Friday, November 17, 2017

Ms. Weintraub received her B.A., cum laude, from Yale College and her J.D. from Harvard Law School. A native New Yorker, she is a member of the New York and District of Columbia bars and the Supreme Court bar.



The vote “should serve as a signal to everyone in government whose job it is to protect our democracy that failure to act is no longer an option,” Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said in a statement.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

samm levine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h38MKzdPrU

sam levine https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-voter-fraud-probe-panel_us_5a0c6472e4b0bc648a0f5286

Court takes a disclosure case and an electioneering case.
These are my areas.

Volokh: National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, which challenges a California law that (among other things) requires “crisis pregnancy centers” to post signs indicating that the state provides “immediate free or low-cost access” to abortions. The case offers the court an opportunity to clarify when the government may compel disclosures in speech between professionals and clients, and in particular when such a “professional-client speech” doctrine applies in the first place.

Lozman v. Riviera Beach, which turns on whether a person who has been arrested, based on probable cause that he had committed a crime, can sue on the grounds that the real reason for the arrest was his constitutionally protected speech. Such First Amendment retaliation claims are allowed in many contexts (e.g., when an at-will employee is fired by a public employer that can legally fire him for non-speech reasons, but when the actual reason was hostility to the employee’s speech), but not when it comes to retaliatory prosecution. The question is how retaliatory arrests are to be treated.

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, which will decide the extent to which states may limit clothing with ideological messages in polling places. The court has upheld limits on electioneering not just in polling places but even on public streets near polling places; but the issue is whether this principle also extends to all ideological messages that may be related to issues in the campaign, such as “Material promoting a group with recognizable political views” (in this case, the tea party).

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Good evening MCBA members and friends,

This year CLE week will be held November 27 - December 2, 2017 at:

Smith Weeden, LLC
333 N. Alabama St.
Suite 350
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Topics include: Elder Law, Civil Rights, Tax Protests, Medical Malpractice, Insolvency, and Ethics.

Parking is FREE in the Lockerbie Marketplace parking lot. CLEs are FREE for MC


Today is the last day of a public comment period opened by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to hear from lawmakers, tech companies, and the general public about the prospect of requiring paid political ads placed on social media to clearly display the people or groups who purchased them. So far, the agency has reportedly received over 150,000 comments from the public.
After a year of disclosures about foreign operatives anonymously purchasing carefully targeted social media ads designed to influence the 2016 election, new pressure has mounted on the FEC to reexamine its rules. Ads placed on Facebook and Google platforms during the 2016 election purported to ....

Monday, November 13, 2017


Thursday, November 09, 2017


it's an ugly controversy, but not the one they were expecting. this story is libelous, in that it says the fliers were illegal.

At press time, the FEC had not published any of the new comments, and won't until Nov. 9.

That's today.

Wednesday, November 08, 2017

"The flyers are an egregious violation of Ohio law and something that looks to be unprecedented in a Cincinnati mayor's race," Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Pepper told WCPO. "We'll be filing a complaint with the Ohio Ethics Commission to identify who is behind them and be sure they are held accountable."
Violating state election law is a first-degree misdemeanor that is punishable by up to 180 days in jail and as much as a $1,000 fine.

An attorney for the Ohio Democratic Party filed the complaint against Baise Quality Printing and Graphics in Columbus, which printed the mailers. The complaint also named Pierce Communications, a Columbus company that works on political campaigns.
The complaint names 10 others, listed as "John Doe," because it's still unknown who bought and created the ads.
Troy Baise, the owner of Baise Quality Printing and Graphics, told WCPO he simply printed and mailed the flyers. Baise has been in the business for more than 30 years.



The complaint is by the general counsel for the ohio Democratic party. N. Zachary West. Is he acting on their behalf?
I believe and assert the complaint was an ethical violation, and should be duly reported to bar authorities.


NPR: 7. Voting matters. One of the big stories of the night is that Democrats are one seat shy of taking back the state Legislature in Virginia. If they were to do that and hold it in 2019, it would give them the ability to redraw congressional districts in 2021.
Currently, there are several races that are likely going to a recount, including one in which the Republican candidate is up by just 12 votes.
Other individual legislative races are separated by 68, 86, 124, 326 and 394 votes.

