Kathleen Greig, village clerk

Village of Shorewood

3930 N. Murray Ave.

Shorewood, WI. 53211


RE:      Request for hearing/appeal of Village Attorney Pollen’s decision regarding notification of meetings and agendas


Dear Ms. Greig:


This letter is a request for a hearing/appeal of the Village attorney’s decision to single me out for charges to notify me of irregular committee meetings and provide me with their agendas.


I would like to take this issue to the next level and it is not clear to me where one goes to appeal a policy established by the village attorney. Do I go to the Village Court? Do I go to the Circuit Court? Do I go to the Village Board’s Judiciary, Personnel & Licensing Committee?


I want to appeal the village attorney’s decision because we do not license the press in this country; we all have the same rights.


Furthermore, I function as the press, as Mr. Pollen well knows, since I just sued him, his firm and the Village as “the press.” Is it Mr. Pollen’s contention that unless a citizen writes “the press” on a piece of paper constitutional rights may be denied?


And furthermore again, every American citizen is entitled to be “the press.”


I am not even aware of any definition of “the press’ in the Village ordinances, or an ordinance that excludes “the press’ from the ordinance that establishes a fee for copies. But since it is the practice of the Village to give requestors who identify themselves as “the press” notices of meetings and agendas without charge, what is the basis for charging some people but not others?


That I should have to pay a dollar a week is unreasonably petty on Mr. Pollen’s part – to put the Village at risk of litigation over what is clearly a de minimis amount seems to be retaliation by Mr. Pollen for articles I have written challenging his understanding of constitutional rights, fairness, the role of the press and the public records act. It seems I am being discriminated against in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the press is entitled to no special access.[1]


However, since it is the policy of the Village to give the press documents without cost, I appeal Mr. Pollen’s decision to exclude me from what is generally provided to citizens sharing my standing in the community.


If Mr. Pollen is unable to research the law before shooting from the hip, I must challenge his uninformed, petty, arbitrary and unconstitutional policy.


Very truly yours,




Geoff Davidian

414 964-8871



[1]  “It has generally been held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 16 -17 (1965); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 728 -730 (1971), (STEWART, J., concurring); Tribune Review Publishing Co. v. Thomas, 254 F.2d 883, 885 (CA3 1958); In the Matter of United Press Assns. v. Valente, 308 N. Y. 71, 77, 123 N. E. 2d 777, 778 (1954). In Zemel v. Rusk, supra, for example, the Court sustained the Government's refusal to validate passports to Cuba even though that restriction "render[ed] less than wholly free the flow of information concerning that country." Id., at 16. The ban on travel was held constitutional, for "[t]he right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information." Id., at 17. 22   (U.S. Supreme Court BRANZBURG v. HAYES, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 408 U.S. 665)