Bristow Law , PLLC

November 17, 2017

Mark S. Schlissel
President, University of Michigan
Kyle J. Bristow, Esq. 2074 Fleming Building
Admissions: Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Michigan (P77200)
Ohio (#0089543)
Sent via Electronic Mail (presoff@umich.edu) Only
SCOTUS (#296690)
CAAF (#35818)
E.D. Mich. RE: CAMERON PADGETT v. MARK S. SCHLISSEL, ET AL.
W.D. Mich. PLANNED RICHARD SPENCER EVENT
N.D. Ohio PRE-SUIT DEMAND
S.D. Ohio
4th Cir. President Schlissel:
5th Cir.
6th Cir. Take note that I represent Cameron Padgett (Padgett) for purposes of the
Bristow Law, PLLC controversy described herein. If you have legal counsel, please immediately
P.O. Box 381164 direct them to contact me and I will correspond with them and not you in the
Clinton Twp., MI 48038 future.
(248) 838-9934
BristowLaw@gmail.com As you are undoubtedly well aware, Padgett would like to rent a publicly
www.KyleBristow.com available room on the campus of the University of Michigan to host an Alt-
Right political event which would feature as speakers Padgett and the National
Policy Institutes Richard Spencer (Spencer).

I have been following with interest recently-published newspaper articles about

the University of Michigans response to Padgetts simple requestwhich was
made on October 27, 2017, and I am disgusted and dismayed that the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution is being flippantly disregarded
by you and your colleagues because of the political viewpoint of the speakers
who would attend the proposed event and the hecklers veto which is being
utilized by left-wing individuals who are detractors of Padgett and Spencer.
Regent Ron Weiser, for example, described Spencer as disgusting, and
Regent Andrea Newman suggested that she would be happy to defend a
lawsuit if sued for wantonly infringing upon my clients right to free speech.1

Auburn University, Pennsylvania State University, Ohio State University, and

Michigan State University have been sued for doing exactly what your
university is currently doing: refusing to timely permit Padgett to rent a
publicly available room on campus at which Padgett and Spencer will speak
about their political ideas.

In case you are not familiar with constitutional lawyou did, after all, once
THIS FIRM IS A DEBT
COLLECTOR
state that the distribution of Alt-Right political posters on the University of
ATTEMPTING TO Michigans campus constitutes an act of terrorism,2 and the law students at
COLLECT A DEBT. your universitys purportedly prestigious law school reportedly play with Play-
ANY INFORMATION Doh, doodle with coloring books, and blow bubbles like toddlers when they are
OBTAINED WILL BE not receiving therapy with the schools embedded psychologist3, I have
USED FOR THAT
PURPOSE.
enclosed with this correspondence a copy of the complaint filed against President Lou Anna Simon
of Michigan State University. A similar complaint will be filed against you and/or your
accomplices unless Padgetts constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech is honored.

The University of Michigan has until Friday, November 24, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. to publicly
acknowledge that Padgett can rent a room on its campus at which Padgett and Spencer will speak,
or else I will make Regent Newman happy by filing suit in federal court and seeking a court
order for the samein addition to a significant money judgment.

Violations of our peoples sacred right to free speech will not whatsoever be tolerated by me. I
will use any and all resources as my disposal to see this matter through to a just and equitable
conclusion.

I await your decision.

Very sincerely,

BRISTOW LAW, PLLC

Kyle J. Bristow, Esq.

Encls: (1) MSU Complaint

cc: (1) Regent Michael Behm (mjbehm@umich.edu)

(2) Regent Mark J. Bernstein (mjbern@umich.edu)
(3) Regent Shauna Ryder Diggs (srdiggs@umich.edu)
(4) Regent Denise Illitch (dillitch@umuch.edu)
(5) Regent Andrea Fisher Newman (afnewman@umich.edu)
(6) Regent Andrew C. Richner (richner@umich.edu)
(7) Regent Ron Weiser (rnweiser@umich.edu)
(8) Regent Katherine E. White (kewhite@umich.edu)
(9) Cameron Padgett