Democrat Ralph Northam won by 9 points, the widest victory for a Democrat in the governor's race since Gerald Baliles won by 11 points in 1985, when the state was very different

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

“It is time for the FEC to join the 21st century and end the confusion over online election ads,” said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation and strategy at CLC, who previously served as the FEC’s Associate General Counsel for Policy. “This advisory opinion request legally requires the FEC to clarify whether election ads on Facebook must include a statement disclosing who paid for the ad. Because social media companies have proven that they are unable or unwilling to self-police, the FEC must act.  This advisory opinion will provide for election-ad disclaimers so voters, journalists, watchdog groups, and law enforcement have some of the tools they need to root out illegal foreign activity.”


Are anonymous anti-Cranley mailers illegal? Not so fast, says expert

article is behind paywall.

A set of anonymous fliers and mailers have roiled the Cincinnati mayor’s race and left a clouded path back to a political communications consultant in Columbus who also is treasurer of a political action committee supporting a Cincinnati City Council candidate.

Reuters) - A bitterly fought governor's race in Virginia leads a slate of state and local elections on Tuesday that offer an early test of Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's political influence and possible strategies for both parties in next year's midterm elections.
New Jersey voters are picking a new governor, to succeed outgoing Republican Chris Christie. Several big cities are selecting mayors, and conservative Utah is holding a special election to replace U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Republican who stepped down before his term ended.
In Virginia, opinion polls show Democrat Ralph Northam has a slight edge over Republican Ed Gillespie in a nasty governor's race that will offer clues about the U.S. political mood.

Friday, November 03, 2017



DNC leaders call for rules reform after 2016 primary revelations - washpo.

Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939)

Enjoying this WWII era case, very similar to Watchtower v. Stratton.
Upheld right to jehovah's witness woman minister to go door to door with pamphlets, and 3 similar cases about handbills.

I am currently reading the memoirs of the late Secretary of Commerce Strauss, which covers some of this same time period. Circa this time period Strauss, who got his start as Hoover's private secretary stops being an active partner in Kuhn Loeb, goes into the Navy, becomes admiral in 4 years, before organizing the Atomic Energy Commission. Haven't gotten to the Commerce part yet.
My internet access is sporadic these days so I am turning to books again.

I had missed this one at the time.


On February 26, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the Commission’s motion for summary judgment in Fieger v. FEC and dismissed the case, finding that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Geoffrey Fieger (Plaintiff) was not the party who made the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests at issue and so Plaintiff lacked standing to file suit.
Fieger is notorious, and the ruling here on standing seems to me to be wrong; a person has injury in fact if they are denied access to documents as a result of the withholding of those documents to a requestor. I need to have lunch with that guy sometime.

when i have time, i'll edit this down to fair use levels. i'm at a wendy's right now doing other things.

i'll have to doublecheck if there's a public comment.. yes, sure there is. so i can file comments on this AO about disclaimers, calling out clc on their pro-censorship stance.


LC, Pro-Trump PAC Prod FEC on Online Disclosures

Want clarity on how much is required10/31/2017 2:23 PM Eastern
The Campaign Legal Center is teaming up with a pro-Trump PAC to try and force the Federal Election Commission to establish strong online ad disclosure rules.
That comes as the Senate and House are hearing from Google, Facebook and Twitter this week about social media's role in Russian election interference, which included online political ads.
CLC has teamed up with the Take Back Action Fund (TBAF) to file an advisory opinion request with the FEC that they say requires the commission to address the issue of online ad transparency by the end of 2017. They don't want a new election cycle to rev up without the protective gear of strong disclosure.
By law the FEC must respond to the request within 60 days, they said.
Anything that boosts disclosure could potentially shrink the political ad spending or redirect it elsewhere by cutting out those who don’t want to have to identify themselves.
"The FEC may not write new online ad rules for quite some time. And legislation may not be enacted any time soon. But by using this advisory request mechanism, TBAF and CLC are invoking their legal right to ensure that the FEC timely address the issue of disclaimers for online political ads," they said.
TBAF actually is trying to get more disclosure because it will be taking out ads in support of the President's anti-government agenda, ads that will "expressly advocate the defeat of candidates who are hiding behind overhyped allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election to cover up their opposition to President Trump's efforts to reform our government," according to the letter.
TBAF says it will be buying ads on Facebook and need to know the size of the disclaimer, which means how much information will need to be disclaimer, which means to respond within 60 days, the FEC would theoretically have to clarify how much information is required. Online ads that expressly advocate for the election, of defeat, of a federal candidate have to include funding disclosure’s just as TV and radio ads do.
TBAF and CLC want an advisory opinion on: "When Take Back Action Fund purchases paid Facebook Image and Vide advertising that expressly advocates for or against a candidate, must that advertising include all, some, or none of the disclaimer information," given that what is required, following a series of past advisories and draft opinions delivering mixed signals, is unclear.
Take Back President John Pudner and CLC's counsel also want to be able to appear at any public FEC meeting where the issue is discussed.

