this is not a public blog, just a place hwere i can leave myself notes. nothing to see here folks, move along.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Friday, September 21, 2018
A second case-or-controversy doctrine implicated in the present case is that of mootness. A "case is moot when the issues presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 1950, 23 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1969). Since the time Stewart filed his original complaint, the November election has come and gone. This does not, however, necessarily render the lawsuit moot. The Supreme Court has recognized that often in cases challenging statutes that govern elections there is not sufficient time between the filing of the complaint and the election to obtain judicial resolution of the controversy before the election. As a result, the Court has allowed such challenges to proceed under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine. See Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 286-89, 112 S. Ct. 698, 704-05, 116 L. Ed. 2d 711 (1992); First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 772-76, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 1414-15, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1978); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 n. 8, 94 S. Ct. 1274, 1282 n. 8, 39 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1974); Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 814-16, 89 S. Ct. 1493, 1494, 23 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1969). See also Citizens For John W. Moore v. Board of Election Com'rs of the City of Chicago, 794 F.2d 1254, 1256 (7th Cir.1986). This exception applies under two conditions: "(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same action again." Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 417 n. 2, 108 S. Ct. 1886, 1890 n. 2, 100 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1988) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S. Ct. 347, 349, 46 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1975) (per curiam)). See also First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 772-76, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 1414-15, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1978); Teper v. Miller, 82 F.3d 989, 992 n. 1 (11th Cir.1996) (citing Weinstein). In the instant case, neither party has informed the Court of the results of the November election, or whether Stewart plans to be a candidate in a future municipal, county, or state-wide election. Despite the absence of such information in the record, we find that Stewart's challenge satisfies both prongs of the test. For the most part, in cases involving challenges to election rules, the Supreme Court has found the two-prong test easily satisfied. See, e.g., Norman, 502 U.S. at 288, 112 S. Ct. at 705 ("There would be every reason to expect the same parties to generate a similar, future controversy subject to identical time constraints if we should fail to resolve the constitutional issues that arose in 1990"); Meyer, 486 U.S. at 417 n. 2, 108 S. Ct. at 1890 n. 2; Bellotti,435 U.S. at 774-75, 98 S. Ct. at 1414-15. See also Patriot Party v. Allegheny County Dept. of Elections, 95 F.3d 253, 257 (3rd Cir.1996) (quoting Norman). In the instant case, we are skeptical that future local or county election campaigns will be long enough in duration to see both the commencement and resolution of a constitutional challenge to section 3-9-3-2. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S. Ct. 705, 713, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973) (finding that because the normal 266-day human gestation period is too short for the usual appellate procedure to run its course, pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness). While we do not know whether Stewart is currently holding the office for which he ran, we can reasonably assume that he will participate in future election campaigns, either as candidate or supporter, and will again seek to avoid the requirements of the statute. Therefore, we find that Stewart's case is not moot.
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Our name began as a wisecrack. In 2000, writer Jamie Kalven and two collaborators were operating out of a vacant unit in a public housing highrise where the online human rights reporting platform The View From The Ground was born. With tongue in cheek, Kalven wrote that The View was published under the auspices of something called the Invisible Institute. The name stuck. Now, the name represents an unfolding adventure: a process of inquiry, exploration and relationship-building. As many of our projects center on themes of visibility and place, there is another meaning to our name: We seek to keep fellow citizens visible by resisting the forces that disappear certain individuals, populations and places.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
expert witness list
professor richard hasen
mark smith
richard winger
mike pitts
gavin rose at aclu
robert ellis smith privacy journal
former gop county clerk sadlier
candy marendt
todd rokita
j christian adams
brad smith fec/professor
connie lawson
charlie white
asst secstate jerry bonnet
brad king
julia vaughn common cause
expert witness list
professor richard hasen
edits election law journal, textbook example of expert witness.
mark smith
richard winger
edits ballot access news
mike pitts - professor in indiana
gavin rose at aclu
- wrote expert opinion letter prior to suit, no response.
robert ellis smith privacy journal
- publisher, editor, co-author of our amicus
former gop county clerk sadlier loris
candy marendt
former member marion county elections boar. might be hostile.
