Senator Todd Young Phone: (812) 542-4820 Indiana Fax: (812) 542-4826 GENERAL Consent for Release of Personal Records by Executive Agencies Please complete and return to the following address: Senator Todd Young 3602 Northgate Ct., Suite 15 New Albany, IN 47150 *Name of Claimant: _____robbin george stewart__________________________________________________ (First) (M.I.) (Last) *Mailing Address: _______4015 e washington st indy in 46201_________________________________________________ (Street) ________________________________________________________ (City) (State) (Zip) *Home Phone: ___none_____________________Alternate Phone: __3177601277___________________ *Date of Birth: _______08 11 1960________________ Email: _____________________________ HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION: Does claimant have a spouse or dependent children? If so, please list names and ages: NA ________________________________________________________________________ IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: *Social Security: ____222 34 5483. this demand for my social security number, without a privacy act statement, is an apparent violation of the privacy act. not complaining, just thought you might want to know.____________________ Other ID Number: _______________________ CLAIM HISTORY: Has a claim already been filed? ____ Yes ____ No Date (or approximate date) claim filed: ________________________________________ What type of benefits have you applied for: _____________________________________ At which office did you apply? state department passport office______________________________________________ HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT US? ___Friend/Relative ___Social Media ___Website ___Mail _x__Elected Official ___Mobile Offices ___Town Hall ___Other Senator Todd Young Phone: (812) 542-4820 Indiana Fax: (812) 542-4826 Have you contacted any other elected officials about this problem? If yes, who? _____don't think so._________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ *BRIEFLY DESCRIBE PROBLEM OR INQUIRY: ___________applied for passport. got rejected for two reasons. 1, they don't like my signature, which is an x. 2. they are unhappy that i changed my name in 1979 as a teenager. no records currently exist of the name change. my previous passport, lost circa 1985, was in my current name.__________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ *PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR SENATOR YOUNG TO DO ON YOUR BEHALF (please print clearly): ______________________________________________________________________________two things, one easy, the other maybe more difficult. i would like to know my passport number. can't get them to tell me. have been asking for years. maybe they will tell you. second, i want help getting my passport. i have applied for it, sent in my driver's license, birth certificate, and fee, and believe i am entitled to it. if they continue to refuse to issue it, i at least want my money back. i cannot afford to pay something for nothing. although i think they are bluffing, they have been saying that as of october, they won't let me fly to hawaii without a passport, since indiana refuses to issue me a real ID. i also would like to get my passport to be able to vote in indiana. i have been denied the vote on about 7 occasions since the voter ID statute went in place in 2006. and i have been invited on a cruise to europe, but i can't go without a passport. that's the general idea. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ If you wish to authorize the release of information regarding your case to a relative or third party, please provide their names: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ I have sought assistance from Senator Young on a matter that may require the release of information maintained by your agency, and which you may be prohibited from disseminating under the Privacy Act of 1974. I hereby authorize Senator Todd Young, or any member of his staff, to work on my behalf with any Federal Agency involved in this case. Agencies may release any relevant information contained in my file/records, forward pertinent correspondence sent to me, or discuss issues relevant to my case, all of which may be used by the Senator’s office until the matter is resolved. I also affirm that the above information is accurate, to the best of my knowledge, under penalty of perjury. **SIGNATURE: ______x [that is my signature]_______________________________ DATE: _6/6/21____________ *Required Information Senator Todd Young Phone: (812) 542-4820 Indiana Fax: (812) 542-4826 GENERAL Consent for Release of Personal Records by Executive Agencies Please complete and return to the following address: Senator Todd Young 3602 Northgate Ct., Suite 15 New Albany, IN 47150 *Name of Claimant: _______________________________________________________ (First) (M.I.) (Last) *Mailing Address: ________________________________________________________ (Street) ________________________________________________________ (City) (State) (Zip) *Home Phone: ________________________Alternate Phone: _____________________ *Date of Birth: _______________________ Email: _____________________________ HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION: Does claimant have a spouse or dependent children? If so, please list names and ages: ________________________________________________________________________ IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: *Social Security: ________________________ Other ID Number: _______________________ CLAIM HISTORY: Has a claim already been filed? ____ Yes ____ No Date (or approximate date) claim filed: ________________________________________ What type of benefits have you applied for: _____________________________________ At which office did you apply? ______________________________________________ HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT US? ___Friend/Relative ___Social Media ___Website ___Mail ___Elected Official ___Mobile Offices ___Town Hall ___Other Senator Todd Young Phone: (812) 542-4820 Indiana Fax: (812) 542-4826 Have you contacted any other elected officials about this problem? If yes, who? ______________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ *BRIEFLY DESCRIBE PROBLEM OR INQUIRY: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ *PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR SENATOR YOUNG TO DO ON YOUR BEHALF (please print clearly): ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ If you wish to authorize the release of information regarding your case to a relative or third party, please provide their names: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ I have sought assistance from Senator Young on a matter that may require the release of information maintained by your agency, and which you may be prohibited from disseminating under the Privacy Act of 1974. I hereby authorize Senator Todd Young, or any member of his staff, to work on my behalf with any Federal Agency involved in this case. Agencies may release any relevant information contained in my file/records, forward pertinent correspondence sent to me, or discuss issues relevant to my case, all of which may be used by the Senator’s office until the matter is resolved. I also affirm that the above information is accurate, to the best of my knowledge, under penalty of perjury. **SIGNATURE: _____________________________________ DATE: _____________ *Required Information

wednesday

missed lawyer zoom. to do: email mark small.

shopping list: raisins. bread. cider? x insulin cocoa.? order online. or check shelves at acme.

x what else? call tommy.

x/2 work on those disclaimer emails. check email.

did: figured out how to print at ups. printed letter to kathy jennings. biked to ups, picked up documents. mailed 1 copy to home address, one copy to campaign office. should make another copy to snailmail to office address. took about an hour. 1.0 hours june 2 2021. $1.40 in printing and postage. involved research to find her home and campaign address, since she is not responding to documents sent to office address. objective was to make sure she has requisite personal involvement. next steps: either work on letter to senator kyle gay, or go get a cider across the street. put off till tomorrow: pay $1000 5th 3rd credit card bill. just spent 1 hour on hold at 5th 3rd. 2nd time this month. so pissed. never got through to a human.

thursday

took out trash, paid $600 pnc credit card.

next task 5th 3rd.

friday

x saturday: 11:37 covid vaccine riteaid

ups store print off passport stuff for senator young's office. work on letter re passport.

bread, raisins, envelopes.

monday:

did:

called taxi for mom. garage light.

paid $1040 electric bill.

to do

senator young letter re passport. did first draft. tomorrow, print, sign, look for fax machine.

buy a van

pay bill at 5th 3rd if they'll ever answer their phone

what else?

taxes.

clean room and basement.

x groceries/look for that box. envelopes?

to do: file ethics complaint against albence.

same, to county prosecutor

same, to fbi

same, to department of justice

ag's office of naughtiness. might have a form.

cc the governor.

so for tuesday,

1, x dentist

2. clean room and garage

x 3. fax senator young.

5. x 5th 3rd.

x 6. jury questionaire.

x 7. draft letter to delaware legislators re sign case.

posted about it at reddit, had discussions with lawyers and laypeople. 1.0 hours, 10:20 pm.

"Both the Delaware and Federal Constitutions have enshrined the right to speak," a quote from a 2019 chancery case. it is now 9:46 pm, and i've worked at least 1.0 hours today, mostly composing an email to the state attorney general, cc'ing my state senator. still at it at 10:00 pm. looked up home address. next step should be an email to that senator. so lets say it was 1.25 hours. tomorrow tasks: go to ups, print out that letter, send it to her campaign office Checks can be mailed to: P.O. Box 1077 Wilmington, DE 19801 - kathy jennings campaign address 121 School Rd Wilmington, De 19803 possible home address? confirmed. monday: pay electric bil in full.

Where should you put the disclaimer on a website or social media page? The disclaimer should be on the homepage of the website or social media page. The disclaimer does not need to be on each page of the website. On a Facebook page, the disclaimer should be in the banner picture for the site or in the About section. What are size requirements for the disclaimer? For written communications Suite 190  Centennial Office Building  658 Cedar Street  St. Paul, MN 55155-1603 651-539-1180  800-657-3889  Fax 651-539-1196  800-357-4114  cf.board@state.mn.us For TTY/TDD communication, contact us through the Minnesota Relay Service at 800-627-3529

8:02 may 21 2021 8:37 so 30 minutes. 8:58 pm.















100 questions for the delaware elections commissioner under public records law. 1. name

2. dob.? 3. education? 4 employment? - history - current when did you choose the dark side? [do not use.] 6 did you swear to uphold the state constitution? when and why? 7 did you swear to uphold the federal constitution? when and why? 8 what is swearing? 9 how much were you paid by the state of delaware? 10 what are your assets? 11 do you have employees who work under you? with you? over you? 12 do you supervise and train any of these people? what are their names and job titles? 13 have you conspired to violate civil rights with any of these people? 14 when how and why? 15. did you conspire with the state attorney general? 16. or her office? 17. have you read any or all of talley, mcintyre, opinion of the justices 1974, tornillo, wooley, buckley v. aclf, barnette? reno v aclu? marbury v madison? 18. stewart v taylor, anonymous v delaware? 19. do you understand the difference between right and wrong? 20.are you a moral person? 21. you know the difference between right and wrong? 22, naacp v alabama ex rel patterson 1958,bates v little rock 1960 talley v california 1960. 23. are you a racist? jim crow? 24. when it comes to margaret mcintyre, are you a sexist? 25. from a moral point of view, was the court right or wrong in how it decided mcintyre? 26 what was the question presented in mcintyre? 27 how much was the fine against mcintyre? 28 how many people did she conspire with, at a minimum? 29 how much was the fine against talley? 30 is there a right of privacy under the state constitution? 31 do you feel that people have rights? 32 do you feel that people sometimes have moral duties toward other people? 33 do you attend a church at least monthly? 34. do you oppose the right of privacy set out in roe v wade? 35. do you oppose the right of privacy under the state constitution? 36. where are your offices? 37. what is your job title? 38. pay grade? 39. who appoints you? 40. how can you be fired if there is cause? 41. what are your training procedures? is there any kind of training manual? describe the section on rights under the state constitution. 42. what is your supervision process? 43. do you have oral or written policies in regard to the state constitution? 44. if yes provide copies. 45. how much money do your employees make? specific each breakdown. estimated total or subtotal. 46. describe how this policy has been implemented. 47. were there complaints? 48. was anyone fined? was anyone threatened by letter with a fine? 49. did you have any process in place to review your policies for constitutionality? 50 do you concur?

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), Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540, sustained on other grounds146 F.3d 558 (8th Cir 1998), 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) 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), 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,

§ 3. Free and equal elections. Section 3. All elections shall be free and equal. § 4. Trial by jury. Section 4. Trial by jury shall be as heretofore. § 5. Freedom of press and speech; evidence in libel prosecutions; jury questions. Section 5. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man. The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of persons acting in a public capacity; and any citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications, investigating the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels the jury may determine the facts and the law, as in other cases. § 6. Searches and seizures. Section 6. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as particularly as may be; nor then, unless there be probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. § 7. Procedural rights in criminal prosecutions; jury trial; self-incrimination; deprivation of life, liberty or property. Section 7. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath a right to be heard by himself or herself and his or her counsel, to be plainly and fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her, to meet the witnesses in their examination face to face, to have compulsory process in due time, on application by himself or herself, his or her friends or counsel, for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor, and a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; he or she shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself or herself, nor shall he or she be deprived of life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his or her peers or by the law of the land. § 8. Prosecution by indictment or information; double jeopardy; just compensation for property. Section 8. No person shall for any indictable offense be proceeded against criminally by information, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger; and no person shall be for the same offense twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any person's property be taken or applied to public use without the consent of his or her representatives, and without compensation being made. § 9. Courts shall be open; remedy for injury; suits against State. Section 9. All courts shall be open; and every person for an injury done him or her in his or her reputation, person, movable or immovable possessions, shall have remedy by the due course of law, and justice administered according to the very right of the cause and the law of the land, without sale, denial, or unreasonable delay or expense. Suits may be brought against the State, according to such regulations as shall be made by law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_elections_law § 21. Equal Rights. Section 21. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, national origin, or sex. WE DECLARE THAT EVERYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE IS RESERVED OUT OF THE GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT HEREINAFTER MENTIONED.

talley v california manual talley civil rights bill of 2022 section **** is deleeted. mcintosh governs this case. this case is a cow, not a calf. citizens united is readily distinguashable, and does not govern here. buckley v aclf victoria buckley v american countitutional law foundation. watchtower v stratton town of gilbert v vincent aid v open society institute















nifla v becerra janus JANUS v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET Al. 2018. June 27, 2018 The First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids abridgment of the



8 JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES Opinion of the Court freedom of speech. We have held time and again that freedom of speech “includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714 (1977); see Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 796–797 (1988); Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539, 559 (1985); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 256–257 (1974); accord, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 9 (1986) (plurality opinion). The right to eschew association for expressive purposes is likewise protected. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 623 (1984) (“Freedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate”); see Pacific Gas & Elec., supra, at 12 (“[F]orced associations that burden protected speech are impermissible”). As Justice Jackson memorably put it: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943) (emphasis added).




Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 69 (2006) (recognizing that government may not “impose penalties or withhold benefits based on membership in a disfavored group” where doing so “ma[kes] group membership less attractive”). T






6:34 pm sunday may 16th 2021 tornillo v miami herald wooley v maynard riley v federation of the blind. opinion of the justices 1974 (DE). elections free and equal clause state constitution free press clause first amendment - free press clause first amendment free speech clause first amendment petition clause state constitution due course of law clause. 14th amendment due process clause. 14th amendment p & i clause 14th amendment equal protection clause. 6:06 pm sunday 6 14 pause. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware DC Florida Guam Peurto Rico Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Stewart contends that this case is controlled by McIntyre. Stewart is correct." Stewart v Taylor, cite 953 F.Supp.2d 1047 (S.D.Ind 1997.) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17152374949245405747&hl=en&as_sdt=2,23&as_vis=1 Table of cases ACLF, Buckley v. American Con. Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) 5, 6 ACLU v Heller, 378 F3d 979 (9th cir. 2004) 12 Anonymous v Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000) 1 Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540 (W.D.Ark 1998), sustained on other grounds 146 F.3d 558 (8th Cir 1998) 12 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U.S. 652 (1990) Barnette, West Virginia State Board of Education v., 319 U.S. 624 (1943) 6,7 Bates v Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960) 8 Belloti, First National Bank of Boston v, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) 2, 4, 5, 11, 15 Broadrick v Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) 9 Broward Coalition v Browning, http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/ first_amendment/florida/order_prelim_injunction.pdf. 3, 9, 10, 11 Brumsickle, Human Life of Wash.Inc. v., 624 F.3d 990, (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1477 (2011) 5 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) 10 Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012) 5 Citizens Aganst Rent Control v Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981) 13, 15 Citizens for Responsible Gov't State PAC v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, (10th Cir. 2000) 12 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) 2-5, 8, 11, 12, 15 Doe v Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998) 5, 11, 12, 14, FEC v Public Citizen, 268 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2001) 2, 4 Hansen v Westerville School District, 43 F.3d 1472 (1994) 13, 14 Majors v Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind. 2003), 361 F.2d 349 (7th Cir 2004) 1 McConnell v FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) 9 Estate of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com’n, 514 U.S. 334, 355 (1995) 1-8, 10, 12, 15 Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864, 875 (8th Cir. 2012) (en banc) 5 NAACP v Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) 7 Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee I, 649 F.3d 34, (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1635 (2012) 5 Nat’l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. McKee II, 669 F.3d 34, (1st Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 163 (2012) 5 Red Lion v. FCC, 395 U.S 367 (1969) 8 Reno v ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) 9 Riley v Nat’l.Fed’n of the Blind, 487 U.S 781 (1988) 6 Salerno, U.S v., 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 8 Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247, (10th Cir. 2010) 3 ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995), 12 Smithers v. Florida Elections Commission, No. 96-5705 (Fla. 2nd Cir., July 17, 1998) 5 Stewart v Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (1997) 1 Survival Ed. Fund, FEC v., 65 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 1995) 5 Talley v California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 Tornillo v. Miami Herald, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) 6 United States v. Playboy Ent. Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816 (2000) 11 Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, (2d Cir. 2000) 12 Washington State Grange, 552 U.S _ (2008) 9 Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York City v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, (2002) 6, 11 Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) 6 John Peter Zenger, Crown v., (1735) paused * 6:50 [13] But see Majors v. Abell, 361 F.3d 349, 356-57 (7th Cir.2004) (Easterbrook, J., dubitante). i, well my case, am, is, mentioned in citizens united. not the main case, but an earlier ruling. 7:02 pm sunday may 16 2021

utrillo 1927

7:32 wednesday may 12. goal: 1-2 hours on the case. now 9:07, so that's 1 hr 35 minutes call it 1.5x235= 350. 9:27 pm. .9:36. so 2.0 hours. may 12. 235x2= $ 470. possible next steps draft complaint draft subpoenas draft letter to ethics board requests for stipulations of fact and law. draft only do not file. complaint: section 8081 whatever is unconstitutional under both constitutions. caption needed in the chancery court of new castle county delaware anonymous v delaware, et al. state of delaware, new castle county, director of elections in official capacity, director of elections in personal capacity complaint for declaratory relief, damages, injunction, parties jurisdiction venue facts law claims relief complaint for declaratory relief, damages, injunction, parties plaintiff is john doe aka anonymous, is a person who wishes to put up signs that do not comply with the disclaimer statute. under rule 10, a motion is filed herewith to proceed under a fictitious name the first, and named, defendant is the state of delaware. it can be sued under the state declaratory judgment act. the state is not a person under 1983, but is sued as a matter of state law for declaratory relief. the second defendant is new castle county, and its chief election officer in her official capacity (only), per Monell. the third defendant is the state director of elections, in his personal and official capacities. name. the 4th defendant is the state attorney general, who is sued in official capacity, and in personal capacity for $1, for possibly conspiring with d3, if she had or has the requisite personal awareness. the 5th through 10th john doe defendants are any employees of d3 who conspired with him to carry out the unconstitutional statute and policy. jurisdiction. the chancery court has jurisdiction to address issues under the declaratory judgment act. anonymous v delaware 2000. the chancery court has concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims and 42 usc 1983. the dispute is justiciable, in that it is ripe, live, with standing, and remedy. venue venue is proper in new castle county delaware, where at least some defendants do business. facts a state statute prohibits citizens from putting up signs that say "vote for smith", if the value of the signs exceed $500. plaintiff wishes to put up such signs. plaintiff has been chilled from participating in the 2020 and 2021 elections, but wishes to participate in the fall elections in 2021. law The point of law at issue has been well established since 1960. Barnette in 1940 first announced a right to remain silent. the 1735 case of zenger v state was about the right to publish anonymously, and inspired the first amendment. During the civil rights era, three cases, NAACP v Alabama, Bates v Little Rock, and Talley v California, established a first amendment right of privacy and a freedom of association. Talley held that disclaimer ordinances are unconstitutional. It is binding here. In 1974, the delaware supreme court ruled on the right to anonymity of the ediorial page of the news journal, construing both the state constitution and the first amendment. That decision is binding on delaware courts. The state constitution also contains a free and equal elections section. Elections are not free where signs reading "Vote for Smith" are deemed unlawful. Elections are not equal where signs reading vote for smith are deemed unlawful. [It is content based discrimination, and must receive strict scrutiny.] this may be a case of first impression. Buckley v ACLF, Watchtower v Stratton, McIntyre v Ohio, Wooley v Maynard, Riley v Federation of the Blind, Tornillo v. Miami Herald, Janus, Becerra v NIFLA, AID v Open Society, each stand for the proposition that government may not compel speech. In or about 2013 the delaware elections board began enforcing a new version of the disclaimer statute. An unknown number of fines or threats of fines have followed. It is unethical, illegal, tortious, and morally wrong for delaware officials to be attempting to enforce the void statute. Beginning in 2020, shortly before the election, counsel for plaintiff wrote to d3 discussing the disclaimer rules. No reply was received until 2021. There followed a series of letters, exhibits 1-5. D3 refused to issue a formal opinion when requested, but replied that the statute would be enforced. The state attorney general refused to issue an opinion. claims the policy violates the free speech and press provisions of the delaware constitution. the policy violates the free and equal elections clause. the policy violates the first and 14th amendment, as construed by the delaware supreme court in 1974, and the united states supreme court in 1960, 1972, 1995, 1999, 2019. the policy violates 42 usc 1983 et seq on the basis of the first amendment violation. relief sought: plaintiff seeks a declaration that the statute is void, and cannot be enforced against him or her, damages as determined by a jury as against d3 and does 5-10. damages of $1 against the attorney general, that the statute be temporarily and permanently enjoined that d's be enjoined from retaliation, for legal fees and costs, for all other such relief as is in the interests of justice. motion for temporary injunction comes now plaintiff by counsel and for their motion for temporary injunctive relief states as follows. Injunctive relief weighs 4 factors, the likelihood of success on the merits, the burden on d's versus the burden on p's, redressibility, public interest. Here each factor favors movant. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the success of the merits of their first amendment claim, in that binding state and federal authority compels such an outcome. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the succeess of the merits of their state constitutional free speech claim, given the binding authority from 1974. Plaintiffs may or may not prevail on their free and equal elections claim, for which there is little or no controlling precedent. The burden on d's is minimal. No legitimate state interest is advanced by censorship of campaign signs. They need only go about their usual business. The burden on plaintiffs is intangible, but real. Elrod v Burns. They have been prevented from putting up signs in 2020 and 2021. Damages will only partially compensate for their injuries. A declaratory judgment from this court should redress the problem, since it is likely the election department would follow a court ruling, at least in the short term. The public interest is strong in a robust flow of election speech, unimpeded by unconstitutional censorship policies. Miller v ACLU of GA. Therefore, a temporary injunction should issue, later to be made permanent. draft letter to ethics board TO: the delaware ethics board: It has come to my attention that a state official, the elections department head, is engaged in unconstitutional censorship of political speech. this creates an appearance of impropriety, and thus is within the purview of your board. his policy of compelling speech on campaign signs violates the first amendment and the state constitution. his actions are on the one hand compelled by statute, but on the other hand prohibited by both of the constitutions he swore to uphold. in 1960 the supreme court ended california's jim crow policy of making black men identify themselves on fliers or face a $10 fine. later in 1995 margaret mcintyre resisted a $100 fine. woman are more vulnerable to threats and retaliation when their home address must be posted along with their message. disclaimer policies discriminate against and chill the speech of women, as well as minorities. the court has addressed the rights of anonymous petitioners in colorado, jehovah's witnesses in ohio, blind fundraisers, newspaper editorial pages, new hampshire license plates. each time in these cases the court has sided with free speech against censorship. when this situation goes to court, it could cost the state money and reputation. d3 could have limited his liability / culpability by requesting an attorney general opinion, given that the previous one is outdated in light of cases such as becerra, janus, aid, and the upcoming thomas more institute case, but refused to do so. offer consent decree. d's agree to stop enforcing the statute, and to stop communicating threats of enforcement. d's agree to pay x in costs and fees. d's agree to pay y in damages.

saturday did wine. sale of wine $9. bootlegging. fnb 6 boxes. left 2 dishes. gardening. bought 4 ties, something. $7. drove around, past winterthur, hokessin. found 2 drums, a symbol. a drummer's stool. a metal thing. more metal. sunday +$70 sold some items. Have you heard this rule? I before E, except after C — or when sounded like A as in 'neighbor' and 'weigh' Then my coworker shared this doozy! I before E...except in a zeitgeist of feisty counterfeit heifer protein freight heists reining in weird deified beige beings and their veiny and eidetic atheist foreign schlockmeister neighbors, either aweigh with feigned absenteeism, seized by heightened heirloom forfeitures (albeit deigned under a kaleidoscope ceiling weighted by seismic geisha keister sleighs) or leisurely reimbursing sovereign receipt or surveillance of eight veiled and neighing Rottweilers, herein referred to as their caffeinated sheik's Weimaraner poltergeist wieners from the Pleiades.

§ 5806. Code of conduct. (a) Each state employee, state officer and honorary state official shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that such state employee, state officer or honorary state official is engaging in acts which are in violation of the public trust and which will not reflect unfavorably upon the State and its government. 3) The Commission shall report to appropriate federal and state authorities substantial evidence of any criminal violation which may come to its attention; and (1) Issue a written reprimand or censure of that person’s conduct.

