EMAIL SENT · 2026-05-13
Read the text transcript
[ADA status paragraph — noting surgery "postponed due to failed preoperative clearance."]
Mr. NeSmith: The last twelve hours proved exactly why a single point of contact was the focus of my requests from the beginning.
Yesterday evening, I received a communication from the Deputy General Counsel proposing an 11:30 meeting. I treated it as real, reorganized my schedule, and prepared. This morning, I was told the meeting was never for me. It was meant for a colleague and sent in error.
My acceptance reply last night stated that ███████ had a medical appointment at 8:30 AM. That acceptance was read last night. The cancellation could have been sent last night. Instead, it was sent this morning, during the window in which █████████████ were meeting with ██████████████ and learning that the lump in her breast is a recurrence of her rare blood ██████. She requires an emergency PET scan immediately.
[Detailed chronology of contradictions: April 10 dismissal, April 21 Burgess admission, May 4 Shiptenko accommodations, May 11 NeSmith ADA denial, May 12 phantom meeting, May 13 cancellation, May 13 State ADA Coordinator confirmation.]
The no-solo-communication requirement has been placed on the institutional record five times across twenty-two days:
DEMAND — April 21, 2026 (Letter 2 to Burgess)
VIOLATION — May 5, 2026 (Burgess solo email)
CORRECTION — May 6-7, 2026 (I restored the CC)
REQUEST 1 — May 12, 2026, 3:41 PM ET
VIOLATION — May 12, 2026, 6:37 PM ET (NeSmith solo)
REQUEST 2 — May 12, 2026, ~8:54 PM ET
VIOLATION — May 13, 2026, ~10:00 AM ET (NeSmith solo)
REQUEST 3 — May 13, 2026 (this email)
One solo email can be a mistake. Two is careless. Three is a pattern. Four is a choice. Five, after five documented requests to stop, is not confusion. It is harassment.
Under federal law, this pattern implicates 28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(b)(3), Section 35.130(f), and Section 35.134.
Every solo email forces me to reconstruct the distribution, forward to every stripped recipient, and redraft on the restored list. I pay for the assistive technology that lets me do this. That cost, imposed on me because of my disability and after written notice, is the surcharge prohibited by 28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(f).
The following remain operative and unanswered: the 15 clarification questions, the 11 institutional confirmation questions, the insurance disclosure demand, and preservation of all records concerning the May 12 6:37 PM transmission and cancellation.
The May 14, 2026, 5:00 PM ET cure window remains operative. Any reliance by the Bar on undue burden or fundamental alteration must be issued in the written determination required by 28 C.F.R. Section 35.164. Silence is not a written determination.
No further one-recipient correspondence should be sent to me in this matter.
[Signature block and accessibility notice.]
Mr. NeSmith: The last twelve hours proved exactly why a single point of contact was the focus of my requests from the beginning.
Yesterday evening, I received a communication from the Deputy General Counsel proposing an 11:30 meeting. I treated it as real, reorganized my schedule, and prepared. This morning, I was told the meeting was never for me. It was meant for a colleague and sent in error.
My acceptance reply last night stated that ███████ had a medical appointment at 8:30 AM. That acceptance was read last night. The cancellation could have been sent last night. Instead, it was sent this morning, during the window in which █████████████ were meeting with ██████████████ and learning that the lump in her breast is a recurrence of her rare blood ██████. She requires an emergency PET scan immediately.
[Detailed chronology of contradictions: April 10 dismissal, April 21 Burgess admission, May 4 Shiptenko accommodations, May 11 NeSmith ADA denial, May 12 phantom meeting, May 13 cancellation, May 13 State ADA Coordinator confirmation.]
The no-solo-communication requirement has been placed on the institutional record five times across twenty-two days:
DEMAND — April 21, 2026 (Letter 2 to Burgess)
VIOLATION — May 5, 2026 (Burgess solo email)
CORRECTION — May 6-7, 2026 (I restored the CC)
REQUEST 1 — May 12, 2026, 3:41 PM ET
VIOLATION — May 12, 2026, 6:37 PM ET (NeSmith solo)
REQUEST 2 — May 12, 2026, ~8:54 PM ET
VIOLATION — May 13, 2026, ~10:00 AM ET (NeSmith solo)
REQUEST 3 — May 13, 2026 (this email)
One solo email can be a mistake. Two is careless. Three is a pattern. Four is a choice. Five, after five documented requests to stop, is not confusion. It is harassment.
Under federal law, this pattern implicates 28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(b)(3), Section 35.130(f), and Section 35.134.
Every solo email forces me to reconstruct the distribution, forward to every stripped recipient, and redraft on the restored list. I pay for the assistive technology that lets me do this. That cost, imposed on me because of my disability and after written notice, is the surcharge prohibited by 28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(f).
The following remain operative and unanswered: the 15 clarification questions, the 11 institutional confirmation questions, the insurance disclosure demand, and preservation of all records concerning the May 12 6:37 PM transmission and cancellation.
The May 14, 2026, 5:00 PM ET cure window remains operative. Any reliance by the Bar on undue burden or fundamental alteration must be issued in the written determination required by 28 C.F.R. Section 35.164. Silence is not a written determination.
No further one-recipient correspondence should be sent to me in this matter.
[Signature block and accessibility notice.]