <mailto: > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)> > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I spoke at > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even > reviewed this case. > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school > district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in on some > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way, > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST investigate > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white lie) or > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.> > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee (related > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with legal > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. Woods > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods would > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not respond to > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the committee > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. (Please > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, but none > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, they > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot elaborate > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts because I > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, Mr. > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle with > the school over his son's placement. > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to Mr. > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information (i.e. a > deposition). > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is clear -> you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent another. > To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. There > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court may > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for certiori) is > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even if the > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help Mr. > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold (helping the > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he may > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over matters > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given the > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, here, we > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the > language of the law, it would appear (although you would still need to > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents can > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing what > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The person > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with the law > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decide > the matter. > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an unusual > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. Woods > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he helped > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does this, he > would not have to give the committee any information and the fine(s) he > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably does > not want to sign such a letter.> > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged PER > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one occurrence, > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of $10,000. > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke with Mr. > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).> > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please email > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.> > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what has > transpired.> > Thanks,> Debbie> > > > > > > > >

May 1, 2006

I have been telling my dh this for at least a year, that people are going to have to revolt. Guess when there are no more jobs because most of the companies have left the US and we are relegated to driving richochets (is that the word I want here?, sorry painters are here, paint fumes) like in China, people will do just that.

Yes, really tired of celebrities who feel they have to jet set all over the globe to find injustices that they could see within a few miles of their homes.

#2

----- Original Message -----

From: rmaher1969@...

Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:58 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

" You say you want a revolushu-u-n wellll you know- we all wanna save the world. They tell me that it's evolushu-u-n welll you know......" -- Lennon

Was is Jefferson who said that there should be a revolution every seven years?

In a time where we are lectured by Tom Cruise on the evils of psychiatry and Angelina Jolie has to become embassador to

I don't know what to do honestly. As I said before I always end up voting AGAINST someone when there is no one to vote FOR.

----- Original Message -----

From: Cochran

Sent: 5/1/2006 10:11:54 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

The short answer is yes, they will buy into that load of crap. Honest, not political, have a PERSONAL ethical/moral dilemma with abortion, and that is what they play on, people like me.

Where do you choose, the people who believe it is okay to abort but will help a dd child, or the other people who once the baby is born, won't do a thing to help/assist even if that child is dd or handicapped?

And when they really get into trouble, they trot them out to spout a few Bible verses, and yes, people do buy it, a lot of them. But the low poll numbers might just be an indication that people have caught onto the game.

But when you know their game, just what do you do? The other side runs such reprobate, openly amoral weirdos, who can support them?

I don't know what is worse, People who don't know any better, or people who do know better and don't do it? And yes, noticing that diversion tatics are used frequently.

I cannot vote for any of them, not and sleep at night, that is.

----- Original Message -----

From: rmaher1969@...

Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:35 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

Meanwhile, the state will allow adoptive and foster parents care for multiple children with autism and PAY them for it. They are advised by their state social worker to keep them in cages "for their own good". I wonder if they got a court appointed attorney? For those of us who happen to be biological parents of ASD children, well, we're on our own to muddle through all the muck stirred up by this mucked up system.

Does it burn your ass that we have to fight the schools for services through their attorneys that are paid through OUR TAX MONEY? All I can say, is thank GOD for charter schools. They somehow are able to find the money to give my son all the services he needs without ever blinking an eye. The public schools are sweating charter schools and they should.

BTW, as an aside, talking about politicians and their religious/moral stands. Has anyone noticed the commercials for governor? Petro and Blackwell are in a war over who has more "american values" touting their stand on abortion and gay marriage, yet I haven't heard one word about what they plan to do about the public school funding that was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court several years ago or about the workman's compensation/coin scandal, corruption, job losses, etc. Are Ohioans really going to buy into their line of crap? It's as if they think that the public is so easlily fooled. They just wave something shiny (moral values) and the public will move their attention from the real issues (education, corruption, employment)?

----- Original Message -----

From: Cochran

Sent: 5/1/2006 6:05:21 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

That sounds like the plan to me, to restrict what all these parents of autistic children have access to. Over and over I have heard parents ask "don't they know how expensive this (care for ASD children) will be?"

Sounds like they do know how expensive it will be and sounds like they do know how to erradicate it. They will make a religious/moral stand worrying about abortions, but once the baby is born you are left to pick up the pieces by "pulling yourself up by your boot straps" no matter if the state sponsored vaccinations damage them, or not. Honestly, that doesn't smack of any compassion that I am aware of.

