Friday, March 16, 2018

bernstein at volokh:

Develop the focus of cases the Clinic will work on, including developing and maintaining relationships with public interest law firms with which the Clinic expects to collaborate.

The Liberty and Law Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School is looking for a Free Speech Clinic Fellow to run a new Free Speech Clinic for law students, which will begin in Fall of 2018. The Free Speech Clinic Fellow will collaborate with the Clinic Director to manage, instruct, and support the activities of the Free Speech Clinic. It is anticipated that the Clinic will focus on two core First Amendment objectives: (1) litigating and supporting cases and other legal proceedings that further the cause of free speech; and (2) training a group of future lawyers who want to advance their knowledge of the status of freedom of speech in the United States, and seek practical training in protecting freedom of speech.

About the Liberty and Law Center:

The Liberty and Law Center is a new academic center within Scalia Law School. Its mission is to provide a forum to learn about the role of law in protecting and promoting liberty, challenge government encroachment upon liberty, and lead the discussion of the law's role in protecting and promoting liberty.

Fellowship Description:

At the direction of the Clinic Director and the Center's leadership, the Fellow's responsibilities include but are not limited to:

This is a full-time position for a period of two-years, and is benefits eligible. The position may be renewable.

Requirements: The Fellow must be a U.S. citizen (or otherwise eligible to work in the U.S.) and a law school graduate, with practical experience and background in constitutional law.

Desired qualifications and skills:

Required qualifications:

Required application materials:

Eleventh Circuit: Wearing a mask in public is illegal in Georgia (with exceptions for Halloween, among other things), a measure meant to protect against "terrorization by masked vigilantes." So an allegedly peaceful protester arrested for wearing a Guy Fawkes mask can't sue Atlanta police. Dissent: That's not the law; wearing a mask in public is legal unless the wearer intends to intimidate people; "non-threatening political mask wearing" doesn't meet that standard.

there is a circuit split on anti-mask statutes. it is connected to McIntyre + anonymity. the 11th circuit has gotten this wrong 3 times so far.

dissent: The right to anonymously engage in protected speech, especially political speech, has been similarly upheld by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960) (upholding the right to anonymously engage in protected speech and noting that “[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.”); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 343 (1995) (observing that although “[t]he specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, [] the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes.”). Indeed, the Miller court acknowledged this right in finding that engaging in non-threatening political mask-wearing was clearly protected conduct and not actionable under the Anti-Mask Act

The first proposal would effectively broaden existing rules to encompass online ads, while the second proposal “would require disclaimers on internet communications to be clear and conspicuous and to meet the same general content requirement as other disclaimers, without imposing the additional disclaimer requirements that apply to print, radio and television communications,” according to FEC.
The FEC is seeking comments on both proposals and has scheduled a public hearing on the subject for June 27.
“We’re open to possibilities that aren’t even in this document,” FEC Chairwoman Caroline Hunter, a Republican, said Wednesday, NPR reported.

this is here a an example of unlawful censorship by california.

Mass Mailings 
In the Matter of Committee to Improve Hermosa Schools – Yes on S, Michael Collins, and John Friberg; FPPC No. 16/568. Staff: Commission Counsel Christopher Burton. Committee to Improve Hermosa Schools – Yes on S was a primarily formed ballot measure committee in support of Hermosa Beach City School District Measure S, on the June 7, 2016 Primary Election ballot. Michael Collins was the Committee’s principal officer. John Friberg was the Committee’s treasurer. The Committee, Collins, and Friberg failed to print the language “Paid for by” and disclose the name of the Committee on certain advertisements, in violation of Government Code Section 84504 and Regulation 18450.4, subdivision (b)(1) (1 count). Fine: $2,500. 




article on california isclose act. i think it's unco.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

reitors attack youtube channel with isclaimer complaint in vermont.
one of my keys is stuck.

this oxxing violates reit TOS as well as civil rights laws.

Will Senning, the director of elections and campaign finance for the Vermont Secretary of State's Office, said there's not much legal wiggle room.
"The law is really clear: If it is an electioneering communication, it requires the 'paid for by' — the disclosure language," he said.
he's lying. 'paid for by _' type statutes were found unconstitutional in talley v california, under the first amendment right of privacy.

Unfunny Money? Anonymous Satirical Outfit Skewers Vermont Pols 

lamb wins, says nyt.
rollling stone:
We should be able to elect a box of hammers in this district," moaned GOP consultant Mike Murphy. "If we're losing here, you can bet there is a Democratic wave coming."

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

ea heat in pa special election, 50-50 right now, still counting.

U.S. House, Pennsylvania, District 18

49.9%Conor LambDem107,556
49.5%Rick SacconeGOP106,801
0.6%Drew MillerLib1,309

Democratic sources said they expected the final count will show Lamb won the election by more than 400 votes. waiting on absentees.

Monday, March 12, 2018

placeholer for an outline of a short paper

mcintyre after citixens unitet

- har to write with a broken keyboar .

Election Law and Democratic Theory

Election Administration Training

Election Law in Advanced Democracies

Election Administration

Election Law in Emerging Democracies

Election Fraud

Election Law and Minority Voting Rights

European Union, Democracy, and Election Administration

Financing of Campaigns and Elections

Political Advertising, Free Speech, and Elections

Political Parties and Election Law

Political Corruption

Representation and Election Law

Role of Money in Campaigns and Elections

Separatist (Independence)  Movements and Elections

Socio-Economic Foundations of Elections and Democracy

Technology and Elections

United Nations, NGOs, and Election Oversight

Voter Turnout and Participation

Voting Rights

David Schultz, Professor
Hamline University

Journal Cover
CALL FOR PAPERS: Current Debates and Recent Developments in Campaign Finance
Deadline for manuscript submission: May 1, 2018
Social scientists are playing an increasingly important role in election law, both directly as expert witnesses and indirectly through their research. Circuit Judge Wynn's recent decision in the North Carolina redistricting case recognizes this point, striking a very different tone than Chief Justice John Roberts' concern about “sociological gobbledygook.” Judge Wynn is worth quoting extensively because it should warm the heart of every social scientist who has an interest in election law. While the readers of the Journal will be split in terms of the substantive outcome in this case, social scientists and lawyers who use that research should applaud Judge Wynn's endorsement of cutting-edge social science research to inform legal decisions:
Advances in statistical and empirical theory and application, therefore, have the potential to allow parties, experts, and amici to provide courts with more rigorous and probative evidence, thereby decreasing the risk that courts will render a decision that later proves to have rested on an errant empirical analysis. Consequently, it makes no practical or legal sense for courts to close their eyes to new scientific or statistical methods . . . to prove or disprove claims premised on established legal standards. (Common Cause, et al., v. Robert A. Rucho, pp.74-75).
In this spirit, the Election Law Journal will devote a special issue to campaign finance.
Election Law Journal is the leading peer-reviewed journal for up-to-date coverage of this evolving area of specialization.ELJ is currently seeking original contributions on the following topics related to campaign finance (this list is suggestive, not exhaustive):
  • dark money and disclosure
  • the viability of our regulatory structure given the current impotence of the FEC
  • the influence of foreign money in federal elections
  • public financing at the state level
Deadline for manuscript submission: May 1, 2018
Please submit your papers online to our web-based manuscript submission and peer-review system.
Editorial questions? 
Contact Editor-in-Chief, David Canon
Manuscript preparation or technical questions?
Contact Author Services

Sunday, March 11, 2018


Doug Ford wins Ontario PC leadership after chaotic party race

Saturday, March 10, 2018


7th circuit john/jane doe case

IC 34-28-5-3.5Refusal to identify self
     Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-32-3.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

i aint got an in iana coe annotate han y right now, but i woner how this gets enforce.

