Tuesday, September 29, 2015

www.snagajob.com

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Kristin Erato-Alosinac

deputy Prosecutor at Hendricks county prosecutor office

Indianapolis, Indiana

Law Enforcement

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/04/theres-another-incredible-story-coming-from-that-restaurant-made-famous-by-teens-snowy-10-mile-interview/

Possible Address:

5215 E 9th St
Indianapolis, IN 46219

Marriage Licenses

REPORTED MAY 10

Alosinac, Boris; Kristin Erato.

http://www.yatedo.com/p/Boris+Alosinac/normal/82a1cab2dba8bbf8aab396a3795df3d9

19,102 link karma
40,904 comment karma

Friday, September 25, 2015

did: worked 8 hours.
paid my lawyer dues $180.
drove around aimlessly.
dumpster dived.
played soccer for 1/2 hour with some arab kids.
need to put veggies on ice or make soup tonight.
bought can opener $1.

to do tonight:

mcba dues
work on memo.
read amicus ms file.
bath change clothes.
no laundry today
go thru mail
tickets
make better list.

so recent expenses included

hotel 100 + 440 = 540
computer $200
chromebook 220
lawyer dues 180
bar association x
amazon cord and bug stuff y
gas.. around $100.

spent $300 out of pocket on trip.

screening 1400 miles
trip to nebraska 1

Thursday, September 24, 2015

thursday: did

booked a medpace screening

pushups
paid rent $220.

blogged a little.

did not start cu article yet.

should: do laundry

sort boxes. order amazon stuff.

to do: make better list. go thru old lists

do yestyerday's tasks: pay bar dues

cu article yet.

What Citizens United says about voter ID applied challenges.

part 1 voter ID and remedies.
part II CU's discussion of applied versus facial challenges
part III my involvement in indiana's voter ID litigation.

part IV suggestions for going forward.

abstract:
while there have been successes, overall the litigation campaign against voter ID has been losing more than winning, and voter ID has spread faster than it has been contained by litigation.

there has been no coordinated national campaign against voter ID, but Hillary Clinton's campaign seems to be sponsoring Marc Elias's work which is bringing a new set of challenges.

this short paper explores the problems and opportunities of facial and as-applied challenges as strategies to oppose voter ID,
and looks to Citizens United for advice.
Citizens United took an as-applied challenge to independent expenditures by a non-profit corporation, and ended up issuing very broad relief, overruling Austin and freeing corporations to spend on political campaigns.

Recently I was rereading the case and for the first time caught its discussion of as-applied versus facial suits,and thought about how that applied to voter ID.

I have been involved with voter ID litigation in Indiana, failing at least so far. I will discuss what I've tried, and why it didn't work.

I then discuss how I think as-applied challenges can be used to mount a broad attack on voter ID.

This paper is a belated response to (article about voter ID as-applied lawsuits)

What Citizens United says about voter ID applied challenges.

part 1 voter ID and remedies.
part II CU's discussion of applied versus facial challenges
part III my involvement in indiana's voter ID litigation.

part IV suggestions for going forward.

abstract:
while there have been successes, overall the litigation campaign against voter ID has been losing more than winning, and voter ID has spread faster than it has been contained by litigation.

there has been no coordinated national campaign against voter ID, but Hillary Clinton's campaign seems to be sponsoring Marc Elias's work which is bringing a new set of challenges.

this short paper explores the problems and opportunities of facial and as-applied challenges as strategies to oppose voter ID,
and looks to Citizens United for advice.
Citizens United took an as-applied challenge to independent expenditures by a non-profit corporation, and ended up issuing very broad relief, overruling Austin and freeing corporations to spend on political campaigns.

Recently I was rereading the case and for the first time caught its discussion of as-applied versus facial suits,and thought about how that applied to voter ID.

In 2005 the Indiana legislature passed the first photo ID requirement for voting, hereinafter called voter ID.
In 2006 two cases were filed against it in federal court in Indianapolis, one by the ACLU, the other by the Democratic Party.
I expected that these cases would be successful, because voter ID raises serious constitution problems. date the district court upheld the statute under the law review standard of Burdick v Takushi.
The case was appealed to the 7th circuit. When it became apparent that the 7th circuit was unlikely to rule in time for the 2006 general election, I filed suit in state court, seeking a TRO and preliminary injunction on behalf of myself and Joell Palmer.
Palmer had been a successful plaintiff in Edmond v Indianapolis, in which drug roadblocks were struck down. Palmer viewed voter ID as a similar unwarranted search, a roadblock at the polls.
I am a member of the bar, focused on election law issues, but I would be the first to say I'm not a skilled lawyer. The story that follows is full of unforced errors on my part.
I had expected that I would be able to find competent co-counsel. Democratic Chairman Howard Dean had publicly stated that the party would fund lawsuits to overturn voter ID. No such help ever came.
The trial court denied injunction and TRO without opinion. I petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to take up the case, skipping the court of appeals, which it can do but generally doesn't. It declined. The Court of Appeals turned down the appeal on the grounds that A) the trial court hadn't given leave to appeal, which it hadn't, and B) the denial of a temporary injunction wasn't a denial of a temporary injunction. So they court got the procedural facts wrong, but by then it was too late because the election had taken place.
The injunctive relief I had sought offer a range of options for relief:
that the ID program be halted altogether, that it be halted only in Marion County, or that Palmer and I be allowed to vote.
That case was later dismissed on the grounds that the complaint was too detailed and argumentative. That dismissal was erroneous, but I did not appeal.

