VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
The Honorable David Chiu
San Francisco City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
San Francisco, CA 94102

RE: Formal Inquiry Regarding Anonymity Protections Under Article I and the First Amendment

Dear Mr. Chiu,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing as a successful plaintiff in Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D. Ind. 1997) and co-counsel in the unpublished matter of Anonymous v. State, 2001 Del. Ch. LEXIS 503 (C.A. No. 18774-NC). In the spirit of my upcoming retirement and a lifelong commitment to the "Anonymity Shield," I am compelled to address San Francisco’s current "secondary donor" disclaimer requirements.

Section 1: The Prohibitive California Constitutional Provisions

Your current enforcement of on-ad disclaimer "clutter" is prohibited by the following mandates of the California Constitution:

• Article I, Section 1 (Privacy): The "inalienable" right to informational privacy protecting expressive associations.
• Article I, Section 2 (Liberty of Speech): The superior inclusive guarantee to freely speak and publish sentiments.
• Article I, Section 3 (Assembly): The protected right to consult for the common good without government-mandated unmasking.
• Article I, Section 7 (Equal Protection): Prohibiting the administration of laws with an "evil eye and an unequal hand."

Section 2: The Anonymity Shield Chronology

Date	Case Citation	Short Parenthetical
1735	Trial of John Peter Zenger, 17 How. St. Tr. 675	(Anonymous dissent acquittal)
1886	Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356	(Equal protection mandate)
1908	Ex parte Harrison, 212 Mo. 88	(Liberty of silence)
1943	Barnette, 319 U.S. 624	(No prescribed orthodoxy)
1958	NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449	(Group anonymity protected)
1960	Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60	(Categorical anonymity shield)
1964	Canon v. Justice Court, 61 Cal. 2d 446	(Integral state right)
1966	Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436	(Constitutional right to silence)
1974	Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241	(Editorial exclusion right)
1974	People v. Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948	(New York disclaimer strike)
1975	Comm. v. Dennis, 368 Mass. 92	(Massachusetts shield)
1975	Socialist Workers v. Brown, 53 Cal. App. 3d 879	(Associational privacy shield)
1978	Ghafari v. Municipal Court, 87 Cal. App. 3d 255	(Shield from reprisal)
1978	State v. N.D. Education Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731	(Interest insufficient)
1979	People v. Drake, 97 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 32	(Anonymous sentiments shield)
1980	Schuster v. Municipal Court, 109 Cal. App. 3d 887	(Superior inclusive protection)
1981	Rosen v. Port of Portland, 641 F.2d 1243	(Identification as restraint)
1982	Brown v. Socialist Workers, 459 U.S. 87	(Group unmasking strike)
1987	People v. White, 116 Ill. 2d 171	(Illinois constitutional shield)
1987	State v. Jackson, 517 So. 2d 366	(Pre-McIntyre pamphlet shield)
1989	State v. Burgess, 543 So. 2d 1332	(Non-compelling interest)
1993	State v. Barney, 124 Idaho 420	(Rejection of clutter)
1995	McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334	(Protected political choice)
1997	Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047	(Disclaimer as categorical ban)
1999	Buckley v. ACLF, 525 U.S. 182	(Identification badge strike)
2001	Anonymous v. State, 2001 Del. Ch. LEXIS 503	(State constitutional concession)
2002	Watchtower Bible v. Stratton, 536 U.S. 150	(Group anonymity rights)
2004	ACLU of Nevada v. Heller, 378 F.3d 979	(Least restrictive means)
2009	Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029	(Compelled badge strike)
2018	Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. 878	(No forced broadcasting)
2018	NIFLA v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755	(Mandated disclaimer strike)
2023	303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570	(Speaker conscience protection)
2024	X Corp. v. Bonta, 110 F.4th 1133	(Editorial discretion shield)

Section 3: The Ethical Cannons at Issue

Continued enforcement of on-ad disclaimer mandates, despite the exhaustive record above, implicates the following ethical obligations:

• Business & Professions Code § 6067: The primary oath to support the California Constitution, specifically the superior inclusive protections of Article I.
• CRPC Rule 3.1: Prohibiting the assertion of positions that lack a basis in law and fact, such as relying on the "Majors Error" while ignoring the Hansen record.
• The Special Duty of a Government Attorney: Your heightened obligation to seek justice and protect civil liberties, rather than merely defending a "categorical ban" on technical grounds.

I urge you to align the City’s policies with this 300-year constitutional tradition. I would be honored to hear your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Robbin Stewart
Plaintiff, Stewart v. Taylor

---

Robbin, this draft is now organized exactly as you specified. Does the ethical section meet the "later meaner" energy you were looking for?

Robbin Stewart, plaintiff in

Stewart v. Taylor, wrote a formal inquiry to San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu regarding anonymity protections under Article I of the California Constitution and the First Amendment. The letter argues that San Francisco's current "secondary donor" disclaimer requirements violate California Constitutional mandates related to privacy, speech, assembly, and equal protection. The correspondence includes a chronology of relevant case law and highlights ethical obligations for government attorneys. You can  review the full text of the letter.