----- Original Message -----

From: The Marotta Family

Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:19 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

Debbie, I've been thinking about this, and if you take this case and put it along side the case before the US Supreme Court now ( v Arlington), what you effectively get is only rich parents will be able to challenge school placements for their children. It seems the Court will rule in favor of the school district in this most recent case.

The Ohio bar thinks it's unlawful for a parent to represent their child in court and soon, the Court will rule that parents cannot be reimbursed for expert witnesses. Well, expert witnesses are expensive. Ask anyone without health insurance or who seek experts in autism that are not covered by their insurance.

It's a miscarriage of justice that will favor only the rich while the poor (whether poor because of low income or poor because so much of the family budget is poured into services for the child with autism) will be left in the dust. Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: ddzlaw

Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 9:40 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

I guess the bottom line is that if you give "legal advice" and you are not an attorney AND someone files a complaint you will be investigated. Most often these investigations do not go anywhere especially after the committee obtains all the necessary information. My impression is that this is not a case where someone just gave support. There were actual legal documents involved in this case. In their son's action, Mr. Woods (and his wife) filed court documents and presented evidence to the court. It is my understanding that he may have helped prepare certain documents (and may have given legal advice to the Winkelmans, which Winkelmans used in their own due process hearing). Please remember that these are just allegations. The Supreme Court will look at the evidence and decide how to proceed.It seems that Mr. Woods has not clearly set forth his side of the story. At least that is the impression I am getting. The law indicates that you cannot go into court to represent another. You also cannot assist someone else in legal matters. Unfortunately, there is no exception to representing immediate family members (i.e., your own children). I wish I could share more with you, but for the privacy of the families involved, I cannot at this time. The best thing we can do is try to change the law, and the only way of going about doing that would be to introduce legislation. This is what I am suggesting. Thanks.Debbie>> Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous matters/filings the bar discovered.> > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the committee! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski@...> > <mailto: > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)> > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I spoke at > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even > reviewed this case. > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school > district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' child > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in on some > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by the way, > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney complained > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. Woods may > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to the > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST investigate > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting its > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more information > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, there > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew one > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white lie) or > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.> > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee (related > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with legal > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. Woods > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods would > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not respond to > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the committee > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. (Please > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, but none > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, they > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot elaborate > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts because I > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, Mr. > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle with > the school over his son's placement. > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to Mr. > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information (i.e. a > deposition). > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is clear -> you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent another. > To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. There > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court may > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for certiori) is > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even if the > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help Mr. > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold (helping the > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he may > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over matters > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given the > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, here, we > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the > language of the law, it would appear (although you would still need to > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents can > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing what > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The person > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with the law > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decide > the matter. > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an unusual > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. Woods > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he helped > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does this, he > would not have to give the committee any information and the fine(s) he > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably does > not want to sign such a letter.> > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged PER > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one occurrence, > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of $10,000. > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke with Mr. > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to the > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly do not > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without consulting > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have when > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the school > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having legislation > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of how the > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to explore > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents in need > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire state).> > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please email > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.> > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what has > transpired.> > Thanks,> Debbie> > > > > > > > >

May 1, 2006

>Are Ohioans really going to buy into their line of crap? It's as if they

>think that the public is so >easlily fooled.

-truth be told, the public is easily fooled. <sigh>. Chris

>From: " rmaher1969@... " <rmaher1969@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the

>Bar Association (long email)

>Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 09:35:30 -0400

>

>Meanwhile, the state will allow adoptive and foster parents care for

>multiple children with autism and PAY them for it. They are advised by

>their state social worker to keep them in cages " for their own good " ...

May 1, 2006

It is a sad statement, but you have a point. I'm sure you are right

about the expert witness thing. In fact, the IDEA only awards

attorney fees (does not expressly say expert fees). In some cases

the expert fees can exceed the attorney fees.

> >

> > Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the

law

> or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one

was

> that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the

winklemans -

> I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous

> matters/filings the bar discovered.

> >

> > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by

representing

> his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the

> case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the

> committee!

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski<mailto:zielinski>@...>

> > To:

<mailto: <mailto:Autism

NE <mailto: >>

> > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM

> > Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's

parents by

> the Bar Association (long email)

> >

> > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I

> spoke at

> > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon).

