drove 350 miles. spent $400. did xmas shopping. did some demo on the shed. swept the stairs took out the trash bj cleaned the toilet and helped unload 20 gallons of root beer concentrate. 20,000,000,000. 20 billion a year from tesla's megafactory 2 in china projected, less quantity discounts of up to 50%. that's revenue, not net profit. unclear to me where the batteries are coming from. suggested plans for friday dec 22. solstice was yesterday, from here the days get longer. it was a year ago we had the hard freeze and my pipes broke. I should call a plumber. plans for january. move into the church. casey situation. file at least an amicus, or the carroll county complaint. friday: x lunch at the club. $60 x scrap run, +25. load to dump. friday did list. demo. shed is down. paid $110, bought a burn barrel. oh! it rained, but i should go check on the burn barrel. did a midnight burn. it is now 7 30 am saturday, still dark. starting to get light a little. i'll go check on the burn barrel again, make sure the house hasn't burned down during the night. plans for january. move into the church. close on thursday. casey situation. letter, quitclaim, poa. draft only: Dear Mr. Foley, I attach a quitclaim deed and a limited power of attorney. These are documents we could have used a year ago. I tend to assume that there is no way left to reclaim any of the money, but i will try, if you sign, notarize, and return these to me or leave them where i can pick them up or whatever works. Quitclaim Deed: I, Casey Foley, assign to _Robbin G. Stewart_________ all my right title and interest, whether legal or equitable, to my property at 2102 N. Brookside, legal description to govern, in Center Township of Marion County Indiana. Parcel Number: Tax Sale Cert Number 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 In Re: [quiet title suit case number.] Signed Dated Witnessed (Optional) Notary Information: Limited Power Of Attorney: I, Casey Foley, appoint Robbin Stewart as my attorney in fact and special agent, only to the limited extent spelled out herein. Limits: Purpose and scope: This agreement authorizes the agent to conduct real estate transactions on any of Mr. Foley's property on 2102 N. Brookside Avenue in Center Township and is limited to Marion County Indiana. Re parcel number: 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 Time: This agreement expires 3/1/24 unless extended by both parties. This agreement ends if revoked in writing by either party. Option 3: Limited Representation agreement. This writing documents that I, Casey Foley, have retained Robbin Stewart, IN 14174-53, as my attorney at law for the limited purpose of conducting any real estate transactions or litigation in reference to my current or former real estate holdings on N Brookside Avenue in Center Township of Marion County Indiana. This agreement ends 1/1/2025, or sooner if accomplished sooner. Both parties agree Stewart is or was a real party in interest in the transaction, and that the potential conflict of interest created thereby, if any, has been waived. Stewart waives his customary hourly fee of $235, but retains the right to settle the proceeds, if any, based on the original investment ratios. I recognize the expected proceeds are zero. This document is self executing, and does not require a witness or notary. [Civil Cover Sheet needed for option 3 if deployed.] 1096235 Level Topography Pub. Utilities Street or Rd. Neighborhood High Low Rolling Swampy 2102 BROOKSIDE AV INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46218 Property Address Property Class 500 Alt Parcel 49-07-31-106-004.000-101 82-015-009-0 Feb 13, 2023 FOLEY, CASEY - Jan 01, 1900 Y 0.00 Straight Feb 13, 2023 MYLA A ELDRIDGE, MARION COUNTY AUDI - Jan 30, 2023 N 15305.84 Sale Mar 16, 2017 County Marion - Feb 03, 2017 N 350.00 Sale Mar 16, 2017 Auditor Marion County - Feb 03, 2017 N 350.00 Sale Mar 30, 2017 MARION COUNTY - Jan 01, 1900 Y 0.00 Straight Mar 30, 2017 DISON, LEX E & - Jan 01, 1900 (Ind. Code § 6-1.1-24-2)

Solstice/Date Thu, Dec 21, 2023, 10:27 PM

test. test 2. formatting is messed up on the blog.

https://www.berlinpackaging.com/tin-plated-steel-open-top-cans-with-end/ https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/H-7928/Brute-Trash-Cans-and-Accessories/Uline-Trash-Can-Dolly

