"Both the Delaware and Federal Constitutions have enshrined the right to speak," a quote from a 2019 chancery case. it is now 9:46 pm, and i've worked at least 1.0 hours today, mostly composing an email to the state attorney general, cc'ing my state senator. still at it at 10:00 pm. looked up home address. next step should be an email to that senator. so lets say it was 1.25 hours. tomorrow tasks: go to ups, print out that letter, send it to her campaign office Checks can be mailed to: P.O. Box 1077 Wilmington, DE 19801 - kathy jennings campaign address 121 School Rd Wilmington, De 19803 possible home address? confirmed. monday: pay electric bil in full.

Where should you put the disclaimer on a website or social media page? The disclaimer should be on the homepage of the website or social media page. The disclaimer does not need to be on each page of the website. On a Facebook page, the disclaimer should be in the banner picture for the site or in the About section. What are size requirements for the disclaimer? For written communications Suite 190  Centennial Office Building  658 Cedar Street  St. Paul, MN 55155-1603 651-539-1180  800-657-3889  Fax 651-539-1196  800-357-4114  cf.board@state.mn.us For TTY/TDD communication, contact us through the Minnesota Relay Service at 800-627-3529

8:02 may 21 2021 8:37 so 30 minutes. 8:58 pm.















100 questions for the delaware elections commissioner under public records law. 1. name

2. dob.? 3. education? 4 employment? - history - current when did you choose the dark side? [do not use.] 6 did you swear to uphold the state constitution? when and why? 7 did you swear to uphold the federal constitution? when and why? 8 what is swearing? 9 how much were you paid by the state of delaware? 10 what are your assets? 11 do you have employees who work under you? with you? over you? 12 do you supervise and train any of these people? what are their names and job titles? 13 have you conspired to violate civil rights with any of these people? 14 when how and why? 15. did you conspire with the state attorney general? 16. or her office? 17. have you read any or all of talley, mcintyre, opinion of the justices 1974, tornillo, wooley, buckley v. aclf, barnette? reno v aclu? marbury v madison? 18. stewart v taylor, anonymous v delaware? 19. do you understand the difference between right and wrong? 20.are you a moral person? 21. you know the difference between right and wrong? 22, naacp v alabama ex rel patterson 1958,bates v little rock 1960 talley v california 1960. 23. are you a racist? jim crow? 24. when it comes to margaret mcintyre, are you a sexist? 25. from a moral point of view, was the court right or wrong in how it decided mcintyre? 26 what was the question presented in mcintyre? 27 how much was the fine against mcintyre? 28 how many people did she conspire with, at a minimum? 29 how much was the fine against talley? 30 is there a right of privacy under the state constitution? 31 do you feel that people have rights? 32 do you feel that people sometimes have moral duties toward other people? 33 do you attend a church at least monthly? 34. do you oppose the right of privacy set out in roe v wade? 35. do you oppose the right of privacy under the state constitution? 36. where are your offices? 37. what is your job title? 38. pay grade? 39. who appoints you? 40. how can you be fired if there is cause? 41. what are your training procedures? is there any kind of training manual? describe the section on rights under the state constitution. 42. what is your supervision process? 43. do you have oral or written policies in regard to the state constitution? 44. if yes provide copies. 45. how much money do your employees make? specific each breakdown. estimated total or subtotal. 46. describe how this policy has been implemented. 47. were there complaints? 48. was anyone fined? was anyone threatened by letter with a fine? 49. did you have any process in place to review your policies for constitutionality? 50 do you concur?

Here are some additional cases supporting the right to anonymous free speech. Doe v.2theMart,140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 4 ACLU v. Ashcroft, _ U.S. _ (2004), 2,4 ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997), 4 ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) 4 ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) 4 American Constitutional Law Foundation [ACLF], Buckley v., 525 U.S.182 (1999), 2,3,5,6 Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000), Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540, sustained on other grounds146 F.3d 558 (8th Cir 1998), Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) see aclf. Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999) Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975), Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908) Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) Griset v CalFPPC (1999), reversed on other grounds, Gulf Coast Printers v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974), dismissed as moot. Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968), Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987) Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995), Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind. 2003), 361 F.2d 349 (2004), McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974) Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998) Ogden v. Marendt, (S.D. Ind 2004), Peterslie v. N.Carolina, (N.Car. 1993) Griset v. Cal. Fair Practices, 884 P.2d 116 (1994),(1999),(2001) Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998) ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995), Smith v California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F.Supp.1047 (S.D.Ind.1997), Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), Texas v. Doe, (Tx. Cr.App. 5/14/2003) Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000), Watchtower v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002) West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996), Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987), Wooley v Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) Yes to Life PAC v. Gardner,

