39.  Mr. Brown adopts by reference the contents of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   40.  Barring oral requests for money now but not regulating requests for money later as the  panhandling statute does is a form of content discrimination.   41.  The panhandling statute therefore violates the First Amendment because it is not “narrowly  tailored to promote a compelling Government interest," and there are "less restrictive alternatives  that would serve the Government's purpose."   42.  The panhandling statute is a policy of the District of Columbia.   43.  The District’s enforcement of the panhandling statute against Mr. Brown and the other  members of the classes described below injured Mr. Brown and the other members of the classes  by subjecting them to arrest, prosecution, and loss of liberty.    44.  Accordingly, Mr. Brown and the other members of the Arrest Class and the Prosecution  Class are entitled to damages and other relief as set forth below.  45.  Mr. Brown on behalf of himself and the Arrest Class bring this action under Rules 23(a),  23(b) (2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class consisting of  each person who: (i) in the period beginning three years before the date of filing of the original  complaint in this case and going forward until the case is terminated; (ii) was arrested for a violation  of the panhandling statute.   46.  Mr. Brown on behalf of himself and the other members of the Prosecution Class bring this  action under Rules 23(a), 23(b) (2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf  of a class consisting of each person who: (i) in the period beginning three years before the date of  filing of the original complaint in this case and going forward until the case is terminated; (ii) was  prosecuted for a violation of the panhandling statute.   47.  Certification of these classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) is appropriate,  because the District of Columbia has a policy, pattern, and practice for each claim that has  uniformly affected all members the class, and injunctive relief and declaratory judgment and a  judgment against the District will benefit each and every plaintiff and class member.   48.  Mr. Brown and the classes are entitled to injunctive relief including an injunction  prohibiting enforcement of the panhandling statute and sealing of the arrest records of class  members for their arrests under the panhandling statute.   49.  Mr. Brown and the classes are entitled to declaratory judgment against the District that  D.C. Code § 22-2301(2) is facially unconstitutional and their arrests on those charges are a nullity.   Claim 1   § 1983 Liability of District of Columbia under the First Amendment  