Madison Co., Ill. (ECWd) –
MADISON COUNTY CLERK LINDA ANDREAS SUED IN FEDERAL MISSISSIPPI COURT UNDER KKK ACT FOR ALLEGED CHURCH HARASSMENT
Accused pastor of swindling donors to fund a PAC while retaining $37,668.90 in PAC contributions for herself
In a further twist in her reelection campaign, Linda Andreas, who publicly accused a pastor of swindling political action committee donors, is now named as a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed in Mississippi under the Ku Klux Klan Act and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Andreas is among more than two dozen defendants listed in a 28-page complaint filed Jan. 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Case No. 1:26-cv-00023-HSO-BWR) by John Shane Vaughn, founder of First Harvest Ministries International. The lawsuit alleges an interstate conspiracy to harass a church, intimidate worshippers, interfere with religious services, and defame Vaughn and his ministry.
The complaint alleges that Andreas “participated in the interstate conspiracy to harass Plaintiff and interfere with religious worship” and that, “upon information and belief,” she was involved in financing and/or coordinating the alleged harassment campaign.
The filing followed a March 30, 2025, Facebook post in which Andreas accused Vaughn of lying about fundraising totals and misusing donor money raised through a political effort connected to the church. In the post, Andreas disputed claims that $400,000 had been transferred to support political candidates.
“You continue to say you had a new board and that $400,000 was transferred the NEXT day! Transferred where?” Andreas wrote. “The PAC … set up to get monies transferred to 2 candidates in MI, 1 in MO, 1 in IL (me) and a couple others never received $400,000!!!! It was more like $120,000 and was like pulling teeth to get you to transfer that.” She then alleged that the same funds were “swindled from people who trusted you.”
The federal complaint directly addresses statements of that nature, alleging that defendants circulated false claims accusing Vaughn of diverting donations to personal accounts or failing to document the use of funds. The lawsuit asserts those statements were made with actual malice and as part of a broader effort to intimidate and discredit the ministry.
By her own account in the post, Andreas identified herself as one of the recipients of the money at issue. Campaign finance disclosure records show that America’s Conservative Caucus PAC made two contributions to Citizens for Andreas in November 2022 — $24,054.90 on Nov. 3, 2022, and $13,614.00 on Nov. 28, 2022 — totaling $37,668.90. Despite publicly characterizing the funds as having been swindled from donors, Andreas has not returned the money reflected in her campaign filings.
Beyond online accusations, the lawsuit alleges the conduct escalated into coordinated in-person activity at worship services, including intimidation signage, surveillance-style monitoring, bullhorn harassment, and the targeting of elderly congregants and children. The claims are brought under federal civil rights statutes more commonly associated with racially motivated conspiracies and interference with protected access to religious institutions.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees, and alleges the conduct remains ongoing. The complaint was filed Jan. 21, 2026. As of Thursday, Jan. 22, Andreas continued posting publicly about the dispute on social media.
Andreas, who is seeking reelection, is also facing challenges to her ballot status after submitting campaign materials listing an incorrect election date and filing paperwork involving another candidate’s materials as if her own. That matter is pending on expedited appeal in Illinois’ Fifth District Appellate Court.
The case is Vaughn v. Trost et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00023-HSO-BWR, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Andreas has not yet filed a response in either the appellate court or federal court as of press time. Full complaint – – -> https://file.re/1000B1U3/
There was a Motion for a Preliminary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiffs, and it was denied by the court.
See photos from the complaint (here).
Article submitted by MCPCTF.org and reprinted with permission.
