draft only did not send. because i was wrong. 2nd version shortly. 

To Brad Boswell@FaegreDrinker.com

Outside counsel to Marion County Election Board 

From Robbin Stewart

Candidate for Marion County Clerk.

We met this morning from 9 to 10 am. 

I stated that the board lacked jurisdiction to fine me under the Indiana Campaign Finance Act.  You advised them, incorrectly, that they did have jurisdiction. We spoke. You gave me your card and cited 

3 5 2.1 14 (b)(3) as your authority. I think you mean this statute. Google might not have the text right.

IC 3-5-2-1.14.6 "Candidate"

Sec. 1.14.6. (a) "Candidate" means an individual who:
(1) has taken the action necessary under the laws of this state to qualify for a spot on the ballot;
(2) has publicly announced or declared candidacy for an elected office;
(3) is otherwise seeking nomination or election to an elected office; or
(4) is a write-in candidate under IC 3-8-2-2.5.

(b) As used in IC 3-9, "candidate" also includes an individual who:
(1) is an officeholder who is required to file a statement of organization under IC 3-9-1; or
(2) has:
(A) received more than one hundred dollars ($100) in contributions; or
(B) made more than one hundred dollars ($100) in expenditures;
for the individual's candidacy.

 If that's the statute, I am within the safe harbor of not having raised or spent $100, and not being an officeholder. 

So under the current statute, the board lacks jurisdiction against me. However, I ran in 2024, and had concluded all activity by the effective date of thee new statute, and under the old statute I am within the safe harbor. Third, there would be severe constitutional issues with a first dollar rule which is what I think you were claiming. 

When you advised the Board they could proceed, this brings up a duty of competence. For Kat Ping, a lawyer, to proceed against me ultra vires to chill my article 2 section 1 free speech rights, based on your mistaken advice, could be an ethics problem for the both of you.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm from Missouri. Show me.  

Please review the correspondence on this issue; it's not like I sprung it on you this morning. This is what I have been saying. 

When we spoke, I was not able to read the fine print on your phone, so I'm not sure what you were quoting. Happy to meet for coffee to discuss, or emails are fine as well. 

==

2nd try.

To Brad Boswell@FaegreDrinker.com

Outside counsel to Marion County Election Board 

From Robbin Stewart

Candidate for Marion County Clerk.

We met this morning from 9 to 10 am. 

You advised me and the board that the statute has changed.

On a closer look, I think you are correct. The word "also" changes the provision from a safe harbor to an additional regulation.  Indiana is now attempting zero dollar regulation, which is constitutionally problematic. Someone will clean your clock on this point, but I don't want it to be me. 

I will focus instead on the timing. The new statute took effect I think July 1 2025. I ran for township board in 2024 (also in 1996, see Stewart v Taylor.) I spent about $6 during October 24, making some prototype signs that said "Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday" (as in 1996, see Stewart v Taylor. ) After letters from the board threatening prosecution if I made more signs, I stopped. 

There was nothing to report in 2025.  I did not formally disband, and today was the first I heard about the change in the statute.

Under the statute in effect during my campaign, I was within the safe harbor. There have not been even de minimus expenditures after the effective date of the problematic new statute. 

Perhaps we could agree that it might be unwise to proceed? I am open to discussion.  

 

 

In our Clerk’s Conference session with the Indiana Election Division last week we learned of an amendment affecting IC 3-5-2. During the 2025 legislative session, the definition of “candidate” was amended in House Enrolled Act 1679, Section 1 to clarify the word “candidate” currently used in several different ways in parts of the election laws, including the parts of the state election law that applies to campaign finance.

Effective July 1st, 2025, if you are currently holding an office (whether you were elected or appointed) and your position receives $5,000 or more in compensation, then you are REQUIRED to have an open candidate committee for as long as you remain in that office. Therefore, you must also file annual campaign finance reports every January unless you are on that year’s ballot, then you must file Pre-Primary & Pre-Election reports as always. This new requirement applies until you no longer hold that office and then you can disband your committee if you have a zero balance.

Previously, most office holders were encouraged to disband their committees as long as they had a zero balance Unfortunately, with this new law taking effect July 1st, ALL office holders that earn $5000 or more and don’t already have an open committee are REQUIREDto file a CFA-1 form with the Clerk opening their committee and by statute have 10 days to file this; therefore, are due by noon on July 11th. Your first CFA-4 finance report would then be due by noon on January 21, 2026.