(my keyboar is sticky an  nee s replacing.)


If you are stopped by the police:
  1. You NEVER have to talk to any police officer, parole/probation officer, agents or investigator on the street, at your home, at work or while in custody.
  2. You are not required to carry ID most places unless you are driving.  You cannot be arrested for refusing to identify yourself on the street but refusing may seem suspicious.
  3. When stopped DO NOT run away.  You can always ask, "Am I being detained?".  If the police are NOT detaining you, you can leave after asking, "Am I free to go?"
  4. Remember that police officers DO NOT have to tell you why they are speaking to you and will often not tell you the reason when asked why they stopped you.
  5. Lying to a federal agent or police officer is a crime, so be mindful of what you say because it CAN and WILL be used against you.  It is best to keep quiet.  Remember that police are allowed to lie to you to get you to talk to them.
  6. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures.  The Fifth Amendment gives every person the right to stay silent; the Sixth Amendment assures you the right to a lawyer.  These rights can not be taken away by anyone regardless of whether you have been convicted of a crime in the past.  
These are your rights under the law but that does not mean that you will always enjoy these rights in reality.  You must stand up for your rights.

If you are pulled over by the police while driving:


Friday, March 09, 2018


kansas trial info


biase but useful article, an the same author has more.

Monday, March 05, 2018

The Daily Mail quoted Cleta Mitchell, a former NRA board member and former Oklahoma lawmaker, who said, “There is no one. NO ONE. Who joins the NRA for a discount on a rental car. 


the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) barred journalists from a panel on press freedom at its annual policy conference in Washington, DC, on Sunday.


Tuesday, February 27, 2018


NC lawmakers can make own rules for protesters inside Legislative Building, judge says

Thursday, February 22, 2018


monica lewinsky ted talk.

if you are unable or unwilling to present ID meeting these requirements, you may cast a provisional ballot. If you cast a provisional ballot, you have until noon 10 days after the election to follow up with the county election board and either provide the necessary documentation or affirm one of the law’s exemptions applies to you.


counsel in the alabama voter id case;
SHERRILYN A. IFILL President & Director-Counsel JANAI S. NELSON SAMUEL SPITAL DEUEL ROSS Counsel of Record NATASHA C. MERLE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10006 (212) 965-2200 dross@naacpldf.org JOSEPH MITCHELL MCGUIRE MCGUIRE & ASSOCIATES 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 (334) 517-1000 jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com COTY R. MONTAG DANIEL HARAWA NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 1444 I Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 682-1300 cmontag@naacpldf.org ROBERT D. FRAM* NATHAN E. SHAFROTH* COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Front Street San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 591-6000 rfram@cov.com


Wednesday, February 21, 2018

note that's marion county missouri, not indiana. i've lived in both, which are name after francis marion, the swamp fox. leslie neilson as the swamp fox

Marion County buys 'signature pads' for voter sign-in at polling places

By  Herald-Whig
Posted: Feb. 20, 2018 9:00 pm
PALMYRA, Mo. -- Marion County voters will notice a few changes when they arrive at their polling places to cast ballots in future elections.
Starting with the April 3 municipal elections, voters will sign in at polling places using electronic "signature pads" -- a type of tablet computer.
In the past, voters had to sign their names on paper voter-registration booklets printed for each polling place. Under the new system, the booklets will no longer be needed. Instead, voter registration lists for each polling place will be downloaded to the signature pads.
The Marion County Commission on Tuesday awarded a $32,550 contract to Know Inc. of St. Louis to buy 35 of the electronic devices for the county's elections. The price includes four ticket printers to be used at the county's two largest polling places. The tickets will be used to let the judge at the ballot table know which ballot the voter is to receive.
Marion County Clerk Valerie Dornberger said the new signature pads will help speed up voter sign-in on election day. The devices also will be loaded with encrypted software that will let election judges tell immediately whether the person coming to vote is at the correct polling place.
"When people go to vote, they give their name. Or it can scan their driver's license and it will bring up their voter information," Dornberger said, noting how the devices will work in concert with Missouri's relatively new requirement that voters show a photo ID when arriving to vote.


  women before 1920.

