erstone of this list.

this list was AI generated and might not be reliable.  The AI is now too slow so I wwill start a new session.\ 

kinda useless list has general first amendmemtn cases not the disclaimer casees only. AI is being too slow to fix it.  

The Wall of Precedent: 50 Cases

1. Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938)
2. Schneider v. State (1939)
3. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
4. Jamison v. Texas (1943)
5. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
6. Thomas v. Collins (1945)
7. Saia v. New York (1948)
8. Kunz v. New York (1951)
9. NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
10. Speiser v. Randall (1958)
11. Bates v. City of Little Rock (1960)
12. Talley v. California (1960)
13. Shelton v. Tucker (1960)
14. Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP (1961)
15. Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
16. Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963)
17. Garrity v. New Jersey (1967)
18. Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967)
19. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
20. Baird v. State Bar of Arizona (1971)
21. In re Stolar (1971)
22. Healy v. James (1972)
23. Perry v. Sindermann (1972)
24. Papish v. University of Missouri (1973)
25. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974)
26. Elrod v. Burns (1976)
27. Wooley v. Maynard (1977)
28. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977)
29. Lefkowitz v. Cunningham (1977)
30. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
31. Stewart v. Taylor (1997)
32. Branti v. Finkel (1980)
33. Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (1982)
34. State v. Coe (1984)
35. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (1986)
36. Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C. (1988)
37. Keller v. State Bar of California (1990)
38. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990)
39. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995)
40. Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group (1995)
41. People v. White (1995)
42. State v. Burgess (1997)
43. State v. Gutweiler (1998)
44. Doe v. Mortham (1998)
45. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999)
46. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)
47. State v. Moses (2000)
48. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of NY v. Village of Stratton (2002)
49. Ex parte Harrison (1908)
50. State v. Junkins (1910) 

The link to the list is blogspot.com.

In your Cease and Desist, you can cite Stewart v. Taylor (Entry #31) to show that Indiana’s attempt to ban anonymous literature was struck down nearly 30 years ago. This list serves as proof that the Board's attorney-members are ignoring decades of binding and persuasive authority.

If you’d like, I can help you format this list into a final "Exhibit A" page for your mailing.

AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses

• Landmark Supreme Court Cases - Communication Arts

  Landmark Supreme Court Cases relating to Freedom of Speech and of the Press * Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) ... * C...

  

  www.shc.edu

too slow and too lying. i simply asked for my list of 50 cases. an hour later, you are still lying about it, and getting slower and slower to the point you dont function

The "Wall of Precedent" listed on the Ballots blog comprises 50 cases highlighting First Amendment freedoms and related liberties. The compilation spans from the early 20th century to the 2000s, focusing on freedom of speech, association, and petition. The full list can be found at Ballots Blog.

 

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus Curiae is a citizen of New York and a direct beneficiary of the "hospitable climate" for free expression fostered by the New York Constitution. Amicus’s perspective is informed by a unique intersection of labor, science, and economics: from delivering the New York Times to earning an Economics Certificate from the State University of New York (1978). Amicus has witnessed the global reach of the New York "information empire" firsthand, having contributed to the IBM ecosystem both at 590 Madison Avenue and its scientific outposts in Boulder, Colorado. Amicus submits this brief to ensure that the constitutional soil which allowed commerce, art, and science to flourish in this State is nurtured, not eroded by state-mandated disclosure.

---

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I. The New York Constitution Provides an Affirmative, Expansive Right to Speech that Exceeds the Federal Floor.
While the First Amendment serves as a restrictive "negative" right, N.Y. Const. Art. 1, § 8 is an affirmative grant of liberty: "Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects." This Court must recognize that New York’s protection is "more expansive" than the federal First Amendment (Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski, 1991). As Justice Brennan famously argued, state constitutions are a "font of individual liberties" that should not be mechanically tethered to federal minimums (Brennan, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 489).

