Gaspee project v mederoz notes for amivus

Reasons for cert Circuit split. After talley footnote two After mcintyre After aclf Citizens caused confusion. First case for bonta. Ct. case. Riley in kenticky v terry? Gable v patton Worely Public citizen 11th circuit Majors v abell State v acey Wilkinson? Green mountain futures N carolina peterslie merits. Talley mcintyre aclf watchtower Barnette Wooley tornillo riley Aid v open society janus nifla v beccera 1 sentence from each.

Bailey v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics, 2012 WL 4588564 No. 1:11-CV-00179-NT, (D. Me. Sept. 30, 2012): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-med-1_11-cv-00179/pdf/USCOURTS-med-1_11-cv-00179-3.pdf contact@ballsandstrikes.org "We have acknowledged that drivers who display a State’s selected license plate designs convey the messages communicated through those designs. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705 , n. 15, 715 (1977) (observing that a vehicle “is readily associated with its operator” and that drivers displaying license plates “use their private property as a ‘mobile billboard’ for the State’s ideological message”). And we have recognized that the First Amendment stringently limits a State’s authority to compel a private party to express a view with which the private party disagrees. See id., at 715; Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 573 (1995) ; West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943) . But here, compelled private speech is not at issue." walker v texas.

interest of amicus. stewart v taylor. majors v abell, anonymous v delaware, fec comments. privacy project amicus in crawford v marion county.

summary of argument the case presents two issues, which the court below erred by treating as a single issue. 1. under the bonta standard, do plaintiffs present a triable issue on their disclosure claim? 2. are talley and mcintyre still good law, such that the disclaimer rule is facially invalid? this brief is focused on the second question. the court should take the case on the second issue, regardless of whether or not it takes the first issue. the case is important as the first case applying the new standard of review set out in AIP v Bonta. the case is important because it widens the circuit split that has existed since shortly after Talley v California, narrowed but did not end after McIntyre v. Ohio, widened again after Citizens United, and has not been resolved by cases such as Janus, NIFLA v Becarra, Masterpiece, or Bonta.

the case is important because voting rights are preservative of all other rights, and to be meaningful voting must be informed by a free flow of election speech, such as the voting guide at issue here. what is needed is a ruling like cooper v aaron, so that manuel talley's great grandchildren can finally enjoy the benifits of the ruling in his case. 60 plus years is too long to wait. the case is important because it can provide guidance to the FEC and congress, which are currently illegally refusing to follow Talley and McIntyre.

In Buckley v. ACLF, all 9 members of the court held that McIntyre is good law, and disclaimer regulations such as name badges for petitioners are unlawful, while upholding disclosure under the permissive Valeo standard. But in dicta in Citizens United, 8 members of the court lumped disclaimers in with disclosure, in discussing why an as applied challenge had failed for other reasons. In so doing, the court sowed confusion and discord, muddying the waters, so that public officials acting in bad faith can argue the rights established by Talley and McIntyre were not clearly established, and thus evade liability for their wrongdoing. At the moment, whether a citizen can be jailed for putting a "Vote for Smith" sign in their yard or on their home page depends on which state they live in and which circuit that state is in. National uniformity would be a better policy, and is required by the First Amendment.

friday plan

call st louis call baltimore

call mom and tommy

put away groceries clean car

write motion re bmv.

call missouri and kansas

work on brief

check email

make comic

maybe check mailbox.

i'm forgetting something. wednesday:

lawyer zoom

did 1/2 page of the brief, a start

washed car, washed dishes. washed self.

took out trash

put $1200 in bank, paid $200 on electric bill.

talked to tommy.

it felt productive but now it doesn't look like so much.

still to do:

sort mail

brief

mice killed today 1, month 5. thursday: stopped by church, no dinners due to covid. cleaned car slightly. good set tonight. picked out two boxes of food but sheriifs van so i will go back later. got a parking ticket. slept late and did not get much of anything done.