§ 3. Free and equal elections. Section 3. All elections shall be free and equal. § 4. Trial by jury. Section 4. Trial by jury shall be as heretofore. § 5. Freedom of press and speech; evidence in libel prosecutions; jury questions. Section 5. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man. The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of persons acting in a public capacity; and any citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications, investigating the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels the jury may determine the facts and the law, as in other cases. § 6. Searches and seizures. Section 6. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as particularly as may be; nor then, unless there be probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. § 7. Procedural rights in criminal prosecutions; jury trial; self-incrimination; deprivation of life, liberty or property. Section 7. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath a right to be heard by himself or herself and his or her counsel, to be plainly and fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her, to meet the witnesses in their examination face to face, to have compulsory process in due time, on application by himself or herself, his or her friends or counsel, for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor, and a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; he or she shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself or herself, nor shall he or she be deprived of life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his or her peers or by the law of the land. § 8. Prosecution by indictment or information; double jeopardy; just compensation for property. Section 8. No person shall for any indictable offense be proceeded against criminally by information, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger; and no person shall be for the same offense twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any person's property be taken or applied to public use without the consent of his or her representatives, and without compensation being made. § 9. Courts shall be open; remedy for injury; suits against State. Section 9. All courts shall be open; and every person for an injury done him or her in his or her reputation, person, movable or immovable possessions, shall have remedy by the due course of law, and justice administered according to the very right of the cause and the law of the land, without sale, denial, or unreasonable delay or expense. Suits may be brought against the State, according to such regulations as shall be made by law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_elections_law § 21. Equal Rights. Section 21. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, national origin, or sex. WE DECLARE THAT EVERYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE IS RESERVED OUT OF THE GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT HEREINAFTER MENTIONED.

talley v california manual talley civil rights bill of 2022 section **** is deleeted. mcintosh governs this case. this case is a cow, not a calf. citizens united is readily distinguashable, and does not govern here. buckley v aclf victoria buckley v american countitutional law foundation. watchtower v stratton town of gilbert v vincent aid v open society institute















nifla v becerra janus JANUS v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET Al. 2018. June 27, 2018 The First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids abridgment of the



8 JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES Opinion of the Court freedom of speech. We have held time and again that freedom of speech “includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714 (1977); see Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 796–797 (1988); Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539, 559 (1985); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 256–257 (1974); accord, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 9 (1986) (plurality opinion). The right to eschew association for expressive purposes is likewise protected. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 623 (1984) (“Freedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate”); see Pacific Gas & Elec., supra, at 12 (“[F]orced associations that burden protected speech are impermissible”). As Justice Jackson memorably put it: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943) (emphasis added).




Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 69 (2006) (recognizing that government may not “impose penalties or withhold benefits based on membership in a disfavored group” where doing so “ma[kes] group membership less attractive”). T






6:34 pm sunday may 16th 2021 tornillo v miami herald wooley v maynard riley v federation of the blind. opinion of the justices 1974 (DE). elections free and equal clause state constitution free press clause first amendment - free press clause first amendment free speech clause first amendment petition clause state constitution due course of law clause. 14th amendment due process clause. 14th amendment p & i clause 14th amendment equal protection clause. 6:06 pm sunday 6 14 pause. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware DC Florida Guam Peurto Rico Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Stewart contends that this case is controlled by McIntyre. Stewart is correct." Stewart v Taylor, cite 953 F.Supp.2d 1047 (S.D.Ind 1997.) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17152374949245405747&hl=en&as_sdt=2,23&as_vis=1 Table of cases ACLF, Buckley v. American Con. Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) 5, 6 ACLU v Heller, 378 F3d 979 (9th cir. 2004) 12 Anonymous v Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000) 1 Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540 (W.D.Ark 1998), sustained on other grounds 146 F.3d 558 (8th Cir 1998) 12 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U.S. 652 (1990) Barnette, West Virginia State Board of Education v., 319 U.S. 624 (1943) 6,7 Bates v Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960) 8 Belloti, First National Bank of Boston v, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) 2, 4, 5, 11, 15 Broadrick v Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) 9 Broward Coalition v Browning, http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/ first_amendment/florida/order_prelim_injunction.pdf. 3, 9, 10, 11 Brumsickle, Human Life of Wash.Inc. v., 624 F.3d 990, (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1477 (2011) 5 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) 10 Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012) 5 Citizens Aganst Rent Control v Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981) 13, 15 Citizens for Responsible Gov't State PAC v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, (10th Cir. 2000) 12 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) 2-5, 8, 11, 12, 15 Doe v Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998) 5, 11, 12, 14, FEC v Public Citizen, 268 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2001) 2, 4 Hansen v Westerville School District, 43 F.3d 1472 (1994) 13, 14 Majors v Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind. 2003), 361 F.2d 349 (7th Cir 2004) 1 McConnell v FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) 9 Estate of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com’n, 514 U.S. 334, 355 (1995) 1-8, 10, 12, 15 Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864, 875 (8th Cir. 2012) (en banc) 5 NAACP v Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) 7 Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee I, 649 F.3d 34, (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1635 (2012) 5 Nat’l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. McKee II, 669 F.3d 34, (1st Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 163 (2012) 5 Red Lion v. FCC, 395 U.S 367 (1969) 8 Reno v ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) 9 Riley v Nat’l.Fed’n of the Blind, 487 U.S 781 (1988) 6 Salerno, U.S v., 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 8 Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247, (10th Cir. 2010) 3 ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995), 12 Smithers v. Florida Elections Commission, No. 96-5705 (Fla. 2nd Cir., July 17, 1998) 5 Stewart v Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (1997) 1 Survival Ed. Fund, FEC v., 65 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 1995) 5 Talley v California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 Tornillo v. Miami Herald, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) 6 United States v. Playboy Ent. Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816 (2000) 11 Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, (2d Cir. 2000) 12 Washington State Grange, 552 U.S _ (2008) 9 Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York City v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, (2002) 6, 11 Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) 6 John Peter Zenger, Crown v., (1735) paused * 6:50 [13] But see Majors v. Abell, 361 F.3d 349, 356-57 (7th Cir.2004) (Easterbrook, J., dubitante). i, well my case, am, is, mentioned in citizens united. not the main case, but an earlier ruling. 7:02 pm sunday may 16 2021

