It is interesting that the Farenga letter (smoking gun) has not stirred up an immediate hue and cry among all the ‘good people!’ It is similar to the various ‘Taliban’ calls to recruit its suicide bombers! In her letter Farenga is unequivocal in recruiting the IARDC to do an illegal and unconstitutional act. [Investigate KDD for calling for an investigation–which should have triggered a claim against her for obstruction of justice]. The record reflects their attornment! How much more overt can one get.
It is a criminal act for citizens to use their governmental positions to deny other citizens of their constitutional Rights. The days of “Bull Connor” have not come to an end and the clout heavy political elite are so sure of the attornment of IARDC (in Illinois) that they actually put in writing (i.e. the Farenga letter) the call to commit criminal acts.
What surprises me is that Farenga did not use her fertile imagination and try to disguise her complaint so that it could not so easily be identified as a First Amendment claim. She could have claimed:
1) that I paraded at veteran’s funerals carrying signs [that god hates f***s and that’s why vets die because LGTB get constitutional rights]; or
2) that I depicited her and Adam Stern in violent videos [squishing small creatures with stilleto heels], or
3) I claimed to be a medal winner, or
4) I painted a picture of a judge in women’s underwear
5) I was using my corporation’s funds to aid in the election of honest ‘judicial officials’
Instead she claimed that I was calling for an investigation of her and the Sykes case. The First Amendment prohibition on government preventing dissent or citizens calling for an investigation of political figures is core. Four of the five examples cited above involve factual scenarios that the US Supreme Court has ruled were protected free speech. Item 4 is a 7th circuit case depictiing free speech. The Administrator of the IARDC is presumed to know all about the Rule of Law. Ms. Farenga as she holds herself out as an attorney is also presumed to know the Rule of Law.
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
Now the ARDC contends that attys must be “more proscribed” in their speech and manners, and no one can make false accusations, but then again, look at all the missteps, twisted accusations and blatant lies and misrepresentations in KDD’s trial. Could the Tribunal have bent over more backwards for the miscreants? They basically were bending over, grabbing their ankles, waiting for the pounding, whilst all the while saying “thank you sirs, we have been naughty!” over and over.
MaryGSykes.com 