Monday, July 20, 2026

 the proposed order

Plaintiff City of Indianapolis v Robbin Stewart

Plaintiff asserts  that the case is civil and a preponderance of evidence is required. The parties agree that a statute, @, sets out the preponderance test for municipal ordinance violations.

Defendant contends that the case is quasicriminal per Gates v Indianapolis*, and that in quasi-criminal cases the clear and convincing evidence standard applies. 

Because of this, it logically follows that, just as criminal actions were outside the scope of equitable actions as provided by our case history, so, too, would quasi-criminal actions have been historically non[-]equitable. Instead, in 1852, actions criminal in nature would necessarily have been legal. In such actions, a jury trial demand must be honored. Midwest Sec. Life Ins. Co., 730 N.E.2d at 169. We therefore hold that the trial court improperly denied Cunningham's request for a jury in violation of Article I, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution. 835 N.E.2d at 1077–79 (emphases added, footnotes omitted).

 

He cites sectrans Blanche v Lao 2026 for the proposition that Lao was entitled to clear and convincing evidence at his hearing, because deportation is quasi-criminal. The issue debated by the justices in the case, which Lao lost, was when, but not whether, clear and convincing evidence was required. 

D does not argue that Lao changed the law. It is uncontroversial and well settled that c n c is required in quasi-criminal cases under the 14th A. But this may be a case of first impression on whether this is also true under section 12 of article 1. D asserts both claims. 

D asserts that 

 

Posted by at

   

STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE ______________ COURT_____

) SS: (____________DIVISION, ROOM ____ )

COUNTY OF ___marion________)

CASE NO. __________________________



________robbin stewart________________________________, )

Petitioner (Your Name) )

vs. )

____devin baker________________________________, )

Respondent (Person to be Restrained) )


PETITION FOR AN ORDER FOR PROTECTION AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING—Filed by Person Seeking Protection


IMPORTANT: This is a public document and a copy of it will be placed in the Court’s file. A copy may also be sent to the Respondent.

(Check those which apply)


1.I am filing this Petition for myself:


__x_c. I am or have been a victim of stalking;

x d. I am or have been a victim of repeated acts of harassment.


2.The Respondent’s relationship to me is:


If Respondent is not a family or household member as indicated above, but Respondent has committed stalking, a sex offense, or repeated acts of harassment (check only the line below which best applies):


  1. __x _the Respondent has committed stalking against me.

  2. ___the Respondent has committed a sex offense against me.

  3. X ___the Respondent has committed repeated acts of harassment against me.


3.How old is the Respondent? ________ years old.


4.Please list all cases (divorce, protection orders, paternity, guardianship, criminal, juvenile, civil, military protection orders) involving the Respondent, yourself, or a child you have with the Respondent (attach additional sheets of paper if necessary):


Case Name Case Number County & State

____________________________________________________________________dog bite case________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

_____ Continued on Attachment 4a.



_________________________________________________________________


5.This case is filed in this county because:


_____ a. the Respondent lives in this county.

_x____ b. the incident(s) of domestic or family violence, stalking, sex

offense, or harassment happened in this county.

__x___ c. I live in this county.


6. If you are not represented by an attorney, fill in your public mailing address:

___p o 4015 e washington st__________46201_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________This address will not be kept secret, so you should use a mailing address that you feel comfortable having public. The address you place on the Confidential Form, PO-0104 will be kept confidential. If the Court grants the order, you may be eligible to obtain a confidential address through the Attorney General’s Address Confidentiality Program (ACP). Email the ACP at: confidential@atg.state.in.us to get information on how to participate in that program.