Thursday, November 02, 2017

Humblebrag department:
Weintraub added that the FEC’s latest review process is just beginning, and said the public comment period represents only the first step of what might be a long process, if it continues forward. The current commenting period will remain open until Nov. 9.

Elections are he first tuesday after the first monday in november, so not till next week. I was thinking it was yesterday, and expecting more news.
And the Alabama senate election is not till December 12th.

Monday, October 30, 2017



A government watchdog group is suing Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson, accusing her office of allowing voters to be illegally purged from the state's voting roles.
AP story.

Wednesday, October 25, 2017


new jfk docs drop today?

So, unless Trump changes his mind, about 50,000 documents never seen by the public and information from about half a million redacted records will be released, according to the Archives website. There are about 5 million records in the collection.


Sunday, October 22, 2017

The ads in question would not have triggered the disclaimers, (Elias) said, because — according to Facebook — they did not explicitly mention Trump, Clinton or the election. 


So here it's Clinton's lawyer, mentioning an express advocacy situation,

‘‘(B) AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS.—In the 23 case of an audio communication, the statement 24 is spoken in a clearly audible and intelligible VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:01 Oct 19, 2017 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4077.IH H4077 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS 15 •HR 4077 IH 1 manner at the beginning or end of the commu- 2 nication and lasts at least 3 seconds. 

This is problematic when paired with Stand by Your Ad, which requires the candidate to voice the disclaimer herself. 
I mumble. When I was a kid they sent me to speech therapy classes, but it didnt help much. How many takes will this ad take? Where do I send the bill?


A bill called "The Honest Election Ads Act" is probably about censorship. I expect to be reading it and making a few comments, so this post will be updated

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honest Ads Act’’.
To enhance transparency and accountability for online political advertisements by requiring those who purchase and publish such ads to disclose information about the advertisements to the public, and for other purposes.

i'm on a bus and the wifi is iffy so this may not post  took a few tries.

6 The purpose of this Act is to enhance the integrity 
of American democracy and national security by improving 
8 disclosure requirements for online political advertisements 
in order to uphold the United States Supreme Court’s 
2 well-established standard that the electorate bears the 
3 right to be fully informed.

The Supreme Court has not recognized succh a right, rather the opposite; citizens enjoy a right to remain silent or to choose to reveal some but not all information.

So we'll call that Lie #1, and start to build a "Lie List" of false claims made in the proposed text.

section 3 is findings, going into detail on the russians and facebook.
this is typical of incident-based legislation, which often ends up being overbroad or ineffective.

 In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 2 Act became law

Sort of. I have pet peeve over the use of the term "law" to describe a void unconstitutional statute. Some 5 cases have overturned parts of BCRA, and there will be more to come.

For instance, 
19 the largest platform has over 210,000,000 American 
20 users—over 160,000,000 of them on a daily basis. 

Those same 2 companies accounted for 99 20 percent of revenue growth from digital advertising in 21 2016, including 77 percent of gross spending. more yikes. 

(11) The Federal Election Commission, the 
10 independent Federal agency charged with protecting 
11 the integrity of the Federal campaign finance proc- 
12 ess by providing transparency and administering 
13 campaign finance laws, has failed to take action to 
14 address online political advertisements. 

That's Lie 2.

(13) Current regulations on political advertise- 
18 ments do not provide sufficient transparency to up- 
19 hold the public’s right to be fully informed about po- 
20 litical advertisements made online. 

Repeats lie #1.

Lie #4: (2) free and fair elections require both trans- 
6 parency and accountability which give the public a 
7 right to know the true sources of funding for polit- 
8 ical advertisements in order to make informed polit- 
9 ical choices and hold elected officials accountable; 
10 and  

The Supreme Court disagrees, saying fair elections require free speech. "hold accountable" means threaten and silence.
Page 10, line 9, finally says what  the bill is actually about, disclaimers, not disclosure.

The description of the bill does say and for other purposes, so it technically correct but deliberately misleading. So not a lie exactly.