877-887-0273 5th 3rd. paid $500 on electric bill. got extension. initiating dispute we reconnect fee. service was shut off without the warning call they promised. the operator i spoke to today at first volunteered to remove the reconnect fee, but then after speaking with her supervisor refused to do so, because this is april and it happened in february. that is not a valid reason t charge me a feee i do not owe, because they failed in their promise to send me an alert befotre disconnecting service. DISCONNECTIONS Consumer complaints filed via this website may experience a brief delay in processing. If your service is subject to disconnection or has already been disconnected, it is highly recommended that you call our Consumer Affairs Division at 317-232-2712 or 1-800-851-4268. Our analysts are available from 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., Monday through Friday (EST/EDT). list for friday did: not much. emailed election division requesting public records. might have emailed department of justice with a question about sunshine law, whether i can or cant get names of employees at dmv location. intentionally skipped plasma. got 1000 meaningless reddit points. brought in trash bins. did not go to winterthur.

skip plasma.

letters to write:


passport


state senator and david sokola, david finger.

timeline bmv, write bmv.

what else?

write or call grand poobah.

pay off 5th 3rd

electric bill!



https://hancockcoingov.org/hancock-county-indiana-jobs Now Hiring Intimate Partner Violence Deputy Prosecutor DEADLINE TO APPLY: 4/6/21 SALARY RANGE: $70,000 JOB DESCRIPTION: This Deputy Prosecutor will prosecute domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking offenders. Primary responsibilities include: researching and drafting legal documents, court appearances, reviewing cases submitted by law enforcement for potential criminal charges, filing new cases, preparing and presenting cases at trial (both bench trials and jury trials), collaboration and communication with Victim Advocate and Survivor(s), frequent contact with medical professionals and treatment providers, and representation of the Prosecutor’s Office in various professional groups. Will be expected to meet and consult regularly with Law Enforcement, Courts, Probation/Parole Officers, Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault professionals, school corporations, and community agencies serving Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Survivors. This position requires active participation in Coordinated Community Response Team and the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART). Some speaking engagements and public appearances will be assigned. Must uphold strict standards of confidentiality. Collaboration with the Prosecutor and other employees of the Prosecutor’s Office will be essential for success. Expected to assist in maintaining grant funding for this program. This position will require occasional work on the weekends and before/after normal business hours, and may require travel for training purposes. JOB REQUIREMENTS: Baccalaureate Degree and Juris Doctorate from an accredited Law School; active and in good standing with the Indiana Bar. Minimum of two years litigation experience, preferably with criminal cases. Ability to effectively and efficiently communicate orally and in writing. Ability to be tactful professional in all communications, understanding that this position requires frequent contact with a diverse group of individuals. Competence in public interactions during stressful situations, and ability to make difficult decisions. Must show willingness to establish and maintain positive working relationships with colleagues, in and out of the office, experts, and the general public. Ability to operate a computer, maintain accurate and organized files, and prepare detailed reports as required. Must possess skills to work autonomously on multiple tasks, and work with other team members. Employee must demonstrate compliance and understanding of all employer and department policies, procedures, and rules, including, but not limited to: attendance, safety, drug-free work environment, and personal conduct. PREFERENCES: Residency in Hancock, County or willingness to relocate to Hancock County Experience working with Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence and/or Sexual Assault Willingness to assist with grant writing Position is currently available. Interested candidates should submit a cover letter and resume to Brent Eaton at mpoppino@hancockcoingov.org.

to kyle gay evans it was nice to bump into you on saturday at brandywine high school. in this letter i'm going to expand on some of what we discussed. I have asked for your help in requesting a delaware attorney general oinion as to the constitutionality of the political sign disclaimer law. You had concerns about your standing to make the request. I have three answers to that. First, unlike a court case, you don't need standing to ask a question of the AG. Giving advice to the legislative or executive branches is part of their function. Second, you have standing in your own right. In your election last year, you put out signs that had the disclaimer. You plan to run again and have more signs. it has recently come to your attention that the sign statute may be unconstitutional under the delaware constituion and first amendment. 3rd, you have been approached by a constituent to sponsor a bill to repeal the statute on the basis that it is void. therefor you would like an ago to inform your decision.. the text of the request could be 1. does [statute] violate the right to free speech under the delaware constition, in light of opinion of the justices 1974, which held the news journal has the right to run anonymous editorials? 2. does statute violate the right to free and equal elections under the delaware constitution? 3. does statute violate first amendment, in light of cases including nifla v becerra, janus, aid v open society, thomas more institute v bonta, anonymous v delaware, etc.? if you do make such a request, please let me know so i can provide the ag's office with briefing.

plasma +60. dollar store 13 amazon book 9.

to do sunday

write to kyle gay evans, dave sokola.

go over old list, make new list

1. put away laundry

unload van

4. buy cheeses, plants? something else, i forget what.

bamboo sample from allen tract. how to cut?

2. x oddporium

3. x arden grubb graves. add location to finda grave

6. draft of complaint in sign case

timeline of bmv dispute



7. call tommy

8. pay box rent can i do it online?

9. pay electric bill



look for american express appication



i think i am having a niacin reaction from energy rink i just drank.



10 cash count. $441.

there is a study in st louis i can screen for. may 15th 23. $2900. 314-528-2220 Ex 1012 they also have one for $1000. i screen monday 5/3. so i can go to indy sunday or saturday night.

pra utah $4500 1 week. dates unknown.

call celerion. i just missed a $14,000, screens tomorrow. find out if i can screen or am banned. laptop problem.

pay toll bill

pay electric bill and p o box rent.

american airlines dispute.

Public entities must respond to requests as soon as possible. If records cannot be provided within 15 business days, the entity must respond with an explanation and an estimate of when the records will be available. According to Section 10003:[1] “ The public body shall respond to a FOIA request as soon as possible, but in any event within 15 business days after the receipt thereof, either by providing access to the requested records, denying access to the records or parts of them, or by advising that additional time is needed because the request is for voluminous records, requires legal advice, or a record is in storage or archived. If access cannot be provided within 15 business days, the public body shall cite 1 of the reasons hereunder why more time is needed and provide a good-faith estimate of how much additional time is required to fulfill the request.[2] ”

Alternatively, here is the telephone number of the Lambda Legal Help Desk nearest you: National Headquarters: 212-809-8585

Individuals who have cause to believe that the Bureau of Consular Affairs may have records pertaining to him or her should write to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100. The individual must specify that he/she wishes the records of the Bureau of Consular Affairs to be checked. At a minimum, the individual must include: name; date and place of birth; current mailing address and zip code; signature; and other information helpful in identifying the record. Any persons interested in commenting on the amended system of records may do so by writing to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Fischer, Acting Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100, or at Privacy@state.gov. SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), k(4), and (k)(5), certain records contained within this system of records may be exempt from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I) and (f). [FR Doc. 2016-21645 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 minutes per response, including the time required for searching existing data sources, gathering the necessary data, providing the information and/or documentation required, and reviewing the final collection. You do not have to supply this information unless this collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. If you have comments on the accuracy of this burden estimate and/or recommendations for reducing it, please send them to: Passport Forms Management Officer, U.S. Department of State, Office of Program Management and Operational Support, 2201 C Street N.W., Washington, DC 20520. Constituent Spotlight Charles from Madison County, has been experiencing difficulties with receiving his rightful reimbursement from the federal government. After meeting with my office, we were able to correct this problem for him and he was able to receive $2,795 dollars in back pay. If you or someone you know is experiencing difficulties please reach out to my office or visit my website.https://www.young.senate.gov/help Social Media Recap - senator todd young. https://www.young.senate.gov/help/help-with-a-federal-agency did:called passport office, they refuse to give me my passport number, but person i spoke with suggested i send a letter, so i could work on that next. NPIC@state.gov.

If a recent letter writer is “sick of Democrats’ … lies about voting ID” then I equally say I am sick of anyone demanding unnecessary mandates for personal IDs at polling sites. It’s simply a technique to dissuade and intimidate voters. I’m 75 years old, have voted in every election since 1967, and never had to show an ID at any polling place. I’ve registered new voters for years. Each registration is sent to and formalized by county clerks and validated when placing the name and address on voting rolls. When checking in to vote all one needs is confirmation of that name and address matching what the county clerk has officiated. And the writer’s claim that Democrats are racists by citing Reconstruction is blindly abrogating progress toward racial equality and social justice that occurred in the 20th century by leaders like FDR, LBJ, JFK, RFK, and many others. Learn accurate history. – Susan Stuart, Santa Cruz The Sentinel welcomes your letters to the editor. Letters should be short, no more than 150 words. We do not accept anonymous letters. Letter-writers should include their full name as well as a street address and telephone number. We don’t publish those details in the newspaper, but need the information for verification purposes. Occasionally, we reject letters simply because we’ve had so many on the same subject. Submit your letters online at www.santacruzsentinel.com/submit-letters.

thursday

mail box to hawaii 1/2

plant seeds

x hose off rugs

sort garage boxes, take out trash, go to fnb

x cash check/deposit. chase maybe.

deposited 1400, paid off card balance. need to pay 5th 3rd $900.

cheese at zebleys

$44 gas. 270 miles. 2.65/gallon. 16 1/2 gallons, so i wasn't dry.

$8 vermouth. found a bit of scrap metal.

scrap run. auction run. clean, sort, room. stuff to closets or upstairs.

tonight fnb.

paid water bill $200.

to do pay bills. toll and tickets. paid wilmington ticket. $140.

x to do take 1 more cle class.

respond to emails. make timeline of emails:

bmv, sign case.

pay bills. x tickets, tolls. review tax filing. write down numbers from 1099s. see if tax act doc needs updating. tomorrow is the 15th.

call tommy

email mark small

make better list

write list on whiteboard

x make a comic



x vermouth

pay po box.











to do get cradle



soak rug in ydrogen peroxide

call tommy.

https://417studies.com/study/36421/ wednesday call qrs in missouri for group 2 waitlist $10k study.

this is a test. if it works, that will be a link to jack luna's book at amazon. did not work.

monday: did:

3 errands for mom. pizza groceries pills nail scissors

cheese price dispute at acme, got them written up by the state.

sorted boxes from van

sent tommy $10 so he can check my mail.

mostly didnt do much.

made a list









to do:

x 3. deposit mom check $500

2. pay electric bill. online?

x 1. order blue box of tips. using amazon code.

4. pay water bill, maybe taxes, to max out new card.

nebraska

5. make to do list for delaware sign lawsuit.

rough out complaint.

letter to election board members.

lie list.

evasion list: questions they have not yet answered.

time spent list. billing note 9:00-9:21 3/29/21 working on trial notebook and complaint.

to do

mail mirror to hawaii.

x mail drawing to statute of liberty museum.

did saturday paid $425 on pnc credit card for 4015 taxes.



watched about 5 1/2 hours of CLE.

11 boxes of food to fnb and a plate of cookies. filled van with bags and bags of cookies and crackers.

checked cheese price at trolley square acme.

to do: make timeline of bmv dispute. when first visit? when title VI complaint? when public records request? photography policy? goals for today: at least one more cle. call tommy. smoke. dinner. package for tommy.

make bed

did: backpack, dewalt case, scrap. sherry $12.





nebraska

5. make to do list for delaware sign lawsuit.

rough out complaint.

letter to election board members. To: Delaware Election Board members: From: Robbin Stewart, esq. Date: 4/5/21 Re: Unconstitutionality of Delaware's disclaimer statute. In 1960,the Supreme Court rules that disclaimer statutes are unconstitutional, in Talley v California. That case arose out of the civil rights movement, and established a right of privacy under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld this right at least ten times since then, most recently in 2019 [look up becerra]. In 1974, the Delaware Supreme Court similarly ruled that under the state constitution, the state could not order the News Journal to identify who writes an editorial. In Re Opinion of the Justices 1974.There is a right of privacy under the free speech provisions of the state constitution, and this case remains controlling today. In 2000,I was counsel in Anonymous v Delaware, which sought to get Delaware's disclaimer statute declared unconstitutional by the Chancery Court. The Attorney General told the court that they agreed the statute was unconstitutional, pointing to their attorney general opinion which so held, so there was no dispute, so the court dismissed the case without a formal decision on the merits. The plaintiff in that case was Scott Huminsky, who was later awarded $900,000 in a case about political signs in Vermont, represented not by me but by Robert Corn-Revere. In 2012, the legislature amended the disclaimer statute in minor ways that do not affect the case; it still unconstitutionally requires a disclaimer on political signs. In 2013, the Attorney General issued a new Attorney General Opinion (AGO) this time saying that the statute was constitutional. That opinion did not mention Talley or Opinion of the Justices or Anonymous v Delaware, and appears not to have been written in good faith. In 2020 shortly before the election I learned about the new statute and wrote to the election division concerning the problem. In 2021 I formally requested a ruling by the election division as to the enforcability of the unconstitutional statute. The director has refused to do so, but indicates he intends to enforce the state, and refuses to ask the attorney general for a new ruling in light of the more recent cases again holding disclaimer rules unconstitutional (nifla v becerra) or that government may not compel speech (janus, see also masterpiece bakeshop, decided on other grounds.) I am unclear exactly how the election responsibilities are split up between the director and the board. In 1997, when I successfully sued Indiana for its unconstitutional disclaimer, we added the members of the state board as defendants at the request of the judge. Stewart v Taylor (1997). I writing to you for several reasons. First, to put you on notice that we have a problem. The election division is attempting to enforce a void unconstitutional statute. This is criminal, tortious, unethical, shameful, and misfeasance in office, as well as bad policy. It is not clear to me at this early stage whether the Board has the requisite personal involvement to be sued in your personal capacities, if it gets to that point. Second, I am seeking your help in requesting from the delaware attorney general a new AGO, in light of the new controlling case law which supercedes the erroneous 2013 opinion. As a private citizen, I will get ignored if I ask for one. As a member of the board, if you request an opinion from the attorney general, they are almost certain to respond. If they provide an honest opinion, admitting the statute is void and unenforcable, that will satisfy my concerns and avoid the need for litigation, although I will continue to look into how to proceed about the current misconduct by the director. Alternatively we can litigate. Maybe not immediately; I would have to find local counsel, seek admission pro hoc vice, prepare documents, etc., but that would be the path forward. billing note 11 pm - 12 saturday april 3. drafting letter to election board. 12:04 4/4/21. first draft.

main video would not post, too large. it is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ5y14GXfmg&ab_channel=arbivark

James A Sterling's Delaware Voter Registration Claymont, Delaware James A Sterling (born 1947) is listed at 210 S Avon Dr Claymont, De 19703 election board member to do send him the disclaimer lawsuit info. Hal Schneikert haroldschneikert@comcast.net. hal schneikert WARFIELD-WALKER, KIM 14 CALDWELL CT 14 CALDWELL CT DOVER , DE 19901 DOVER, DE 19901 26792 Kaye Rd Barbara A Sikora Age 69 (302) 628-2823 Sikora Barbara is the license holder registered here. The ZIP code for this address is 19956 and the postal code suffix is 2606. Sharon A. Williams-Mayo 340 Clayton Manor Dr Middletown, DE 19709 Sharon Williams-Mayo earned $2,000 in 2019 at State Election Commissioner John Pasquale, Jr. President of the State of Delaware Board of Elections PS-7 Central Intelligence Agency Feb 1975 - Aug 19838 years 7 months John N Pasquale Jr., (302) 994-7498, 13 Alfred Ave, Wilmington, DE ... John N and Karen K Pasquale Jr | 13 Alfred Av, Elsmere, DE 19805

saturday happy spring

$25 hemp

$5 soup

$25 dinner for mom, reimbursed culinaria

found 4 boxes. took 8 boxes to fnb.

paid $1000 on 5th 3rd credit card from pnc.

made a pipe.

looked for my dad's grave didnt find it. to do go to that thrift shop by my dad's grave.

wrote re cheese price acme

bought a comic book rameb cook book $16.

friday to do: 1. reddit lawyer find, send message ,
,
x laundry
,
taxes
,
cles
,
look for plasma card. sort car?
,
alaska disclaimer

flowerpots
,
wilmington parking ticket


,
stop smoking book from amazon with code
,
makes notes for nebraska
,
did
,
x plasma
,
x title vi issue
,
x cheese issue. bought cheese, sent photo, sent email.
,
x laundry. swept cobwebs. sorted fnb. pitaya.

made bed.

comment replyCan a lawyer practice in every state in the USA or do they have to obtain a licence in each state they choose to practice? from CupBeEmpty via /r/AskAnAmerican sent 2 hours ago show parent Well if you need Norther New England or RI, I can ask around. I definitely know some folks in RI that might be interested in testing out some con law stuff, and they are all probably also barred in MA too. contextfull comments (97)reportblock usermark unreadreply

(i) A reporting party who violates § 8021 of this title shall be assessed a fine by the Commissioner of $500 or 25% of the cost of the campaign advertisement subject thereto, whichever is greater. § 8043. Violations; penalties; jurisdiction in Superior Court. billing note tuesday march 16, 7:30-8:30 pm, research state disclaimer statutes, researched delaware enforcement provisions for disclaim statute, result: $500 fine or 25% of expenditure, whichever greater. plan for wednesday: plasma bmv ant bait, what else? zoom meeting. email jill.

tuesday. paid $100 on 5th 3rd. owe $800 need to call to pay by check or could wait for new card to come. filed title VI complaint w deldot re bmv. next: groceries, ride bike, fedex for printout, dmv for did: groceries. fedex. scanned and sent signature. ordered dinner. off to go get dinner.

https://elections.delaware.gov/pdfs/901Regulation.pdf 7.0 etc is the sign regulations/disclaimer regulations. it's a pdf so i cant cut and paste to here. here's the statute: 15 § 8021. Identification of purchaser. (a) All campaign advertisements having a fair market value of $500 or more, except printed items with a surface of less than 9 square inches, shall include prominently the statement:   “Paid for by [name of political committee or other person paying for such advertisement.].” For purposes of this section, “campaign advertisements” shall include any communication by a candidate committee or political party that would otherwise qualify as an independent expenditure or an electioneering communication but for the fact it was made by a candidate committee or political party. (b) All third-party advertisements having a fair market value of $500 or more, except printed items with a surface of less than 9 square inches, shall include prominently the statement: “Paid for by [name of political committee or other person paying for such third-party advertisement. Learn more about [name of person] at [Commissioner of Elections’ web address].” (c) The Commissioner may adopt regulations regarding the size, placement and duration of the foregoing statements as the same shall apply to specific forms of campaign advertisements. In connection therewith, the Commissioner may modify or amend the foregoing statements to conform to the requirements of a particular medium (i.e., television, radio, print, Internet), and may by regulation create exemptions from the requirements hereunder where compliance is not reasonably practicable due to the small size or short duration of such advertisements. In all events, however, campaign advertisements having the same medium and duration (for example, 15-second radio advertisements or Internet advertisements having less than 200 characters) shall be subject to the same requirements. 67 Del. Laws, c. 449, §  1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 400, §  5; FOIA Coordinator Cathleen Hartsky-Carter Community Relations Officer Office of the State Election Commissioner 905 S. Governors Ave Suite 170 Dover, DE 19904 Telephone: (302) 739-4277 biling note sunday march 14th 10 pm -11 pm research into department of elections regulation, statutes staff etc. Anthony J. Albence State Election Commissioner ex officio Jun 20, 2023 Sharon A. Williams-Mayo At-Large - New Castle County Jan 27, 2025 Kay Sandstrom Kent County Jun 6, 2022 John N. Pasquale, Jr. New Castle County Jun 6, 2022 Karen H. Pugh Sussex County Jan 27, 2025 Cimone Philpotts Wilmington republicans: James A. Sterling, III At-Large - New Castle County Jun 6, 2022 Kim Warfield-Walker Kent County Jul 1, 2019 Vacant New Castle County Barbara Sikora Sussex County May 2, 2022 Hal Schneikert Wilmington https://elections.delaware.gov/services/candidate/pdfs/Campaign_SignageGuide_rev12082020.pdf

saturday

fnb

make comic

draft complaint in del case

dmv complaint

photo policy at dmv. name policy at dmv. Lawsuit Year Delaware Solid Waste Authority v. News-Journal Co. 1984 Guy v. Judicial Nominating Commission 1995 Lee v. Minner 2006 New Castle County Vocational-Technical Education Association v. Board of Education 1978 News-Journal Co. v. Billingsley 1980 https://ballotpedia.org/Delaware_Freedom_of_Information_Act



































5.3.4 If the procedures listed in Section 5.3.3 are not feasible, as a last resort, the division may issue a noncompliant identification document provided the applicant has sufficient proof (school records, employment documents, social security card, and other records) demonstrating he has used this name, date of birth and gender consistently over a long period of time. The driving record will be annotated showing the identification documents were approved as exceptions and copies of the documents will be retained on file. Exceptions to name change procedures must be approved by Driver Services Manager, Chief of Driver Services, Deputy Director or Director. PROOF OF IDENTITY / LEGAL PRESENCE: Examples of acceptable source documentation: Please provide ONE of the following proof of identity/legal presence documents: (This document must contain proof of full legal name, date of birth, and citizenship/legal presence in the United States to be eligible to obtain a federally compliant identification document.) Certificate of birth (U.S. issued). Must be original or certified copy, have a raised seal and be issued by the Office of Vital Statistics or State Board of Health. Please note that wallet cards, birth registration or hospital announcements/records are not accepted. (If under 18, birth certificate must include birth parent(s) names) *** Consular report of birth abroad Certificate of Naturalization (N-550, N570m or N-578) Certificate of Citizenship (N-560, N-561, or N-645) Northern Marina Card (I-551) American Indian Card (I-551) U.S. Citizen Identification Card (I-179 or I-197) Valid passport, U.S. If foreign, appropriate INS document also is required Resident Alien Card (I-515, I-551, AR-3, or AR-103) Temporary Resident Identification Card (K-688) Non-Resident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card (I-185 or I-586) Record of Arrival and Departure (in a valid Foreign Passport)(I-94 or I-94W visa waiver program) Record of Arrival and Departure w/attached photo stamped "Temporary Proof of Lawful Permanent Resident"(I-94) Processed for I-551 stamp (in a valid Foreign Passport) Permanent Resident Re-Entry Permit (I-327) Refugee Travel Document (I-571) Employment Authorization Card (I-688A, I-688B, I-766) Canadian Immigration Record and Visa or Record of Landing (IMM 1000) Federally Compliant State issued photo driver license *

delaware cases: in re opinion of the justices 1974 anonymous v delaware 2000 https://casetext.com/case/anonymous-v-state doe v cahill 2005 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/de-supreme-court/1263047.html http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case405.cfm It is clear that speech over the internet is entitled to First Amendment protection.13  This protection extends to anonymous internet speech.14  Anonymous internet speech in blogs or chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering.   As the United States Supreme Court recently noted, “anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.” 15  The United States Supreme Court continued, “[t]he right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct.   But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.” 16 https://casetext.com/case/rappa-v-new-castle-county-2 rappa found that rappa's campaign signs were seized unconstitutionally because the regulation was content-based discrimination. similarly, the disclaimer statute is impermissible content based regulation. 3rd cir: rappa?

delaware: § 3. Free and equal elections. Section 3. All elections shall be free and equal. § 5. Freedom of press and speech; evidence in libel prosecutions; jury questions. Section 5. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man. The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of persons acting in a public capacity; and any citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications, investigating the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels the jury may determine the facts and the law, as in other cases. § 5. Freedom of press and speech; evidence in libel prosecutions; jury questions. Section 5. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man. The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of persons acting in a public capacity; and any citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. § 16. Right of assembly; petition for redress of grievances. Section 16. yet the citizens have a right in an orderly manner to meet together, and to apply to persons intrusted with the powers of government, for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, remonstrance or address. § 21. Equal Rights. Section 21. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, national origin, or sex. § 9. Courts shall be open; remedy for injury; suits against State. Section 9. All courts shall be open; and every person for an injury done him or her in his or her reputation, person, movable or immovable possessions, shall have remedy by the due course of law, and justice administered according to the very right of the cause and the law of the land, without sale, denial, or unreasonable delay or expense. Suits may be brought against the State, according to such regulations as shall be made by law. In 2006, Corn-Revere was lead counsel in Huminski v. Corsones, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that individual members of the public have a First Amendment right to attend court proceedings. 1 million in fees sought after 250,000 award.

https://ij.org/cje-post/why-dont-we-see-more-state-constitutional-claims-in-federal-court-money-prudence/

As I mentioned I would be doing in my previous letter of October 28, I now request an opinion from your office. The issue to be addressed is what is your policy with respect to signs such as "Robbin Stewart for Township Board - Vote Tuesday" or "Vote for Smith". I also request that you request a new AGO from the state Attorney General. Not because the previous AGO was wrong, which it is, but because more recent cases, including Becerra and Janus, have reiterated the court's long held position that government may not compel speech (except in narrow exceptions not at issue here, such as subpoenas or tax returns.) Becerra, for example, found that a disclaimer rule for pregnancy centers was a first amendment violation. Town of Gilbert v Reed reiterated that the test for political signs is strict scrutiny, what Justice Scalia in McIntyre called the kiss of death standard. In Stewart v Taylor (S.D. Ind. 1996), this language was upheld as protected by the First Amendment, and I received a settlement of $7,000. I no longer settle such cases as cheaply. In Anonymous v Delaware I represented Scott Huminski. That case was dismissed on justiciability grounds after the Attorney General assured the court that Delaware would not seek to violate the First Amendment rights protected by the Talley and McIntyre decisions, and agreed with us that Delaware's statute was unconstitutional. Mr. Huminski is best known for a case involving political signs in Burlington Vermont, where, represented by Robert Corn-Revere, he was awarded $900,000. My current client is not Mr. Huminski. You now have a differently numbered statute, but it is unconstitutional for the same reasons. Please respond within ten days. Below I go into more detail about the merits of the dispute, but to summarize, I have asked you for an advisory opinion concerning whether your office intends to attempt to enforce its unconstitutional interference in protected speech such as signs that say Vote for Smith, on behalf of my anonymous client who intends shortly to spend over $500 on such signs. My client is not Scott Walker, but his recent signs that said "Scott Walker" would be example of the sort of speech at issue. In Anonymous v Delaware, I was criticized by the court for not having sought an advisory opinion from your office; instead my cocounsel David Finger had obtained a letter from the Attorney General's office stating that only a court could resolve our issue. Under the Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 USC 1983 et seq., I am not required to do anything about exhausting adminstrative remedies, but I do so here both as a professional courtesy and to sharpen the issues showing we may have a live dispute. Of course I hope you will do the right thing, and not be evil, and uphold the oath you took to support the state and federal constitutions. But, based on our recent correspondence, I rather suspect you won't. Recently you forwarded me, at my request, a more recent AGO addressing the new statute. That opinion deliberately misconstrued the McIntyre decision, in which the question presented was, is there an elections exception to Talley v California?". It also discussed dicta in Citizens United,which is readily distingusishable because it dealt with speech banned under Austin, rather than the core political speech at issue here. The court suggested that disclosure and disclaimer was a less onerous remedy than a complete ban, which was true. Plaintiff's argument in Citizens, in its complaint as drafted by James Bopp, was that the speech, a movie about Hillary Clinton, was not express advocacy, and therefor no disclosure or disclaimer was required. The court found that the movie was express advocacy, or its functional equivalent, so plaintiff's argument failed, so the issue of the constitutionality of the disclaimer rules was not decided, only discussed as an aside. Mr Bopp is actually a fan of censorship by disclaimer rules, so he does not challenge them directly, but instead has won 23 cases about express advocacy. See for example Wisconsin Right to Life I and II. In its dicta praising disclosure and disclaimers in Citizens, the court did not distinguish between disclosures and disclaimers, as it had for example in Victoria Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation. In that case all nine members of the court agreed that the disclaimer rule was subject to strict scrutiny, and was unconstitutional, while the disclosure rule was subject to intermediate scrutiny under Buckley v. Valeo, and was upheld. So although Citizens did praise disclaimer rules, the case is neither controlling nor persuasive in the context of Delaware's rules. The AGO then discussed an unrelated case, Delaware Strong, which was about disclosure rather than disclaimers, under the lax scrutiny standard of Buckley v Valeo rather than the strict scrutiny standard of Town of Gilbert v Vincent. The AGO did not mention Anonymous v Delaware (2000) or any of the controlling cases other than McIntyre, such as In Re Opinion of the Justices (DE 1974), Talley v. California, Buckley v Valeo, Watchtower v Stratton, etc. Because of that AGO, I will not be suing you in a personal capacity on the theory that McIntyre clearly establishes the right in question, even though it does. You are legally entitled to rely on qualified immunity on the basis of this opinion, as far as it goes, which is not far. I may or may not sue you in a personal capacity on the theory that this dispute is govered by Talley v. California, Anonymous v Delaware, Opinion of the Justices 1974, Becerra, Janus, AID v Open Society, Buckley v ACLF, Watchtower v. Stratton, National Federation of the Blind v Riley, Wooley v Maynard, Tornillo v Miami Herald, and the like. See also Masterpiece Bakeshop, which was decided on narrower grounds. This depends in part on how you respond, and what I am able to discover about the conduct of your office on this issue since 2013. These include more recent controlling cases, and previous controlling cases not discussed in the AGO. I will write to you seperately with respect to open issues from my previous correspondence. In a democracy, free and open elections require a climate of free speech so that citizens and candidates can discuss the issues without being unconstitutionally censored by the government. Otherwise you get a Potempkin election which has the form but not the substance of a real election. I have not yet researched the issue of whether I can sue you in personal capacity for the ongoing violation of the Delaware Constitution. The July 31, 1974, case, In Re Opinion of the Justices, is a controlling and persuasive precedent holding that anonymous political speech is protected by the Delaware Bill of Rights. The AGO does not mention this case, which, frankly, is pretty obscure. I went over to Widener University a couple of days ago to try to find it, but they were closed, so I searched for it on the internet. It is my belief that the statute not only violates the free speech and press clause of the state constitution, as established by the above case, but also violates the free and open elections clause of the Delaware constitution. I wrote my LLM thesis at UMKC in 1994 on these state constitutional clauses. There is little case law on this clause, so I would enjoy litigating it if you choose to oppose me in this matter. In In Re Opinion of the Justices, Governor Tribbet asked the court to advise him on the constitutionality of a bill that attemped to required editorial pages, such as the News Journal, to have an identification disclaimer so we would know who wrote what. The court held, of course, that the bill was in violation both of the First Amendment and of the State Constitution, which on this topic at least speak with one voice. That case has never been overuled, as far as I know, either as to its holding on the First Amendment, or its holding on the state constitution. If you attempt to refuse to follow it, you can expect to see yourself featured on the News Journal editoral pages. That case in turn mentions and relies on Talley v California and Tornillo v Miami Herald, US Supeme Court cases that are controlling here and omitted from the AGO. In general I think you are doing a fine job of running elections in Delaware. I hope you won't sully your reputation by trying to enforce this void statute. To do so would be illegal, tortious, unethical, naughty, evil, all around a bad idea. I hope I am not coming off as unduly combative. I would rather work with you than against you. Please recall that there are a few remaining details from my previous letter. You sending me the AGO was very helpful. I need to know of any instances since 2013 where your office has enforced or threatened to enforce the policy, which of your staff members were or were not involved in those efforts, whether any of those staff members are licensed attorneys, that sort of thing. Again, thank you for you recent letter, and I look forward to hearing from you. For the moment, until we get this resolved, it might behoove you to remove any threat of enforcement from your web site, since that might be seen as active involvement in violating the civil rights of all Delawareans. I encourage you to take a little time and read In Re Opinion, Talley v California (7 pages), Anonymous v Delaware, and perhaps Justice Thomas's concurrence in McIntyre, or Robbin Stewart v Sarah Taylor, the first case I won on this topic. Manuel Talley was an African-American civil rights activist, an officer in CORE and a correspondent of Dr. King. He was fined $10 for passing around a flyer with no disclaimer. The Supreme Court reversed the fine, in one of the seminal cases of the civil rights era, along with NAACP v Alabama and Bates v Little Rock, helping to establish the right to privacy. I am not sure you want to be associated with interference in the rights of Africans Americans to politically organize, with a return to Jim Crow-era censorship. Margaret McIntyre was a nice little old lady in Westerville Ohio, a candidate for the school board who was part of a group fighting a tax increase. Some of the group were arrested, and Margaret was fined $100 for passing out some flyers for a group of concerned citizens and taxpayers. The Supreme Court did not create an exception for nice little old ladies who spend less than $500. Instead they ruled that the Ohio staute, requiring candidate disclaimers, was unconstitutional because there is no elections exception to the rule in Talley. Margaret died during the litigation, but her family kept up the fight until she won postumously. I don't think you want to be seen as trying to kill nice little old ladies. In 1996 I was working at a produce warehouse, and put up a few signs I'd made the night before at Kinkos, now FedEx, for 38 cents each. The sign said "Robbin Stewart for Township Board - Vote Tuesday" They took down my sign even after I had warned their lawyer that that would violate McIntyre. The court held "Stewart is correct". These days I'm a semiretired crippled lawyer with nothing better to do than spend the next few years litigating the hell out of this. We both have better things to do with our time. Let's resolve this amicably. Cordially, Robbin Stewart. billing note 2.7 hours march 10th. my hourly rate is $235. billing note 1.0 hours march 11, 12:00 - 1:02 am. sent list of links to major cases.

tuesday:

did

passport application turned in, notarized affidavit $160.

sold some $2's to the passport lady and made small talk.

groceries $8, govatos candy $1. tp, cookies, markers.

went to kinkos and tried to print files but they wouldn't print, so i didnt go back to bmv yet.

spent at kinkos. $5?

binged watched some show .. two seasons of fargo.

read delaware ag's opinion on disclaimers.

confirmed friday screening appointment. set alarm, review directions. then plasma on the way home.

to do

bath

cash count. balance 5300 at natcity.

lie list for ago

call tommy

x dinner

x sleep. plasma tomorrow.

x reference librarian widener.

x/2 on way to newark, try printing file again, visit bmv. lie list AGO

1 mcintyre not clear precedent

2 no mention of talley etc. question presented

3 little old lady exception

4 standard of review

5 disclosure disclaimer sleight of hand

6 citizens united two errors

7 compelling interest examples

8 legislative statement of compelling interest does not make it so.

9 . no mention of anonymous v delaware.

10 no mention of controlling state precedent

1 spent about 1 hr today, between read email,reply, write memo about it, go to law school oh still need to write email to law school. so maybe 1.2 hours.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 324 A.2d 211 (1974) In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES. Supreme Court of Delaware. July 31, 1974.

2 wednesday did list.

3 gas $42.

4 plasma +$51

5 flower seeds and tray $10

6 food tiger

7 dinner: lasagna soup. made black eyed pea soup.

8 sorted van and basement

9 wrote first draft memo on request for advisory opinion 0.9 hours.

10 wrote "make list" on whiteboard with the new markers.

2 cleaned sink with yogurt?

2 ordered cups and saucers in our pattern. $31

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

3 thursday: to do list/daily task list

4 go thru emails.

5 go thru mom's emails.

6 atm. pnc do i owe $50 on line of credit?

7

8 outstanding $$ issues:

9 electric bill, plane ticket, midas, boulder rent deposit columbia rent deposit 1116 cortez dispute. what else?

10 bmv problem

2 delaware disclaimer problem. finger.