You may email, fax or hand deliver your CFA-1 form.

 thursday notes

 did

rodney met w. gave ab $30 rodney owed him. waiting on ab to return now 12"15 friday am. 

did two bags of trash w sherry and dusty. need to do dawn when  its her bag. 

took out kitchen trash and recycling.  

walked dog 4 times. picked up bag of trash. 

checked on car. suggested new parts, they ordered them.  

dusty made a gate.

sherry swept up the back yard.

discussed fire safety w batman

dawn sorted recycling.

ab helped me plan.

i need to write down some of that.

star gave me some better weed than what i have.

lots of trespassers. i decided the bike $1000 no less.

we discussed get dealers license to sell motorcycles.

do they sell a lot of them at the police auctions?

sub business of sell them back. to previous owners depending which gang.  

did some online research for meeting tomorrow. 

to do: remind elections/chad of outstanding public record requests.

plan to contact 

bring  up topic of beech grove and section 2. 

to do visit goldie in jail. risky. offer to put funds on commissary if needed.  be explicit that i want my stuff back, i want info and deets. but confidentially lawyer talk. so who is goldie? request info on 

17 19 s denny. contact wilmoth. stabbing, q lived, different q, raid on the house, goldy and gf arrested. so find oiut if we can contact the gf. friend or foe?

common nuisance, abateable. drugs, fencing, criminals, violence. reported 6 months ago, not enough done. related to my claim against denis d washington, not related but hung out there. robbed me, attacked michelle. jan 9th? might have been staying there then. 

so plan w ab and dusty, bmv then prosecutor's office. ohh lookup if anybody at 4001 e wash criminals, warrants etc civil judgments, conspiracy stuff. any history of police calls?

batman doctor 

ab > $ ride respect. 

sherry lynch housing. type up resume, ab has 

robbin law license back 

 

start to go to hanna towing auctions. as witness, but also to buy vehicles cheap. 

 buy russian motorcycles from ukraine to fund war effort. 

tanks for sale, military surplus. chinese junk. junkyard. paint junk scenes on wall/on premises sign.  tattoo shop barber shop. art design consultants, legal research consulttants.

ooh put a b on that westville cat's case. marion county police abuse 4th  amendment unnecessary roughness 15 yard penalty.

use as lever to pry open marion county police abuse. fits  with my job as clerk. idea meet w sheriff and prosecutor candidates, explain role.

my new strategy: keep expenditures w/in safe harbor. set up $25 savings account. w star or chase. offer treasurer job to samuel l jackson.  

 

didn't 

 

P.O. Box 29164 Cumberland, IN 46229

Date: February 23, 2026

To:

1. Marion County Election Board / Marion County Government 200 E. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204
2. Indiana Political Subdivision Risk Management Commission 402 W. Washington Street, Room W469 Indianapolis, IN 46204
3. Chad Clingerman (in official capacity) c/o Marion County Election Board 200 E. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Notice of Tort Claim – Incident on or about February 2026

