$550 citizens gas

$100 alisha/ walmart? downtown somewhere?

1. fix tire. try to make it downtown tonight? is this wednesday? trash out?

Blue v. State ex rel. Brown, 188 N.E. 583 (Ind. 1934)

• A foundational election law case.
• The court addressed whether election procedures violated Article 2, Section 1.
• It involved challenges to election laws based on the requirement that elections be free and equal.

2. Morris v. Powell, 125 Ind. 281 (Ind. 1891)

=

State v. $2,435 in U.S. Currency right to jury trial re forfeiture.

=

The phrase "a man's home is his castle" originates from English common law (notably referenced in Semayne's Case in 1604 and later popularized by Sir Edward Coke), emphasizing the sanctity of one's home and the right to defend it against unlawful intrusion.

The phrase "a man's home is his castle" is a correct statement of Indiana law. For example it was used by the Indiana Supreme Court about whether breaking into a cabin was first degree burglary.

Such attempted immunity extended to a man's dwelling or mansion house has been said to be attributable to the early common-law principle that a man's home is his castle. The jealousy with which the law guarded against any infringement of this ancient right of peaceful habitation is best illustrated by the severe penalties which at common law were assessed against a person convicted of burglary, 

Smart v. State 244 Ind. 69 (1963) 190 N.E.2d 650.

 This was an ok way for a lawyer to write to another lawyer in a letter to notify their client not to trespass. Subsequently Chip Jefferson trespassed onto the property in an ex parte discussion about how to resolve the case. 

By 

The expression a man's home is his castle is an analogy and metaphor, in which one concept, a castle, stands in for another, a home. The disputed references further in the letter continued this castle metaphor. Being "armed and dangerous" stands in for another. having a series of legal arguments, such as

lack of jurisdiction, demand for jury trial, dispute over the burden sta of proof, dispute over the constitutionality of the court, Timbs 8th Amendment excessive fines defense, ADA, RLUPIA claims, prior unresolved counterclaims, state and federal taking claims, as well as  as the ethical counterparts of these legal claims. 

Section 11 of article I states .
Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Protection of the home, including its curtilage, is a core value under section 11. Brown v State, for example, protected the rights of a man living in his car, noting that the state constitution can go beyond the protections of the fourth amendment. see Gershoffer v State. 

I have had a long concern about my property rights and privacy rights under the indiana's constitution being violated by Marion County, especially Health and Hospital (HH).

For example  in Stewart v Taylor Marion County election officials took my campaign sign. They paid $7000 to settle the case. When I have disputes, I seek to use the legal process to resolve my concerns. 

Before moving to E. Washington Street I lived on Temple Street. My roommate there, Joell Palmer, had been one of the two plaintiffs in Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), which found that Palmer's 4th Amendment rights had been violated by a drug roadblock. 

In Crawford v Marion County Election Board, Palmer and I were part of an amicus to SCOTUS arguing that voter ID violates privacy. 

These are examples of when I felt my rights were being violated and chose to use the legal process.

My letter should be taken in that context. 

Similarly the term peril is no true threat.

" I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client at every peril to myself".

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED .................................................................................... i

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ..................................................... 3

ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 5

I. INDIANA CODE § 3-9-3-2.5 VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMPULSION OF SPEECh

The Statute Imposes a Content-Based Restriction Subject to Strict Scrutiny Under Reed v. Town of Gilbert. ....................................................... The State’s "Informational Interest" Does Not Justify Burdens on Core Political Speech Under McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. ............ 8

C. Forced Disclaimers Constitute Unconstitutional Compelled Speech Under 303 Creative LLC and NIFLA v. Becerra. ..................... 10


II. THE DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT IMPOSES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL "MATERIAL BURDEN" ON CORE POLITICAL VALUES UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9 OF THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION.

A. Political Expression Concerning Candidate Robbin Stewart is a "Core Constitutional Value" Under the Price v. State Framework. .................... 12
B. Mandating Identification as a Condition of Speech is a Material Burden That Exceeds the State’s Police Power to Prevent "Abuses." .................. 14

III. THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE MANDATE OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1 OF THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION THAT ALL ELECTIONS SHALL BE "FREE AND EQUAL."

A. The Disclaimer Requirement Acts as a "Constraining Influence" That Intimidates the Independent, Lone Speaker. ............................................... 16
B. By Imposing Institutional Burdens on Private Individuals, the State Creates an Unequal Electoral Playing Field. ................................................ 18

IV. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR THE SPEECH AT ISSUE ARE "CLEARLY ESTABLISHED," FORECLOSING THE DEFENSE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. ................................................................................. 20
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 22
WORD COUNT CERTIFICATE ....................................................................... 23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................... 24
Final Recommendation:
When you file this in Indiana, make sure to emphasize that the Indiana Constitution (Section II and III above) provides an independent basis for relief. If the judge is hesitant to challenge federal campaign finance trends, they can still rule in your favor solely on the Price v. S
tate "

working with google on a stewart v stewart brief.

 

Here is the Table of Authorities with the specific citations you need to finalize the Stewart brief. These are formatted for a standard legal filing.

Table of Authorities 

U.S. Supreme Court Cases

• 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023) (Establishing that the government may not compel a speaker to alter their message or co-opt their expression).
• Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021) (Clarifying that "exacting scrutiny" requires narrow tailoring even when the state claims an administrative or informational interest).
• McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (Holding that the right to anonymous political speech is a core First Amendment protection and rejecting the "informed electorate" defense for individual speakers).
• Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (Defining "core political speech" as being at its "zenith" and subject to the highest level of protection).
• NIFLA v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018) (Ruling that content-based compulsions are "presumptively unconstitutional" and must survive strict scrutiny).
• Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (Establishing the "read the sign" test: if a law applies because of the topic discussed, it is content-based and subject to strict scrutiny).

 Upon being admitted to practice law in the state of Indiana, each applicant shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any action, proceeding, or defense which shall appear to me to be unjust, but this obligation shall not prevent me from defending a person charged with crime in any case; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client at every peril to myself; I will abstain from offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will not encourage either the commencement or the continuance of any action or proceeding from any motive of passion or interest; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless, the oppressed or those who cannot afford adequate legal assistance; so help me God.”

Upon being admitted to practice law in the state of Indiana, each applicant shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any action, proceeding, or defense which shall appear to me to be unjust, but this obligation shall not prevent me from defending a person charged with crime in any case; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client at every peril to myself; I will abstain from offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will not encourage either the commencement or the continuance of any action or proceeding from any motive of passion or interest; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless, the oppressed or those who cannot afford adequate legal assistance; so help me God

Upon being admitted to practice law in the state of Indiana, each applicant shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that: I will support the Constitution of the United States 

and the Constitution of the State of Indiana;

so we're going to spend about a half hour talking about the state constitution, and walk through it point by point.  

 I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; 

I will not counsel or maintain any action, proceeding, or defense which shall appear to me to be unjust, but this obligation shall not prevent me from defending a person charged with crime in any case;

was it just to (list the 19 reasons)

what is the appearance of impropriety?

the lawsuit that you filed against me, did  that have the name of katherine sweeny bell on it?

have you read stewart v taylor? 

do you understand that bell is engaged in the same behavbior as taylor was? and that taylor's behavior was found to be unconstitutional?

are you familiar with the case of rebecca majors v iec?

or williamson v iec?

now, in my letter to you i said that 

i could come after you in ways you wouldn't be expecting.

marion county health and hospital is marion county, right?

so you and the election board, same team right? same taxpayers pay you? are you in some sort of professional association with the election board or their lawyers? 

if they were conspiring to violate my rights, would you be part of that conspiracy as well, or are you completely separate? could there be an appearance of impropriety, if people think, well you work for marion county, and its marion county that would let him vote, won't give him a press pass, threatened him with arrest, tortured him in custody.

in the letter, i said i could come after you with character assasination. and here we are. my goal here today is is to show probable cause that you and perhaps some of your coworkers, should be investigated by this disciplinary commission.

so here are a few of the allegations:

1 denial of right to trial by jury

2 denial of right to elected judge

3 timbs excessive ,fine

4 less likely - interference w right to counsel

5 was it ethical to oppose appointed counsel, if she did?