1
https://www.michigandaily.com/section/administration/weiser-richard-spencer-disgusting
2
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/10/05/schlissel-racist-fliers-um-
act-terrorism/91612952/
3
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/14/university-michigan-cancels-plan-to-help-students-
cope-with-trump-using-coloring-books-play-doh-and-bubbles.html
2
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CAMERON PADGETT, Case No. 1:17-cv-00805-JTN-ESC

Plaintiff, Hon. Janet T. Neff

v. Mag. Ellen S. Carmody

LOU ANNA KIMSEY SIMON,
In her personal and official capacities as
president of Michigan State University,

Defendant.

BRISTOW LAW, PLLC VARNUM LLP

By: Kyle Bristow (P77200) Bryan R. Walters (P58050)
P.O. Box 381164 333 Bridge St. NW
Clinton Twp., MI 48038 P.O. Box 352
(P): (248) 838-9934 Grand Rapids, MI 49501
(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com (P): (616) 336-6000
Attorney for Cameron Padgett (E): brwalters@varnumlaw.com
Attorneys for Lou Anna Kimsey Simon

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE

AND DORR LLP
Brian M. Boynton
Paul R.Q. Wolfson
Kevin M. Lamb
1875 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(P): brian.boynton@wilmerhale.com
Attorneys for Lou Anna Kimsey Simon

PLAINTIFF CAMERON PADGETTS CORRECTED FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED

COMPLAINT (JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON)

NOW COMES Cameron Padgett (Plaintiff), by and through Attorney Kyle Bristow of

Bristow Law, PLLC, and hereby propounds upon Lou Anna Kimsey Simon (Defendant) and

this Honorable Court Plaintiff Cameron Padgetts Corrected First Amended Verified Complaint:
 I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff sues Defendantby invoking 42 U.S.C. 1983for Defendant having wantonly

violated Plaintiffs right to free speechas guaranteed to Plaintiff by the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitutionby prohibiting Plaintiff from hosting Richard

Spencer (Spencer) of the National Policy Institute (NPI) as a speakerin addition to other

speakers, including Plaintiffon the campus of Michigan State University (MSU) to share with

attendees of said event their Alt-Right and identitarian political philosophies.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is an adult natural person, a citizen by birth of the United States of America, and

a domiciliary of the State of Georgia.

3. Defendant is an adult natural person who is the president of MSU. Upon information and

belief, Defendant is a domiciliary of the State of Michigan. Defendant is sued in her personal and

official capacities. At all times relevant to the instant controversy, Defendant acted under the color

of state law in Defendants capacity as president of MSU.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court enjoys subject matter jurisdiction over the instant civil action because the

controversy involves a federal question about Plaintiffs constitutional right to free speech being

violated by Defendant. 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.

5. This Court enjoys personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is subject to the

jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction within the State of Michigan since Defendant is

upon information and beliefdomiciled in the State of Michigan and Defendant did and caused

tortious injury to Plaintiff in the State of Michigan. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A); MCL 600.701;

MCL 600.705.

2
 6. Venue is appropriate with this Court because a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in the Courts jurisdictional district. 28 U.S.C.

1391(b)(2).

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

7. MSU is a public university principally located in City of East Lansing, State of Michigan.

MSU is organized under the laws of the State of Michigan pursuant to MCL 390.101, et seq.

8. Defendant, as the president of MSU, isupon information and beliefthe highest-ranking

authority figure who makes decision for MSU.

9. Located on the campus of MSU is the Kellogg Hotel & Conference Center (Kellogg

Hotel). Kellogg Hotel is owned and operated by MSU, and hotel rooms, conference rooms, and

banquet facilities at Kellogg Hotel are publicly advertised as being available for rent on the website

of Kellogg Hotel at <http://kelloggcenter.com/>.

10. Plaintiff is a senior at Georgia State University who subscribes to identitarian philosophy.

At all times relevant to the instant controversy, Plaintiff does not engage in or advocate criminal

conduct.

11. Identitarian philosophy is a Eurocentric political ideology which advocates the

preservation of national identity and a return to traditional Western values.