todd rokita
j christian adams
brad smith fec/professor
connie lawson - current iniana secstate
charlie white - former
asst secstate jerry bonnet - former secstate
brad king - codirector elections div
julia vaughn common cause
professor richard hasen
mark smith
richard winger
mike pitts
gavin rose at aclu
robert ellis smith privacy journal
former gop county clerk sadlier
candy marendt
todd rokita
j christian adams
brad smith fec/professor
connie lawson
charlie white
asst secstate jerry bonnet
brad king
julia vaughn common cause
expert witness list
professor richard hasen
edits election law journal, textbook example of expert witness.
mark smith
richard winger
edits ballot access news
mike pitts - professor in indiana
gavin rose at aclu
- wrote expert opinion letter prior to suit, no response.
robert ellis smith privacy journal
- publisher, editor, co-author of our amicus
former gop county clerk sadlier loris
candy marendt
former member marion county elections boar. might be hostile.
todd rokita
j christian adams
brad smith fec/professor
connie lawson - current iniana secstate
charlie white - former
asst secstate jerry bonnet - former secstate
brad king - codirector elections div
julia vaughn common cause
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
If some of ya'll never been down south too much
Some y'all never been down s-
I'm gonna tell you a little story so's you'll understand what I'm talkin' about
Down there we have a plant that grows out in the woods, and the fields
And it looks somethin' like a turnip green
Everybody calls it polk salad
Now that's polk salad
Used to know a girl lived down there and she'd go out in the evenings and
Pick her a mess of it
Carry it home and cook it for supper
Because that's about all they had to eat
But they did all right
Some y'all never been down s-
I'm gonna tell you a little story so's you'll understand what I'm talkin' about
Down there we have a plant that grows out in the woods, and the fields
And it looks somethin' like a turnip green
Everybody calls it polk salad
Now that's polk salad
Used to know a girl lived down there and she'd go out in the evenings and
Pick her a mess of it
Carry it home and cook it for supper
Because that's about all they had to eat
But they did all right
Down in Louisiana, where the alligators grow so mean
Lived a girl, that I swear to the world
Made the alligators look tame
Polk salad Annie, gators got your granny
Everybody said it was a shame
Because her momma was a workin' on the chain gang
A…
Down in Louisiana, where the alligators grow so mean
There lived a girl, that I swear to the world
Made the alligators look tame
Polk salad Annie, polk salad Annie
Everybody said it was a shame
Cause her momma was a workin' on the chain gang
(A mean, vicious woman)
Every day 'for suppertime, she'd go down by the truck patch
And pick her a mess of polk salad, and carry it home in a tow sack
Polk salad Annie, the gators got your granny
Everybody says it was a shame
Cause her momma was a workin' on the chain gang
(A wretched, spiteful, straight-razor totin' woman)
(Lord have Mercy, pick a mess of it)
Her daddy was lazy and no count, claimed he had a bad back
All her brothers were fit for was stealin' watermelons
Out of my truck patch
Polk salad Annie, the gators got your granny
Everybody said it was a shame
Cause her momma was a workin' on the chain gang
(Sock a little polk salad to me
You know I need me a mess of it)
Lived a girl, that I swear to the world
Made the alligators look tame
Polk salad Annie, gators got your granny
Everybody said it was a shame
Because her momma was a workin' on the chain gang
A…
Down in Louisiana, where the alligators grow so mean
There lived a girl, that I swear to the world
Made the alligators look tame
Polk salad Annie, polk salad Annie
Everybody said it was a shame
Cause her momma was a workin' on the chain gang
(A mean, vicious woman)
Every day 'for suppertime, she'd go down by the truck patch
And pick her a mess of polk salad, and carry it home in a tow sack
Polk salad Annie, the gators got your granny
Everybody says it was a shame
Cause her momma was a workin' on the chain gang
(A wretched, spiteful, straight-razor totin' woman)
(Lord have Mercy, pick a mess of it)
Her daddy was lazy and no count, claimed he had a bad back
All her brothers were fit for was stealin' watermelons
Out of my truck patch
Polk salad Annie, the gators got your granny
Everybody said it was a shame
Cause her momma was a workin' on the chain gang
(Sock a little polk salad to me
You know I need me a mess of it)
to moises
from robbin stewart
re 4015 e washington rt 40 46201
confirming our conversation at brunch today,
4015 is for sale, generally, for $42,000, but I will honor the previous offer of $40,000 to Jerry/ and or the corporation he works with.
this offer is good for 30 days.
I have a standing offer from Rudi on Chester st. for $40,000, but it involves owner financing, so I prefer Jerry's cash offer, if that is on the table. I would like to receive a formal offer in writing.