1. Claimant: Robbin Stewart, P.O. Box 29164, Cumberland, IN 46229.
2. Date, time, and location of alleged loss: On or about February 2026, during business hours at the Marion County Election Board office, City-County Building, 200 E. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN.
3. Short and plain statement of circumstances and extent of loss: As the Republican candidate for Marion County Clerk, I received my official candidate packet from Chad Clingerman (Ballot Administrator). The packet included the Political Literature Brochure threatening enforcement of Ind. Code § 3-9-3-2.5 against political literature without disclaimers. I asked Clingerman if he knew what he was doing. He said he did. We have corresponded about the law and Indiana Constitution. This is the county's second disclaimer offense against me personally (the first being in Stewart v. Taylor, where the anonymity ban was struck down). Mulholland v. Marion County Election Board, Ogden v. Marendt, and Stewart v. Taylor show a pattern of the Marion County Election Board resisting McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n protections for anonymous political speech. The constitutional rule against compelled disclosure, compelled speech, and content-based restraints on core political expression is well established, from West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), Talley v. California (1960), Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), Wooley v. Maynard (1977), Riley v. National Federation of the Blind (1988), McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (1995), Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton (2002), Janus v. AFSCME (2018), NIFLA v. Becerra (2018), and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023). This case involves many of the same privacy concerns I discussed in my amicus brief in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (553 U.S. 181, 2008). The Board's repeat enforcement of invalid or constitutionally suspect laws has caused reasonable apprehension of arrest and jail for displaying my planned 92 campaign signs stating "Robbin Stewart for Clerk Vote Tuesday." The threat of jail in Marion County is a threat of being held under unconstitutional conditions, which I experienced myself. This has inflicted emotional distress, chilled my free speech rights under Indiana Const. Art. 1 § 9 (and §§ 1, 2, 12), interfered with my campaign, and caused reputational harm.
4. Nature and extent of loss/injury: Emotional distress and reasonable apprehension of arrest and incarceration in Marion County jail under unconstitutional conditions (based on my prior personal experience there); chilled exercise of free interchange of thought and opinion and free speech under Indiana Const. Art. 1 § 9; violation of inherent rights under Art. 1 § 1; denial of remedy for injury under Art. 1 § 12; interference with free and equal elections and candidacy rights under Art. 2 § 1 and Art. 1 § 2; reputational harm from the implication of potential legal trouble during candidacy (exacerbated by the Board's repeat offender pattern in Ogden v. Marendt, Mulholland v. Marion County Election Board, and Stewart v. Taylor); related harms.
5. Amount of damages claimed: $25,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress and reasonable apprehension of arrest and incarceration in Marion County jail under unconstitutional conditions (based on my prior personal experience there), chilled exercise of free interchange of thought and opinion and free speech under Indiana Const. Art. 1 § 9 (and §§ 1, 2, 12), violation of inherent rights under Art. 1 § 1, denial of remedy for injury under Art. 1 § 12, interference with free and equal elections and candidacy rights under Art. 2 § 1 and Art. 1 § 2, reputational harm from the implication of potential legal trouble during my candidacy as Republican candidate for Marion County Clerk (exacerbated by the Board's repeat offender pattern in Ogden v. Marendt, Mulholland v. Marion County Election Board, and Stewart v. Taylor), and related injuries.

Signature: Robbin Stewart Date: February 23, 2026

---

 trying to get a list out of a stuck grok thread.

 

rotecting Anonymity

1. Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
2. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
3. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999)
4. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N.Y. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
5. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)
6. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960)
7. Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm., 459 U.S. 87 (1982)
8. Doe v. Mortham, 708 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1998)
9. Schuster v. Municipal Court, 109 Cal. App. 3d 887 (1980)
10. Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm’n, 8 Cal. 4th 851 (1994)
11. State v. Burgess, 543 So. 2d 1332 (La. 1989)
12. ACLU of Nevada v. Heller, 378 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004)
13. Stewart v. City of New Orleans, 709 So. 2d 1 (La. Ct. App. 1998)
14. Yes on Term Limits, Inc. v. Savage, 550 F.3d 1023 (10th Cir. 2008)
15. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
16. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023)
17. W.Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
18. Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. 2001)
19. Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001)
20. Kentucky Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 1997)
21. In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 611 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2010)
22. Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011)
23. Riley v. Nat'l Fed. of the Blind of N.C., 487 U.S. 781 (1988)
24. DeGregory v. Attorney General of N.H., 383 U.S. 825 (1966)
25. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (1967)

Refusing to Follow Talley / "Bypass" Cases

26. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
27. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)
28. McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)
29. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
30. Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010)
31. Yamada v. Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015)
32. No on E v. Chiu, 85 F.4th 493 (9th Cir. 2023)
33. Gaspee Project v. Medeiros, 13 F.4th 79 (1st Cir. 2021)
34. SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
35. Free Speech v. FEC, 720 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2013)
36. Justice v. Hosemann, 771 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2014)
37. Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Sorrell, 758 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2014)
38. Delaware Strong Families v. Denn, 803 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2015)
39. The Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. v. FEC, 681 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2012)
40. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012)
41. Independence Institute v. FEC, 216 F. Supp. 3d 176 (D.D.C. 2016)
42. Worley v. Florida Secretary of State, 717 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2013)
43. Nat'l Assoc. for Gun Rights v. Mangan, 933 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2019)
44. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595 (2021)
45. Human Life of Washington Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
46. Nat'l Organization for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011)
47. Center for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012)
48. Laborer's Local 235 v. FEC, 240 F. Supp. 3d 118 (D.D.C. 2017)
49. Level the Playing Field v. FEC, 381 F. Supp. 3d 78 (D.D.C. 2019)
50. Alaska Right to Life v. FEC, 531 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2008)

Should we look for the exact "Strict Scrutiny" holding in ACLU of Nevada v. Heller to show how a court successfully

 

 

Key Points from Discussion:

• Indiana Code 3-9-3-2.5: This is the Indiana law concerning disclaimers on political communications.
• Your Signs: You are concerned about 92 "Vote for Smith" signs without a disclaimer.
• Crucial Exemption (Majors v. Abell Footnote 11, 2003): The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that IC 3-9-3-2.5(a)(9) exempts "mailings of up to 100 pieces of 'mail' that are 'substantially similar'," defining "mail" broadly to include any written material delivered (e.g., personal placement). This means your 92 signs are likely exempt.
• Constitutional Protections (Indiana):
  • Colleen Price v. State: Indiana Constitution (Article I, Section 9) offers strong protections for political speech, requiring a "material burden" for an "abuse" to be regulated.
  • Stewart v. Taylor (1997): Struck down a prior Indiana law (IC 3-9-3-2) banning anonymous political literature, emphasizing free speech protections.
• Ethical Concerns for Prosecutorial/Official Threats:
  • Threatening jail/enforcement for exempted activity (like your signs post-Majors v. Abell) is unethical.
  • This constitutes misrepresentation of law, abuse of power, creating a chilling effect on speech, and disregarding clear judicial precedent.
• Brienne Delaney's Role:
  • Former Director of Elections for Marion County Election Board, now City-County Council member.
  • She is a lawyer (former Deputy Prosecutor).
  • You have a written record of her making enforcement threats regarding IC 3-9-3-2.5 that postdate Majors v. Abell.
• Significance of Her Lawyer Status: As a lawyer and public official, she is held to a higher standard of legal knowledge. Threats made contrary to clear Supreme Court precedent (Majors v. Abell) could be considered a professional ethical violation (e.g., misrepresentation of law, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, abuse of authority).
• Importance of Her Letter: This written communication is crucial evidence to substantiate your claims regarding the threats, her interpretation, and the timing relative to court decisions.
• Attorney General Opinion (AGO): While your request was refused, the County Clerk, County Prosecutor, or County Commissioners are typically authorized to request one.

Sample Letter to County Clerk (Key Elements):

• Recipient: Hon. Myla Eldridge (or current Clerk), Marion County Clerk, 200 East Washington Street, Suite W122, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
• Subject: Request for AGO Re: IC 3-9-3-2.5 and Political Communication Disclaimers
• Core Ask: Request Clerk's office to seek an AGO from Attorney General Todd Rokita.
• Your Situation: You plan to produce 92 "Vote for Smith" signs.
• Legal Basis: Cite Majors v. Abell, 785 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. 2003), Footnote 11, for the exemption of up to 100 substantially similar written communications.
• Justification: Clarity for citizens and officials, preventing chilling effects, upholding constitutional rights, addressing potential misinterpretations.

I hope this comprehensive summary helps you get all the information you need copied safely. Let me know once you've secured it.

 STATE OF INDIANA

IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
CAUSE NO. 49D33-2409-OV-029201 

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORP. OF MARION COUNTY, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBBIN STEWART, Defendant,
DUSTY PEIRSON, SHERRY DOE, LYDIA ROE, and DAWN YOUNG, Co-Petitioners/Tenants-in-Possession.

VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS, AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO I.C. 34-10-1-2

Comes now Defendant Robbin Stewart and Co-Petitioners Dusty Peirson, Sherry Doe, Lydia Roe, and Dawn Young, appearing pro se, and move this Court for an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order to halt the enforcement scheduled for March 13, 2026, or thereafter, stating as follows:

1. Failure to Serve Public Interest and Danger to Life. The clean and lien enforcement has resulted in an active threat to life and limb. Due to the Plaintiff’s aggressive tactics and interference with the use of the property, Defendant was recently unable to offer emergency shelter to members of the congregation during extreme cold, resulting in two individuals suffering from frostbite. This physical injury, combined with the overdose death of houseguest Honesty Rady and the murders of yard-workers Gary Cox and Vegas, indicates that the state’s remedy has created a state-created danger far more hazardous to the community than the alleged code violations. Furthermore, Thomas J. Burns, who served as a bodyguard for Michelle (an associate of Jordan Dennison and Dennis Washington, who are currently incarcerated for armed robbery), is now missing and presumed murdered. Michelle was recently hospitalized with a broken spleen but has recovered. Defendant Stewart has previously been threatened and robbed by Jordan Dennison and attacked and robbed by Dennis Washington. A man named Richie Rich stated he would shoot Defendant Stewart in the head a year ago, on March 13, but so far has not.
2. Improper Motive and Conspiracy to Force Sale. Plaintiff Health and Hospital is conspiring with an individual whose employer seeks to acquire the subject property and is using the clean and lien order as a tool of coercion to force a sale. This individual is the source of anonymous complaints that led to the current citation. Said individual has directly threatened the life of Defendant Stewart, stating he would shoot Stewart in the head "next time something happens." The employer already owns the building on the corner, has purchased the house adjacent to the subject property, and has previously made offers to buy Defendant's house. Plaintiff lacks any process to screen out such improper, bad-faith complaints, further demonstrating its unclean hands.
3. Reliance on Perjured Testimony. The underlying Order rests upon the testimony of an inspector who knowingly gave false material testimony regarding the lack of electricity in a trailer. Michelle, the woman living in said trailer, was not living without electricity as falsely testified to. Because this witness is the sole source of evidence and provided known false testimony, the Order lacks the competent evidence required by Due Course of Law.
4. Double Jeopardy. The current enforcement seeks to penalize Defendant for issues related to a shed removal that was already the subject of an open case with Code Enforcement. Because the issues and property conditions overlap, the principle of Double Jeopardy under Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 14, bars the Plaintiff from seeking secondary penalties for the same conduct.
5. Lack of Jurisdiction over Necessary Parties. Co-Petitioners Dusty Peirson, Sherry Doe, Lydia Roe, and Dawn Young are lawful residents and tenants-in-possession. They were never served with a summons or afforded a hearing. Authorizing an armed invasion of their residence without notice violates Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 12 and the U.S. 14th Amendment.
6. Lack of Jurisdiction over Stewart. Defendant Stewart made a timely written demand for an administrative hearing. As a matter of law, a citizen is not required to refile the same notice repeatedly; once is legally effective. Because Health and Hospital has failed to provide the required hearing, administrative remedies are not exhausted.
7. Grossly Disproportionate Fine. While the citation is for $100, the resulting costs have reached $10,000 this year for a property purchased for $7,500. Under Timbs v. Indiana and Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 16, this is a grossly disproportionate penalty.
8. Further Unclean Hands. The inspector who authored the initial citation was reported to federal authorities for the felonious misuse of Stewart's mailbox. Furthermore, Plaintiff is presiding over the disappearance of Defendant Stewart’s prior counterclaims from the record, which were closed without a Notice of Dismissal.
9. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and Trespass. The proposed entry is the result of an initial illegal trespass and improper ex parte contact by Chip Jefferson. Under Article 1, Section 11, the state may not exploit primary illegalities to justify a subsequent home invasion.
10. Appointment of Counsel. Pursuant to I.C. 34-10-1-2, indigent Co-Petitioners request assigned counsel due to the complexity of these constitutional defects and the imminent threat of an armed tactical entry. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioners request an immediate stay of the December 17 Order and an emergency hearing.

VERIFICATION
I affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the foregoing representations are true.

Dated: March 12, 2026

---

Robbin Stewart, Defendant

---

Dusty Peirson, Co-Petitioner

---

Sherry Doe, Co-Petitioner

---

Lydia Roe, Co-Petitioner

---

Dawn Young, Co-Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon Shelley Gupta, Counsel for Plaintiff, via electronic mail at sgupta@hhcorp.org on this 12th day of March, 2026.

mwehrwein@hhcorp.org

---

Robbin Stewart, Defendant