utrillo 1927

7:32 wednesday may 12. goal: 1-2 hours on the case. now 9:07, so that's 1 hr 35 minutes call it 1.5x235= 350. 9:27 pm. .9:36. so 2.0 hours. may 12. 235x2= $ 470. possible next steps draft complaint draft subpoenas draft letter to ethics board requests for stipulations of fact and law. draft only do not file. complaint: section 8081 whatever is unconstitutional under both constitutions. caption needed in the chancery court of new castle county delaware anonymous v delaware, et al. state of delaware, new castle county, director of elections in official capacity, director of elections in personal capacity complaint for declaratory relief, damages, injunction, parties jurisdiction venue facts law claims relief complaint for declaratory relief, damages, injunction, parties plaintiff is john doe aka anonymous, is a person who wishes to put up signs that do not comply with the disclaimer statute. under rule 10, a motion is filed herewith to proceed under a fictitious name the first, and named, defendant is the state of delaware. it can be sued under the state declaratory judgment act. the state is not a person under 1983, but is sued as a matter of state law for declaratory relief. the second defendant is new castle county, and its chief election officer in her official capacity (only), per Monell. the third defendant is the state director of elections, in his personal and official capacities. name. the 4th defendant is the state attorney general, who is sued in official capacity, and in personal capacity for $1, for possibly conspiring with d3, if she had or has the requisite personal awareness. the 5th through 10th john doe defendants are any employees of d3 who conspired with him to carry out the unconstitutional statute and policy. jurisdiction. the chancery court has jurisdiction to address issues under the declaratory judgment act. anonymous v delaware 2000. the chancery court has concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims and 42 usc 1983. the dispute is justiciable, in that it is ripe, live, with standing, and remedy. venue venue is proper in new castle county delaware, where at least some defendants do business. facts a state statute prohibits citizens from putting up signs that say "vote for smith", if the value of the signs exceed $500. plaintiff wishes to put up such signs. plaintiff has been chilled from participating in the 2020 and 2021 elections, but wishes to participate in the fall elections in 2021. law The point of law at issue has been well established since 1960. Barnette in 1940 first announced a right to remain silent. the 1735 case of zenger v state was about the right to publish anonymously, and inspired the first amendment. During the civil rights era, three cases, NAACP v Alabama, Bates v Little Rock, and Talley v California, established a first amendment right of privacy and a freedom of association. Talley held that disclaimer ordinances are unconstitutional. It is binding here. In 1974, the delaware supreme court ruled on the right to anonymity of the ediorial page of the news journal, construing both the state constitution and the first amendment. That decision is binding on delaware courts. The state constitution also contains a free and equal elections section. Elections are not free where signs reading "Vote for Smith" are deemed unlawful. Elections are not equal where signs reading vote for smith are deemed unlawful. [It is content based discrimination, and must receive strict scrutiny.] this may be a case of first impression. Buckley v ACLF, Watchtower v Stratton, McIntyre v Ohio, Wooley v Maynard, Riley v Federation of the Blind, Tornillo v. Miami Herald, Janus, Becerra v NIFLA, AID v Open Society, each stand for the proposition that government may not compel speech. In or about 2013 the delaware elections board began enforcing a new version of the disclaimer statute. An unknown number of fines or threats of fines have followed. It is unethical, illegal, tortious, and morally wrong for delaware officials to be attempting to enforce the void statute. Beginning in 2020, shortly before the election, counsel for plaintiff wrote to d3 discussing the disclaimer rules. No reply was received until 2021. There followed a series of letters, exhibits 1-5. D3 refused to issue a formal opinion when requested, but replied that the statute would be enforced. The state attorney general refused to issue an opinion. claims the policy violates the free speech and press provisions of the delaware constitution. the policy violates the free and equal elections clause. the policy violates the first and 14th amendment, as construed by the delaware supreme court in 1974, and the united states supreme court in 1960, 1972, 1995, 1999, 2019. the policy violates 42 usc 1983 et seq on the basis of the first amendment violation. relief sought: plaintiff seeks a declaration that the statute is void, and cannot be enforced against him or her, damages as determined by a jury as against d3 and does 5-10. damages of $1 against the attorney general, that the statute be temporarily and permanently enjoined that d's be enjoined from retaliation, for legal fees and costs, for all other such relief as is in the interests of justice. motion for temporary injunction comes now plaintiff by counsel and for their motion for temporary injunctive relief states as follows. Injunctive relief weighs 4 factors, the likelihood of success on the merits, the burden on d's versus the burden on p's, redressibility, public interest. Here each factor favors movant. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the success of the merits of their first amendment claim, in that binding state and federal authority compels such an outcome. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the succeess of the merits of their state constitutional free speech claim, given the binding authority from 1974. Plaintiffs may or may not prevail on their free and equal elections claim, for which there is little or no controlling precedent. The burden on d's is minimal. No legitimate state interest is advanced by censorship of campaign signs. They need only go about their usual business. The burden on plaintiffs is intangible, but real. Elrod v Burns. They have been prevented from putting up signs in 2020 and 2021. Damages will only partially compensate for their injuries. A declaratory judgment from this court should redress the problem, since it is likely the election department would follow a court ruling, at least in the short term. The public interest is strong in a robust flow of election speech, unimpeded by unconstitutional censorship policies. Miller v ACLU of GA. Therefore, a temporary injunction should issue, later to be made permanent. draft letter to ethics board TO: the delaware ethics board: It has come to my attention that a state official, the elections department head, is engaged in unconstitutional censorship of political speech. this creates an appearance of impropriety, and thus is within the purview of your board. his policy of compelling speech on campaign signs violates the first amendment and the state constitution. his actions are on the one hand compelled by statute, but on the other hand prohibited by both of the constitutions he swore to uphold. in 1960 the supreme court ended california's jim crow policy of making black men identify themselves on fliers or face a $10 fine. later in 1995 margaret mcintyre resisted a $100 fine. woman are more vulnerable to threats and retaliation when their home address must be posted along with their message. disclaimer policies discriminate against and chill the speech of women, as well as minorities. the court has addressed the rights of anonymous petitioners in colorado, jehovah's witnesses in ohio, blind fundraisers, newspaper editorial pages, new hampshire license plates. each time in these cases the court has sided with free speech against censorship. when this situation goes to court, it could cost the state money and reputation. d3 could have limited his liability / culpability by requesting an attorney general opinion, given that the previous one is outdated in light of cases such as becerra, janus, aid, and the upcoming thomas more institute case, but refused to do so. offer consent decree. d's agree to stop enforcing the statute, and to stop communicating threats of enforcement. d's agree to pay x in costs and fees. d's agree to pay y in damages.

saturday did wine. sale of wine $9. bootlegging. fnb 6 boxes. left 2 dishes. gardening. bought 4 ties, something. $7. drove around, past winterthur, hokessin. found 2 drums, a symbol. a drummer's stool. a metal thing. more metal. sunday +$70 sold some items. Have you heard this rule? I before E, except after C — or when sounded like A as in 'neighbor' and 'weigh' Then my coworker shared this doozy! I before E...except in a zeitgeist of feisty counterfeit heifer protein freight heists reining in weird deified beige beings and their veiny and eidetic atheist foreign schlockmeister neighbors, either aweigh with feigned absenteeism, seized by heightened heirloom forfeitures (albeit deigned under a kaleidoscope ceiling weighted by seismic geisha keister sleighs) or leisurely reimbursing sovereign receipt or surveillance of eight veiled and neighing Rottweilers, herein referred to as their caffeinated sheik's Weimaraner poltergeist wieners from the Pleiades.

§ 5806. Code of conduct. (a) Each state employee, state officer and honorary state official shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that such state employee, state officer or honorary state official is engaging in acts which are in violation of the public trust and which will not reflect unfavorably upon the State and its government. 3) The Commission shall report to appropriate federal and state authorities substantial evidence of any criminal violation which may come to its attention; and (1) Issue a written reprimand or censure of that person’s conduct.