SECTION 1 OF 9
ORIGINAL WRIT OF MANDAMUS
THE FILING THAT STARTED THE CASE
Original verify petition for writ of mandamus, declaratory judgment, permanent injunction, preservation, incomer review, and protective order
FILED FOR RECORD
September 30, 2025
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
COURT
CAUSE NUMBER
District Court of Comal County, Texas
C2025-1002E
Kevin Samuelson
Comal ISD; Board of Trustees; Superintendent (Official capacity): Board President Russ Garner (Official capacity)
WHAT IS A WRIT OF MANDAMUS?
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary court order used to compel a government official or governmental body to perform a legal duty that the law requires them to perform.
The Texas Open Meetings Act creates mandatory duties for boards, including the duty to permit public criticism and to allow citizens to speak during public comment.
This writ asked the court to order comal ISD and its officials to comply with those duties and to prevent future violations.
HOW IT WAS USED IN THIS CASE
TOMA creates a legal duty
Comal ISD allegedly violated that duty
The problem could happen again (ongoing harm)
Court should compel compliance through writ
Mandamus is designed for situations where there is no adequate legal remedy and the harm in ongoing.
WHAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 19 , 2024?
The petition describes what occurred during public comment at the Comal ISD Board meeting
BEFORE MY COMMENT
MY 3 MINUTES
AFTER MY COMMENT
Other speakers were clearly audible on the official live stream..
At approx. 00:48:45, The board president appeared to touch a control on a dais. Immediately after, the official live stream carried no podium or dais audio during my entire speaking period.
The speakers immediately after me were again clearly audible on the official live stream.
An audience recording captured my remarks during that same time window, confirming I was speaking while the district stream was silent.
THE LEGAL RIGHTS INVOKED
The writ asked the court to determine whether Comal ISD's actions violated:
FIRST AMENDMENT
Protects the right to speak on matters of public concern in a government created public forum without viewpoint discrimination.
TEXAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, §8
Independently protects freedom of speech in public forums
TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT §551.007
Prohibits a governmental body from prohibiting public criticism of the body, its policies, procedures, programs, or services.
FIRST AMENDMENT DOCTRINE USED
The petition relied on well established constitutional principles
LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
By opening public comment, the board created a limited public forum for citizens to speak
VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION
Government may not favor one side of a permitted subject while suppressing another because it disagrees with the message
TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER
Rules like time limits and decorum are allowed, but they must be content-neutral, viewpoint-neutral, and evenly enforced
OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUE
After I reported the muting at the October 2024 meeting, the board president publicly denied it on a topic that was not on the agenda.
§551.041 - NOTICE OF SUBJECTS
Subjects to be discussed or deliberated must be posted on the agenda.
§551.042 - IMMMEDIATE RESPONSE LIMITS
Board may only make a factual statement, recite existing policy, or propose placing the subject on a future agenda.
The petition argues the president's response went beyond those limited options and constituted an off agenda defense of the District's conduct
WHY PRESERVATION WAS CRITICAL
The Writ asked the court to preserve all evidence that could show what happened
-
Raw/board fed audio and original video
-
Audio-mixer/console configuration files and logs
-
Live stream encoder settings and logs
-
Production notes and service tickets
-
Mute-state and routing information
-
System access and audit logs
-
Third-party Cloud/platform records
-
Closed session grievance materials
This evidence can answer: was this silence caused by technical failure, or a deliberate control change?
IN-CAMERA REVIEW
The writ asked the judge to privately review confidential closed session grievance materials
Judge reviews privately
Court verifies relevant facts
Student & employee privacy protected
This allows the court to verify material facts while protecting sensitive student and employee information
RELIEF REQUESTED
-
Writ of mandamus - compel compliance with TOMA duties
-
Secretary judgment - declare rights and violations
-
Permanent injunction - prevent future viewpoint base muting or suppression
-
Preservation order - preserve all relevant evidence
-
In camera review - of confidential closed session records
-
Protective order - for handling sensitive information
-
Costs and other relief - award costs and any other relief the court deems just and proper
WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO
We asked the Texas court to determine what happened, preserve the evidence, compel Comal ISD to follow the laws governing public comment, and prevent the alleged selective suppression of my speech from happening again.
