For those of you not familiar with the concept of infinity in math, let me give you a view:

Okay, maybe that’s a bit fanciful, but you get the point.

In any case, Ken is feeling a bit down today, after trying to explain the First Amendment over and over to everyone assuring people we do have this right and government is not going to come into your computers and laptops anytime soon, analyze what you have written today and send you to prison.

No, Virginia, that’s what they do in North Korea and Saudi
Arabia, you silly.  We have the constitution here.  Don’t you recall 6th grade history?

My proposition is that the First Amendment is infinite to the point of blatantly lying.  Making stuff up.  Putting your imagination on paper and swearing it’s true.

I assure you all, I have never, never done that.  In fact, under the infinity of the
First Amendment, it’s up to the ARDC to prove everything I said on this blog was utterly false.

For those of you that do not understand this concept, please read the book “The Bretheren”.  It is about SCOTUS a few decades back.  The interesting part of the book is where it talks about how the Justices used to get involved with every X rated movie or suspected X rated movie and like “goin’ to the show with a regular guy”, they actually sat down on Sunday afternoons and watched all US porn and rated it and then gave it the “obscene” mark or “not obscene” judgment.  Kind of silly, right?  But, hey, maybe it was good for Mrs. Justice at about 6 pm on Sunday, so who knows.  That part wasn’t in the book and I can only imagine.

So, eventually, the US Supremes decided even that was silly (maybe they stopped putting real butter on the popcorn and went to margarine, who knows), and they just decided individual communities could have “community obscenity standards” and they let that all go.

So see the exchange below between myself and Ken, and DON’T PUT IT PAST ME,  a few of you write and I will skillfully execute and post an original artwork making fun of me in men’s whitie tighties, a cigar and whatever other silliness you want, aka “mirth and girth”.

Let’s see if LB and Jerome Larkin rise to that task! (I bet they don’t and I tell you right now the only word for that is pompous a***).

Dear Ken;

You can paint me in men’s underwear whitie tighties smoking a cigar with pasties on ANYTIME.  I will even post it on my blog.

It is someone else’s first amendment right to make fun of me and I don’t care.

You’re right.  Why don’t people understand the first amendment and what our founding fathers and mothers (okay it took them 200 years to get the right to vote and equal rights and maybe CEDAW soon), but in 1776 a daring bunch of educated persons knew it and put it into the constitution.

The ARDC fully well knows what it is doing is wrong. They have no right to regulate my blog for the fairly mundane statements (compare to cable TV) on my blog.

They don’t go after cable TV, and there’s no reason to go after my blog.  Period.

What right do they have?  Go after cable TV, dish network, Hustler, Playboy,
Skin-a-Max, Maury, Sallie Jessie, any daytime TV, etc.  Then when you get done with all that–go after my blog.

Does that make the point any easier to understand?

Who am I compared to all that trash.

joanne

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 8, 2013 9:00 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison , j ditkowsky , Michigan Advocacy Project , Janet Phelan , “janetbedin@gmail.com” , NASGA , probate sharks
Subject: Re: Permission to publish

I understand that completely – however I have two problems  1) Apparently I have not been able to make my point with anyone.   that point is  – the ‘core’ of our democracy is the First Amendment.   This document applies to everyone, and if anyone is denied his her rights we all lose.   The first amendment applies to not only what we like, but what we do not like.   I was not thrilled to see an artist depict Mayor Washington in women’s underwear – however, I unlike a bunch of alderman did not try to interfere with the artist’s free speech.  I defended the right.
2) the second problem is political.   The energy that is wasted being pawns to the miscreants would better be spent in writing to law enforcement demanding an honest investigation into how in America senior citizens can be subjected = while everyone watches – to depriviation of liberty, property, civil rights and human rights by ‘judicial officials’ who have sworn to protect those rights.

More importantly is how hypocritical we are if we allow ourselves for personal reasons to be pawns in the effort to deny senior citizens who are targeted by the ‘judicial officials’ to be deprived of their liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.

The mission is very simple even though I have been unable to express it to even my friends – like RP, MLK, HB, TM, AWH, FF we are called upon to defend the First, Fifth and Fourteenth amendment rights of all including attorneys who have offended the likes of CF, AS, MS, LB, PS, et al.   (Note – I used initials!   Is that unethical?   The Denison complaint appears to suggest it is.   GW, AH, TJ, JA appear to disagree but as the founding fathers are all dead they will not respond at this time to a subpoena.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/