From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 15, 2015 4:45 PM
To: Illinois ARDC , “email@example.com”
Cc: Probate Sharks , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , “J. Ditkowsky” , Matt Senator Kirk , Eric Holder , “FBI- ( (” , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Chicago Tribune , Janet Phelan , Bev Cooper , SUNTIMES , FOX News Network LLC , Ginny Johnson , Diane Nash , Fiduciary Watch , Cook County States Attorney , “Y. ACLU” , ISBA Main Discussion Group , Scott Evans , Edward Carter , Glenda Martinez , RosANNa Miller , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , Barbara Stone , Cook Sheriff , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , Candice Schwager , Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik , Alyece Russell , Eric Blair , Jay Goldman , Tom Fields , Nancy Vallone , “email@example.com” , Len Holland , Elaine Renoire , “ABAJournal.com” , Martin Kozak , “Jim (” , Robert Sarhan , “firstname.lastname@example.org”
Subject: In re: Jerome Larkin – Violations of law and ethics
Supreme Court of professional conduct 8.3 reads:
Rule 8.3 . Reporting Professional Misconduct
· (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of Rule 8.4(b) or Rule 8.4(c) shall inform the appropriate professional authority. 
· (b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conductthat raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
· (c) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege or by law or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in an approved lawyers’ assistance program or an intermediary program approved by a circuit court in which nondisciplinary complaints against judges or lawyers can be referred.
· (d) A lawyer who has been disciplined as a result of a lawyer disciplinary action brought before any body other than the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission shall report that fact to the Commission.
Mr. Lanre Amu did exactly what the Rule required. He reported unprofessional conduct on the part of certain judges. In fact you and the Supreme Court jurists in the Amu case are clearly violating 8.4 which states:
· It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
o (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct , knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.
o (b ) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects .
o (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation  .
o (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
o (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
o ( f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law  . Nor shall a lawyer give or lend anything of value to a judge, official, or employee of a tribunal, except those gifts or loans that a judge or a member of the judge’s family may receive under Rule 65(C)(4) of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct . Permissible campaign contributions to a judge or candidate for judicial office may be made only by check, draft, or other instrument payable to or to the order of an entity that the lawyer reasonably believes to be a political committee supporting such judge or candidate. Provision of volunteer services by a lawyer to a political committee shall not be deemed to violate this paragraph.
o (g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal or professional disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. 
o (h) enter into an agreement with a client or former client limiting or purporting to limit the right of the client or former client to file or pursue any complaint before the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
o (i) avoid in bad faith the repayment of an education loan guaranteed by the Illinois Student Assistance Commission or other governmental entity. The lawful discharge of an education loan in a bankruptcy proceeding shall not constitute bad faith under this paragraph, but the discharge shall not preclude a review of the lawyer’s conduct to determine if it constitutes bad faith.
o (j) violate a federal, state or local statute or ordinance that prohibits discrimination based on race  , sex, religion, national origin, socioeconomic status disability, age, sexual orientation or by conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer. Whether a discriminatory act reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer shall be determined after consideration of all the circumstances, including: the seriousness of the act; whether the lawyer knew that the act was prohibited by statute or ordinance; whether the act was part of a pattern of prohibited conduct ; and whether the act was committed in connection with the lawyer’s professional activities. No charge of professional misconduct may be brought pursuant to this paragraph until a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction has found that the lawyer has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory act, and the finding of the court or administrative agency has become final and enforceable and any right of judicial review has been exhausted.
o (k) if the lawyer holds public office:
§ (1) use that office to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a special advantage in a legislative matter for a client under circumstances where the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such action is not in the public interest;
§ (2) use that office to influence, or attempt to influence, a tribunal to act in favor of a client; or
§ (3) represent any client, including a municipal corporation or other public body, in the promotion or defeat of legislative or other proposals pending before the public body of which such lawyer is a member or by which such lawyer is employed.
In red I’ve outline the various provisions that you have personally violated with your bogus and totally false complaints that you have brought against Mr. Amu, Ms. Denison and myself. 18 USCA 4, 18 USCA 241, 18 USCA 242, 18 USCA 1341 et al are all viable Federal Law.
As your action in assaulting the First Amendment Rights of Mr. Amu, Ms. Denison and myself are in my opinion felonies they have been reported to the Federal Authorities. As these act, in my opinion, are overt acts in furtherance of some very serious wrongful action by certain favored attorneys and jurists it is my opinion that you and the members of your staff who have acted in concert with your personal wrongful actions now enjoy joint and several liability with you for the United States Income Taxes and the State of Illinois Income taxes that accrued due to the breaches of fiduciary relationship and outright theft.
I trust that pursuant to prior demand you are retaining all documents and other material relating to these matters so that any investigation by the United States of America and/or the State of Illinois will not be hindered because of any possible destruction of documents and records .
Mr. Amu in reporting the corruption of certain judges to the IARDC and appropriate authorities is complying not only with the Canons 8.3 but Federal Law. This Rule of Ethics renders the complaint filed by Larkin to be at best an oxymoron, and at worst an overt act in pursuance of a wrongful agreement he had (or has) with the miscreants. It is disingenuous for Larkin to place any attorney in a catch 22 situation, unless he intentionally violated basic Constitutional Rights protected by the Illinois Constitution and the United States Constitution.
It is certainly dishonest to act in concert (or aid and abet) the railroading of a senior citizen or disabled person into a guardianship that results in the isolation of the victim, the theft of his/her assets, the deprivation of liberty interests and the dehumanization. The Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 certainly provides ample evidence of such dishonest and fraudulent conduct on the part of each attorney engaged in the prosecution of JoAnne Denison or myself. It is certainly dishonest for Mr. Amu to be prosecuted for exercising his FIRST AMENDMENT rights and/or for reporting the corruption of certain judges pursuant to 8.3.
Engaging in a cover=up of corrupt conduct on the part of Judges is certain knowingly assisting a judge in conduct in violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct. The entire Amu complaint is an example of Larkin’s wrongful conduct.
As a co-conspirator Mr. Larkin is acting in concert with the miscreants who seek pecuniary and other gains from their misconduct.
The entire Amu complaint smacks of racism in its most obnoxious and infamous manner. The use of “uncle Tom’s” in perpetrating racism is not exculpating!