soapbox

my theory of the case is it's fundamentally unfair, ex post facto, 

fails to announce a standard of review on the 17th amendment claim,

severely burdens voting rights,

is in conflict with Trump v Anderson. is in conflict with Harmon v Forssenius,

misapplied Collins v Day, is in conflict with Anderson v Celebrezze, misapplied Takushi, and failed to give deference to the trial court's findings of fact.

two things. first, i'm very interested in the rust case. I would appreciate it if you would keep me in the loop with copies of filings. 

I may end up participating as an amicus. Andrew horning, the LP senate candidate, is also willing to be an amicus.  alternatively, if you wanted to add me as a party, as a voter with association rights who wants to vote for rust in a free and equal election, I'd be fine with that. maybe it's too late to add parties. 

ok the other thing is I recently bought a church building in terre haute, which I will be leasing to a local church group. right now it's my own name, but I want to create a non-profit business entity to take title, to avoid paying property taxes on a church.

that looks like it is in the wheelhouse of your firm.

The court could have used strict scrutiny, pointed to yulee and burson v freeman, and ruled against Rust.

Or, the court could have used the Anderson 4 factor balancing test, and ruled against Rust.

But by using Takushi, the court erred. Since the primary is rapidly approaching, ...

ok, should move for a stay pending appeal from insc, which will be denied, then move at SCOTUS. 

4 factor injunction:

irreparable Harmon, yes, balance of burdens yes but arguable, public interest yes, likelihood of success moderate.

balance of burdens: the burden of the court's decision falls most heavily on a non-party, Jim Banks. Banks may be completely innocent here, unless he conspired with the GOP amici. John Rust will live to fight another day, but if Banks becomes senator, he will be tainted with a perception that he stole the office rather than winning a free and equal election. In 1954 Lyndon Johnson entered the Senate as the result of theft and fraud, as documented in the Robert Caro biography. That tainted his subsequent career. I recall in 1968 he announced that he would not run again. This court should "stop the steal", stay the mandate, allow the election to take place, and remand for consideration in light of Anderson v Celbrezze, Norman v Reed, and Trump v Anderson. 

= stopping here 4:30 pm saturdaay /3/89/24. need to take a load before dark.