To do week of march 8th. Is the neighborhood association thingy on monday nights at tuxedo?

file ada complaints, three of them, line up ada lawyer, due to fee-shifting.  

 work on chiu brief. 

structure of argument.

gura brings this case as a test case for bonta, but in the process has made bad law.  the 9th circuit decision is both controlling and wrong, which puts this court in an awkward position.  

the point of my brief is to show alternative grounds which are part of the bonta analysis. california constitutional case law is determinative. if tthe ordinanc eis  void under the state constitution, san francisco's asserted state interests are not legitimate. 

talley, nifla, bonjiorni canon city schuster yick wo  ghafari griset.

conflict w other 9th circ decisions majic mike berger v seatlle rosen v port of portland anonymous speakers case and the plum fees gerwan case

13 of 15 state constitutional decisions found the speech protected. Those are persuasive precedent. 

50 cases, mostly relying on talley or mcintyre, agree with us. 

a handful of cases on the other side seymour, majors,  kyrtl v riley?

barnett tornillo wooley aclf watchtower mcintyre talley bates naacp v alabama gobitis.    

 The traditional argument: SFCA's censorship of core political speech violates the 14th amendment, due process equal protection and privileges or immunities.

 It violates the first amendment's speech press privacy petition and assembly rights. 

It violates at least 3 state clauses, speech equal protection privacy. Schuster, Ghafari, Anonymous online Speakers. 

Under the Bonta analysis, the asserted state interests here are not legitimate, important, compelling, overridding, or whathaveyew. 

Ordinarily   one would only need to point to the controlling cases, Talley McInytre Aclf, Watchtower, Tornillo, Riley, 303 LLC NIFLA Janus and so forth. But hete plaintiffs have chosen Bonta only, as a test case. 

The 9th circuit rejected this argument, at least in terms of applying the bonta test to the text of the ordinance as a filter. The bonta test is a recent reformulation of the Valeo means-ends test. legitimate state interests the regulation directly furthers a legitimate state interest and is narrowly tailored. This test is often called "exacting scrutiny".

Because exacting scrutiny is a contronym, depending on context, it can be confusing, especially for non experts. A word means what I say it means, the (critter) told Alice.  

However, this is a euphemism. Under Valeo and now Bonta, scrutiny was not close, but was far away. "Exacting scrutiny" under Valeo was anything but exacting. Dictionary definition of exacting.

So ti's not that. So instead its a term of art. When we say "exacting scrutiny this is a term of art, ,and may refer to either of two lines of cases, the disclosure cases under Valeo, such as Bates, NAACP, Socialist Workers. 

or the disclaimer cases, Talley McIntyre ACLF  Watchtower NIFLA.

Under McIntyre,  

Under a different line of cases,  

 

 

 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Recovery of fees for prevailing plaintiffs in disability discrimination cases (42 U.S.C. § 12205).

 To: Dustin Gilmer, ADA Coordinator

Office of Disability Affairs
200 E. Washington St., Suite 2441
Indianapolis, IN 46204

BCC: Office of Corporation Counsel, Suite 1601; Chief Deputy Mayor, Suite 2501; Chief of Police, 12th Floor

Date: March 8, 2026

Subject: ADA Title II grievance and notice of spoliation

Statement of facts:

On or about March 1, 2026, at approximately 3:00 pm, I visited the Indianapolis-East bmv branch, number 0063, to renew my driver’s license. Since an auto accident in 2015 i have signed my name with an x. This has been my consistent legal signature for over a decade and has always been accepted by the Indiana bmv and other agencies until this date.

The branch manager refused to accept my signature, denying a reasonable modification required under title ii of the ada. I was in the process of requesting an ada accommodation when i was attacked. Specifically, when i requested a formal appeal form and access to public records to document this refusal, staff claimed no such forms existed. Instead of providing the required due process, the manager summoned a security guard who physically assaulted me to force my removal. Three impd officers arrived and subsequently refused to take a battery report, despite my request.

Notice of spoliation:

I am formally notifying the city of Indianapolis and the office of corporation counsel that relevant paperwork, including my ada request and branch incident logs, has been destroyed or withheld. I demand the immediate preservation of:

1. Lobby and exterior surveillance footage from branch 0063 for the window of 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm on March 1, 2026.
2. The use of force report and incident logs filed by the security guard and manager.
3. All impd body-worn camera footage from the three responding officers.

Requested resolution:

I request an investigation into this unlawful retaliation, formal recognition of my x signature as a valid accommodation, and an immediate material error review of my license denial.

Respectfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Phone/Email]

Do you have the specific email addresses for the bcc recipients ready to go, or should I list them one last time for your records?

