Law Review by Deaf Lawyers</h1> <article> <h1>Law Review by Deaf Lawyers</h1> <p>7/10/2011 10:59:48 AM</p>  <br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: left; line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: black;">In case you have access to a law library, the entire Valparaiso</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: black;"> University Law Review</span>, <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: black;">Spring, 2011</span> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">issue is written by attorneys who are either deaf or who have spent their careers working on issues affecting the deaf community. The actual citatation for the journal is: 45 Valaparaiso University Law Review 927</span>. </p> <br/><br/> <div style="float:left;"> <a class="mod-item-body-a-strong" href="http://www.carlamathers.net/page11.php?post=3"> 2590 comments </a> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Not related to court interpreting</h1> <p>7/8/2011 3:52:26 PM</p> <p>However, it's about darn time someone sued Netflix! Congratulations to the National Association of the Deaf for<a href="http://www.nad.org/news/2011/6/nad-files-disability-civil-rights-lawsuit-against-netflix"> taking the lead in this regard</a> . Many of us live, work and play with deaf people and it is just annoying that the coolest of the new mass technology (streaming movies) is not accessible. Lots of people have complained to Netflix, and eventually, they captioned Season 3 of LOST or some other random selection. That is when we quit them. If there was another choice, it would be great, but since there isn't a close competitor currently, a hughe thank you goes out to NAD. By the way, as an interpreter, you should be a member of NAD, if not.........</p> <br/><br/> <div style="float:left;"> <a class="mod-item-body-a-strong" href="http://www.carlamathers.net/page11.php?post=2"> 5427 comments </a> </div> </article> <article> <h1>Sonoma</h1> <p>3/13/2011 9:18:58 AM</p> Court interpreters in California are unionized and at least in Sonoma earn $115,000 per year. According to the <a href="http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2011/03/featured-articles/juvenile-court-interpreters-challenge-restrictions/">Sonoma paper</a>, the interpreters are over worked and while in the past the courts have permitted other agencies to borrow their interpreters, the courts are no longer willing to permit this borrowing. They blame the economy. They want their interpreters only to work in the courts and not probation, parole, etc. I can't help but wonder how this became an issue? I suspect because the interpreters were complaining that too much of their time was being used by related agencies. Hmmmm. I do think it is a good thing that the related agencies become assessible to people who speak other languages, so regardless of how it came about, it is a good result.<br /> <br/><br/> <div style="float:left;"> <a class="mod-item-body-a-strong" href="http://www.carlamathers.net/page11.php?post=1"> 7620 comments </a> </div> </article> </main></body></html>