12. Plaintiff is a supporter of Spencer and Plaintiff has organized a number of events at college

campuses at which Spencer and other identitarian and Alt-Right political activistsinvited by

Plaintiffspeak as guests.

13. Alt-Rightan abbreviation of alternative right, is a Eurocentric political ideology which

advocates the preservation of national identity, a return to traditional Western values, and advances

European racial interests. Race-based preferential treatment for non-Europeans (a/k/a affirmative

3
action), non-European immigration to European countries and their former colonies, international

free trade agreements, radical feminism, sexual deviancy, and the ideology of multiculturalism are

strongly criticized by adherents of Alt-Right philosophy.

14. Spencer is arguably the foremost advocate for Alt-Right philosophy in the world and is

rapidly becoming a major figure in contemporary American politics. Spencer graduated from the

University of Virginia with a Bachelor of Arts degree, the University of Chicago with a Master of

Arts degree, and pursued a Ph.D. in modern European intellectual history at Duke University. At

all times relevant to the instant controversy, Spencer does not engage in or advocate criminal

conduct.

15. NPI is a think-tank based in City of Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia, for which

Spencer serves as its figurehead. NPI promotes Alt-Right philosophy through its publications and

private and public events. At all times relevant to the instant controversy, NPI does not advocate

criminal conduct.

16. Due to the viewpoint of Plaintiff, Spencer, and NPI, people who are politically left-of-

center find Plaintiffs, Spencers and NPIs constitutionally-protected political views to be

objectionable. Activists affiliated with the Antifa political movement have previously violently

attacked Spencer and Spencers supporters at venues at which Spencer and Spencers supporters

peacefully assembled with the explicit goal of shutting down Spencers events.

17. Antifaan abbreviation of antifascistis an unincorporated and international

organization of radically left-wing activists who resort to violence as a matter of practice to try to

oppress people of a right-of-center or identitarian political persuasion. Usually clothed in black

and wearing masks to conceal their identities, Antifa activists routinely show up to politically right-

of-center and identitarian events with baseball bats, knives, sticks, pepper spray, and other

4
weapons to attack their political opponents. Antifa activists often throw water balloons filled with

urine and other harmful objects at politically right-of-center and identitarian people without lawful

justification.

18. On or about July 20, 2017, Plaintiff attempted to rent a conference room at Kellogg Hotel

at which Plaintiff, Spencer, and other invited speakers would have shared with attendees their Alt-

Right and identitarian philosophies. Plaintiff wasand is stillpersonally prepared to pay for the

conference room.

19. When Plaintiff attempted to rent the conference room at Kellogg Hotel, Plaintiff

corresponded with Christina Reitler (Reitler)an agent or employee of MSUand relayed that

Plaintiff was in search of a room that could hold four hundred (400) people, but Plaintiff was

and is nowflexible with this request. Plaintiff is indifferent as to whether Plaintiffs event occurs

at Kellogg Hotel and with a room that can hold four hundred (400) people; so long as Plaintiff is

able to rent a large conference room or lecture hallsuch as at Conrad Hallat a reasonable time

on MSUs campus, Plaintiff would be happy.

20. On August 16, 2017, Defendant released a statement on Defendants MSU-provided

webpage about Plaintiff requesting to rent a publicly available room on MSUs campus at

<http://president.msu.edu/communications/speeches-statements/request-to-speak-on-

campus.html>:

Michigan State University has been contacted by the National Policy Institute
seeking to rent space to accommodate a speaker on campus. The NPI describes
itself as dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European
descent.

We are aware of no connection with any MSU-related group or individual, but such
is not required to seek publicly available space.

No decision has yet been made. We are reviewing the request closely in light of the
deplorable violence in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend.

5
 Michigan State takes seriously its obligations to accommodate a broad range of
speech. As our record shows, this university does not determine who can access
public spaces based on what they think or say.

Allowing access to public spaces would in no way constitute endorsement of

messages that might be delivered there. NPI and similar groups events staged at
American campuses are intended to provoke reaction that might seem to justify
organizers racist and divisive messages, which we categorically reject.