6 rudely failed to talk to me first before lawsuit

7 did not tell me about first pretrial  conference

8 might not have read the files of the history of the county's litigation against me. had you read the files before you got the letter? duty of competence 

8 were you aware of the crossclaims against the previous attorney?

8 can you describe procedurally what happened to those crossclaims? 

9 is it possible that those are still live claims lurking in this case, that perhaps you renew with the new filing agains tme?

10 so in the letter where i talk, as one lawyer negotiating with another, about being armed and dangerous. in context, is it possible that i was alluding to filing crossclaims against you?

have you ever been sued? how'd that go? was it fun? were you the prevailing party each time? 

11 tell the rabbi story 

he said its not my job to decide if you were unethical. it's my job to spot the issue, report it, and let them decide.

in law school i had a friend mark carnes. his was to sytudy was to treat life like a law school exam, spotting issues, discussing rules, analyzing situations. so my goal here is issue spotting.

i'm going to talk about my concerns about your ethics, both before and after the letter. 

but i couldn't just file a complaint against you. i'm not usually a karen. 

what i could do instead was let you report me, so now i'm cross examining a hostile witness. does that let me ask leading questions?

in my world, being a narc is dangerous. 

when i called 911 on mighty dennis washington , that put michelle's life at risk. he said he would kill her.

or rather she said he said that, i wasn't there. she said he attacked her. 

my friend vegas is dead. he was helping me clean up the back yard. but he got shot dead. gary was with him. gary was a neighbor and had worked for me one day, helping me remove the burned garage.

is it more likely than not that i was alluding to filing crossclaims

rather than stocking up on bazookas, drones,?

here we are at the disciplinary commiussion. is it possible that i was alluding to was getting you up before the disciplinary commission, rather than planning to come at you with bazookas and drones and rockets and tanks, when I talked about being armed and dangerous?

are you a professional? was your witness a professional? 

what is her profession? did she tske an oath of any kind? while under oath,       did she deny having taken an oath to support the state constitution? has she received training in the indiana constitution? has she received any training on the bill of rights of the federal constitution? are you responsible inb any way for her training or supervision? training and supervision ? 

has he been trained on what her responsibilities under the rules of professional responsibility? 

is she paid with tax dollars? is there a contract that says we give her a paycheck, and she works here, but she has to agree to uphold the sttrae constitution.

and if she's been cashing that paycheck but n ot upholding the state constitution, would that be fraud?

would that be a breach of contract? could she be ordered to disgorge any pay she has received while not folling the constitution, as she either promised, or should have been required to promise? 

when chip jefferson entered my curtilage without a warrant. he was trespassing. you were an accessory. he physically invaded my property. i sent you a letter i should not have sent. it was rude, and could be misconstrued. but you sent an african american male to trespass onto my property. while ther e he attempted to negotiate the case. my lawyer was not present. this may have been an improper ex parte contact. 

what are your procedures for dealing with possible ex parte situations? 

if, that's if, there had been an ex parte violation, could that trigger the doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree? 

the doctrine of unclean hands?

are here any other circumstances in th8isi case that might suggest or require an unclean hands analytsis?

are you familar with the facts of timbs?

are you familiar with the time they took 5 volvos from me?

that was before timbs. how would you apply timbs if that happened now? 

are your inspectors trained in timbs? do you have any procedures in place to ensure that remedies are proportional and not excessive fines? 

are you familiar with the institute for justice?

