From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Nov 3, 2013 6:11 AM
To: JoAnne M Denison , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG”
Cc: Atty Amu ‘Lanu — honest atty oppressed by ARDC
Subject: Re: objections to ARDC
I welcome all efforts that foster and promote the ‘core’ values of America. I learned a long time ago that all the brains did not go in my head.
My objection was based upon Mr. Amu’s e-mail that I responded to yesterday morning. An effective defense has to be based upon knowledge of the subject matter and the law. A defense has to be based upon knowing and understanding the cases and the effect – and most importantly understanding the First Principles of America Law.
The National Socialist credo of the IARDC exhibited in decision in Mr. Amu’s case is most troubling. It was not troubling that they found the facts to be contrary to Mr. Amu’s version, but, it was horrible that they ignored the ‘standard of proof’ and created presumptions that were contrary to law. Like it or not this outrage was and is only the tip of the iceberg.
The ‘core’ values of American democracy are found in the ‘Bill of Rights’ – the First ten amendments to the Constitution and repeated in Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution. The fact that the hearing panel repudiated the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in their condescending writing is my focus and the reason that I wrote the Attorney General of the United States to demand an investigation of the obvious racial nexus of the decision. Wherefore does any State of Illinois institution treat another citizen as a second class citizen! Wherefore does any State of Illinois institution deny another citizen his/her First Amendment Rights.
A little over a half century ago in Germany people who exhibited similar disrespect for the equality and rights of man plunged the world in war over this very issue. The Amu decision by the hearing panel of the IARDC demonstrates that Mr. Larkin and his minions have learned absolutely nothing! 42 USCA 1983 has been violated and we all have to call upon the Attorney General of the United States to investigate and punish this outrage.
The Illinois Registration and Discipline Commission attorneys should quite definitely file their annual statements of economic interest and should be like Caesar’s wife. The Commission should demonstrate respect for individual rights and in particular respect for Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the public policy of the State of Illinois as stated in 735 ILCS 110/5.
I am concerned that the Amu case, and in particular the treatment that he received, and the words and phrases of the Hearing Board decision are manifestations of a basis having a racial nexus or worse. I do not believe that it makes any difference whatsoever if Amu’s critical comments concerning the judges engaged in his cases is true or false. They are absolutely privileged. More importantly the IARDC was not provided jurisdiction to interfere or impede Amu’s free speech.
If you get into the nitty gritty of whether or not Amu is accurate, justified, or ***** the important issue gets side-tracked. Side-tracking the wrongful conduct of government entities is the method by which despots are able to remain in power and continue to prey on the public.
It is too easy to divert the attention of the public by taking one or more of Amu’s statements out of context render it intemperate or nutzy and the criminal violations of 42 USCA 1981 – 1983 fall by the wayside. This is exactly what the hearing panel and the IARDC attorneys appear to have attempted so that they could use color of statute to deny him his rights as a citizen. DO NOT FALL INTO THIS TRAP.
And think about all of this logically. Mr. Amu received very unusual, not ordinary decisions: the court ruled there was no effective service when in fact it was undisputed a gas station attendant working for Defendant gas station received a copy of a summons and complaint from a process server in one case and in another, the Mega Corp defendant took from August to December to file a reponse, the judge gave Mega Corp all that time which they effectively used to file a 113 page motion to dismiss. The judge then turned around and told Mr. Amu he had only 7 days to answer and not the more typical 21 to 28 days to answer!
Of course Mr. Amu fully and promptly informed his clients this was highly unusual and he could opine as much as he wanted to about what was actually going on behind the scenes. His clients were not stupid, they knew there was something fishy afoot in Law Division.
Attys have to be honest to their clients. And Mr. Amu then filed an appropriate pleading based upon his opinions and thoughts. Pleadings are 100% protected speech. If the court wants to discipline an attorney, it has Rule 137 sanctions. The ARDC was not there, they were not involved. The judge controls his or her own courtroom.
The judge dismissed these cases and they were over. Mr. Amu published his thoughts and opinions on his blog. At that point in time, they become political speech, and political speech is one of the types of speech which should receive the highest protection under the US constitution. The judge is a political, elected figure, or the appointee of a political, elected figure. The comments, as they are recent, are also newsworthy and consist of a collection of thoughts and opinions of an attorney who worked on a case. The public has a right to know those as long as the atty is willing to disseminate those on a blog.
So, all in all, the most salient portions of why Mr. Amu was also railroaded and his case is outrageous is:
1) pleadings are protected 100% by the first amendment to vigorously represent a client, and if the atty suspects something fishy, he can opine on that in a pleading;
2) newsworthy exception. Mr. Amu and his clients may freely publish their thoughts about their recently dismissed case without interference or thought police involvement
3) opinions exception. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
4) opinions concerning a political, elected official. These should be afforded the highest protection because they ensure an open, free and democratic society. One that is strong and impervious to anarchy because it is transparent, honest, open and ethical and the people are satisfied this is true.
5) famous figure. Since judges are elected and are well known in their relevant court system among attorneys and the litigants, they arise to being famous in that relevant marketplace and criticisms can flow freely.
If any one can think of other exceptions why this speech should have been afford the highest protections allowable, plmk.