The diversity they shun is a source of our strength, like America itself, and every
day some 65,000 students, faculty and MSU staffand half a million alumniare
the living proof. So we will not be intimidated, nor stoop to reciprocate hate.

As Americas pioneer land-grant university, MSU from the start was dedicated to
opening broad access to cutting-edge knowledge. We are proud of MSUs long
engagement in civil and human rights. And we will continue to welcome and
nurture the diverse, engaged citizen-scholars that this world needstoday more
than ever.

We stand with our colleagues across the country for the best of humanity, and our
resolve is implacable. Spartans Will.

21. On August 17, 2017, Defendant released an additional statement on Defendants MSU-

provided webpage about Plaintiff requesting to rent a publicly available room on MSUs campus

at <http://president.msu.edu/communications/speeches-statements/request-to-speak-on-

campus.html>:

After consultation with law enforcement officials, Michigan State University has
decided to deny the National Policy Institutes request to rent space on campus to
accommodate a speaker. This decision was made due to significant concerns about
public safety in the wake of the tragic violence in Charlottesville last weekend.
While we remain firm in our commitment to freedom of expression, our first
obligation is to the safety and security of our students and our community.

22. Plaintiff is neither an employee or agent of Spencer or NPI. When Plaintiff contacts

possible venues to inquire about renting publicly available rooms for Plaintiffs planned events to

promote Alt-Right and identitarian philosophy, Plaintiff does so in Plaintiffs personal capacity.

When Plaintiff corresponded with Reitler, Plaintiff made it unequivocally clear that Plaintiff was

attempting to rent a room in Plaintiffs personal capacity and not on behalf of Spencer or NPI.

6
Had MSU provided Plaintiff a contract for the requested room rental, Plaintiff fully intended to

enter into it in Plaintiffs personal capacity. Had MSU charged Plaintiff a fee for the rental of the

room for Plaintiffs planned event, Plaintiff would have paid for it with Plaintiffs personal

finances. Defendant refused Plaintiff the opportunity to exercise Plaintiffs own right to free

speech by prohibiting Plaintiff from renting the room for the purpose intended by Plaintiff.

23. Defendants decision to prohibit Plaintiff from renting a conference room or lecture hall

on MSUs campus due to violence implicitly or explicitly threatened by Antifa and not by Plaintiff,

Spencer, NPI, or anyone else who Plaintiff would invite to speak at Plaintiffs planned event

constitutes unconstitutional content discrimination in the form of a hecklers veto. See Bible

Believers v. Wayne County, 805 F.3d 228 (6th Cir. 2015).

24. Defendant has no justifiable reason to believe that Plaintiff, Spencer, NPI, or anyone else

who Plaintiff would invite to speak at Plaintiffs planned event will in fact engage in and/or

advocate offensive criminal misconduct at it.

25. The instant controversy is virtually identical to Padgett v. Auburn University, Case No.

3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC, at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

In said case, the same plaintiff as the one of the instant civil action sued a public university for

prohibiting Plaintiff from hosting Spencer as a speaker in a rented conference room or lecture hall

to talk about Alt-Right philosophy. The defendants in that case alleged that Spencers appearance

on the campus of the public university would cause lawless action. Chief Judge W. Keith Watkins

awarded Plaintiff a preliminary injunction so that Spencer could speak in a rented roomthe

defendants were court-ordered to not only protect Spencer and Spencers supporters from Antifa

via the universitys police department, but to de-mask Antifa protesters to dissuade violence,

Spencer peacefully spoke on campus without advocating criminal misconduct, and Plaintiff and

7
the defendants settled the controversy for twenty-nine-thousand-dollars ($29,000.00). (Exhibit A

Padgett v. Auburn University Opinion). Just like Auburn University, the MSU defendant of the

instant civil action must permit Plaintiff to rent a publicly available conference room or lecture

hall for Plaintiffs planned event on MSUs campus if the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution are to be respected.