I recently had my realtor contact shepard church. they turned down a proposal that they buy it for $50K, but said they were willing to pay the fair market price, but they have not made any formal offer and they are not my first choice to sell to.at a figure under $50k.
i have not had a formal appraisal. my own market data is too old to be useful.
the property is zoned C5. Considered simply as a residence, it is probably only worth $35k, but the location on route 40 and the commercial zoning to me justify the $42k price tag.
the highest and best use of the property would be for the shepard church to buy it, but combining it with the restaurant also makes sense.
if it does not sell, i plan to re-open my law office, after we finish cleaning the building.
please advise.
cordially,
robbin stewart
kevin bruce was helpful to me in making these arrangements.
from robbin stewart
re 4015 e washington rt 40 46201
confirming our conversation at brunch today,
4015 is for sale, generally, for $42,000, but I will honor the previous offer of $40,000 to Jerry/ and or the corporation he works with.
this offer is good for 30 days.
I have a standing offer from Rudi on Chester st. for $40,000, but it involves owner financing, so I prefer Jerry's cash offer, if that is on the table. I would like to receive a formal offer in writing.
I recently had my realtor contact shepard church. they turned down a proposal that they buy it for $50K, but said they were willing to pay the fair market price, but they have not made any formal offer and they are not my first choice to sell to.at a figure under $50k.
i have not had a formal appraisal. my own market data is too old to be useful.
the property is zoned C5. Considered simply as a residence, it is probably only worth $35k, but the location on route 40 and the commercial zoning to me justify the $42k price tag.
the highest and best use of the property would be for the shepard church to buy it, but combining it with the restaurant also makes sense.
if it does not sell, i plan to re-open my law office, after we finish cleaning the building.
please advise.
cordially,
robbin stewart
kevin bruce was helpful to me in making these arrangements.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
25. the statute itself communicates a threat.
26. the brochure communicates a threat of prosecution under indiana code section 3-9-3-2.5. actual prosecutions are rare. The statute does its harm by chilling speech. people who have been jailed for speech without disclaimers inclue doug goeztloe in florida, dennis of dennis v mass 1974, an the protagonist of the 1908 missouri case ex rel someboy. and my friend martin schaefer of west virginia. excessive fines are another method of chilling free speech.
26. 5 claim 42.
because the speech is protected speech, any fine is excessive,and can be argued an an excessive fine under the 8th amendment as incorporated.
stewart's fear of prosecution is not merely conjectural.
during majors v abell, he was falsely accused, jailed for 3 weeks, tortured, experienced a nervous breakdown, and missed a key filing deadline.
he has been sued civilly some 58 times by marion county or its alter ego the health and hospital corporation. previously, he has had a sign confiscated, as well as a car, art supplies, houses, and other goods. friends of his have had signs taken or been threatened. he has been fined for having a campaign committee, which he won on appeal.
here, he has self-reported his own conduct.
the clerk, by counsel, is currently refusing to disavow the statement of her staff.
there is a live ripe justiciable controversy.
27
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Brienne Delaney, election director for the board, wrote:
26. the brochure communicates a threat of prosecution under indiana code section 3-9-3-2.5. actual prosecutions are rare. The statute does its harm by chilling speech. people who have been jailed for speech without disclaimers inclue doug goeztloe in florida, dennis of dennis v mass 1974, an the protagonist of the 1908 missouri case ex rel someboy. and my friend martin schaefer of west virginia. excessive fines are another method of chilling free speech.
26. 5 claim 42.
because the speech is protected speech, any fine is excessive,and can be argued an an excessive fine under the 8th amendment as incorporated.
stewart's fear of prosecution is not merely conjectural.
during majors v abell, he was falsely accused, jailed for 3 weeks, tortured, experienced a nervous breakdown, and missed a key filing deadline.
he has been sued civilly some 58 times by marion county or its alter ego the health and hospital corporation. previously, he has had a sign confiscated, as well as a car, art supplies, houses, and other goods. friends of his have had signs taken or been threatened. he has been fined for having a campaign committee, which he won on appeal.
here, he has self-reported his own conduct.
the clerk, by counsel, is currently refusing to disavow the statement of her staff.
there is a live ripe justiciable controversy.
27
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Brienne Delaney, election director for the board, wrote:
The MCEB does not “pre-approve” signs for candidates. However, if you had a yard sign that said "robbin stewart for township board - vote tuesday" you would need a disclaimer.
in light of such prior cases as stewart v taylor, ogden v marendt, an mulholland v board, i sought a reasonable accomodation to be able to publish a sign of that format, such as the rutherford sign. instead i was told i would need a disclaimer.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
suggested stipulation of facts - draft only-
in 2016 at the primary, plaintiff/me/i/robbin stewart/
i went to vote at my precinct. it was the republican primary, and i intended to vote for donald trump, as clearly the funniest of the candidates. i have been active in the republican party since 1970.
i had reason to expect i might encounter oposition, and need evience, after the proffitt incident in 2008. previous videos at this location had technical difficulties. i got better video this time.
various poll workers were hostile to being videoed. this hostility may have influenced their collective decision to deny me a ballot.
i am a journalist.
i have written a free online blog on election law issues for over 10 years. i occasionally litigate, but mostly i observe and write and edit and link.
i have been documenting the problems with indiana's voting procedures since before bush v gore.
i reasonably expected that what would happen would happen. it did.
that's as far as i got. needs work.
in 2016 at the primary, plaintiff/me/i/robbin stewart/
i went to vote at my precinct. it was the republican primary, and i intended to vote for donald trump, as clearly the funniest of the candidates. i have been active in the republican party since 1970.
i had reason to expect i might encounter oposition, and need evience, after the proffitt incident in 2008. previous videos at this location had technical difficulties. i got better video this time.
various poll workers were hostile to being videoed. this hostility may have influenced their collective decision to deny me a ballot.
i am a journalist.
i have written a free online blog on election law issues for over 10 years. i occasionally litigate, but mostly i observe and write and edit and link.
i have been documenting the problems with indiana's voting procedures since before bush v gore.
i reasonably expected that what would happen would happen. it did.
that's as far as i got. needs work.
raft - motion for leave to file first amended complaint.
caption
comes now robbin stewart for himself and states, as his motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, as follows.
1. When a litigant initially files, they have a reasonable time to file an amended complaint, at least up until opposing counsel files an answer or responsive pleading.
2. Here we are now past that stage. After removal, an answer was filed.
A case management plan was set by the court. The parties have exchanged exhibits, witness lists, demands, an initial settlement offer, and so forth,
so plaintiff no longer may demand as of right to amend.
3. Leave to amend is usually liberally granted, especially here at an early stage where OC has not been prejudiced, so long as a proper motion is submitted.
4. I was remiss in not filing a motion for leave along with the submitted revised complaint. Similarly, I was remiss in forgetting and not attending the july conference. While pro se, I do not request or expect any special accomodations, beyond the usual discretion of the court.
I have had such lapses before. Between 2005 and now, I have not practiced, other than an occasional amicus or pro se voting rights suit, out of concern that depression, or some other mental health quirk, was interfering in my competency. I made my living in other ways during those years.
5. In 2015, I was injured in a car accident in nebraska, which has left me with a bad back and other health issues. As a result, I am less able to do the other things I used to do, so I am going to give another try to practicing law.
I still have the competency concerns I had earlier, just fewer other options. So I will need to be especially diligent. I am finding it like riding a bicycle.
4. What I am seeking in this motion, filed after an initial conference 9/11/2018, is for leave to file the already submitted first amended complaint.
5. I expect, within the 7 days given by the court, to file a second amended complaint, addressing points raised at the hearing. This motion is to at least get something in, in the meantime.
6. I believe that both the initial and amended complaint state a complaint that survives the iqbal standard. I recognize that the first amended complaint may be murky as to the facts which support standing an justiciability.
7. The claim is ripe. There has not been laches. It has been a couple of months since defendants chose the federal forum, which affected my strategy of which claims to file. The claim is not moot. There is a live controversy. Campaigns are under way. The election is in November. Passing of the election will not moot the issue. Roe v Wade.
8. Neither claim, the ballot claim or the sign claim, is frivolous, or silly, or unfounded in fact or law. I recognize that federal court dockets can be crowded with pro se filings and courts view such filings with a healthy skepticism, especially in light of a party who doesn't show up for a hearing, initially denies knowing about it, and tries to file a complaint with no motion. I appreciate the forebearance the court has shown.
9. The ballot claim is supported by a close reading of crawford v board, at least the controlling plurality opinion by justice stevens.
This is the same case the city relie on in enying my tort claim.
10. My personal views about voter ID are somewhat like those of Justice Souter in Crawford. This court can take notice of my amicus in Crawford.
But to prevail here, I can rely on the plurality.
