https://participantskc.altasciences.com/volunteers/current-studies/healthy-volunteers-2 $5k at vince. call tomorrow. frontage. upcoming, no dates yet, 3500. booked a screening at vince. $5k. screen 8/13 friday 10 am.. study is sep 7th-18th. followup 9/24. i phone call in october. =

sunday: $30 gas. $10 zonies. 1000 miles kc trip. no hotel. 2 days out of town. so $600 deductions.

did i ever file my taxes?

what else? monday:

x plasma. go get blood test. did tuesday.

clean car.

clean front yard. = = =

delaware cocounsel. work on delaware complaint.

nebraska

x bmv outcome of hearing - make inquiry.

senator young re passport number.

passport office request for americans with disabilities act reasonable accomodation.

x sort box of coffee. photos.

clean kitchen floor.

clean fridges.

call mom

x call tommy

state fair.

x brief.

wednesday:

zoom.

email mark.

state fair

sort mail

email pnc

put away laundry

order bug bucket and puffer.

did i do my taxes? do i have a rough draft in my files?

read through old comics to make notes about money.

and to do list items.

i didn't get much done yet wednesday, but i checked on that $400 car - needs an engine so i didnt buy it. i cleaned the house for half an hour. emptied the buckets under the sink, took out the trash, sprayed for ants, found a box of socks and one of my teddy bears, put out mousetraps, did some gardening. it's hot enough i could put on the air conditioner. going to take a break for now. later i hope to sort mail. send at least one email, wash the kitchen floor, start cleaning the fridge. maybe the oven, bj always leaves the oven trashed. i could put away the rest of the laundry. check to power steering fluid. look for that oil envelope. look for my tax estimate from january. find out if i ever filed it - probvably not. read letters from the irs. take the stew off the stove. clean the stove. put away groceries. clean the van. if i list too much at once, i get overwhelmed. didnt do much else all day, went to church. wiped off the stove. got groceries.

wd 40 at dollar store bucket of cimexa $110. gas. power steering stuff

notes on studies. it's been long enough, so i could screen. frontage: no dates yet. 9 days, 3500. get phone turned on and call. spaulding study was full when i called so thursday plans: did not get enough sleep x laundry. x print and mail rokita letters sort mail work on brief tried to change a lightbulb, but it was the fixture.

some of what i found today sheets, blankets vitamins $600 check from trump, which i mailed back to the same address. 2 backpacks 3 burberry boxers, not my size 5 short shorts clothes sriratcha oats 200 pounds scrap metal picture frame mousetraps drink mix jeans 100 ft extension cord towel handkerchiefs 3 caps to do: next letter re passport. reasonable accomodation of my disability per disabilities act. go through this pile of mail. turn phone on. call tommy and mom. go to state fair. look for the dead mouse in my room.

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.

saturday i cleaned for about 3 hours.

slept at 4 am

made expense notes for car.

june expenses:

car:

electric $1100

misc

other

autopay: car ins $60.

modem tax 23

what else? paid $1000 on 5th 3rd card. so cash basis, car 2000, electric 1100, credit card $1000, misc 300? running total $4400. however, that's not typical month. income: oil $50, plasma $150, not much else? so $200.

car expenses

purchase $1400.

other:

plates and title $200

power steering fluid, blinker fluid $7

oil change $21

running total: 228 + 1400 = 1628

gas

$36.22 foulk rd 6/16

$41 wash pa 6/17 3.21/gln 77

$34 spiceland in 6/17 111

$18 indy 6/22 130

today is 6/26.

running total 130

need logbook and to write down miles. trip indicator:

did

1 trash 2 po box 3 gym 4 plasma $50 5 spray for bugs 6 laewn mower 7 laundry 7.5 emailed tommy 0 jalr.

hardware store was closed, 6 pm, now 8. i should cover the mower, raining. saw dawn. not professionally.

to do

1 make better list. 2 gas for mower. 3 mice. 4 bugs. 5 clean car. 6 put away laundry. 7 fix reddit chat problem. 8 x mke comic on other computer. 9 x chop down bush at driveway for better visibility. 10 x inspect yard for trash, scrap.

11. x outline brief

friday list:

1 hr cleaning. filed utility commission dispute. x next: mice. x aes building on circle. x utility regulatory commission 101 W Washington St #1500e, Indianapolis, IN 46204 did list got power turned back on. did laundry applied at hooters to do: update resume for castleton hooters manager job. bought moosetraps emailed tommy applied at hooters

billing note: just found out about a rhode island disclaimer case, first circuit just heard oral arguments.

it's by the people who brought janus. maybe i can work with them.

12:30 pm for the next hour or so, will update. 2:48 so 2 hours and counting. mailed hasen, contacted plaintiff's firm. 4:20 finished listening to oral argument. so nearly 4 hours. 4:28 taking a break to do other things for a short bit, will return here. oh abut to email the lawyer so that's still billable time. sent email, 4:45 so 4.25 hours (4 1/4). break time to move the fan upstairs. resume 7:32. pm 6/15/21 (same day)

group https://libertyjusticecenter.org/about/

complaint https://ljc-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/2019/11/LJC-Complaint-Filed-11-21-19-00043363xC230D.pdf dsuhr@libertyjusticecenter.org bkelsey@libertyjusticecenter.org daniel suhr. note: complaint looks fine.

oral argument

possible to do item letter brief mentioning controlling cases, persuasive cases, make argument that state interst is lessened by being prohibited by state constitution.

erroneous decision below https://ljc-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/2019/11/Gaspee-v.-Mederos-Memorandum-and-Order.pdf

list of errors in decision below

1. "whether those burdens are substantially related to achieving that end." improper legal standard. strict scrutiny is required.

2. "A facial challenge is not limited to a plaintiff’s particular case and can only succeed where the plaintiff establishes “that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 194 (2010); United States v. Salerno," wrong to apply salerno to first amendment case. also not clear that plaintiffs didnt raise an as applied challenge.

3. improper reliance on citizens united. however, court cites nom v mckee, previous precedent, so need to distinguish. NOM, i think, was a corporation? and plaintiffs are not. ok, best argument becerra and janus overule NOM.

4. buckley v valeo is not a disclaimer case.

(i am skipping a bunch of stuff about NOm v mckee)

5. "mcintyre acted alone."

6. little old lady exception misinterprets mcintyre and fails to grok talley.

3. again misinterprets citizens united. oh wait, is this a 501c3? ok plaintiffs are two 501c4s. that's a major weakness of their case. should have had an individual plaintiff. so they do need an facial challenge to the disclaimer statute.

Blakeslee v. St. Sauveur, 51 F. Supp. 3d 210 (D.R.I. 2014) note to self look up this case, seems to be a rhode island disclaimer case.