 United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 (1960); United States v. Thomas, 362 U.S. 58 (1960); United States v. Alabama, 362 U.S. 602 (1960); United States v. McElveen, 180 F. Supp. 10 (E.D. La. 1959); United States v. Association of Citizens Councils of Louisiana, 196 F. Supp. 908 (W.D. La. 1961); United States v. Atkins, 323 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1963); cases under eisenhower's 57 act, lbj helped. 

 The Marion County Election Board voted unanimously on July 18 to close 13 complaints (filed as 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13) after staff reviewed each matter and found either corrective actions had been taken or the concerns were caused by a technical error in the county's public campaign-finance lookup tool.

Director of Elections Patrick Becker told the board the review covered complaints received through June 30 and that staff formalized a reporting process this year because of the volume of complaints and the irregular meeting schedule during election season. During the review staff discovered that when a committee filed multiple amended reports on the same day the upload process caused the website to show repeated scans of the same document rather than distinct filings. "When we uploaded all of those on the same day with the same date on them, it took the most recent scan that was done that day and basically duplicated on all of those," Becker said.

Becker said staff notified the ISA applications team that built the tool and that there is no timetable yet for a fix. He said the office retains the original scanned filings and will provide copies to anyone who believes the online display is incorrect. He asked that members of the public report suspected errors to elections.ind.gov so staff can provide the correct reports and log the issue with IT.

Legal context and board deliberation

Outside counsel Brad Boswell reviewed the legal standard the board must apply when a Title 3 complaint is alleged: if the board has "substantial reason to believe that a Title 3 violation has occurred," it must investigate. Boswell told the members they could vote on the set of complaints en masse and that dismissal language should reflect that an investigation was not warranted rather than implying the complaints were ignored.

After discussion about the nature of the complaints and the technical cause identified by staff, Kate Bell moved to close complaints 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13 based on staff information and to direct staff to notify each filer of the board's decision and any findings. The motion was seconded and passed on a recorded voice vote. Vice Chair Jennifer Ping, Clerk Kate Bell and Chair Nolita Stewart each voted "aye." The board instructed staff to prepare follow-up communications to complainants describing the board's decision and any corrective actions taken.

Why it matters

The board's action closes the current set of matters while creating a record that staff investigated and, in many cases, found technical or corrective explanations. Board members emphasized their county-limited investigatory authority; counsel reminded the body that its jurisdiction is confined to county-relevant issues.

Next steps

Staff will draft and send notifications to the individuals who filed each complaint describing the board's decision and any information discovered during the review. The elections office will continue to work with the ISA applications team to correct the public campaign-finance lookup tool; no timetable for that fix was provided.

Ending

The board closed the complaints and scheduled follow-up communications; no further action was taken on the items at the July 18 meThe Marion County Election Board voted unanimously on July 18 to close 13 complaints (filed as 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13) after staff reviewed each matter and found either corrective actions had been taken or the concerns were caused by a technical error in the county's public campaign-finance lookup tool.

Director of Elections Patrick Becker told the board the review covered complaints received through June 30 and that staff formalized a reporting process this year because of the volume of complaints and the irregular meeting schedule during election season. During the review staff discovered that when a committee filed multiple amended reports on the same day the upload process caused the website to show repeated scans of the same document rather than distinct filings. "When we uploaded all of those on the same day with the same date on them, it took the most recent scan that was done that day and basically duplicated on all of those," Becker said.

Becker said staff notified the ISA applications team that built the tool and that there is no timetable yet for a fix. He said the office retains the original scanned filings and will provide copies to anyone who believes the online display is incorrect. He asked that members of the public report suspected errors to elections.ind.gov so staff can provide the correct reports and log the issue with IT.

Legal context and board deliberation

Outside counsel Brad Boswell reviewed the legal standard the board must apply when a Title 3 complaint is alleged: if the board has "substantial reason to believe that a Title 3 violation has occurred," it must investigate. Boswell told the members they could vote on the set of complaints en masse and that dismissal language should reflect that an investigation was not warranted rather than implying the complaints were ignored.

After discussion about the nature of the complaints and the technical cause identified by staff, Kate Bell moved to close complaints 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13 based on staff information and to direct staff to notify each filer of the board's decision and any findings. The motion was seconded and passed on a recorded voice vote. Vice Chair Jennifer Ping, Clerk Kate Bell and Chair Nolita Stewart each voted "aye." The board instructed staff to prepare follow-up communications to complainants describing the board's decision and any corrective actions taken.

Why it matters

The board's action closes the current set of matters while creating a record that staff investigated and, in many cases, found technical or corrective explanations. Board members emphasized their county-limited investigatory authority; counsel reminded the body that its jurisdiction is confined to county-relevant issues.

Next steps

Staff will draft and send notifications to the individuals who filed each complaint describing the board's decision and any information discovered during the review. The elections office will continue to work with the ISA applications team to correct the public campaign-finance lookup tool; no timetable for that fix was provided.

Ending

The board closed the complaints and scheduled follow-up communications; no further action was taken on 


the items at the July 18 meeting.



eting.The Marion County Election Board voted unanimously on July 18 to close 13 complaints (filed as 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13) after staff reviewed each matter and found either corrective actions had been taken or the concerns were caused by a technical error in the county's public campaign-finance lookup tool.

Director of Elections Patrick Becker told the board the review covered complaints received through June 30 and that staff formalized a reporting process this year because of the volume of complaints and the irregular meeting schedule during election season. During the review staff discovered that when a committee filed multiple amended reports on the same day the upload process caused the website to show repeated scans of the same document rather than distinct filings. "When we uploaded all of those on the same day with the same date on them, it took the most recent scan that was done that day and basically duplicated on all of those," Becker said.

Becker said staff notified the ISA applications team that built the tool and that there is no timetable yet for a fix. He said the office retains the original scanned filings and will provide copies to anyone who believes the online display is incorrect. He asked that members of the public report suspected errors to elections.ind.gov so staff can provide the correct reports and log the issue with IT.

Legal context and board deliberation

Outside counsel Brad Boswell reviewed the legal standard the board must apply when a Title 3 complaint is alleged: if the board has "substantial reason to believe that a Title 3 violation has occurred," it must investigate. Boswell told the members they could vote on the set of complaints en masse and that dismissal language should reflect that an investigation was not warranted rather than implying the complaints were ignored.

After discussion about the nature of the complaints and the technical cause identified by staff, Kate Bell moved to close complaints 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13 based on staff information and to direct staff to notify each filer of the board's decision and any findings. The motion was seconded and passed on a recorded voice vote. Vice Chair Jennifer Ping, Clerk Kate Bell and Chair Nolita Stewart each voted "aye." The board instructed staff to prepare follow-up communications to complainants describing the board's decision and any corrective actions taken.

Why it matters

The board's action closes the current set of matters while creating a record that staff investigated and, in many cases, found technical or corrective explanations. Board members emphasized their county-limited investigatory authority; counsel reminded the body that its jurisdiction is confined to county-relevant issues.

Next steps

Staff will draft and send notifications to the individuals who filed each complaint describing the board's decision and any information discovered during the review. The elections office will continue to work with the ISA applications team to correct the public campaign-finance lookup tool; no timetable for that fix was provided.

Ending

The board closed the complaints and scheduled follow-up communications; no further action was taken on the items at the July 18 meeting.

 ip26021700001056

officers cain 41924

campbell 45713

foster  32761

e dist 291 n shadeland 317 327 6200

police complaint. 

I was at the e washington bmv. 

I was assaulted and battered by an armed  security guard at the request of CC, the manager. She was angry. He was rude and insolent. 

They were retaliating because I had asked for a reasonable accomodation for my disability, and was making a public records request and seeking to . appeal their adverse determination and denial of my driver's license replacement. 

Th officers were called to escort me out, which was ok by me since I wanted to file a police report documenting the attack on me.

The officer - I dont know which was which, a white guy - promised thgat he would take me report if we walked outside. i said i was suspicious and didnt believe him, but would give it a try. 

we walked outside. he then became enraged at me and refused to take a report. so he had lied to me. and that's the basis of this complaint: 

i'm a lawyer. i was there on official business. the officer commited spoiliation by tricking me away from the  crime scene so cc could destroy evidence. 

is it consistent with your policies and training to have police officers lie to officers of the court?

is it consistent with your policies and training to have officers lie to a crime victim and participate in the destructioin of evidence?

is it consistent with youir policies and training to have officers become an accessory to assualt and battery of an officer of the court?

when the officer refused to take a report, it reminded me of a porevious time when that had happened. in 2004b i was in my home at 227 n temple. i was robbed at knifepoint by Lonnie Hall and one of his henchmen.

the officer refused to take a report after i declined to give my ssn, saying, as i always do, i don't give that out without a privacy act statement.  

a month later, Lonnie and a different henchman stabbed and killed a mexican couple a few blocks over. Lonnie is doing 55 years. This could have been prevented if the officer had done his job  of taking a report, getting it to a detective, and apprehending Lonnie.  

So I didn't want to just say nothing when I observed a more recent example of this kind of misconduct. 

I do not believe that this board has any real teeth; it's a sideshow. But making this report is a start.

 

 

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

..

• • •   
  • 
    

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

• ►  2008 (1)

About Me

gt

View my complete profile