https://417studies.com/study/36421/ wednesday call qrs in missouri for group 2 waitlist $10k study.

this is a test. if it works, that will be a link to jack luna's book at amazon. did not work.

monday: did:

3 errands for mom. pizza groceries pills nail scissors

cheese price dispute at acme, got them written up by the state.

sorted boxes from van

sent tommy $10 so he can check my mail.

mostly didnt do much.

made a list









to do:

x 3. deposit mom check $500

2. pay electric bill. online?

x 1. order blue box of tips. using amazon code.

4. pay water bill, maybe taxes, to max out new card.

nebraska

5. make to do list for delaware sign lawsuit.

rough out complaint.

letter to election board members.

lie list.

evasion list: questions they have not yet answered.

time spent list. billing note 9:00-9:21 3/29/21 working on trial notebook and complaint.

to do

mail mirror to hawaii.

x mail drawing to statute of liberty museum.

did saturday paid $425 on pnc credit card for 4015 taxes.



watched about 5 1/2 hours of CLE.

11 boxes of food to fnb and a plate of cookies. filled van with bags and bags of cookies and crackers.

checked cheese price at trolley square acme.

to do: make timeline of bmv dispute. when first visit? when title VI complaint? when public records request? photography policy? goals for today: at least one more cle. call tommy. smoke. dinner. package for tommy.

make bed

did: backpack, dewalt case, scrap. sherry $12.





nebraska

5. make to do list for delaware sign lawsuit.

rough out complaint.

letter to election board members. To: Delaware Election Board members: From: Robbin Stewart, esq. Date: 4/5/21 Re: Unconstitutionality of Delaware's disclaimer statute. In 1960,the Supreme Court rules that disclaimer statutes are unconstitutional, in Talley v California. That case arose out of the civil rights movement, and established a right of privacy under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld this right at least ten times since then, most recently in 2019 [look up becerra]. In 1974, the Delaware Supreme Court similarly ruled that under the state constitution, the state could not order the News Journal to identify who writes an editorial. In Re Opinion of the Justices 1974.There is a right of privacy under the free speech provisions of the state constitution, and this case remains controlling today. In 2000,I was counsel in Anonymous v Delaware, which sought to get Delaware's disclaimer statute declared unconstitutional by the Chancery Court. The Attorney General told the court that they agreed the statute was unconstitutional, pointing to their attorney general opinion which so held, so there was no dispute, so the court dismissed the case without a formal decision on the merits. The plaintiff in that case was Scott Huminsky, who was later awarded $900,000 in a case about political signs in Vermont, represented not by me but by Robert Corn-Revere. In 2012, the legislature amended the disclaimer statute in minor ways that do not affect the case; it still unconstitutionally requires a disclaimer on political signs. In 2013, the Attorney General issued a new Attorney General Opinion (AGO) this time saying that the statute was constitutional. That opinion did not mention Talley or Opinion of the Justices or Anonymous v Delaware, and appears not to have been written in good faith. In 2020 shortly before the election I learned about the new statute and wrote to the election division concerning the problem. In 2021 I formally requested a ruling by the election division as to the enforcability of the unconstitutional statute. The director has refused to do so, but indicates he intends to enforce the state, and refuses to ask the attorney general for a new ruling in light of the more recent cases again holding disclaimer rules unconstitutional (nifla v becerra) or that government may not compel speech (janus, see also masterpiece bakeshop, decided on other grounds.) I am unclear exactly how the election responsibilities are split up between the director and the board. In 1997, when I successfully sued Indiana for its unconstitutional disclaimer, we added the members of the state board as defendants at the request of the judge. Stewart v Taylor (1997). I writing to you for several reasons. First, to put you on notice that we have a problem. The election division is attempting to enforce a void unconstitutional statute. This is criminal, tortious, unethical, shameful, and misfeasance in office, as well as bad policy. It is not clear to me at this early stage whether the Board has the requisite personal involvement to be sued in your personal capacities, if it gets to that point. Second, I am seeking your help in requesting from the delaware attorney general a new AGO, in light of the new controlling case law which supercedes the erroneous 2013 opinion. As a private citizen, I will get ignored if I ask for one. As a member of the board, if you request an opinion from the attorney general, they are almost certain to respond. If they provide an honest opinion, admitting the statute is void and unenforcable, that will satisfy my concerns and avoid the need for litigation, although I will continue to look into how to proceed about the current misconduct by the director. Alternatively we can litigate. Maybe not immediately; I would have to find local counsel, seek admission pro hoc vice, prepare documents, etc., but that would be the path forward. billing note 11 pm - 12 saturday april 3. drafting letter to election board. 12:04 4/4/21. first draft.