> >

> > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee

even

> > reviewed this case.

> >

> > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local

school

> > district to get their child a private placement. The

Winkelmans'

> child

> > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat

in

> on some

> > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school

(by

> the way,

> > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney

> complained

> > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing

law

> > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr.

> Woods may

> > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related

to

> the

> > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST

> investigate

> > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In

conducting

> its

> > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more

> information

> > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In

fact,

> there

> > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families

knew

> one

> > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are

being

> > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little

white

> lie) or

> > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee

suspicious.

> >

> > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee

> (related

> > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with

> legal

> > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that

Mr.

> Woods

> > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The

committee,

> > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr.

Woods

> would

> > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not

> respond to

> > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the

> committee

> > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened.

> (Please

> > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr.

Harvey,

> but none

> > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)

> >

> > To complicate matters further, in the committee's

investigation,

> they

> > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts

> > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot

> elaborate

> > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts

> because I

> > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to

say,

> Mr.

> > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his

battle

> with

> > the school over his son's placement.

> >

> > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due

to

> Mr.

> > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their

> > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information

> (i.e. a

> > deposition).

> >

> > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law

is

> clear -

> > you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent

> another.

> > To do so would be considered practicing law without a

license.

> There

> > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme

Court

> may

> > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for

> certiori) is

> > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However,

even

> if the

> > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will

help

> Mr.

> > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold

> (helping the

> > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in

another), he

> may

> > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law.

> >

> > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over

> matters

> > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been

given

> the

> > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However,

> here, we

> > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from

the

> > language of the law, it would appear (although you would

still

> need to

> > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that

parents

> can

> > and do have the right to take their appeal to court.

> >

> > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association

doing

> what

> > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The

> person

> > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply

with

> the law

> > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint).

Also,

> > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence

being

> > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will

> decide

> > the matter.

> >

> > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without

this

> > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an

> unusual

> > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However,

Mr.

> Woods

> > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he

did

> > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that

he

> helped

> > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does

> this, he

> > would not have to give the committee any information and the

fine

> (s) he

> > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods

probably

> does

> > not want to sign such a letter.

> >

> > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be

charged

> PER

> > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one

> occurrence,

> > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of

> $10,000.

> >

> > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke

> with Mr

> > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the

current

> > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and

I

> > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect

to

> the

> > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I

certainly

> do not

> > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without

> consulting

> > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents

have

> when

> > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the

> school

> > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having

> legislation

> > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless

of

> how the

> > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like

to

> explore

> > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for

parents

> in need

> > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire

> state).

> >

> > If any of you are interested in helping in this process,

please

> email

> > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.

> >

> > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about

what

> has

> > transpired.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Debbie

> >

May 4, 2006

FYI.

In a statement to the Cleveland Bar Association members, the

Cleveland Bar announced that it was no longer pursuing the matter.

> >

> > Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the

law

> or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one

was

> that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the

winklemans -

> I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous

> matters/filings the bar discovered.

> >

> > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by

representing

> his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the

> case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the

> committee!

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski<mailto:zielinski>@...>

> > To:

<mailto: <mailto:Autism

NE <mailto: >>

> > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM

> > Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's

parents by

> the Bar Association (long email)

> >

> > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I

> spoke at

> > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon).

> >

> > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee

even

> > reviewed this case.

> >

> > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local

school

> > district to get their child a private placement. The

Winkelmans'

> child

> > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat

in

> on some

> > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school

(by

> the way,

> > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney

> complained

> > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing

law

> > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr.

> Woods may

> > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related

to

> the

> > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST

> investigate

> > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In

conducting

> its

> > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more

> information

> > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In

fact,

> there

> > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families

knew

> one

> > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are

being

> > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little

white

> lie) or

> > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee

suspicious.

> >

> > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee

> (related

> > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with

> legal

> > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that

Mr.

> Woods

> > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The

committee,

> > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr.

Woods

> would

> > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not

> respond to

> > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the

> committee

> > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened.

> (Please

> > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr.

Harvey,

> but none

> > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)

> >

> > To complicate matters further, in the committee's

investigation,

> they

> > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts

> > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot

> elaborate

> > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts

> because I

> > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to

say,

> Mr.

> > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his

battle

> with

> > the school over his son's placement.

