agena for filing within ten ays/nights

revise counterclaims an cross claims
revise answer
affirmative efense memo on unclean hans


ste 1;
o the revise for election boar case

ste 2 
o the revise for h an h case.

https://grassrootsleadership.org/cca-dirty-30

No claim under the Indiana Constitution can be maintained under the circumstances identified by Stewart, because the persuasive authority is that there is no private cause of action for damages under the Indiana Constitution. See Estate of O’Bryan v. Town of Sellersburg, 2004 WL 1234215 at *21 (S.D.Ind. May 20, 2004); Malone v. Becher, 2003 WL 22080737 at *18 (S.D.Ind. Aug. 29, 2003) (Indiana Supreme Court has not recognized an implied right of action for damages under Article 1, sections 15 and 16); Boczar v. Kingen, 2000 WL 1137713 at *24-25 (S.D.Ind. March 9, 2000); Ratliff v. Cohn, 693 N.E.2d 530, 542 (Ind. 1998) (“particularized, individual applications are not reviewable under Article 1, Section 18 because Section 18 applies to the penal code as a whole and does not protect fact-specific challenges.”) (emphasis in original); Bailey v. Washington Theater Co., 34 N.E.2d 17, 19-20 (Ind. 1941).
 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_06-cv-00923/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_06-cv-00923-0.pdf

i/in't;

thursay went to bank.sent 3 emails.

wenesay
nothing. trash. trash.
wait wes  visited the governor and the isp. visited tax office.
other bank/ chase, was overrawn, but that was tuesay/
wenesay bible stuy. no boy scouts.
sunay church.
tuesay ick u trash.
thurs
withrew 1111
i worke on briefs


to o
call mom.






to o

Bolstering petitioners' claim, our law has long recognized that the home provides a kind of special sanctuary in modern life. See, e.g., U.S. Const., Amdts. 3, 4; Lawrence, 539 U.S., at 562, 567, 123 S.Ct. 2472; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585-590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 565-568, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969); Griswold, 381 U.S., at 484-485, 85 S.Ct. 1678. Consequently, we have long accorded special deference to the privacy of the home, whether a humble cottage or a magnificent manse. This veneration of the domestic harkens back to the common law. William Blackstone recognized a "right of habitation," 4 Commentaries *223, and opined that "every man's house is looked upon by the law to be his castle of defence and asylum," 3 id., at *288. Heller carried forward this legacy, observing t

- mcdonald v chicago.

Held: The Constitution does not prohibit States from insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves. Pp. 2383-2388.

indiana v edwards 2008

See also McKaskle, 465 U.S., at 174, 104 S.Ct. 944 (describing trial tasks as including organization of defense, making motions, arguing points of law, participating in voir dire, questioning witnesses, and addressing the court and jury).

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) tells us (without dispute) in its amicus brief filed in support of neither party that "[d]isorganized thinking, deficits in sustaining attention and concentration, impaired expressive abilities, anxiety, and other common symptoms of severe mental illnesses can impair the defendant's ability to play the significantly expanded role required for self-representation even if he can play the lesser role of represented defendant." 

Third, in our view, a right of self-representation at trial will not "affirm the dignity" of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel. McKaskle, supra, at 176-177, 104 S.Ct. 944 ("Dignity" and "autonomy" of individual underlie self-representation right). To the contrary, given that defendant's uncertain mental state, the spectacle that could well result from his self-representation at trial is at least as likely to prove humiliating as ennobling. Moreover, insofar as a defendant's lack of capacity threatens an improper conviction or sentence, self-representation in that exceptional context undercuts the most basic of the Constitution's criminal law objectives, providing a fair trial. As Justice Brennan put it, "[t]he Constitution would protect none of us if it prevented the courts from acting to preserve the very processes that the Constitution itself prescribes."

Further, proceedings must not only be fair, they must "appear fair to all who observe them." Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). An amicus brief reports one psychiatrist's reaction to having observed a patient (a patient who had satisfied Dusky) try to conduct his own defense: "[H]ow in the world can our legal system allow an insane man to defend himself?" Brief for State of Ohio et al. as Amici Curiae 24 (internal quotation marks omitted). See Massey, 348 U.S., at 108, 75 S.Ct. 145 ("No trial can be fair that leaves the defense to a man who is insane, unaided by counsel, and who by reason of his mental condition stands helpless and alone before the court"). 

I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict that Kavenaugh will get confirmed.

so now we'll have a roberts court with, usually, 5 solid votes for a conservative agenda. whatever that will be.

will mccain-feingold long survive mccain? will mcconnell v fec part II go differently?

how about buckley v valeo? does justice thomas have 3 more votes to rethink that case?

ten unclean hands

1.   
2.   
3.   
4.   
6.   
7.   
8.   
9.   
10.
1.     paper matches

2.     50 prior cases

3.     previous perjury
4.     false allegation of contempt, compelled client's address.
5      torture at cca
6.    home invasion
7.    clean and lien - stole car and stuff.
8.    home invasion today with warrant.
9.     small claims
10.   drop a dime - stool pidgeons, ratfinks.
denial of hearing - 30 prior times
1.   denial of hearing - this time
2.   ex parte with a gun
3.   general warrant instead of tailored to situation
4.   misrepresented smith facts at hearing
6.   conspired with miller to violate my civil rights
7.   likely bill of rights - indiana and federal - violations
8.   likely - 4th 5th 6th a violations. then 7th? or section 20. or 19.
likely, or at least alleged, state bill of rrighs violations.

9.   
10.

“[W]hen it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6 (2013). “At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.’” Ibid.