22 MENT.—Subsection (a) of section 318 of the Federal Elec- 
23 tion Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30120(a)) is 24 amended.... 

This is the unconstitutional part. What it is doing is  taking an already unconstitutional section and adding internet.

This is a long blog post already, but I need a digression here about litigation tactics.

Two cases, McConnell v FEC and CU, have upheld extending unconstitutional disclaimer policies to new kinds of media.
In both cases, the argument was about seeking an express advocacy exemption, rather than a direct challenge under controlling precdents.

This has inserted some indeterminacy into what were once brighter lines. While express advocacy cases have their place [and Jim Bopp has made and spent a fortune doing them,] this is a known losing argument and should be avoided, in favor pointing to controlling cases such as ACLF.

ACLF was a case brought by Paul Grant of Grant v Meyer, part of the team that brought the referendum that legalized weed in Colorado. I am on a bus right now coming back from Colorado,
which is different now as a result of Grant's work. 

ACLF held that disclaimer lws are unconstitutional while disclosure laws can be fine. So the petition ciurculators were 
required to register with the state, a disclosure, but could not be forced to wear name badges, a disclaimer.

As Judge Posner pointed out in Majors v Abell, disclaimers don't really disclaim anything. But the terminology is still useful.

(1) by striking ‘‘shall clearly state’’ each place 2 it appears in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and in- 3 serting ‘‘shall state in a clear and conspicuous man- 4 ner’’; and 

With each new version, the state's editing of campaign statements becomes more intrusive, micromanaging political speech. Not a lie, but a danger.

‘‘For purposes of this subsection, a com- 7 munication does not make a statement in a clear 8 and conspicuous manner if it is difficult to read or 9 hear or if the placement is easily overlooked.’’. 

This is vague and indeterminate. It empowers groups like CREWd 
or the campaign legal centaur to file frivolous complaints against their enemies. Much the way they file false complaints alleging express advocacy where there is none.

24 ‘‘(A) state the name of the person who 25 paid for the communication; and 

Not a lie, because it is a command rather than a claim of fact, but unconstitutional under Talley v California and McIntyre v Ohio, among many others.

‘‘(B) provide a means for the recipient of 2 the communication to obtain the remainder of 3 the information required under this section with 4 minimal effort and without receiving or viewing 5 any additional material other than such re- 6 quired information. 

What is minimal effort? It probably means a link, but who knows.
This is extreme micromanagement of political speech.

‘(A) TEXT OR GRAPHIC COMMUNICA- 15 TIONS.—In the case of a text or graphic com- 16 munication, the statement— 17 ‘‘(i) appears in letters at least as large 18 as the majority of the text in the commu- 19 nication; and 
So they no longer want 

"Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday paid   for by A Small Circle of Friends, Authorized by candidate",

now they want something like 
Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday paid for by A Small Circle of Friends, Authorized by candidate"

That doesn't make for a good billboard or online ad. See by the way Stewart v Taylor (1997), which found the first version unonstitutional.

This is fun, but the post is getting too long. If I continue I will do so in next post.

Dunn Done.

Sad News: David Dunn, One of Few Democratic Members of Pence-Kobach Fraud Commission, Dies at 52

Not necessarily murdered on orders of the hans-kobach-adams gang.

Monday, October 16, 2017


Friday, October 13, 2017

 Federal Election Commission, Attn.: Neven F. Stipanovic, Acting Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463.

Comments for FEC disclaimer policies:
{My Attempts at submitting this online didn't work.]

I incorporate by reference my already filed comments on this issue, including as to the 1998-AO-22 Leo Smith matter.

When you asked, once before, for comments on whether the FEC should regulate the internet, you received a then-record 1000 comments, mostly saying “Hands off the Internet!” One of those was mine.

The current broad disclaimer policy followed by the FEC is a First Amendment violation, a willful intrusion into core political speech, and is unethical, for those commissioners and staff who are lawyers.

Disclaimer policies are unconstitutional under Talley v California and McIntyre v Ohio. This is well established law. There is no qualified immunity for FEC employees who conspire to violate Talley and McIntyre. [There may be official immunity for some actions but not others.]
Reed v. Town of Gilbert re-establishes that strict scrutiny is the standard of review.

Below, I have listed a series of cases that mostly have upheld the right to political speech without disclaimers.

A narrow disclaimer policy could withstand heightened scrutiny, if it were limited to corporations as per Citizens United, and foreign governments.

Robbin Stewart.
P O Box 29164
Cumberlaand IN 46229.
gtbear at gmail.com

Chronological Table of disclaimer cases

1908 ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908)
1960 Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), http://epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_california.html
1961 United States v. Scott (D.N.D.) 195 F. Supp. 440 (1961)
1964 Canon v. Justice Court for Lake Valley, 61 Cal.2d 446, 39 Cal.Rptr. 228, 393 P.2d 428 (1964),
1962 People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Sup. Ct. 1962)
People v Drake (CA) cite missing
1968 Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968),
1969 Zwickler v Koota 389 U.S. 241 (1967), 290 F.Supp. 244, mooted 394 U.S. 103 (1969) sub nom Golden v Zwickler
1973 Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973)
1973 United States v. Insco, 365 F. Supp. 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1973)
1974 Miami Herald v Tornillo,  418 U.S. 241 (1974)
1974 In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974)
1974 New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974)
1974 Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974), 42 L.Ed.26 33 dismissed as moot. http://openjurist.org/422/us/937/hill-v-printing-industries-of-gulf-coast
1975 Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975), http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass92.html
1976 State of Louisiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976)
1977 Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)
1978 State v. North Dakota Educ. Ass'n, 262 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 1978)
1980 Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App.
1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 45. http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5CCA2%5C1980%5C19800828_0040409.CA.htm/qx
1987 Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987) http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CIL%5CIL2%5Carchp%5C1987%5C19870220_0000193.IL.htm/qx
1987 Wilson v. Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987);
199x N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/612.htm
1995 FEC v. Survival Educ. Fund, Inc., 65 F.3d 285, 298(2d. Cir. 1995)
[upheld disclaimers related to fraud]
1995 Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995)
1995 McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html
1995 ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995), http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952857P.pdf
1996 W. Va. for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036, 1042 (S.D. W. Va. 1996)
1997 Stewart v Taylor (S.D. Ind. 1997)
1997 ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997) http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.acluvmiller.html
1997 ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union
1997 ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ALA_v_Pataki.html
1998 Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998)

1998 Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998)
1998 Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/487/781.html
1999 Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999)
1999 Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999) http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/lawsuit/
1999 doublecheck dates Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 69 Cal. App. 4th 818, 82 Cal. Rptr.2d 25 (1999), reversed on other grounds,
2000 Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000),
2000 Citizens for Responsible Gov't State PAC v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, 2000 (10th Cir. 2000);
2000 N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 108 F. Supp. 2d 498, 510 (E.D. N.C. 2000)
2000 Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000);
2000x Doe v. 2theMart, 140 F.Supp.2d 1088,
2001 FEC v. Public Citizen, 268 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2001),
2001 Melvin v Doe, 2001 Pa. Super. 33044 P.3d 1044 (2002)
2002 Tattered Cover v Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Co. 2002)
2002 Free Speech Coalition, Ashcroft v., 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
2002 Ogden v Marendt 264 F.Supp.2d 785 (S.D. Ind. 2003)
2003 Doe v. Texas, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 88 (Tex. Crim. App. May 14, 2003).
2003, 2004 Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind. 2003), 361 F.2d 349 (2004), http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/153312903321578269?cookieSet=1&journalCode=elj http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=02-2204&submit=showdkt&yr=02&num=2204A.P
2004 ACLU v Heller 378 F3d 979 (9th cir. 2004) http://openjurist.org/378/f3d/979/american-civil-liberties-union-of-nevada-v-heller
2004 ACLU v. Ashcroft, _ U.S. _ (2004), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._Ashcroft_(2004) see Doe v Gonzales, 546 U.S. 1301 (2005),
2008 The Broward Coalition v. Browning (N.D. Fla. 2008)
2009 Center For Individual Liberty v Ireland 1:08-cv-00190 (W.D.WV 2009)
2009 Michael James Berger, aka Magic Mike v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 2009)
2012 Hatchett v Barland, (E.D.Wi) , on appeal to 7th Cir.

L.A. CORE Founder Manuel Talley Dies

December 17, 1986
    • Email
A funeral service was held Tuesday for Manuel Talley, a founder of the Los Angeles chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality.
Talley was 68 when he collapsed and died of an apparent heart attack outside the Los Angeles County Courthouse on Dec. 8, said his son, Gregory.
A congressional candidate in 1974 and 1984, Talley also founded the United Freedom Assn., a group dedicated to the registration of black voters.
In addition to his son, he is survived by four daughters and four grandchildren.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?