maine ethics commission

• David R. Hastings III - Republican - Fryeburg
• Sarah E. LeClaire - Democrat - Woodland
• Dennis Marble - Independent - Hampden
• William J. Schneider, Chairman - Republican - Durham
• Vacant - Democrat
• To Maine ethics commission
• I am writing to bring to your attention two cases, Opinion of the Justices 1972 and 303 LLC v Elenis 2025?.
• These cases establish that government cannot compel speech such as disclaimers, because that sort of censorship is prohibited by both constitutions. 
• The 1972 case, with its generic case name, is hard to search for and not widely known.
• 
  
• Please make sure your policies and practices reflect the rights set out in these opinions. Deliberately engaging in censorship practices banned under either of these two cases would be unethical as well as tortious. 
• 
  

 1 800 325 6000

 

Chad, thank you for your recent assistance in filling out my declaration of candidacy for County Clerk. However, in the candidate packet, you gave me a copy of the literature brochure. I assume the text is the same as the online version:

I would call your attention to Stewart v Taylor, Ogden v Marendt, and Mulholland v Marion County Election Board. In these cases the board paid damages or settlements for violating free speech rights under McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission. When you gave me the brochure you violated my rights in the same way. So these rights should be considered clearly established. 

It would not only be tortious, but unethical, as discussed below, to continue to try to enforce this void statute. Please review this with counsel. I express no opinion as to whether your conduct here is criminal.   

 463 203 7284

 

 If the lawyer knew the statute violated clearly established First Amendment law, the analysis would be

A lawyer‑official cannot ethically:

• knowingly enforce an unconstitutional statute
• knowingly chill protected political speech
• knowingly threaten criminal prosecution for protected speech
• knowingly ignore binding Supreme Court precedent

Because that would violate:

• Rule 8.4(g) – knowingly violating constitutional rights
• Rule 8.4(d) – conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
• Rule 1.2(d) – assisting unlawful conduct
• Rule 3.1 – asserting a position with no basis in law

So the key question becomes:

Would a reasonable lawyer in 2024 know that compelled political disclaimers violate clearly established First Amendment law?

Given:

• Talley (1960)
• McIntyre (1995)
• Wooley (1977)
• Tornillo (1974)
• Riley (1988)
• NIFLA (2018)
• 303 Creative (2023)

…a strong argument exists that any competent lawyer should know that forcing a political candidate to put a disclaimer on a yard sign is unconstitutional.

Especially when:

• the statute carries criminal penalties,
• the speech is core political speech,
• the medium is small‑scale,
• and the speaker is an individual candidate.

⭐ 4. “Conspiring” raises a different ethical issue

If multiple officials—including a lawyer—actively coordinated to:

• threaten prosecution,
• chill political speech,
• or enforce a statute they knew was unconstitutional,

that could implicate:

• Rule 8.4(a) – assisting others in violating the rules
• Rule 8.4(g) – knowingly violating constitutional rights
• Rule 8.4(d) – conduct prejudicial to justice

But this depends entirely on knowledge and intent, not the mere fact of enforcement.

⭐ 5. The safe, accurate conclusion

It is not automatically unethical for a lawyer‑official to enforce IC 3‑9‑3‑2.5.

But it could be unethical if:

• the lawyer knew the statute violated clearly established First Amendment law,
• and still participated in threatening or chilling protected political speech,
• especially through coordinated action.

That’s the correct, careful answer.

If you want, we can go deeper into:

• how “clearly established law” interacts with professional ethics
• how chilling political speech is treated in ethics opinions
• how to frame this in a complaint or grievance
• or

 the draft of the letter was, in part, the beginnings of a plan of how i might be able to respond if she persisted. 

she was intending to proceed against me without jurisidctiuon, without awarenes sof the risk of crossclaims against her, planning to -perhaps- deny me jury trial rights   under section 19 and 20. the perhaps is because this is a somewhat unsettled area of indiana law,  but the right to trial by jury probably attaches,

she might not have read the counterclaims in the previous round of litigation.

oh! legal aid would be a great witness, 

 

 

