Along with his pro se complaint, McCaa filed a motion to appoint counsel. There is no right to court‐appointed counsel in federal civil litigation, but an indigent civil litigant may ask the district court to request an attorney to represent the liti‐ gant pro bono. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). The district court properly con‐ strued McCaa’s motion to appoint counsel as a motion to re‐ cruit counsel under § 1915(e). Id. at 654.

In support of his motion for counsel, McCaa posited that the issues in the case are complex, with several different claims involving different sets of defendants, and that the suc‐ cess of these claims would come down to a credibility contest. McCaa also indicated that he has serious mental illnesses, a fifth‐grade reading level, little legal knowledge, and ex‐ tremely limited access—as a segregation inmate—to the law library and witnesses.   The district court denied the motion without prejudice, reasoning that: “McCaa appears able to coherently present his case. His filings demonstrate that he is able to communicate his positions and submit court papers as he requires or deems appropriate.” (R. 16 at 8.) McCaa filed a second motion to appoint counsel about a month later. In addition to his previous points, he noted that he has a learning disability, that he had been transferred to a new prison facility, and that he did not know where his wit‐ ness was located. The district court denied the motion, again without prejudice, writing: “Nothing has changed since the Court’s [last] order which would alter its result. The Court still finds that the plaintiff can adequately communicate his positions and submit court papers as he requires or deems ap‐ propriate.” (R. 26 at 1–2.) About two months after that denial, and after discovery began, McCaa brought his third motion for counsel. McCaa reiterated the competency and complexity points he had raised in his previous motions. To further support his claim that the case was complex, he noted that a second attorney had recently joined the defense team. He also indicated that he would have difficulty getting opposing counsel to produce documents now that the case was in the discovery stage.

friday:

1 bank. it's noow 330.
x n1 did. got 200. put 100 in checking. borrowed 300 line of credit.
x 2 buck.
he says tomorrow
x 3 20 minutes clean basement.
tommy did the front room, stairs and bathroom!
x 4 cable bill.
paid $110.
x 5 lawn mower/plaants
found lawn mower battery.
6 lock 1116.
did n't.
7 tommy memo. tommy chores.
8 discovery request in h + h. 3rd draft of counterclaim.
9 buy a lawn mower?
saturday clinic in morning.
sort storage unit.
rudi

6 other: bought hand pump for car ties $5
got flowers.
pitched sales at sunshine market, no bite yet.

what else did i get done? not sure.
found mouse poison.
mopped front hall.
put away dishes.
bath.
to do
memos
mike in nebraska,

still to do tonight
pump up tires
make copies.

saturay to o list

wheaton at ocon.
rie.
mow grass. ut stuff in storage unit.

did
put stuff in storage unit. found out more about radiator leak.
foun out re wheaton.
got mower going but could not go cut lots because van overheats.

so new plan forr day

pride
bath
laundry
buy phone
call mom

daily task list sunday

to do

did
church.
made a list.
cleaned front room 2 hours.
too much coffee. some leaves. cleaned the yard slightly.
food not bombs - brought blackberries an apples an coffee.
wooruff sale again, talked to x.

Bosart Brown Neighborhood Association will hold its monthly meeting the second Monday of each month at 6:30 p.m.:

Tuxedo Park Baptist Church
29 North Grant Ave., Indianapolis, Ind. 46201.

All neighbors are invited to attend to discuss matters important to our community.

https://www.domyown.com/rodents-c-21.html

https://my.indy.gov/activity/voter-photo-id-law

A voter who is indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed may cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if she executes an appropriate affidavit before the circuit court clerk within 10 days following the election. §§3–11.7–5–1, 3–11.7–5–2.5(c) (West 2006).[Footnote 2] A voter who has photo identification but is unable to present that identification on election day may file a provisional ballot that will be counted if she brings her photo identification to the circuit county clerk’s office within 10 days.