2:30 wednesday 12/29. 3:20. taking a break to go to the bank. COVER INFORMATION > Docket number 21-890 >The party names as they appear on the docket > State whether the case is “On Petition” (at the Petition stage) or “on Writ” (at the Merits stage) > The Lower Court as it appears on the docket > The Name of Your Amicus (or Amici) [See below] > The Party Supported [See below] > The address block or blocks selecting only ONE counsel of record @ 21-890 Gaspee Project et al. v Mederos et al. On Petition from First Circuit Court of Appeals Amicus Curiae Brief of Robbin Stewart in Support of Petitioners *Mark Small info as counsel of record Table of Contents Table of Authorities Interests of the Amicus Curiae (with required footnote) Argument 1 Argument 2 Argument 3 Argument 4 Conclusion Closing Signature Block with clearly identified counsel of record Table of Contents Table of cases I. There is a deep split in lower courts. II. Citizens United Part IV created confusion. III. The case is important because free elections require free speech. IV. This would be the Court's first opportunity to explore the new Bonta standard. Conclusion Table of Authorities (still needs table of authorities) Interests of the Amicus Curiae Robbin Stewart, the amicus here, was the successful plaintiff in Stewart v Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D. Ind. 1997), which found Indiana's disclaimer statute unconstitutional. Elections offcials had confiscated his sign that read "Robbin Stewart for Township Board - Vote Tuesday". The district court held "Stewart contends that this case is governed by McIntyre. Stewart is correct." The Indiana legislature then repassed the statute, with irrelevant changes. Stewart was lead counsel in Majors v Abell,317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. 2003),361 F.3d 349,(7th Cir. 2004.) in which Judge Posner upheld the statute in light of indeterminacy caused by McConnell v FEC. Judge Easterbrook issued a dubitante opinion, 361 F.3d 349, 358, pointing out that four controlling Supreme Court precedents sided with Majors. The Supreme Court clerk properly denied a petition for certiorari because it had been filed a day late. Majors has been cited at least 64 times. Stewart was cocounsel in Anonymous v Delaware,Civ. No. 17453 (Del. Ch. May. 10, 2000),in which the Court of Chancery dismissed the case on the grounds that the disclaimer statute was so obviously unconstitutional per McIntyre that there was no genuine controversy. However, post-Citizens United, Delaware is now enforcing a disclaimer statute, and the state's Attorney General has refused to issue an Attorney General Opinion in light of cases such as Janus and Becerra. He has filed comments with the FEC as to their disclaimer regulations. Stewart has participated in distributing campaign literature in a variety of campaigns since 1970, has held appointed public office in four states, has won primaries and lost general elections, and blogs about election law at http://ballots.blogspot.com, where he engages in express advocacy without disclaimers. He has spent over $1000 on signage. His speech is being chilled in Indiana, Rhode Island, Delaware, and elsewhere. He intends to continue to be politically active. He has filed amicus briefs in several disclaimer cases. One such brief helped get charges dropped against Martin Shaeffer, a Clarkburg WV city councilmember who was arrested and jailed for helping publish a political newsletter. He was an amicus, along with the Privacy Project, in Crawford v Marion County Election Board, after he was prevented from voting because he has a sincere, possibly mistaken, belief that he has a right to vote without showing ID. His work has focused on ballot access, campaign speech and finance, and privacy issues. [footnote 1] Amicus Curiae has obtained written consents to file from Movant and Respondent. Per Supreme Court Rule 37.6, Amicus Curiae states that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no persons other than Amicus Curiae and its counsel made any monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation and submission of this brief. Amicus Curiae is an individual and has no shareholders or partners. Argument 1 There is a deep circuit split which the court should resolve. Argument 2 Dicta in Citizens United, part IV, has created confusion among lower courts and legislatures, which the court should clarify. Argument 3. A major purpose of the First Amendment is to enable free elections. Public confidence in elections has been shaken in recent years, when incumbents can rig the elections by chilling the speech of their critics. The case is important, so that the First Circuit's acceptance of censorship of campaign speech can be overturned, and so that the states listed in Justice Scalia's footnote 2 in McIntyre are put on notice that these statutes remain void. Argument 4: This case presents an opporunity to review an erroneous appication of the Bonta standard, which may be something the court wants to explore. Conclusion: The court should grant cert, and rule broadly for plaintiffs, upholding Talley v. California, not just narrowly striking down the unconstitutional top 5 donors disclaimer provision. Table of Cases Argument 1 There is a deep circuit split which the Court should resolve. In 1960 the court in Talley v California ruled that anonymous speech is constitutionally protected, and therefor an ordinance requiring a disclaimer was void. The opening paragraph of Gaspee Project's complaint cites to Talley and McIntyre, which should have been enough. Talley was one of the civil rights cases, along with NAACP v Alabama ex rel. Patterson, Bates v Little Rock, Shelton v. Tucker, Gibson v. Florida Legis. Comm'n, Gremillion v. NAACP, Sweezy v. New Hampshire. These cases found a right to privacy and political association. Political association is a modern phrasing of the rights to assembly and petition, textually present in the First Amendment. Both the speech and press clauses are also implicated. Rhode Island here seeks a return to the Jim Crow era, and prefers Gobitis over Barnette. Rhode Island here is making an attack on the right to privacy. There are current controversies as to the full extent of the privacy right discussed in Griswold and Roe v Wade, but I think all members of the court agree there is some First Amendment right to privacy and autonomy that prohibits compelled speech outside of narrow exceptions not at issue here. See Janus, Becerra, and concurrences in Masterpiece.

Regardless of intent, the effect of disclaimer rules has been to severely burden the speech of minorities, such as blacks (Talley), women (McIntyre), political minorities (ACLF), immigrants with relatives in the old country, and sundry other cases less easy to categorize. For example, in Anonymous v. Delaware, the until-now anonymous plaintiff did not want to risk interfering with another pending case, later settled for around a million dollars. Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2004), Balancing Courtroom Safety and Free Expression: Huminski v. Corsones, Robert M. Howard,The Justice System Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1 (2006).

