Whether a free speech right to impugn judicial integrity must be recognized for attorneys in order to reclaim their First Amendment Rights in invoking and avoiding government power in the protection of client life, liberty and property?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Speech by attorneys critical of the judiciary is an essential component of our American system of government. This Court has not addressed the restraint on free speech which is inherent in disciplining a lawyer for comments criticizing a judge, and that is why this case presents an issue of first impression regarding the First Amendment, Free Speech and the discipline of attorneys for statements concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge. Across the country, for decades, in scores of cases, both state and federal courts have discipled attorneys for making disparaging remarks about the judiciary, and have almost universally rejected the constitutional standard established by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) and Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) for punishing speech regarding government officials. Attorneys are generally prohibited from, and severely punished for impugning judicial integrity, even though the American Bar Association expressly adopted the constitutional subjective standard established in Sullivan and Garrison in its Model Rule 8.2 to only prohibit attorneys from making “a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge”!. The checking power of attorney speech is not the antithesis of preserving judicial government power is the primary method for preserving government integrity. 1 See Rules of Professional Conduct R. 8.2 (a), Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession, Judicial & Legal Officials. The Model Rule is identical to Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct R. 8.2 (a) Judicial & Legal Officials. ii The questions presented are: 1. Whether a free speech right to impugn judicial integrity must be recognized for attorneys in order to reclaim their First Amendment Rights in invoking and avoiding government power in the protection of client life, liberty and property? 2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings for attorneys can constitutionally abrogate First Amendment Rights when rules are used to punish speech that impugns the integrity of the judiciary without requiring a showing of knowledge or reckless disregard to truth or falsity using the constitutional and subjective standard? 3. Whether attorney Michelle MacDonald, a candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court and critic of the judiciary, may immediately appeal under 28 USC § 1291, to reverse the Minnesota Supreme Court’s Judgment due to its refusal to adhere to her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by deciding to “indefinitely” suspend her from the practice of law, and then’ by refusing to reinstate MacDonald without their “requisite” show of remorse” ” or “change in conduct and state of mind”, disregarding her participation in a restorative justice prayer circle, facilitated by Family Innocence, with Judge [David Knutson]?2 2 See In re Petition for Reinstatement of Michelle MacDonald, A21-1636,