"Links to the Local: Building a National Women's Elective History" is set for Wednesday, February 21, from 1:30-2:45 p.m. in the Kirkhof Center, room 2270. Bouwkamp and Clarey will report on how a crowdsourcing project, "Her Hat Was in the Ring," invited researchers to collect and share data on women in politics.
The event is free and open to the public; it is approved for LIB 100 and 201 courses.

a modest proposal

election lawyers should stop committing professional malpractice by ignoring the free and equal elections clause of their state constitutions.


I'm starting to think there's enough there there to sustain the inigtments, which i've been questioning.
fraud can be not easy to prove. but here there are fake credentials and stolen social security numbers.  i've always sai that voter id doesn't stop determined criminals, but it often does stop old ladies and nuns anf such.  

Tuesday, February 20, 2018


Court denies regulator’s request to look at utility’s campaign spending

Bob Burns (Photo by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services)
Bob Burns (Photo by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services)
A judge won’t help Bob Burns force Arizona Public Service to disclose the money it has spent — and may spend in the future — to elect candidates of its choice.
In an extensive ruling Friday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Kiley concluded that Burns, as a member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, has an individual right to look at the books of not only APS but Pinnacle West Capital Corp., its parent company. He said Burns does not need the backing of the majority of the regulatory panel.
And the judge also said that individual right of commissioners extends to the ability to subpoena corporate executives to testify.
But Kiley said none of that matters because the other four members of the commission have refused to enforce the subpoenas. And the judge said he lacks the legal authority to overrule that.


Arizona: “Court denies regulator’s request to look at utility’s campaign spending”

text of of a letter. typos mine.

State of Indiana
Eric J. HOLCOMB, Governor
Public Access Counselor
402 W Washington St W470
Indianapolis Indiana 46204-2745

Feb 6 2018
Attn: Sheriff John Layton
Marion County Sheriff's Office
City County Builing
200 E Washington St.

Re: Formal Complaint 18-FC-20

Dear Sherriff Layton:

In accordance wwith Indiana Code section 5-14-5, a formal complaint has been filed with the Public Access Counselor concerning an allege violation of the Access to Public Records Act ("APRA") by the Marion County Sheriff's Office. A copy of the formal complaint an supporting ocuments are include for your reference.

The Public Access Counselor is required to issue an advisory opinion within 30 business days of the date the complaint was received. Accordingly, the Counselor's opinion is due by March 21, 2018.

Under Indiana Code section 5-14-5, a public agency shall cooperate with the Counselor in any investigation or proceeding. therefor the response of the Marion County Sheriff's Office must be received by this office no later than February 20, 2018. Please feel to fax your response to the number liste in the letterhead or email it to PAC@opac.iN.gov.

Please contact our office with any questions.


Office of the Public Access Counselor.


Sunday, February 18, 2018


In the past, if you lived on the east side, that's where your assigned polling place was. But starting next year, you'll be able to vote at any of the 300 or so voting centers around Marion County. Election officials say the goal is to make it easier for people to get to the polls.

This is going to take a lot of effort and planning to add all the flexibility. For example, they usually have about 3,000 poll workers on Election day and expect some of those people may also help with early voting at those extra locations. They'll also need electronic poll books. They plan to work that into the budget, as well as the costs of those extra poll workers. It’s unclear at this time how much that will all cost, but it will depend on the election year.

As someone who tries to monitor and document voting irregularities, this will make things more fun. It also, it seems to me, creates security issues; would it be easier to double vote in a precinct where you arent known?