main video would not post, too large. it is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ5y14GXfmg&ab_channel=arbivark

James A Sterling's Delaware Voter Registration Claymont, Delaware James A Sterling (born 1947) is listed at 210 S Avon Dr Claymont, De 19703 election board member to do send him the disclaimer lawsuit info. Hal Schneikert haroldschneikert@comcast.net. hal schneikert WARFIELD-WALKER, KIM 14 CALDWELL CT 14 CALDWELL CT DOVER , DE 19901 DOVER, DE 19901 26792 Kaye Rd Barbara A Sikora Age 69 (302) 628-2823 Sikora Barbara is the license holder registered here. The ZIP code for this address is 19956 and the postal code suffix is 2606. Sharon A. Williams-Mayo 340 Clayton Manor Dr Middletown, DE 19709 Sharon Williams-Mayo earned $2,000 in 2019 at State Election Commissioner John Pasquale, Jr. President of the State of Delaware Board of Elections PS-7 Central Intelligence Agency Feb 1975 - Aug 19838 years 7 months John N Pasquale Jr., (302) 994-7498, 13 Alfred Ave, Wilmington, DE ... John N and Karen K Pasquale Jr | 13 Alfred Av, Elsmere, DE 19805

saturday happy spring

$25 hemp

$5 soup

$25 dinner for mom, reimbursed culinaria

found 4 boxes. took 8 boxes to fnb.

paid $1000 on 5th 3rd credit card from pnc.

made a pipe.

looked for my dad's grave didnt find it. to do go to that thrift shop by my dad's grave.

wrote re cheese price acme

bought a comic book rameb cook book $16.

friday to do: 1. reddit lawyer find, send message ,
,
x laundry
,
taxes
,
cles
,
look for plasma card. sort car?
,
alaska disclaimer

flowerpots
,
wilmington parking ticket


,
stop smoking book from amazon with code
,
makes notes for nebraska
,
did
,
x plasma
,
x title vi issue
,
x cheese issue. bought cheese, sent photo, sent email.
,
x laundry. swept cobwebs. sorted fnb. pitaya.

made bed.

comment replyCan a lawyer practice in every state in the USA or do they have to obtain a licence in each state they choose to practice? from CupBeEmpty via /r/AskAnAmerican sent 2 hours ago show parent Well if you need Norther New England or RI, I can ask around. I definitely know some folks in RI that might be interested in testing out some con law stuff, and they are all probably also barred in MA too. contextfull comments (97)reportblock usermark unreadreply

(i) A reporting party who violates § 8021 of this title shall be assessed a fine by the Commissioner of $500 or 25% of the cost of the campaign advertisement subject thereto, whichever is greater. § 8043. Violations; penalties; jurisdiction in Superior Court. billing note tuesday march 16, 7:30-8:30 pm, research state disclaimer statutes, researched delaware enforcement provisions for disclaim statute, result: $500 fine or 25% of expenditure, whichever greater. plan for wednesday: plasma bmv ant bait, what else? zoom meeting. email jill.

