UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ROBBIN STEWART

,
Plaintiff,

v.

STARKE COUNTY ELECTION BOARD,
[NAME OF BOARD MEMBER 1], in individual capacity,
[NAME OF BOARD MEMBER 2], in individual capacity,
[NAME OF BOARD MEMBER 3], in individual capacity,

THERESE PUGH

,

DAVID SINN

,

JUSTIN RISNER

,

MARGARET BARLOG

, and

MARK BARLOG

,
Defendants.

Case No.: ___________

---

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Plaintiff,

Robbin Stewart

, by counsel, alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights action for nominal and actual damages arising from a coordinated conspiracy between a government body and five private citizens to enforce a void statute, silence dissent, and harass a senior citizen under color of law.
2. Defendants utilized Ind. Code § 3-9-3-2.5—a statute already declared constitutionally suspect in Stewart v. Taylor—to conduct a quasi-judicial "Star Chamber" where Plaintiff’s counsel was gagged to prevent notice of the law's invalidity.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
4. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Indiana as the events occurred in Starke County.

III. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff
   Robbin Stewart
   is a citizen and a Republican candidate for Clerk in Marion County, appearing in Starke County as a proposed expert witness on election law.
6. Defendant Starke County Election Board is a government entity. The individual Board members are sued in their individual capacities.
7. Defendants
   Pugh
   ,
   Sinn
   ,
   Risner
   , and the Barlogs ("The Five Complainants") are private citizens who acted as State Actors by jointly conspiring with the Board.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On or about February 2026, the Board held a quasi-judicial hearing regarding disclaimer violations against a "nice old lady" (Respondent).
9. The Board afforded the Five Complainants a platform to openly threaten the Respondent with jail and fines under IC § 3-9-3-2.5.
10. Plaintiff’s counsel was present to offer Plaintiff as an expert witness to provide Notice of Invalidity, specifically citing the anonymity protections in Stewart v. Taylor.
11. The Board and the Five Complainants reached a "meeting of the minds" to prevent this notice. The Board ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to be silent, effectively "gagging" the only person capable of making a constitutional record.
12. Because IC § 3-9-3-2.5 is void ab initio, the Board acted ultra vires and without subject matter jurisdiction.

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I: Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
13. The Defendants engaged in joint activity to suppress protected speech and deny Due Process.
14. The "Asymmetric Gag" (hearing the conspirators while silencing the expert's counsel) constitutes Viewpoint Discrimination.

COUNT II: First Amendment Retaliation & Chilling Effect
15. The harassment of the Respondent and the silencing of the Plaintiff's counsel created an objective chilling effect on Plaintiff’s own political speech and candidacy.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff requests:

• ✅ Nominal Damages of $1.00 to vindicate the constitutional right.
• ✅ Actual Damages for emotional distress, reputational harm, and chilled speech.
• ✅ Punitive Damages against the individuals for willful blindness and malice.
• ✅ Declaratory Judgment that IC § 3-9-3-2.5 is void.

---

Do you have the specific names of the Board members and the "nice old lady" to finalize the party descriptions?