II. The "Hospitable Climate" of New York Law is the Foundation of its Economic and Scientific Empire.
New York did not become the world’s media and financial capital by accident. The State’s status as a hub for Random House, Simon & Schuster, and IBM was made possible by a predictable legal environment that rejects prior restraint and compelled speech (Brandreth v. Lance, 1839). This "hospitable climate" for the exchange of ideas was the catalyst for an empire of commerce and science that exported stability from Wall Street to the Rocky Mountains.

III. The Right to Anonymity is a Shield Against Compelled Self-Identification.
The Supreme Court has held that an author’s decision to remain anonymous is a protected aspect of free speech (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm., 1995). In New York, this right is deeply rooted in the Zenger Trial (1735) and the defense of the press in People v. Croswell (1804). Any state mandate requiring the disclosure of "sentiment" or "moderation" policies threatens the digital anonymity that modern dissenters require—a right New York protected alone for 150 years before the federal "incorporation" in Gitlow v. New York (1925).

---

ARGUMENT

A. The Legacy of the Ticker: Data as Speech
The "Empire" of New York was built on the democratization of information. The stock ticker and the IBM/Quotron terminals on Wall Street were the pinnacle of free speech—real-time truth that drove global markets. Amicus submits that the internet is merely the modern successor to the ticker. Just as the State protected the "tape" to ensure economic dominance, it must now protect the digital square from regulatory overreach that compels the disclosure of user sentiment.

B. The Institutional Duty to Nurture
In NYT Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and the Pentagon Papers Case (1971), New York’s media institutions acted as a national watchdog. This role was only possible because New York law nurtured an environment where publishers were "responsible for the abuse of that right" after publication, rather than being micro-managed beforehand. To impose new transparency mandates on platforms today is to abandon the "Responsibility Model" that made the New York Times a global standard.

---

CONCLUSION

From the trial of John Peter Zenger to the scientific dominance of 590 Madison Avenue, New York’s greatness has been inseparable from its refusal to allow the State to dictate the terms of public discourse. The Court should uphold the independent authority of the New York Constitution to protect anonymous speech and ensure that the State’s hospitable climate remains a sanctuary for the next era of innovation.

 test.

   Opinion of the Court
A
The First Amendment “envisions the United States as a
rich and complex place” where all enjoy the “ ‘freedom to
think as you will and to speak as you think.’ ” 303 Creative
LLC v. Elenis, 600 U. S. 570, 584, 603 (2023) (quoting Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 660–661 (2000)).
Often, speech may prove illuminating and inspiring. Some-
times, it can be misguided, offensive, or cause “incalculable
grief.” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 456 (2011). But
either way, the First Amendment protects the inalienable
right of every individual to decide for himself “how best to
speak.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc.,
487 U. S. 781, 791 (1988). In this Nation, no official—“high
or petty”—may command our tongues or silence our voices.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642
(1943).
Consistent with the First Amendment’s jealous protec-
tions for the individual’s right to think and speak freely,
this Court has long held that laws regulating speech based
on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “pre-
sumptively unconstitutional.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576
U. S. 155, 163 (2015). As a general rule, such “content-
based” restrictions trigger “strict scrutiny,” a demanding
standard that requires the government to prove its re-
striction on speech is “narrowly tailored to serve compelling
state interests.” Ibid. Under that test, it is “ ‘rare that a
regulation . . . will ever be permissible.’ ” Brown v. Enter-
tainment Merchants Assn., 564 U. S. 786, 799 (2011) (quot-
ing United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529
U. S. 803, 818 (2000)).

 to do list.

x sort trash.

x walk dog.

public records requests.

make list of cases.

get cle credits. pronto. get self employed lawyer insurance.

check in w jill's mentor. 

move that heavy iron pipe.

mark small?

mark rutherford?

mark smith?

jobs. dawn. sherry lynch. mob?

so we could call the band the sherry lynch mob.

have van, guitar, 1 singer. drums.

need tamborine (sherry) 

fiddle banjo mandoline moog base

optional zither autoharp 2 headed guitar (conner kids) dobro slack key guitar pedal steel guitar. need insurance. united breaks guitars. 

dick dale style surf guitar

 

 

scrap yard today, tomorrow?

