Sunday, June 27, 2004

update: beginning to panic over getting the brief in timely by next week, i had toyed with the idea of filing for an extension, but missed the 10 day deadline for that.
i even had a nifty argument that ashcroft and hiibel called for revision of the brief. but i just need to get it done.
i do urgently need a cheap printer for theappendix and brief, one who routinely does s ct briefs so will get it right the first time, but not charge an arm and a leg.
talkedwith a couple printer/consultants and the clerk's office today, less panic.
still need to send appeal for help, and tune up brief.

notes on motion for extension of time.
1:39 am monday. due today.
- The rules allow for extension of time. Such motions are disfavored.
- The court will be in recess for the summer, so an extention is unlikely to create any delay in the resolution of the case.
- Counsel for plaintiff is indigent, and unable to afford the services of companies that assist in timely filing.
counsel would not be indigent if the 7th circuit had not improperly denied costs and fees as to the limited relief obtained, per farrar v hobby. Because not all plaintiffs are indigent, we do not seek indigent filing status, but all funds earmarked for costs are long gone.
Without an extension, plaintiff's counsel does not know if the filing deadline can be met.

- this is counsel's first filing with the court. the case was first filed 6 years ago. counsel is dillegently seeking experienced Supreme Court Co-counsel.
- The Court's decision in Hiibel a week ago requires that portions of the brief be rewritten.
- As the first post-McConnell campaign speech case, it is highly significant and in the public interest. In McConnell, the court made special accomodations because of the public importance of the case. The 7th circuit's opinion takes McConnell far beyond where McConnell itself went, in suggesting that McConnell overruled McIntyre.
The opinion confuses regulation of campaign finance with regulation of campaign speech.
There was a divided panel of the 7th circuit, and there is a split among the circuits. The 7th circuit opinion by Judge Posner is itself a cry for clarification by this court; following McConnell, lower courts need more guidance.
[cite last sentence.]
This case is part of a 44-year pattern of refusal by states to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling in Talley v California. In Cooper v. Aaron, this Court objected to such behavior.
In Talley v. California, NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson and Bates v. Little Rock, the court announced a constitutional right of privacy. Roe v. Wade and [Harlan] v. Texas expanded this right.
[cite opening sentence of dissent]

ACLF and Watchtower showed strong support for McIntyre and Talley. Dissenting in McConnell, however, Justice Stevens
suugests he may no longer support his position in McIntyre, at least in terms of speech by the rich.
Last week, Hiibel found that, in the context of a Terry stop, in a case not raising the First Amendment, there is no longer a right to remain silent, and a person can be arrested for not producing identification.
The portion of the brief grounded in the right to privacy and anonymity needs to be re-viewed in light of Hiibel, which may also affect the qualified immunity issue.
If the court does not hear this case, it may be years before the issue of whether Talley is still good law gets resolved. The McConnell decision has been difficult for regulatory agencies, working in good faith, to know how to comply with. When the rules under which elections are to take place are unknown and unknowable, the legitimacy of the election process is eroded. This case presents an opportunity to clarify the extent to which McConnell, after Hiibel, allows political speech such as 'Vote for Smith' to be outlawed. Granting of an extension of time in which to file will aid in presenting the court a fair opportunity to decide whwether to take the case.
It is also the case that due to a medical emergency, plaintiff's counsel was suddenly unavailable from May 17 to June 8, which interfered with plans to meet the usual 90 day deadline.
It would be in the interests of fairness and judicial economy and efficiency to allow an extension of time in which to file.
respectfully submitted,
2:11 am.
revised 9:20 am.

Saturday, June 26, 2004

notes on places to ask for funding:
www.pottv.com mark somebody. emersomething. marc emery?
trust fund in huntington ny re carol antun
georgesoros open society institute.
eff/ aclu/ nra/ gun owners/ aclu/ paul grantsmanship.
james madison institute/bopp
lee%eff.org leetien

Thursday, June 24, 2004

the computer says i've already lost.
via crescat.
Forecast Results
This forecast was generated from the following variables:
Ideological Direction of
Lower Court Decision Liberal
Circuit: 7th
Substantive Issue: First Amendment
Type of Petitioner: Politician
Type of Respondent: State

Forecast: 5 to 4 to Affirm
Voting to affirm:
Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer

Voting to reverse:
Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas

let me go tweak the data little.
nope, i still lose, 75% accuracy.
there's something to it too.
the lineup looks about right.
what it misses is the my client is poor and oppressed. maybe this means i should ask ann beeson rather than jim bopp to be lead counsel.
note to self, run this by ken faulk.
update from peter at crescat:
using a "the court always reverses" model, right 72% of the time, i win.
at first i didn't get what volokh meant by steam drills, but it's a john henry reference.
deadline for filing majors petition for cert is coming up fast, like a steamroller.
it's putting me into the panic mode i go into to actually get things done.
i was unavoidably detained on another project during may and early june, so crunchtime is here. i just lost another day because a noisy neighbor kept me up all night, and i'm a bit sick too. but after 7 years to get it this far, i can't quit now.
off to review s ct rules for a loophole, then start sending out more "send lawyers guns and money" messages.
update: there is a loophole to request an extra 30 days, but such motions are disfavored, and need to be filed 10 days before the due date, so i thought i'd rule that out.
now i'm thinking i should draft such a motion even if i end up not using it. if the due date is july 7, and today is june 24, i think that gives me three days to get such a document postmarked.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?