tuesday. paid $100 on 5th 3rd. owe $800 need to call to pay by check or could wait for new card to come. filed title VI complaint w deldot re bmv. next: groceries, ride bike, fedex for printout, dmv for did: groceries. fedex. scanned and sent signature. ordered dinner. off to go get dinner.

https://elections.delaware.gov/pdfs/901Regulation.pdf 7.0 etc is the sign regulations/disclaimer regulations. it's a pdf so i cant cut and paste to here. here's the statute: 15 § 8021. Identification of purchaser. (a) All campaign advertisements having a fair market value of $500 or more, except printed items with a surface of less than 9 square inches, shall include prominently the statement:   “Paid for by [name of political committee or other person paying for such advertisement.].” For purposes of this section, “campaign advertisements” shall include any communication by a candidate committee or political party that would otherwise qualify as an independent expenditure or an electioneering communication but for the fact it was made by a candidate committee or political party. (b) All third-party advertisements having a fair market value of $500 or more, except printed items with a surface of less than 9 square inches, shall include prominently the statement: “Paid for by [name of political committee or other person paying for such third-party advertisement. Learn more about [name of person] at [Commissioner of Elections’ web address].” (c) The Commissioner may adopt regulations regarding the size, placement and duration of the foregoing statements as the same shall apply to specific forms of campaign advertisements. In connection therewith, the Commissioner may modify or amend the foregoing statements to conform to the requirements of a particular medium (i.e., television, radio, print, Internet), and may by regulation create exemptions from the requirements hereunder where compliance is not reasonably practicable due to the small size or short duration of such advertisements. In all events, however, campaign advertisements having the same medium and duration (for example, 15-second radio advertisements or Internet advertisements having less than 200 characters) shall be subject to the same requirements. 67 Del. Laws, c. 449, §  1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 400, §  5; FOIA Coordinator Cathleen Hartsky-Carter Community Relations Officer Office of the State Election Commissioner 905 S. Governors Ave Suite 170 Dover, DE 19904 Telephone: (302) 739-4277 biling note sunday march 14th 10 pm -11 pm research into department of elections regulation, statutes staff etc. Anthony J. Albence State Election Commissioner ex officio Jun 20, 2023 Sharon A. Williams-Mayo At-Large - New Castle County Jan 27, 2025 Kay Sandstrom Kent County Jun 6, 2022 John N. Pasquale, Jr. New Castle County Jun 6, 2022 Karen H. Pugh Sussex County Jan 27, 2025 Cimone Philpotts Wilmington republicans: James A. Sterling, III At-Large - New Castle County Jun 6, 2022 Kim Warfield-Walker Kent County Jul 1, 2019 Vacant New Castle County Barbara Sikora Sussex County May 2, 2022 Hal Schneikert Wilmington https://elections.delaware.gov/services/candidate/pdfs/Campaign_SignageGuide_rev12082020.pdf

saturday

fnb

make comic

draft complaint in del case

dmv complaint

photo policy at dmv. name policy at dmv. Lawsuit Year Delaware Solid Waste Authority v. News-Journal Co. 1984 Guy v. Judicial Nominating Commission 1995 Lee v. Minner 2006 New Castle County Vocational-Technical Education Association v. Board of Education 1978 News-Journal Co. v. Billingsley 1980 https://ballotpedia.org/Delaware_Freedom_of_Information_Act



































5.3.4 If the procedures listed in Section 5.3.3 are not feasible, as a last resort, the division may issue a noncompliant identification document provided the applicant has sufficient proof (school records, employment documents, social security card, and other records) demonstrating he has used this name, date of birth and gender consistently over a long period of time. The driving record will be annotated showing the identification documents were approved as exceptions and copies of the documents will be retained on file. Exceptions to name change procedures must be approved by Driver Services Manager, Chief of Driver Services, Deputy Director or Director. PROOF OF IDENTITY / LEGAL PRESENCE: Examples of acceptable source documentation: Please provide ONE of the following proof of identity/legal presence documents: (This document must contain proof of full legal name, date of birth, and citizenship/legal presence in the United States to be eligible to obtain a federally compliant identification document.) Certificate of birth (U.S. issued). Must be original or certified copy, have a raised seal and be issued by the Office of Vital Statistics or State Board of Health. Please note that wallet cards, birth registration or hospital announcements/records are not accepted. (If under 18, birth certificate must include birth parent(s) names) *** Consular report of birth abroad Certificate of Naturalization (N-550, N570m or N-578) Certificate of Citizenship (N-560, N-561, or N-645) Northern Marina Card (I-551) American Indian Card (I-551) U.S. Citizen Identification Card (I-179 or I-197) Valid passport, U.S. If foreign, appropriate INS document also is required Resident Alien Card (I-515, I-551, AR-3, or AR-103) Temporary Resident Identification Card (K-688) Non-Resident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card (I-185 or I-586) Record of Arrival and Departure (in a valid Foreign Passport)(I-94 or I-94W visa waiver program) Record of Arrival and Departure w/attached photo stamped "Temporary Proof of Lawful Permanent Resident"(I-94) Processed for I-551 stamp (in a valid Foreign Passport) Permanent Resident Re-Entry Permit (I-327) Refugee Travel Document (I-571) Employment Authorization Card (I-688A, I-688B, I-766) Canadian Immigration Record and Visa or Record of Landing (IMM 1000) Federally Compliant State issued photo driver license *

delaware cases: in re opinion of the justices 1974 anonymous v delaware 2000 https://casetext.com/case/anonymous-v-state doe v cahill 2005 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/de-supreme-court/1263047.html http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case405.cfm It is clear that speech over the internet is entitled to First Amendment protection.13  This protection extends to anonymous internet speech.14  Anonymous internet speech in blogs or chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering.   As the United States Supreme Court recently noted, “anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.” 15  The United States Supreme Court continued, “[t]he right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct.   But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.” 16 https://casetext.com/case/rappa-v-new-castle-county-2 rappa found that rappa's campaign signs were seized unconstitutionally because the regulation was content-based discrimination. similarly, the disclaimer statute is impermissible content based regulation. 3rd cir: rappa?

delaware: § 3. Free and equal elections. Section 3. All elections shall be free and equal. § 5. Freedom of press and speech; evidence in libel prosecutions; jury questions. Section 5. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man. The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of persons acting in a public capacity; and any citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications, investigating the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels the jury may determine the facts and the law, as in other cases. § 5. Freedom of press and speech; evidence in libel prosecutions; jury questions. Section 5. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man. The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of persons acting in a public capacity; and any citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. § 16. Right of assembly; petition for redress of grievances. Section 16. yet the citizens have a right in an orderly manner to meet together, and to apply to persons intrusted with the powers of government, for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, remonstrance or address. § 21. Equal Rights. Section 21. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, national origin, or sex. § 9. Courts shall be open; remedy for injury; suits against State. Section 9. All courts shall be open; and every person for an injury done him or her in his or her reputation, person, movable or immovable possessions, shall have remedy by the due course of law, and justice administered according to the very right of the cause and the law of the land, without sale, denial, or unreasonable delay or expense. Suits may be brought against the State, according to such regulations as shall be made by law. In 2006, Corn-Revere was lead counsel in Huminski v. Corsones, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that individual members of the public have a First Amendment right to attend court proceedings. 1 million in fees sought after 250,000 award.

https://ij.org/cje-post/why-dont-we-see-more-state-constitutional-claims-in-federal-court-money-prudence/