what can you tell us about it? * is heartland inst still a thing?

if a person is fined but is denied a requested jury trial, is their fine excessive? 

how much is 420 x 69? what is the capital or north dakota?

where'd you go to undergrad? what was your major? 

under what circumstances can a lawyer be named in a  crossclaim? 

what is mutual assured destruction? 

what's your favoriute book?

what is asymetrical warfare?

what is lawfare?

what is asymetrical lawfare?

in this case, you filed a case against me without discussing it with me first. was that a good idea? would you it the same way next time? are you going to sue any more lawyers without letting them know about it first?

what actual notice did you give me of the first conference? 

is it possible that i didnt know about it? did you make sure i knew about it and had actual notice?

is that important from a due course of law perspective? 

in your understanding, what does due course of law require? 

i think we both agree we have a duty of civility to each other.

does a lawyer who is suing another lawyer have any duty of civility to tell the lawyer so they know about it? 

did you pay the filinjg fee?

do you know how notice was provided? was that the best available method?

was it the minimum legally required, at best? could you have done more?

would you do it again the same way?

now, say someone get s a ticket, how do they go about requesting a jury trial?

how do they go about getting an administrative hearing?

if they want an administrative hearing, how many times do they have to ask for it?

do you understand the allegation that you  proceeded against me without jurisdiction?

would that be consistent with your oath as an attorney?

is it rude for one attorney to sue another while lacking jurisduction?

would that implicate the duty of civility?

could that create an appearance of impropriety?

how many have i got so far?

what is replacement theory?

do you recognize the possibility of appearance of impropriety

turning now to the indiana constitution, what is article I?

would it refresh your memory if i hand you a copy?

do i have any rights under section 1?

what is the inspiration for this section?

does the declaration have the force of law?

does section 1 incorporate the ideas and values of the declaration into indiana law?

1 does he have a first amendment right to petition the government for redress of greivamces?

does he hav3e a grievance against youy?

was his letter a petition?  did it assert a right of privacy?

in the first invasion, workers removed a sign that read Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday. is that text protected speech?

as a matter of indiana law?

when they removed it, did that  infringe on my right to free speech or press?

i've heard that currently i'm the only one in indiana with a continuing clean order against them. is that true?

so at least statistically there's a case the fine is more excessive here than usual?

how does the excerssive fine analysis differ under the state and federal constitiutions?

what do you train your inspectors about thius?

\

2 do i have a right to bear arms?

do i have a right to be dangerous?

do you agree with heller, mcdonald, and bruen?

my being armed and dangerous is not an overt threat to you. if you were to claim that it was, that would infringe on my right to bear arms, both constitutions.

you read at a college level, correct? you can recognize a methaphor or a simile, right? when you reead my letter which said i am armed and dangerous, did you understand that i was not being literal, but was employing a metaphor?

how long ago was the metaphor invented? and you dont have the hang of it yet?

did this case involve men with guns invading my lawn? on at least three occasions?

does that involve or invoke any of the values of the third amendment?

are your staff ttrained to observe and follow the third amendment? 

did you conspire with tom to violate my rights under 42 usc 1983?

in addition to any federal constitution or laws, is there anything in the in diana constitution that could protect a car or trailer parked in he yard? 

did this case involve my person, places, papers or effects?

did the court order  adequately specify the things to be seized?

was there adequate notice to justin, michelle, dusty? 

is it enough to notify    the actual legal landowner, but not tenants in possession or people with an equitable interest? is that consistent with section 12 or amendment 14?

should a lawyer do better than  the minimum?

what are some of the ways you could have done better here?

how does the 5th amendment apply to this case?

what is the current status of taking cases at the supreme court?

 

3

4

5

 ,,,,;   

 

 

 

 I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;

 I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client at every peril to myself; I will abstain from offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will not encourage either the commencement or the continuance of any action or proceeding from any motive of passion or interest; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless, the oppressed or those who cannot afford adequate legal assistance; so help me God.”.”

