From U.S. v. Virginia, decided yesterday by Judge Robert Payne (E.D. Va.):

 

The First Amendment is no word game, and 'the exercise of constitutional rights' cannot be circumscribed 'by mere labels.

Chiles v Salazar. 

In Alaska, unconstitutional disclaimers are referred to as disclosures. The voters were fooled by this mislabeling, and passed an unconstitutional initiative to censor political speech in violation of both constitutions. This court only has jurisdiction over the federal claim. Plaintiffs as well as the Court used this disclosure label, and looked to off-topic disclosure cases instead of citing to the supreme court's controlling disclaimer cases such as Talley McIntyre ACLF.

Those cases are a subset of the court's more general rules against compelled speech.  Barnette, Tornillo, Wooley, Dale, Hurley, Janus, NIFLA, Masterpiece, 303. 

Two recent cases handed down after the Alaska decision are especially relevant, Chiles v Salazar and First Choice Women's. 

The best approach to this case  would be to GVR, remanding for consideration of Chiles or Talley.

The First Amendment “envisions the United States as a
rich and complex place” where all enjoy the “ ‘freedom to
think as you will and to speak as you think.’ ” 303 Creative
LLC v. Elenis, 600 U. S. 570, 584, 603 (2023) (quoting Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 660–661 (2000))..... But
either way, the First Amendment protects the inalienable
right of every individual to decide for himself “how best to
speak.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc.,
487 U. S. 781, 791 (1988). In this Nation, no official—“high
or petty”—may command our tongues or silence our voices.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642
(1943 

 

  

 noyes from slaazar first womens and src v fec

salazar v chiles 

Held: Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms.
Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the
lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First
Amendment scrutiny. Pp. 7–23

 A
The First Amendment “envisions the United States as a
rich and complex place” where all enjoy the “ ‘freedom to
think as you will and to speak as you think.’ ” 303 Creative
LLC v. Elenis, 600 U. S. 570, 584, 603 (2023) (quoting Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 660–661 (2000))..... But
either way, the First Amendment protects the inalienable
right of every individual to decide for himself “how best to
speak.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc.,
487 U. S. 781, 791 (1988). In this Nation, no official—“high
or petty”—may command our tongues or silence our voices.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642
(1943).

1943).
Consistent with the First Amendment’s jealous protec-
tions for the individual’s right to think and speak freely,
this Court has long held that laws regulating speech based
on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “pre-
sumptively unconstitutional.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576
U. S. 155, 163 (2015). As a general rule, such “content-
based” restrictions trigger “strict scrutiny,” a demanding
standard that requires the government to prove its re-
striction on speech is “narrowly tailored to serve compelling
state interests.” Ibid. Under that test, it is “ ‘rare that a
regulation . . . will ever be permissible.’ 

 

 

 

 afp alaska policy forum 

first a

depends on question presented

do  they raise the unconstitutiinality of paid for by?  

 text and history

stare decisis

tiers of scrutiny   

 afp alaska policy forum 

first a

depends on question presented

do  they raise the unconstitutiinality of paid for by?  

 

 text and history, freedom of speech, no law. 

history see thomas concurring in mcinytre but see also scalia dissent6ing both based on histpry. 

scaliaas living constitution, rights expire after a while 

stare decisis

barnette, gobitis. tornillo rily wooley janus nifla 393 chiles v salazar  

first choice women'.s/ gop v fec? 

tiers of scrutiny   

 

 afp alaska policy forum 

first a

depends on question presented

do  they raise the unconstitutiinality of paid for by?    

 text and history thomas gorsuch

stare decisisi chief, kagan, jackson soto

tiers of scrutiny   kav

unk barret. 

 

 Inquiry regarding recent incident report – East Washington BMV Branch

Dear Ms. Nix,

I hope you are having a good week.

I am reaching out to you directly regarding an incident that occurred recently at the Indianapolis - East BMV branch (10101 E Washington St) involving one of your on-duty security officers. I have already filed a formal report regarding the matter with the Indiana BMV Head of Security at the downtown headquarters.

Before I take any further formal steps, I wanted to check in with your office to see if this incident has been reported up to you yet. If so, are you able to share how Majestic Security has addressed or handled the situation internally with the officer involved?

I am hoping to get some clarity on how this is being looked into from your end. I appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

[Your Name]
[Your Phone Number]
[Your Email Address]

---

💡 A Few Quick Tips Before You Send This:

• The "Paper Trail" Rule: Even though the tone is casual, keep a copy of whatever she replies to you. If she calls you on the phone instead of writing back, jot down notes right after the call with the date, time, and exactly what she told you.
• Don't Give Away Too Many Details Yet: Let her tell you what she knows first. If she asks for your side of the story, keep it brief and factual so you don't accidentally compromise your upcoming tort claim.

If she writes back and asks for the specific date, time, or a physical description of the guard to look up the file, do you have those details handy, or would you like help putting together a quick follow-up reply?

You said: very good! it sets anice tone. i should save that.

I am glad the tone works perfectly for what you need! Saving a draft like this is a smart way to keep your communication organized and professional.

Whenever you are ready to use it, just fill in those bracketed details (like the date or time if she asks for clarification) and send it over to her at tnix@majesticsecurity.com.

If she replies or calls you back with an update, I can help you review her response or assist you with the next steps for your tort claim notice. Just let me know how you would like to proceed!