As I mentioned I would be doing in my previous letter of October 28, I now request an opinion from your office. The issue to be addressed is what is your policy with respect to signs such as "Robbin Stewart for Township Board - Vote Tuesday" or "Vote for Smith". I also request that you request a new AGO from the state Attorney General. Not because the previous AGO was wrong, which it is, but because more recent cases, including Becerra and Janus, have reiterated the court's long held position that government may not compel speech (except in narrow exceptions not at issue here, such as subpoenas or tax returns.) Becerra, for example, found that a disclaimer rule for pregnancy centers was a first amendment violation. Town of Gilbert v Reed reiterated that the test for political signs is strict scrutiny, what Justice Scalia in McIntyre called the kiss of death standard. In Stewart v Taylor (S.D. Ind. 1996), this language was upheld as protected by the First Amendment, and I received a settlement of $7,000. I no longer settle such cases as cheaply. In Anonymous v Delaware I represented Scott Huminski. That case was dismissed on justiciability grounds after the Attorney General assured the court that Delaware would not seek to violate the First Amendment rights protected by the Talley and McIntyre decisions, and agreed with us that Delaware's statute was unconstitutional. Mr. Huminski is best known for a case involving political signs in Burlington Vermont, where, represented by Robert Corn-Revere, he was awarded $900,000. My current client is not Mr. Huminski. You now have a differently numbered statute, but it is unconstitutional for the same reasons. Please respond within ten days. Below I go into more detail about the merits of the dispute, but to summarize, I have asked you for an advisory opinion concerning whether your office intends to attempt to enforce its unconstitutional interference in protected speech such as signs that say Vote for Smith, on behalf of my anonymous client who intends shortly to spend over $500 on such signs. My client is not Scott Walker, but his recent signs that said "Scott Walker" would be example of the sort of speech at issue. In Anonymous v Delaware, I was criticized by the court for not having sought an advisory opinion from your office; instead my cocounsel David Finger had obtained a letter from the Attorney General's office stating that only a court could resolve our issue. Under the Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 USC 1983 et seq., I am not required to do anything about exhausting adminstrative remedies, but I do so here both as a professional courtesy and to sharpen the issues showing we may have a live dispute. Of course I hope you will do the right thing, and not be evil, and uphold the oath you took to support the state and federal constitutions. But, based on our recent correspondence, I rather suspect you won't. Recently you forwarded me, at my request, a more recent AGO addressing the new statute. That opinion deliberately misconstrued the McIntyre decision, in which the question presented was, is there an elections exception to Talley v California?". It also discussed dicta in Citizens United,which is readily distingusishable because it dealt with speech banned under Austin, rather than the core political speech at issue here. The court suggested that disclosure and disclaimer was a less onerous remedy than a complete ban, which was true. Plaintiff's argument in Citizens, in its complaint as drafted by James Bopp, was that the speech, a movie about Hillary Clinton, was not express advocacy, and therefor no disclosure or disclaimer was required. The court found that the movie was express advocacy, or its functional equivalent, so plaintiff's argument failed, so the issue of the constitutionality of the disclaimer rules was not decided, only discussed as an aside. Mr Bopp is actually a fan of censorship by disclaimer rules, so he does not challenge them directly, but instead has won 23 cases about express advocacy. See for example Wisconsin Right to Life I and II. In its dicta praising disclosure and disclaimers in Citizens, the court did not distinguish between disclosures and disclaimers, as it had for example in Victoria Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation. In that case all nine members of the court agreed that the disclaimer rule was subject to strict scrutiny, and was unconstitutional, while the disclosure rule was subject to intermediate scrutiny under Buckley v. Valeo, and was upheld. So although Citizens did praise disclaimer rules, the case is neither controlling nor persuasive in the context of Delaware's rules. The AGO then discussed an unrelated case, Delaware Strong, which was about disclosure rather than disclaimers, under the lax scrutiny standard of Buckley v Valeo rather than the strict scrutiny standard of Town of Gilbert v Vincent. The AGO did not mention Anonymous v Delaware (2000) or any of the controlling cases other than McIntyre, such as In Re Opinion of the Justices (DE 1974), Talley v. California, Buckley v Valeo, Watchtower v Stratton, etc. Because of that AGO, I will not be suing you in a personal capacity on the theory that McIntyre clearly establishes the right in question, even though it does. You are legally entitled to rely on qualified immunity on the basis of this opinion, as far as it goes, which is not far. I may or may not sue you in a personal capacity on the theory that this dispute is govered by Talley v. California, Anonymous v Delaware, Opinion of the Justices 1974, Becerra, Janus, AID v Open Society, Buckley v ACLF, Watchtower v. Stratton, National Federation of the Blind v Riley, Wooley v Maynard, Tornillo v Miami Herald, and the like. See also Masterpiece Bakeshop, which was decided on narrower grounds. This depends in part on how you respond, and what I am able to discover about the conduct of your office on this issue since 2013. These include more recent controlling cases, and previous controlling cases not discussed in the AGO. I will write to you seperately with respect to open issues from my previous correspondence. In a democracy, free and open elections require a climate of free speech so that citizens and candidates can discuss the issues without being unconstitutionally censored by the government. Otherwise you get a Potempkin election which has the form but not the substance of a real election. I have not yet researched the issue of whether I can sue you in personal capacity for the ongoing violation of the Delaware Constitution. The July 31, 1974, case, In Re Opinion of the Justices, is a controlling and persuasive precedent holding that anonymous political speech is protected by the Delaware Bill of Rights. The AGO does not mention this case, which, frankly, is pretty obscure. I went over to Widener University a couple of days ago to try to find it, but they were closed, so I searched for it on the internet. It is my belief that the statute not only violates the free speech and press clause of the state constitution, as established by the above case, but also violates the free and open elections clause of the Delaware constitution. I wrote my LLM thesis at UMKC in 1994 on these state constitutional clauses. There is little case law on this clause, so I would enjoy litigating it if you choose to oppose me in this matter. In In Re Opinion of the Justices, Governor Tribbet asked the court to advise him on the constitutionality of a bill that attemped to required editorial pages, such as the News Journal, to have an identification disclaimer so we would know who wrote what. The court held, of course, that the bill was in violation both of the First Amendment and of the State Constitution, which on this topic at least speak with one voice. That case has never been overuled, as far as I know, either as to its holding on the First Amendment, or its holding on the state constitution. If you attempt to refuse to follow it, you can expect to see yourself featured on the News Journal editoral pages. That case in turn mentions and relies on Talley v California and Tornillo v Miami Herald, US Supeme Court cases that are controlling here and omitted from the AGO. In general I think you are doing a fine job of running elections in Delaware. I hope you won't sully your reputation by trying to enforce this void statute. To do so would be illegal, tortious, unethical, naughty, evil, all around a bad idea. I hope I am not coming off as unduly combative. I would rather work with you than against you. Please recall that there are a few remaining details from my previous letter. You sending me the AGO was very helpful. I need to know of any instances since 2013 where your office has enforced or threatened to enforce the policy, which of your staff members were or were not involved in those efforts, whether any of those staff members are licensed attorneys, that sort of thing. Again, thank you for you recent letter, and I look forward to hearing from you. For the moment, until we get this resolved, it might behoove you to remove any threat of enforcement from your web site, since that might be seen as active involvement in violating the civil rights of all Delawareans. I encourage you to take a little time and read In Re Opinion, Talley v California (7 pages), Anonymous v Delaware, and perhaps Justice Thomas's concurrence in McIntyre, or Robbin Stewart v Sarah Taylor, the first case I won on this topic. Manuel Talley was an African-American civil rights activist, an officer in CORE and a correspondent of Dr. King. He was fined $10 for passing around a flyer with no disclaimer. The Supreme Court reversed the fine, in one of the seminal cases of the civil rights era, along with NAACP v Alabama and Bates v Little Rock, helping to establish the right to privacy. I am not sure you want to be associated with interference in the rights of Africans Americans to politically organize, with a return to Jim Crow-era censorship. Margaret McIntyre was a nice little old lady in Westerville Ohio, a candidate for the school board who was part of a group fighting a tax increase. Some of the group were arrested, and Margaret was fined $100 for passing out some flyers for a group of concerned citizens and taxpayers. The Supreme Court did not create an exception for nice little old ladies who spend less than $500. Instead they ruled that the Ohio staute, requiring candidate disclaimers, was unconstitutional because there is no elections exception to the rule in Talley. Margaret died during the litigation, but her family kept up the fight until she won postumously. I don't think you want to be seen as trying to kill nice little old ladies. In 1996 I was working at a produce warehouse, and put up a few signs I'd made the night before at Kinkos, now FedEx, for 38 cents each. The sign said "Robbin Stewart for Township Board - Vote Tuesday" They took down my sign even after I had warned their lawyer that that would violate McIntyre. The court held "Stewart is correct". These days I'm a semiretired crippled lawyer with nothing better to do than spend the next few years litigating the hell out of this. We both have better things to do with our time. Let's resolve this amicably. Cordially, Robbin Stewart. billing note 2.7 hours march 10th. my hourly rate is $235. billing note 1.0 hours march 11, 12:00 - 1:02 am. sent list of links to major cases.

tuesday:

did

passport application turned in, notarized affidavit $160.

sold some $2's to the passport lady and made small talk.

groceries $8, govatos candy $1. tp, cookies, markers.

went to kinkos and tried to print files but they wouldn't print, so i didnt go back to bmv yet.

spent at kinkos. $5?

binged watched some show .. two seasons of fargo.

read delaware ag's opinion on disclaimers.

confirmed friday screening appointment. set alarm, review directions. then plasma on the way home.

to do

bath

cash count. balance 5300 at natcity.

lie list for ago

call tommy

x dinner

x sleep. plasma tomorrow.

x reference librarian widener.

x/2 on way to newark, try printing file again, visit bmv. lie list AGO

1 mcintyre not clear precedent

2 no mention of talley etc. question presented

3 little old lady exception

4 standard of review

5 disclosure disclaimer sleight of hand

6 citizens united two errors

7 compelling interest examples

8 legislative statement of compelling interest does not make it so.

9 . no mention of anonymous v delaware.

10 no mention of controlling state precedent

1 spent about 1 hr today, between read email,reply, write memo about it, go to law school oh still need to write email to law school. so maybe 1.2 hours.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 324 A.2d 211 (1974) In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES. Supreme Court of Delaware. July 31, 1974.

2 wednesday did list.

3 gas $42.

4 plasma +$51

5 flower seeds and tray $10

6 food tiger

7 dinner: lasagna soup. made black eyed pea soup.

8 sorted van and basement

9 wrote first draft memo on request for advisory opinion 0.9 hours.

10 wrote "make list" on whiteboard with the new markers.

2 cleaned sink with yogurt?

2 ordered cups and saucers in our pattern. $31

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

3 thursday: to do list/daily task list

4 go thru emails.

5 go thru mom's emails.

6 atm. pnc do i owe $50 on line of credit?

7

8 outstanding $$ issues:

9 electric bill, plane ticket, midas, boulder rent deposit columbia rent deposit 1116 cortez dispute. what else?

10 bmv problem

2 delaware disclaimer problem. finger.

3 indiana disclaimer problem. mark small.

4 jill.

5 tommy.

6 nurses aid company dispute.

7 make better list.

8 clean room and garage.

9 find raisins.