> >

> > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due

to

> Mr.

> > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their

> > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information

> (i.e. a

> > deposition).

> >

> > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law

is

> clear -

> > you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent

> another.

> > To do so would be considered practicing law without a

license.

> There

> > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme

Court

> may

> > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for

> certiori) is

> > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However,

even

> if the

> > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will

help

> Mr.

> > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold

> (helping the

> > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in

another), he

> may

> > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law.

> >

> > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over

> matters

> > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been

given

> the

> > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However,

> here, we

> > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from

the

> > language of the law, it would appear (although you would

still

> need to

> > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that

parents

> can

> > and do have the right to take their appeal to court.

> >

> > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association

doing

> what

> > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The

> person

> > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply

with

> the law

> > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint).

Also,

> > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence

being

> > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will

> decide

> > the matter.

> >

> > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without

this

> > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an

> unusual

> > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However,

Mr.

> Woods

> > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he

did

> > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that

he

> helped

> > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does

> this, he

> > would not have to give the committee any information and the

fine

> (s) he

> > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods

probably

> does

> > not want to sign such a letter.

> >

> > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be

charged

> PER

> > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one

> occurrence,

> > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of

> $10,000.

> >

> > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke

> with Mr

> > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the

current

> > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and

I

> > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect

to

> the

> > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I

certainly

> do not

> > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without

> consulting

> > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents

have

> when

> > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the

> school

> > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having

> legislation

> > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless

of

> how the

> > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like

to

> explore

> > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for

parents

> in need

> > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire

> state).

> >

> > If any of you are interested in helping in this process,

please

> email

> > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.

> >

> > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about

what

> has

> > transpired.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Debbie

> >

May 4, 2006

Thank you for letting us know!! It just seems like the right thing to do. Chris----- Original Message ----- From: ddzlaw Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:21 PMSubject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)FYI.In a statement to the Cleveland Bar Association members, the Cleveland Bar announced that it was no longer pursuing the matter.> >> > Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law > or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was > that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - > I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous > matters/filings the bar discovered.> > > > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing > his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the > case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the > committee! > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski<mailto:zielinski>@...> > > <mailto: <mailto: <mailto: >> > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> > Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by > the Bar Association (long email)> > > > > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I > spoke at > > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even > > reviewed this case. > > > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school > > district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' > child > > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in > on some > > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by > the way, > > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney > complained > > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law > > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. > Woods may > > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to > the > > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST > investigate > > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting > its > > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more > information > > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, > there > > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew > one > > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being > > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white > lie) or > > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.> > > > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee > (related > > to the allegations that Mr Woods helped the Winkelmans with > legal > > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. > Woods > > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, > > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods > would > > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not > respond to > > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the > committee > > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. > (Please > > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, > but none > > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > > > To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, > they > > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot > elaborate > > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts > because I > > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, > Mr. > > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle > with > > the school over his son's placement. > > > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to > Mr. > > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information > (i.e. a > > deposition). > > > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is > clear -> > you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent > another. > > To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. > There > > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court > may > > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for > certiori) is > > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even > if the > > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help > Mr. > > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold > (helping the > > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he > may > > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over > matters > > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given > the > > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, > here, we > > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the > > language of the law, it would appear (although you would still > need to > > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents > can > > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing > what > > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The > person > > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with > the law > > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint) Also, > > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being > > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will > decide > > the matter > > > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this > > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an > unusual > > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. > Woods > > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did > > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he > helped > > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does > this, he > > would not have to give the committee any information and the fine> (s) he > > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr Woods probably > does > > not want to sign such a letter.> > > > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged > PER > > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one > occurrence, > > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of > $10,000. > > > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke > with Mr > > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current > > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I > > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to > the > > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly > do not > > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without > consulting > > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have > when > > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the > school > > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having > legislation > > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of > how the > > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to > explore > > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents > in need > > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire > state).> > > > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please > email > > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.> > > > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what > has > > transpired.> > > > Thanks,> > Debbie> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

May 6, 2006

Debbie, Thank you for letting us know that the issue was dropped. I know I feel much better about it and I will continue to be supportive of parents and children who need our help. If there is anything that we as parents can do to help change laws to help our kids please let us know. ddzlaw <zielinski@...> wrote: FYI.In a statement to the Cleveland Bar Association members, the Cleveland Bar announced that it was no longer pursuing the matter.> >> > Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law > or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was > that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - > I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous > matters/filings the

bar discovered.> > > > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing > his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the > case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the > committee! > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski<mailto:zielinski>@...> > > <mailto: <mailto: <mailto: >> > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> > Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by > the Bar Association (long email)> >

> > > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I > spoke at > > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even > > reviewed this case. > > > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school > > district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' > child > > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in > on some > > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by

> the way, > > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney > complained > > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law > > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. > Woods may > > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to > the > > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST > investigate > > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting > its > > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more > information > > from Mr.

Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, > there > > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew > one > > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being > > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white > lie) or > > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.> > > > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee > (related > > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with > legal > > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr.

> Woods > > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, > > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods > would > > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not > respond to > > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the > committee > > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. > (Please > > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, > but none > > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > > > To complicate matters

further, in the committee's investigation, > they > > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot > elaborate > > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts > because I > > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, > Mr. > > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle > with > > the school over his son's placement. > > > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to > Mr. > >

Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information > (i.e. a > > deposition). > > > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is > clear -> > you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent > another. > > To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. > There > > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court > may > > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for > certiori) is >

> granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even > if the > > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help > Mr. > > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold > (helping the > > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he > may > > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over > matters > > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given > the > > right to govern the practice of law in

their state. However, > here, we > > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the > > language of the law, it would appear (although you would still > need to > > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents > can > > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing > what > > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The > person > > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with > the law

> > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, > > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being > > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will > decide > > the matter. > > > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this > > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an > unusual > > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. > Woods > > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did > > advocate for his son in

court (and maybe even indicate that he > helped > > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does > this, he > > would not have to give the committee any information and the fine> (s) he > > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably > does > > not want to sign such a letter.> > > > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged > PER > > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one > occurrence, > > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of > $10,000.

> > > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke > with Mr > > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current > > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I > > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to > the > > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly > do not > > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without > consulting > > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have > when > > it comes to getting the services

their child needs from the > school > > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having > legislation > > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of > how the > > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to > explore > > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents > in need > > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire > state).> > > > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please > email > > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC

meeting.> > > > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what > has > > transpired.> > > > Thanks,> > Debbie> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

May 7, 2006

If I read yesterday's Plain Dealer correctly (and if they reported correctly), the bar association is waiting to see what the supreme court ends up deciding before pursuing the matter. So we might hear more in the future. Chris----- Original Message ----- From: Biehl Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 12:18 PMSubject: Re: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)Debbie,Thank you for letting us know that the issue was dropped. I know I feel much better about it and I will continue to be supportive of parents and children who need our help. If there is anything that we as parents can do to help change laws to help our kids please let us know. ddzlaw <zielinski@...> wrote:FYI.In a statement to the Cleveland Bar Association members, the Cleveland Bar announced that it was no longer pursuing the matter.> >> > Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the law > or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one was > that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the winklemans - > I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous > matters/filings the bar discovered.> > > > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by representing > his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the > case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the > committee! > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski<mailto:zielinski>@...> > > <mailto: <mailto: <mailto: >> > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> > Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by > the Bar Association (long email)> > > > > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I > spoke at > > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee even > > reviewed this case. > > > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local school > > district to get their child a private placement. The Winkelmans' > child > > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat in > on some > > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school (by > the way, > > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney > complained > > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing law > > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. > Woods may > > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related to > the > > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST > investigate > > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In conducting > its > > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more > information > > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In fact, > there > > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families knew > one > > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are being > > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little white > lie) or > > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee suspicious.> > > > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee > (related > > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with > legal > > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that Mr. > Woods > > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The committee, > > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. Woods > would > > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not > respond to > > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the > committee > > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. > (Please > > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. Harvey, > but none > > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > > > To complicate matters further, in the committee's investigation, > they > > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot > elaborate > > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts > because I > > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to say, > Mr. > > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his battle > with > > the school over his son's placement. > > > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due to > Mr. > > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information > (i.e. a > > deposition). > > > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law is > clear -> > you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent > another. > > To do so would be considered practicing law without a license. > There > > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme Court > may > > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for > certiori) is > > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, even > if the > > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will help > Mr. > > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold > (helping the > > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in another), he > may > > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over > matters > > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been given > the > > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, > here, we > > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from the > > language of the law, it would appear (although you would still > need to > > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that parents > can > > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association doing > what > > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The > person > > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply with > the law > > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). Also, > > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence being > > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will > decide > > the matter. > > > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without this > > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an > unusual > > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, Mr. > Woods > > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he did > > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that he > helped > > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does > this, he > > would not have to give the committee any information and the fine> (s) he > > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods probably > does > > not want to sign such a letter> > > > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be charged > PER > > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one > occurrence, > > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of > $10,000. > > > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke > with Mr > > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the current > > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and I > > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect to > the > > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I certainly > do not > > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without > consulting > > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents have > when > > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the > school > > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having > legislation > > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless of > how the > > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like to > explore > > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for parents > in need > > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire > state).> > > > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, please > email > > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.> > > > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about what > has > > transpired.> > > > Thanks,> > Debbie> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

