tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533854961905426179.post2862219338420396730..comments2008-09-11T12:54:17.978-04:00Lady Predatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06654677790915735027noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533854961905426179.post-51368872603439414442007-07-11T00:17:00.000-04:002007-07-11T00:17:00.000-04:00Sutter's case against City of Lakewood is genuine. Get yourself a pacer (public access to court electronic records)account it is really cheap. <BR/><BR/>I didn't get the impression it was a landmark case. Just another city dragging their feet: by not compling with the ADA, and then by not taking the case seriously.<BR/><BR/>The case was settled between the two parties; Sutter's attorney fees were reimbursed and the city had to develop a plan and hold public hearings about ADA compliance. <BR/><BR/>U.S. District Court<BR/>Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland)<BR/>CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:94-cv-01857-PCEExposing Sutterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06654677790915735027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533854961905426179.post-66182291674157164722007-07-10T20:15:00.000-04:002007-07-10T20:15:00.000-04:00Good info-<BR/>clearly you have the guy on the ropes- he is hiding his tracks and changing his websites like mad<BR/>Do you think his case against City of Lakewood is genuine or false?<BR/>http://codi.buffalo.edu/graph_based/.legal.cases/.sutter1.htm<BR/>I find it odd that it is only mentioned by "Rev" Jim- it seems like a landmark type case.<BR/>Can this be looked up somewhere?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com