Although Talley is the law of the land, states and some lower courts refused to accept it, much as Alabama vigorously resisted NAACP for many years. The NAACP case reached the Supreme Court four times before Alabama finally backed down. California did not accept Talley,and continued to pass unconstitutional disclaimer rules, and still enforces them today. People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Sup. Ct. 1962),Canon v. Justice Court (1964) 61 Cal.2d 446, 457, 39 Cal.Rptr. 228, 393 P.2d 428, People v. Drake (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d Supp. 32, 159 Cal.Rptr. 161, Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042, Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 69 Cal. App. 4th 818, 82 Cal. Rptr.2d 25 (1999), reversed on other grounds. @ add NIFLA v Becerra. Louisiana has a similar history of as soon as one disclaimer statute is struck down, another is enacted, in an ongoing cycle. Lousiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976), State v. Burgess, 543 So. 2d 1332 (1989),Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995), In Kentucky, courts have upheld disclaimer rules four times, defying Talley. (@ cite terry, gable v patton, wilkinson) In note 2 of his dissent in McIntyre, Justice Scalia cataloged how nearly every state has a disclaimer statute. What is needed is something like Cooper v Aaron that after 60 years really settles the matter, and lets election officials know that if they continue to violate the rule of Talley they can expect to pay damages. So a narrow ruling just about the 5 top donors is not enough. It is a waste of judicial resources to allow bad actors getting off scot-free for intentional violations of freedom of campaign speech, with substantial harm to the integrity of the election process,and an endless cycle of injunctions and declaratory judgments that fail to deter subsequent violations. The split began in 1961, and continues in 2022. A majority of cases have followed Talley, and later McIntyre v. Ohil Elections Commission, but about 1/3 of the cases have refused to do so, and about 2/3rds of the states still enforce some disclaimer statute. Cases following Talley include: City of Bogalusa v. May, 212 So.2d 408 (1968), 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), Doe v.2theMart,140 F.Supp.2d 1088, ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997),ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997), ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997), Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S.182 (1999), 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)(on state grounds), Griset v CalFPPC (1999), reversed on other grounds, 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) Ogden v. Marendt, (S.D. Ind 2004),Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998),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), 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. Cases resisting Talley include: needs work state v acey, peterslie, worley, majors v abell, wilkinson, connecticut case, green mountain futures, NOM v McKee, Terry, Gable v Patton, Arkansas v Butler, Circuits resisting Talley include: First (Nom v McKee), Sixth (Gable v Patton), Seventh (Majors v Abell), Eleventh (Worley v Florida). Circuits following Talley include 4th (WVfL v Smith), 8th, (236 F. 3d 1174 (8th Cir. 2000) - Citizens PAC Political Action Committee v. Davidson), 9th (ACLU of Nevada v Heller), 10th (Wilson v Stocker). Additionally, at least 12 states have found a right to anonymous speech in their state constitution, while at least three states decided the other way. The states include CA, CO, DE, ID, IL,LA, OH, MA,ME,MO, ND, NY. Schuster, Tattered Cover, Opinion of the Justices (DE), People v Barney, State v Burgess, People v White, Dennis v Mass., Opinion of the Justices (ME), Ex Rel. Harrison, ND Ed Assoc., People v Duryea. States ruling the other way include NC, TN, Ky. Peterslie, State v Acey, Wilkinson. This is a deep split. The court has made at least two previous attempts to resolve the split, in McIntyre, and ACLF. The question presented in McIntyre was whether there was an elections exception to Talley. Ohio had used Valeo's permissive "exacting scrutiny" standard. While retaining the label "exacting scrutiny" McIntyre applied a strict form of scrutiny, requiring narrow tailing and an overiding state interest. Justice Scalia, dissenting, called this a "kiss of death" standard. Rhode Island here misreads McIntyre as only creating an exception for little ladies with home computers who spend under $1000, and misreads McConnell's electionering communications discussion to allow disclaimers for issue speech when targeted and close to the election, thinking that this would satisfy the "In for a calf is not in for a cow" concurence in McIntyre. As discussed below, Rhode Island misread Citizens United as having implicitly repealed Talley, McIntyre, ACLF, Watchtower, etc. Buckley v ACLF carefully distinguished disclosure, which gets permissive scrutiny under Valeo, and disclaimers, which get stricter scrutiny under McIntyre. Yet courts continued to rule adversely at times, and then the split got wider after McConnell and Citizens United rejected as-applied issue advocacy arguments brought by James Bopp. There is a deep split among lower courts, both state and federal, as to whether Talley and McIntyre remain good law and prohibit disclaimer rules. The Court should grant cert to resolve this issue. Dicta in Citizens United, part IV, has created confusion among lower courts and legislatures, which the court should clarify. Citizens United was a case that held that strict scrutiny applies to political speech, overturned the anamalous Austin ruling,and greatly expanded constitutional protection of election speech. But states have seized on certain loose language about disclaimers, out of context,and some courts followed, as the First Circuit did below, as holding that Citizens implicitly overuled not just Austin, but Talley, Mcintyre, ACLF, Wooley, maybe even Barnette. This is error, for the folowing reasons. The language in Citizens about disclaimers is dicta, not holding. Citizens was a case about corporate speech, and does not authorize disclaimer rules for individuals, as the statutes of Rhode Island, Maine, and Vermont attempt to do. In Citizens, disclaimers were a less restrictive alternative to a complete ban. Rhode island has no such ban, so the Citizens discussion does not apply. If Citizens had intended to overturn McIntyre et al.,it would have explained why and how it was doing so, as it did in overruling Austin. If Citizens had overruled McInytre, it would have itself been overuled by later cases such as Town of Vincent v Reed, AID v Open Society, NIFLA v Becerra, and Janus. Nonetheless, the dicta in Citizens has confused lower courts and legislatures, and the court should take this case to once again clearly establish that Talley and McIntyre remain good law, and states cannot compel the content of political ads. Perhaps in some future case, the Court may allow a disclaimer rule limited to speech by corporations. There are some sound policy reasons to do so, and Citizens hints at such a future case. But Citizens did not do so, and the Rhode Island statutes are not limited to corporate speech. In Citizens, echoing a similar issue in McConnell, plaintiffs argued that their speech was not express advocacy, and so the disclaimer and disclosure rules did not apply. The court disagreed, in Part IV, and found that the speech at issue was at least the functional equivalent of express advocacy, so its attempted loophole was closed. This was the holding. The court then went on in dicta to praise disclaimers and disclosure, lumping them together, as less restrictive means to advance the state interests. It is these statements that have been taken out of context. Plaintiffs had not argued that the disclaimer rule was facially void, only that they had found an exception. The current case does directly challenge the unconstitutional statute, and thus makes a good vehicle for the court to clarify its remarks in Citizens United. Perhaps in this case the Court will decide to overule McIntyre, Talley, Barnette, Wooley, and Tornillo. If so it should do so explicitly, not sotto voce. A major purpose of the First Amendment is to enable free elections. Public confidence in elections has been shaken in recent years, when incumbents can rig the elections by chilling the speech of their critics. The case is important, so that the First Circuit's acceptance of censorship of campaign speech can be overturned, and so that the states listed in Justice Scalia's footnote 2 in McIntyre are put on notice that these statutes remain void. The United States is an experiment in a libertarian constitutional democratic republic, in which the people are sovereign, instead of having a monarch. The people govern themselves by choosing representatives via free and open elections. In order to do so, there must be free speech so that issues and candidates can be fully discussed. This is the Meiklejohn theory of the purpose of the First Amendment; that it makes democracy possible. It may be nice to have nude dancing and art and literature and liquor prices, but the core function of the First Amendment is to protect free and open elections. Here, the usual presumption of constitutionality is reversed, and censorship of political speech is suspect, presumptively invalid, subject to close, exacting, strict, kiss of death, scrutiny. What Rhode Island is doing here, perhaps with the best of intentions, criminalizes core political speech, and also imposes civil penalties without a mens rea element. Both of these severely chill speech, and detract from the integrity of the election process. Talley reversed a $10 fine. McIntyre reversed a $100 fine. The consequences in Rhode Ilsand are more dire. And, as plaintiffs have argued, the 5 donor requirement goes well beyong the mere attribution requirements found invalid in Talley and McIntyre. When free speech is taken away,we are left with Potemkin elections, which retain the form but not the substance. The courts,and this court, have an important role in safegarding elections. Actual jailings for disclaimer violations are rare, but not unknown. Harrison, Dennis, Schaeffer,and Doug Geutzloe are among thiose who have been jailed. Ex rel Harrison (Mo 1908), Dennis v Mass (MA. 1972), shaeffercase.blogspot.com, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Guetzloe. Currently congress has a partisan split on an election "reform" bill which would extend the FEC's unconstitutional disclaimer requirements to the internet, what Reno v ACLU called burning the global village to roast the pig. This court should take this case to better inform congress, the FEC, legislators, and lower courts, that there are constitutional limits to how election speech can be chilled. In this case, the First Circuit erroneously applied the new Bonta standard, instead of McIntyre's kiss of death standard. In doing so, it treated Bonta as as permissive as Valeo, essentially treating Bonta as an indeterminate "personal preferences of the judges" standard. If this case is allowed to stand, it will not be the only lower court to rule this way. As far as I know this may be the first case to apply Bonta. The court could choose to take this case as a chance to further explore the Bonta standard. Conclusion: The court should grant cert., and rule broadly for plaintiffs, upholding Talley v. California, not just narrowly striking down the unconstitutional top 5 donors disclaimer provision. (word count) [Closing Signature Block with clearly identified counsel of record] = The cover of an amicus brief must comply with all of the requirements applicable to the cover of other booklet-format briefs. Rules 33.1(e), 33.1(g) and 34.1. At the petition stage, an amicus brief should have a cream cover; at the merits stage, an amicus brief in support of the petitioner or in support of neither party should have a light green cover, and an amicus brief in support of the respondent should have a dark green cover. Rule 33.1(g). In consolidated cases, the Court’s docket may provide more = Forty copies of an amicus brief must be submitted in booklet form. Rule 33.1(f).

to do tonight call mom call tommy work on brief work on bmv motion "Paddy and his gay friend walk into a bar and a lesbian waitress walks up them"

sunday: 5 boxes to food not bombs. came back with a full car. went to a trivia night. was winning at first but lost bad, but it was nice. forgot to go to zonies to meet that new dancer. saturday: went to see tommy. brought food, we did laundry, had sex, i went home. friday did/didn't 1. deposited $4000. balance $1600. took 3 trips to bank. 2. called bmv, found out my hearing was the 15th. have 7 days to undo dismissal. need to write that up. 3. got back into chromebook /google account. had to change password and give up my phone number. i guess i didnt do much else today. should go unload car. == thursday bank. paid off ^620, chase, deposited $2000 sent tommy $50. standup went well. bought moosetraps. ==weds. forgot to call re hearing. po box. paid off 5th 3rd. trash, dishes, scotty, started unloading car. to do friday: unload car get more moousetraps. defrost fridge? go see tommy. lube. to do eventually resume to team america tires brief

saturday i slept in, then explored the neighborhood, first on foot then by car. walked around the park. saw a deer. found a secret tunnel under rt 40 to get back to the hotel quicker. $30 at a korean megagrocery. found a couple art books, a few groceries, some cigar boxes, a keg of merlot that i can't drink. maybe i'll take it to food not bombs.

https://www.thekokomopost.com/articles/kokomo-is-so-boring-indiana-entertainment-things-to-do

Date: _11/14/21_____________________ FBI Attn: FOIPA Request 200 Constitution Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Dear FOIA Officer: ______________________ This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. Date range of request: _____1960-present_________________ Description of request: ________________________________________________________________ any info in file. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Please search the FBI’s indices to the Central Records System for the information responsive to this request related to: __any info in file________________________________________________________________ _ I am willing to pay up to $__20__ for the processing of this request. Please inform me if the estimated fees will exceed this limit before processing my request. I am seeking information for personal use and not for commercial use. Thank you for your consideration, Name: Robbin Stewart ______________________________________________________________ Street Address: PO Box 29164________________________________________________________ City/State/ZIP Code: _____Cumberland IN 46229_______________________________________________ Email (optional):_gtbear at gmail.com______________________________________________________ did: submitted fbi file request via online form. did not expedite. will take indefinite. did: email marion county auditor re tax sale. to do: call mom. call tommy. make comic. skim brief draft. get off reddit.

did, wednesday. checked into study. $60 hotel. paid chase credit cards. could not pay 5th 3rd or pnc cards. pnc: go to bank. 5th 3rd: call. to do: call marion county for info on tax sale. or email. email mark small re press credentials issue. make better list call mom, call tommy. pay tax bill. work on amicus

49A1539 1096235 FOLEY, CASEY 2102 BROOKSIDE AV, INDIANAPOLIS POWELLS SUB E T FLET 1ST BROOKSIDE L5 BLK1 EX42.6FT NW END $1,005.84 $14,300.00 $15,305.84 662

monday

tax sale

scrap yard

call mark small

make better list.

https://www.thespruce.com/white-frangipani-plumeria-care-and-growing-guide-5197390

friday: stuff to work on: photocopy driving record, mail to passport office. To: Passport office My name is robbin george stewart. Prior to 1979, my name was richard lee stewart. Apparently my passport, the one your office refuses to tell me the number of, issued in 1980, and lost by 1988, had my prior name on it. I enclose some documentation showing that my name is currently robbin stewart, including my indiana driving record, missouri driving record, social security records, continuing legal education records, and so forth. I would call your attention to Robbin Stewart v Sarah Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (1997). I was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1993 as Robbin Stewart. Additionally my legal signature is an X. It has been since the accident 12/30/2015. I would call your attention to the Americans with Disabilities Act. I am mostly healed since the accident, and have regained full use of my right arm, but continue to use the x as my signature, which of course I have the legal right to do. I hope that this resolves your concerns and that you will issue the passport I have applied for. I would like to vote in Indiana in the future, particularly for senators Young and Brawn, and they regard a passport as acceptable ID. Sincerely Robbin Stewart. /s/X. email mark small. work on: amicus disciplinary complaint hendricks rokita letter letter to legislators bmv issue. draft: to lawyer: can you provide any insight on how the bmv came up with its policy to require multiple opt-in for organ donation? for example, is it a regulation, made with a public comment period? is it from some memo from a specific bmv official, if so when and can i get a copy? next, is there any path forward to my getting a real ID? I mean within Indiana; delaware has no intention of changing my birth certificate, nor should they; that was my name at birth, it just isn't my current name. next, can you provide any insight on why or how the ball was dropped in my case for those several years? did the alj and counsel leave the bmv voluntarily? are there other cases like mine resting in limbo? was it ethical for the alj to quit without resolving open cases? was there some sort of succession plan to handle his open cases like mine? in general i want to let you know that i am open to working with you cooperatively in resolving my concerns. your initial posture seems adversarial; you seem focused on winning, and indeed you can probably "win" at this stage of things, but i can continue to escalate the dispute in various ways, and it makes more sense for us to try to find a solution we are both comfortable with. the hearing process is more about generating a paper trail, so that i can follow up later in court or with the legislature. i will have more to say later, just wanted to get in touch now that i have your email.

TALLAHASSEE — A federal judge on Friday allowed a series of challenges to a new state elections law to move forward, setting the stage for a showdown over Republican legislators' efforts to make it more difficult for Floridians to vote by mail and for organizations to conduct voter-registration drives. The Florida Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights Florida, the League of Women Voters of Florida, UnidosUS and a number of other organizations allege that the changes approved by the Legislature this spring could curtail voting by Black, Latino and disabled residents. The law (SB 90) was one of the most controversial issues of the 2021 legislative session and came after a relatively smooth 2020 election in Florida. But GOP legislators maintained the changes were necessary to ensure election security and prevent fraud in future elections. Escambia County redistricting:First draft puts Perdido Key in District 1 Redistricting:Preserving Pensacola's 2 majority Black districts presents challenge to redistricting The lawsuits focus on several parts of the law that deal with voting by mail, as well as a requirement that third-party voter registration groups provide a disclaimer to people signing up to vote. The law set new restrictions on the availability and use of drop boxes, where people can drop off vote-by-mail ballots. Under the law, supervisors of elections must have the boxes staffed at all times and can only use the boxes during early voting hours and at early voting sites. Supervisors who violate the requirement face $25,000 fines. The lawsuits contend that the restrictions will have a negative impact on people who work during the day and voters with disabilities, who might be forced to bring ballots into early voting sites if supervisors don't provide drop boxes outside. In four separate rulings Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker said Secretary of State Laurel Lee, Attorney General Ashley Moody and supervisors of elections should remain as defendants in the cases, though he dismissed the officials from some parts of the challenges. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/40272767/Florida_Rising_Together_et_al_v_LEE_et_al has the documents, but paysite. https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/florida-voter-suppression-bill-fl-rising/ does not have the new documents.

https://www.annualcreditreport.com/index.action to do: fill out passport forms.

make better list.

x check icon for study info

x insurance co to update

x scrap yard

x laundry

x crackers.

x friday sam morill.

bring in washer/dryer

sort fridges.

x bacon and eggs?

plasma email.

to do monday

x laundry

in progress x bank deposit check get cash.

car: brakes, headlight, something else?

sort papers

call mark small

plasma?

x check for studies.

make better list

make a comic- broken?

email for spots

x test tv

scrap yard

x work on amicus. - find example of an amicus for template.

Spider Labs Ltd. v. Doe No. MC-20-00039-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz. Oct. 22, 2020) passport appointment - photocopy letter, documents etc.

pay bank cards.

buy a notebook for gas log.

mileage sandusky trip 184844 - 185467 = 156+ 467= 623. $60 gas @ 3.03 30.83+ so 623 x 50 cents = 310. pay= $100.

did wednesday.

got a microwave. need to test it.

made a list.

bank, withdrew $100.

tuesday

unloaded car

paid electric bill $200.

saw 16 cops cars between 12 and 2 am, if i count the firetruck and ambulance. the game.

to do: write down mileage. call tommy. call mom.

buy gas, or did i?

write downt he items from my list.

Gaspee project v mederoz notes for amivus Reasons for cert Circuit split. After talley footnote two After mcintyre After aclf Citizens caused confusion. First case for bonta. Ct. case. Riley in kenticky v terry? Gable v patton Worely Public citizen 11th circuit Majors v abell State v acey Wilkinson? Green mountain futures N carolina peterslie merits. Talley mcintyre aclf watchtower Barnette Wooley tornillo riley Aid v open society janus nifla v beccera 1 sentence from each. Bailey v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics, 2012 WL 4588564 No. 1:11-CV-00179-NT, (D. Me. Sept. 30, 2012): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-med-1_11-cv-00179/pdf/USCOURTS-med-1_11-cv-00179-3.pdf contact@ballsandstrikes.org "We have acknowledged that drivers who display a State’s selected license plate designs convey the messages communicated through those designs. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705 , n. 15, 715 (1977) (observing that a vehicle “is readily associated with its operator” and that drivers displaying license plates “use their private property as a ‘mobile billboard’ for the State’s ideological message”). And we have recognized that the First Amendment stringently limits a State’s authority to compel a private party to express a view with which the private party disagrees. See id., at 715; Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 573 (1995) ; West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943) . But here, compelled private speech is not at issue." walker v texas.

note to self mow grass at the church.

Biolife L.L.C. 8163 25th Court East Sarasota, Florida 34243 Phone: (941) 360-1300 Toll Free: 800-722-7559 Fax: (941) 360-1310 email: customer.care@biolife.com Office hours: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST Monday through Friday

notes on gaspee project v mederos.

to do: motion to intervene.

to do: draft of amicus in support of cert.

to do: email volokh

to do: make better list

to do: write to justice r dissenting re support for amicus.

to do: submission to balls and strikes.

to do: submission to eugene's free speech journal. other stuff

to do: draft of amicus in support of cert.

keep working on disciplinary complaint

100 interogatories for hendricks

records request for hendricks.

plasma

check for studies

clean house

talk to jake

to do: draft of amicus in support of cert.

interest of amicus. stewart v taylor. majors v abell, anonymous v delaware, fec comments. privacy project amicus in crawford v marion county. summary of argument the case presents two issues, which the court below erred by treating as a single issue. 1. under the bonta standard, do plaintiffs present a triable issue on their disclosure claim? 2. are talley and mcintyre still good law, such that the disclaimer rule is facially invalid? this brief is focused on the second question. the court should take the case on the second issue, regardless of whether or not it takes the first issue. the case is important as the first case applying the new standard of review set out in AIP v Bonta. the case is important because it widens the circuit split that has existed since shortly after Talley v California, narrowed but did not end after McIntyre v. Ohio, widened again after Citizens United, and has not been resolved by cases such as Janus, NIFLA v Becarra, Masterpiece, or Bonta. the case is important because voting rights are preservative of all other rights, and to be meaningful voting must be informed by a free flow of election speech, such as the voting guide at issue here. what is needed is a ruling like cooper v aaron, so that manuel talley's great grandchildren can finally enjoy the benifits of the ruling in his case. 60 plus years is too long to wait. the case is important because it can provide guidance to the FEC and congress, which are currently illegally refusing to follow Talley and McIntyre. In Buckley v. ACLF, all 9 members of the court held that McIntyre is good law, and disclaimer regulations such as name badges for petitioners are unlawful, while upholding disclosure under the permissive Valeo standard. But in dicta in Citizens United, 8 members of the court lumped disclaimers in with disclosure, in discussing why an as applied challenge had failed for other reasons. In so doing, the court sowed confusion and discord, muddying the waters, so that public officials acting in bad faith can argue the rights established by Talley and McIntyre were not clearly established, and thus evade liability for their wrongdoing. At the moment, whether a citizen can be jailed for putting a "Vote for Smith" sign in their yard or on their home page depends on which state they live in and which circuit that state is in. National uniformity would be a better policy, and is required by the First Amendment.

https://www.campaigntrailyardsigns.com/rhode-island-yard-sign-regulations/ https://www.bobvila.com/slideshow/the-pickiest-political-yard-sign-rules-in-america-577673

F Sa Su M 01:20AM - 11:50AM Possible Start Date: 24th Sep 2021 (or earlier!) $18.00/hr 36 - 40 hrs/wk 8316 Allison Ave, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46268 United States 1151 S. Graham Rd. Greenwood IN 46143 Things to bring

notes on possible disciplinary complaint [4] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers. What this complaint is about is that x serves on the hendricks county election board, and is engaged in illegal unconstitutional censorship. as an attorney, he should have heard of the first amendment. @too snarky. 8 pm thursday. On the one hand, the rules require me to report a violation of the rules. On the other hand, this complaint should be taken with a grain of salt, as it is part pf a larger dispute that will probably involve litigation. I have been a member of the Indiana bar since 1993, and have never filed a disciplinary complaint against anyone, even if there were a couple of times I probably should have done so; it is not something I take lightly. Public officials enjoy a quasi- absolute immunity when they act in a quasi-judicial capacity, as x did in ruling on my complaint against sheriff candidate terry judy. Public officials enjoy qualified immunity when they impose unconstitutional policies where the law is not clearly established. Here, the law is clearly established, yet I am aware courts often treat qualified immunity as absolute immunity. Public Officials too often treat holding office as a license to engage in unlawful behavior. So a disciplinary complaint may be the only available option. x is to be commended for serving on the county election board. this is the sort of pro bono service that is encouraged. however, such service still has a duty of competence. Citizens are deemed to know the law. And the plain text of the first amendment is clear that the government cannot interfere with freedom of the press. The Supreme Court established that disclaimer rules are unconstitutional in 1960. They have restated this in 1995, 1999, 2005, and 2019. Further, in my complaint letter that initiated the election board meeting at issue, I cited some of the relevant cases. So this was not some accident or oversight, but deliberate and willful refusal to follow controlling cases.

























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































?
?
???
n rmore, the purpose of the Rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons. The fact that a rule is a just basis for a lawyer's self-assessment, or for sanctioning a lawyer under the administration of a disciplinary authority, does not imply that an antagonist in a collateral proceeding or transaction has standing to seek enforcement of the Rule. Nevertheless, since the Rules do establish standards of conduct by lawyers, a lawyer's violation of a Rule may be evidence of breach of the applicable standard of conduct. (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. Rule 8.4. Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or (g) engage in conduct, in a professional capacity, manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, or similar factors. Legitimate advocacy respecting the foregoing factors does not violate this subsection. A trial judge's finding that preemptory challenges were exercised on a discriminatory basis does not alone establish a violation of this Rule. Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials (a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office. [1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. Whether or not engaging in the practice of law, lawyers should conduct themselves honorably. [4] In all professional functions a lawyer should be competent, prompt and diligent. [5] A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer's duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer's duty to uphold legal process.

wednesday

took out trash

driver's record $4. dispute w bmv. needs memo.

made notes on brief

tire $50

photocopied/printed passport stuff.

what else?

going to helium tonight.should leave soon. unpack car.

did: van sold for $800 + a washer and dryer.

did: emails to tommy and bj re mail, and mark small re possible case.

trash is probably a day late due to holiday. mouse #33. need to put out mousetraps. Worley v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 717 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2013) https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/71649/yes-on-prop-b-v-city-and-county-of-sf/ Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. Daluz, 654 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2011) ..............................................................................15 Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011) (“NOM I”)...................................................... passim Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 669 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2012) (“NOM II”).. Bailey v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics, 2012 WL 4588564 No. 1:11-CV-00179-NT, (D. Me. Sept. 30, 2012): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-med-1_11-cv-00179/pdf/USCOURTS-med-1_11-cv-00179-3.pdf Kentucky Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F.3d 637 Washington Post v. McManus 4th cir. Oregon Attorney General Opinion No. 8266 (March 10, 1999). Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission, Any opinions expressed in this paper should not be attributed to any of Eric Wang’s clients, or those of his firm.

AFFIDAVIT REGARDING A CHANGE OF NAME 3. Applicant's Former Name 4. Applicant's Date of Birth Middle 6. Number of Years You Have Known the Applicant 7. Your Relationship to the Applicant By Former Name 8. Explain the difference in the applicant's former name 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. (Attach a separate sheet of paper if more space is needed.) OATH: I declare under penalty of perjury 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 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) 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 publicly and exclusively 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 exclusively 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 is not needed if an applicant presents a court order or marriage certificate documenting the change of his or her name. This affidavit must be signed in front of a notary, unless it is submitted to an authorized Passport Agent or Acceptance Agent. U.S. Department of State OMB APPROVAL NO. 1405-0133 EXPIRES: 10-31-2020 ESTIMATED BURDEN: 40 MINUTES Address of Affiant Identifying Document Presented: Subscribed and Sworn to before me this day of at Name of Passport Agent, Acceptance Agent, or Notary Public Location DS-60 07-2017 Page 1 of 2 NOTARY SEAL (Number and Street, City, State, and Zip Code ) (Affirmed) (Passport Agency or City & State)

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

to do check for buddy study next week pay pnc 280 pay 5th 3rd 85. work on brief and motions go thru old to do lists for open items passport fbi file Submitting a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) Image titled Obtain Your FBI File Step 1 1 Draft a FOIA request. When requesting your personal FBI records through the Freedom of Information Act, you must draft a detailed letter specifically requesting the information that you desire and any information that can help the FBI identify the records. This letter should include the following: Date Address: Record/Information Dissemination Section
Attn: FOIPA Request
170 Marcel Drive
Winchester, VA 22602-4843 Identifying the request as under the Freedom of Information Act. Date range of the request. You can make the request from your date of birth to the present. Description of the request. Request copies of all information, including but not limited to files, correspondence, reports, surveillance or any other records concerning you. Provide information to assist in the search. You should give your name, date of birth, social security number, place of birth and the first and last names of your parents, any aliases that you use, and former addresses. http://www.rageuniversity.com/PRISONESCAPE/PRISON%20MENTAL%20HEALTH/psychologypower.pdf Game over! Strategies for redirecting inmate deception by bill elliott and vicki verdeyen

In construing constitutional amendments, our chief purpose is to give effect to the intent of the framers. State ex. rel. Webb v. Cianci, 591 A.2d 1193, 1201 (R.I. 1991); Bailey v. Baronian, 120 R.I. 389, 391, 394 A.2d 1338, 1339 (1978) (citing In re House of Representatives, 45 R.I. 289, 120 A. 868 (1923)). In doing so, we rely on the well-established rule of constitutional construction that when words in a constitution are free from ambiguity, they are to be given their plain, ordinary, and usually accepted meaning. Mikaelian v. Drug Abuse Unit, 501 A.2d 721, 723 (R.I. 1985); Bailey, 120 R.I. at 391, 394 A.2d at 1339; Davis v. Hawksley, 119 R.I. 453, 455, 379 A.2d 922, 923 (1977). Moreover, "every clause must be given its due force, meaning and effect and that no word or section must be assumed to have been unnecessarily used or needlessly added." Kennedy v. Cumberland Engineering Co., 471 A.2d 195, 198 (R.I. 1984) (citing Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583, 588, 58 S. Ct. 395, 397, 82 L. Ed. 439, 442 (1938)). "[W]e must presume the language was carefully weighed and that its terms imply a definite meaning." Bailey, 120 R.I. at 391, 394 A.2d at 1339 (citing Opinion to the Governor, 62 R.I. 316, 6 A.2d 147 (1939); Blais v. Franklin, 31 R.I. 95, 77 A. 172 (1910)). In Re Advisory Opinion to Governor 612 A.2d 1 (1992)

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.