The core theory at this stage: government may set responsible rules for public comment, but once it happens that forum, the rules must be neutral and cannot be used to silence criticism or a disfavored viewpoint
PLANTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
SECTION 2 OF 9
THE OPERATIVE FEDERAL COMPLAINT
After the case entered Federal Court, I was permitted to correct and refine my pleading. The second amended complaint became the operative complaint the version of the case that Comal ISD later moved to dismiss
RECEIVED: NOVEMBER 24, 2025
CIVIL ACTON NO.: 5:25-CV-01355
COURT : U.S. DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
- SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
BROUGHT UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983
Section 1983 allows a person to sue government actors in federal court for violating rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. I allege that you know ISD and its officials violated my post Amendment rights, my rights under the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Open Meetings Act.
THE ALLEGED EVENT IN SIMPLE TERMS
1) I approached the podium to speak during public comment.
2) Before I said my 1st word, the Board President pressed a button on the dias.
3) My audio was cut from the official public live stream of the meeting.
4) people in the room could still hear me. Only the official Youtube live stream was muted.
5) My criticism about misconduct and retaliation was removed from what the online public could hear.
6) At the next meeting, the board president publicly denied that any meeting occurred (Contradicting the video evidence).
CONTEXT ALLEGED TO SHOW MOTIVE AND INTENT
The complaint sets out a broader history to explain why the muting was not accidental and why it likely happened.
My wife was a whistleblower who reported medical documentation fraud, special education violations, and unlawful directives to the U.S. Department of Education.
My wife was a whistleblower who reported medical documentation fraud, special education violations, and unlawful directives to the U.S. Department of Education.
After her protected activity, district officials allegedly:
• threatened me
• made false statements in investigations
• deleted video evidence
• encouraged retaliatory employees to seek positions near her new campus
• pressured her to resign or accept demotion.
I filed Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 grievances.
Transcripts from the Level 3 hearing will show that CISD legal counsel stated it was acceptable to target a parent if it benefited a student.
The Texas Attorney General later sealed the grievance files after a request from CISD’s attorneys.
This history was offered to show motive, pattern, and lack of mistake—why the September incident did not stand alone.
These are allegations in the complaint. They are not proven facts.
RELIEF REQUESTED
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT that my constitutional rights were violated
PERMANENT INJUNCTION preventing future viewpoint-based muting
PRESERVATION AND PRODUCTION of all relevant evidence
IN-CAMERA REVIEW of sealed or confidential records
NOMINAL DAMAGES for the completed constitutional injury
COSTS and any other relief the court deems appropriate
CONTEXT ALLEGED TO SHOW MOTIVE AND INTENT
FIRST AMENDMENT – VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION
School board public comment is a designated public forum.
I alleged that my speech was suppressed because of its content and viewpoint, while other speakers were not treated the same.
FIRST AMENDMENT – PRIOR RESTRAINT
The audio was cut before I said my first word, preventing the public livestream audience from hearing my speech.
I alleged this was a prior restraint on my protected speech.
FIRST AMENDMENT – RIGHT TO PETITION
Public comment is how citizens petition government for redress of grievances.
I alleged that silencing me while I sought to expose misconduct violated this right.
TEXAS CONSTITUTION – ARTICLE I, §8
I alleged that Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution protects free speech in public forums at least as strongly as the First Amendment.
TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT (TOMA)
I alleged that cutting or altering the livestream audio violated TOMA’s requirement that meetings be open, accessible, and not materially altered.
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Request a declaration that my rights were violated and an injunction preventing future viewpoint-based muting or alteration of public comments.
PRESERVATION AND PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE
Request preservation and production of all records, logs, communications, grievance files, and technical data related to the muting.
IN-CAMERA REVIEW
Request the court privately review sealed or confidential materials that support the claims.
NOMINAL DAMAGES
Seek nominal damages to recognize the completed constitutional injury and prevent mootness. 1$
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AT THIS STAGE
If government opens a public-comment forum and operates an official livestream of that forum, can it selectively remove one citizen’s speech from the livestream because of the citizen’s criticism or viewpoint while allowing the citizen to remain audible inside the physical room?