26. To date, Plaintiff has arranged for Spencer to speak at Auburn University and the

University of Florida. At these events, Plaintiff and Alt-Right and identitarian activists invited by

Plaintiff to participate spoke about their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies. For example, at

Auburn University, Spencer, Attorney Sam Dickson, and Michael Enoch Peinovich

(Peinovich) of The Right Stuff spoke, and at the University of Florida Peinovich, Elliott Eli

Mosley Kline of Identity Evropa, Spencer, and Plaintiff spoke.

27. Spencers December 2016 event at Texas A&M Universitywhich was organized by

someone other than Plaintiffcan be viewed on YouTube at

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlbLNWIFEY0>. Although there was some heckling at

times, the event otherwise proceeded without disruption.

28. Spencers April 2011 event at Providence Collegewhich was organized by someone

other than Plaintiffcan be viewed on YouTube at

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw2V42KS1zc>. Other than Antifa activists showing up

with a megaphone and briefly disrupting the event, the event otherwise proceeded without

disruption.

29. Plaintiffs April 2017 event at Auburn University can be viewed on YouTube at

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jgyT67fP6k>. Although there was some heckling at times,

the event otherwise proceeded without disruption.

8
 30. Plaintiffs October 2017 event at the University of Florida can be viewed on YouTube at

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK_999sTgU>. The event was disrupted due to politically

left-of-center protesters repetitively chanting and yelling throughout the event and the police

officers at the event unconstitutionally refusing to maintain order so that the protesters could drown

out the speakers speeches.

31. Plaintiff is currently attempting to schedule an event similar to the proposed MSU event at

the University of Cincinnatiwhich has agreed to permit Plaintiff to schedule the event to occur

on their campus. The University of Cincinnati has even launched a website to inform the public

about Plaintiffs forthcoming event there, which is accessible at

<http://www.uc.edu/freespeech.html>.

32. Plaintiff desires to host Plaintiffs proposed event at MSU so as to educate the students of

MSU and Michiganders in general about Alt-Right and identitarian philosophy. Plaintiff wants

Plaintiff, Spencer, and Plaintiffs other invited speakers to be able to safely and meaningfully share

with attendees of the event their political philosophiesand for people who are opposed to the

speakers ideas to have a meaningful opportunity to respectfully challenge the speakers during a

question and answer session following the speakers presentations. The best way by which

Plaintiff can share Plaintiffs philosophy with MSU students is by Plaintiff having Plaintiffs

proposed event on MSUs campus.

33. Plaintiff is willing, able, and eager to consider reasonable suggestions made by Defendant

as to an alternative time, manner, and place for Plaintiffs planned event to occur on MSUs

campus instead of Plaintiffs original requested time, manner, and place, but Defendant has refused

to permit Plaintiffs proposed event to occur at any time, in and manner, and at any place on MSUs

campus.

9
 34. MSU has a history of permitting politically very left-wing people and race-based

organizations advocating for racial interests other than the White race to speak on campus; to wit:

By Any Means Necessary1which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) believes to

potentially be involved in terrorist activities2, Joe Carr, who is a controversial Antifa

activist3, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers4who are left-wing activists who were previously

on the FBIs Most Wanted list for purported acts of terrorist bombings they committed against

federal targets as part of the Weathermen Underground network5, and Marxist dictator Robert

Mugabe (Mugabe) of Zimbabweto whom MSU awarded an honorary degree in law before

revoking it in 2008 after MSU decided Mugabes repeated human rights violations warranted said

revocation.6 On November 5, 2017, MSU even had its 45th annual Black Power Rally on its

campus.7 Defendant selectively choosing which viewpoints may be spoken on MSUs campus by

permitting politically left-of-center events to publicly occur but prohibiting Plaintiffs Alt-Right

and identitarian event is inherently unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. See Perry

Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association, 460 U.S. 37, 57-67 (1983)

(providing an overview of how viewpoint discrimination is impermissible at all government-

owned forumspublic and non-public forums alike).

35. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendant because Defendant

caused harm to Plaintiff that was malicious, oppressive, and/or in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs

rights.

1
http://statenews.com/article/2005/12/midday_update_affirmative_action_debate_heats_up_on_campus
2
https://www.aclu.org/news/fbi-document-labels-michigan-affirmative-action-and-peace-groups-
terrorists
3
http://statenews.com/article/2006/02/controversial_anarchist_to_speak_at_msu
4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxZi3WfJWKA
5
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html
6
http://diverseeducation.com/article/11685/
7
http://statenews.com/article/2017/11/black-power-rally
10
 36. Defendant does not enjoy qualified immunity for Defendants tortious conduct against

Plaintiff, because the right of a citizen of the United States of America to speak about controversial

political subject matter over the objection of people in opposition to the same who threaten to

disrupt it is clearly established constitutional law. See Bible Believers, supra; Smith v. Ross, 482

F.2d 33, 37 (6th Cir. 1973) ([S]tate officials are not entitled to rely on community hostility as an

excuse not to protect, by inaction or affirmative conduct, the exercise of fundamental rights.);

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (holding that

the First Amendment applies to public schools); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (holding

that when a public university opens its facilities to the public for use, the university creates a forum

subject to the First Amendment); Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)

(holding that a public university may not discriminate against a point of view in a limited public

forum such a university creates); Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,

508 U.S. 384 (1993) (holding that a public school which opens its facilities to the public creates a

limited public forum and as such, the school cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination); McCauley

v. University of the Virgin Islands, 618 F.3d 232 (3rd Cir. 2010) (providing an excellent summary of the

clear differences between high schools and colleges and the important rationales underlying the different

speech rights afforded to people at each); First Amendment to the United States Constitution;

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; see also Guide to Free Speech on

Campus, Second Edition. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

<https://dfkpq46c1l9o7.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FIRE-Guide-to-Free-Speech-on-

Campus-2nd-ed.pdf>. 2012.

37. Irrespective of whether or not Defendant enjoys qualified immunity, [q]ualified immunity

only shields government officials from monetary damages, not from injunctive relief[.] Ward v.

Polite, 667 F.3d 727, 742 (6th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).

11
 V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I
DEFENDANT VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS
FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
42 U.S.C. 1983

38. The foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if each is fully

set forth herein.

39. Plaintiff is guaranteed the right to free speech pursuant to the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

40. Defendant violated Plaintiffs right to free speech by prohibiting Plaintiff from renting a

publicly available room to host speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the

planned event their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies.

41. Defendants decision to prohibit Plaintiff from renting a publicly available room to host

speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the planned event their Alt-Right and

identitarian philosophies due to Defendant finding Alt-Right philosophy to be objectionable

constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

42. Defendants decision to prohibit Plaintiff from renting a publicly available room to host

speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the planned event their Alt-Right and

identitarian philosophies due to the threat of violence that Antifa protesters pose constitutes

unconstitutional content discrimination in the form of a hecklers veto. See Bible Believers, supra.

43. Defendants decision to prohibit Plaintiff from renting a publicly available room to host

speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the planned event their Alt-Right and

identitarian philosophies due to the uncertain and non-imminent threat of violence constitutes an

unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); New York

Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

12
 44. Defendant acted under the color of state law when Defendant prohibited Plaintiff from

renting a publicly available room to host speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees

of the planned event their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies.

45. Due directly and proximately to Defendant having violated Plaintiffs right to free speech,

Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer injuries.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will enter judgment in Plaintiffs

favor against Defendant by awarding Plaintiff: (1) a money judgment against Defendantin

Defendants personal capacityin excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) for

general and punitive damages; (2) the reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff to

prosecute the instant civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988(b); and (3) any and all further relief

that can be awarded by law or equity.

COUNT II
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

46. The foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if each is fully

set forth herein.

47. The Court can and should decree that Defendant violated Plaintiffs right to free speech by

prohibiting Plaintiff from renting a publicly available room on the campus of MSU to host

speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the planned event their Alt-Right and

identitarian philosophies. See 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.

