To the Editor,

Lawyers use and abuse words for their own purposes. But, a major ruling of the Supreme Court requires that constitutional laws must be written so that anyone of general basic abilities can read and understand them.

Clear and concise definitions of terms fight ambiguity and reduce related confusions, to translate such things into acceptable common language rather than depend on legal jargon. Lawyers hate this requirement because they like to descend into seemingly mystical latin and other adjunctive series of characters to state and host obscure legal meanings and thereby reenforce their own projected necessity.

In various renderings of the American Disabilities Act, it is written in effect that an “Indirect Threats” cannot be forbidden nor otherwise cause the person making them to be punished in any way. To accuse, expose, and/or advertise concerns relative to any violation of the Act is essential in pursuit of justice.

The Act assumes that compliance should be quickly and willfully at hand even as a casual court agreement might be involved. However, reality says different as lawyers of various persuasions frequently seek snide ways of blocking ADA justice as lawyers often are heard to question why the ADA did not offer better alternatives for abused victims.

As the legal eagles demand fees as minimal consultation for their incompetence, the truth is that the Act was never meant to offer a hollow threat which might be used to punish victims who might have spoken out in desperation. Rather, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is that an indirect threat is best taken as a veiled threat reflective of established powerful laws.

A threat is not a REAL threat unless it can be carried out whereas an indirect threat can be a warning with a stinger if the ADA is ignored.

Otherwise, it is forbidden to do many itemized things to a disabled person expressed as capital offenses as passed by Congress and confirmed by the High Court.

Forbidden processes might seem trivial to some but can be in themselves infractions or contributing to various abuses. These include but are not expressly limited to intimidation, retaliation, harassing, coercing, interference with civil rights, and threats of and/or criminal acts against any disabled person.

Any abuse might be seen as life-threatening to a disabled person and precipitate constitutional self-defense. Extreme use of lethal force as punishment and can be a pointed warning to others. It’s “Do It or Else,” moreover on a federal basis, “Obey the Law or Accept The Consequences.”

An indirect threat is consistent with handling of offensives even as an addition to other self-executing laws all of which can bypass the courts and officials at all levels.

Bill Shaw,

Maypearl