  1. The Respondent has committed the following act(s) of domestic or family

violence, stalking, sex offense, or harassment (check those which apply):


___ the Respondent attempted to cause physical harm to me;

__x_ the Respondent threatened to cause physical harm to me;

___ the Respondent did cause physical harm to me;

__x_ the Respondent placed me in fear of physical harm;

___ the Respondent caused me to involuntarily engage in sexual activity by

force, threat of force, or duress;

__x_ the Respondent committed stalking against me;

___ the Respondent committed a sex offense against me;

_?__ the Respondent committed an act of animal cruelty by beating, torturing,

mutilating, or killing a vertebrate animal without justification with an intent

to threaten, intimidate, coerce, harass or terrorize a family or household

member;

__x_ the Respondent committed repeated acts of harassment against me.


6.Describe what happened in each of the above incidents including the date(s),

place(s) and witnesses to each incident (attach additional sheets of paper if necessary):


Date of Incident #1: _____day before dog ticket_________

Place of Incident: ___4015_______________________________________________


Description of Incident: ________He demanded $100. I refused to pay, He went inside got a gun, displayed his gun, demanded $100 again. I had a couple of my boys back me up. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

List the names of all of the people who were present during the incident. You

must include your own name if you were present: _______me devin batman dusty______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Date of Incident #2: ______________

Place of Incident: __________________________

Description of Incident:

___numerous times oh him hassling my dog or me, recently has been threatening :citizens arrest”.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

List the names of all of the people who were present during the incident. You

must include your own name if you were present:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

____________________________

__________________________________________________________________

_____ Continued on Attachment 8a.


7.I am asking the Court to order the following relief (check all which apply):


NOTE: The following requested relief may be granted immediately by the Judge without a hearing. However, if the petition is based on harassment alone, the relief may be granted ONLY after notice to the Respondent and after a hearing to be held within thirty (30) days.


_x__ Prohibit the Respondent from committing, or threatening to commit, acts of

domestic or family violence, stalking, or sex offenses against me;


__x_ Prohibit the Respondent from committing, or threatening to commit, acts of

domestic or family violence, stalking, or sex offenses against my family or

household members, whose names are:

_kenny, dawn, dustin, sherry, chico.__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________;


___ Prohibit a Respondent from using a tracking device (as defined in Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-337.5) to determine the location of: (a) the Petitioner or property owned by the Petitioner; and (b) any other family or household member or property owned or used by the family or household member.


x___ Prohibit the Respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting,

or directly or indirectly communicating with me;


_x__Order the Respondent to stay away from my residence, school, place of

employment, or other place, which is the ___________, located at: _______4015______________________________________________________;


__ Order that this Order of Protection be effective indefinitely as authorized by I.C. 34-26-5-9, because I was the victim of the sex or violent offense committed by the Respondent as described herein, and for which the Respondent is a sex or violent offender, who is required to register as a lifetime sex or violent offender.


___Order the Respondent to stay away from the following location(s) frequented

by my family or household member(s), which may include a residence,

school, or place of employment: ____4000 block e washington st______________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________.

Please complete:

Please list all owners or lease signers at my residence: _____________________

__self_______________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________.


NOTE: The following requested relief may be granted immediately by the Judge, but the Court must hold a hearing within thirty (30) days. If the petition is based on harassment alone, the relief may be granted ONLY after notice to the Respondent and after a hearing to be held within thirty (30) days.


___ Evict the Respondent from my residence, which is located at:

_____________________________________________________________;

___ Order the Respondent to give me the possession and use of the following:

___The residence located at: ______________________________________;

___An automobile/other motor vehicle described as: ___________________

__________________________________________________________;

___ Other necessary personal items, described as: _____________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________;

__x_ Prohibit Respondent from removing, transferring, injuring, concealing, harming, attacking, mistreating, threatening to harm, or otherwise disposing of the animal(s) listed below.


Example Name: Max

Age/Type: 9 year old dog

Size /Breed: Large 55 pound black lab

Color/Description: Black hair, pink collar


Animal 1 Name: _chico_____________________________

Age/Type: __2 yrs?____________________________

Size/Breed: ___pit mix___________________________

Color/Description: ______________________________


Animal 2 Name: ______________________________

Age/Type: ______________________________

Size/Breed: ______________________________

Color/Description: ______________________________


Additional animals listed on Attachment 9(a).


