From Ken Ditkowsky–he re-reads Atty Larkins brief and finds no case support

for regulating non commercial speech, the ability of Illinois attorneys to speak out against corruption, and to further the goals of truth and justice in our society.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 23, 2013 5:29 PM
To: JoAnne Denison
Cc: “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , Don Johnson
Subject: Fw: WestlawNext – Reichle v. Howards

The ball keep rolling along.   I do not know if I sent you this case before.   It is a clear statement as to the qualified immunity situation.   It also is another confirmation that Mr. Larkin’s actions are clearly ultra-vires and he is aware of the same.
I read Larkin’s brief again. (before the Review Commission) If ever there was an example of disrespect for the Rule of Law the brief meets that criterion.  Each of the ‘older’ Supreme Court cases that Larkin cites makes it very clear that Attorneys do have First Amendment Rights and there is no room for larkin or anyone else to impead content related speech.
The Sawyer case as an example held for the attorney.   It found that there was no impairment by local rule or otherwise to stop her from speaking out.   Not one of the Supreme Court cases cited by Larkin comes close to suggesting that an Administrator has to power or the jurisdiction to stop an attorney from speaking out on any content related or political subject.   There is some indication that an attorney’s advertising has to be reasonable, but, as judges are elected officials they are subject to critical comment as such is required by a free electorate.
This stuff is so basic that it ‘hurts’ that such ignorance of the basic principles of American society are not readily understood and protected.   Something is wrong when lawyers are paid by the State of Illinois and do not exhibit the knowledge that pre-teens are required to exhibit to get into ‘high school’     If Lawyers are ignorant as to the the basic protections afforded all citizens how are they competent to advise the public!   Indeed, why is the IARDC not bringing proceedings against these lawyers who represent themselves to be attorneys and have no idea as to what the First Amendment specifies!
I do not know how the public protects itself from this terrible situation, but it certainly has to do so – I can understand a lawyer having no familiarity with section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, but, a lawyer no knowing that other lawyers have the right to communicate with the Attorney General of the United STates and law enforcement is too much!!
I realize that Mr. Larkin, the IARDC, and the miscreants expect that you and I will shake in our boots because of the disciplinary proceedings that have been wrongfully brought against us; however, if they read the cases that recently were handed down by the United States Supreme Court ****.
What is interesting is the fact that Larkin is so reluctant to join in calling for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case and its related miscreants.   I guess trying to explain the non-action on the citizen complaint letters is too much of a challenge.   Certainly our friends letters that have been furnished during discovery are hard to explain.   Judy has a thing about that letter from CF rationalizing that there could be no gold coins as if they existed Gloria would have been expected by her (CF) to have stolen them!!   Indeed, that suggests to me that such is exactly what happened when CT got into the safety deposit box.    How else could CT have afforded (with her husband unemployed and having been just days before pecuniarily embarrassed) the house remodeling and the lavish wedding for her daughter.
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Dear Ken;

It is indeed a sad day when lawyers cannot speak out against corruption and point out cases where jurisdiction is lacking–Sykes, Bedin, Wyman, Marcelle, etc.  And when jurisdiction is pointed out to the ARDC, they do not consider it a “serious matter” enough to launch an honest, complete and thorough investigation into these cases to protect the human and civil rights of the disabled persons involved.  It is indeed very disappointing.

Attys Larkin, SO and MS are silent on this at best, moving to strike valuable evidence from the file at worst.

How did these attorneys get to work for the ARDC and why aren’t they helping out probate victims rather than going after honest and ethical attorneys?  Have they no shame?  Is there nothing too low and evil they can aspire to?

I thought that the ARDC was a bastion of ethics, morals and lofty ideas for the attorneys in the State of Illinois.  It should be a break away from the lack of civilization we see, even in Chicago, with dozens shot and murdered on the South and West sides and the City just says “hire more cops” when the reality is, we do nothing to teach peace and love.  And the true peace and love comes from our own innate ability to see truth, peace, justice and equities done in the world.

Let’s keep on going and keep on reminding people that the most important thing for Chicagoans to do right now is to band together for the loftier goals of peace, love, justice, truth, equity and all the wonderful things we have been given to distribute in the world.

The world doesn’t have to be a scary place for seniors, their homes and property.

You and I can change that, Ken.

JoAnne

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s