WHAT CHANGED FROM SECTION 1?
SECTION 1
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Compel the government to follow its legal duties and prevent future suppression.
SECTION 2
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
The alleged conduct violated federally protected constitutional rights and is actionable through 42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO
The Second Amended Complaint transformed the dispute into a formal federal civil-rights action. It alleged that the selective removal of my criticism from the official livestream violated my constitutional rights and asked the federal court to recognize the injury, prevent its recurrence, preserve the evidence, and determine responsibility through this process.
SECTION 3 OF 9
DEFENDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Document: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
Filed: January 26, 2026
Court: U.S. District Court
Western District of Texas – San Antonio Division
Civil Action No.: 5:25-cv-01355
Rule invoked: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Requested result: Dismissal of all claims with prejudice.
WHAT IS A RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION?
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not ask the court to determine whether the alleged events actually happened.
Instead, the defendants argue:
“Even assuming the complaint’s properly pleaded factual allegations are true for purposes of the motion, those allegations still do not establish a legally valid claim.”
THE DEFENSE’S VERSION OF THE ISSUE
I was allowed to speak at the podium.
The Board and people physically present could hear me.
The alleged problem concerned only the YouTube livestream transmission.
The defense reframed the case from:
“Was a citizen selectively silenced?”
to:
“Does the Constitution require government to broadcast a citizen’s speech beyond the physical meeting room?”
ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENSE
The complaint states:
-
The audio was cut before I said my first word; and
-
The muting occurred as I began discussing whistleblower retaliation, threats, and misconduct.
The defense argues these statements are internally inconsistent because officials could not have responded to the content of words that had not yet been spoken.
OFFICIAL-CAPACITY CLAIMS ARE REDUNDANT
Suing officials in their official capacities is effectively the same as suing the governmental entity.
Because Comal ISD is already a defendant, the official-capacity claims are duplicative.
CASE LAW USED
Kentucky v. Graham
U.S. Supreme Court
Official-capacity claims are treated as claims against the entity.
Monell v. Department of Social Services
U.S. Supreme Court
Result requested: Dismiss redundant official-capacity defendants.
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLEADED
Defendants argue the complaint failed to plead the required elements for municipal liability under §1983.
POLICYMAKER
Under Texas law, school boards act as a body, not through individuals acting alone. No facts show delegated final policymaking authority.
Tex. Educ. Code §11.051
POLICY OR CUSTOM
No written policy, custom, or practice of selectively muting livestream audio was alleged.
MOVING FORCE
No facts showing a policy/custom was the moving force behind a constitutional violation or that the Board as a majority acted with unconstitutional intent.
CASE LAW USED
Monell
U.S. Supreme Court
Rivera v. Houston ISD
5th Circuit
Doe v. Burleson County
5th Circuit
Piotrowski v. City of Houston
5th Circuit
Griggs v. Chickasaw County
5th Circuit
Result requested: Dismiss claims against Comal ISD for failure to plead municipal liability.
NO DUTY TO BROADCAST THE SPEECH — CENTRAL ARGUMENT
The defense argues:
You were allowed to speak.
The Board heard you.
The people in the room heard you.
Therefore, the First Amendment does not require Comal ISD to transmit your speech through YouTube or any social media platform.
CASE LAW USED
Houchins v. KQED, Inc.
U.S. Supreme Court
No constitutional right to have access to particular government information or to require the government to make information available in a specific way.
Applied by defense by analogy:
No constitutional duty to create or provide a livestream of a citizen’s speech.
VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION DOES NOT APPLY
Defendants argue viewpoint discrimination requires the government to restrict speech because of the ideas expressed.
Your speech was not restricted in the room.
CASE LAW USED
Rosenberger v. Rector
U.S. Supreme Court
Defines viewpoint discrimination.
Result requested: Dismiss this claim.
PRIOR RESTRAINT THEORY DOES NOT FIT
Prior restraint is an advance prohibition on speech.
No pre-meeting order forbidding speech; you were allowed to speak at many meetings over ~12 months.
CASE LAW USED
Alexander v. United States
U.S. Supreme Court
Defines prior restraint
Result requested: Dismiss this claim.
