A.M. also conceded her expressive-association claim at the October 23, 2014 hearing. See Tr. at 83:7-84:9 (Court, Simmons, Constantaras). When the Court asked her twice whether her First Amendment claims included issues other than familial association and court access, A.M. responded-in the negative: COURT: Is there anything left to your First Amendment claim, Ms. Simmons if the familial-association one goes out? SIMMONS: No, Your Honor.... COURT: So I can dismiss the First Amendment claims and then just deal with the familial association— SIMMONS: ,.. [W]e do also have an access to courts claim, which I think would be a First Amendment claim.... COURT: Is there anything else then [to the] First Amendment other than those two? SIMMONS: That’s it, Judge. Tr. at 83:7-84:9 (Cour 90) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, “[i]t is possible to find some kernel
holding that conversation between motorcycle passengers was too remote from the marketplace of ideas to activate the guarantees of the first amendment recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel recognizing in first amendment jurisprudence the right to receive information and ideas holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment