Thursday, March 12, 2026

 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

Sunday, March 8, 2026

 To do week of march 8th. Is the neighborhood association thingy on monday nights at tuxedo?

file ada complaints, three of them, line up ada lawyer, due to fee-shifting.  

 work on chiu brief. 

structure of argument.

gura brings this case as a test case for bonta, but in the process has made bad law.  the 9th circuit decision is both controlling and wrong, which puts this court in an awkward position.  

the point of my brief is to show alternative grounds which are part of the bonta analysis. california constitutional case law is determinative. if tthe ordinanc eis  void under the state constitution, san francisco's asserted state interests are not legitimate. 

talley, nifla, bonjiorni canon city schuster yick wo  ghafari griset.

conflict w other 9th circ decisions majic mike berger v seatlle rosen v port of portland anonymous speakers case and the plum fees gerwan case

13 of 15 state constitutional decisions found the speech protected. Those are persuasive precedent. 

50 cases, mostly relying on talley or mcintyre, agree with us. 

a handful of cases on the other side seymour, majors,  kyrtl v riley?

barnett tornillo wooley aclf watchtower mcintyre talley bates naacp v alabama gobitis.    

 The traditional argument: SFCA's censorship of core political speech violates the 14th amendment, due process equal protection and privileges or immunities.

 It violates the first amendment's speech press privacy petition and assembly rights. 

It violates at least 3 state clauses, speech equal protection privacy. Schuster, Ghafari, Anonymous online Speakers. 

Under the Bonta analysis, the asserted state interests here are not legitimate, important, compelling, overridding, or whathaveyew. 

Ordinarily   one would only need to point to the controlling cases, Talley McInytre Aclf, Watchtower, Tornillo, Riley, 303 LLC NIFLA Janus and so forth. But hete plaintiffs have chosen Bonta only, as a test case. 

The 9th circuit rejected this argument, at least in terms of applying the bonta test to the text of the ordinance as a filter. The bonta test is a recent reformulation of the Valeo means-ends test. legitimate state interests the regulation directly furthers a legitimate state interest and is narrowly tailored. This test is often called "exacting scrutiny".

Because exacting scrutiny is a contronym, depending on context, it can be confusing, especially for non experts. A word means what I say it means, the (critter) told Alice.  

However, this is a euphemism. Under Valeo and now Bonta, scrutiny was not close, but was far away. "Exacting scrutiny" under Valeo was anything but exacting. Dictionary definition of exacting.

So ti's not that. So instead its a term of art. When we say "exacting scrutiny this is a term of art, ,and may refer to either of two lines of cases, the disclosure cases under Valeo, such as Bates, NAACP, Socialist Workers. 

or the disclaimer cases, Talley McIntyre ACLF  Watchtower NIFLA.

Under McIntyre,  

Under a different line of cases,  

 

 

 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Recovery of fees for prevailing plaintiffs in disability discrimination cases (42 U.S.C. § 12205).

 To: Dustin Gilmer, ADA Coordinator

Office of Disability Affairs
200 E. Washington St., Suite 2441
Indianapolis, IN 46204
BCC: Office of Corporation Counsel, Suite 1601; Chief Deputy Mayor, Suite 2501; Chief of Police, 12th Floor
Date: March 8, 2026
Subject: ADA Title II grievance and notice of spoliation
Statement of facts:
On or about March 1, 2026, at approximately 3:00 pm, I visited the Indianapolis-East bmv branch, number 0063, to renew my driver’s license. Since an auto accident in 2015 i have signed my name with an x. This has been my consistent legal signature for over a decade and has always been accepted by the Indiana bmv and other agencies until this date.
The branch manager refused to accept my signature, denying a reasonable modification required under title ii of the ada. I was in the process of requesting an ada accommodation when i was attacked. Specifically, when i requested a formal appeal form and access to public records to document this refusal, staff claimed no such forms existed. Instead of providing the required due process, the manager summoned a security guard who physically assaulted me to force my removal. Three impd officers arrived and subsequently refused to take a battery report, despite my request.
Notice of spoliation:
I am formally notifying the city of Indianapolis and the office of corporation counsel that relevant paperwork, including my ada request and branch incident logs, has been destroyed or withheld. I demand the immediate preservation of:
  1. Lobby and exterior surveillance footage from branch 0063 for the window of 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm on March 1, 2026.
  2. The use of force report and incident logs filed by the security guard and manager.
  3. All impd body-worn camera footage from the three responding officers.
Requested resolution:
I request an investigation into this unlawful retaliation, formal recognition of my x signature as a valid accommodation, and an immediate material error review of my license denial.
Respectfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Phone/Email]
Do you have the specific email addresses for the bcc recipients ready to go, or should I list them one last time for your records?