PETITION CLAUSE CLAIM ADDS NO SEPARATE CLAIM
Requires matter of public concern, which the complaint does not adequately plead.
Texas law requires only that the grievance be presented to officials, not that it be negotiated, responded to, or broadcast.
CASE LAW USED
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
U.S. Supreme Court
Tex. Const. art. I, §27
Texas Constitution
Result requested: Dismiss this claim.
TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT (TOMA) CLAIM FAILS
No “truthful and complete public access” language in the statute.
§551.007 was satisfied: you were allowed to address the Board.
§551.128(b): livestreaming is optional (“may” broadcast).
§551.142(a): mandamus/injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation does not fit the facts alleged.
Result requested: Dismiss this claim.
CASE LAW ON RELIEF REQUESTED
Bauer v. Texas (5th Cir.)
Plaintiff seeking declaratory or injunctive relief must show a real and immediate likelihood of future injury. The complaint alleges one incident and no real threat of recurrence.
Broad “follow the law” injunctions are improper.
RELIEF REQUESTED
GRANT THE RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION
DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DISMISS ALL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE
With prejudice means the claims would be ended and not refiled in the same form.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AFTER THIS MOTION
The defense changed the question from:
“Can government selectively remove one citizen’s criticism from its official livestream?”
to:
“Does the First Amendment require government to broadcast a citizen’s speech beyond the physical meeting room?”
SECTION 2 — SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
WHAT CHANGED
Allegation: Government selectively removed protected criticism from its official livestream.
SECTION 3 — DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Defense: The citizen was never prevented from speaking. Government had no constitutional obligation to broadcast the citizen’s speech online.
SECTION 4 OF 9 — PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
Document: Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
Filed: February 9, 2026 Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas — San Antonio Division
Civil Action No.: 5:25-cv-01355
WHAT IS A RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION?
It is the plaintiff’s written answer explaining why the defendants’ motion should not be granted.
At Rule 12(b)(6), the issue is not yet whether the plaintiff can prove the case.
The question is:
Assuming the well-pleaded allegations are true and drawing reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, do those allegations plausibly state a legal claim?
Plaintiff argued that they do.
-
THE RESPONSE CLARIFIED THE TWO AUDIENCES
IN THE PHYSICAL ROOM
I was speaking.
The Board could hear me.
People physically present
could hear me.
ON THE OFFICIAL LIVESTREAM
The District-controlled audio feed was inaudible during my public-comment slot.
The online audience therefore could not hear the same remarks.
The Response expressly says: “Plaintiff’s claim is not premised on an in-room mic cut-off.” The alleged injury concerned the District’s official livestream audio.
2. THE RESPONSE ANSWERED THE DEFENSE’S “CONTRADICTION”
YOU BEGAN SPEAKING WHEN RECOGNIZED
YOU BEGAN SPEAKING WHEN RECOGNIZED
YOU BEGAN SPEAKING WHEN RECOGNIZED
No real contradiction once the two audiences are distinguished.
Any remaining dispute about timing or audibility is a factual dispute, not something to resolve against Plaintiff at Rule 12(b)(6).
3. VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION WAS THE CORE CLAIM
Public comment is protected First Amendment activity.
Government may set reasonable, viewpoint-neutral rules (time limits, signup, decorum).
But selective silencing of criticism is presumptively unconstitutional even in limited public forums.
The selective muting of the official livestream during one speaker’s slot plausibly states viewpoint discrimination.
CASE LAW USED
Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n
U.S. Supreme Court
Forum doctrine; government may impose reasonable, neutral forum rules.
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia
U.S. Supreme Court
Principle that viewpoint discrimination is impermissible.
4. "NO DUTY TO AMPLIFY" MISSES THE QUESTION
The claim is NOT that the District had a constitutional duty to create a livestream
District voluntarily created and controlled the official livestream
It used that channel to distribute the public-comment forum
It carried other speakers through that channel.
The allegation is that it selectively made one speaker inaudible
The violation arises from selective suppression within the channel - not from creating the channel.