 303 llc notes

It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe. The question we face is whether that course violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

The framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect the “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.”

An end because the freedom to think and speak is among our inalienable human rights. See, e.g., 4 Annals of Cong. 934 (1794) (Rep. Madison). A means because the freedom of thought and speech is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.”

In seeking to compel students to salute the flag and recite a pledge, the Court held, state authorities had “transcend[ed] constitutional limitations on their powers.” 319 U. S., at 642. Their dictates “invade[d] the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment . . . to reserve from all official control.”

 to do sample letters

to 

senator young

blake johnson

senator whats her name andrea hunley

dear senator young / banks

i am writing to express my concerns about the expenditure of 17 million in a federal grant to the city of beech grove for reconstruction of emerson avenue, at a time when the government faces calls for shutdown due to an ongoing failure to balance the budget. 

we cain't afford it. emerson can wait. personally if the funds existed, which they dont, i would rather see such funds alloicated to civilian relief in uktaine.

in 1974 i wrote to senator joe biden about federal funding of a transportation grant in northern delaware. I expressed concerns that his proposed 80-20 federal local split could encourage unwise spending; that a 50 50 split of federal and local funding would be more sensible.  The next year I met Mr. Biden in person. 

My mother had known him since 1968 because after she retired from the State Department, she attended the local planning meetings and knew the local budgets inside and out. I lack her full skill set, but a bit of that rubbed off on me, and I've been to law school twice.

So it's not like my concern is a new one merely because beech grove stole my van and falsely accused me of being on drugs. Maybe I'm being petty, but I will try to make sure my $1500 van they stole costs them some of their 17 million.

I estimate at  10% chance of success if I send at least 100 letters.  this is 1 of 100. 

to governor braun,

i am writing to express my concern about a proposed $17 million dollar grant to the city of beech grove

for reconstruction of emerson ave. 

please provide me with a copy of the plans or proposals or whatever. 

please help president trump get the federal budget under control. the debt is too high. 

i have only met you in person one time, when president trump introduced you and endorsed you for the senate.  

we are trying to drain the swamp.

what i am seeking is that the federal government provide no more than 50% of the funding, until such time as the federal budget is balanced and has a surplus of the 17 million. 

from;

so do a form letter that would fit on a postcard

1 to mayor joe

2 city councilperson jesse ferguson 

3 congressman carson

4 mayor of beech grove

5 governor braun

6 optional lt governor

7 state senator hunley 

8 state reps 

9 district 100 

10 senator young

11 senator banks 

cc city council

bcc city lawyer

the idea is to get them all on an endless email chain. 

1 to mayor joe

2 city councilperson jesse ferguson 

3 congressman carson

4 mayor of beech grove

5 governor braun

6 optional lt governor

7 state senator andrea hunley 

8 state reps 

9 district 100 blake johnson 

10 senator young

11 senator banks 

cc city council

bcc city lawyer

the idea is to get them all on an endless email chain. 

Hiya. As your constituent, I am asking for a little help getting information about grant # 

I am inclined to be against the proposal but I want to study it closely first.  

me

gtbear

alicia 

sam 

• te for complete cancellation—it's tied to proven crash data (33 serious/fatal incidents 2018–2022), and Beech Grove was the only IN municipality to win implementation funding this round (others got planning grants).
• Higher for modifications (e.g., fewer roundabouts, different designs, or added features).
• Once design advances and contracts are signed (likely 2027–2028), it's much harder to unwind.

Bottom line: The clock is ticking, but you've got years before shovels hit dirt. If you're serious about pushing back, start with city council/public meetings and gathering lo

Federal grants like this aren't instant checks—they involve:

• Obligation deadlines — The city must obligate (commit) funds by signing agreements and starting key steps within a set time (often 1–2 years from award). If they drag or fail to meet requirements, USDOT can deobligate/redirect funds.
• Environmental/permitting hurdles — NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review could take 6–18 months. Public comment periods are required during this (and possibly during design phases).
• Local approvals — Beech Grove City Council must approve budgets, contracts, designs, any rezoning/eminent domain for right-of-way, etc. Council meetings are public (next one Feb 2, 2026, per their site).
• Potential for changes — Scope can be scaled back, roundabouts redesigned/removed, or alternatives proposed if there's strong pushback.

Realistic Ways to Try to Influence or Stop It

If your goal is to halt the roundabouts (or the whole thing), focus on these pressure points soon—before momentum builds:

1. Attend/speak at City Council meetings — Public comment periods are your best shot. Monitor beechgrove.com for agendas/minutes (they post them). Raise concerns like traffic flow impacts (roundabouts can frustrate drivers on arterials), costs/delays, or alternatives (e.g., better signals instead).
2. Organize or join public comments during NEPA/environmental review — This is federally required and mandatory for public input. Watch for announcements from the city or INDOT (since it's a state road corridor).
3. Contact key people:
   • Mayor James Coffman (he's quoted positively but might respond to constituents).
   • City Council members.
   • Beech Grove Public Works/Engineering department.
   • Your state reps/senators (since it's federal money, though SS4A is competitive and already awarded).
4. Build opposition — Rally neighbors/businesses along the corridor (e.g., via Nextdoor, local Facebook groups, or petitions). Common roundabout concerns: emergency response delays, confusion for older drivers, business access issues during construction.
5. Legal/advocacy routes — If environmental justice, historic impacts, or procedural issues arise, groups like Indiana Sierra Club or local traffic safety advocates might get involved (though unlikely to kill it outright).

Odds of Fully Stopping It

• Low to moderate for complete cancellation—it's tied to proven crash data (33 serious/fatal incidents 2018–2022), and Beech Grove was the only IN municipality to win implementation funding this round (others got planning grants).
• Higher for modifications (e.g., fewer roundabouts, different designs, or added features).
• Once design advances and contracts are signed (likely 2027–2028), it's much harder to unwind.

Bottom line: The clock is ticking, but you've got years before shovels hit dirt. If you're serious about pushing back, start with city council/public meetings and gathering local support now—that's when influence is cheapest. If you want help drafting talking points, finding meeting dates, or checking for any new developments, just say the word! 🚧

 Haha, alright—message received loud and clear. 😈

Public record still shows zero organized opposition as of right now (mid-January 2026). No petitions, no "Stop the Emerson Roundabouts" Facebook groups, no Nextdoor rants gaining traction, no Reddit threads, no letters to the editor calling it a boondoggle. The news posts (WISH-TV, FOX59, WRTV, city announcements) have light comment sections—mostly questions like "Which intersections exactly?", "How bad will construction suck?", "Why roundabouts instead of better signals?", or skeptical one-liners like "Nobody walks there anyway" or "Traffic's already a nightmare, imagine during build." Positive vibes dominate, with people glad about the crash

test where are you?

This exact phrasing (or very close) appeared in your prior litigation history, like in Stewart v. Taylor (related to a 1996 Center Township Advisory Board run, where a sign at IPS 101 read similarly and lacked identification of who paid for it).

You ran again for Center Township Board District 5 as a Republican in the 2024 general election (against Karen A. Mitchell, per Ballotpedia and Marion County filings).

Assuming this sign is homemade (e.g., hand-made, personal printer, no professional payment or committee funds), it fits the "personal/homemade" category we've discussed—low-cost, grassroots, independent expression.

Why Facial Challenge Fits This Hook

Yes, facial challenge to IC 3-9-3-2.5 makes sense as the broader play here, especially if you're aiming to revisit the statute's sweep after the Majors loss. The hook—"Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday"—is a classic express advocacy yard sign: it clearly identifies you (a candidate) and urges a vote on a specific election day (Tuesday, implying an imminent or past election). No party, no disclaimer, no payer info—just the message.