48. This Court can and should issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendant

whereby Defendant is ordered to permit Plaintiff to rent a publicly available room on the campus

of MSU for a fee to host speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the planned

event their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies without Plaintiff paying for police protection

or posting bond or providing insurance for the event and which requires MSU to maintain law and

13
order via the use of law enforcement officers of its police department so as to protect the right of

the attendees of the event to safely speak in a meaningful manner. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Bible

Believers, supra; Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992) (holding that a

price-tag cannot be attached to the right to free speech by making controversial speakers pay for

police protection due to the threatened violence of their adversaries); Ohio Republican Party v.

Brunner, 543 F.3d 357, 361 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing elements for injunctive relief to be

awarded); Solid Rock Foundation v. Ohio State University, 478 F.Supp. 96 (S.D. Ohio 1979)

(using 6th Circuit and Supreme Court case law to decide whether a preliminary injunction should

issue for a First Amendment-related case involving a public university).

49. Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiffs claim that Defendant

violated Plaintiffs right to free speech.

50. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in the form of Plaintiffs right to free speech being

denied to him should the Court not grant Plaintiff injunctive relief. See Connection Distrib. Co.

v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir. 1998) (recognizing that the loss of First Amendment rights,

for even a minimal period of time, constitutes irreparable harm); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,

373 (1976) (The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,

unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.).

51. The issuance of an injunction to permit Plaintiff to rent a publicly available room on the

campus of MSU for a fee to host speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the

planned event their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies without Plaintiff paying for police

protection or posting bond or providing insurance for the event and which requires MSU to

maintain law and order via the use of law enforcement officers of its police department so as to

protect the right of the attendees of the event to safely speak in a meaningful manner will not cause

14
Defendant to suffer substantial harm because Defendant is required by constitutional law to do the

same anyways.

52. The issuance of an injunction to permit Plaintiff to rent a publicly available room on the

campus of MSU for a fee to host speakersincluding Plaintiffwithout Plaintiff paying for police

protection or posting bond or providing insurance for the event and which requires MSU to

maintain law and order via the use of law enforcement officers of its police department so as to

protect the right of the attendees of the event to safely speak in a meaningful manner will serve the

public interest because it is in the publics interest for the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution to be honored and not disregarded by governmental actors.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will award Plaintiff declaratory

relief by decreeing that Defendant violated Plaintiffs right to free speech and will award Plaintiff

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief whereby Defendant is ordered to permit Plaintiff to

rent a publicly room on the campus of MSU for a fee to host speakers to share with attendees of

the planned event their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies without Plaintiff paying for police

protection or posting bond or providing insurance for the event and which requires MSU to

maintain law and order via the use of law enforcement officers of its police department so as to

protect the right of the attendees of the event to safely speak in a meaningful manner.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiff hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury as to

all triable issues of fact in the instant civil action.

15
 Respectfully submitted,

BRISTOW LAW, PLLC

/s/ Kyle Bristow

Kyle Bristow, Esq. (P77200)
P.O. Box 381164
Clinton Twp., MI 48038
(P): (248) 838-9934
(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com
Attorney for Cameron Padgett

Dated: November 13, 2017

16
 EXHIBIT A
Padgett v. Auburn University Opinion
 Case 3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION

CAMERON PADGETT )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 3:17-CV-231-WKW
) (WO)
AUBURN UNIVERSITY, )
JAY GEORGE, in his official and )
individual capacity as President of )
Auburn University, )
CHANCE CORBETT, in his official )
and individual capacity as Director of )
Auburn University Public Safety )
Department, and )
ANDREA CONTI-ELIKINS, in her )
official and individual capacity as )
Supervisor of Student Center )
Reservations and James E. Foy )
Information Desk, Division of Student )
Affairs, )
)
Defendants. )

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the court is Plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order, which

is construed as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. # 2.) This is a civil rights

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he had a contract

with Auburn University to rent a room for the purpose of allowing Richard Spencer

to speak at 7:00 p.m. on April 18, 2017 (todays date). On April 14, 2017,

Defendants, on behalf of Auburn University, cancelled the event. (Doc. # 1-3.) The
 Case 3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 04/18/17 Page 2 of 5

court takes judicial notice that Richard Spencer is a white nationalist member of the

far right who subscribes to what he describes as identitarian politics. While Mr.