In the ordinary case it is all but dispositive to conclude 16 SORRELL v. IMS HEALTH INC. Opinion of the Court that a law is content-based and, in practice, viewpoint discriminatory. See R. A. V., 505 U. S., at 382 (“Content based regulations are presumptively invalid”); id., at 391– 392. The State argues that a different analysis applies here because, assuming §4631(d) burdens speech at all, it at most burdens only commercial speech. As in previous cases, however, the outcome is the same whether a special commercial speech inquiry or a stricter form of judicial scrutiny is applied. See, e.g., Greater New Orleans Broad casting Assn., Inc. v. United States, 527 U. S. 173, 184 (1999). For the same reason there is no need to determine whether all speech hampered by §4631(d) is commercial, as our cases have used that term. Cf. Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, 492 U. S. 469, 474 (1989) (discussing whether “pure speech and commercial speech” were inextricably intertwined, so that “the entirety must . . . be classified as noncommercial”). Under a commercial speech inquiry, it is the State’s burden to justify its content-based law as consistent with the First Amendment. Thompson v. Western States Medi cal Center, 535 U. S. 357, 373 (2002). To sustain the targeted, content-based burden §4631(d) imposes on pro tected expression, the State must show at least that the statute directly advances a substantial governmental in terest and that the measure is drawn to achieve that interest. See Fox, supra, at 480–481; Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 566 (1980). There must be a “fit between the legisla ture’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends.” Fox, supra, at 480 (internal quotation marks omit ted). As in other contexts, these standards ensure not only that the State’s interests are proportional to the result- ing burdens placed on speech but also that the law does not seek to suppress a disfavored message. See Turner Broadcasting, 512 U. S., at 662–663.

[–]gapernet 304 points 12 hours ago I was early in my cooking career when my chef asked me to make the Crew Meal. He walked me through what ingredients were available and suggested I make soup. I got flustered; I had never heard of a soup with those specific ingredients so I asked him a bunch of questions. He cut me off and said "look, it's fuckin soup. throw a bunch of shit in a pot and it's gonna be delicious. Just think about when to add what and everything else will take care of itself." Since then, thanks to his advice I have made hundreds of delightful soups and zero shitty soups. . . a b c [–]arbivark 1 point 4 minutes ago* tonight i have to go to a staff party at the county club where i dish. i have the little boxes to put a gift into, and some extra lentils, but i still need to print off "your grandmother's secret soup recipe". Now I have it. "look, it's fuckin soup. throw a bunch of shit in a pot and it's gonna be delicious. Just think about when to add what and everything else will take care of itself." - gapernet 2023. https://www.last.fm/music/MDC/_/Tofu+Spaghetti

 

Male Wilbur Joseph Ankeny

Birth	4 Nov 1855	Clinton County, Iowa
Death	11 Feb 1941	Morgan County, Colorado
Burial
Marriage	30 Aug 1877	Carroll County, Illinois
Other Spouse	Mary Anne Ferguson | F28159
Marriage	25 Oct 1899	Ringgold County, Iowa
Father	William Henry Ankeny | F28185 Group Sheet
Mother	Catherine Dorcas Estabrook | F28185 Group Sheet

Female Anna Ellen Northrup Birth 29 Aug 1856 Pennsylvania Find all individuals with events at this location Death 20 Nov 1895 Nebraska Find all individuals with events at this location

2023 income streams

tesla 20k

sss 638 x 12 = 6380 + 1276 = 7656 

150 x 50 = 7500 woodstock

1000 find stuff

estate n

class action $155

scrap 200

rents

study 900

plasma $1000

2023 income streams

tesla 20k

sss 638 x 12 = 6380 + 1276 = 7656       27656

150 x 50 = 7500 woodstock                    35156

1000 find stuff                                          36156

estate [300k]                                               [3]36156

class action $155                                          336301

scrap 200                                                       336501

rents

study 900                                                        337401

plasma $1000                                                  338401

 monday, i didn't get much done. 2nd day without weed, feels good. 

haircut $15.  gas $20. found a grocery.

sorted food on stairs.

