The Shifting Sands of the IARDC interpretation of the Sawyer case

Dear Ken;

I noted that too.  At first the IARDC was of the opinion that the Sawyer case held that an attorney could NOT criticize a law, a statute, a court proceeding a judge or his decision.  I have published that on my blog repeatedly it is exactly the opposite–that a lawyer can in fact criticize a judge, a law, a statute, a court proceeding and a decision.  So they have given up on everything but the judge.

Here’s the problem.  Many judges, I have found from the public records, (many in Atty Lanre Amu’s case have this problem), have highly suspicious XXXX records.  Now the proof of the corruption lies in the actual XXX records.  But if you go before that judge, ask for a change of judge and a subpoena of his XXX records, the IARDC will go after you because, well, from Atty Amu’s case, judges are perfect, they never have bad ideas and never do anything wrong and are incorruptible as the Lord and Master himself and the entire Holy Family–Yeshua, Joseph and the two Marys.

I have talked to the authorities about this problem, I have begged them to get the XXXX records and let me know when it is “safe” to reopen these cases and get my clients justice and eliminate the corruption.

I have heard nothing.

It’s a system, a deeply ingrained, highly troubled and unjust system that has gone on with impunity for decades.

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Dec 18, 2013 8:26 AM
To: “”
Subject: Re: just a case cite I ran across

These press cases are always in flux.   The 4th Estate today is getting a broader and broader.
I’ve been working over my document to the Supreme Court – I will send it out later on – I have trial this afternoon so it will probably be tomorrow.   What I thought was interesting is the intellectual dishonesty that is exhibited by IARDC.    The Sawyer case is the prime example.   After citing the case for the proposition that the Supreme Court in Sawyer recognized their right to regulate the speech of attorney someone at the IARDC read the decision and found out that the Court ruling was just the opposite.   So rather than admit their error they now are suggesting that lawyers have the right to be critical of laws but not judges.
I guess the US Attorney in prosecuting the judges in Greylord had an ethical lapse.
Ken Ditkowsky

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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