“The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of families and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened.” California v. Ciraolo,

When a law enforcement officer physically intrudes on the curtilage to gather evidence, a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred. Jardines,
Such conduct thus is presumptively unrea- 6 COLLINS v. VIRGINIA Opinion of the Court sonable absent a warrant.
The Court already has declined to expand the scope of other exceptions to the warrant requirement to permit warrantless entry into the home.
A plain-view seizure thus cannot be justified if it is effectuated “by unlawful trespass.”
Given the centrality of the Fourth Amendment interest in the home and its curtilage and the disconnect between that interest and the justifications behind the automobile exception, we decline Virginia’s invitation to extend the automobile exception to permit a warrantless intrusion on a home or its curtilage
sotomayor, colloins, 2018

That “their … houses” was understood to mean “their respective houses” would have been clear to anyone who knew the English and early American law of arrest and trespass that underlay the Fourth Amendment. The people’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure in their “houses” was drawn from the English common-law maxim, “A man’s home is his castle.” As far back as Semayne’s Case of 1604, the leading English case for that proposition (and a case cited by Coke in his discussion of the proposition that Magna Carta outlawed general warrants based on mere surmise, 4 E. Coke, Institutes 176—177 (1797)), the King’s Bench proclaimed that “the house of any one is not a castle or privilege but for himself, and shall not extend to protect any person who flies to his house.” Semayne v. Gresham, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 93a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 198 (K.B. 1604). Thus Cooley, in discussing Blackstone’s statement that a bailiff could not break into a house to conduct an arrest because “every man’s house is looked upon by the law to be his castle,” 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 288 (1768), added the explanation: “[I]t is the defendant’s own dwelling which by law is said to be his castle;
scalia, minnesota  v carter, 1998.

today my stalker came to my house with a man with a gun.  she came in, had a court order, took pictures of the two bedrooms and front porch, as sort of agreed to at a previous hearing.

This was an ex parte contact outside the presence of counsel.

Did she conspire with Miller?

the adminstrative warrant was overbroad, and would have been subject to a motion to quash, if i had had prompt service.

still to do
motion in limine

Section 37. Slavery--prohibition

Section 37. There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, within the State, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

 For purposes of prosecution under these authorities, the Court held, “the term ‘involuntary servitude’ necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process.”35

request $25000 bond for injunction  if issued.

Where such is the case, an injunction is often deemed mandatory, rather than prohibitory, and a greater showing is required of the moving party. See Jacobson & Co. v. Armstrong Cork Co., 548 F.2d 438, 441 (2d Cir.1977). In these circumstances, we have held that an injunction should issue “only upon a clear showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief requested,” Flintkote Co. v. Blumenthal, 469 F.Supp. 115, 125-26 (N.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 596 F.2d 51 (2d Cir.1979),or where “extreme or very serious damage will result” from a denial of preliminary relief, Clune v. Publishers’ Ass’n, 214 F.Supp. 520, 531 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 314 F.2d 343 (2d Cir.1963). In sum, we have shown “greater reluctance to issue a mandatory injunction than a prohibitory injunction.” Hurley v. Toia, 432 F.Supp. 1170, 1175 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d mem., 573 F.2d 1291 (2d Cir.1977).
Abdul Wali v. Coughlin, 754 F.2d 1015 (2d Cir. 1985)

 A mandatory injunction “`goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite [and] is particularly disfavored.'” Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir.1979) (quoting Martinez v. Mathews,544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir.1976)). When a mandatory preliminary injunction is requested, the district court should deny such relief “`unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.'” Id. Our first task is to determine whether Coach Stanley requested a prohibitory injunction or a mandatory injunction.
Stanley v. University of Southern California, 13 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1994)

O Centro Espirita Beneficiente v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004)

In any event, it is certainly true that courts have historically applied a more stringent standard to mandatory preliminary 979*979 injunctions for the very reason that those injunctions generally do alter the status quo. See, e.g., In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 333 F.3d 517, 526 (4th Cir.2003); Tom Doherty Assocs. v. Saban Entm’t, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 34 (2d Cir.1995); Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir.1979). In fact, most courts decide whether a given preliminary injunction is “mandatory” or “prohibitory” by determining whether or not it alters the status quo. See, e.g., Tom Doherty Assocs., 60 F.3d at 34; Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 647 (3d Cir.1994); Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1319 (9th Cir.1994); Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1242-43 (5th Cir.1976).

There is good reason, however, to distinguish between mandatory injunctions and injunctions which alter the status quo and to treat both types as disfavored.
Without regard to whether a mandatory preliminary injunction alters the status quo, however, it is still appropriate to disfavor such injunctions “because they affirmatively require the nonmovant to act in a particular way, and as a result they place the issuing court in a position where it may have to provide ongoing supervision to assure the nonmovant is abiding by the injunction.” SCFC ILC, 936 F.2d at 1099.

10 ways they have had unclean hands.
privity with city. bad acts by city.
example, joell palmer case, where we went together to the supreme court .
of the 1000 cases, how many had been to the supreme court to watch indianapolis lose?
stewart v taylor
ran for judge, ran for state representative, ran for county clerk.
did that turn up in your due dilligence?

do you understand that your conduct posed a grave risk to the public, to me,and yourself, in that it could have triggered an acute episode, as it  did back in 2001?

1. joell and bad acts by city
2.    reported cases, judicial notice
3.    home invasion, stalking
4.    defective hearing, pattern of hearing denial
5.    [complicity in denial of counsel, creates appearance of impropriety.]
6.    commandeering of court chambers, appearance of impropriety.
7.    caused 2001 nervous breakdown - proximate cause, not underlying cause.
8.    possible racism and sexism in crew that did the property invasion, contrary to public policy.
9.    possible gang-related past of crew members.
10.   may have lied about smith entry. need text of hearing. but there is no record.