$20 to jordan (not red haired jordan).

made plans for the three piles of trash. gonna put them in the van, take it to the transfer station. 

bath, cleaned the bathtub, took out trash.

sunday i took 3 bags of trash to work + worked 5 hours, exhausted. busy day at work with a christmas party.

plan for tuesday.

clean out van to get ready, find tarp.

or scrap run if get up early.

drop off laundry at 30th st.

read complaint. h + h

call lawyer chick

[–]purplepanda5050 27 points 8 hours ago 

I found some articles and websites. I would start with the nerdwallet article.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/file-complaint-against-bank

https://www.cnbc.com/select/what-to-do-if-bank-closes-your-account/

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/

https://www.helpwithmybank.gov/index.html

weds i 

today i:

took 4 loads of burned boards to the dump, which was my goal for the day. and also cleaned the van. took my hired guy to my favorite diner for lunch. got laundry together to wash tomorrow. washed 4 dishes. redacted. snaked the toilet.

yesterday i worked and splashed my eye with detergent so now my eye is red and swollen.

thursday:

1 load laundry.

3 bags trash. 1 load cardboard.

cleaned front yard some. found pineapples and buttermilk. got flat tire fixed. $50.

bought gas. 

 You can dispose of extra household trash, heavy trash, and bags of leaves at the Marion County Citizens’ Transfer Station.

The fee is $2 per carload, or $5 per SUV or pickup truckload (Cash Only). You can make up to two trips per day. Moving trucks, dual axles, trailers, haulers, stake-bed trucks, and truckloads larger than 3/4 ton are not permitted.

The transfer center is open on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. It is located at 2324 S. Belmont Ave.

 FORT LAUDERDALE FOOD NOT BOMBS, Nathan Pim, Jillian Pim, Haylee Becker, William Toole, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Defendant - Appellee.

Jodi Siegel, Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., Gainesville, FL, Andrea Hope Costello, Florida Legal Services, Newberry, FL, Mara Shlackman, Law Offices of Mara Shlackman, PL, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Michael Thomas Burke, Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, PA, Alain E. Boileau, Alain E. Boileau, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231209172400/https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2023/12/08/fort-lauderdale-lost-a-homeless-feeding-ban-case-now-the-city-owes-640000-in-attorneys-fees/

draft only:

congratulations on being awarded legal fees in the food not bombs case. i live in indianapolis and have been a fnb volunteer for 15 years off and on. i may be starting an fnb type feeding program in terre haute IN

it would be great to have experienced counsel involved at an early stage, to avoid or reduce problems,

if this might interest any of you.

Cordially, Robbin Stewart.

 With this case, we recognize that both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution protect an individual's fundamental right to purchase books anonymously, free from governmental interference. 

tattered cover v thornton.

Like freedom of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly was considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at the foundation of a government

Page 361 U. S. 523

based upon the consent of an informed citizenry -- a government dedicated to the establishment of justice and the preservation of liberty. U.S.Const., Amend. I. And it is now beyond dispute that freedom of association for the purpose of advancing ideas and airing grievances is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 299 U. S. 364; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 357 U. S. 460.

bates v little rock,

Due process requires that a criminal statute provide adequate notice to a person of ordinary intelligence that his contemplated conduct is illegal, for "no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617 (1954). See also Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156 (1972). Where First Amendment rights are involved, an even "greater degree of specificity" is required. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S., at 573. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 109 (1972); Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290 (1951).

valeo.

We agree with the holdings of the District Court and the Court of Appeals on the due process doctrine of vagueness. The settled principles of that doctrine require no extensive restatement here.[7] The doctrine incorporates notions of fair notice or warning.[8] Moreover, it requires *573 legislatures to set reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of fact in order to prevent "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."[9] Where a statute's literal scope, unaided by a narrowing state court interpretation, is capable of reaching expression sheltered by the First Amendment, the doctrine demands a greater degree of specificity than in other contexts.[10] The statutory language at issue here, "publicly . . . treats contemptuously the flag of the United States . . . ," has such scope, e. g., Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969) (verbal flag contempt), and at the relevant time was without the benefit of judicial clarification.[11]

a smith case!

 

Remarks

12,207 sq foot all brick building on Redacted Ave! This church has great bones, wonderful character in its woodwork and stained glass windows throughout. Move right in and make this your church home or with a little vision it is an open canvas to repurpose this building to fit your wants or needs. Could be apartments, an entertainment venue, storage, etc. There are two restrooms on each level, basement kitchen and a working M.P. Moller organ. High traffic area and hard to beat at this price per sq ft!

