Subject: Re: First Amendment
I am not a Brodsky ‘fan’ and mirror your opinions; however, when the judge sentenced Peterson the case was over. The appeal is a separate proceeding which has a low chance of success. In fact if you examine the record you will find that the judge leaned over backwards to give Peterson just about every break. This judge was like Cesar’s wife – 100% pure and judicial. He was faced with lawyers (led by Brodsky) who acted as clowns. they wore similar outfits, sun glasses, gave absurd press conferences, and strutted like ******. Peterson acted like a juvenile delinquent. the judge did not think that they stepped over the line as he did not order them to ‘grow up’ and he did not hold anyone in contempt.
Thus, a jury found Peterson guilty. It is going to be difficult sell to say that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and therefore the focus of an appeal is going to purely technical. 1) the hearsay evidence and 2) the incompetence of counsel.
Brodsky is a citizen of the United States of America and therefore protected by the First Amendment. It may be heresy to think this way but the attack on Brodsky’s First Amendment Rights is an attack on our rights. The fact that Brodsky did you wrong and would not stand up to protect your rights is irrelevant. Any attempt to muzzle another citizen is intolerable. The credo of America is “I may disagree with you, but I will fight to death to protect your right to do so!”
This is an really important point in the fight against ‘elder abuse’ and ‘financial exploitation of the elderly’ by “judicial officials” The ARDC and other lawyer regulators was not given any mandate or delegation to silence dissent, protest, or any speech. The idea that lawyers can or should be intimidated is a novel custom but not a new one. A lawyer is engaged to represent his clients best interest in an appropriate manner. He is not engaged to win a popularity contest or develop a ‘fan club.’ The ARDC should spend its time investigating how it is that a Court sans jurisdiction allowed “judicial officials” under its supervision to separate your mother from her liberty, her property, and her human rights. The ARDC and law enforcement should investigate how it is that a million dollars in gold coins was not inventoried by a ‘judicial official’ appointed by a Court sans jurisdiction. The ARDC should investigation how in derogation of the mandate of the Article 11a of the Probate Act and in particular 755 ILCS 5/11a – 17 and 755 ILCS 5/11a -18 Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and Troepe can isolate, segregate, and prevent your mother from calling you or visiting you (or her two siblings).
I am aware Ms. Sykes that the ARDC apparently finds nothing wrong with the aforesaid acts as it investigates Ms. Denison and myself for complaining about the ‘above’ situation, writing to the Attorney General of the United States and other citizens about this situation. The fact is however, that one wrong does not make another wrong right! The fact is that Democracy is not a spectator sport and we have to stand up and be counted not only when the Civil rights of friends are being violated, but also when those we do not hold in high regard are also threatened.