 Finally, in a provision entitled “Fail-safe voting,” HAVA authorizes the casting of provisional ballots by challenged voters. §15483(b)(2)(B).

A photo identification requirement imposes some burdens on voters that other methods of identification do not share. For example, a voter may lose his photo identification, may have his wallet stolen on the way to the polls, or may not resemble the photo in the identification because he recently grew a beard. Burdens of that sort arising from life’s vagaries, however, are neither so serious nor so frequent as to raise any question about the constitutionality of SEA 483; the availability of the right to cast a provisional ballot provides an adequate remedy for problems of that character.A photo identification requirement imposes some burdens on voters that other methods of identification do not share. For example, a voter may lose his photo identification, may have his wallet stolen on the way to the polls, or may not resemble the photo in the identification because he recently grew a beard. Burdens of that sort arising from life’s vagaries, however, are neither so serious nor so frequent as to raise any question about the constitutionality of SEA 483; the availability of the right to cast a provisional ballot provides an adequate remedy for problems of that character.

Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons. They include elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate;[Footnote 18] persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed. If we assume, as the evidence suggests, that some members of these classes were registered voters when SEA 483 was enacted, the new identification requirement may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote.

   The severity of that burden is, of course, mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted. To do so, however, they must travel to the circuit court clerk’s office within 10 days to execute the required affidavit. It is unlikely that such a requirement would pose a constitutional problem unless it is wholly unjustified. And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters,[Footnote 19] that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation.

 (c) If:
        (1) the voter is unable or declines to present the proof of identification; or
        (2) a member of the precinct election board determines that the proof of identification provided by the voter does not qualify as proof of identification under IC 3-5-2-40.5;
a member of the precinct election board shall challenge the voter as prescribed by this chapter.
    (d) If the voter executes a challenged voter's affidavit under section 22 of this chapter, the voter may:
        (1) sign the poll list; and
        (2) receive a provisional ballot.

(j) In case of doubt concerning a voter's identity, the precinct election board shall compare the voter's signature with the signature on the affidavit of registration or any certified copy of the signature provided under IC 3-7-29. If the board determines that the voter's signature is authentic, the voter may then vote. If either poll clerk doubts the voter's identity following comparison of the signatures, the poll clerk shall challenge the voter in the manner prescribed by section 21 of this chapter.

That the State accommodates some voters by permitting (not requiring) the casting of absentee or provisional ballots, is an indulgence—not a constitutional imperative that falls short of what is required. - scalia

https://my.indy.gov/activity/voter-photo-id-law

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/fa3a4f2682405f5e42_jbm6bhn9i.pdf

Judge declines to interfere with voter ID law

October 22, 2008

Michael W. Hoskins

KEYWORDS VOTER ID / U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA / DISTRICT COURTS / SENIOR JUDGE LARRY J. MCKINNEY / COURTS / NEGLECT

PRINT

A federal judge in Indianapolis won't interfere with the state law requiring voters to show photo identification at the election polls.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney denied a temporary injunction request from a Cumberland attorney and resident who is challenging Indiana's 3-year-old voter ID law that's been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Plaintiff Robbin G. Stewart filed the suit in April in Marion County, though it was later removed to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, to resolve the multiple federal and state constitutional claims. In September, Stewart asked the judge for one of three potential relief options: that he be allowed to vote without showing the required photo ID; that the state and county be required to count all provisional ballots cast by those not showing photo ID; or that the state not be allowed to enforce the voter ID law during the Nov. 4 general election.

Judge McKinney heard arguments Oct. 14 in Robbin Stewart v. Marion County, et al., No. 1:08-cv-586-LJM-TAB, and took the matter under advisement.

In his 10-page ruling, Judge McKinney rejected each of Stewart's arguments and found that he didn't represent a class of any similarly situated Hoosier voters and that he didn't adequately show any hardship in obtaining a photo ID. The court referenced how Stewart himself had obtained a valid license, and that meant he can vote and wouldn't suffer any irreparable injury by this injunction denial.

Turning to the landmark ruling issued earlier this year in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 128 S.Ct. 1610 (2008), Judge McKinney noted the reasoning in that facial challenge case applies to Stewart, even though he'd asserted this as an as-applied challenge that survives the Crawford scrutiny.

story continues below

"Plaintiff has not designated any evidence to demonstrate a burden that, on balance, outweighs the State's interest in protecting against voter fraud," the judge wrote.

Judge McKinney also rejected Stewart's federal constitutional claims that the state law violates the First and 21st Amendments, finding that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago had explicitly held in Crawford that the law isn't a poll tax and that all courts had decided it didn't violate the First Amendment.

On a claim that the law violates the Fourth Amendment on search and seizures, the judge pointed out that Stewart did not cite a single case holding that poll workers must have probable cause before requiring voters to produce a valid photographic ID, and as a result he didn't show he could win on that claim.

The judge also rejected Stewart's state constitutional claims, finding that he didn't cite adequate legal authority and has not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits.

"I'm disappointed but not shocked," Stewart said about the judge's ruling. "The case is still alive; it's not like he dismissed it or anything. The next step is to take this to the 7th Circuit for some preliminary relief."

Source: \XML\XML2656.xml

Plaintiff loses federal challenges to voter ID law

April 19, 2010

Jennifer Nelson

KEYWORDS VOTER ID / CIVIL CASE / U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA / SENIOR JUDGE LARRY J. MCKINNEY / COURT OPINIONS / GOVERNMENT / COURTS / NEGLECT

PRINT

A federal judge ruled against a Cumberland man in his federal challenge to Indiana's voter identification law, but did remand his pending state claims to a Marion Superior Court for consideration.

U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney in the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment April 16 for Marion County, Marion County Clerk Beth White, and the State of Indiana in Robbin Stewart's lawsuit challenging Indiana's statutory requirement that a person voting at the polls has to present a government-issued photo ID. Stewart has an acceptable form of identification but believes having to present it violates his rights.

Stewart argued in Robbin Stewart v. Marion County, et al., No. 1:08-CV-586, that the voter ID law violates the First, Fourth, 14th and 24th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. His challenges based on the First and 14th amendments are foreclosed by Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 458 F. Supp.2d 775 (S.D. Ind. 2006), and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). His challenge that the voter ID law is a poll tax also failed because the 7th Circuit already noted that it's not a poll tax in Crawford.

"Stewart already has a driver's license, which is a valid form of photo identification. Therefore, he has not been required to incur any extra costs to obtain a valid photo identification to present when voting and does not have standing to challenge any alleged fees which might be incurred by a person not similarly equipped with photo identification," wrote Judge McKinney.

story continues below

Stewart's Fourth Amendment challenge failed because those rights aren't affected. Stewart had a choice when voting in person - present his driver's license and vote, or refuse to present it and choose to cast or not cast a provisional ballot. The encounter was consensual and had no impact on his rights, wrote the judge.

"Even if requiring identification at the polls does constitute a search, it still does not violate the Fourth Amendment," wrote Judge McKinney. "... the State of Indiana has an important interest in preventing voter fraud. Asking every voter who appears at the polls for identification in a consistent manner is a lawful means of serving this interest."

The federal judge decided not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stewart's pending claims under Indiana state law and remanded the case to Marion Superior Court for consideration. Last year, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the voter ID law violates Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution in League of Women Voters of Indiana, et al. v. Rokita, 915 N.E.2d 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The case is currently pending before the Indiana Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case March 4.

Stewart, an attorney, was suspended in May 2009 for not fulfilling CLE requirements.

Source: \XML\XML5806.xml

428 N Bosart AveIndianapolis IN 46201-3734

4.   In his complaint, Stewart also seeks a declaratory judgment that I.C. 3–9–3–2, Indiana's statutory prohibition of anonymous campaign commercials and publications, unconstitutionally abridges his First Amendment right to free speech and violates Articles 1 and 2 of the Indiana Constitution.   Stewart complained that local poll officials removed one of his campaign signs, which contained no identification of its authorization, at the May 7th primary.   Stewart moved for summary judgment on this claim after he filed his notice of appeal.   This claim is not part of this interlocutory appeal.

Turning to the substantive issue in the case, we must determine whether section 3-9-3-2 violates Stewart's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995), the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional an Ohio statute that required all printed political campaign literature in the state to contain the name and address of the person or head of the organization responsible

[953 F.Supp. 1054]

for the publication of the literature. The Court held that the Ohio statute violated the First Amendment because it burdened core political speech in a manner that was not narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest. Id. at ___ - ___, 115 S.Ct. at 1519-24. Stewart contends that this case is controlled by McIntyre. Stewart is correct.

The Supreme Court made clear in McIntyre that campaign literature in support of a candidate for elective office is "core political speech" that is entitled to the fullest protection of the First Amendment.

Amici curiae Robbin Stewart and Joell Palmer are Marion County, Indiana voters. Mr. Stewart was denied the right to vote in the 2006 primary and general elections when he declined to provide photo identification without a warrant or some showing of probable cause. His provisional vote was not counted after he went to the clerk’s office and asked that it be counted, but again declined to show photo identification. Mr. Palmer was denied the right to - 3 - vote in the 2006 primary election when he was unwilling to show photo identification. Mr. Palmer was a plaintiff in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). 

 The citizens of Indiana have an indisputable constitutional right to vote that cannot be blocked by significant obstacles from the State.

 It is likewise undisputed that the State of Indiana has an important interest in protecting the integrity of its elections from voter fraud. Believing himself to be caught at the crossroads of these two important interests

Robbin Stewart <gtbear@gmail.com>	8:53 PM (12 hours ago)
to me

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA ROBBIN STEWART, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. )

1:08-cv-586-LJM-TAB ) MARION COUNTY, ) BETH WHITE, ) ) Defendants. ) ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) 

) Intervening Defendant. ) 

Entry Discussing Motions for Summary Judgment

 The citizens of Indiana have an indisputable constitutional right to vote that cannot be blocked by significant obstacles from the State. It is likewise undisputed that the State of Indiana has an important interest in protecting the integrity of its elections from voter fraud. Believing himself to be caught at the crossroads of these two important interests, Robbin Stewart brings1 this challenge to Indiana’s statutory requirement, known as the Voter I.D. Law, which requires that a person appearing at the polls to vote present government-issued photographic identification

ROBBIN STEWART 

Defendant: MARION COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS and LINDA PROFFITT

Case Number: 1:2010cv01548

McCann launches third party challenge to Rauner

Illinois state Sen. Sam McCann (R) announced Thursday that he would challenge Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) in November's election on the Conservative Party ticket.

https://www.smithlaw.bz/faqs.html

sunday daily task list

get up. get coffee. set timer. learn pomodoro technique.

schedule: church, fnb, call mom, work on complaint,


did list:

got timer.
oh god my back hurts already. more asirin.

Volunteers Needed: Be the Generation that Ends Alzheimer's Ages 60-75

Researchers are trying to find a way to delay or prevent Alzheimer's, but they need your help. Find out if you are eligible for the Generation Program, an effort of the Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative that will test investigational study medications in thousands of people across the country.   NOCCR is a part of a national effort to end Alzheimer's disease known as the Generation Program.    We are looking to recruit people who have no symptoms of Alzheimer's, but who may be at particularly high risk for developing the disease due to age, family history, or because of their genetic background.  This study will last 5-8 years and participants must be willing to make 8 visits to the study center in the first year and 4 visits per year after that. Compensation up to $6,150 may be available for time and travel.    If you are between the ages of 60-75, you may be eligible to participate in the Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative's Generation Program. For more information, please call 865-305-DRUG (3784).

monday
water bill
voter training.
work on memos.
laundry

notes for amicus

interest of amicus

refutation of curtis hill brief.

own arguments.

notes for amicus

interest of amicus

refutation of curtis hill brief.

own arguments.

water bill. cable bill.
clean yard and cars
mousebaits

memos

- find quiet title suit
- respond to sheriff's department
- shackelfor
- 227 quiet title comments
- voter i lawsuit - deadline coming
nebraska - united breaks guitars.
signs case marion county, slate card.

draft only, do not file.

Today I was given a slate card.
A client is thinking about doing a similar one. I went into the election board office to ask if there were any rules about what he or she would have to put on a slate card. In response, I was given a copy of the 2017
campaign literature flyer from the SOS office.

https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2018%20Disclaimer%20Brochure.final.pdf

The reason for this inquiry is to make sure that what was stated in the brochure is your actual position. You might want to review stewart v taylor, ogden v marendt, and mulholland v marion county election board.

Please respond within 10 days so they have time  to instruct the printer. Thanks, Robbin Stewart.

tuesday - 4/11/18

put files onto external drive.

1. pay water bill - fin water bill

2. sweep 1116 rural

3. dawn

. silent bob.

https://assets.esri.com/content/dam/esrisites/media/pdf/14637-iot-ebook/G78166_Brand_IoT_ONLINE_dl_R6_WEB.pdf

monday

pay water bill
x call about voting thingy
get check for house.
what else?
broom to 1116.

http://fortune.com/2018/04/09/uber-buys-dockless-bike-share-jump/

1 pm rob king.  !!!!!!

mixed review. the coffee was good, although offmenu.

when my dish wasn't made properly, the manager was very attentive and tried to fix it.

but as a vegan, when i specifically ask if something can be made vegan, and get told it can, and then it wasn't, this is not a place i'm likely to order food from again.

i had been told this was a place with integrity and vegan friendly, but i don't think i'm their target market.  boulder prices will attract the 10% of hoosiers who have boulder incomes, but leaves out most of us.

Indiana Disability Rights
4701 North Keystone Avenue, Suite 222
Indianapolis, Indiana 46205

Local Phone:         317.722.5555

Toll Free Phone:   800.622.4845

Local TTY:            317.722.5563

Toll Free TTY:       800.383.1131

Website:                www.HoosiersVote.org

Email:                    info@IndianaDisabilityRights.org

Our office may be accessed through the IndyGo bus system, via Route 26 (Keystone Crosstown) and Route 19  (Castleton).

Do you need help voting? Click here to contact us.

https://www.americanmushroomandspice.com/

https://indianapolis.craigslist.org/cto/d/2001-volvo/6524610502.html

https://www.amazon.com/Prairie-Invasion-Jello-Biafra-Nixon/dp/B001ARRVKO/ref=pd_rhf_cr_s_qp_1_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B001ARRVKO&pd_rd_r=JM152YFTRGG7C3129Q8E&pd_rd_w=iYvky&pd_rd_wg=q4owf&psc=1&refRID=JM152YFTRGG7C3129Q8E

J. Bradley King, Co-Director, bking@iec.in.gov, 317-233-0929

Angela M. Nussmeyer, Co-Director, anussmeyer@iec.in.gov, 317-232-3940

Dale Simmons, Co-Legal Counsel, dsimmons@iec.in.gov, 317-232-3929

Matthew R. Kochevar, Co-Legal Counsel, mkochevar@iec.in.gov, 317-232-3942

Michelle Thompson, Campaign Finance, mthompson@iec.in.gov, 317-232-3941

Abbey Taylor, Campaign Finance, abtaylor@iec.in.gov, 317-232-3928

Lori Clark, Special Projects, lclark@iec.in.gov, 317-232-3938

Patrick Becker, Special Projects, pbecker@iec.in.gov, 317-233-5247

Candy Metcalf, Executive Assistant, cmetcalf@iec.in.gov, 317-233-1948

Kimmy Hollowell-Williams, Executive Assistant, khollowell@iec.in.gov, 317-232-3939

Brandon Kline, HAVA Administrator, HAVAadministrator@sos.in.gov, 317-234-8354

302 West Washington Street
Room E-204
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Front Desk
Phone: 317.232.3939
Fax: 317-233-6793
E-mail: elections@iec.in.gov

Hoosier Voter Hotline
866-IN-1-VOTE

https://clinicaltrials.indianactsi.org/index.php?option=com_clinicaltrial&view=trial&Itemid=121&id=8701

possible awn stu y

re from Whole Foods Market

• Whole Planet Foundation
• Whole Kids Foundation
• Whole Cities Foundation
• Whole Foods Market 365™

notes for jefferson electric

to o: fix the typos, email an snailmail.

http://www.jeffersonelectricllc.com/team/

hello.

my name is robbin stewart. i woul like to meet with rob or joel for a cup of coffee at nei hamer.

i am a semi-retire lawyer an energy policy wonk. i also run a small business on east washington street. i have been stu ying Tesla as a mo el of electricification an moving away from fossil fuels.
they say think globally, act locally. your company is the closest to me physically, an it looks like it might be a goo fit, so i woul like an informational interview.

it is exciting that you guys are motivate by a sense of christian stewarship. i wholly agree. at the same time, we have some enominational or philosophical ifferences that coul lea to us not being a goo fit - i think a personal meeting woul be useful.

i think there is a possibility i might be able to become your inhouse counsel, or join your team in some other capacity, an even if not, we might be able to evelop some kin of win-win interaction.

i've mentione i'm a lawyer - i'm not claiming to be a goo lawyer. i have some skills an lack others.
i have no experience or training in solar installations. wouln't min learning.
when my brother became an electrical engineer,  i instea stu ie philosopy an law, to be able to a  ress the bigger picture.
similarly, i have no sales ability; that takes a ifferent kin of personality.  i'm an introvert.

i starte stewart's salvage company in 1979 to o han-on recycling.
we currently have an inventory of low-cost LE bulbs, as a low-cost entry point for proucing negawatts. i have been interestei negawatts since meeting amory an hunter lovins in 1980.
 i later worke for eco-cycle, aka ecological recycling inc. in boul er co. i serve on the bouler county energy a visory committee in 1984-1985. at that time solar an win were technically possible but not yet economical. this was still true in 1992-1993 when i serve as vice-chair of the boone county missouri energy an environment commission, an was a clerk to the missouri public service commission. But by now, both solar an win are at parity with natural gas or other fossil fuels.
overpro uction of panels in china has resulte in a situation where installation costs are the main bottleneck, o a company like yours can be an innovator.
iniana is an untappe market, in comparison to southern california., which is getting saturate.
my sister in hawaii has a solar water heater, pv panels, an an electric car.

i think your company has a smart tactic of working with churches as clients. the builings are often well-suite for solar, an the financing is oable, but most important it can then be a catalyst for the congregation members to consier solar for their businesses an homes.

i might be able to be an asset here, for example in structuring church bons, which in iniana have fewer regulatory constraints than comparable bons for businesses.

also, i've notice your web page is better than average, but has lots of room for improvement.
i coul work on builing a library of vieos an resources, that coul bring more eyeballs to your site.
i closely follow ben sullins at teslanomics.co, who is getting millions of hits with his vieos.

i cou  aa pocast.

i o not yet know anything about the permitting process of solar installations in iniana, but it oesn't hurt to have a lawyer on tap. a lot of my work has been with aminsitrative law at the county or state level.

i coul go on, but i think i've sai enough to earn a meeting.

Oral Health Research Studies

Located at IU Dental on the IUPUI campus; call 317-274-8822 for more information.

South Side Hackerspace

• 2233 S. Throop St., unit 214 PILSEN/LITTLE VILLAGE
• sshchicago.org
• Be the first to review this location!