 

1. Lawyers are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct

In Indiana (and everywhere else), lawyers must follow rules such as:

• Rule 1.2(d) – cannot assist a client in conduct the lawyer knows is illegal
• 
  
• Rule 8.4(c) – cannot engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation
• Rule 8.4(d) – cannot engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
• Rule 8.4(a) – cannot violate the rules through the acts of another or assist others in doing so

And most importantly:

• Rule 8.4(b) – cannot commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty or 
•  
• Fire Gupta.
• here, gupta  
• Rule 8.4(c) – cannot engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation
• conspired with the same inspector who perjured herself in my case. the witness testified that a person was living in a trailer in my yard with no electricity. 
• This was false and was made either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.   
• the trailer obviously had electricity as you could tell from the running lights that are on 24/7 or, usually, noise from the TV or the radio.  the electrical wires running from the house to the trailer were readily visible.
• this was not some miscellaneous detail; this was the central issue in the case.  other than the inspector's false testimony under oath, there was no evidence either that the trailer lacked electricity or was inhabited. this may have been a malicious prosecution. 
• the case against me was split into two trials, a first one december 12, which i won, and the second one later in december. at the second trial, ms gupta sought to introduce the testimony of the 
• perjurer as her only witness against me. i objected on the grounds that she had committed perjury against me in the prior trial and it would be unjust to  allow her to testify. i was overruled, and she testified. I lost on that point at trial, but have set the point for appeal.  and now bring it to you. because the injunction is continuing an appeal can be filed at any time, but is on hold while we see how this part turns out. 
• when gupta sent the adult africanam erican males (90%), did she give adequate notice to jordan, michelle dawn or dusty? is informing the landowner enough, when there are tenants in possession? lets ask the ai.,  
•  
• facts: it was highly disruptive to jordan when, without prior notice to him, they drive bulldozers right up to the tent where he and michelle  were sleeping. jordan is now in jail. 
• he has sent threatening letters from jail alleging that i violated my duty of confidentiality because  i snithed informed on him.  he's wrong of course. i was not the snitch. informant.  he was not my client, but we had consulted about him possibly becoming my client, since he was indigent and could avoid filing fees. in both his culture and mine, the duty of confidentiality is important. 
•  
•  i did not know he had warrants for armed robbery. the day before he was arrested by officer friendly, he had seen me speaking to a police officer. what i told the police officer, correctly, was that we were doing a roofing job, but also using it as an opportunity to evaluate roofers, with the eye toward forming a roofing company if we could get a good crew toether. (as it turned out we did not.)
•  
• .it was highly disruptive to michelle when  she woke up to bulldozers outside of her tent. she documented it on video with a phone, but that phone was later lost/stolen. she is former housewife and former nurse who developed a drug habit. she was on the lam from johnson county which was refusing to let her just pay the $700 she needed to get the warrant lifted...
• she was a con artist, forget, thief, meth user, "katy" user 
• i fell for her hook line and sinker. i knew jordan was dirty but i was naive as to michelle. michelle is currently in hiding again. i had had to kick her out for stealing, but visited her in the hospital when she had a broken spleen following a car wreck. 
• dusty had just gotten kicked out of the burned out garage where he had been squatting. i had given him funds for a storage unit but he lost those. i helped him move his stuff to my yard very temporarily. i di dnot know the bulldozers would come the very next day and take all his stuff,  such as his tools and personal journals and records. i do not know wther, criminally, civilly or ethically, ther eis any dutyt to inform or join such parties.   
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

 

1. Lawyers are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct

In Indiana (and everywhere else), lawyers must follow rules such as:

• Rule 1.2(d) – cannot assist a client in conduct the lawyer knows is illegal
• Rule 3.1 – cannot assert or defend a position unless there is a non‑frivolous basis in law
• Rule 8.4(c) – cannot engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation
• Rule 8.4(d) – cannot engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
• Rule 8.4(a) – cannot violate the rules through the acts of another or assist others in doing so

And most importantly:

• Rule 8.4(b) – cannot commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty or 
•