7. But more importantly, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs levy a facial challenge to the Act. ... seems as applied and facial.

8. ok finally we get to becerra....

the court's argument is the rhode island disclaimer regs are content neutral, and cites several local cases. not sure how i feel about that. mentions wooley but does not apply it.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/duo-of-federal-court-rulings-deal-blow-14251/ one about disclosure in new york, 2019. one from new jersey.

https://libertyjusticecenter.org/media/boston-globe-sides-first-amendment-battle-rhode-island-donor-disclosure-law/

looking now at campaign legal center lwv amicus.

Other circuits likewise have recognized that exacting scrutiny applies to all aspects of a state’s disclosure framework. See Nat’l Ass’n for Gun Rights, Inc. v. Mangan, 933 F.3d 1102, 1120 (9th Cir. 2019) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2825 (2020). mangan was a disclosure case, not a disclaimer case. discussd a few cases, would not say it collected them. mangan found one montana disclosure statute unconstitutional under lax scrutiny, upheld others. 1145 pm to 12:15 am 6/16/21. This Circuit’s decisions confirm th

https://campaignlegal.org/document/gaspee-project-v-mederos-united-states-appellate-court-first-circuit-amicus-curiae-brief

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/20-1944

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/20-1944.mp3 oral argument. some main themes: does citizens united control? does nom I and II control? "mcintyre was an individual" is mcintyre still good law? becerra and janus. i've been mispronouncing becerra. to do: email lawyer. robbin stewart 4:43 PM (5 minutes ago) to dsuhr, me Hello. Robbin Stewart here. This morning I saw an article in ballotpedia's newsletter about your case. That was the first I've heard of it. I am a semiretired Indianapolis attorney with a bit of a fixation on these disclaimer cases. I was the plaintiff in stewart v taylor (s d ind 1997) which found indiana's disclaimer statute unconstitutional per mcintyre. I was then lead counsel in majors v abell, where we lost on the same issue at the 7th circuit, and also anonymous v delaware, dismissed on standing grounds. I have a specific question and more general one. Given that oral argument has already happened, would it be too late to file an amicus in support of your position, perhaps a letter brief? I know the merits of your dispute quite well, but I've never been great at procedure. Next, hey, great work. The liberty justice center seems like an interesting organization. I am looking for local counsel, and cocounsel, for a challenge to delaware's disclaimer statute, which is pretty similar to the one at issue in your case. At some point I would like to do a new challenge to Indiana's statute, in light of becerra and janus. Feel free to forward this to others in your organization. If I had cocounsel, I would like to go state by state challenging these disclaimer rules. I am less interested in the other half of your case, about disclosure. Generally disclosure statutes get upheld per Valeo, although specific aspects can be challenged as unduly burdensome. Perhaps your organization and I can work together on these type of cases. Best way to reach me is this email, although my phone at the moment is 302 529 1529. Sincerely, Robbin Stewart. === roughest outline of comments to the first circuit. Summary of argument: Citizens United was dicta, and is not controlling. McIntyre is controlling, and governs this case, along with Janus, Becerra, Barnette, Talley, Riley v Federation, Tornillo, Wooley, Buckley v ACLF, Watchtower. argument Town of Vincent v Reed overruled the idea expressed in NOM that political signs get less than strict scrutiny. The proper standard is strict scrutiny, which Justice Scalia in McIntyre called a kiss of death standard. This panel should recognize that NOM is no longer either controlling or persuasive. Plaintiffs, both corporations, have the right to assert the 3rd party rights of individuals, in their facial challenge to the void statute. In Citizens United, the complaint, as drafted by James Bopp, made a very limited challenge to the bcra disclaimer regime. They said, this is not express advocacy, so no disclaimer is needed. The court held the Hillary movie was express advocacy or the equivalent, and therefor Bopp's argument, barely preserved by Paul Clement, lost. The rest of citizen united's high praise for disclosure and disclaimers, which they all lumped in together, unlike ACLF which had carefully distinguished them, was dicta, and does not controll this case. If it had, it would have been expressly overruled by town of vincent. Becerra is not an election case, but was narrowly focused on a disclaimer on a sign,and is far more on point. The view of NOM that CU had effectively overuled McIntyre was disproved or overuled by Janus, which reaffirmed a right to anonymity, again not in the election context. McIntyre did not create an exception for little old ladies. This misunderstanding led to statutes like Rhode Island's. Instead,the question presented was whether there was an elections exception to the rule of talley that disclaimer requirement are unconstitutional. What Rhode Island is doing is seeking to undermine the right of privacy underpinning Roe v Wade. This right was created by the trio civil rights cases in 1958-1960, NAACP, Bates v Little Rock, and Talley v California. Roe then extended this right to cover doctor-patient communications,and thus abortion. While the extension of the right to privacy to cover abortion in Roe is deeply controversial, only the supreme court, not the first circuit,can overturn Roe v Wade. The right to privacy recognized in Talley, McIntyre, ACLF, and Watchtower is the same right recognized in Roe. While Roe's holdings have been narrowed by Casey, it remains good law. Even if this court were to erroneously use the laxer standard of review rejected in McIntyre, the statute cannot withstand valeo's "exacting" scrutiny standard, because the state interests are not legitimate in light of the Rhode Island constitition. This is a point neither party raised in the briefing. The Rhode Island constitution protects both free speech and free elections. Threatening to jail those who spend $1000 on core politcal speech about elections is inconsistent ith these protections of the democratic process. The chilling effects of possible jail time distinguish this case from Citizens United (and perhaps NOM?). In Talley, the court held that a fine of $10 (in 1960 dollars) would chill speech. Jail is far more chilling. I've been there. In McIntyre, the court held that a fine of $100 (in 1995 dollars) would unconstitutionally chill speech. Due to covid, at the moment I am unable to access a copy of the Rhode Island constitution annotated. But the plain text is clear, and should not be ignored. [insert text here.] Section 6. Search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and possessions, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; The commandeering of the text of electioneering communications might be held to be a seizure. resume 7:32 Section 20. Freedom of press. The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. Section 21. Right to assemble — Redress of grievances — Freedom of speech. The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or for other purposes, by petition, address, or remonstrance. No law abridging the freedom of speech shall be enacted. The prohibition of speech which costs 1000 and does not contain the disclaimer violates the right of remonstrance, which has no direct federal analogue. The disclaimer rule violates the freedom of the press under section 20, and the right to free speech under 21. A $1000 sign or signs saying "vote for smith" is not an abuse of liberty. The disclaimer rule interferes with the right to assemble and petition. apparently no right to free elections. Section 1. Constitution supreme law of the state. This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the state, and any law inconsistent therewith shall be void. If, as I contend, the disclaimer statute is void as inconsistent with the state constitution, it is neither a legitimate nor compelling state interest.