20 questions for h and h.

Interrogatories and or requests for admission of law or fact.

1. You mentioned whatshername has 1000 other clients. List them.

2. Of those, how many were represented by counsel?
List counsel
                    and cases. emails if known.
3   how many of the 1000 cases involved counterclaims?
4         how many raised constitutional issues?
5          what affirmative defenses, if any, have been raised in those cases?
did any prevail?

hourly rates, if known.
6Of those, how many are attorneys?
7. Were any cases involving whatshername appealed and reported?

8.     Of the 1000 were any of them suing the county or its various alter egos?
9    how many had already sued and won against the county?
10      do you have any policies in place about how to avoid an appearance of impropriety?
11 do you vote?
12 do you show id?
13 do you have your id with you? is this it?
14 is it ok if i read off some of this info?
15 do you know your social security number?
16 have you ever been the victim of a crime?
17 have you ever given testimony that later turned out not to be true?
18 do you believe that police or health inspectors sometimes lie on the sttand?
19 have you ever told a lie?
20 what is a white lie?
21 do you prefer bagels or donuts?
22 have you ever made a false statement under oath?
23 have you ever made a true statement under oath?
24 do you always know the difference?

25 who is matt guttwein?
26 did you conspire with matt guttwien to enforce the h and h code?
27 eviction case - mark smith
28    eviction case - belinda williams
29  can you think of any examples of actions taken by h and h  that might indicate unclean hands?
30 have you ever heard the expression dropping a dime? do you work with stool pigeons, rats, confidential informants? might some of these people have unclean hands?

did you conspire, either before, during or after the fact, with [name of attorney] to enter my property and take photographs, knowing you did not have a warrant?
have you been asked to make a written waiver of conflict of interest?
what does the idiom thrown to the wolves mean?
do you speak any russian?
who do you admire?
are you a communist or socialist? do you have a creed?
do you belong to any worldwide conspiracies?
do you donate to any charities? which? how much? what is guilt?
do you take any continuing education? describe.
do you subscribe to any magazines? newspapers?
do you have a passport?
have you used it? how?
do you believe in the devil?
who was francis marion?
social media sites?
dues to any organizations? which? how much?
college transcripts?
have you ever been in trouble?
how do you spell that?
paper matches case?
has the aclu ever claimed that h and h acted unethially?
do you subscribe to the hippocratic oath?
is there any code of ethics your department follows?
did you follow that code 100% in this case?
does a hospital corporation have any duty of care to its former patients?


did you ever think you'd gotten away with something, right up until the day you were asked about it under oath? what was that?
what is graft?
what is the difference between graft and a bribe?
if you had been offered a bribe in this case, you would have refused it, right?
do you think my interaction with you has been stressful? my blood pressure today was ___. that indicates hypertention.
are you aware of the histtory of this dispute?

ever belong to a union?
would you be willing to attend a training session held by the aclu?
what is your understanding of the allegations in the cross-complaint?
is there anything you need made more clear?
how does it make you feel, emotionally?
do you understand anything about how much pain and suffering you have been causing me?
coffee. could kill me. back injury. pain with every step, hard to get out of bed.
do you know of any crimes, which you have not previously reportee to police? no no bad question.
have you ever been the victim of a crime? discuss. have you ever, before this case, been the perpetrator of a crime?
have you ever abused a child? or a pet? or an old person? use the widest use of abused that you can think of.

have you read the declaration of independence? is there anything in there about searches or warrants?
how old were you the firs ttime you read the indiana constitution?
how recently have you read it?
are you tested on it as part of your training?
are there records or copies of such tests - request for documents.

what did they teach you about the 4th amendment?
ok how about the first?
second?
third?
7th?
8th?
9th?
10th?
how about the indiana bill of rights.
section 1.
section 9.
section 11.
section 12. ask her to read those out loud.







do you know anyone who voted for trump?
have you worked in the private sector?
if you decided to stop working for (organized crime), is the private sector job you could do, would like, would pay better, etc?
8    What is the jurisdiction of h and h? is its jurisdiction exclusive, or overlapping with other governmental units?
standard of review  proof?
of the 1000, how many have had or will have adminstrative hearings.
6.     do you understand true and false? equitable and inequitable?
clean v unclean hands? good and evil? right and wrong?
education?
have there been any prior cases where there were allegations of wrongful conduct by H and H?  if yes, list cases, cause numbers, any known citation or url.
have there been any disciplinary complaints against cross-defendant? we assume none.
has she ever, as an adult, been arrested?
where do you reside?
are you known by your neighbors?
do you have a reputation in your community for honesty, or dishonesty, r a bit of both?
who do you know who could testify? 3. how long have they known you? how could we contact them if we need to?
do you have any enemies?
are you as pure as the driven snow?
the supreme court recently said "tyranny and sin". would you recognize tyranny or sin if saw it?
do you see well? with your glasses on, what is your vision?
are you a sinner?
have you committed any crimes?
do you have a conscience?
have you ever been mentally evaluated? for example, can we rule out that you are a psychopath of some sort, or a sociopath?
why have you been trying to kill the defendant?
were you trained?
are you supervised?
are there a written policy book? can we get that into evidence?
what was your training? how long did it last, what was the formaat, who taught, was it standardized r custom?
how long on the us constitution or bill of rights?
how long on the indiana constitution?
excessive fines clause policy?
due process policy?
hearings?
did you engage in due diligence?
did you read the old case files?
did you understand mr stewart is someone who does not do agreed judgments,and sometimes files counterclaims?
how many such cases have you had?

do you stand by your refusal to reinspect, knowing that that's why we are here?

all you had to do was knock, and the door shall be opened unto you.

what was your training and policy toward the mentally ill?

are you, now, aware that your agency provided treatment to (me) for major depression, including counseling, zoloft,and zyprexa?

do you have a policy of "first, do no harm"?

what do you know about depression?
is it a serious, life-threatening illness?

do you happen to know the elements of battery under this state's criminal statutes? are you deemed to know the law?

when you came into my home and took pictures,   did you have an administrative warrant? what paperwork, if any, did you have with you?
was someone with you? if so who?




