Kenneth is working on his Writ of Cert to the US Supreme Ct and we all wish him quite well.
Being privy to some of his writings, below is a sneak peek:
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 28, 2014 9:30 AM
To: Richard Cordero , Journalist Janet Phelan , Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall , Don Lashley , Nick Philippov
Cc: Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , Jo Anne M Denison , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky
Subject: Re: Proposal to expose public wrongdoing and empower We the People to hold public servants accountable
Thank you for including me in your e-mailing
Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article on page A 3 dealing with the government’s push to prosecute public sector criminal activity. Interestingly the article did not mention the government’s actions to curtail the misconduct in the health care industry. I was informed yesterday that certain clout heavy individuals with strong ties to Chicago are being questioned by the FBI and grand juries. These individuals have ties to the miscreants who are the subject matter of a number of citizen complaints lodged with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission. [Mr. Jerome Larkin the administrator in my opinion has been a key player in the cover-up. We have been making inquiries to ascertain if Mr. Larkin has any direct or indirect relationship to the Larkin Community Hospital situation *****]
The problem that we face is not legislative – it is enforcement.
Ms. Phelan has a book coming out that details a truly horrific ‘elder cleansing’ situation that is a wake-up call. My understanding is that it will expose chapter and verse some of the infamous activities of the California political royalty and their activities in the War against the Elderly and Disabled. In Illinois Ms. Gloria Sykes is using her journalistic skills to expose how her mother was railroaded into a guardianship and the lengths that Mr. Larkin, two guardian ad litem and a well connected attorney went in their efforts ******. Mr. John Wyman, who is reputed to be just an ordinary citizen caught up in this problem, has a book out detailing the railroading of his mother into an abusive guardianship and the ****.
In Court records there is detailed many infamous events that curl should ‘curl the hair’ on your head. All a parallel to the problem discussed in your e-mail. We have infuriated Mr. Larkin and those who act with him in seeking to surpress mention of the infamy that is being promulgated by a few corrupt lawyers with political connections. (Take a look at the Appendix that I have filed in the Supreme Court of Illinois. The first item on the agenda is a letter from Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga to an attorney at the IARDC. This letter is a ‘smoking gun!’ It demonstrates and exposes the lengths that the miscreants will go to keep their War on the Elderly and the Disabled secret.
As lawyers Larkin, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al are well aware of the Rule of Law set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States – yet they ignore it as do many in the Judicial community. For your edification the following was written for a recent filing. It will explain the law.
It is axiomatic that it is:
a basic First Amendment principle that “freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) (citing West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943), and Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 717, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)). “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994); see Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U.S. ––––, –––– – ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 2288, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012) (“The government may not … compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves.”). Were it enacted as a direct regulation of speech, the Policy Requirement would plainly violate the First Amendment. The question is whether the Government may nonetheless impose that requirement as a condition on the receipt of federal funds. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321, 2327, 186 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2013)
Herein the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the Illinois Supreme Court has not honored the Rule of Law as set out in the cases United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2012), Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011), Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 124 S. Ct. 2783, 159 L. Ed. 2d 690 (2004), Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 179 L. Ed. 2d 172 (2011), Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010). These cases point out that as to content related speech (political speech) there is no power or jurisdiction in the State Courts to interfere, impede, or otherwise hinder the free expression of ideas, including unpopular ideas.
In the Recent case of United States vs. Alvarez (citation omitted) the Supreme Court of the United States stated:
“[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, *2544 the Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid … and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 660, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 159 L.Ed.2d 690 (2004)”. United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2543-44, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2012)
Unpopular and universally condemned expressions of speech are not exception to the principle
“***** government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011)
Thus selling violent video games to children was an is protected by the First Amendment. Indeed speech depicting cruelty to animals was ruled protected, to wit:
“The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)”. United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 470, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1585, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010)
Indeed, specifically directed prohibitions on First Amendment Rights such as are being applied to the instant respondent in these proceedings are totally in contravention of the core values of America and the Supreme Court mandate of Synder vs Phelps 131 S.Ct. 1207, 179 L.Ed.2d 17279 Replete in the averments of the IARDC and its hearing and review panel is the proposition that the respondent was critical of certain judges in his private conversations and in communications with law enforcement. As judges in Illinois are elected, it is respectfully submitted that such a prohibition even if not protected by the First Amendment is ‘overbroad’
“In the First Amendment context, however, this Court recognizes “a second type of facial challenge,” whereby a law may be invalidated as overbroad if “a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449, n. 6, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008)” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1587, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010)
In the instant case the transcripts of Judge Connor’s redirect testimony and her statement on August 31, 2009 cannot be ignored. (These documents are attached to this petition). It should be noted that
“Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. “ Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 326, 130 S. Ct. 876, 891, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010)
In Citizens United in an analogous circumstance the Supreme Court remarked:
“The ongoing chill upon speech that is beyond all doubt protected makes it necessary in this case to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute which chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity has been demonstrated. **********
“Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14–15, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential”). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “ ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.” *340 Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution”).” ********
“Political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” Bellotti, 435 U.S., at 777, 98 S.Ct. 1407 (footnote omitted); see ibid. (the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual”); Buckley, 424 U.S., at 48–49, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance *350 the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment”); Automobile Workers, 352 U.S., at 597, 77 S.Ct. 529 (Douglas, J., dissenting); CIO, 335 U.S., at 154–155, 68 S.Ct. 1349 (Rutledge, J., concurring in result).” Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 349-50, 130 S. Ct. 876, 904, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010)
Thus, as the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the Illinois Supreme Court are deemed to have knowledge of the Rule of Law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States the act of suspending Ditkowsky for making whatever statements he may have made or is accused of making is ultra vires. Speech is absolutely protected and the governmental attempt to either deprive a citizen of his rights, privileges or immunities to speak out is a patent violation the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. “the First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., “ 487 U.S. 781, 795, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988). Arizona Free Enter. Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806, 2824, 180 L. Ed. 2d 664 (2011)