Spencers beliefs and message are controversial, Auburn presented no evidence that

Mr. Spencer advocates violence. Upon consideration of the motion and the evidence

presented at the April 18, 2017 hearing on the motion, the court concludes that the

motion is due to be granted.

The law of speech in this country is well-settled:

[A]ll fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected
by the federal Constitution from invasion by the states. The right of
free speech, the right to teach and the right of assembly are, of course,
fundamental rights. These may not be denied or abridged. But,
although the rights of free speech and assembly are fundamental, they
are not in their nature absolute.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (internal

citations omitted), overruled on other grounds, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444

(1969). [T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit

a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except

where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action

and is likely to incite or produce such action. Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447.

Auburn did not produce evidence that Mr. Spencers speech is likely to incite or

produce imminent lawless action.

The court finds that Auburn University cancelled the speech based on its belief

that listeners and protest groups opposed to Mr. Spencers ideology would react to

2
 Case 3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 04/18/17 Page 3 of 5

the content of his speech by engaging in protests that could cause violence or

property damage. However, discrimination on the basis of message content cannot

be tolerated under the First Amendment, and [l]isteners reaction to speech is not

a content-neutral basis for regulation. Forsyth Cty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement,

505 U.S. 123, 13435 (1992). Moreover, counsel for Auburn represented that

Auburn University and local police, having been made aware of the risks many

weeks ago, are prepared to provide security in the event that this injunction issued.

Mr. Spencer has provided $2 million in insurance and has paid for the extra security

necessary to cover this event. Auburns attempted cancellation of the event, in

violation of its contract with Plaintiff and four days before the event, was not

narrowly tailored to protect the right to free speech while still addressing its own

security concerns.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction by demonstrating

(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that, if the relief is not

granted, he will suffer irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of his right to

freedom of speech and freedom of association, see Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,

373 (1976) (The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of

time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.); (3) that the threatened injury

outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on Defendants; and (4) that entry of the

3
 Case 3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 04/18/17 Page 4 of 5

relief would serve the public interest. See Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403

F.3d 1223, 1225 (11th Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion (Doc. # 2)

is GRANTED as follows:

1. Defendants and their agents and any person acting on Defendants

behalf are RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from cancelling, prohibiting, or

preventing listeners from attending the speech by Mr. Spencer on April 18, 2017.

2. The contract (Doc. # 1-1) for the room in which Mr. Spencer was

scheduled to speak is reinstated.

3. To the extent necessary to provide security, and in a manner that will

ensure compliance with Alabamas anti-mask law, Ala. Code 1975 13A-11-

9(a)(4), and the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, law enforcement

may prohibit attendees or protesters on the campus from wearing masks.1

4. Defendant Auburn University, through its Police Department shall take

all necessary and appropriate steps, within their available resources, to provide

security for Mr. Spencer, event attendees, peaceful protestors, and all other persons

on the Auburn University campus on April 18, 2017. Security personnel may not

cut off the free speech of Mr. Spencer or other persons except as a last resort to

1 The uncontradicted evidence presented at the hearing establishes that a group called
Anti-fa, known for donning masks and engaging in violent protests, intends to engage in non-
peaceful protest at Mr. Spencers speech at Auburn.
4
 Case 3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 04/18/17 Page 5 of 5

ensure security or to prevent violence or property damage, and only after first

making bona fide efforts to protect the speaker from . . . hostility by other, less

restrictive means. Bible Believers v. Wayne Cty., Mich., 805 F.3d 228, 255 (6th

Cir. 2015).

5. In light of the insurance procured by Mr. Spencer, Mr. Spencers

payment of fees for the provision of security, and Defendants representation that

they do not wish to request a bond, no bond is required.

6. At or before 6:30 p.m. on April 18, 2017, Mr. Spencer shall tender to

Auburn the $700.00 balance owed for facility rental.

DONE this 18th day of April, 2017.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE