From Ken Ditkowsky, comments on the intellectual honest of the Review Board today

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Apr 10, 2015 1:32 PM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES , Tim Lahrman NASGA , “JoAnne M. Denison” , LUCIUS VERENUS , NASGA , Judy Ditkowsky , “”

Date:   April 10, 2015
Subject:    Intellectual honesty
I sat through the oral arguments conducted in the Kangaroo proceedings of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and noted that the Commission exhibited no honesty, intellectual or otherwise.     With a straight face the IARDC attorney misrepresented to the Commission that the IARDC panel that Gentile held that an attorney could not be critical of a judge.      In a blatant fraud the attorney failed to inform the panel that Ms. Denison was not an attorney in the In re: Mary Sykes case when she managed the MaryGSykes blog.      Now did he point out that:
The regulation of attorneys’ speech is limited — it applies only to speech that is substantially likely to have a materially prejudicial effect; it is neutral as to points of view, applying equally to all attorneys participating in a pending case; and it merely postpones the attorneys’ comments until after the trial. While supported by the substantial state interest in preventing prejudice to an adjudicative proceeding by those who have a duty to protect its integrity, the Rule is limited on its face to preventing only speech having a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing that proceeding.

Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1076, 111 S. Ct. 2720, 2745, 115 L. Ed. 2d 888, 924, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3820, 76, 59 U.S.L.W. 4858, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4986, 91 Daily Journal DAR 7639 (U.S. 1991)
Indeed,  that IARDC attorney misrepresented not only the Gentile case but the entire body of law of the Supreme Court of the United States on the subject of Free Speech.     Unfortunately, this is not first time that such has occurred in the parochial kangaroo proceedings conduct under the administration of Mr. Larkin.       The IARDC attorney forgot to mention that:
Permitting the government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense, whether shouted from the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle. Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth. See G. Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) (Centennial ed. 2003). Were this law to be sustained, there could be an endless list of subjects the National Government or the States could single out.

United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2547, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 590, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, 24, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)
 It is an axiom that an ethical attorney would always inform the Court of cases that are contrary to his position so to not mislead the Court.     As the IARDC did not mention the line of cases totally opposed to his position such as Alvarez  any ethical considerations on the IARDC went by the boards.      Larkin, the Commission, and everyone in the room knew or should have known that the proceedings being conducted against Ms. Denison were in direct conflict with the core American values.      How did the proceedings continue?   Why did the IARDC attorney not inform the panel of the fact that he was assaulting the principles of democracy and the Rule of Law?     Why did the panel not dismiss outright the bogus proceedings?
Maybe we can explain these questions by pointing out that:   1)  we’ve asked Larkin to join with us in asking the US Department of Justice to conduct an honest investigation of the Sykes case,  and 2) in these very proceedings the Court reporter that Ms. Denison engaged was not allowed to set up her machine! [1]
What went on today on the 8th Floor of the Prudential building offices of the IARDC is serious stuff!      The members of the public who were allowed to witness,  witnessed an exhibition of ethical deprivation and a lack of intellectual honesty by the IARDC attorney as the Statutes and the Constitution were massacred.       The dishonesty exhibited by the IARDC did not cover the legal profession with glory nor was it consistent with the public policy of the State of Illinois, to wit:
Sec. 5.   Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation.

735 ILCS 110/5
As Ms. Denison pointed out, no matter how you slice it or spin it,   except for Larkin and the elder cleansers everyone at least on paper recognizes that the disciplinary proceedings in derogation of the First Amendment are ultra vires exercises of powers that neither the commission or the Court enjoy.     Judges who act without jurisdiction are corrupt by definition.         The First Amendment and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution apply to Ms. Denison’s blog.   47 USCA 230 grants immunity.   320 ILCS 20/4 grants State immunity and specifically prohibits these proceedings against Ms. Denison.
Similarly, as Denison also pointed out without proper summons served on Mary and full compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 there was no jurisdiction.      An examination of the file in 09 P 4585 (In re: Mary Sykes) reveals that there was no prior notice given and no hearing held by any of the judges who the IARDC attorney claims cannot be criticized.        A challenge is hereby issued to Mr. Larkin:
“Produce evidence that a hearing was held as to Mary’s competency!”
If Jerome Larkin did his homework and is legitimate he will be able to not only produced evidence that an actual hearing was held by Judge ***** so as to comply with the mandate of the guardianship statute, to wit:
Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations.

755 ILCS 5/11a-3
The time for Mr. Larkin to either prove his claims or face the music is now.    Larkin has made public assertions that Ms. Denison (and yours truly) are lying.   OK!
1.       Produce a Sheriff’s return of summons = for a summons that complies with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.
2.       Produce either a witness or affidavits that 14 days prior notice was given to Mary of a hearing on her competency.
3.       Produce either a witness of affidavits that 14 days prior notice was given to Mary’s two sisters and younger daughter as to a hearing on Mary’s competency.
4.       Produce any evidence etc that a hearing was actually held as to Mary’s competency.
5.       Produce a finding as to the Mary Sykes ‘actual mental, physical and/or adaptive limitations.
If Mr. Larkin and his ilk cannot produce all the five items mentioned supra, he has committed a major fraud and he ought to go to jail and he and every attorney who acted in his stead ought to be severely disciplined and sanctioned pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137.       I did my investigation and I found that none of the five items mentioned supra can be produced.

[1] As a sidelight,   Ms. Diane Nash, who was one of the organizers sixty years ago, of the Selma march – portrayed in the move “SELMA” was denied entry into the hearing room.       It should also be noted that it appeared to several of the observers at Ms. Denison’s hearing that the transcripts of Ms. Denison’s disciplinary hearing were altered.    Admissions against interest by one of the jurists in the Sykes case were changed.    Thus, Ms. Denison brought her own reporter to today’s proceedings –  Naturally, the reporter was not allowed to perform her function.    All coincidence!

1 thought on “From Ken Ditkowsky, comments on the intellectual honest of the Review Board today

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