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Hasen in Crawford:
In this atmosphere, it is important for this Court to articulate clear and fair rules to resolve election administration disputes that transcend partisan politics and restore voters’ faith in the integrity of the electoral process. Most lower courts considering such disputes turn to this Court’s opinion in Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S 428 (1992), or other cases in this line, which articulate a flexible balancing approach to judging the constitutionality of state election laws. But the Burdick standard has not been correctly applied by some lower courts to cabin judicial discretion. Those courts have focused on the first part of the test: pegging the level of scrutiny to the character and magnitude of the burden the law places on some 4 voters. It is an uncertain endeavor, see Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 208 (1999) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“I am not at all sure that a coherent distinction between severe and lesser burdens can be culled from” the Burdick line of cases), and one that has led to strongly divergent results in similar cases. Finding a severe burden, some courts strike down voter identification laws. Finding a lesser burden, some apply an exceedingly low level of scrutiny that does not require the state to provide any evidence its law is reasonably calculated to serve its interest, and uphold such laws. 

 I am please to see Rick reminding the court of Justice Thomas's ACLF concurrence. The case involved campaign speech, both disclosure and disclaimer provisions. It produced a plethora of opinions. All nine justices agreed that McIntyre controlled the disclaimer part of the case. They split on other issues, such as the disclosure aspect. 

  Justice Thomas analysed it as an election case, not just a speech case. He discusses the different levels of scrutiny under Norman v. Reed, Anderson and Burdick. [2 pm saturday. i hope to continue this. what i'm doing is going through the amicus briefs in Crawford to see how they influenced the opinion, or failed to. 

Hasen's amicus argument was adopted by the plurality, which for  Marx purposes acts like a majority here. The court, 3 of them, held that the Anderson balancing test is to be used, so Juges Posner and (was it sarah barker evans or another indianapolis division judge?)
were wrong to have use Burdick lax scrutiny.

At this point I think the case could have been remanded back to Judge Posner, but it wasn't; they reached the merits.

I think I already posted about congressman ellison's brief. It will take me a while to go through the whole stack. I am trying to at least collect a list of the counsel and amici, for a possible future mailing seeking representation for my Indiana voter ID case.

Friday, February 16, 2018

The Indiana statute is unconstitutional because it conditions voting rights on payment of a “tax”—either the fee of twenty-one dollars that the state ordinarily charges for a driver’s license, or where citizens qualify for a free identification card, the fees they must pay to acquire underlying documentation necessary to get a photo identification card. Ind. Code §§ 3-5-2-40.5, 9-24- 16-10(b).4 The practice of using poll taxes to prevent access to the franchise was banned in federal elections in 1964 by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed by Congress in 1962 and ratified by the states in 1964.5 The TwentyFourth Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President…shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”6 In Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965), this Court concluded that no state may constitutionally present a federal voter with the requirement that 6 either he pay a poll tax, or file a certificate of residence. This requirement was an abridgement of the right to vote and thus unconstitutional under the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. Id. at 538. This Court recognized the long Congressional history opposing the constitutionality of the poll tax. Id. at 538-39. In other words, creating a procedural workaround voters must go through to avoid a poll tax does not redeem the poll tax’s fundamental unconstitutionality. This Court further recognized the long and rich history in this country that “a state may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.” Id. at 540. 

 This is congressman keith ellison's amicus in Crawford. Great stuff, I'm not sure how I missed it at the time.


And yet "free speech" community has been arguing against passage of "Honest Ads Act" & other measures which would make this conduct illegal by 2018 elections. They say it will squelch too much of Americans' speech (and some say nothing objectionable about foreign interference)

yup, it's stil unconstitutional an anti-democratic.

Let's remember 2001, when less damage was done by the terrorists than by the hysterical overreaction by the Bush aministration. The damage done by the russians was not trivial, but the amage Ellen Weintraub is trying to do is worse.

discussion  of the russian indictment:
caveats: i'm not a federal criminal defense lawyer.

 From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 2 of 37 2 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 3 of 37 the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016. 

I predict that this charge will fail, if D's get a fair trial. defrauding the government is hard to prove on these facts.

Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. 

Possible crime.

Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. 

interesting, but where's the crime, precisely?

 Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure; 

Failing to disclose is not itself fraud. There appears to be a recurring pattern of unproven allegations of fraud in this indictment, which will would give defense lawyers much to chew on. However, there is some stuff that could stick, so a deal is likely.

The ORGANIZATION’s annual budget totaled the equivalent of millions of U.S. dollars. 
Significant, but not unlawful in itself.

Count I, fraud, is fuly defensible for two reasons.
1. failure to isclose is not fraud.
2. the russians are immune from disclosure ue to reasonable expectation of harrasment (socialist workers party) and 5th amendment freedom from self-incrimination; you can't require disclosure of illegal ads; that would be a compelled confession.

To enter the United States, KRYLOVA, BOGACHEVA, R. BOVDA, and another co-conspirator applied to the U.S. Department of State for visas to travel. During 12 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 13 of 37 their application process, KRYLOVA, BOGACHEVA, R. BOVDA, and their coconspirator falsely claimed they were traveling for personal reasons and did not fully disclose their place of employment to hide the fact that they worked for the ORGANIZATION. 

But I bet they -were- traveling for personal reasons. I always do. Trying to pin a crime on someone for being succinct on a form is problematic. Here they can probably prove malice, but we don't want to make a it a crime to be in a hurry to fill out government forms. Too many functionally illiterate americans could be trapped by such a rule.

For example, starting in or around June 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, posing online as U.S. persons, communicated with a real U.S. person affiliated with a Texas-based grassroots organization.

I am suspicious of this claim. And so forth; it goes on for pages and I have not yet read the whole document.

By 2016, the size of many ORGANIZATION-controlled groups had grown to hundreds of thousands of online followers. 

OK, I think I'm catching on. This inictment is more a political document than a legal one. It doesn't matter to them whether these 13 people get convicted or not, what matters is to get these facts into the news cycle.  I do think this will be one of the major stories of 2018.


To protect our elections

US intelligence officials warn voting could be hacked. A Raytheon expert offers four ways to meet the threat

Daly offers these four recommendations for securing voting systems ahead of the midterm elections:
1.  Secretaries of State should convene, in an academic environment, a conference with their election officials and cybersecurity staff. The session should be used to review the importance of cybersecurity controls, the threat vectors that are known to have been exploited in systems, and the long history of election tampering that has been occurring since World War II. Improperly informed stakeholders are our greatest vulnerability. 
2.  Secretaries of State, their Boards of Elections and state cybersecurity leaders should document their end-to-end election process with all of its systems, dependencies and interfaces.  Every state is different and has different threat vectors. 
3.  States should engage their vendors and IT organizations (across the end-to-end chain) to conduct technical testing to ensure systems are secured.  This includes patching, segmentation, monitoring, wireless configurations, hardening to remove unnecessary applications and ensuring there are multiple redundancies and methods of validation. 
4.  State officials should contact the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and their National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center for help. That’s where they’ll find trained professionals ready to help with lessons learned from prior engagements.
“Today our intelligence leaders highlighted an urgent call to action - cybersecurity is a matter of national security,” Daly said. "It’s time to reshape the cyber landscape with a national defense doctrine that increases investment in our infrastructure, technologies, and training to deter our adversaries.”
I wonder if they would sponsor a CLE series. 

Wednesday, February 14, 2018


strange bedfellows department:


This article/advertorial is as important as it is wrong.




The connection between these two links is that it seems like neither has heard of Barnette or Gobitis.

Tuesday, February 13, 2018


Election protection CLE from PA ACLU.

I'm looking up CLEs on youtube in order to try to get together a free cle program someday.


'Civil Right No. 1:' Dr. King's Unfinished Voting Rights Revolution

22 Pages Posted: 29 Jan 2018  
Richard L. Hasen
University of California, Irvine School of Law

Date Written: January 23, 2018

Haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting.

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