7.   
8.   
9.   
10.   

1.
2.   
3.   
4.   
5.   
6.   
7.   
8.   
9.   
10.   

so it's a week later. spent xmas w/ fam. i'm back in chinatown, having a citrine at a little cafe that's too hip to get food at and no where on maanhattan seems to have wifi. i mean there are 22 wifi networks showing but none of them connect, even to ask for a password.
not sure what's up with that. i found some art, a portrait of friedaa kahlo, so i will try to carry that home with me.
next stop cincinatti. there is a gay bar probably 10 blocks from here, but without wifi i can't bring up a map, so not going to try to find it at semirandom. i have 2 hours to kill before i get on the bus. it's snowinbg outside. the ride here from wilmington was $20, 95% negros. of course i got to sit next to the rapper.
finished the john grisham book i expected bill to get me and he did. the whistler. one guy, expendable, gets killed by the bad guys
but his widow gets $10 mill, the reward is another 10M, and the bad guys go to jail.
my next task is to write up the new michigan case in the style of a grisham novel. so i can do that next. if there are working outlets on the bus.
so i should go to the bus station early enough to charge up.

====

Once upon a time, a guy in michigan was sentenced to 30 days in jail for election fraud. today is friday december 30th 2016, so i guess that was tuesday.
Brandon Hall is his name. I'd written to him December 4th,and he wrote back on the 26th saying I'm interested! but then they took him off to jail. So he might not have gotten my 1- page reply yet.
I've figured out away I can email him in jail, that's innovative,and not too expensive. But I havent finished signing up yet.
His crime was forging some petition signatures for a guy running for judge. I in no way approve of that, but I won't say I didnt once do something similar, long before I became an election lawyer. I've also run for judge, getting only 25,000 votes, but that's another story.
I don't write like Grisham, and he's spent years building his audience, so it's not like I expect this to be publishable. But I need to write it down. And this time I'm starting writing somewhat early. I'm 20 years into this project, but it's less than a month since my path crossed with Brandon's.  Maybe this will go nowhere. But quite possibly we'll have an adventure,and I'll be able to write about as it happens. A Grisham novel is fiction,and it can start or end wherever he chooses. Mine's a true story, parts of which havent happened yet, so it might not turn into a simple three act of conflict, exposition, resolution.
Here at the hipster bar, there's a funky backbeat playing, and the crowd is thinning out enough I don't have to worry about taking up one of their bales. tables.
This is the unedited first draft, so typos happen.
Chapter II
Once upon a time, I was still sitting in a hipster bar a couple blocks off broadway, near the canal street office of the chinatown bus i'll be taking back to cincinnatti in an hour.
I've introduced the reader to the general idea that i've proposed some kind of project to Brandon Hall just as he was heading off to jail in Michigan for a month for election fraud.
But I need to go into more detail on what this project is.
But I write in a somewhat stream of counsciousness manner, like the story of jim blaine's grandfather's  ram, so there could be some more detours before i get to all that. 30 days in county plus probation isn't so bad, for his second offense. it could have been up to 5 years.
still, it all depends which county. i've done a weekend in boulder county, and it was an adventure and a vacation.
[this would be a good place for a footnote about the stonebreaker story.]
but 18 days in indianapolis general population was enough to give me a nervous breakdown, which is why i took a ten year break from the practice of law, and still haven't really gotten back to it. I was tortured, starved, and attacked while there.
so this project with Brandon could end up as another failure, or could be a kind of redemption.
i'm hoping Ottowa county MI isn't too bad.
Where was I? Brandon. Brandon Hall is a sincere energetic young man with an interesting history.
Like me, he's a blogger. Like me, he started young, and was about 20 when he won a seat on his local school board. I didnt run for the school board until I was 32, and I lost, although I got 400 votes per $1 spent. But by 20 I was campaign manager for a statewide race, after starting out doing lit drops at 10 and working the polls at 14, making radio ads with Senator Biden at 15.
Unlike me, he got caught embezzling some funds from the school. I dont know the full story on that one. I've never been convicted of anything more serious that contempt of court.
He hasn't won an election for himself since then. On the other hand, he might have been responsible for Trump winning Michigan. I can't prove that one way or the other, but he was active in the Trump machine which only won by 10,000 votes, the narrrowest margin in the country. Trump's wins in MI, WI, and PA gave him his victory over Clinton.
Brandon's main issue these past few years has involved a cross on a hill on some public property in Brandon's town in Michigan. He's gung ho for it, while separation of church and state folks like myself are opposed. I'm only philosophically opposed, not actively, but some atheist had sent the town council a letter, so it became an issue.
The cross came down, and then a flagpole with a cross-bar went up.   Sneaky. Its been a month ssince I read the articles on this andin some future draft I will hope to correct whatever details I've gotten wrong here. I'm just trying to set out a general background. I realize I still havent explained this project that I keep talking about. I'm almost there now. In 45 minutes, my bus comes.
Chapter III.
As  a single-issue zealot, Brandon's been involved with town council races. At one point he organized a recall campaign against a guy who didnt vote the way he wanted on this cross thing. Feisty, but not what caused the second of his three conflicts with the law.
What did is that he ran an ad in the local paper supporting a candidate, who maybe did vote the way he liked. It was that candidate who ratted out Brandon to the Michigan Election Board, filing a formal complaint in 2015. The board opened an investigation, and then dismissed the case. So it's that complaint that brings me into the picture. But I might neveer have hearrd about it if Brrandon wasn't gettting famous semifamous for other reasons.
Meanwhile, Brandon's petition signature forgery case was working it was though the courts.
The lower court had agreed with Brandon that these were misdemeanor counts, not felonies. But the Supreme Court of Michigan disagreed. So like me, Brandon has had a case go to his state Supreme Court.
My case - one where I was the lawyer, not the defendant - did not lose at the state supreme court, but later lost at the 7th circuit, when I got caught in th crossfire between two famous judges, Posner and Easterbook. But that will be a later chapter.
I am in no way involved in Brandon's forgery case,and it's over, and he's doing his time. But the one weakness I see in the case is that he's been convicted of ten counts, but I see an argument that they arose from a single set of operattive circumstances, and it may raise a double jeopardy/due process issue to treat them as 10 separate offenses. I haven't seen the case file, maybe he's already lost on that point, or just failed to raise it at the right time. I have about 10 minutes before I head back across the street to wait for the bus.
 So, first he gets this bad rap as an embezzler, second he gets convicted of 10 counts of forgery, but becaause that case went up to the high court and back, by the time he gos to trial, conviction, and jail, he'd had a role in the Trump campaign. So the headlines screamed,
"Trump Aide Convicted of Election Fraud!" right at a time when the media really wanted some dirt on the Trump campaign  but wasn't finding any.
Now, I wrote an obscure little election law blog at ballots.blogspot.com, in addition to some of my other blogs such as the one where I'm the Arbitrary Aardvark.
vark.blogspot.com. Between them I've gotten a measly almost 200,000 hits over the years, so basically they arre a failure, but it lets me feel i still havee ahand inthe game.
So I was reading and reposting these articles and caught some reference to the disclaimer issue and started doing a bit more digging, and ended up writing to brandon which eventuaally prompted his reply.
So now I'm ready to sign him up  as a client, draft a complaint, and take on Michigan's unconstitutional attempts at regulating political speech. But first I have to go catch this bus.
In the next chapter, I hope to go into a bit more detail about what it is that Michiagn is trying to do,and why I don't like it.

