Reciprocal Sanction For “Fire The Liar” Website

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has imposed a 30-day suspension as reciprocal discipline based on an Illinois sanction for false statements about a judge

In light of Respondent’s objection to the Rule 7.7 Notice, she had an opportunity to provide this Court with explanatory and mitigating information demonstrating that Illinois’ imposed discipline does not correspond with her misconduct and should not be duplicated by this Court. However, although many objections were presented, nothing within the filed response leads us to confidently conclude that Illinois’ imposed discipline was unwarranted. Based upon Respondent’s knowingly made false statements concerning her involvement with the websites during the disciplinary hearing and her knowingly made false statements about Judge Gleeson, we find Illinois’ imposed discipline was warranted and we impose the same.

The story

 Respondent has been licensed to practice law in Oklahoma since 1987 and licensed in Illinois since 2000. The events that give rise to the present case began in Illinois in 2018 when Respondent became involved in a political campaign opposing Judge Andrew Gleeson’s attempt to retain his judicial position as a judge of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Illinois.

Prior to seeking retention, Judge Gleeson reported then Judge Duebbert to the Judicial Inquiry Board for providing allegedly deceptive responses to the police in a murder investigation. In 2018, Judge Dubbert and others opposed Judge Gleeson’s retention. Respondent’s opposition to Judge Gleeson’s retention stemmed from her views surrounding the investigation into Judge Dubbert. Respondent joined an anti-retention group in the summer of 2018.

The anti-retention group determined a Facebook page and website should be set up to communicate its collective opinions regarding Judge Gleeson. Respondent was experienced with purchasing domain names and creating websites for herself and agreed to set up the website for the anti-retention group. In September 2018, Respondent contacted GoDaddy and created firetheliarjudge.com (“Fire the Liar website”). Respondent used a personal email and her personal PayPal account to create and pay for the website.

Respondent designed and built the Fire the Liar website using a GoDaddy builder, which entailed creating a structure where text or images could later be posted. Respondent uploaded basic information on the website, such as details about the anti-retention group and links to articles about Judge Gleeson. However, Respondent testified that she did not post any of the Fire the Liar website’s content beyond basic information. According to Respondent, anyone who had the access log-in information to the Fire the Liar website could post content on the website. At one point, Respondent was concerned about what content could be posted and inquired with a GoDaddy representative if she could, as the website administrator, review posts before they were published on the website. The representative informed her the platform was not capable of that function.

Respondent communicated with GoDaddy customer service regarding the website at least four separate times in September and October 2018. During those conversations, Respondent used the alias name of Madeline Dinmont (she had a Dinmont Terrier named Madeline) and used a disposable phone. During one of the conversations with a GoDaddy customer service representative about the Fire the Liar website, though she did not mention Judge Gleeson by name, Respondent said “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.”

Respondent also purchased a second domain name, firejudgegleeson.com (“Fire Judge Gleeson website”) with the purpose of connecting the two domains together so that upon visiting the Fire Judge Gleeson website, a user would automatically be redirected to Fire the Liar website. Respondent was actively involved with both websites from September 2018 until early October 2018.

In addition to the websites, Respondent gave the anti-retention group access to a Facebook page she no longer used. In October 2018, statements on the Facebook page accused Judge Gleeson of being part of a racist white supremacy group, including the Klu Klux Klan. Respondent testified that she did not post those statements. Respondent closed down the websites and Facebook page in November 2018, following the election.

Respondent had objected to reciprocal discipline

Respondent contends discipline is not warranted for several reasons, including but not limited to: violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; violation of due process; disparate treatment because she is a female Republican; retaliation against her because she is a whistleblower; harassment; improper standard of review; improper burden of proof; and a flawed appellate review board because it included a non-attorney. Respondent’s objection does not include evidence supporting her claims. Complainant filed a response on April 20, 2023 noting an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, affirming its original recommendation for discipline.

“I would suspend Respondent for thirty days from this order.”

(Mike Frisch)