From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Nov 13, 2013 2:54 PM
To: “firstname.lastname@example.org” , Tim NASGA , “NASGA@verizon.net” , probate sharks , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org”
Subject: 1983 claim
“A civil conspiracy claim may also serve as a source of § 1983 liability provided the plaintiff can show that “he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law.” Kelley v. Myler, 149 F.3d 641, 648 (7th Cir.1998). The conspiracy itself is not an independent basis of § 1983 liability; there must be an underlying constitutional injury or the attendant conspiracy claim necessarily fails. See Hill v. City of Chicago, No. 06 C 6772, 2009 WL 174994, at *9 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 26, 2009). “To be liable as a conspirator [a defendant] must be a voluntary participant in a common venture … [and] it is enough if [the defendant] understand[s] the general objectives of the scheme, accept[s] them, and agree[s], either explicitly or implicitly, to do [his] part to further them.” Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 992 (7th Cir.1988).
*754 910 ” Finally, in some circumstances, a state actor’s failure to intervene in a violation of an another’s constitutional rights can serve as a basis for § 1983 liability. See Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1064 (7th Cir.2005) (“In order for there to be a failure to intervene, it logically follows that there must exist an underlying constitutional violation.”). A plaintiff may state a claim for failure to intervene by showing that “any constitutional violation has been committed by a law enforcement official; and the [defendant] had a realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the harm from occurring.” Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir.1994) (emphasis omitted).” Hobbs v. Cappelluti, 899 F. Supp. 2d 738, 752-54 (N.D. Ill. 2012)
I was reading some law this afternoon – in fact – I was researching the status of a State employee (an ARDC attorney or administrator) who knows of should know that in bringing a disciplinary case he/she is acting beyond the delegation of his/her agency. Simply put, every attorney at the IARDC is fully aware that he/she and Mr. Larkin lack the jurisdiction to interfere with your or my First Amendment Rights. The Attorney who as an example as me if I was repentant for writing to the Attorney General of the United States obviously knew that I had a right to write the AG. LB knew that her taking words and phrases out of context in my e-mails was a violation of my First Amendment Rights, and Mr. Larkin knew that the complaint filed against me was clearly a 42 USCA 1983 violation. These are givens. As these actions were all unethical and possibly criminal (violation of civil rights of a citizen is criminal act) pursuant to Himmel I have made the appropriate reports; however, as the violation of my rights continues I have to consider more aggressive action than an IARDC complaint.
It occurred to me, and I ferreted it out, to wit:
A plaintiff may state a claim for failure to intervene by showing that “any constitutional violation has been committed by a law enforcement official; and the [defendant] had a realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the harm from occurring.” Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir.1994) (emphasis omitted).” Hobbs v. Cappelluti, 899 F. Supp. 2d 738, 752-54 (N.D. Ill. 2012)
Thus, these very same attorneys have an affirmative duty to me. They also have a duty to Mary, Gloria, yourself et al. By accepting a public official position Mr. Larkin and his staff by writing statements such as ‘Mr. Stern is the guardian for Gloria’ ‘ there are no gold coins’ etc are culpable in an 1983 case.
The next area of inquiry is the culpability of the ‘hearing boards!’ Can they rubber-stamp these outrageous, wrongful, and possibly criminal actions? THE FACT REMAINS – THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR IN POINTING OUT THAT THE RULE OF LAW IS THAT POLITICAL AND CONTENT RELATED SPEECH CANNOT BE IMPEDED, CENSORED OR INTERFERED WITH! LAWYERS HAVE SWORN OATHS TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW. A POLICEMAN AND/OR A JUDGE IS NOT GIVEN LIBERTY TO DEPRIVE ANOTHER CITIZEN OF LIBERTY.