Chapter IV. 11:00 pm 12/30/16 on a bus.
Michigan tells people who run an ad or make a sign like "Vote for Smith!"
that the signs has to say "Vote for Smith! Paid for by [Brandon Hall], address, not authorized by candidate or committee." These are called disclaimers.
Hall's ad said that it was paid for by Hall (doublecheck, might have had committee info.) But it did not state that it was not authorized by committee. Some second bit of officialeze was also omitted - i'll have to doublecheck which.
The United States Supreme Court has addressed this issue at least 4 times.
In 1960, in Manuel Talley v California, the court held for the first time that disclaimer rules are unconstitional under the First Amendment, because anonymous speech is protected speech.
Talley had distributed a flier calling for the boycott of racist businesses. It had its group,s name on it, but not his own name and address. The court, 6-3, found that such a rule would chill speech.
However, lower courts did not always follow the decision, although they are supposed to do so. They split about 2-1 with most following Talley but with courts in Kentucky, N Carolina, and Tennessee, for example, going their own way and upholding disclaimer statutes.
These were later joined by courts in Chicago, Florida,and Connecticut, even after the Supreme Court ruled 3 more times.
Next up was Ohio Elections Comnmission v. McIntyre, 1995. The Ohio Supreme Court, as many courts have, confused the rules for disclaimers with the rules for disclosures, a separate but related topic. Under Buckley v Valeo, 1976, disclosures get an intermediate level of scrutiny, less strict than the usual first Amendment test.
Judge Wright dissented, outlining the ideas the U S Supreme Court would soon adopt. Mrs. McIntyre was an old lady who had run for the Westerville Ohio School board several times, and was part of gang that had fought off a tax increase twice before. Her story is told in Hanson v Westerville, which the Supreme Court declined to take.
(So she was not a lone pampleteer as later claimed.)
She had died by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, but her husband as executor kept the case going.
It's fuller title is Estate of McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission.
The court, vote count?, found strict scrutiny applies, and rejected state interests in a people's right to know, or election integrity, or some third pretext.
Justice Scalia dissented, helpfully listing the 50 statutes the case called into question.
Justice Thomas concurred, rejecting strict scrutiny in favor of original intent of the founders.
Justice Ginsberg wrote in a concurrence "In for a calf is not in for a cow" suggesting that some future case might find an exception.
This happened in Citizens United, 2010?, in which the court, in dicta, seemed to create a new exception  for disclaimers for election speech by corporations, which had previously been altogether banned in Austin v MI Chmber of Commerce. The court apparently found disclaimers rather than a ban to be a less burdensome alternative.
The court next discussed these issues in Victoria Buckley v. ACLF. Buckley was the Colorado Secretary of State. Plaintiffs included Paul Grant of Grant v Meyer.
ACLF had a variety of concurring and dissenting opinions, but all 9 agreed disclaimer rules are unconstitutional.
The case involved whether circulators of a legalize weed petition in Colorado had to wear name badges, and had to file forms with the secretary of state. The case makes clear distinctions between disclaimers, unconstitutional under Talley and McIntyre, and disclosure, constitutional under Valeo.
The next case to discuss these issues was Watchtower Bible v Village of Stratton. Because of the right to anonymous speech, Jehovah's Witnesses could not be required to register in advance before going door to door.
I have already mentioned Citizen's United, which may have creted a narrow exception for election speech by corporations.
While these are the main cases on the right to anonymous speech, there are other cases that more generally support the idea that the government may not compel the content of speech.
Riley, Tornillo, Wooley are examples.  I know I'm forgetting one.
So by now it should seem simple. The Supreme Court has spoken, set out the rules, and now these rules should be followed by lower courts, legislatures, and election officials, right?
Actually it doesn't work that way.
Lower courts do as they please, ignoring supreme court decisions they dont care for. They are immune, and face no consequences for getting it wrong.
Legislators similarly hav utter immunity and routinely violate their oaths of office to uphold the constitution.
For the bureaucrats in the trenches, it is almost this good.
A doctrine called qualified immunity protects them from being sued.. some of the time.
So, it turns out, state and local governments simply ignore supreme court decisions much of the time, as do judges. because they can get away with it.
chapter 5.
once upon a time, it wasn't new years eve after all, turns out december has 31 days. it's 12 30. we are somewhere in PA. i have maybe 3 hours battery life left.
i'm next to the bath room. strong piss smell. i think the heat came on.
so, brandon. he gets this warning letter. then he gets another letter saying he messed up but they are closing the case anyway. wifi not working so i cant quote exact text but i've seen it. it is enough, in my opinion, to confer standing. and i've won a few landmark standing decisions.