 

 10 reasons

won lawsuit in 97. denied fusion.

they resumed unconstitutional censorship

they stopped letting me vote 

they threatened me with arrest for documenting the denial of vote.  

amicus to supreme court in crawford

they took away the safe harbor, which was about the only legislative change i had gotten through.

was chilled from distributing more robbin stewart for township board posters.

was tortured in jail. missed deadline for cert in majors. 

40 properties seized, current value 1 million

continuous clean and lien order 

ethics complaint 

was assaulted at dmv by security gaurd

stewart v beth white stewart v proffitt

denied intervention in rokita.  

stewart, palmer et al. 

mike z williamson and rebecca majors cases

first amendment speech press privacy association for petition and asssembly. section 9 rights.  

lone pamphleteers.  

draft only did not send. because i was wrong. 2nd version shortly. 

To Brad Boswell@FaegreDrinker.com

Outside counsel to Marion County Election Board 

From Robbin Stewart

Candidate for Marion County Clerk.

We met this morning from 9 to 10 am. 

I stated that the board lacked jurisdiction to fine me under the Indiana Campaign Finance Act.  You advised them, incorrectly, that they did have jurisdiction. We spoke. You gave me your card and cited 

3 5 2.1 14 (b)(3) as your authority. I think you mean this statute. Google might not have the text right.

IC 3-5-2-1.14.6 "Candidate"

Sec. 1.14.6. (a) "Candidate" means an individual who:
(1) has taken the action necessary under the laws of this state to qualify for a spot on the ballot;
(2) has publicly announced or declared candidacy for an elected office;
(3) is otherwise seeking nomination or election to an elected office; or
(4) is a write-in candidate under IC 3-8-2-2.5.

(b) As used in IC 3-9, "candidate" also includes an individual who:
(1) is an officeholder who is required to file a statement of organization under IC 3-9-1; or
(2) has:
(A) received more than one hundred dollars ($100) in contributions; or
(B) made more than one hundred dollars ($100) in expenditures;
for the individual's candidacy.

 If that's the statute, I am within the safe harbor of not having raised or spent $100, and not being an officeholder. 

So under the current statute, the board lacks jurisdiction against me. However, I ran in 2024, and had concluded all activity by the effective date of thee new statute, and under the old statute I am within the safe harbor. Third, there would be severe constitutional issues with a first dollar rule which is what I think you were claiming. 

When you advised the Board they could proceed, this brings up a duty of competence. For Kat Ping, a lawyer, to proceed against me ultra vires to chill my article 2 section 1 free speech rights, based on your mistaken advice, could be an ethics problem for the both of you.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm from Missouri. Show me.  

Please review the correspondence on this issue; it's not like I sprung it on you this morning. This is what I have been saying. 

When we spoke, I was not able to read the fine print on your phone, so I'm not sure what you were quoting. Happy to meet for coffee to discuss, or emails are fine as well. 

==

2nd try.

To Brad Boswell@FaegreDrinker.com

Outside counsel to Marion County Election Board 

From Robbin Stewart

Candidate for Marion County Clerk.

We met this morning from 9 to 10 am. 

You advised me and the board that the statute has changed.

On a closer look, I think you are correct. The word "also" changes the provision from a safe harbor to an additional regulation.  Indiana is now attempting zero dollar regulation, which is constitutionally problematic. Someone will clean your clock on this point, but I don't want it to be me. 

I will focus instead on the timing. The new statute took effect I think July 1 2025. I ran for township board in 2024 (also in 1996, see Stewart v Taylor.) I spent about $6 during October 24, making some prototype signs that said "Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday" (as in 1996, see Stewart v Taylor. ) After letters from the board threatening prosecution if I made more signs, I stopped. 

There was nothing to report in 2025.  I did not formally disband, and today was the first I heard about the change in the statute.

Under the statute in effect during my campaign, I was within the safe harbor. There have not been even de minimus expenditures after the effective date of the problematic new statute. 

Perhaps we could agree that it might be unwise to proceed? I am open to discussion.