I had forgotten that Zwickler v Koota went to the supreme court twice. the second time, it was dismissed as moot. I saw an article today about Koota's grandson, which is the lawyer now on trial for winning a $12-billion judgment again chevron in equador.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/business/steven-donziger-lawyer-who-beat-chevron-in-ecuador-faces-trial-of-his-own.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Zwickler v. Koota - 389 U.S. 241 (1967)

Syllabus
Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (1967)

Zwickler v. Koota

No. 29

Argued October 12, 1967

Decided December 5, 1967

389 U.S. 241

Syllabus

Reversal on state law grounds of appellant's conviction of violating a New York statute by distributing anonymous political handbills was affirmed by the State's highest court. Thereafter appellant, invoking federal jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, sought in the District Court declaratory relief and an injunction against future criminal prosecutions for violating the statute, claiming that, on its face, the statute contravened the First Amendment by its "overbreadth." A three-judge court applied the doctrine of abstention and dismissed the complaint, leaving the appellant to assert his constitutional challenge in the state courts either in the defense of any criminal prosecution for future violations of the statute or by way of a declaratory judgment action. The court held that abstention from ruling on the declaratory judgment issue was warranted because appellant had made no special showing of the need for an injunction against criminal prosecution.

Held:

1. The District Court erred in refusing to pass on appellant's claim for a declaratory judgment as there was no "special circumstance" warranting its application of the abstention doctrine to that claim. Pp. 389 U. S. 245-252.

(a) A federal court has the duty of giving due respect to a suitor's choice of a federal forum for the hearing and decision of his federal constitutional claims and escape from that duty is not permissible merely because state courts are equally responsible for the enforcement and protection of federal constitutional rights. P. 389 U. S. 248.

(b) A statutory construction by the state courts would not avoid or modify the constitutional question as the statute involved here is being challenged not for its lack of clarity, but for its "overbreadth." Pp. 389 U. S. 249-250.

(c) The principle that abstention cannot be used simply to give the state courts the first opportunity to vindicate a federal claim is particularly significant when, as here, the statute is being attacked as repugnant to the First Amendment, for the delay

Page 389 U. S. 242

from requiring recourse to the state courts might chill the very constitutional right which a plaintiff seeks to protect. P. 389 U. S. 252.

2. The District Court had the duty of adjudicating the request for a declaratory judgment regardless of its conclusion as to the propriety of the issuance of an injunction, for, asDombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, made clear, the questions of abstention and of injunctive relief are not the same. Pp. 389 U. S. 252-255.

261 F.Supp. 985, reversed and remanded.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only fo

I am in the process of restarting my McIntyre project, to monitor and enforce state compliance with the McIntyre and Talley decisions.

Here is a dump of some notes I took yesterday while blogger was down for awhile.
Some of my older notes can be found in the archives of majors.blogspot.com, which I'll need to review.

mcintyre manifesto notes

50 states, scalia note two,

green mountain future

cases after talley

cases after mcintyre

cases after citizens united.

cases after (this most recent case.)

michigan - I didn't find anything.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

infamous footnote 2

2 See Ala. Code §17-22A%13 (Supp. 1994); Alaska Stat. Ann. §15.56.010 (1988); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16-912 (Supp. 1994); Ark. Code Ann. §7-1-103 (1993); Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-13-108 (Supp. 1994); Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-333w (Supp. 1994); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 15, §§8021, 8023 (1993); Fla. Stat. §§106.143 and 106.1437 (1992); Ga.Code Ann. §21-2-415 (1993); Haw. Rev. Stat. §11-215 (1988); Idaho Code §67-6614A (Supp. 1994); Ill. Comp. Stat. §5/29-14 (1993); Ind. Code §3-14-1-4 (Supp. 1994); Iowa Code §56.14 (1991); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§25-2407 and 25-4156 (Supp. 1991); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §121.190 (Baldwin Supp. 1994); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §18:1463 (West Supp. 1994); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21-A, §1014 (1993); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 33, §26-17 (1993); Mass. Gen. Laws §41 (1990); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §169.247 (West 1989); Minn. Stat. §211B.04 (1994); Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-899 (1990); Mo. Rev. Stat. §130.031 (Supp. 1994); Mont. Code Ann. §13-35-225 (1993); Neb. Rev. Stat. §49-1474.01 (1993); Nev. Rev. Stat. §294A.320 (Supp. 1993); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §664:14 (Supp. 1992); N. J. Stat. Ann. §19:34-38.1 (1989); N. M. Stat. Ann. §§1-19-16 and 1-19-17 (1991); N. Y. Elec. Law §14-106 (McKinney 1978); N. C. Gen. Stat. §163-274 (Supp. 1994); N. D. Cent. Code §16.1-10-04.1 (1981); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3599.09(A) (1988); Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, §1840 (Supp. 1995); Ore. Rev. Stat. §260.522 (1991); 25 Pa. Cons. Stat. §3258 (1994); R. I. Gen. Laws §17-23-2 (1988); S. C. Code Ann. §8-13-1354 (Supp. 1993); S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. §12-25-4.1 (Supp. 1994); Tenn. Code Ann. §2-19-120 (Supp. 1994); Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §255.001 (Supp. 1995); Utah Code Ann. §20-14-24 (Supp. 1994); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17, §2022 (1982); Va. Code Ann. §24.2-1014 (1993); Wash. Rev. Code §42.17.510 (Supp. 1994); W. Va. Code §3-8-12 (1994); Wis. Stat. §11.30 (Supp. 1994); Wyo. Stat. §22-25-110 (1992).

Courts have declared some of these laws unconstitutional in recent years, relying upon our decision in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60(1960). See, e.g., State v. Burgess, 543 So. 2d 1332 (La. 1989); Statev. North Dakota Ed. Assn., 262 N. W. 2d 731 (N. D. 1978); People v.Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948, 351 N. Y. S. 2d 978 (Sup.), aff'd, 44 App. Div. 2d 663, 354 N. Y. S. 2d 129 (1974). Other decisions, including all pre-Talley decisions I am aware of, have upheld the laws. See, e.g.,Commonwealth v. Evans, 156 Pa. Super. 321, 40 A. 2d 137 (1944);State v. Freeman, 143 Kan. 315, 55 P. 2d 362 (1936); State v. Babst, 104 Ohio St. 167, 135 N. E. 525 (1922).

Alabama § 17-5-12 - Paid advertisements to be identified as such

Any paid political advertisement appearing in any print media or broadcast on any electronic media shall be clearly identified or marked as a paid political advertisement and provide the identification required by Section 17-5-2(a)(5). It shall be unlawful for any person, candidate, principal campaign committee, or political action committee to broadcast, publish, or circulate any campaign literature or political advertisement, without a notice appearing on the face or front page of any printed matter, or broadcast at the beginning or end of a radio or television spot, stating that the communication was a paid political advertisement and giving the identification of the person, principal campaign committee, or political action committee that paid for or otherwise authorized such communication.

Alaska none? repealed

Arizona

Arkansas POLITICAL PRACTICES PLEDGE

[ACA §§7-6-102, 7-7-305]

Candidatesfor political party nomination for state, district, county, municipal, and

township office, as well as independent and school board candidates are required to file a

political practices pledge stating that he or she is familiar with the requirements of Ark. Code

Ann. §§ 7-1-103, 7-1-104, 7-3-108, and 7-6-101 through 7-6-104, and will in good faith, comply

with their terms.

POLITICAL PRACTICES PLEDGE

[ACA §§7-6-102, 7-7-305]

Candidatesfor political party nomination for state, district, county, municipal, and

township office, as well as independent and school board candidates are required to file a

political practices pledge stating that he or she is familiar with the requirements of Ark. Code

Ann. §§ 7-1-103, 7-1-104, 7-3-108, and 7-6-101 through 7-6-104, and will in good faith, comply

with their terms.

(h) All articles, statements, or communications appearing in any newspaper printed or circulated in this

state intended or calculated to influence the vote of any elector in any election and for the publication

of which a consideration is paid or to be paid shall clearly contain the words “Paid Political

Advertisement”, “Paid Political Ad”, or “Paid for by” the candidate, committee, or person who paid for

the message. Both the persons placing and the persons publishing the articles, statements, or

communications shall be responsible for including the required disclaimer. In addition, all articles,

statements, or communications appearing in any radio, television, or any other electronic medium

intended or calculated to influence the vote of any elector in any election and for the publication of

which a consideration is paid or to be paid shall clearly contain the words “Paid Political

Advertisement” or “Paid Political Ad” or “Paid for by”, “Sponsored by”, or “Furnished by” the true

sponsor of the advertisement. Both the persons placing and the persons publishing the articles,

statements, or communications shall be responsible for including the required disclaimer.58

58 Ark. Code Ann. § 7-1-103(a)(7).

http://www.bluehogreport.com/

butler case
Arkansas Right to Life State Political Action Committee v. Butler, 983 F. Supp. 1209 - Dist. Court
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11215408835135124670&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=

(h) All articles, statements, or communications appearing in any newspaper printed or circulated in this state intended or calculated to influence the vote of any elector in any election and for the publication of which a consideration is paid or to be paid shall clearly contain the words “Paid Political Advertisement”, “Paid Political Ad”, or “Paid for by” the candidate, committee, or person who paid for the message. Both the persons placing and the persons publishing the articles, statements, or communications shall be responsible for including the required disclaimer. In addition, all articles, statements, or communications appearing in any radio, television, or any other electronic medium intended or calculated to influence the vote of any elector in any election and for the publication of which a consideration is paid or to be paid shall clearly contain the words “Paid Political Advertisement” or “Paid Political Ad” or “Paid for by”, “Sponsored by”, or “Furnished by” the true sponsor of the advertisement. Both the persons placing and the persons publishing the articles, statements, or communications shall be responsible for including the required disclaimer.

ARKANSAS ETHICS COMMISSION

910 West Second Street, Suite 100

Post Office Box 1917

Little Rock, AR 72203-1917

(501) 324-9600 or (800) 422-7773

Facsimile (501) 324-9606

California griset, schuster, canon city court, drake, bonjiorni

Colorado

1-45-108.3 Issue committees - disclaimer

(1) An issue committee making an expenditure in excess of one thousand dollars on a communication that supports or opposes a statewide ballot issue or ballot question and that is broadcast by television or radio, printed in a newspaper or on a billboard, directly mailed or delivered by hand to personal residences, or otherwise distributed shall disclose, in the communication produced by the expenditure, the name of the issue committee making the expenditure.

(2) (a) The disclaimer required by subsection (1) of this section shall be printed on the communication clearly and legibly in a conspicuous manner.

(b) If the communication is broadcast on radio, the disclaimer shall be spoken at the beginning or end of the communication.

(c) (I) If the communication is broadcast on television, the disclaimer shall be written or spoken at the beginning or end of the communication. If the disclaimer is written, it shall appear for at least four seconds of any communication broadcast on television.

(II) The written disclaimer required by subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) shall appear in the communication in a conspicuous manner.

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/laws/Title1Article45.html#1-45-108-3

Phone: (303) 894-2200 ext. 6383

E-mail: cpfhelp@sos.state.co.us

Fax: (303) 869-4861

Address: 1700 Broadway Suite 200

Denver, CO 80290

Web: www.sos.state.co.us

tattered cover case

davidson case?

buckley v aclf

Connecticut

Delaware

clarksburg free speech case blog

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Thursday, August 1, 2013

I had forgotten that Zwickler v Koota went to the supreme court twice. the second time, it was dismissed as moot. I saw an article today about Koota's grandson, which is the lawyer now on trial for winning a $12-billion judgment again chevron in equador.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/business/steven-donziger-lawyer-who-beat-chevron-in-ecuador-faces-trial-of-his-own.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Zwickler v. Koota - 389 U.S. 241 (1967)

U.S. Supreme Court

Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (1967)

Monday, July 29, 2013

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Alabama § 17-5-12 - Paid advertisements to be identified as such

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me