photo by: Austin Hornbostel

Douglas County Sheriff's Office deputies handcuff frequent anti-mask protester Justin Spiehs on Wednesday, April 20, 2022, at the Douglas County Courthouse.

An anti-mask protester filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the Douglas County sheriff and county commissioners, adding to other lawsuits he has filed against the City of Lawrence, the public library and the Lawrence school district.

The suit is the third filed in the U.S. District Court of Kansas by protester Justin Spiehs, 42, who is now living in Johnson County, and he is represented by Linus Baker of Stilwell. He filed one against the city and library in November and another against the school district in December, as the Journal-World reported.

The suits relate to Spiehs’ conduct during public comment at government meetings or at public events from which he was either removed or silenced when he displayed vulgar signs or spoke in a rude or obscene manner. The suits allege that his viewpoints were discriminated against compared to other public commenters.

The new suit names Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister, two sheriff’s deputies, County Clerk Jamie Shew, county commissioners Shannon Reid, Patrick Kelly and Karen Willey, and former commissioner Shannon Portillo.

The suit claims that the County Commission has no set rules or regulations on public comments and that he was repeatedly discriminated against in 2021 while protesting mask mandates at county meetings. The suit said that on Jan. 12, 2022, he was not allowed into the commission meeting at all because he was not wearing a mask. He claims that he had a medical exemption to mask wearing that deputies refused to consider and that they told him to participate online instead.

The tension between Spiehs and the County Commission came to a head on April 20, 2022, when Spiehs was removed by Armbrister and one of the deputies after he attended the meeting and campaigned for a seat on the commission carrying a sign that said: “Dr. Spiehs For DGCO Commissioner (expletive) These Liberal Mother(expletives).” Spiehs claims that the commission conspired with Armbrister to have him removed as soon as he arrived.

photo by: Austin Hornbostel

Frequent anti-mask protester Justin Spiehs is pictured with a sign on Wednesday, April 20, 2022, at the Douglas County Courthouse. The Journal-World has obscured the obscene language on the sign.

“These defendants engaged in deliberative, intentional, and premediated agreements and conspiracies to restrict, retaliate, and punish Dr. Spiehs for his protected First Amendment activity,” the suit said.

The suit claims that Armbrister spoke with commissioners before the meeting where they instructed Armbrister to remove Spiehs.

Armbrister ultimately asked Spiehs to leave the meeting after he engaged in a verbal dispute with another participant at the meeting. Armbrister took Spiehs’ sign and tossed it away and instructed a deputy to arrest Spiehs for disorderly conduct. Spiehs was taken to jail and bonded out; the misdemeanor charge was later dismissed.

Spiehs argues that by removing him from that meeting and silencing him on other occasions, the commission violated his First Amendment rights and that his public comment containing “personal attacks, campaigning, vulgar, rude, and inappropriate speech are each protected speech.”

He further argues that in the subsequent months the commission altered its method of broadcast on YouTube and stopped publishing the public comment section online because YouTube was unpublishing the commission’s videos because of the obscene language being used during public comment.

“The Commission so much covets the ability to publish, record, and livestream its open meetings on YOUTUBE that it would ratify YOUTUBE’S manipulation of public debate,” the suit said.

The suit claims that the commission’s actions were done in retaliation against Spiehs’ viewpoints in a “malicious” and “callous” way, alleging that Spiehs has suffered “shock, fright, anxiety, mental distress, annoyance, vexation, humiliation, loss of freedom, pain and suffering during the arrest and confinement, isolation from friends and family, loss of dignity, loss of reputation and loss of enjoyment of life.”

He seeks for the court, among other things, to declare that his vulgar sign and comments he made prior to his arrest for disorderly conduct do not legally constitute “fighting words” and that his conduct was not criminal. He asks the court to prevent the commission from removing him or silencing him for speech that the commission deems off-topic, vulgar, inappropriate, rude, or constitutes campaigning. He is also seeking punitive damages, though the suit does not specify the amount.

Spiehs’ conduct while protesting led to at least one other arrest that resulted in his being charged with multiple felonies after threatening a man and his 9-year-old child at a vaccine clinic in November of 2021. He ultimately entered into a plea agreement that reduced the felony charges to two misdemeanor counts, and he was convicted of child endangerment and endangerment.

photo by: Chris Conde/Journal-World

Justin Spiehs writes a note for his attorney during a preliminary hearing on April 21, 2022.