Property History for 2200 WABASH AVE

DateSourceDetailsPrice

07/16/2014Public RecordSold$154,485

 

Brian Majors v. Marsha Abell, 361 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2004)

This opinion cites 27 opinions.

---

• 1 reference to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
  Supreme Court of the United States March 9, 1964 Also cited by 5500 other opinions
• 1 reference to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1
  Supreme Court of the United States Feb. 27, 1976 Also cited by 3069 other opinions
• 1 reference to Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748
  Supreme Court of the United States May 24, 1976 Also cited by 1434 other opinions
• 1 reference to First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765
  Supreme Court of the United States June 26, 1978 Also cited by 924 other opinions
• 1 reference to Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62
  Supreme Court of the United States Aug. 30, 1990 Also cited by 807 other opinions
• 1 reference to United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803
  Supreme Court of the United States May 22, 2000 Also cited by 560 other opinions
• 1 reference to McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334
  Supreme Court of the United States April 19, 1995 Also cited by 554 other opinions
• 1 reference to McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93
  Supreme Court of the United States Dec. 10, 2003 Also cited by 472 other opinions
• 1 reference to Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182
  Supreme Court of the United States Jan. 12, 1999 Also cited by 327 other opinions
• 1 reference to Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60
  Supreme Court of the United States March 7, 1960 Also cited by 278 other opinions
• 1 reference to Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290
  Supreme Court of the United States Dec. 14, 1981 Also cited by 234 other opinions
• 1 reference to O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712
  Supreme Court of the United States June 28, 1996 Also cited by 219 other opinions
• 1 reference to Mary A. Bart v. William C. Telford, 677 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1982)
  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit May 12, 1982 Also cited by 202 other opinions
• 1 reference to Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150
  Supreme Court of the United States June 17, 2002 Also cited by 172 other opinions
• 1 reference to Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2002)
  Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit April 29, 2002 Also cited by 126 other opinions
• 1 reference to Citizens for Responsible Government State Political Action Committee Steve Durham Phil Pankey Colorado State Republican Central Committee Colorado Republicans for Choice, an Unincorporated Colorado Political Committee Crown Point Communications, Inc., a Colorado Corporation Dorothy S. Wham William Thiebaut, Jr. Donna Mullins Good Colorado Education Association Education Political Action Committee, a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation, and and Colorado Right to Life Committee, Inc. Citizens for Responsible Government, Inc. Libertarian Party of Colorado Libertarian Party of Denver Sandra Johnson Douglas E. Anderson David Aitken Fred Greene Firearms Coalition of Colorado, Inc. William Pittman Greg Walerius, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants v. Donetta Davidson, in Her Official Capacity as the Secretary of State for the State of Colorado, and Cross-Appellee. Republican National Committee Common Cause League of Women Voters of Colorado Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Colorado Chapter, Amici Curiae. Terry L. Phillips, and v. Donetta Davidson, Secretary of State of the State of Colorado, and Cross-Appellee, 236 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2000)
  Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Dec. 26, 2000 Also cited by 102 other opinions
• 1 reference to Terrance M. Allen v. Jerry Scribner, Hans Van Nes, Olaf Leifson, Gordon Tween, Robert Milam, Richard Rominger, Lyndon Hawkins, Robert Hobza, Robert v. Dowell, Charles D. Hunter, and John Does 9 Thru 250, 812 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1987)
  Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Sept. 29, 1987 Also cited by 95 other opinions
• 1 reference to Richard Suppan Glenn Kerrigan Gerald Dieter James Bowser v. Joseph Dadonna Wayne Stephens Gerald Monahan, Jr. Harold Boyer Ronald Manescu Scott Mitchell Dennis Trocolla Michael Combs the City of Allentown, 203 F.3d 228 (3rd Cir. 2000)
  Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Feb. 10, 2000 Also cited by 94 other opinions
• 1 reference to Kentucky Right to Life, Inc. Kentucky Right to Life Political Action Committee (Krlpac) Robert Zoeller Lora Robertson, Treasurer of Kentucky Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Joseph Terry, 108 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 1997)
  Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit March 7, 1997 Also cited by 84 other opinions
• 1 reference to American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. William H. Hudnut, Iii, Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985)
  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Sept. 20, 1985 Also cited by 84 other opinions
• 1 reference to Brian Majors v. Marsha Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003)
  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Jan. 23, 2003 Also cited by 63 other opinions
• 1 reference to Mary Pieczynski v. Katherine Duffy and Roberto Maldonado, 875 F.2d 1331 (7th Cir. 1989)
  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit July 7, 1989 Also cited by 49 other opinions
• 1 reference to Bernard Coady v. Russell Steil, 187 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 1999)
  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Sept. 9, 1999 Also cited by 46 other opinions
• 1 reference to Robert E. Gable, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Paul E. Patton, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky A.B. Chandler, Iii, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Kentucky Registry of Election Finance Donald L. Cox, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance Morris E. Burton, in His Official Capacity as Franklin County Commonwealth Attorney James E. Boyd, in His Official Capacity as Franklin County Attorney John Y. Brown, Iii, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Defendants-Appellees/cross, 142 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 1998)
  Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit July 28, 1998 Also cited by 32 other opinions
• 1 reference to Doe v. Mortham, 708 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1998)
  Supreme Court of Florida March 19, 1998 Also cited by 22 other opinions
• 1 reference to Federal Election Commission v. Public Citizen, Inc, 268 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2001)
  Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Oct. 10, 2001 Also cited by 8 other opinions
• 1 reference to Majors v. Abell, 792 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. 2003)
  Indiana Supreme Court July 24, 2003 Also cited by 2 other opinions