At some point (date) a split 7th circuit panel led by Judge Posner had sustained the ruling below in the consolidated cases,
My next step was to submit an amicus brief to the 7th circuit, which had scheduled a vote on rehearing. In most circuits, amicus briefs are routinely accepted,and the parties routinely consent. The 7th circuit is different.

The state refused to consent. I filed a motion for leave to file, but I neglected to mention how the 7th circuit's ruling might be dispositive on my state case. That is among the few exceptions the 7th circuit allows for the filing of opposed amicus briefs.

Among the points I raised in the brief were
A) the standard of review was wrong
B) the panel completely ignored the state constitutional claims, which were substantial and supported by controlling authority.
C) the state claims could be certified to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Judge Posner denied the motion for leave to file. The court en banc split 5-5. I will never know if, had my brief been filed and read, it might have turned one vote and made it 6-4, and thus avoiding the Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford. Because the court split 5-5, the panel decision held, which was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Judge Posner now admits he was wrong about voter ID, but no one has ever asked him if he thinks it was wrong to deny leave to file my brief.
In 2008, I filed a new suit, Stewart v Marion County Election Board. The state was notified, but declined to participate, running out its clock. The trial judge denied a TRO.
I moved to consolidate the case with League of Women Voters v Rokita, which had been filed after mine and raised some of the same issues of state constitutional law, but the Indiana Supreme Court denied this motion. The Supreme Court clerk later denied my attempt to file an amicus in LWV.
The county removed the case to federal court, where it was assigned to Judge McKinney. In my previous encounter with Judge McKinney, he had chained together 5 legal errors to dismiss a case after sitting on it for 5 years, in a ruling later found erroneous by Judge Posner in Majors v Abell I @cite both, so it was not a receptive forum.
McKinney denied a TRO and invited the state's participation. McKinney is a former co-worker of the AG's office and seems on good terms with them.
On election day in 2008 I went to try to vote at my local precinct. I was told that I could not vote, and was not offered even a provisional ballot. I then drove to Chicago to file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the TRO. I had been told by the court's staff that I would not have to pay a filing fee for this motion, which turned out to be in error. I was still without counsel, doing this pro se. That appeal was denied in one page ruling.
I sought to amend the pleading to add the new facts of having been denied even a provisional ballot, but Judge McKinney denied that motion, and later ruled against me, cite, ruling, for example, that demanding my ID as a condition of voting was not a search for 4th Amendment purposes, and ruling that the 7th circuit had said in Crawford that voter ID was not a poll tax, to dispose of my 24th Amendment claim, although in Crawford there had been no 24th Amendment claim and its offhand mention of a poll tax was in another content altogether. I did not get an appeal in on time, due to other things going on in my life at the time.

I next filed a new suit based on the new facts at the 2008 general election, Stewart v Proffitt et al. It also was removed to federal court. Proffitt, the election official who told me I couldn't vote without ID and didnt even give me a provisional ballot, filed a false affidavit saying I was only there momentarily and left before she could hand me a provisional ballot. That was false, as I was there for about 12 minutes and we had an extensive discussion at which she was adamant that I couldnt vote. Under Indiana law one can be arrested if they linger at the polls for more than 15 minutes, and I used most of my 15 minutes. The Obama justice department has not responded to my reporting of this perjury, even after Senator Coats sent them a letter asking them to look into it. I did not make the deadline for opposing the state's motion for summary judgment, and based on the false facts and the previous ruling, judge Hamilton dismissed the case. For the 2012 and 2014 elections I tried to recruit other people to go file provisional ballots, but in the end did not succeed.

...

Monday, September 21, 2015

monday 9/21

make better list

covance letter
abbvie letter to dr carter
car: exhaust. motor mounts.
brief
bio

at least read mississippi brief. try to find docket entries for it.

consider calling about weedman status 1/2/ done

proposal for helix shoot.

sent 3 emails. 4.
do a comic. done. 10 pushups.

tuesday: go outsiude. xx 5 pushups. journal entry or comic. 1 phone call. clean car.

wednesday
meeting tonight
pay bills - lawyer dues, bar association dues.
plan hawaii trip better.
san diego thing.

habitat - write 1 paragraph about each of the things i'm blocked on
evansville case - look up aclu message about counsel.
erato
caudill. google them see if any recent news.

did: email to bill. 10 pushups. messed up the patch things today, didnt have one part plugged in.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

https://www.facebook.com/fnbindy/photos/a.228947627260512.1073741826.224074627747812/517420485079890/?type=1&theater
my roommates

Monday, September 14, 2015

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Here is a very rough first draft of a lie list for the state's response to a motion for TRO in the Mississippi disclaimer case discussed here yesterday.