May 7, 2006

I'm pretty sure nothing more will happen (regardless of how the

supreme court decides). The bar association has requested me (and

other attorneys) to become part of a task force to address the legal

issues parents face in advocating for their special needs children.

Thanks.

Debbie

> > >

> > > Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke

the

> law

> > or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods:

one

> was

> > that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the

> winklemans -

> > I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the

> > >

> > > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by

> representing

> > his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that

is the

> > case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with

the

> > committee!

> > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski<mailto:zielinski>@...>

> > > To:

>

<mailto: <mailto:Autism

> NE <mailto: >>

> > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM

> > > Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's

> parents by

> > the Bar Association (long email)

> > >

> > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the

facts. I

> > spoke at

> > > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon).

> > >

> > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance

committee

> even

> > > reviewed this case.

> > >

> > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a

local

> school

> > > district to get their child a private placement. The

> Winkelmans'

> > child

> > > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr.

Woods' sat

> in

> > on some

> > > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the

school

> (by

> > the way,

> > > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's

attorney

> > complained

> > > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was

practicing

> law

> > > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected

that Mr.

> > Woods may

> > > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents

> > the

> > > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association

MUST

> > investigate

> > > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In

> conducting

> > its

> > > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain

more

> > information

> > > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative.

In

> fact,

> > there

> > > were some untruths told early on as to how the two

families

> knew

> > one

> > > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you

are

> being

> > > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a

little

> white

> > lie) or

> > > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee

> suspicious.

> > >

> > > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association

committee

> > (related

> > > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans

with

> > legal

> > > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated

that

> Mr.

> > Woods

> > > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The

> committee,

> > > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but

Mr.

> Woods

> > would

> > > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will

not

> > respond to

> > > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand,

the

> > committee

> > > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what

happened.

> > (Please

> > > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr.

> Harvey,

> > but none

> > > have been responsive to the requests made by the

committee.)

> > >

> > > To complicate matters further, in the committee's

> investigation,

> > they

> > > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the

courts

> > > (including the case with his son a few years back). I

cannot

> > elaborate

> > > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the

courts

> > because I

> > > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice

it to

> say,

> > Mr.

> > > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to

his

> battle

> > with

> > > the school over his son's placement.

> > >

> > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been

raised due

> to

> > Mr.

> > > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to

their

> > > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more

information

> > (i.e. a

> > > deposition).

> > >

> > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things.

Ohio law

> is

> > clear -

> > > you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot

represent

> > another.

> > > To do so would be considered practicing law without a

> license.

> > There

> > > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the

Supreme

> Court

> > may

> > > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short

for

> > certiori) is

> > > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue.

However,

> even

> > if the

> > > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this

will

> help

> > Mr.

> > > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two

fold

> > (helping the

> > > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in

> another), he

> > may

> > > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio

law.

> > >

> > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate

over

> > matters

> > > heard in the federal courts. The states have always

been

> given

> > the

> > > right to govern the practice of law in their state.

However,

> > here, we

> > > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition,

from

> the

> > > language of the law, it would appear (although you

would

> still

> > need to

> > > have a convincing argument for the court to digest)

that

> parents

> > can

> > > and do have the right to take their appeal to court.

> > >

> > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar

association

> doing

> > what

> > > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no

choice. The

> > person

> > > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to

comply

> with

> > the law

> > > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a

complaint).

> Also,

> > > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is

evidence

> being

> > > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme

Court will

> > decide

> > > the matter.