Saturday, March 7, 2026

 United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 (1960); United States v. Thomas, 362 U.S. 58 (1960); United States v. Alabama, 362 U.S. 602 (1960); United States v. McElveen, 180 F. Supp. 10 (E.D. La. 1959); United States v. Association of Citizens Councils of Louisiana, 196 F. Supp. 908 (W.D. La. 1961); United States v. Atkins, 323 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1963); cases under eisenhower's 57 act, lbj helped. 

 The Marion County Election Board voted unanimously on July 18 to close 13 complaints (filed as 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13) after staff reviewed each matter and found either corrective actions had been taken or the concerns were caused by a technical error in the county's public campaign-finance lookup tool.

Director of Elections Patrick Becker told the board the review covered complaints received through June 30 and that staff formalized a reporting process this year because of the volume of complaints and the irregular meeting schedule during election season. During the review staff discovered that when a committee filed multiple amended reports on the same day the upload process caused the website to show repeated scans of the same document rather than distinct filings. "When we uploaded all of those on the same day with the same date on them, it took the most recent scan that was done that day and basically duplicated on all of those," Becker said.

Becker said staff notified the ISA applications team that built the tool and that there is no timetable yet for a fix. He said the office retains the original scanned filings and will provide copies to anyone who believes the online display is incorrect. He asked that members of the public report suspected errors to elections.ind.gov so staff can provide the correct reports and log the issue with IT.

Legal context and board deliberation

Outside counsel Brad Boswell reviewed the legal standard the board must apply when a Title 3 complaint is alleged: if the board has "substantial reason to believe that a Title 3 violation has occurred," it must investigate. Boswell told the members they could vote on the set of complaints en masse and that dismissal language should reflect that an investigation was not warranted rather than implying the complaints were ignored.

After discussion about the nature of the complaints and the technical cause identified by staff, Kate Bell moved to close complaints 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13 based on staff information and to direct staff to notify each filer of the board's decision and any findings. The motion was seconded and passed on a recorded voice vote. Vice Chair Jennifer Ping, Clerk Kate Bell and Chair Nolita Stewart each voted "aye." The board instructed staff to prepare follow-up communications to complainants describing the board's decision and any corrective actions taken.

Why it matters

The board's action closes the current set of matters while creating a record that staff investigated and, in many cases, found technical or corrective explanations. Board members emphasized their county-limited investigatory authority; counsel reminded the body that its jurisdiction is confined to county-relevant issues.

Next steps

Staff will draft and send notifications to the individuals who filed each complaint describing the board's decision and any information discovered during the review. The elections office will continue to work with the ISA applications team to correct the public campaign-finance lookup tool; no timetable for that fix was provided.

Ending

The board closed the complaints and scheduled follow-up communications; no further action was taken on the items at the July 18 meThe Marion County Election Board voted unanimously on July 18 to close 13 complaints (filed as 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13) after staff reviewed each matter and found either corrective actions had been taken or the concerns were caused by a technical error in the county's public campaign-finance lookup tool.

Director of Elections Patrick Becker told the board the review covered complaints received through June 30 and that staff formalized a reporting process this year because of the volume of complaints and the irregular meeting schedule during election season. During the review staff discovered that when a committee filed multiple amended reports on the same day the upload process caused the website to show repeated scans of the same document rather than distinct filings. "When we uploaded all of those on the same day with the same date on them, it took the most recent scan that was done that day and basically duplicated on all of those," Becker said.