Yesterday I was at the law library at West Virginia University. I didn't run into Brad Smith there. They didn't have the books I was looking for. The zenclay coffee shop I like to go to now closes at 2 pm so I missed it. But it was a good day overall.

[a "lie list" is just shop talk for a list of legal or factual errors in a document; not all such errors are intentional. some people call this process 'fisking' or maybe it's Fisking.] this part is just the list; explaining why each point is wrong is a longer part II to follow. update: I wrote part II, but i didnt save it to the cloud, and i stepped on my laptop, breaking the screen, so i'll have to re-write it, and so far (9/14) I haven't.

first draft. Needs to be more consistent how it lists the lies.

first,the AG is to be commended for putting together the 20 page memorandum in one day.

It is understandable under the circumstances that there are errors of fact and law.

There are at least 19 false statements of law or fact in this filing. Part I lists them. Part II explains each.

Part 3 lists true statements of law or fact that are then used to try to mislead the court into error.

Part 4 explains each.

Part 5 presents and overview of the case, in order to attempt to correct the misleading picture painted by the state.

1 Lie # 1, p.1. : Plaintiffs claims lack a likelihood of success on the merits

2 Referring to the statute as a “law”. p.1. The fundamental principle of american law, from Marbury v Madison, is that an unconstitutional statute is not law, but is void ab initio. “There is no public interest in the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute.” ( for now, just list, explain later.)

3 “The 1^st A protects a voter's right to know” p.2

4 Bait and switch of mixing up disclosure and disclaimer. p.3.

5 “In fact, Madison County voters have a well-established right to know that information.” p.3.

6 Disclaimer rules are an integral part of disclosure regimes. pp. 3, 6.

7 The constitutionality of disclaimer rules is well established. p.4.

8 Citizens United has not “officially reaffirmed the constitutionality of the” federal disclaimer rule. Pp 4-5. @ Like a previous challenge in McConnell v FEC, plaintiffs lost on their particular theory, an express advocacy argument, but this does not mean other different challenges will not prevail. The instant case is not premised on any express advocacy argument, although the statute would be vulnerable to one since it is vague and overbroad in the way addresesd in Buckley v Valeo, a case defendants rely on heavily. Further, CU only discussed corporate speech previously banned under Austin, not, as here, nearly all election speech.

9. Plaintiff's reliance on McIntyre is not misplaced. pp.5,13.

10. McIntyre's target audience was not just the members of the school board, but the voters who defeated the bond levy twice before it passed on a third try. p.5.

11. CU removed any doubt about the constitutionality of disclaimer rules. p.9.

12 Buckley v Valeo did not address disclaimers in the cited passages.

13 Similarly, Buckley v ACLF reached opposite conlusions about the onstitututionality of disclaimers and disclosure, so the cited section is out of context and misrepresents the holding of the case. p.12.

14 “such disclaimers do not limit speech.” p.13.

15 “ their constitutionality is not in doubt” p.13.

16 McIntyre is simply inapplicable to requiring disclaimers on traditional election advertisements about candidates. Pp13-14.

17 “state law” p. 14.

18 unquestionably constitutional. p.16.

19 conflict with CU p. 16

20 oh wow, only 19 lies, unless I missed one.

need a section on fats and law that is true, but used to try to mislead the court.first draft. Needs to be more consistent how it lists the lies.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Here is a very rough first draft of a lie list for the state's response to a motion for TRO in the Mississippi disclaimer case discussed here yesterday.

[a "lie list" is just shop talk for a list of legal or factual errors in a document; not all such errors are intentional. some people call this process 'fisking' or maybe it's Fisking.] this part is just the list; explaining why each point is wrong is a longer part II to follow. update: I wrote part II, but i didnt save it to the cloud, and i stepped on my laptop, breaking the screen, so i'll have to re-write it, and so far (9/14) I haven't.

first draft. Needs to be more consistent how it lists the lies.

first,the AG is to be commended for putting together the 20 page memorandum in one day.

It is understandable under the circumstances that there are errors of fact and law.

There are at least 19 false statements of law or fact in this filing. Part I lists them. Part II explains each.

Part 3 lists true statements of law or fact that are then used to try to mislead the court into error.

Part 4 explains each.

Part 5 presents and overview of the case, in order to attempt to correct the misleading picture painted by the state.

1 Lie # 1, p.1. : Plaintiffs claims lack a likelihood of success on the merits
Plaintiffs have a high likelihood of success on the merits. Any of 6 Supreme Court precedents are controlling. Talley, McIntyre, Buckley v ACLF, Watchtower v Stratton, Wooley v Maynard, Riley v Federation of the Blind, Tornillo v Miami Herald, each stand for the proposition that the government may not compel speech. Talley and McIntyre deal specifically with the issue of identification disclaimers on campaign literature.

The strongest authority to the contrary, Citizens United, is readily distinquishable and inapplicable to the question of law here.
5th circuit precedent is controlling as well.
Further, the statute violates the state constitution and is void for that reason, so there is no state interest left to be balanced against the federal interests in free speech and free elections.