From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 31, 2014 2:03 PM
To: NASGA , probate sharks , j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , Lawrence Hyman , Jo Anne M Denison , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk
Subject: Fw: WestlawNext – U.S. v. Stevens
In attempting to write the petition for cert I have been fascinated by the parallel between the argument “I have just been following orders” and the knowingly inappropriate coupling of obeying the law with spurious arguments of Mr. Larkin and the IARDC. I now understand why Mr. Larkin dropped his argument based upon the Sawyer case. Reading the case may be a motivation – however, the ruling in the case is so contrary to his position that it is akin to bringing a gun to a knife fight and handing it to the opposition for use.
Sawyer makes it very clear that Larkin’s actions in prosecuting Mr. Amu, Ms. Denison and me is not only ultra vires but bad faith. Take a look at the following quotes:
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” “[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) United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1584, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010)
Could this be any clearer!? How does Larkin reconcile his position and that of his committees with the principles recited by the United States Supreme Court. This statement is a clear repudiation of his complaints against Amu, Denison and me. However, it gets better:
From 1791 to the present,” however, the First Amendment has “permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,” and has never “include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.” Id., at 382–383, 112 S.Ct. 2538. These “historic and traditional categories long familiar to the bar,” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 127, 112 S.Ct. 501, 116 L.Ed.2d 476 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment)—including obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 254–255, 72 S.Ct. 725, 96 L.Ed. 919 (1952), fraud, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447–449, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam ), and speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834 (1949)—are “well-defined *469 and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571–572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942). United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468-69, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1584, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010)
The bootstrap approach of Larkin has been refuted from the beginning of time, to wit:
“[I]f any accidental mischief happens to follow from the performance of a lawful act, the party stands excused *576 from all guilt: but if a man be doing any thing unlawful, and a consequence ensues which he did not foresee or intend, as the death of a man or the like, his want of foresight shall be no excuse; for, being guilty of one offence, in doing antecedently what is in itself unlawful, he is criminally guilty of whatever consequence may follow the first misbehaviour.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 26–27 (1769). Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 575-76, 129 S. Ct. 1849, 1855, 173 L. Ed. 2d 785 (2009)
Thus, as Larkin is or was well aware that it is an illegal act to separate a senior citizen from his/her family, prior life, prior activities and her life savings he has strike one against him and must be deemed to be aiding and abetting the miscreants in their ‘elder cleansing’ 18 USCA 371. More seriously, as he is aware of the actions of Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, et. al and in particular the non-inventory of the contents of Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box (and funds hidden in her mattress), he had an obligation pursuant to 18 USCA 4 to report such information to law enforcement. Instead, Larkin and his crew invested in a ‘cover-up’ and in doing so, he denied me my First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “WestlawNext@westlawnext.com” <WestlawNext@westlawnext.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 11:33 AM
Subject: WestlawNext – U.S. v. Stevens
ken ditkowsky sent you content from WestlawNext.
Please see the attached file.
Item: U.S. v. Stevens
Citation: 559 U.S. 460
Sent On: March 31, 2014
Sent By: ken ditkowsky
Client ID: CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION