Website Posts Draw Proposed Sanction

The Illinois Review Board has proposed a 30-day suspension on these facts

In the summer of 2018, Respondent got involved in a political campaign opposing Judge Andrew Gleeson’s attempt to retain his judicial position in an election. Respondent had interactions with a group of people opposing the judge’s retention. In approximately September 2018, the group decided to set up a website, and to communicate through Facebook. Respondent agreed to set up the website for the anti-retention group, which she did.

In September 2018, Respondent contacted GoDaddy and purchased the domain name “firetheliarjudge.com,” which was the name chosen by the group. Respondent paid for the purchase through her PayPal account, using funds the group supplied. Respondent also purchased a GoDaddy web builder and designed and built the website.

When she set up the GoDaddy account and purchased the website, Respondent used the email address madeline.dinmont@charter.net. That email address belonged to Respondent. (She had a Dinmont terrier named Madeline). Respondent used the name Madeline Dinmont, and used a burner phone, in connection with the website.  When she spoke to GoDaddy representatives, she identified herself as being Madeline Dinmont, instead of using her own name.

Respondent was actively involved with the website from September 2018 until early October 2018. Respondent testified that she did not write any of the content or post any pictures on the website. She testified that after she built the frame, she turned the website over to others. Respondent shut down the website in November 2018, after the election was over.

The anti-retention group also asked Respondent to establish a second website, which she did. Respondent purchased the domain name “firejudgegleeson.com” and linked the two websites. She linked in two other websites as well. Respondent also gave the anti-retention group a Facebook page that she was no longer using. Former Judge Ronald Duebbert was in contact with the group.

Respondent was concerned about the information that members of the antiretention group might post. Therefore, Respondent asked a representative of GoDaddy whether Respondent, as the website administrator, could review comments from other people before they were posted on the website. The GoDaddy representative said the platform was not set up to do so.

Respondent spoke with customer service representatives at GoDaddy about the website on at least four separate occasions. They helped her log-in, reset the password, upgrade the website to a business version, make payments, and establish an expiration date. GoDaddy assigned a default administrator’s email address to Respondent, which she used.

In October 2018, statements and materials posted on the website and the Facebook page falsely accused Judge Gleeson of being part of racist white supremacy groups, including the Ku Klux Klan. Respondent testified that she did not post those statements or materials.

According to Respondent, she saw the offensive materials at the end of October 2018. Although she told someone else to take everything down, she did not take any other action for three weeks, until after the election was over, when she told GoDaddy to close the website.

Respondent’s False Statement About a Judge

In September 2018, Respondent called GoDaddy for assistance, and spoke with a customer service representative at GoDaddy about the website. During the conversation, Respondent falsely stated: “I will tell you how evil it is. They’ve attempted to set up another judge of a different political party for murder if that tells you anything …. And this is the guy who orchestrated it.” (Adm. Ex. 6 at 14-15.) Respondent was referring to Judge Gleeson.

Respondent’s 2019 ARDC Testimony

In July 2019, Respondent gave a sworn statement to the ARDC, with counsel present, and Respondent was asked questions about the website. Respondent testified that she did not set up the website; she did not know who set it up; and she did not control or manage it. Respondent testified that she provided basic information to people in the anti-retention group so that they could set up the website, but Respondent indicated that her role was very limited. At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent testified that she did not intend to mislead counsel for the Administrator and did not knowingly respond to counsel’s questions in an inaccurate way. The Hearing Board found that testimony was not credible.

The review board found that the statements were not protected by the First Amendment and that several rules were violated. (Mike Frisch)