not anybody anytime can sue over some government action that annoys them. the courts require "standing"; some personal involvment in the controversy.
actually not every state has this requirement, but we are probably looking at federal courts. i haven't done my homework yet for michigan.
but i think brandon has standing, so he's my guy, if he wants to go forward. his situation helps illustrate the ridiculous lengths the statutes will go to micromanage speech.
maybe i should do a chapter on stewart v taylor.
once upon a time it was 1996 and i was running  for center township advisory board in indianapolis. i had moved to the city in 1994 and what i always do is go to city hall and introduce myself and offer to serve on any boards or commissions they have vacancies for. i've been on bicentennial and energy and environment and trails committees at various times over the past 40 years. but in indianapolis a guard with a gun told me to go away. so i ran for the center township board. i won the gop primary and was cross-nominated by the libertarian party, a trick i like called "fusion". it's mostly a new york thing, but crops up here and there as well. the district was solidly dem, so my only chance of winning to to build a multiparty coalition. didnt turn out, but it was worth a shot. in 1994 kevin fleming, a libertarian, had won the school board race i'd lost 2 years before. i look for winnable niches.
i digress. so there i was was, winning the primary, when they took down one of the signs i had made for 38 cents a piece the night before at kinko's print shop. it's called fedex now. i think i made 20 of them.
so i told them, you really don't want to do that. better call your lawyer.
so they called the lawyer and i told him you really dont want to do that,and he said well we're doing it anyway. that was my introduction to doub webber. not a bad guy. we get along, now. so i get on the internet and find this case i remember freematt talking about. freematt, a former client, is dead now. gun nut, fatso, libertarian, from ohio. hated kasich, thought he was soft on gun issues. Estate of Mcintyre v Ohio Elections Commission. see above. that was a 1995 case and this was 1996.
so i send doug webber a copy and tell him to write me a  nice lette rof apology and i'll let it drop. he doesn't, i don't, so i find  lawyer and sue the county judge tell us we need to sue the state too, which was wrong, but what they heck, so we amend the complaint to sue the statte election board. asking for damages of course. i'm not in this for my health.
tuskarorra tunnel! or one of those on the PA turnpike. maybe we are past breezewood? ticonderoga? kittainy? i would know it if i heard it.
allegheny, i think that's it.
so we win in court, great opinion saying mcintyre controlls, then tthey dont want  to pay us. i wanted $17K but let my lawyer talk us down to $7K. of which my share was 2.5k.
and then the doublecross - next year they pass the same statute all over agaain, IC 3-9-3-2.5 this time. minor irrelevant changes. i sue again, forming tavel and stewart public interest law firm to handle such cases, but it goes nowhere, and dr tavel and i bicker and after 3 years he pulls the plug. At this point in time i have 6 sources of stress in my life and i end up having my first of 2 nervous breakdowns  and lose all my money.
Meanwhie we go up to the 7th circuit and win round 1,and go to the indiana supreme court aand win round 2,and go back to the 7th curcuit and lose round 3, in  case called majors v abell. i'm working on the supreme court appeal when i get falsely accused of a crime, spend 3 weeks in county, get tortured there, hae another nervous breakdown, have to take my brief printing money to make bail, and end up being a day late in filing the cert petition.
i stopped practicing law for 10 years after that. i know i can't function while non compos mentes. i have focused on staying calm, earning a living without having to have an actual job, and trying to rebuild. it's going slowly. i lost 4 rounds of voter ID pro se litigtion. i have my name on an amicus brief to the supreme court about voter ID, but they ignored our arguments.  i wasn't expecting this chaapter to have all this in it, but i get caaught up sometimes telling the story. i'm telling it as something from the past, but grisham would tell it as it happned, to build suspense. i'm less of a writer. so i fell into what my old friend harry browne called, in "how i found freedom in an unfree world", the lawsuit trap. i could ave let them take my sign down and gone on with my life.
but i saw this as something i could fight for, win and make money at,and that doing so would build my skills reputation and connections. didnt work out as planned. at the time, i was oblivious to the substantial mental health challenges i would be facing. what i've learned is that i dont handle stress well. so i've had to re-arrange my life to the point where i stay out of high stress situations.
anyway, in these recent years of not practicing, i've kept an ear out for cases like brandon's. a couple years ago i started going to meetings of the marion county bar association, to see if i'd want to be a lawyer again. i spent about $1000 to catch up on CLE courses I'd let slide,and got my dues caught up,and I've been readmitted for over a year, but still havent filed a new case yet.
so brandon's case is a possibility. not yet  a certainty. something i'm lookingg into. 1:35 am 12/31.

Similarly, in large pieces of litigation, you may be working with multiple co-counsel, amici, and clients.  You must coordinate and plan among co-counsel and others.  You should have written co-counseling agreements outlining who will be the lead counsel, what their duties will be, who has authority to make decisions, how regularly you will communicate through conference calls or meetings for strategy discussions and updates, who is responsible for covering litigation costs, and who is responsible for any attorney fee aspects of the litigation.

http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/5

If your client does not need emergency relief, prepare a litigation memo setting out the legal claims, the strength of the claims, and the pros and cons of bringing specific claims.  Identify the applicable statutes and regulations and key cases.  Drafting the memo will serve as a useful device to refine your thinking, document your research, share with colleagues, convert into pleadings or briefs, and defend, if necessary, against a Rule 11 motion.  If you recommend using a new or novel legal claim, it is wise to discuss your research conclusions with a more experienced colleague or an expert in the practice area who may be located outside your program.  As the litigation proceeds, revisit this memorandum, but be open to considering other claims or approaches your initial research missed or which have surfaced as a result of discovery or other case developments.

so, do a litigation memo.
claims
strength of claims
"elevator pitch"
Finally, draft a paragraph that will serve as the core theory of the case -- the central defining idea that drives your lawsuit.  It should summarize, in a brief and persuasive way, the nature of the wrong committed and relief sought to remedy it.  Written in lay, rather than legal terms, this fundamental message may be repeated in the opening paragraph of the complaint, in a press release, or at the beginning of an oral argument.  This clearly defined motivating concept behind the lawsuit should remain the touchstone that guides the litigation.

This is a lawsuit to legalize political speech, so that a person can put a poster on their wall that says "Vote for Smith"  without risking jail. This fundamental civil right, essential to free elections and democracy, and established by Supreme Court precedent 56 years ago, is threatened by the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, which thinks it has the power to censor political speech. added this to the complaint - that helps. maybe. too argumentative?


Talk to other people affected by the challenged policy or practice.  Reach out to organizations likely to be allies and who may know others suffering from similar problems. 
nebraska aclu? law school?

Additional documents needed:

service of process

civil cover sheet

motion for TRO and preliminary injunction.

memo in support

admission pro hoc vice – federal form different than state.

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

discovery requests.

• state any state interests relied on.
• State the strength of each of those interests, e.g. legitimate, compelling, overriding, invincible.

Rough outline of appeal of denial of preliminary injunction.

Client agreement with Xander.

Motion to Certify a Question to State Court

so now i'm leaning toward filing in federal court, with a motion to certify the state constitutional questions.

Motion for summary judgment

motion for interlocutory appeal of denial of temporary injunction.

mississippi project
to do task list
1 make lie list for most recent filing.
2 make motion to intervene draft for myself
3 continue to seek cocounsel
4 ask if the existing plaintiffs counsel would allow me to join the suit for xander, do a supplemental complaint. or is that a conflict? would a signed waiver be enough?
5 post to election law list seeking cocounsel.
6 make lie lists for the previous filings.
7 make representation agreement for xander and polaris. scott huminski.
8 email polaris
9 draft supplemental complaint.

1 make lie list for most recent filing.
2 make motion to intervene draft for myself
3 continue to seek cocounsel
4 ask if the existing plaintiffs counsel would allow me to join the suit for xander, do a supplemental complaint. or is that a conflict? would a signed waiver be enough?
5 post to election law list seeking cocounsel.
6 make lie lists for the previous filings.
7 make representation agreement for xander and polaris. scott huminski.
8 email polaris
9 draft supplemental complaint.

scott huminski vermont

Huminski v. Vermont et al, USDC (M.D. FLorida) 2:13-cv-685-Ftm-29dnf, 
It was dismissed and then appealed to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. The appeals court found the dismissal premature as well as the appeal, thus, it is still pending in the USDC. 11th Circuit Docket, 13-14534, Huminski v. Vermont.

note to self:
sent public records request to marion county clerk/election board  requesting address of john taylor. hope i havent tipped my hand.

Amendment case

By

 | March 30,2006

•  Email Article
•  
•   Print Article

MONTPELIER — The head of the Vermont Police Academy has been ordered to pay $50,001 for violating the free-speech rights of a former Bennington man in 1999.

A jury in U.S. District Court in Brattleboro returned the verdict against R.J. Elrick, executive director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, which operates the academy, on Tuesday. The case involved actions Elrick took as Rutland County sheriff.

Elrick must pay $50,000 in compensatory damages and $1 in punitive damages to Scott Huminski, 46, now of North Carolina. As sheriff, Elrick ordered Huminski to leave the Rutland courthouse grounds after Huminski parked there and posted a sign on his truck critical of a judge.

"Elrick's own attorney told the jury that they could only award punitive damages if Elrick was found to have acted with malice," Huminski said in an e-mail. "The jury did find that malice."

Huminski's lawyer, Robert Corn-Revere, confirmed the outcome of the case on Wednesday. Messages left at Elrick's office and at the office and home of his lawyer, Pietro Lynn, were not immediately returned.

"They (the jury) determined that punitive damages were justified because the deprivation of his First Amendment rights had been wanton, meaning reckless and with callous disregard" of Huminski's rights, said Corn-Revere, a Washington lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases.

Of the $1 dollar award for permanent damages, he said, "The jury decided to temper justice with mercy when it came to actually charging the sheriff with additional damages." He said attorney's fees in the case against Elrick were yet to be determined.

The case was triggered by an incident in 1999, when Huminski was angry about the outcome of a case he had had in the Vermont District Court in Bennington in which Judge Nancy Corsones presided.

Corsones was later assigned to Rutland. Huminski, who for a time variously described himself as a "court reporter" and "defender of justice," went to the Rutland courthouse while Corsones was presiding there, parked in its parking lot and put a sign on the side of his truck saying "Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution."

Court officials later said they ordered Huminski away from the courthouse grounds, and later barred him from all courthouses in Vermont, because they feared he might turn violent, which he didn't.

Huminski filed suit against the judges, Rutland court manager Karen Predom, Elrick and the Rutland County Sheriff's Department. The state attorney general's office settled Predom's portion of the case with Huminski last year, agreeing to pay $200,000 in damages and legal fees.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Corsones and Judge Patricia Zimmerman, who were both involved in the no-trespass orders against Huminski, violated his First Amendment rights. But it ruled the judges were not liable for damages.

Corn-Revere said the jury's task was to determine the damages to assess against Elrick. Still to be decided by Judge J. Garvan Murtha is whether to issue the court order sought by Huminski and Corn-Revere that would bar the sheriff's department from enforcing any similar no-trespass order against Huminski in the future.

While the First Amendment case was pending, Huminski was a prolific writer of e-mails and letters accusing Vermont officials including Attorney General William Sorrell and former Gov. Howard Dean of corruption.

He said of Elrick in an e-mail Wednesday, "So now we have a malicious civil rights violator training every single police officer in Vermont."

Corn-Revere said he hoped the former sheriff had learned something about the First Amendment. "Hopefully this decision will help him get better training on compliance with the Constitution. ... I think he's gotten an advance tutorial at this point."

Ending a long-running legal battle, a former Rutland County sheriff has agreed to pay more than $500,000 in legal fees, expenses and damages to an outspoken court critic from Bennington, according to a final settlement in the case.

Scott Huminski, 47, who now lives in North Carolina, prevailed earlier this year in a federal civil rights lawsuit against the former sheriff, judges, court staff, and others. Huminski sued them for barring him from a Rutland courthouse in 1999.

All told, Huminski has been awarded $708,428, including a previous $200,000 settlement from the state. Huminski said most of the money paid his lawyers' fees, although he was imprecise about how much of it he kept.
"I don't want to state exactly because it's kind of personal financial data, but it's between $100,000 and $150,000," he said.
111 Killam Court, #2C, Cary, NC 27513, (919) 481-4663 old address now in flo
s_huminski@live.com
24544 kingfish st bonita springs fla 34134

notes for kristin re possible cocounsel in mississippi case.
you wrote:
After checking with our attorneys, we will need to provide the name of the case and counsel for all parties. Local counsel will need this information for a conflict of interest check. As well, our attorneys asked that you provide a brief statement describing the actual controversy in question. These requests need some specifics; for example, is this a claim on behalf of public school children, and if so what ages? What is the specific practice in question being challenged? As well, we will need to know the name of the proposed intervener, and what the claimed interest of the intervener is in the litigation.

name of the case:

Anonymous Doe, et al v Bryant, et al.
Anonymous Doe, Anonymous Roe and Anonymous Company v. 
Phil Bryant, Governor of Missississippi, Jim Hood, AG, Delbert Hosemann, Secretary of State, in their official capacities.

Name of Counsel:
Graham Carner
Jonathan Matthew Eichelberger

Harold Edward Pizzetta III
Office of Attorney General


Issue in suit: Constitutionality of Mississippi's disclaimer statute MS Code 23-1-899: can
Mississippi put people in jail for not putting "paid for by ___" on their signs and fliers?


Proposed Intervenors:
Polaris Kyo
Xander Guerin
Kyo's interest is that he anonymously advocates for Mississippi Libertarian party candidates via the internet. He is a migrant worker from Texas current based in the Kansas City area.
Guerin is a community activist in Indianapolis. He supports progressive Democratic candidates in Mississippi and elsewhere via web pages built on the WordPress platform, and teaches workshops on how activists can use such free open source tools for community building. Using one's real name and address online would be unacceptably risky and would chill the kinds of speech he is trying to help people engage in. Among other issues, he is active in the Moral Mondays group which campaigns nationally against voter ID and other methods of voter suppression, of which the disclaimer statute is one. 

Kyo and Guerin have a legally distinct interest from the existing three plaintiffs who are already the subject of threats and investigation from Hosemann, and may be pressured into a settlement that resolves their situation but does not eliminate the danger to the public interest from Hosemann's criminalization of political speech by attempting enforcement of a void moribund statute.

Time is of the essence. One of the big factors in a motion for intervention is that it be timely filed. Here, the underlying suit was filed months ago, and they keep delaying a hearing, so there hasn't been any prejudice, but at some point my window of opportunity will close.
So I am grateful to you for writing back today.
- Robbin Stewart.

I'm collecting some of mississippi's moribund unconstitutional election statutes.

D CAMPAIGN FINANCING
§ 23-15-1025 - Distribution of campaign materials

Universal Citation: MS Code § 23-15-1025 (2013)

If any material is distributed by a judicial candidate or his campaign committee or any other person or entity, or at the request of the candidate, his campaign committee or any other person or entity distributing the material shall state that it is distributed by the candidate or that it is being distributed with the candidate's approval. All such material shall conspicuously identify who has prepared the material and who is distributing the material. The identifying language shall state whether or not the material has been submitted to and approved by the candidate. If the candidate has not approved the material, the material shall so state. The identity of organizations or committees shall state the names of all officers of the organizations or committees. Any person, who violates the provisions of this section, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00) or by imprisonment for six (6) months or both fine and imprisonment.