roughest draft - letter to todd rokita re AGO. but first some research. ok, it seems like i was wrong or may have been wrong about any elected official can request an ago. so i wasted a couple hours. To: Todd Rokita Indiana Attorney General From: Robbin Stewart. Date: 8/1/2021 Re: Constitutionality of IC 3-9-3-2.5. Hi Todd. I'm writing today to request an informal Attorney General Opinion on the topic of whether IC 3-9-3-2.5, a disclaimer statute, violates the Indiana Constitution or the First Amendment, and is therefore void and unenforceable. I have been in touch with my state representatives and asked them to make a formal request, which they might or might not follow up on. The background of this case is that in 1996 I was running for the GOP nomination for center township advisory board, and a poll worker took down one of my signs that said "Robbin Stewart for Township Board - Vote Tuesday". I took that to court in Stewart v Taylor which found the statute at the time, IC 3-9-3-2, unconstitutional per McIntyre v Ohio Election Commission. That case had held that there is no elections exception to the rule in Talley v California, that disclaimer rules are unconstitutional because the First Amendment protects anonymous speech. McIntyre held that strict scrutiny is the standard. The legislature then re-enacted the statute, with minor irrelevant changes, as IC 3-9-3-2.5. My next case, Majors v Abell, was dismissed by Judge Posner on the grounds that McConnell v FEC had left the area of the law of disclosures too indeterminate for him to rule, and in the event of a tie the state wins. After that I decided to do other things besides law for a living, and remain licensed sort of as a hobby. Two related cases are Ogden v Marendt and Mulholland v Marion County Election Board, which applied Mcintyre to a different Indiana statute similarly unconstitutionally censoring political speech. See also AKKKK v Goshen, which allowed masked demonstrations. In the years following Majors, the Supreme Court has clarified that disclaimer rules are unconstitutional censorship (NIFLA v Becerra), that the standard of review is still strict scrutiny (Town of Vincent v Reed), that anonymous speech is still constitutionally protected (Janus), that the government may not compel speech (AID v Inst. for Open Society), and that a tie goes to the speaker, not the state (WRTL I and II). In Stewart v Taylor the court declined to address the state constitutional claim because it resolved the case on the federal claim. In Majors the courts declined to address the state constitutional issues. The leading case is Price v Indiana (1993) which held that political speech gets strict scrutiny under section 9 of article I. I think if your office looks at this objectively, you will conclude that the recent cases such as Becerra, Janus, and Vincent supercede Majors and support Stewart v Taylor, Ogden and Mulholland, and that the staute is void because it violates both constitutions. Regardless of which way you decide, I would appreciate something in writing, within a reasonable time. My speech is being chilled. I may or may not have clients who at this stage prefer their names not be used. More importantly, the integrity of Indiana's election process is being tampered with by this unconstitutional censorship of political signs. Free and equal elections requires that we do better. By the way, congratulations on your election. Once you announced, I predicted on my blog that you would win the nomination and the election, which you did. Sincerely, Robbin Stewart [address redacted in this draft.] == to do: print and send this and the letter to sec state. print and mail hard copies of the letters to state rep and state senator. who else do i know in the legislature?

update: letter not sent. turned out to be a blind alley. Hoosier Libertarians Currently Serving In Elected Office Susan Bell, Hagerstown Town Court (Wayne County) – 2004-2024 Cheryl Heacox, Clay Township Advisory Board (Wayne County) – 2011-2023 Larry Walters, Dublin Town Council (Wayne County) – 2016-2024 Jessica Wallace, Larwill Town Council At-Large (Whitley County) – 2016-2023 Renee Sweeney, Ossian Town Council (Wells County) – 2015-2023 Jamie Jo Owens, Liberty Township Trustee (Henry County) – 2018-2022 Terry Coffman, Liberty Township Advisory Board (Henry County) – 2015-2022 Dean Hartley, Franklin Township Advisory Board (Montgomery County) – 2019-2022 Ryan Coby, Milton Town Council (Wayne County) – 2020-2023 Nathan Kring, Tipton County Council – 2020-2023 Patricia Warner, Claypool Clerk-Treasurer (Kosciusko County) – 2016-2023 Matthew Kennedy, New Haven City Council (Allen County) – 2020-2023 To: elected libertarians: Hi. I'm Robbin Stewart in Indianapolis. I want to thank you for running and winning as a Libertarian. One of the perks of being an elected officeholder is that you have the right to request an Indiana Attorney General Opinion, and they are obligated to respond. I am requesting your help in making such a request. IC 3-9-3-2.5 is a disclaimer statute, that orders you to put "paid for by __" on your signs, brouchures, etc. It's obviously unconstitutional, since it's a statute violating the freedom of speech, freedom of the press,and privacy, under both the state and federal conbstitutions. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this about a dozen times, beginning in 1960 in Talley v California, and as recently as 2019's NIFLA v Becerra, which struck down a California rule requiring disclaimers in pregnancy centers. The general rule is that government cannot compel speech. If you want to put a sign in your yard saying "Vote for Smith", that is your right. Below is a sample such letter; you could use this or put it in your own words. "Office of the Indiana Attorney General Indiana Government Center South 302 W. Washington St., 5th Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 Dear Attorney General Todd Rokita. I am an elected Indiana official. I plan to run for office again in the future. I am requesting a formal Indiana Attorney General Opinion as to whether IC 3-9-3.2.5, the disclaimer statute, is unconstutional and void as violating Article I section 9, and or the First Amendment, in light of recent case law reaffirming McIntyre v Ohio. Thank you, sincerely ___." If you choose to do this, please let me know so that I can send in a memo in support. I am happy to refund any postage or other expenses. I can be reached at gtbear at gmail.com, or 4015 E washington St Indianapolis IN 46201. I am hard to reach by phone, but 317 308 0663 is the best bet. Yours in liberty, Robbin Stewart.

roughest draft of letter to state seanator jean breaux. bcc my state rep whatshername. robin somebody. hollingsworth? Dear Senator. I am your constituent. I am writing to request a small favor. I would like you to send a letter to Attorney General Todd Rokita asking for an Attorney General Opinion on the constitutionality of I C 3-9-3-2.5. I would write him myself, but the request needs to come from an elected official. 3-9-3-2.5 is a rule that requires political signs, fliers, etc., to have a "paid for by ___" disclaimer. I have reason to believe that this statute is unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court said so in 1960, as part of the civil rights movement. These statutes are a legacy of the Jim Crow era, where it wasn't safe for people to speak up about politics, especially if they were black or female. In Talley v California in 1960, the court said that anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment. Manuel Talley, an activist with tghe Congres sof Racial Equality, passed out a flier promoting a boycott of racist businesses. He was fined $10. The court set this aside. The case is important for helping establish a constitutional right to privacy. It is part of a trio of cases along with NAACP v Alabama (1958) and Bates v Little Rock (1960) which held that the NAACP did not have to give their membership lists to the government. The court recently reaffirmed these principles in Americans for Prosperity v Bona earlier this month. In 1995, in McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission, the court clarified that there is no elections exception to the rule in Talley, and that strict scrutiny applies in these cases. Margaret McIntyre was an old lady who passed out some fliers at a school board meeting, and was fined $100. Even though she had died by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the court set aside the fine and said that the Ohio statute was unconstitutional. Indiana's is the same. I am happy to meet with you or discuss this further, but I hope you can just send the letter. If you do, please let me know, so that I can send Rokita's office some background information. Below is a sample such letter; you could use this or put it in your own words. "Dear Attorney General Todd Rokita. I am an elected Indiana official. I plan to run for office again in the future. I am requesting a formal Indiana Attorney General Opinion as to whether IC 3-9-3.2.5, the disclaimer statute, is unconstitutional and void as violating Article I section 9, and or the First Amendment, in light of recent case law reaffirming Talley v California and McIntyre v Ohio. Thank you, sincerely ___." Thank you, sincerely, Robbin Stewart [add address info] Sincerely, Robbin Stewart.

2021 deductions from income 180 lawyer dues $400 texas taxes $800 state property taxes, deductible or not? $150 tolls. $100 cles $80 P O Box. what else? 1/2 phone and internet. mileage missouri trip 1800 miles = 900.

to do list

1. return email from jill

x 2. 180 supreme court dues

$180 on 5th 3rd card. 3. check creditkarma for a bill

$22 on commerce card, was not able to call. 4. call tommy.

5. next draft of the brief

x 6. 2nd helpings

7. buy state fair tickets

missed it.

did: letter sent to hendricks county election board.

letter drafted to new secstate.

to do: find tax forms i filled out in january? did i send them?

find oil checks,

sort more mail.

x find mark small email. sent.

wrote a draft of a letter to my state senator.

did replaced flourescent light in bathroom $6.

strip club $30

malort $6.

to do replace bulbs in kitchen, front porch.

found: patio chairs and table. suitcase for brian. bin. dirt devil.

Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975), Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908) Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968), Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987) Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995), McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974) Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998) Peterslie v. N.Carolina, (N.Car. 1993) Lousiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976), In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974), Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973) Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042. Tattered Cover (Co) California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois Louisiana, Maine, Mass, Missouri, New York, N. Dakota, Ohio,

did tuesday.

plasma +$100.

gas $29. on chase card.

i almost burned down the house, melted a fan cord while heating water for coffee.

brian / bj is here. he's willing to buy the van for $1400. he left the door open and house is full of flies.

to do call tommy

i paid $483 balance on 5th 3rd card for texas taxes with $500 from credit union.

wednesday to do

cash count $85

sort mail

weed church

trivia nights?

read over brief draft

email crackers

flies. took out trash. washed a few dishes.

x call to actiuvate pay card.

call for toll booth charges.

go thru mail. did some. pnc change address

paid $322 texas taxes on 5th 3rd card. paid $100 more texas taxes. remember to deduct from taxes. internet bill ok. didnt find electric bill yet. found it. need to pay water bill. paid $100 on water bill. need to change address on pnc account from wilmington to indy. did: spent $45 for sams club membership + $45 gift card. so this week i should pay $100 on pnc card, and change address, and pay $400ish on 5th 3rd card. ask pnc if i can do the tommy account thing. go to chase before august and move money to business account so 1500 so no monthly fee. monday: pay $434 on electric bill. then go over bill details.

Hendricks County Election Board The Hendricks County Election Board consists of three members. One Republican Member, one Democrat member, and the Secretary. The County Clerk serves as the Secretary. Members: Eric Oliver - President and Republican Member David Sutherland - Democrat Member Marjorie Pike - Secretary and Hendricks County Clerk The Election Board may be contacted at the following address: Hendricks County Election Board 355 S Washington St, Suite 218 Danville, IN 46122 issue: today i met a gop candaite for sheriff. one of his campaign postcards had no disclaimer. so i could report it to the county election board, just to get a case going. to do: find an elected offical to ask rokita for an AGO on constitutionality of 3-9-3-2.5. TO: Hendricks County Election Board. From: Robbin Stewart, esq. Re: Lack of disclaimer on Terry Judy for Sheriff campaign materials. cc: Indiana Election Division. July 30 th 2021 Recently at the Hendicks County Fair I met Terry Judy who is running for sheriff. I obtained two pieces of campoaign materials, a postcard and a pen, which did not have the disclaimer which might be required under Indiana Code 3-9-3-2.5. The pen almost certainly falls under the exception for small items where a disclaimer would be impractical. As for the postcard, I did not find out for certain if there were more than 100, as required by the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Majors v Abell, footnote 11.. I merely reasonably suspect so. His other materials had disclaimers. So on the one hand I am reporting a likely violation of the Indiana statute. Please keep me posted on how you choose to handle this case. On the other hand, it is my position that the statute conflicts with the state and federal conbstitution, and is void, as an interference with the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to petition, and right to privacy. See, for example, Robbin Stewart v Taylor (s d ind 1997), which found the previous Indiana disclaimer statute unconstitutional under McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission (1995.) The leading state case is Price v Indiana (1993). McIntyre is still good law, as indicated in recent cases such as NIFLA v Becerra, Janus, and this month's AFP v Bonta. One way that you could handle this situation is to ask Indiana's Attorney General, Todd Rokita, for a formnal opinion on whether 3-9-3-2.5 is constitutional. Or, I suppose, you could just do nothing. Or, under the statute, you could refer Mr. Judy for prosecution to the County prosecutor, which could send him to jail. His speech is core political speech, and it is his right as an American and Hoosier to distribute his postcards and campaign for office. I have no personal hostility towards Mr. Judy. My interest is in trying to get some resolution of this legal issue. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

sheeena 765 271 0813 tommy's friend

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the First Circuit GASPEE PROJECT v. MEDEROS Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants Table of Contents Certifications Table of Authorities Interest of Amicus Smummary of Argument Argument 1. afp v. Bonta has changed the standard so the ruling below is obsolete as well as erroneous. 2 Ten false statements of law by the court below, which should not be upheld by this court. 3. Citizens United and the NOM cases do not control and are not persuasive. 4. 32 cases following the rule of Talley and McIntyre. Conclusion: The disclaimer provision must be struck down. The disclosure claim may go to trial, even though it faces a high burden of proof.

i need to make a better list wednesday: x take out trash. x wash a dish. x print off crackers job app. amazon apply? work on amicus. x weed church tonight! thursday: x plasma. scrap. x crackers. call pastor eddy. emails: mark small lawyer. revise letter to delaware senators. letters: x contact senator braun, congessman carson re passport. write to mechanic in chester pa - yellow receipt what else? found revereware, washed it, killed flies, x make appointment at supreme court library x x make comic. found bacon and eggs. brought home the bacon, fried it up in a pan. sort letters get towels. goodwill. x socks. x walmart. x senator braun's office on pa st. bought: air conditioner: $50 Gas: 25. coffee/soda $5 moustraps and bait $8. so $88. found: stuffed animals. scrap metal. butter. juice. fruit. stuff i gave to the church. cheese. pile of chargers and stuff. electric power washer. did: 1. got gas for the mower. need to write down mileage. 2. took out trash. 3. went to church picnic. made donations. 4. met hearts to hands woman. 5. met beech grove artists coop couple. loaned twister to the church. 6. bought a timer. $2. 7. bought and installed mousetraps. saw 2 mice at once, so i must have a lot of mice. #5 and counting. plan to tonight: bath. laundry. work on brief. == july 13th tuesday plasma +60. coffee 2. auto fluids $21. tommy $50. mouse count 10. printed off passport release. x did not get it to braun today. to do sort mail. mark small email. work on brief. wednesday x zoom noon x church 7 x braun's office. did: applied for job with state court system. called mom by accident. bought fly strips. installed fluids in van. to do: brief. bath. clean kitchen counter. did: startd sorting mail. thursday: x plasma. chase. x recycling. crackers 7:30, do i need to email? next: 1. sort mail. 2. brief progress. 3. clean counter. 4. go thru tabs. tomorrow call tommy. x install fly strips and mousetraps. haircut. i was late and didnt get to go up. took the recycling. 11th mouse. raining too hard to dumpster dive and there's still a car there. == 167328 - 2500 = so i bought the honda around 165000. $20 gas 7/19.

some rough notes on the amicus in gaspee project v [rhode island board members] 5:43 am 7/7/21 to 6:01 am purpose of this set of notes is to outline the argument. not finish it, just outline. A. Bonta, decided 7/1/21, changed the standard of review in disclosure cases, so the version of exacting scrutiny used by the court below is now legal error. The new element is that narrow tailoring is required, and R I's disclosure regime is not narrowly tailored. B. The court erred in its Iqbal/Twombly analysis. Plaintiffs' case on disclosure must proceed to trial, where it will have an uphill battle and probably lose, but they have a right to their day in court. The disclaimer aspect, on the other hand, can be decided at summary judgment, for plaintiffs. C. Citizens United, part IV, is not controlling, nor persusasive. D. The NOM cases are distinguishable and not controlling. E. Ten legal errors by the court below. 1 twombly 2 salerno 3 citizens 4 NOM 5 McIntyre analysis. 6 standard of review 7 content neutral 8 compared to talley and mcintyre, hijacks more text, and has criminal sanctions, not just a fine. [does have mens rea for the criminal part.may lack mens rea for the fines.] 9 10 F. List 32 cases finding disclaimer rules unconstitional. Disclaimer cases. Compelled Speech cases. 15 state con cases. Previous rhode island case. Conclusion. more notes tuesday july 20 distinction from mcinmtyre
mcintyre merely required identification of authorship. the rhode island rule hijacks additional text, requiring ""I am ___ (name of entity's chief executive officer or equivalent), and ___ (title) of ___ (entity), and I approved its content." and then next it requires the names and address of top five contributors. compare "vote for smith" with. "vote for smith. i am jones, 123 somewhere street, providence ri, chair of people who want to vote for smith, and i approved its content. able, baker carenes detroit and eggbert." the next major distiction with mcintyre and talley is that it treatens criminal penalties and jail time. talley was fined $10. mcintyre was fined $100. the court foud this a first amendment violation. a treat of jail is far more chilling. next : The avowed governmental purpose for these requirements is for an electorate that is informed and aware of who or what is spending money in its elections. the method it choose is to chill and deter speech, so that voters are less informed. for example here the plaintiffs wished to distribute a voters guide, letting voters know how thir reps had voted on key issues. this may be exactly the kind of info legislators most wish to censor, because it provides a mearure of accountabilty. there is a poor fit, and the statute is not narrowly tailored. But nothing in the binding 18*18 Supreme Court or First Circuit precedents indicate that the informational interest is weak; in fact, they express the opposite. wrong and wrong. === binding: talley mcintyre aclf watchtower aid nifla torillo wooley riley janus. gilbert. mcconnell note 88 mcintyre is still good law. not binding: citizens, nom, delaware strong. next the first amendment protects more than minimal political advocacy, and there is no elections exeption to the first amendment. mcintyre, gilbert. mcintyre did not create a little old ladies exception. next: opt out next nom maine. "unquestionably constitutional," here, they are questioned, so not unquestionable. Maine's disclaimer requirements, like the Act here, were "minimal" and "unquestionably constitutional," The NOM court applied an exacting scrutiny analysis to the law at issue, holding that "each of the 20*20 challenged statutes pass muster under the First Amendment." Id. at 61. This Court does the same. In any event, the plaintiffs' alternate legal theories, as discussed below, are not applicable to the instant dispute. The plaintiffs also attempt to distinguish Citizens United, but this falls flat because it depends again on a constitutional distinction in the express/issue advocacy dichotomy, which the Court holds is irrelevant to this analysis. See NOM, 649 F.3d at 54-55. thats not why citizens is distinguishable. next mcintyre did not act alone. mcintyre was not at overbreadth case, it was core political speech. Here, the Act does not prohibit individual anonymous literature; it instead requires certain disclosures from organizations that meet specific contribution thresholds.[6] wrong; it applies to persons. repeates salerno mistake. schneiderman overruled by bonta. blakeslee "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." It is hard to imagine what the Rhode Island General Assembly was thinking when it passed this law 90 years ago, or when it amended it 40 years ago, but that matters little at this point; the Court agrees with the Plaintiff and Attorney General and finds that the statute must be invalidated as a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. attack on roe v wade. plain text of first amendment. B. Talley and McIntyre are among the controlling cases, so strict scrutiny/exacting is the standard as to the disclaimer case. 5:43 am 7/7/21 to 6:01 am purpose of this set of notes is to outline the argument. not finish it, just outline. A. Bonta, decided 7/1/21, changed the standard of review in disclosure cases, so the version of exacting scrutiny used by the court below is now legal error. The new element is that narrow tailoring is required, and R I's disclosure regime is not narrowly tailored. B. The court erred in its Iqbal/Twombly analysis. Plaintiffs' case on disclosure must proceed to trial, where it will have an uphill battle and probably lose, but they have a right to their day in court. The disclaimer aspect, on the other hand, can be decided at summary judgment, for plaintiffs. C. Citizens United, part IV, is not controlling, nor persusasive. D. The NOM cases are distinguishable and not controlling. . nom v maine - 1. stipulated to lax review. 2. ignored controlling state constitutional authority. nom v r i not a disclaimer case. E. Ten legal errors by the court below. 0. no mention of talley 1 twombly 2 salerno 3 citizens 4 NOM 5 McIntyre analysis. 6 standard of review 7 content neutral 8 compared to talley and mcintyre, hijacks more text, and has criminal sanctions, not just a fine. [does have mens rea for the criminal part.may lack mens rea for the fines.] 9 10 F. List 32 cases finding disclaimer rules unconstitional. Disclaimer cases. Compelled Speech cases. 15 state con cases. Previous rhode island case. Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000), City of Bogalusa v. May, 212 So.2d 408 (1968), People v Drake, (Cal., citation misplaced), People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Sup. Ct. 1962), Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998), Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 69 Cal. App. 4th 818, 82 Cal. Rptr.2d 25 (1999), reversed on other grounds, Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974), 42 L.Ed.26 33 dismissed as moot, Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968), Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995), Lousiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976), New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974), In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974), Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973) Ogden v. Marendt, 264 F.Supp. 2d 785 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (S.D. Ind 2004), ShrinkMissouri v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995), Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042. Smithers v Fla. Elections, http://www.fec.state.fl.us/decisions/Smithers96-85.PDF, Texas v. Doe, 61 S. W. 3d 99, (Tx. Cr.App. 5/14/2003) Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000), West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996), Yes to Life PAC v. Webster, Zwickler v. Koota, 290 F. Supp. 244 (E. D. N. Y. 1968), vacated on other grounds (mootness) sub nom. Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (1969) these two lists overlap, needs editing. Here are some additional cases supporting the right to anonymous free speech. Doe v.2theMart,140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 4 ACLU v. Ashcroft, _ U.S. _ (2004), 2,4 ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997), 4 ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) 4 ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) 4 American Constitutional Law Foundation [ACLF], Buckley v., 525 U.S.182 (1999), 2,3,5,6 Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000), Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) see aclf. Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999) Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975), Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908) Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) Griset v CalFPPC (1999), reversed on other grounds, Gulf Coast Printers v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974), dismissed as moot. Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968), Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987) Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995), Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind. 2003), 361 F.2d 349 (2004), McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974) Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998) Ogden v. Marendt, (S.D. Ind 2004), Peterslie v. N.Carolina, (N.Car. 1993) (upheld disclaimer rules.) Griset v. Cal. Fair Practices, 884 P.2d 116 (1994),(1999),(2001) Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998) ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995), Smith v California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959),(mens rea) Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F.Supp.1047 (S.D.Ind.1997), Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), Texas v. Doe, (Tx. Cr.App. 5/14/2003) Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000), Watchtower v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002) West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996), Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987), Wooley v Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) Yes to Life PAC v. Gardner, Conclusion. B. Talley and McIntyre are among the controlling cases, so strict scrutiny/exacting is the standard as to the disclaimer case.

wednesdsay july 7th. did tuesday

made a comic

plasma +$60. soda $2 at a brewpub.

re-read some rhode island cases and made some progress on my brief.

went to 2 law libraries. didn't find what i wanted. at least i didnt get assaulted this time.

put tape over my license plate where it says in god we trust.

had one drink, my first drink in a month. an hour ago, so i can drive.

i need to remember my zoom meeting tomorrow at noon, and be awake for it.

ok i guess it's time to go out. then if i'm still awake i could outline my amicus.