5. DIGITAL SPEECH DOES NOT RECEIVE LESS PROTECTION
Packingham V. North Carolina
US Supreme Court
The cyberspace and social media are vital arenas for exchange of views
Constitutional limits apply when government uses digital channels to carry civic participation and public discourse
By live streaming public comment, the district created a government- controlled forum subject to First Amendment constraints
6. THE ONLINE AUDIENCE ALSO MATTERS
The First Amendment protects listeners as well as speakers.
Cases Used
Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council U.S. Supreme Court
First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
U.S. Supreme Court
The online public lost access to citizen speech during an official government meeting.
7. PETITION CLAUSE CLAIM DEFENDED
Claim is not that government had to create a broadcast.
The violation is selective suppression of petitioning speech through the official channel.
Public Concern Argument
The “public concern” test defendants raised belongs to public-employee speech doctrine.
Even if relevant, topics alleged (health & safety, ~75 students, medical fraud/violations, accountability, retaliation/cover-up) are clearly matters of public concern at the pleading stage.
8. PRIOR RESTRAINT LABEL NOT ESSENTIAL
Even if “prior restraint” is not the best doctrinal label for live muting, the same facts still plausibly state:
✓ Viewpoint discrimination
✓ Unconstitutional selective suppression in the public- comment forum
Label disagreement is not a basis to dismiss.
9. NOT SIMPLY “GOVERNMENT SPEECH”
Government opened the meeting for private citizen speech.
↓
It distributed that private speech through its official channel.
↓
Forum doctrine – not unlimited editorial discretion – governs selective treatment of those private speakers.
The recording cannot be both “pure editorial” and the official record the public is told to rely on.
10. STATE ACTION PLAUSIBLY ALLEGED
Manipulating the broadcast mechanism of an official meeting through District systems is governmental conduct.
Who operated the controls, instructions, and technical mechanisms are discovery matters.
11. MONELL DOES NOT REQUIRE “MAGIC WORDS”
✓ Rule 8 does not require specific labels like “policy” or “custom.”
Possible Monell pathways:
• Official policy
• Custom or practice
• Delegated authority
• Final policymaker decision
• Ratification
Leatherman, Monell, Pembaur, Praprotnik: multiple recognized pathways for municipal liability.
12. STANDING & FUTURE RELIEF DEFENDED
Key facts participation in the same public-comment forum.
The same livestream system remains in use.
District continues to assert no constitutional problem.
Lyons (U.S. Supreme Court) Bauer v. Texas (5th Cir.)
Real and immediate threat of future injury is plausibly alleged at the pleading stage.
13. NARROW RELIEF REQUESTED
Not a vague “follow the law” injunction.
Narrow request: viewpoint-neutral safeguards against selective muting/alteration of public- comment livestream audio.
✓ Still allows reasonable neutral rules (time limits, decorum, equal procedures).
14. TOMA IS CONTEXT, NOT THE FOUNDATION
Even if Texas law says government “may” livestream (TOMA), that does not authorize viewpoint-based suppression on that channel.
Open-meetings principles support transparency, public participation — but federal First Amendment claims stand on their own.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AFTER THIS RESPONSE
• Livestream settings & technical configuration
• Control logs & operator instructions
• Policies, training, delegation records
• Testimony from operators & officials
• These are discovery questions — not reasons to end the case now.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.
✓ Allow claims against Comal ISD to continue.
✓ Dismiss redundant official-capacity parties only if necessary, without dismissing the claims against the District.
✓ Allow discovery to develop the facts.
✓ If the Court finds any pleading deficiency, grant leave to amend under Rule 15.
✓ Award any other appropriate relief.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AFTER THIS RESPONSE
Not: “Does the First Amendment require government to broadcast?”
The real question: If government creates a public civic forum, including the public-comment speech, may it selectively suppress one citizen’s viewpoint?
SECTION 5 OF 9 — DEFENDANTS’ REPLY
Document: Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Filed: February 18, 2026 Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas — San Antonio Division
Civil Action No.: 5:25-cv-01355 Purpose: Reply to Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition
Requested result: Dismiss all claims with prejudice
WHAT IS A REPLY?
A Reply is the defendants’ answer to Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition.
It argues that Plaintiff’s response did not cure the legal defects raised in the Motion to Dismiss.