__x_ Order that I will have the exclusive possession, care, custody, or control of an animal(s) owned, possessed, kept, or cared for by myself, the Respondent, a minor child of myself or the Respondent, or any other family or household member listed below.

Animal 1 Name: _chico_____________________________

Age/Type: ______________________________

Size/Breed: ______________________________

Color/Description: ______________________________



___Order the following additional relief necessary to provide for my safety and

welfare and the safety and welfare of my family or household members:

______________________________________________________________

felon in possession of a gun___________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________.


NOTE: The following requested relief may be granted ONLY after notice to the Respondent and after a hearing to be held within thirty (30) days:


___ Specify the arrangements for parenting time with our minor child(ren);

___ Require that parenting time be supervised by a third party;

___ Deny the Respondent parenting time;

__x_ Order the Respondent to pay my attorney fees;

___ Order the Respondent to pay rent for my residence;

___ Order the Respondent to make payment on a mortgage for my residence;

___ Order the Respondent to pay child support for our minor child(ren);

___ Order the Respondent to pay support/maintenance for me;

__x_ Order the Respondent to reimburse me for expenses related

to the domestic or family violence, stalking, sex offense, or harassment as follows:

(specify the amount for each expense and bring documentation of the

expense with you to Court for the Hearing):

___ Medical expenses: $_________________

___ Counseling: $___8______________

___ Shelter: $_________________

___ Repair or replacement of

damaged property: $_________________

___ Other costs or fees I have

as a result of bringing this case: $__legal fees as yet unknown, est, $1000._______________

__x_ Prohibit the Respondent from using or possessing a firearm, ammunition, or

deadly weapon;

_x__ Order the Respondent to surrender the following firearm(s), ammunition, or

deadly weapon(s) to a specified law enforcement agency (list each item

below and attach an additional sheet of paper if necessary):

____________________________________

____pistol. Unknwn make or model________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________;

_____ Continued on Attachment 9(b).

______________________________

Additional telephone numbers listed on Attachment 9(c)



By filing this Petition, I am respectfully requesting that the Court immediately issue an Ex Parte Order for Protection. I understand that, if I have asked the Court for any of the following:

  • evicting the Respondent from my/our home;

  • giving me the possession of personal property;

  • giving me possession of an animal;

  • prohibiting Respondent from taking action against an animal;

  • establishing rules for child parenting time;

  • requiring the Respondent to pay fees, expenses, or child support;

  • forbidding the Respondent from possessing a firearm, ammunition, or a deadly weapon;

  • ordering the Respondent to surrender firearm(s), ammunition, or deadly weapons, or,

  • allowing me or a child to continue to use a telephone number for which I will be financially responsible;

I must also ask the Court to set a date for a Hearing within thirty (30) days of today’s date.


I understand that if my petition is based on harassment alone, the Court may grant relief ONLY after notice to the Respondent and after a hearing to be held within thirty (30) days.


I understand that if a Hearing is set, and if I fail to appear for the Hearing, the Court may terminate the Ex Parte Order and/or dismiss the case.


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

  1. on the basis of my own personal knowledge.

  2. on the basis that I have been informed and believe that the facts stated are true. (NOTE: If this Petition is made solely on the basis of Petitioner’s information and belief, Petitioner must attach affidavits by one or more persons who have personal knowledge of the facts stated.)


DATE: ___7/20____________ __/s/x Robbin Stewart_________________________________

PETITIONER (Signature)

__Robbin Stewart_________________________________

PETITIONER (Type or print name)

Posted by at

Sunday, July 19, 2026

 


hi sherry . if you get a chance ot print this:

=====   

this is private property.

unless you have written permission from the property owner to be here

you are trespassing and have been asked to leave. 

we are prepared to use reasonable force to repel trespassers.

It  generally hasn't worked out well for people who try to steal from me or trespass.  

Lonnie Hall - had done the first 20 years of his 120 year sentence.

Jordan Dennison: doing 3 years.