> > >

> > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods

without

> this

> > > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not

an

> > unusual

> > > practice when it comes to complaints such as this.

However,

> Mr.

> > Woods

> > > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates

that he

> did

> > > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate

that

> he

> > helped

> > > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If

he does

> > this, he

> > > would not have to give the committee any information

and the

> fine

> > (s) he

> > > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods

> probably

> > does

> > > not want to sign such a letter.

> > >

> > > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can

be

> charged

> > PER

> > > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than

one

> > occurrence,

> > > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess

of

> > $10,000.

> > >

> > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I

spoke

> > with Mr

> > > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is

the

> current

> > > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland.

He and

> I

> > > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with

respect

> to

> > the

> > > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I

> certainly

> > do not

> > > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system

without

> > consulting

> > > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources

parents

> have

> > when

> > > it comes to getting the services their child needs from

the

> > school

> > > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore

having

> > legislation

> > > introduced to prevent this from happening again

(regardless

> of

> > how the

> > > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also

like

> to

> > explore

> > > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for

> parents

> > in need

> > > of legal services for their children (throughout the

entire

> > state).

> > >

> > > If any of you are interested in helping in this

process,

> please

> > email

> > > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC

meeting.

> > >

> > > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more

about

> what

> > has

> > > transpired.

