. >> mr. roth man? >> hello, supervisors, and thanks for having this hearing today, my name is richard roth man and i worked for the city for 26 years and i retired about five years ago. and i am going to have this quote and i will say it now and say it at the end, attitudes are the real disability. when i came in to the city, i did not even know i was deslexic until later on, but so i did not get advantage of rule 115, because it was or did not start when i started. but i was also co-chair, of sciu's people with disabilities. and one of our complaints that we had from the people from our members who were in the disability community, and who were working for the city was about advancement. and they felt that 115, or a rule 134 at the time, pigeon holed people and so many, you know, if the city had a really active hiring policy, hiring people with disabilities, we would not need rule 115. and you know, i always felt that i was pigeon holed and you know, persons with disabilities is whether you should dis

mr. roth, do you have anything to add, three minutes, no? >> actually, i have a question for the attorney representing the permit holder. >> okay. my question is concerning the disclosure that was given upon your client's purchasing the unit. this is a full disclosure state. so, what did the sellers disclose in regards to the number of room count and if there were tenants in the property? >>> the board has the disclosures that i have as part of my brief, and i believe they're also submitted as part of the appellant's brief. >> sure. can you tell me specifically in your brief where that would be? i'm specifically interested in what was disclosed from the seller to the buyer. >>> i do not -- specifically from the seller, i apologize. i misunderstood your question. i directed my response to what the appellant had provided. what you have in front of you is what the appellant provided via the seller. >> via the seller? >>> via the seller. >> so, via the seller. so, that would be a disclosure. so, was there a specific disclosure given from the sel

mr. barry diller, violates copyrighted work of major networks. what does this mean for consumers and the future of the company? attorney richard roth a policy reporter join me now. richard i will start with you. you were just on our show predhak supreme court would crush aereo. you were correct. were you surprised with some of their reasoning, describing aereo as essentially a cable network? >> i wasn't surprised. they essentially came down as i expected. you found me in montreal here. but i am here. the answer is yes. i was not surprised this is a major win for the networks. the bottom line that the supreme court said that following congressional intent from the 1976 amendment then, this is a violation of copyright laws. therefore aereo will no longer be able to to do what it is doing. actually what i had predicted and a 6-3 decision was a bit of a surprise but it did go the waive we thought. gerri: jeff, you look at this kind of stuff all the time and it occurs to me that the major broadcasters are putting their signals out over the air anytime anyway, so why penalize aereo? >> i think it's a terrible decision and i think this de