3 indiana disclaimer problem. mark small.

4 jill.

5 tommy.

6 nurses aid company dispute.

7 make better list.

8 clean room and garage.

9 find raisins.

10 unload dishwasher

2 taxes

3 fix fridge.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

DMVCustomerService@delaware.gov Denied an ID, what recourse do I have? I spent this afternoon at the new castle DMV. I went there to get an ID. I was refused. I requested something in writing to show that I had been there, in order to begin an appeal, and was refused. "Darrell", who was unable  or unwilling to give his full name, was polite but unhelpful. Like many gay men I changed my name when I came out in the 1970s. I used the legal process available at the time, which was to fill out an affidavit on the form provided by the attorney general's office. There is no court order, nor will there be. So my name on my birth certificate is different than my current legal name. Delaware regulations require them to be the same, which is impossible. The delaware regulation, 5.1.2,  is arbitrary and capricious, and is sex discrimination in violation of title VI, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and the Delaware Constitution.  The refusal to provide me with any documentation that I had requested and been denied an ID was a violation of procedural due process under the 14th Amendment and the Delaware Constitution.  I would hope we can work this out peacefully. I request a hearing. Under the Sunshine act, which I helped get passed in 1974, I request the full name and job title of anyone named Darrell who works at that office. I request that your department ask the state attorney general whether regulation 5.1.2 is enforceable in this way under these circumstances.   My concern is less for myself, than for the many other people who could find themselves in this position. My name is Robbin George Stewart. My previous name, which was legally changed in 1979, is Richard Lee Stewart. While there today, I provided my birth certificate, social security card, voter card, and two pieces of mail, which is all I can be required to show to be entitled to an ID. Sincerely, Robbin Stewart, esq., IN #17147-53. gtbear at gmail.com == Office of the Governor JOHN CARNEY Failure Sorry, something went wrong. Your form submission was not received. == to wendy.henry, me Today I experienced what I suspect was sex discrimination in violation of title IV at the delaware bureau of motor vehicles in New Castle County. It is non-obvious discrimination, so bear with me. Like many gay men, I changed my name when I came out in the 1970s. I used the available process at the time, which involved a notarized affidavit on a form provided by the delaware attorney general's office. Neither the original form nor any copies now exist. The BMV's rules require that the names be the same on my birth certificate and on my current documents. They aren't, and should not be. I had one name as a child, and another as an adult. Both are correct, but they do not match. Many people change their names, whether for reasons of gender, religion, marriage, adoption, etc. The regulation by its plain text does not allow for that. I suspect this is unlawful discrimination. The practice has undue disparate impact on gays, women who marry, religious minorities, etc. Cassius Clay became Muhammed Ali, for example. The courts have recently adopted the position that discrimination against gays constitutes sex discrimination. I know of no case yet having applied this principle to a change of name dispute, but it follows logically from the recent landmark decisions. Sex discrimination is actionable under title VI, which I understand to be your purview. I have been harmed in two ways. The denial of an ID by the state agency is a substantive due process violation and equal protection. The refusal to issue a denial letter, or any other document which would substantiate my claim that I had been there and was denied, is a procedural due process violation. I have no previous experience with title VI, and do not know how things are done. How should I proceed? Thanks, Sincerely, Robbin Stewart. = robbin stewart 4:55 AM (0 minutes ago) to Larry.Lambert, me dear representative lambert, i wanted to make you aware of a problem i encountered today in trying to get an ID at BMV. i moved back to delaware in august. just this week i finally succeeded in getting my birth certificate, so i went to get my ID. If I get my ID i may be able to get my medicine. i was denied an ID, because they discriminate against people who have changed their name. they insist that a person's current legal name match the birth certificate, but for many people these do not match. they point to state regulation 5.2.1. as a bored retired lawyer, it is not the end of my world if i cannot get ID. but for many of your constituents, not having an ID could mean not being able to get a job, or housing, or basic services. i have met people who have turned to prostitution or drug dealing to survive when they can't get ID and so can't get a regular job. it could make it more difficult to vote for you. so i hope this is something we can get fixed. as a matter of constituent services, i hope you can help me resolve this issue and get my ID. as a matter of public policy, this is a problem that needs fixing, not just for me, but for everyone. we haven't met. i'm a mount pleasant alum, but i've been away for a while. below is some of the relevant correspondence. thanks in advance. - robbin stewart.

please contact the Division of Motor Vehicles at (302) 744-2508. Today I was denied a delaware ID because the name on my birth certificate is not the same as my current name. So my new quest will be to challenge this policy. I have the same situation in indiana.

to do

Brian Majors, Age View Full Background Report Sponsored by BeenVerified.com Current Address: 1325 SE 2nd St; Evansville, IN 47713-1305

monday groceries $28.

1. electric bill.

2 fix stairs

3 email lawyer re ny fusion

x 4 sort garage.

x 5 get gas, gas buddy. $30?

x 6 call tommy

7 nebraska begin draft

8 make better list

x call key bank re credit card on monday.

make comic. take bath.

did wednesday.

ordered birth cert online. received chinese black chamber book

aldi, food lion, gnc.

plasma,$51, bath

took mom to dentist

called about study

called about credit card.

fixed car door.

made a comic

spent $50 insulin $30 culinaria $3 starbucks. need gas. tried to order birth cert. fixed car door. called hassman research, emailed. called key bank re credit card. thursday: took out trash. shopping for mom $20. package to tommy $30. forgot to go get hoover bags, did not get gas. haven't called tommy yet. need to go back for these shelves i saw. gave mom her shot today.

https://gm1.ggpht.com/ms5yEZThTPFc3bCyNDKNgMAiSxeZGjsulPwmNl0S-t1nibMt28XR6gPmbTX3nbbAgPWkSeaJ5o1c2cRyNYVzpLSf_E_LYOa4iPrNj-fvPinytKfMT2I2GTgXO2EEyDYtUh1rrZuaTe2JzZVcIm_ivZww8G9kbgnvqlUyjEjZOZnZzgjqb5OjAdq43BS54MwSioI64KBZIA2A4pJdCatIpTOyjIdkniunmq5G_JAqKq5LRb-KH82rtGIYDFuhkBv2p33QWF7TYnpw4v06t9xGnSx__4LNefzOXU3OJy5SJEzAe19pfEFU46B8j-RkNZvJhJwzAiXFudfMFxpgvG4dMpwEnEjs3leUA1_QIfA8li6Y3dvfYTbFPO0MSygE29M8RtRfPPlB9gTo_n3tBHm7Jb-3DyfRm9bDGxkQQBlLus87pjS1AUVAFPE0eFWfHPqWEVsZ5rI9kd0eOBYmrbGGUsjSYNKFvfnsQ_wKpkKUarMLOcOHEGq03-D8mnXpcMESkrDIAARJUMCk-mYFNVIvmKHaPcWAW9TPqquu9-BdEXVvU0hOJvnB0ixpVm01fwgSYTECCarGJJe2wuJqhrO_TsLwdCAXtQhgyrTOZmL2is74iujwkAY0SMuWQoTmjs9fpPrxQkHELHscleaWjvzFFs8NoyEt2jeeaY9zsTot5287BKl7qm6OdgZENeVyxZZVSftBvhqqTFwuytZXzUpxCjKqLMmddkYLjT4h1bvZw_TVbuj4Rgc60M8WxNq91jZIBg=s0-l75-ft-l75-ft found!

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=c7035f5080&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-a:r8600708189305834353&th=17795125264b4d34&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ9S93o40YfRe9Fy2tQwfJaKALta1AuK8Uhrj9jCihAAa9g6YBjYAx57ObbgdPIa7lNYpdiIjHYGwk4f5rrb1HBQO5k8WoRW7OE9hRYF2hLlSe-oB3Oi9taqFMA&disp=emb&realattid=ii_kl1y9p2g0

thursday feb 11th

to do

x 1 get lock spray graphite hardware store

2 fix stairs

3 email lawyer re ny fusion

x 4 sort garage.

x 5 get gas, gas buddy. $30?

x 6 call tommy

7 nebraska begin draft

8 make better list

call key bank re credit card on monday.

did

1 stewart & stewart email 2 took out trash.and recycling. sorted garage. 3. paid internet bill 4 months in advance for 5% bonus. 4. paid chase cards 5. called chase got $100 in fees waived. 1000 something balance in commercial account. so 7000 overall. 6. plasma card balance $194. 7. emailed margaret. again. 8. made comic. what else? found gummi bear. he's from brooklyn! WEB8E6D2C4B441A43A6B9A6C1AF1B909570 key bank $200 card. https://old.reddit.com/r/signupsforpay/comments/lihm1p/offer_groundfloor_earn_30_20_from_groundfloor_10/