The Reply does not start a new motion. It supports the pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
-
THE DEFENSE ACCEPTS THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT THE ONLINE AUDIENCE
IN THE PHYSICAL ROOM
✓ I was able to speak
✓ The Board heard me
✓ People in the room heard me
ONLINE AUDIENCE
✓ The online audience could not hear the remarks
✓ The alleged harm concerned the official livestream
Defense framing: The lawsuit is about the online broadcast, not the in-room public comment.
2. NO POSITIVE RIGHT TO INTERNET DISSEMINATION
✓ You were allowed to speak
✓ The Board heard you
✓ The people in the room heard you
Therefore, the First Amendment does not require Comal ISD to transmit a citizen’s speech to the Internet or social media audience.
Anello v. Anderson — W.D.N.Y. 2016
Closest factual analogy: no First Amendment right to have public-meeting comments recorded for later broadcast where the speaker could still address the governmental body.
Anello v. Anderson — W.D.N.Y. 2016
Used for the negative-rights principle: the First Amendment restrains government interference but does not create affirmative obligations to distribute speech.
CASE LAW USED
3. DEFENSE ARGUES RESPONSE ADDED NEW FACTUAL DETAIL
The Reply argues Plaintiff’s Response added greater detail about the intended subject matter, including medical fraud, approximately 75 students, retaliation, and alleged cover-up.
The Second Amended Complaint had already alleged medical-documentation fraud, special-education violations affecting dozens of students, whistleblower retaliation, threats, safety, and government misconduct.
Defendants argue the additional specificity in the Response cannot be used to cure any deficiency in the operative complaint.
4. MONELL STILL NOT PLEADED
Defendants argue the Second Amended Complaint itself still does not adequately plead:
✓ Policymaker
✓ Policy or custom
✓ Moving force
The Reply argues that explanations offered in Plaintiff’s Response — including policy, custom, delegation, or ratification theories — cannot substitute for factual allegations defendants contend were missing from the operative complaint.
Cases used:
Rivera v. Houston ISD
Anderson v. Harris County
Monacelli v. City of Dallas
5. DEFENSE ARGUES TOMA WAS ABANDONED
Plaintiff’s Response argued that even if the Texas Open Meetings Act claim were dismissed or narrowed, the federal First Amendment claims would remain independent.
Defendants argue Plaintiff did not meaningfully answer their separate grounds for dismissing the TOMA claim.
They therefore asked the Court to treat the TOMA claim as abandoned and dismiss it.
WHAT CHANGED FROM SECTION 4?
SECTION 4 — PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE
I am not asking the government to create a livestream.
I am challenging selective suppression within a livestream the government already created and controlled.
SECTION 5 — DEFENDANTS’ REPLY
Even if the livestream already existed, the First Amendment did not give Plaintiff a constitutional right requiring government to distribute his remarks to an Internet audience.
WHAT CHANGED FROM SECTION 4?
SECTION 4 — PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE
I am not asking the government to create a livestream.
I am challenging selective suppression within a livestream the government already created and controlled.
SECTION 5 — DEFENDANTS’ REPLY
Even if the livestream already existed, the First Amendment did not give Plaintiff a constitutional right requiring government to distribute his remarks to an Internet audience.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AFTER THIS REPLY
The defense changed the focus from:
“Can government selectively remove one citizen’s criticism from its official livestream?”
to
“Does the First Amendment require government to broadcast a citizen’s speech beyond the physical meeting room?”
WHAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE TRYING TO DO
The Reply attempted to keep the case framed as a dispute about distribution, not suppression. Defendants argued that because Plaintiff remained free to speak in the room, there was no constitutional right to require online transmission of his remarks.
They also argued that new factual details and Monell theories raised in Plaintiff’s Response could not repair alleged defects in the Second Amended Complaint, and they asked the court to end the case at the pleading stage without discovery.
RELIEF REQUESTED
✓ Grant the Motion to Dismiss
✓ Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
✓ Dismiss all claims with prejudice
Voluntary contributions made through this page are used solely for expenses associated with my First Amendment case and related transparency work, including legal costs, public records expenses, and website hosting. These funds are separate from my political campaign and will not be used for campaign expenses. Contributions made here are not tax-deductible.
This is not a campaign contribution. Funds submitted through this form will not be used for my campaign for Lieutenant Governor.