because increduously, they just disqualified Atty Ken Ditkowsky as my attorney!
The first thing you do, when you really have no case is get rid of opposing counsel on a bogus motion to disqualify. That is what happened here. The ARDC says “there might be a conflict”–no there is not–we are on the same side, reporting on misconduct and lack of jurisdiction in the Mary G Sykes case. The ARDC says it wants to use him as a witness regarding the blog, but in reality, I run the blog, the blog is mine, and there is nothing to question him about. The documents speak for themselves. The blog speaks for itself. I have heard no adverse comments to this blog, only laudatory, confirming comments that there IS a problem with jurisdiction in the Mary G Sykes case, that justice must be done there and in other cases lacking jurisdiction–Taylor, Gore, Drabik, Bedin, Spera, Wyman. There are others I cannot mention because I have been asked not to mention them, the victims are soooo afraid of probate court and their GAL’s.
I don’t understand all of this. Ken Ditkowsky has come up with wonderful, wonderful cases to send to Attys Larkin, Haspel and Opryczek–all ignored. The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) makes it clear whatever you put on the internet–you have no liability, except for copyright infringement–and I have done none of that. My posts are my own, I always ask to publish. The ARDC has no complaint about that.
My blog is like a book. I have never heard of a lawyer disciplined for writing a book–the content of a book is clearly first amendment protected.
So why then, are they rubber stamping all of the ARDC’s motions and denying me my choice of counsel. I have a 6th and 14th amendment right to the counsel of my choice. All the ARDC attorneys did was cite a bunch of criminal law cases about co-defendants. It was crazy. They can’t question KDD because he has no first hand knowledge of blogs or blogging. He doesn’t run my blog, I do.
Time to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. I need the findings of fact and conclusions of law ASAP.
If we have to, we need to take it to US Supreme Court.
I don’t understand why I can’t freely write about corruption and blog.
The concept that KDD “might” be a “witness” is bogus. Further, the concept that I cannot have him for my counsel up until trial is further bogus and just use another attorney then is bogus. I asked for that and they turned down my request. I have seen courts do that one over and over, just bring in another atty for quesitoning your own atty, which as we know, questioning an atty is generally a waste of time.
AS and CF said there was jurisdiction at the ARDC hearing–despite the fact that Yolanda and Josepine both have exeucted affidavits they were never served with the 14 day prior notice of time, date and place of hearing. The hearing panel today wasn’t concerned one bit that the ARDC was promulgating that big hairy lie. They didn’t want to hear it. A probate court without jurisdiction for 3 years.
Can someone please explain all of this to me?