Becker said staff notified the ISA applications team that built the tool and that there is no timetable yet for a fix. He said the office retains the original scanned filings and will provide copies to anyone who believes the online display is incorrect. He asked that members of the public report suspected errors to elections.ind.gov so staff can provide the correct reports and log the issue with IT.

Legal context and board deliberation

Outside counsel Brad Boswell reviewed the legal standard the board must apply when a Title 3 complaint is alleged: if the board has "substantial reason to believe that a Title 3 violation has occurred," it must investigate. Boswell told the members they could vote on the set of complaints en masse and that dismissal language should reflect that an investigation was not warranted rather than implying the complaints were ignored.

After discussion about the nature of the complaints and the technical cause identified by staff, Kate Bell moved to close complaints 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13 based on staff information and to direct staff to notify each filer of the board's decision and any findings. The motion was seconded and passed on a recorded voice vote. Vice Chair Jennifer Ping, Clerk Kate Bell and Chair Nolita Stewart each voted "aye." The board instructed staff to prepare follow-up communications to complainants describing the board's decision and any corrective actions taken.

Why it matters

The board's action closes the current set of matters while creating a record that staff investigated and, in many cases, found technical or corrective explanations. Board members emphasized their county-limited investigatory authority; counsel reminded the body that its jurisdiction is confined to county-relevant issues.

Next steps

Staff will draft and send notifications to the individuals who filed each complaint describing the board's decision and any information discovered during the review. The elections office will continue to work with the ISA applications team to correct the public campaign-finance lookup tool; no timetable for that fix was provided.

Ending

The board closed the complaints and scheduled follow-up communications; no further action was taken on 


the items at the July 18 meeting.



eting.The Marion County Election Board voted unanimously on July 18 to close 13 complaints (filed as 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13) after staff reviewed each matter and found either corrective actions had been taken or the concerns were caused by a technical error in the county's public campaign-finance lookup tool.

Director of Elections Patrick Becker told the board the review covered complaints received through June 30 and that staff formalized a reporting process this year because of the volume of complaints and the irregular meeting schedule during election season. During the review staff discovered that when a committee filed multiple amended reports on the same day the upload process caused the website to show repeated scans of the same document rather than distinct filings. "When we uploaded all of those on the same day with the same date on them, it took the most recent scan that was done that day and basically duplicated on all of those," Becker said.

Becker said staff notified the ISA applications team that built the tool and that there is no timetable yet for a fix. He said the office retains the original scanned filings and will provide copies to anyone who believes the online display is incorrect. He asked that members of the public report suspected errors to elections.ind.gov so staff can provide the correct reports and log the issue with IT.

Legal context and board deliberation

Outside counsel Brad Boswell reviewed the legal standard the board must apply when a Title 3 complaint is alleged: if the board has "substantial reason to believe that a Title 3 violation has occurred," it must investigate. Boswell told the members they could vote on the set of complaints en masse and that dismissal language should reflect that an investigation was not warranted rather than implying the complaints were ignored.

After discussion about the nature of the complaints and the technical cause identified by staff, Kate Bell moved to close complaints 2020Five-1 through 2020Five-13 based on staff information and to direct staff to notify each filer of the board's decision and any findings. The motion was seconded and passed on a recorded voice vote. Vice Chair Jennifer Ping, Clerk Kate Bell and Chair Nolita Stewart each voted "aye." The board instructed staff to prepare follow-up communications to complainants describing the board's decision and any corrective actions taken.

Why it matters

The board's action closes the current set of matters while creating a record that staff investigated and, in many cases, found technical or corrective explanations. Board members emphasized their county-limited investigatory authority; counsel reminded the body that its jurisdiction is confined to county-relevant issues.

Next steps

Staff will draft and send notifications to the individuals who filed each complaint describing the board's decision and any information discovered during the review. The elections office will continue to work with the ISA applications team to correct the public campaign-finance lookup tool; no timetable for that fix was provided.

Ending

The board closed the complaints and scheduled follow-up communications; no further action was taken on the items at the July 18 meeting.