On October 16, I filed a supplemental response to the University officials’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. My response argues that immunity does not bar my claims. It also argues that my suspension, my exclusion from the law school building, faculty meetings and student advising, and the investigation into my speech were retaliation against protected speech. The University’s policies are overbroad and vague. Its spam policy and the investigator’s instruction to “stop immediately” are prior restraints on speech. I was deprived of property and liberty without due process. The amended complaint also states Establishment Clause and race discrimination claims. The attached copy is the corrected version filed on October 17.