I. Article I, § 9 of the Indiana Constitution

First, Ogden asserts that the IDOI defendants violated his right to free speech guaranteed by  Article I, section 9 of the Indiana Constitution. Art. I, § 9 specifies that “[n]o law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.” The IDOI defendants suggest that our standard of review of this issue should mirror the standard of review used to address violations of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as both relate to the protection of free speech. However, as we determined in Lach v. Lake County, 621 N.E.2d 357, 358 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied, which the IDOI defendants cite in support of their argument, “the Indiana Constitution more jealously protects freedom of speech guarantees than does the United States Constitution.”

Article 1, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution provides: "No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible." The right of free speech protected in Section 9 is "expressly qualified by the phrase `but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.'" J.D. v. State, 859 N.E.2d 341, 344 (Ind.2007).

Johnson v. State, 719 NE 2d 445 - Ind: Court of Appeals 1999

 Shoultz v. State, 735 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied

JOHNSON v. STATE (2001)  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/in-court-of-appeals/1194142.html

several of these section 9 cases were new to me.

Based on this premise, Indiana courts have employed a two-step analysis when addressing Art. I, § 9 claims. Blackman v. State, 868 N.E.2d 579, 584 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied. First, we must determine whether the state action has restricted a claimant's expressive activity. Id. at 584–85. Second, if it has, we must decide whether the claimant's restricted activity constituted an “abuse” of the right to speak. Id. at 585

However, if the expressive activity is political in nature, the State must demonstrate that it did not materially burden the claimant's opportunity to engage in political expression. Blackman, 868 N.E.2d at 585. “Expressive activity is political ... if its point is to comment on government action, whether applauding an old policy or proposing a new one, or opposing a candidate for office or criticizing the conduct of an official acting under the color of law.” 

In contrast, where an individual's expression focuses on the conduct of a private party—including the speaker himself or herself—it is not political.

Whittington, 669 N.E.2d at 1370. In contrast, where an individual's expression focuses on the conduct of a private party—including the speaker himself or herself—it is not political. Id. If the expression, viewed in context, is ambiguous, a reviewing court should find that the claimant has not established that it was political and should evaluate the constitutionality of any state-imposed restriction of the expression under a rationality review. Id.

Once a claimant succeeds in demonstrating that his or her expression was political, the State may demonstrate that its action did not impose a material burden on the expression if either the “magnitude of the impairment” was slight or the expression threatened to inflict “particularized harm” analogous to tortious injury on readily identifiable private interests. See id.

Because Ogden's speech was addressed to the State rather than a private individual and commented on the State actor's actions, we conclude that his speech was political.

ogden v  in ct app 2013