11. League of Women Voters v. Rokita is another possible authority, where the state supreme court interpreted its own statute and constitution.
12. The statutes, both federal and state, have a plain meaning which speaks for itself here. Under the statutes, there is a right to a provisional ballot.
13. If there had been any ambiguity, a set of constitutional provisions suggest that interfering in the right to vote so casually is probably not best.
14. Similarly, there is substantial authority for the sign issue. Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio, Barnette, Watchtower, Buckley v ACLF, AID v. Open Society, Janus, Becerra. Also, 13 states have found a right to signs under the state constitution.
15. Notice pleading requires a short and plain statement. If here, I was too short and too plain, a motion for a more definite statement can be filed.
in summary, i move that the court grant leave to file, after giving opposing counsel an opportunity to state an argue his objections.
respectfully.
5:30 finished rough draft.
d
caption
comes now robbin stewart for himself and states, as his motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, as follows.
1. When a litigant initially files, they have a reasonable time to file an amended complaint, at least up until opposing counsel files an answer or responsive pleading.
2. Here we are now past that stage. After removal, an answer was filed.
A case management plan was set by the court. The parties have exchanged exhibits, witness lists, demands, an initial settlement offer, and so forth,
so plaintiff no longer may demand as of right to amend.
3. Leave to amend is usually liberally granted, especially here at an early stage where OC has not been prejudiced, so long as a proper motion is submitted.
4. I was remiss in not filing a motion for leave along with the submitted revised complaint. Similarly, I was remiss in forgetting and not attending the july conference. While pro se, I do not request or expect any special accomodations, beyond the usual discretion of the court.
I have had such lapses before. Between 2005 and now, I have not practiced, other than an occasional amicus or pro se voting rights suit, out of concern that depression, or some other mental health quirk, was interfering in my competency. I made my living in other ways during those years.
5. In 2015, I was injured in a car accident in nebraska, which has left me with a bad back and other health issues. As a result, I am less able to do the other things I used to do, so I am going to give another try to practicing law.
I still have the competency concerns I had earlier, just fewer other options. So I will need to be especially diligent. I am finding it like riding a bicycle.
4. What I am seeking in this motion, filed after an initial conference 9/11/2018, is for leave to file the already submitted first amended complaint.
5. I expect, within the 7 days given by the court, to file a second amended complaint, addressing points raised at the hearing. This motion is to at least get something in, in the meantime.
6. I believe that both the initial and amended complaint state a complaint that survives the iqbal standard. I recognize that the first amended complaint may be murky as to the facts which support standing an justiciability.
7. The claim is ripe. There has not been laches. It has been a couple of months since defendants chose the federal forum, which affected my strategy of which claims to file. The claim is not moot. There is a live controversy. Campaigns are under way. The election is in November. Passing of the election will not moot the issue. Roe v Wade.
8. Neither claim, the ballot claim or the sign claim, is frivolous, or silly, or unfounded in fact or law. I recognize that federal court dockets can be crowded with pro se filings and courts view such filings with a healthy skepticism, especially in light of a party who doesn't show up for a hearing, initially denies knowing about it, and tries to file a complaint with no motion. I appreciate the forebearance the court has shown.
9. The ballot claim is supported by a close reading of crawford v board, at least the controlling plurality opinion by justice stevens.
This is the same case the city relie on in enying my tort claim.
10. My personal views about voter ID are somewhat like those of Justice Souter in Crawford. This court can take notice of my amicus in Crawford.
But to prevail here, I can rely on the plurality.
11. League of Women Voters v. Rokita is another possible authority, where the state supreme court interpreted its own statute and constitution.
12. The statutes, both federal and state, have a plain meaning which speaks for itself here. Under the statutes, there is a right to a provisional ballot.
13. If there had been any ambiguity, a set of constitutional provisions suggest that interfering in the right to vote so casually is probably not best.
14. Similarly, there is substantial authority for the sign issue. Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio, Barnette, Watchtower, Buckley v ACLF, AID v. Open Society, Janus, Becerra. Also, 13 states have found a right to signs under the state constitution.
15. Notice pleading requires a short and plain statement. If here, I was too short and too plain, a motion for a more definite statement can be filed.
in summary, i move that the court grant leave to file, after giving opposing counsel an opportunity to state an argue his objections.
respectfully.
5:30 finished rough draft.
d
Contact Steve Key, HSPA executive director and general counsel, with media law questions at skey@hspa.com or (317) 624-4427.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)