10 unload dishwasher

2 taxes

3 fix fridge.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

DMVCustomerService@delaware.gov Denied an ID, what recourse do I have? I spent this afternoon at the new castle DMV. I went there to get an ID. I was refused. I requested something in writing to show that I had been there, in order to begin an appeal, and was refused. "Darrell", who was unable  or unwilling to give his full name, was polite but unhelpful. Like many gay men I changed my name when I came out in the 1970s. I used the legal process available at the time, which was to fill out an affidavit on the form provided by the attorney general's office. There is no court order, nor will there be. So my name on my birth certificate is different than my current legal name. Delaware regulations require them to be the same, which is impossible. The delaware regulation, 5.1.2,  is arbitrary and capricious, and is sex discrimination in violation of title VI, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and the Delaware Constitution.  The refusal to provide me with any documentation that I had requested and been denied an ID was a violation of procedural due process under the 14th Amendment and the Delaware Constitution.  I would hope we can work this out peacefully. I request a hearing. Under the Sunshine act, which I helped get passed in 1974, I request the full name and job title of anyone named Darrell who works at that office. I request that your department ask the state attorney general whether regulation 5.1.2 is enforceable in this way under these circumstances.   My concern is less for myself, than for the many other people who could find themselves in this position. My name is Robbin George Stewart. My previous name, which was legally changed in 1979, is Richard Lee Stewart. While there today, I provided my birth certificate, social security card, voter card, and two pieces of mail, which is all I can be required to show to be entitled to an ID. Sincerely, Robbin Stewart, esq., IN #17147-53. gtbear at gmail.com == Office of the Governor JOHN CARNEY Failure Sorry, something went wrong. Your form submission was not received. == to wendy.henry, me Today I experienced what I suspect was sex discrimination in violation of title IV at the delaware bureau of motor vehicles in New Castle County. It is non-obvious discrimination, so bear with me. Like many gay men, I changed my name when I came out in the 1970s. I used the available process at the time, which involved a notarized affidavit on a form provided by the delaware attorney general's office. Neither the original form nor any copies now exist. The BMV's rules require that the names be the same on my birth certificate and on my current documents. They aren't, and should not be. I had one name as a child, and another as an adult. Both are correct, but they do not match. Many people change their names, whether for reasons of gender, religion, marriage, adoption, etc. The regulation by its plain text does not allow for that. I suspect this is unlawful discrimination. The practice has undue disparate impact on gays, women who marry, religious minorities, etc. Cassius Clay became Muhammed Ali, for example. The courts have recently adopted the position that discrimination against gays constitutes sex discrimination. I know of no case yet having applied this principle to a change of name dispute, but it follows logically from the recent landmark decisions. Sex discrimination is actionable under title VI, which I understand to be your purview. I have been harmed in two ways. The denial of an ID by the state agency is a substantive due process violation and equal protection. The refusal to issue a denial letter, or any other document which would substantiate my claim that I had been there and was denied, is a procedural due process violation. I have no previous experience with title VI, and do not know how things are done. How should I proceed? Thanks, Sincerely, Robbin Stewart. = robbin stewart 4:55 AM (0 minutes ago) to Larry.Lambert, me dear representative lambert, i wanted to make you aware of a problem i encountered today in trying to get an ID at BMV. i moved back to delaware in august. just this week i finally succeeded in getting my birth certificate, so i went to get my ID. If I get my ID i may be able to get my medicine. i was denied an ID, because they discriminate against people who have changed their name. they insist that a person's current legal name match the birth certificate, but for many people these do not match. they point to state regulation 5.2.1. as a bored retired lawyer, it is not the end of my world if i cannot get ID. but for many of your constituents, not having an ID could mean not being able to get a job, or housing, or basic services. i have met people who have turned to prostitution or drug dealing to survive when they can't get ID and so can't get a regular job. it could make it more difficult to vote for you. so i hope this is something we can get fixed. as a matter of constituent services, i hope you can help me resolve this issue and get my ID. as a matter of public policy, this is a problem that needs fixing, not just for me, but for everyone. we haven't met. i'm a mount pleasant alum, but i've been away for a while. below is some of the relevant correspondence. thanks in advance. - robbin stewart.

please contact the Division of Motor Vehicles at (302) 744-2508. Today I was denied a delaware ID because the name on my birth certificate is not the same as my current name. So my new quest will be to challenge this policy. I have the same situation in indiana.