From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Aug 26, 2013 5:52 PM
To: JoAnne Denison
Cc: NASGA , probate sharks , “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>, john wyman , “firstname.lastname@example.org”
Subject: the act of Mr. Larkin in bring IARDC charges that he knows or should know with a scintilla of investigation to be a denial of Attorney First Amendment Rights
Senior attorney G in her letter of July 1, the Cyntha Farenga letter to now Senior Attorney B, the patently meritorious complaints filed by larkin against both you and me are without a doubt attempts to throw a monkey wrench into our calling on law enforcement to do an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation of the flood of elder cleansing cases that are now coming to light. Mary Sykes has been held by a Court lacking jurisdiction for more than four years and deprived of her liberty and property, Alice Gore had the atrocity of having her filings removed from her teeth and the gold not inventoried, Wyler was placed in a dangerous position and raped, etc
When these facts were brought up, Mr. Larkin as Administrator of the IARDC decided that you and I could not exercise our First Amendment Rights and call for an investigation and he unilaterally is engaged in an attempt to silence both of us (and others) by asking the Supreme Court to take our licenses from us. Larkin as an attorney is well aware of the First Amendment, and the recent Supreme Court of the US cases that create the rule of law that content based speech cannot be regulated by government. Indeed, Larkin is aware of the fact that judges are elected in Illinois and the pursuant to Citizen’s United he has no jurisdiction to interfere with our speech. Yet he persists in his prosecution of both of us. Such has a chilling effect on not only the Bar to speak out but for ordinary citizens.
Indeed, if Larkin has reviewed the Sykes file he is aware that the Sheriff has indicated by its records that Mary Sykes was never served with summons, and her two siblings (and youngest daughter) were similarly not served and did not waive the prior 14 days notice. Thus, as he is charged with knowledge of the law he is aware that the Court not only lacked jurisdiction but still lacks it. It is my contention that any attempt to shut up a citizen and stop him/her from reporting a crime – and violation of civil rights of a citizen is a crime – is obstruction of justice.
The following quote explains the basis of my opinion:
“The term “obstruction of justice” refers to efforts to impede the processes of legal justice, e.g., United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 598–602, 115 S.Ct. 2357, 132 L.Ed.2d 520 (1995), including the sentencing process (Buckley made no effort to obstruct the guilt determining process). United States v. Wells, 154 F.3d 412, 414 (7th Cir.1998); United States v. Green, 114 F.3d 613, 619–20 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Winston, 34 F.3d 574, 579–80 (7th Cir.1994); United States v. Gilbert, 173 F.3d 974, 979 (6th Cir.1999). We emphasize “efforts.” Obstruction of justice is a crime (more precisely a medley of crimes, see 18 U.S.C. ch. 73; Lisa R. Rafferty & Julie Teperow, “Obstruction of Justice,” 35 Am.Crim. L.Rev. 989 (1998), as well as a basis for enhanced punishment) of attempting; success is not an element in either situation. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1503; United States v. Aguilar, supra, 515 U.S. at 601–02, 115 S.Ct. 2357; United States v. Ewing, 129 F.3d 430, 435 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Muhammad, 120 F.3d 688, 694–95 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405, 1410 (9th Cir.1997). When obstruction takes the form, as in this case, of perjury or other lying, see, e.g., United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 93–94, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993); United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574, 57 S.Ct. 535, 81 L.Ed. 808 (1937); United States v. Hach, 162 F.3d 937, 948–49 (7th Cir.1998); United States v. Molina, 172 F.3d 1048, 1058 (8th Cir.1999); U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 and Application Note 4, the materiality of the lie becomes a focus of inquiry because a lie that is immaterial to the justice process is not a potential interference with it. See United States v. Barrett, 111 F.3d 947, 953 (D.C.Cir.1997); United States v. Surasky, 976 F.2d 242, 246 n. 5 (5th Cir.1992). But because the offense is one of attempting rather than of succeeding in obstructing justice, all that is required for a lie to be material is that it could, to some reasonable probability, affect the outcome of the process (here, the sentence). U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, Application Note 6; United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995); United States v. Craig, 178 F.3d 891, 901–02 (7th Cir.1999); United States v. Sarihifard, 155 F.3d 301, 306 (4th Cir.1998). That it did not actually affect it is—immaterial. E.g., United States v. Harrison, 42 F.3d 427, 430 (7th Cir.1994); United States v. DeZarn, 157 F.3d 1042, 1051–52 (6th Cir.1998); United States v. Sarihifard, supra, 155 F.3d at 306; Kathryn Kavanaugh Baran & Rebecca I. Ruby, “Perjury,” 35 Am.Crim. L.Rev. 1035, 1049–52 (1998).
45 The purpose of punishing obstruction of justice is not just to prevent miscarriages of justice but also to reduce the burden on the justice system. United States v. Norris, supra, 300 U.S. at 574, 57 S.Ct. 535; United States v. Wells, supra, 154 F.3d at 414–15. If a defendant throws a monkey wrench into it the system is damaged even if the only cost is that of removing the monkey wrench before it can wreck the system. Which is what happened here. By falsely denying that he had had the BB gun with him during the robbery, Buckley induced the probation service to search around for an alternative basis for the dangerous-weapon enhancement; and since a briefcase does not look like a dangerous weapon, or indeed a weapon of any sort, there was some chance that the judge, if she believed Buckley’s lie about the gun, would not impose a dangerous-weapon *711 enhancement at all. Buckley tried to gum up the works, and the probation service, the U.S. Attorney’s office, and the district judge all had to spend time to remove the gum. No more is necessary to establish an obstruction of justice and require the obstruction of justice enhancement.” United States v. Buckley, 192 F.3d 708, 710-11 (7th Cir. 1999)
The more I think about this situation the more obscene this entire situation has become. By without any tangible evidence and ignoring the evidence before it, Larkin has done more to obstruct justice than Buckley. In fact, knowing that he cannot be delegated any authority to regulate speech, Larkin and his minions have by continuing the meritless attempt to silence you and I is making a substantial assault on the American Constitution and in light of Citizens United, Alvarez, Brown, Stephan, New York Times (both cases) etc cannot deny or claim that Rule of Law prohibits his (and his minions) actions.
In light of the clear rulings of Citizens United, Alvarez, Brown et al the claim of acting in a ‘judicial capacity’ is about as thin as attempting to defend a false imprisonment case on the authority of Dred Scott! Frankly – I am tired of being harassed! I copied Senator Kirk and Attorney General Holder on this e-mail! No – I am not repentant for exercizing my First Amendment Rights! Yes you and anyone else who desires may publish these comments. I as a citizen am demanding that I be afforded EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. If Mr. Buckley committed Obstruction of Justice, the Mr. Larkin in denying my (and your) First Amendment Rights (in light of the specific rulings in Citizens United, Alvarezk, Brown, et al) has equally committed obstruction of justice and *****.
We need an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of Sykes and all related cases including the ‘cover up’ and concerted actions directed at thwarting a proper investigation. This investigation should include looking into the actions of public and judicial officials and particular the attempts to deny a citizen (who happens to be lawyer) of his First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.