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Debbie

> > >

May 7, 2006

Debbie - Is that the best news I have ever heard in a long time, or what!!?? That is out of this world!! It's great the the bar association has appointed you to the task force! For the bar association to want to take a closer look at and understand all aspects of this sticky issue is just great! P.S. We're counting on you to make the parent's position clear. No pressure! ----- Original Message ----- From: ddzlaw Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 2:09 PMSubject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)I'm pretty sure nothing more will happen (regardless of how the supreme court decides). The bar association has requested me (and other attorneys) to become part of a task force to address the legal issues parents face in advocating for their special needs children.Thanks.Debbie> > >> > > Dear Debbie - So what exactly did the woods do that broke the > law > > or might have broken the law? Two cases against mr. woods: one > was > > that he might have over stepped the bounds helping the > winklemans - > > I'm not asking about that. Nor am I asking about the previous > > matters/filings the bar discovered.> > > > > > Is the bar saying he overstepped the legal bounds by > representing > > his son? That is my take on what you wrote below. If that is the > > case, then I pray to God that woods does NOT settle with the > > committee! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: ddzlaw<mailto:zielinski<mailto:zielinski>@...> > > > > <mailto: <mailto:Autism> NE <mailto: >> > > > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:18 PM> > > Subject: [ ] Re: The attack of autistic child's > parents by > > the Bar Association (long email)> > > > > > > > > Well, as I suspected, the PD didn't report all the facts. I > > spoke at > > > length with Mr. Harvey on Friday (late afternoon). > > > > > > First, I probably should explain why the grievance committee > even > > > reviewed this case. > > > > > > Another family, the Winkelmans, is fighting with a local > school > > > district to get their child a private placement. The > Winkelmans' > > child > > > attends the same school as the Woods' child. Mr. Woods' sat > in > > on some > > > (at least one) of the Winkelmans' meetings with the school > (by > > the way, > > > the Winkelmans' school district is Parma). Parma's attorney > > complained > > > to the bar association alleging that Mr. Woods was practicing > law > > > without a license (I believe the attorney suspected that Mr. > > Woods may > > > have helped the Winkelmans with some legal documents related > to > > the > > > Winkelman matter). At this point, the bar association MUST > > investigate > > > the matter (this is their duty under Ohio law). In > conducting > > its > > > investigation, the bar association attempted to gain more > > information > > > from Mr. Woods; however, Mr. Woods was uncooperative. In > fact, > > there > > > were some untruths told early on as to how the two families > knew > > one > > > another. The one thing you do not want to do when you are > being > > > investigated by the bar association is lie (even a little > white > > lie) or > > > not cooperate. This will probably make the committee > suspicious.> > > > > > The Winkelmans were deposed by the bar association committee > > (related > > > to the allegations that Mr. Woods helped the Winkelmans with > > legal > > > related matters). In their deposition, they indicated that > Mr. > > Woods > > > was a friend and did not offer them legal advice. The > committee, > > > however, wanted more information from Mr. Woods, but Mr. > Woods > > would > > > not allow his deposition to be taken (in fact, he will not > > respond to > > > Mr. Harvey's telephone calls). From what I understand, the > > committee > > > just wanted to hear (from Mr. Woods himself) what happened. > > (Please > > > note that Mr. Woods has written lots of letters to Mr. > Harvey, > > but none > > > have been responsive to the requests made by the committee.)> > > > > > To complicate matters further, in the committee's > investigation, > > they > > > came across other filings Mr Woods had filed with the courts > > > (including the case with his son a few years back). I cannot > > elaborate > > > on the other filings Mr. Woods may have made in the courts > > because I > > > want to protect Mr. Woods' privacy. However, suffice it to > say, > > Mr. > > > Woods was not a stranger to the legal system prior to his > battle > > with > > > the school over his son's placement. > > > > > > Because the committee's suspicion had already been raised due > to > > Mr. > > > Woods lack of cooperation, they added this matter to their > > > investigation, and again asked Mr. Woods for more information > > (i.e. a > > > deposition). > > > > > > Now, here is where I get to the law part of things. Ohio law > is > > clear -> > > you can represent yourself in court, but you cannot represent > > another. > > > To do so would be considered practicing law without a > license. > > There > > > is, however, a case in the 6th circuit which the Supreme > Court > > may > > > grant certiori to sometime next month. If cert (short for > > certiori) is > > > granted, the Supreme Court may decide this issue. However, > even > > if the > > > court decides in favor of parents, I'm not sure this will > help > > Mr. > > > Woods. In addition, because the investigation is two fold > > (helping the > > > Winkelmans in one matter and representing his son in > another), he > > may > > > still have violated (unintentionally of course) Ohio law. > > > > > > There is also the issue of states rights to legislate over > > matters > > > heard in the federal courts. The states have always been > given > > the > > > right to govern the practice of law in their state. However, > > here, we > > > have a law (IDEA) which is a federal law. In addition, from > the > > > language of the law, it would appear (although you would > still > > need to > > > have a convincing argument for the court to digest) that > parents > > can > > > and do have the right to take their appeal to court. > > > > > > Sounds confusing doesn't it? So why is the bar association > doing > > what > > > they are doing? Well, in summary, they have no choice. The > > person > > > being investigated hasn't cooperated. They have to comply > with > > the law > > > as it stands on the books (and someone filed a complaint). > Also, > > > please note that this IS NOT a lawsuit. This is evidence > being > > > submitted to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will > > decide > > > the matter. > > > > > > The committee would be able to settle with Mr. Woods without > this > > > matter being decided by the Supreme Court. This is not an > > unusual > > > practice when it comes to complaints such as this. However, > Mr. > > Woods > > > would have to sign a letter agreement which indicates that he > did > > > advocate for his son in court (and maybe even indicate that > he > > helped > > > the Winkelmans) and that he will not do it again. If he does > > this, he > > > would not have to give the committee any information and the > fine> > (s) he > > > is facing would also go away. I suspect that Mr. Woods > probably > > does > > > not want to sign such a letter.> > > > > > As an aside, the $10,000 fine is the maximum that can be > charged > > PER > > > OCCURRENCE. The committee believed there was more than one > > occurrence, > > > and could have (but did not) recommend a fine in excess of > > $10,000. > > > > > > I spoke briefly to Rory McLain Friday afternoon after I spoke > > with Mr > > > Harvey. For those of you who don't know Rory, he is the > current > > > president of the Autism Society of Greater Cleveland. He and > I > > > discussed the possibility of changing Ohio's law with respect > to > > the > > > advocacy of children in due process appeals. While I > certainly > > do not > > > suggest that parents try to take on the legal system without > > consulting > > > legal counsel, I do understand the limited resources parents > have > > when > > > it comes to getting the services their child needs from the > > school > > > system. As such, Rory and I are going to explore having > > legislation > > > introduced to prevent this from happening again (regardless > of > > how the > > > 6th circuit case is ultimately decided). I would also like > to > > explore > > > some pro bono (money or in-kind services) resources for > parents > > in need > > > of legal services for their children (throughout the entire > > state)> > > > > > If any of you are interested in helping in this process, > please > > email > > > me or you can talk to me this Wednesday at the ASGC meeting.> > > > > > I hope this helps all of you understand a little more about > what > > has > > > transpired.> > > > > > Thanks,> > > Debbie> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Sign In

Re: The attack of autistic child's parents by the Bar Association (long email)

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity