Two new lows from the ARDC and Review Board–Banning Mr. Amu and Lying about case law

First, my decision from the Review Board today:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwbEhhNnNfVUN1aFE/view?usp=sharing

Next, the comments of Ken Ditkowsky

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 28, 2015 10:46 PM
To: “JoAnne M. Denison” , Probate Sharks , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , Matt Senator Kirk , Eric Holder , “J. Ditkowsky” , “FBI- ( (” , KRISTI HOOD , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Bev Cooper , “newseditors@wsj.com” , ISBA Main Discussion Group , “information@iardc.org” , “postmaster@iardc.org” , Federal Bureau of Investigation , Jay Goldman
Subject: Re: Banning Mr. Amu from the ARDC — questions?

Given the state of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission filing anything with the IARDC is a waste of time and effort.     I read the opinion of Larkin’s kangaroo committee and was shocked that the lawyers on the committee intentionally and deliberately misrepresented the Alvarez case.     
What occurred was not just intellectual dishonesty – it was actual prevarication as to the ruling of the Court.
Ignorance of the Law is said to be no excuse, and lawyers are presumed to know the law.       In the opinion of the Review Board of the Illinois Disciplinary Board it appears that the Administrator and his kangaroo panel intentionally misrepresented the ruling in the recent Supreme Court cases that Ms. Denison cites including but not limited to United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2544-2545, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 587-588, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *16-18, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)  
 
In the most dishonest, disreputable, and wrongful manner the panel takes the following words are an exact quote from the Alvarez decision that the Administrator and his stooges misrepresent:
 
The Government disagrees with this proposition. It cites language from some of this Court’s precedents to support its contention that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection. See also Brief for Eugene Volokh et al. as  Amici Curiae  2-11.  HN6 LEdHN[6]   [6] These isolated statements in some earlier decisions do not support the Government’s submission that false statements, as a general rule, [2545]  are beyond constitutional protection. That conclusion would take the quoted language far from its proper context. For instance, the Court has stated “[f]alse statements of fact are particularly valueless [because] they interfere with the truth-seeking function of the marketplace of ideas,” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 52, 108 S. Ct. 876, 99 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1988), and that false statements “are not protected by the First Amendment in the same manner as truthful statements,” Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 60-61, 102 S. Ct. 1523, 71 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1982). See also, e.g., Virginia Bd. of Pharmacysupra, at 771, 96 S. Ct. 1817, 48 L. Ed. 2d 346 (“Untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake”); Herbert v.Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 171, 99 S. Ct. 1635, 60 L. Ed. 2d 115 (1979) (“Spreading false information in and of itself carries no First Amendment credentials”); Gertz,supra, at 340, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (“[T]here is no constitutional value in false statements of fact”); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75, 85 S. Ct. 209, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1964) (“[T]he knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection”).
These quotations all derive from cases discussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement, such as an invasion of privacy or the costs of vexatious litigation. See Brief for United States 18-19. In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to our analysis, but neither was it determinative. The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection. Our prior decisions have not confronted a measure, like the Stolen Valor Act, that targets falsity and nothing more.
HN7  LEdHN[7]   [7] Even when considering some instances of defamation and fraud, moreover, the Court has been careful to instruct that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside theFirst Amendment. The statement must be a knowing or reckless falsehood. See Sullivansupra, at 280, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (prohibiting recovery of damages for a defamatory falsehood made about a public official unless the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”); see also Garrisonsupra, at 73, 85 S. Ct. 209, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (“[E]ven when the utterance is false, the great principles of the Constitution which secure freedom of expression . . . preclude attaching adverse consequences to any except the knowing or reckless false-hood”); Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 U.S. 600, 620, 123 S. Ct. 1829, 155 L. Ed. 2d 793 (2003) (“False statement alone does not subject a fundraiser to fraud liability”).
 
This section is a discussion of the government’s arguments – not the Court’s decision.   Thus to  claim that the Alvarez Court carved out an exception to content related speech is clearly dishonesty on the part of the Administrator, his attorneys, and his rubber stamp panels.      Let me make the allegation perfectly clear, to wit:    The Hearing panel, the Administrator and the Review panel openly and notoriously misrepresented in their opinion the Law.    Such is intolerable and is totally unprofessional and unethical.     Certainly whomever wrote the opinion in the Denison opinion was aware that he/she was acting fraudulently,      The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly made political and content related speech to be protected by the First Amendment.     It did not single out untruthful statements and it is fair to say that the Supreme in Alvarez rebuked the statement that the Disciplinary Board advances with the words:
 
The First Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.

United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2550, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 593, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *32, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)
 
For the Record the Court ruled:
 
The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace. Though few might find respondent’s statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. The Stolen Valor Act infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment.

United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2551, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 594, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *35, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)
 
The disgraceful act of Mr. Larkin’s kangaroo committee has reached new lows of dishonesty and corruption.    
 
Unfortunately, the Illinois Attorney Registration of Disciplinary Commission, Mr. Larkin, and those who act in concert with them are mostly lawyers and mostly paid by the public.    As public employees they commit their crimes in the course of their employment and very often are able to get away with serious criminal acts by claiming immunity etc.    The mantel of legitimacy hides many felonies; however, this opinion in the Denison case is so wrong and ethically challenged as to mandate not only an HONEST investigation, but the forfeiture of the licenses of every attorney involved in the prosecution.      Rule 8.3 requires lawyers to complaint of this type of unconscionable acts by lawyers to Disciplinary authorities.      8.3. is thwarted as the ethically challenged lawyers are the Disciplinary authorities!.       18 USCA 4 requires felonies to be reported to law enforcement.     This particular criminal act committed in derogation of the Civil Rights of JoAnne Denison is being reported herewith to law enforcement.
 
 
It is proper to the challenge the law, custom, usage, and even habits.       However, if Mr. Larkin and those he acts in concert with want to challenge a law it is respectfully suggested that the judicial authority of the Supreme Court of the United States should not be challengeable by blatant misrepresentation of the cases and the law!      Indeed, some honesty should be demanded of agents of the Supreme Court of Illinois! 

Next, we have Mr. Lane Amu, an unfairly prosecuted HONEST attorney who was suspended for three years for making honest statements about corruption in three of his cases–statements which were never denied by the judges involved, and all three judges reversed their decisions.  Most notably, one of the judges Lynn Egan, had to resign from her position on the Board of Directors of a corporate entity whom her brother-lawyer represented and appeared before her on behalf of that same corporate entity.  It is most interesting she resigned from that Board, but not as a Judge for her ethical violation.  Mr. Amu’s assertions are showing effects–but the effects are ignored by the Judiciary and the ARDC, but not the corporation involved.

So, what does the ARDC do?  Reverse his decision. Write an apology to him?  Of course not!  They ban him from filing motions with the Clerk of Court of the ARDC.
See the letter:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwbzg3THJZVmVmalk/view?usp=sharing

——————————————-
From: JoAnne M Denison[SMTP:JDENISON@SURFREE.COM]
Sent: May 28, 2015 4:08:12 PM
To: loamu@aol.com; Kenneth Ditkowsky [Ditkowsky Law]; Atty Barbara Stone;
Atty Candice Schwager
Subject: Re: Banning Mr. Amu from the ARDC — questions?
Auto forwarded by a Rule

This is interesting.  So many questions.

1) Why is Lanre Amu being denied access to a Government State of Illinois office?
2) Was there a court order issued?  If so, why was he not served? Who received a copy of the court order, if anyone?
3) What happened to Mr. Lanre Amu is Fraud on the Court.  All orders issued during a Fraud on the Court tained case are void ab initio.  Has there been a ruling on the Fraud on the Court issues he suggests?
4)  Did Mr. Jerome Larkin ban Mr. Lanre Amu from the premises, if not, who did this?  What were the grounds?
5)  Does not Mr. Amu have a constitutional right to gain admittance to the ARDC to file motions?

let me know if you have further questions.  I would like to publish.

joanne

And I have to add, this smacks of the underhanded tactics used in corrupt cases.  I can’t tell you the number of cases I have seen where a probate victim, for whatever reason, loses an attorney, then all victim’s pleadings are struck on oral motion, or they are ignored or lost and forgotten (Sykes, Jones, et alia).  This is not supposed to happen.  It is a constitutional right to be pro se and have one’s pleadings respected.
Orders to ban the filing of further pleadings are simply unconsitutional. They should never be entered, and they never are, by HONEST judges.  And HONEST attorneys don’t move to strike them simply because the litigant is now pro se.  An honest judge is supposed to protect pro se litigants and not summarily strike and ignore pleadings.
And Mr. Tim Lahrman, a probate victim himself, I wish to direct this new article to Mr. Larkin today:
The fight for freedom, democracy, civil and human rights and liberties for senior citizens and the disabled in the US is NOT over.  We will fight.  We will be vociferous.  We will ask those who lie, cheat and steal, take kickbacks, supress Democracy, supress the First Amendment to step down and resign.  We will ask the States Attorneys to do their jobs — or resign.  We will ask the FBI and federal monitors to step into the State Court system and do their job until we achieve justice and dignity for the elderly and disabled persons in Illinois and across the nation.
Justice is Truth in action.
Advertisements

One thought on “Two new lows from the ARDC and Review Board–Banning Mr. Amu and Lying about case law

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s