From: JoAnne M Denison <email@example.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: what is so difficult understanding the First Amendment.
She’s kind of funny. She obviously follows my blog, but is highly critical of it–generally I think for just being a bit outrageous with my phraseolgy from time to time, but then again, I am nothing compared to the 1000 stations of trash we have on our home Dishnetwork satellite dish. She isn’t going to like you using F and stars, that’s for sure. But I grew up with 4 brothers, I have 3 sons and there’s something about swearing and fighting that goes with testosterone. I throw them all outside for it.
North Korea bans cell phones. Saudi Arabia does not let women drive and they cannot travel without a male relative, they cannot vote. Women lawyers in Iran fighting for democracy and women’s rights are having their parental rights terminated and children taken away by the state.
In 1932, the German government kicked out all the Jewish lawyers from the city courts.
But the ARDC is worried about my blog I have looked at the results of hundreds of ARDC disciplinary actions over the years. Yours and mine are only for free speech and a blog–the only ones.
Mary had a right to your investigating her case. Connors never had jurisdiction over you. Then you spoke out. Where was the misconduct? Justice must not come from “a list”.
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 9, 2013 10:36 AM
To: JoAnne Denison
Subject: what is so difficult understanding the First Amendment.The discourse that we all have been having is interesting as we all have the very same interest, i.e. protecting the senior citizen from being the victim of ‘judicial officials’ who based upon avarice have or are attempting to deprive a senior of his/her liberty and property rights.The current discussion involves whether lawyers can be muzzled by the State ARDC and be punished for speaking out. As the subject has never been addressed head on by the United States Supreme Court an analogy seems appropriate:The best analogy is the public university setting. Can a university student on his blog use an obscene word to describe university action as an example. Papish 410 US 667 involved the University publication (written) that came out with the word MF in its headline. The Supreme Court following its prohibition of ‘content’ based censorship ruled the University censorship violated the First Amendment.The cases are well established that the attempt to regulate speech is a ‘no – no’ This includes:Keywbian 354 US 234 refusual to discuss content of courseSwezzy 354 US 234 Attempt to prevent teachers from expressing non-mainstream viewsHealy v James 408 uS 169 – baring group because of reputation for violencethese are older cases, but with Alvarez recently decided it is clear that government cannot regulate directly or indirectly what we think, what we say, or how we express it. *&^*()() F***ing x, y, and z cannot do a F ***ing thing about the fact that I think it is corrupt that there are judges outthere administrating laws that they should have read and have not. As long as the words are content based the ARDC has absolutely no right to make the determination that my words interfere with the administration of justice or reflect badly on the justice system.Indeed, I have the right to speak out whenever and where-ever I want and point out that it is F***ing corrupt for the ARDC to use public funds to attempt to deny a lawyer of his/her First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. I also have the right not to use impolite phrases in English Spanish or any other language I desire. Content based censorship is illegal – the use of any government funds to aid and abet such action is a misuse of public funds and in my opinion may (and should be) subject to criminal penalties.Let me make this very clear – you and I have an absolute right to disagree loudly and openly. No one has a right to deny the First Amendment Right to our content based speech.Now let us go one step further as we beat this subject to death. University conduct codes one after another have been struck down by the lower Courts. The Supreme Court has not had to express and opinion on the subject. Of course, as the latest exchange of e-mails has developed it is a good thing I never chose to be a teacher – I cannot make the point to choir. Fortunately, except for the miscreants most lawyers feel and obligation to stare decisis and follow the law.Ken Ditkowsky