1512-w-havens-st_kokomo-in-46901 clifford

7. draft letter to delaware legislators re sign case. dear representative or senator: I am writing to let you know about a problem with the delaware elections commission and its director (albence). A delaware statute, (section 81) is unconstitutional because it attempts to censor political signs by requiring an identification disclaimer. the supreme court first held in talley v california, in 1960 as part of the civil rights movement, that this violates the first amendment. In America if you want to put a sign in your yard that says "vote for smith", that is your right. The court has upheld this principle many times since then, such as recently in Becerra v NIFLA, which held that California cannot require disclaimers in pregnancy centers. In 1974 the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that a statute like this violates both the First Amendment and the Delaware constitution, in a case about whether the News Journal had to sign its editorials. I sued about this in 2000, in Anonymous v Delaware, but the court dismissed the case saying everyone agrees this is unconstitutional, so there was no controversy. I learned just last fall that in 2012 the legislature passed minor unimportant changes to the statute, which was still unconstitutional for the same reasons as before, but then in 2013 the elections department illegally started enforcing the void unconstitutional statute. There are several ways we can fix this. I wrote to the attorney general, kathy jennings, asking for an Attorney General Opinion but she has not answered my letter; I am merely a constituent. I think if you were to ask her she would issue such an opinion. Another option is legislative repeal. I would like to know whether you would support or oppose a bill to repeal this void unconstitutional statute. Would you sponsor or co-sponsor such a bill? Another possible outcome is that Albense might be criminally prosecuted, since his conduct violates federal law. I regard this outcome as unlikely. A next option will be for me to bring a court case, as I did in 2000. Such a case could be a class action, with the class being anyone who put the disclaimer on their campaign signs. That probably includes you. Would you like to be a coplaintiff in such a case? Alternatively, would you like to opt out? At the moment I am not licensed in Delaware; I grew up here but my law practice is based in Indianapolis. Do you happen to know anyone willing to serve as co-counsel? The way that I got involved in this issue is that someone once took down one of my campaign signs, because it did not have a disclaimer. The sign read, Robbin Stewart for Township Board - Vote Tuesday". A federal court held that the sign was protected speech, and struck down the Indiana statute. To summarize, I would like your help in requesting an AGO, your vote to repeal the void statute, and to let me know whether or not you want to be included in the lawsuit, if it gets that far. I'm happy to answer any questions. Gtbear@gmail.com is usually the best way to reach me. Sincerely, Robbin Stewart. 6:00 pm to 6:15 pm 6/8/21. to do: get list of reps and senators. https://legis.delaware.gov/Chambers/Senate/AssemblyMembers https://legis.delaware.gov/Chambers/House/AssemblyMembers 6:25. 0.45 hours. 6/ 8/21

4. first albence complaints.



to: 1. de ag office of publictrust@delaware.gov [https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/publictrust/complaint-form/] 820 N. French St. Wilmington, DE 19801 fbi William J. Green, Jr. Building

600 Arch Street, 8th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19106

doj Voting Section

Civil Rights Division

U.S. Department of Justice

4 Constitution Square

Room 8.923

150 M Street, NE

Washington, DC 20530

Voting.Section@usdoj.gov .

New Castle County District Attorney 500 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware, 19801

cc: aclu

news journal editorial board

I am writing to bring to your attention that (albence) is illegally conspiring to violate the civil rights of Delawarians, especially those who use campaign signs. albense is the delaware director of elections. free elections are protected by the state and federal constitutions. free speech and press are protected by the state and federal constitutions.

what he is doing is threatening to fine people who make signs such as "vote for smith". such signs are core political speech.

that this is unconstitutional has been clearly established for the past 60 years, since talley v california in 1960. the state constitutional precedent was set in 1974, in a case that found that unsigned editorials at the news journal are protected by both constitutions. there are ten more supreme court cases backing up the holding in talley. the best known is mcintyre v ohio elections commission, which in 1995 held that ther eis no elections exception to the rule in talley that disclaimer requirements for political signs are unconstitutional.

albense is acting knowingly, willfully and intentionally. i have correspondence backing this up.

18 U.S. Code § 241 states: - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

I have asked albense to cease and decist from his unlawful conduct. he has refused. i asked him to request an attorney general opinion, since recent cases like Becerra v NIFLA and Janus have superceded a previous AGO. There have been two opinions from the delaware attorney general on this topic. One claimed that the regulation is unconstitutional pre mcintyre (which is correct); the other claimed that the regulation is constitutional in spite of mcintyre, and made no mention of the 9 other controlling cases, including Anonymous v Delaware, when I sued about this in 2000. In that case, the court held that since both sides agreed the statute was obviously unconstitutional, there was no live controversy.

albense is the ringleader, but has conspired with at least 3 other people, probably more.

factors in his defense are, that he is acting pursuant to legislation, and the above-mentioned AGO. but, as the Nuremburg trials held, "just following orders" is no defense to criminal activity.

frankly, it is my expectation that since he is a government official, and y'all are government employees, that he will be given a free pass to continue his unlawful conduct. but today's motto is "see something, say something", and i have been unable to resolve the issue with lesser measures. he has been engaged in this malfeasance since 2013. I only learned of it in 2020. as an officer of the court, i have a professional duty to report such misconduct.

If you choose to investigate, I have various relevant letters and documents and am happy to cooperate. I can best be reached at gtbear@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Robbin Stewart. 9:40 am- 10:19 am 6/8/21 tuesday. 0.66 hours. first draft. 10:35 0.9 hours. added addresses.

this space for writing a draft of a letter to the state department re my denied passport application. To: Western Passport Center 44132 Mercure Circle P.O. Box 1178 Sterling, Virginia 20166-1178 cc: todd young Sincerely, Customer Service Department Dear Customer Service Department, I have been trying to get my passport replaced for about 8 years. At one point i went to the passport office in buffalo, but they refused to reissue my passport because I don't know my passport number, and they claimed not to have computers to be able to look it up. So when i tried to enter canada i was turned back and put on some list, so i might never be able to go back to canada, our nearest neighbor and formost trading partner, which i used to visit routinely. in the years since then i have sent multiple letters requesting my passport number, but get an incomprehensible runaround instead of a simple answer to a simple question. i was a national merit scholarship, had a 4.0 in college, and have two law degrees, but i cannot wade through your thicket of red tape. i am now being threatened with not being able to visit my family in hawaii, because you won't issue me the passport i have properly applied for and paid for. i am disabled unemployed and indigent and cannot easily afford to lose the money i paid re my application. also, where i live in indiana they want to see a passport so i can vote. [i suspect this violates the 24th amendment, but that's another story.] I am trying to accomplish two things, both of which should be simple. I want to know what my passport number is. and i want a new passport, as per my application. You denied my application for two reasons. 1. the signature 2. the name change. As to the signature, I've been signing my name that way ever since the accident. I have regained the use of my right arm, and could probably manage to forge a signature that you woud like better, but then it wouldn't match the one on my driver's license, which you have a copy of. i suspect that your refusal to accept my signature, an X, violates the americans with disabilities act. it is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. my name is robbin george stewart. my signature is x. deal with it. As to the name change, the name on my birth certificate, which you are currently holding hostage, is richard lee stewart, and that was the name on my first passport in 1972, a family group type passport. but i changed my name as a minor and have been robbin george stewart ever since, which is the name on my passport, the one you won't tell me the number of, which probably expired around 1985, and was lost. So it is unreasonable for you to be demanding some complicated proof of my name - when it is the same name my passport is already in. i have looked over the rigamarole you want to me go through to show you i am me, and it is beyond my abilities. i am functionally illiterate; it has taken me years to get as far as this. all i am asking you to do is reissue me a new copy of the same passport i had before. it might be different if i were applying for the first time. i have filled out the right forms, included the right documents, paid my fee, and have the right to receive what i paid for. sincerely, robbin stewart.

U.S. Passport Application RE: 619790626 Inbox CA-PPT-WPC-eIRL Attachments Tue, Apr 20, 11:02 AM to me Your letter is attached in the PDF file above. You will also receive a copy of this letter via U.S. mail. DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS EMAIL BECAUSE THIS BOX IS UNMONITORED. RETURN A COPY OF THIS LETTER, ALONG WITH ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION, TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: Western Passport Center 44132 Mercure Circle P.O. Box 1178 Sterling, Virginia 20166-1178 Sincerely, Customer Service Department DISCLAIMER This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to which they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email and are notified that doing so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please notify the sender immediately by telephone at 1-877-487-2778 if you have received this email in error and delete it from your system. Email transmission and accompanying files cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as the information within could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed or incomplete, as well as possibly contain viruses or arrive late. The U.S. government and the U.S. Department of State assume no liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this email transmission. Robbin G Stewart PO Box 29164 Indianapolis, IN 46229 RE: 619790626 Dear Mr. Stewart: We received your recent passport request. However, because you signed your application with a mark rather than your name, you will need one witness to attest to your exclusive use of a mark as your signature. To submit your application, please return to the acceptance facility where you originally applied, with the following: ➢ A new, completed application (Form DS-11, Application for a U.S. Passport). Do not sign it until instructed by the passport acceptance agent; ➢ Your witness will co-sign the Form DS-11, Applications for a U.S. Passport. Do not sign it until instructed by the passport acceptance agent; ➢ Your witness, with a new, completed Form DS-71, Affidavit of Identifying Witness; ➢ Identification; ➢ Passport photograph; and ➢ This letter. AND The application you submitted and your accompanying documents contain two different names. Your current name Robbin G. (George) Stewart must be documented. If your name has been legally changed, you must submit a certified copy of the court order or marriage certificate. The court orders must show the seal, date and judge’s signature. Photocopies and notarized copies are not acceptable. If your name has not been legally changed and you wish your passport to be written in your assumed name, please submit at least three certified or original public records, which show exclusive use of this name for at least five years and include your date and place of birth or your Social Security number (school, military, insurance, medical, etc.). Notarized affidavits completed by two people who have known you by both names may be substituted in place of one public record. Your evidence of U.S. citizenship has been retained by our office and will be returned to you once the application process is concluded. No additional execution fee will be charged if you return to the same acceptance facility where you initially applied. However, if you apply at a different acceptance facility, an additional execution fee must be paid directly to that acceptance facility. To assist with processing your application, we must receive the requested information within ninety (90) days of the date shown on this letter. If the information is not received or is insufficient to establish your entitlement to a U.S. passport, your application may be denied and your citizenship evidence will be returned. By law, the passport execution and application fees are non-refundable. United States Department of State Western Passport Center 44132 Mercure Circle PO Box 1178 Sterling, Virginia 20166-1178 April 20, 2021 If you have any questions, please contact the National Passport Information Center: 1-877-487-2778 (TTY/TDD: 1- 888-874-7793). For general passport information, to check the status of your passport application, please visit us on-line at travel.state.gov. PLEASE RETURN A COPY OF THIS LETTER, ALONG WITH ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION TO A PASSPORT ACCEPTANCE FACILITY. Sincerely, Customer Service Department Enclosure(s): DS-11, Application for Passport DS-60(2), Affidavit Regarding a Change of Name JM/ed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * For Acceptance Agents Only ❑ Accept completed DS-11 Application of a U.S. Passport, identification, and one photo from the above-mentioned customer. In addition, please accept the completed DS-71, Affidavit of Identifying Witness. (They are returning to your office because an execution error was made when the application was initially filed at your office.) ❑ Execute the application and the affidavit. ❑ Please do not collect the execution fee. ❑ Attach this letter to the application. ❑ Send the executed application to the address indicated on this letter. * * * * * * * AFFIDAVIT REGARDING A CHANGE OF NAME WARNING False statements made knowingly and willfully on passport applications or on affidavits or other supporting documents submitted therewith are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001, 18 U.S.C. 1542, and/or 18 U.S.C. 1621. Alteration or mutilation of a passport issued pursuant to this application is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1543. The use of a passport in violation of the restrictions contained therein or of the passport regulations is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1544. All statements and documents are subject to verification. 2. Approximate Date Current Name Was Assumed (mm-yyyy) 3. Former Name of Applicant 4. Applicant's Date of Birth Last Suffix First Middle 6. Number of Years You Have Known the Applicant 7. Your Relationship to the Applicant By Current Name By Former Name Explain the variance in the applicant's name shown on his/her birth records and the name currently used. State whether the current name is used exclusively and for all purposes or if it is used as an "also known as" name. Continue on the back of this form if additional space is required. I solemnly swear (or affirm) that the information given above by me is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; that the applicant named above has been known by both his or her present and former names as stated and is one and the same person; that the applicant is known by his or her present name to friends and relatives, and in the community in which he or she is residing. (Jr.,Sr.,III) (mm-dd-yyyy) (City and State) (or Name Given on Birth Records) Last Suffix First (Jr.,Sr.,III) Middle PURPOSE An Affidavit Regarding a Change of Name may be submitted with an application for a U.S. passport when the name which is used by the applicant is (1) substantially different from that shown on the evidence of citizenship or (2) has been adopted without formal court proceedings and was not acquired by a marriage. The affiant (preferably a blood relative) must have personal knowledge of the applicant's use of both names. To support a change of name that has been adopted without formal court proceedings or by a marriage, the applicant must present original or certified copies of three or more public documents evidencing that the applicant has used the acquired name generally for five years or longer. Affidavits Regarding a Change of Name from at least two persons, attesting that they have known the applicant by both names and that the applicant has used the new name generally for at least five years, may be provided in place of one of the public documents if the applicant cannot obtain a third public document. The affidavit must be accompanied by a photocopy of the front and back of the affiant's identification. Final determination of the name(s) to be shown in the U.S. passport will be made by Passport Services based on all submitted evidence. Completed affidavits will be retained and requests for copies of this affidavit should be made at the time of execution. An affidavit does not need to be submitted if an applicant can present a court order documenting the change of their name. U.S. Department of State OMB APPROVAL NO. 1405-0133 EXPIRES: 09-30-2017 ESTIMATED BURDEN: 40 MINUTES Address of Affiant Identifying Document Submitted (Type of Document, Date of Issuance and/or Expiration, Document Number) Subscribed and Sworn to before me this day of at Name of Passport Agent, Acceptance Agent, or Notary Public Location DS-60 01-2014 Page 1 of 2 (SEAL) (Number and Street, City, State, and Zip Code ) (Affirmed) (Passport Agency or City and State) 1. Current Name of Applicant Printed Name of Affiant Signature of Affiant Affiant's Social Security Number 5. Applicant's Place of Birth Please Print Legibly Using Black Ink Only. For Additional Comments DS-60 Page 2 of 2 PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT AUTHORITIES: We are authorized to collect this information by 22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.; 8 U.S.C. 1104; 26 U.S.C. 6039E; Executive Order 11295 (August 5, 1966); and 22 C.F.R. parts 50 and 51. PURPOSE: We are requesting this information in order to establish the identity ofthe subject of this affidavit as part of the subject's application for a U.S. passport. The collection of the Social Security number will be used to verify your identity and for no other purpose unless authorized by law. ROUTINE USES: This information may be disclosed to another domestic government agency, a private contractor, a foreign government agency, or to a private person or private employer in accordance with certain approved routine uses. These routine uses include, but are not limited to, law enforcement activities, employment verification, fraud prevention, border security, counterterrorism, litigation activities, and activities that meet the Secretary of State's responsibility to protect U.S. citizens and non-citizen nationals abroad. More information on the Routine Uses for the system can be found in System of Records Notices State-05, Overseas Citizen Services Records and State-26, Passport Records. DISCLOSURE: Providing your Social Security number and the other information on this form is voluntary, but failure to provide the information on this form may, given the form's purpose of verification of identity and... Visit the official Department of State website at travel.state.gov or contact the National Passport Information Center (NPIC) via toll-free at 1-877-487-2778 (TDD: 1-888-874-7793) and NPIC@state.gov. Customer Service Representatives are available Monday-Friday 8:00a.m.-10:00p.m. Eastern Time (excluding federal holidays). Automated information is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. U.S. PASSPORT APPLICATION DS-11 06-2016 Instruction Page 1 of 4 WHAT TO SUBMIT WITH THIS FORM: 1. PROOF OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP: Evidence of U.S. citizenship AND a photocopy of the front (and back, if there is printed information) must be submitted with your application. The photocopy must be on 8 1⁄2 inch by 11 inch paper, black and white ink, legible, and clear. Evidence that is not damaged, altered, or forged will be returned to you. Note: Lawful permanent resident cards submitted with this application will be forwarded to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, if we determine that you are a U.S. citizen. 2. PROOF OF IDENTITY: You must present your original identification AND submit a photocopy of the front and back with your passport application. 3. RECENT COLOR PHOTOGRAPH: Photograph must meet passport requirements – full front view of the face and 2x2 inches in size. 4. FEES: Please visit our website at travel.state.gov for current fees. HOW TO SUBMIT THIS FORM: Complete and submit this application in person to a designated acceptance agent: a clerk of a federal or state court of record or a judge or clerk of a probate court accepting applications; a designated municipal or county official; a designated postal employee at an authorized post office; an agent at a passport agency (by appointment only); or a U.S. consular official at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate, if abroad. To find your nearest acceptance facility, visit travel.state.gov or contact the National Passport Information Center at 1-877-487-2778. LOST OR STOLEN - If you cannot submit your valid or potentially valid U.S. passport book and/or passport card with this application and you have not previously submitted Form DS-64, Statement Regarding a Lost or Stolen U.S. Passport, you are required to fill out and submit a DS-64 with this application. IN MY POSSESSION - If your most recent U.S.passport book and/or passport card was issued less than 15 years ago, and you were over the age of 16 at the time of issuance, you may be eligible to use Form DS-82 to renew your passport by mail. Follow the instructions on Page 2 for detailed information to completion and submission of this form. If you are 16 years of age or older: Your U.S. passport will be valid for 10 years from the date of issue except where limited by the Secretary of State to a shorter period. If you are under 16 years of age: Your U.S. passport will be valid for five years from the date of issue except where limited by the Secretary of State to a shorter period. PASSPORT VALIDITY LENGTH PLEASE DETACH AND RETAIN THIS INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR YOUR RECORDS  The passport application fee, security surcharge, and expedite fee may be paid in any of the following forms: Checks (personal, certified, or traveler's) with the applicant's full name and date of birth printed on the front; major credit card (Visa, Master Card, American Express, and Discover); bank draft or cashier's check; money order (U.S. Postal, international, currency exchange), or if abroad, the foreign currency equivalent, or a check drawn on a U.S. bank. All fees should be payable to the "U.S. Department of State" or if abroad, the appropriate U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate. When applying at a designated acceptance facility, the execution fee will be paid separately and should be made payable to the acceptance facility. NOTE: Some designated acceptance facilities do not accept credit cards as a form of payment.  For faster processing, you may request expedited service. Please include the expedite fee in your payment. Our website contains updated information regarding fees and processing times for expedited service. Expedited service is only available for passports mailed in the United States and Canada.  OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE is only available for passport book mailings in the United States. Please include the appropriate fee with your payment.  An additional fee will be charged when, upon your request, the U.S. Department of State verifies issuance of a previous U.S. passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad because you are unable to submit evidence of U.S. citizenship.  For applicants with U.S. government or military authorization for no-fee passports, no fees are charged except the execution fee when applying at a designated acceptance facility. PROOF OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP You may submit items such as the following containing your signature AND a photograph that is a good likeness of you: previous or current U.S. passport book; previous or current U.S. passport card; driver's license (not temporary or learner's license); Certificate of Naturalization; Certificate of Citizenship; military identification; or federal, state, or municipal government employee identification card. Temporary or altered documents are not acceptable. You must establish your identity to the satisfaction of the acceptance agent and Passport Services. We may ask you to provide additional evidence to establish your identity. If you have changed your name, please see travel.state.gov for instructions. IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY as stated above, you must appear with an IDENTIFYING WITNESS, who is a U.S. citizen, non-citizen U.S. national, or permanent resident alien that has known you for at least two years. Your witness must prove his or her identity and complete and sign an Affidavit of Identifying Witness (Form DS-71) before the acceptance agent. You must also submit some identification of your own. Submit a color photograph of you alone, sufficiently recent to be a good likeness of you (taken within the last six months), and 2x2 inches in size. The image size measured from the bottom of your chin to the top of your head (including hair) should not be less than 1 inch, and not more than 1 3/8 inches. The photograph must be in color, clear, with a full front view of your face. The photograph must be taken with a neutral facial expression (preferred) or a natural smile, and with both eyes open and be printed on photo quality paper with a plain light (white or off-white) background. The photograph must be taken in normal street attire, without a hat, or head covering unless a signed statement is submitted by the applicant verifying that the hat or head covering is part of recognized, traditional religious attire that is customarily or required to be worn continuously when in public or a signed doctor's statement is submitted verifying the item is used daily for medical purposes. Headphones, "bluetooth", or similar devices must not be worn in the passport photograph. Glasses or other eyewear are not acceptable unless you provide a signed statement from a doctor explaining why you cannot remove them due to medical reasons (e.g., during the recovery period from eye surgery). Any photograph retouched so that your appearance is changed is unacceptable. A snapshot, most vending machine prints, hand-held self portraits, and magazine or full-length photographs are unacceptable. A digital photo must meet the previously stated qualifications, and will be accepted for use at the discretion of Passport Services. Visit our website at travel.state.gov for details and information. FEES ARE LISTED ON OUR WEBSITE AT TRAVEL.STATE.GOV. BY LAW, THE PASSPORT FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE. DS-11 06-2016 PROOF OF IDENTITY COLOR PHOTOGRAPH FEES Instruction Page 2 of 4 APPLICANTS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES: Submit a previous U.S. passport or certified birth certificate. Passports that are limited in validity will need to be supplemented by other evidence. A birth certificate must include your full name, date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records (state, county, or city/town office), and the full names of your parent(s). - If the birth certificate was filed more than 1 year after the birth: It must be supported by evidence described in the next paragraph. - If no birth record exists: Submit a registrar's notice to that effect. Also, submit a combination of the evidence listed below, which should include your given name and surname, date and/or place of birth, and the seal or other certification of the office (if customary), and the signature of the issuing official.  A hospital birth record;  An early baptismal or circumcision certificate;  Early census, school, medical, or family Bible records;  Insurance files or published birth announcements (such as a newspaper article); and  Notarized affidavits (or DS-10, Birth Affidavit) of older blood relatives having knowledge of your birth may be submitted in addition to some of the records listed above. APPLICANTS BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES: Submit a previous U.S. passport, Certificate of Naturalization, Certificate of Citizenship, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or evidence described below: - If you claim citizenship through naturalization of parent(s): Submit the Certificate(s) of Naturalization of your parent(s), your foreign birth certificate (and official translation if the document is not in English), proof of your admission to the United States for permanent residence, and your parents' marriage/certificate and/or evidence that you were in the legal and physical custody of your U.S. citizen parent, if applicable. - If you claim citizenship through birth abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent: Submit a Consular Report of Birth (Form FS-240), Certification of Birth (Form DS-1350 or FS-545), or your foreign birth certificate (and official translation if the document is not in English), proof of U.S. citizenship of your parent, your parents' marriage certificate, and an affidavit showing all of your U.S. citizen parents' periods and places of residence/physical presence in the United States and abroad before your birth. - If you claim citizenship through adoption by a U.S. citizen parent(s): Submit evidence of your permanent residence status, full and final adoption, and your U.S. citizen parent(s) evidence of legal and physical custody. (NOTE: Acquisition of U.S. citizenship for persons born abroad and adopted only applies if the applicant was born on or after 02/28/1983.) ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE: You must establish your citizenship to the satisfaction of the acceptance agent and Passport Services. We may ask you to provide additional evidence to establish your claim to U.S. citizenship. Visit travel.state.gov for details. DS-11 06-2016 FEDERAL TAX LAW Section 6039E of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 6039E) and 22 U.S.C 2714a(f) require you to provide your Social Security number (SSN), if you have one, when you apply for or renew a U.S. passport. If you have never been issued a SSN, you must enter zeros in box #5 of this form. If you are residing abroad, you must also provide the name of the foreign country in which you are residing. The U.S. Department of State must provide your SSN and foreign residence information to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. If you fail to provide the information, your application may be denied and you are subject to a $500 penalty enforced by the IRS. All questions on this matter should be referred to the nearest IRS office. If you send us a check, it will be converted into an electronic funds transfer (EFT). This means we will copy your check and use the account information on it to electronically debit your account for the amount of the check. The debit from your account will usually occur within 24 hours and will be shown on your regular account statement. You will not receive your original check back. We will destroy your original check, but we will keep the copy of it. If the EFT cannot be processed for technical reasons, you authorize us to process the copy in place of your original check. If the EFT cannot be completed because of insufficient funds, we may try to make the transfer up to two times, and we will charge you a one-time fee of $25, which we will also collect by EFT. NOTICE TO CUSTOMERS APPLYING OUTSIDE A DEPARTMENT OF STATE FACILITY Passport service fees are established by law and regulation (see 22 U.S.C. 214, 22 C.F.R. 22.1, and 22 C.F.R. 51.50-56), and are collected at the time you apply for the passport service. If the Department fails to receive full payment of the applicable fees because, for example, your check is returned for any reason or you dispute a passport fee charge to your credit card, the U.S. Department of State will take action to collect the delinquent fees from you under 22 C.F.R. Part 34, and the Federal Claims Collection Standards (see 31 C.F.R. Parts 900-904). In accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act (Pub.L. 104-134), if the fees remain unpaid after 180 days and no repayment arrangements have been made, the Department will refer the debt to the U.S. Department of Treasury for collection. Debt collection procedures used by U.S. Department of Treasury may include referral of the debt to private collection agencies, reporting of the debt to credit bureaus, garnishment of private wages and administrative offset of the debt by reducing, or withholding eligible federal payments (e.g., tax refunds, social security payments, federal retirement, etc.) by the amount of your debt, including any interest penalties or other costs incurred. In addition, non-payment of passport fees may result in the invalidation of your passport. An invalidated passport cannot be used for travel. FEE REMITTANCE USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER For more information regarding reporting a lost or stolen U.S. passport book or passport card (Form DS-64), or to determine your eligibility for a passport renewal (Form DS-82), call NPIC at 1-877-487-2778 or visit travel.state.gov. Your Social Security number will be provided to U.S. Department of Treasury, used in connection with debt collection and checked against lists of persons ineligible or potentially ineligible to receive a U.S. passport, among other authorized uses. PROTECT YOURSELF AGAINST IDENTITY THEFT! REPORT YOUR LOST OR STOLEN PASSPORT BOOK OR PASSPORT CARD! NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR OFFICIAL, DIPLOMATIC, OR NO-FEE PASSPORTS You may use this application if you meet all of the provisions listed on Instruction Page 2; however, you must CONSULT YOUR SPONSORING AGENCY FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON PROPER ROUTING PROCEDURES BEFORE FORWARDING THIS APPLICATION. Your completed passport will be released to your sponsoring agency for forwarding to you. Passport Services will not mail a U.S. passport to a private address outside the United States or Canada. If you do not live at the address listed in the "mailing address", then you must put the name of the person and mark it as "In Care Of" in item # 8. If your mailing address changes prior to receipt of your new passport, please contact the National Passport Information Center. If you choose to provide your email address in Item #6 on this application, Passport Services may use that information to contact you in the event there is a problem with your application or if you need to provide information to us. You may receive your newly issued passport book and/or card and your returned citizenship evidence in two separate mailings. If you are applying for both a U.S. passport book and passport card, you may receive three separate mailings; one with your returned citizenship evidence, one with your newly issued passport book, and one with your newly issued passport card. NOTICE TO U.S. PASSPORT CARD APPLICANTS The maximum number of letters provided for your given name (first and middle) on the U.S. passport card is 24 characters. The 24 characters may be shortened due to printing restrictions. If both your given names are more than 24 characters, you must shorten one of your given names you list on item 1 of this form. U.S. passports, either in book or card format, are only issued to U.S. citizens or non-citizen U.S. nationals. Each person must obtain his or her own U.S. passport book or U.S. passport card. The passport card is a U.S. passport issued in card format. Like the traditional U.S. passport book, it reflects the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality, and is subject to existing passport laws and regulations. Unlike the U.S. passport book, the U.S. passport card is valid only for entry at land border crossings and sea ports of entry when traveling from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. The U.S. passport card is not valid for international air travel. NOTE REGARDING MAILING OF YOUR PASSPORT(S) Instruction Page 3 of 4 DS-11 06-2016 ACTS OR CONDITIONS If any of the below-mentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, the portion which applies should be lined out, and a supplementary explanatory statement under oath (or affirmation) by the applicant should be attached and made a part of this application. I have not, since acquiring United States citizenship/nationality, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state; accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof; made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States, or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; or been convicted by a court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force, the government of the United States. Furthermore, I have not been convicted of a federal or state drug offense or convicted of a "sex tourism" crimes statute, and I am not the subject of an outstanding federal, state, or local warrant of arrest for a felony; a criminal court order forbidding my departure from the United States; a subpoena received from the United States in a matter involving federal prosecution for, or grand jury investigation of, a felony. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT AUTHORITIES: Collection of this information is authorized by 22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.; 8 U.S.C. 1104; 26 U.S.C. 6039E, 22 U.S.C. 2714a(f), Section 236 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001; Executive Order 11295 (August 5, 1966); and 22 C.F.R. parts 50 and 51. PURPOSE: We are requesting this information in order to determine your eligibility to be issued a U.S. passport. Your Social Security number is used to verify your identity. ROUTINE USES: This information may be disclosed to another domestic government agency, a private contractor, a foreign government agency, or to a private person or private employer in accordance with certain approved routine uses. These routine uses include, but are not limited to, law enforcement activities, employment verification, fraud prevention, border security, counterterrorism, litigation activities, and activities that meet the Secretary of State's responsibility to protect U.S. citizens and non-citizen nationals abroad. More information on the Routine Uses for the system can be found in System of Records Notices State-05, Overseas Citizen Services Records and State-26, Passport Records. DISCLOSURE: Providing information on this form is voluntary. Be advised, however, that failure to provide the information requested on this form may cause delays in processing your U.S. passport application and/or could result in the refusal or denial of your application. Failure to provide your Social Security number may result in the denial of your application (consistent with 22 U.S.C. 2714a(f)) and may subject you to a penalty enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, as described in the Federal Tax Law section of the instructions to this form. Your Social Security number will be provided to the Department of the Treasury and may be used in connection with debt collection, among other purposes authorized and generally described in this section. ELECTRONIC PASSPORT STATEMENT The U.S. Department of State now issues an "Electronic Passport" book, which contains an embedded electronic chip. The electronic passport book continues to be proof of the bearer's U.S. citizenship/nationality and identity, and looks and functions in the same way as a passport without a chip. The addition of an electronic chip in the back cover enables the passport book to carry a duplicate electronic copy of all information from the data page. The electronic passport book is usable at all ports-of-entry, including those that do not yet have electronic chip readers. Use of the electronic format provides the traveler the additional security protections inherent in chip technology. Moreover, when used at ports-of-entry equipped with electronic chip readers, the electronic passport book provides for faster clearance through some of the port-of-entry processes. The electronic passport book does not require special handling or treatment, but like previous versions should be protected from extreme heat, bending, and from immersion in water. The electronic chip must be read using specially formatted readers, which protects the data on the chip from unauthorized reading. The cover of the electronic passport book is printed with a special symbol representing the embedded chip. The symbol will appear in port-of-entry areas where the electronic passport book can be read. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 85 minutes per response, including the time required for searching existing data sources, gathering the necessary data, providing the information and/or documents required, and reviewing the final collection. You do not have to supply this information unless this collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. If you have comments on the accuracy of this burden estimate and/or recommendations for reducing it, please send them to: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services, Office of Legal Affairs and Law Enforcement Liaison, 44132 Mercure Cir, P.O. Box 1227, Sterling, Virginia 20166-1227 Instruction Page 4 of 4 4. Place of Birth (City & State if in the U.S., or City & Country as it is presently known.) APPLICATION FOR A U.S. PASSPORT DO NOT SIGN APPLICATION UNTIL REQUESTED TO DO SO BY AUTHORIZED AGENT OMB CONTROL NO. 1405-0004 OMB EXPIRATION DATE: 08-31-2019 ESTIMATED BURDEN: 85 MIN Please Print Legibly Using Black Ink Only Attention: Read WARNING on page 1 of instructions Please select the document(s) for which you are applying: D O Dep End. # Exp. First Middle - - M F A. B. DOTS 3. Sex STOP! CONTINUE TO PAGE 2 U.S. Passport Book U.S. Passport Card Note: The 52 page option is for those who frequently travel abroad during the passport validity period, and is recommended for applicants who have previously required the addition of visa pages. Large Book (Non-Standard) - - City Zip Code 6. Email (Info alerts offered at travel.state.gov) @ 7. Primary Contact Phone Number - - 1. Name Last State Country, if outside the United States 9. List all other names you have used. (Examples: Birth Name, Maiden, Previous Marriage, Legal Name Change. Attach additional pages if needed) Address Line 2: Clearly label Apartment, Company, Suite, Unit, Building, Floor, In Care Of or Attention if applicable. (e.g., In Care Of - Jane Doe, Apt # 100) x x Mother/Father/Parent/Legal Guardian's Signature (if identifying minor) x Mother/Father/Parent/Legal Guardian's Signature (if identifying minor) Applicant's Legal Signature - age 16 and older I declare under penalty of perjury all of the following: 1) I am a citizen or non-citizen national of the United States and have not, since acquiring U.S. citizenship or nationality, performed any of the acts listed under "Acts or Conditions" on page four of the instructions of this application (unless explanatory statement is attached); 2) the statements made on the application are true and correct; 3) I have not knowingly and willfully made false statements or included false documents in support of this application; 4) the photograph attached to this application is a genuine, current photograph of me; and 5) I have read and understood the warning on page one of the instructions to the application form. (Seal) Acceptance Agent (Vice) Consul USA Passport Staff Agent For Issuing Office Only Bk EF Postage Execution Other * DS 11 A 09 2013 1 * Date Facility Name/Location Identifying Documents - Applicant or Mother/Father/Parent on Second Signature Line (if identifying minor) DS-11 06-2016 Page 1 of 2 Facility ID Number Agent ID Number Signature of person authorized to accept applications Card Driver's License ID No Passport Military Other Country of Issuance State Issued ID Card Identifying Documents - Applicant or Mother/Father/Parent on Third Signature Line (if identifying minor) STAPLE 2" x 2" STAPLE STAPLE 2" x 2" STAPLE Attach a color photograph taken within the last six months Name Driver's License ID No Issue Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Exp. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) State of Issuance Passport Military Other 8. Mailing Address: Line 1: Street/RFD#, P.O. Box, or URB. 5. Social Security Number 2. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) Both Regular Book (Standard) The U.S. passport card is not valid for international air travel. For more information see page 1 of instructions. Country of Issuance State Issued ID Card Name Name of courier company (if applicable) Issue Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Exp. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) State of Issuance 18. Travel Plans Departure Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Return Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Countries to be Visited Apartment/Unit 19. Permanent Address - If P.O. Box is listed under Mailing Address or if residence is different from Mailing Address. Street/RFD # or URB (No P.O. Box) 13. Occupation (if age 16 or older) 14. Employer or School (if applicable) Home Cell Work 12. Additional Contact Phone Number Mother/Father/Parent - First & Middle Name Last Name (at Parent's Birth) Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) Place of Birth 10. Parental Information Male Female Yes No Sex U.S. Citizen? Name of Applicant (Last, First, & Middle) Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) - - Mother/Father/Parent - First & Middle Name Last Name (at Parent's Birth) Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) Place of Birth Male Female Yes No Sex U.S. Citizen? - - - - If yes, complete the remaining items in #11. Date of Marriage (mm/dd/yyyy) 11. Have you ever been married? Full Name of Current Spouse or Most Recent Spouse Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) Have you ever been widowed or divorced? Place of Birth Yes No Widow/Divorce Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Yes No Yes No U.S. Citizen? - - 15. Height 16. Hair Color 17. Eye Color City State Zip Code 21. Have you ever applied for or been issued a U.S. Passport Book or Passport Card? Name as printed on your most recent passport book Yes No If yes, complete the remaining items in #21. PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - FOR ISSUING OFFICE ONLY 20. Emergency Contact - Provide the information of a person not traveling with you to be contacted in the event of an emergency. Name Address: Street/RFD # or P.O. Box Apartment/Unit City State Zip Code Phone Number Relationship Name as printed on your most recent passport card Status of your most recent passport book: Submitting with application Stolen Lost In my possession (if expired) Status of your most recent passport card: Submitting with application Stolen Lost In my possession (if expired) Most recent passport book number Most recent passport book issue date (mm/dd/yyyy) Most recent passport card number Most recent passport card issue date (mm/dd/yyyy) * DS 11 A 09 2013 2 *

THE OFFICE OF SENATOR TODD YOUNG 493 Russell Senate Office Building ● Washington, DC 20515 (202) 224-5623 ● (202) 224-1845 (fax) PASSPORT INTAKE INFORMATION Name of applicant: _robbin george stewart_______________________________ (M__x_ F___) Address: ________residence: 4015 e washington st indy in 46201. mailing: po box 29164 indy in 46229____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Phone(s): __________no phone.__________________________________________________________ E-mail: _______________gtbear@gmail.com______________________________________________________ Date of Birth: _8/11/1960_______________________________________________________________ Social Security # 222-34-5483. I suspect that this demand for my ssn, with out a privacy act statement, violates the privacy act. i'm not complaining, just thought you might want to know._______-_____-_______ Choose one: I have not yet applied: _________ I have applied: x_________ Date of application: _couple months ago?_____________________ Locator Number (if known): _______619790626________ Service Request: ___ New __x_ Renewal ___ Extra Pages ___ Name Change ___ Expedited Service or ___ Regular Service Date of travel: _____na____________________________________________________________ Destination: __________________________________________________________________ Visa Needed: Y____ N__x__ PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: Senator Todd Young 3602 Northgate Court, Suite 15 New Albany, IN 47150 Phone: (812) 542-4820 Fax: (812) 542-4826 THE OFFICE OF SENATOR TODD YOUNG 493 Russell Senate Office Building ● Washington, DC 20515 (202) 224-5623 ● (202) 224-1845 (fax) PASSPORT INTAKE INFORMATION Name of applicant: __________________________________________________ (M___ F___) Address: ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Phone(s): ____________________________________________________________________ E-mail: _____________________________________________________________________ Date of Birth: ________________________________________________________________ Social Security # _______-_____-_______ Choose one: I have not yet applied: _________ I have applied: _________ Date of application: ______________________ Locator Number (if known): _______________ Service Request: ___ New ___ Renewal ___ Extra Pages ___ Name Change ___ Expedited Service or ___ Regular Service Date of travel: _________________________________________________________________ Destination: __________________________________________________________________ Visa Needed: Y____ N____ PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: Senator Todd Young 3602 Northgate Court, Suite 15 New Albany, IN 47150 Phone: (812) 542-4820 Fax: (812) 542-4826