Mighty - doing 3 years. 

TJ  - dead, murdered.

Honesty Rady - dead. 

Michelle Russel - hospital, currently being evicted.  

Lydia Bailey-getting away with it so far. 

LilBit Schmidt - being prosecuted for trespassing here. 

Small rewards will be paid for information leading to the conviction or trespassers or thieves.  

 Rules: 1. do not bring murdered animals aka meat. 

2. All cigarette butts must be picked up for any visitors to be allowed.

If you are here and there are cigarette butts on the ground, you are trespassing.

3. I am  recovering mental patient. I need my peace and quiet. 

4. Appointments cost $40 minimum in advance and are billed at $235/hr. Because our law office is now closed, it would not make sense to spend that money for nothing.   Please go away and leave us alone

Posted by at

Saturday, July 18, 2026

 answer

i generally deny the allegations. 

specifically, i deny being the owner of the dog chico at the time of the incident. the dog may belong to Dawn Young, Rocco, or Tupac. 

I admit to having custody of the dog on the date in question. 

I am willing to become the owner of the dog if the court makes that determination.  

If the dog is falsely convicted of this offense he will be uninsurable, and may end up  being euthenized.  

the allegations are quasi criminal, requiring clear and convincing evidence. Blache v Lao, __ U. S._ (2026), GATES v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (2013)

The attack,  if it happened, was provoked. 

On the previous day to the incident, Devin threatened me with a gun in a dispute. He claimed I owed him $100 for  a previous attack by Chico, prior to my having guardianship of Chico.  He has face tattoos indicating prison. I suspect he is a felon in possession. 

I did not witness the attack, if there was one. From what I have heard, it occurred within the curtilage of the home, the area a dog such as Chico is territorial about. He was within earshot of the previous day's discussion, and knew that Devin was a threat to me and was unwelcome. I have heard Devin taunt and curse at the animal at other times. 

the ordiance is qiite specific about applying only to unprovoked attacks.

The state canot prove by clear and convincing evidence that the attack was unprovoked, when the dog was protecting its caretaker and its property from a violent criminal.

this action is part of his extortion scheme.

it is unclear to what extent he has coordinated his scheme with the city attorney, ms hulsey, but her role in this conspiracy is unethical, and we encourage the court to review it as a neutral magistrate, and make a referral to the indiana attorney disciplinary commission if it meets the standards of a "must report" violation rather than a "may report" violation. 

counterclaims:

if i or chico end up as the prevailing party here, i move for costs and fees. 

 

 

Posted by at

Friday, July 17, 2026

 

  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
  1. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
  2. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)
  3. McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)
  4. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
  5. Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010)
  6. Yamada v. Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015)
  7. No on E v. Chiu, 85 F.4th 493 (9th Cir. 2023)
  8. Gaspee Project v. Medeiros, 13 F.4th 79 (1st Cir. 2021)
  9. SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
  10. Free Speech v. FEC, 720 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2013)
  11. Justice v. Hosemann, 771 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2014)
  12. Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Sorrell, 758 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2014)
  13. Delaware Strong Families v. Denn, 803 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2015)
  14. The Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. v. FEC, 681 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2012)
  15. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012)
  16. Independence Institute v. FEC, 216 F. Supp. 3d 176 (D.D.C. 2016)
  17. Worley v. Florida Secretary of State, 717 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2013)
  18. Nat'l Assoc. for Gun Rights v. Mangan, 933 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2019)
  19. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595 (2021)
  20. Human Life of Washington Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
  21. Nat'l Organization for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011)
  22. Center for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012)
  23. Laborer's Local 235 v. FEC, 240 F. Supp. 3d 118 (D.D.C. 2017)
  24. Level the Playing Field v. FEC, 381 F. Supp. 3d 78 (D.D.C. 2019)
  25. 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

 

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, March 15, 2026

 

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.

Posted by at No comments:

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
Posted by at No comments:

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,  

 

 

Posted by at No comments:

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

Posted by at No comments:

 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?

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)