From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 2, 2015 1:21 PM
To: Illinois ARDC , “firstname.lastname@example.org”
Cc: Probate Sharks , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , Matt Senator Kirk , “J. Ditkowsky” , Eric Holder , “FBI- ( (” , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Chicago Tribune , Bev Cooper , Janet Phelan , SUNTIMES , FOX News Network LLC , Ginny Johnson , Diane Nash , Fiduciary Watch , Cook County States Attorney , ISBA Main Discussion Group , “Y. ACLU” , Scott Evans , Edward Carter , Glenda Martinez , Barbara Stone , RosANNa Miller , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , Candice Schwager , “email@example.com” , Cook Sheriff , Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik , Alyece Russell , Jay Goldman , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , Tom Fields , Eric Blair , Nancy Vallone , “ABAJournal.com” , Len Holland , “Jim (” , Martin Kozak , Elaine Renoire , Robert Sarhan , Kathie Bakken , Martha Jantho
Subject: Additions to the ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST JEROME LARKIN AND THOSE WHO ACT IN CONCERT WITH HIM IN THE WAR AGAINST THE ELDERLY AND THE DISABLED.
We are aware that the Illinois Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois adheres to the only their own law, but, pursuant to Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 we have previously filed an ethics complaint against Larkin and his comrades as the Commission’s actions contravene the Constitution. It now appears that the Supreme court of Illinois has filed another decision that makes it clear that the ‘cover up’ and totally inappropriate suspensions of law licenses that have been handed down to silence complaint of judicial corruption are wrongful.
Given the most extreme and imaginative interpretations of the protections that criminals in judicial robes might be afforded, the commission has intentionally over-stepped its authority.
The Supreme Court decisions have not been handed out in secret and have made it more than abundantly clear that Free Speech means exactly that and the fact that Larkin and his cadre of conspirators have acted in an intentional ultra vires manner whether or not the Supreme court of Illinois joins in the conspiracy.
A summary of the leading case has been circulated on the internet – to wit:
Date Filed: June 1, 2015
Case #: 13-893
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-983_7l48.pdf
CRIMINAL LAW: For a person to be convicted under 18 U.S.C.§875(c), the jury must conclude that the convicted person intended for their communication to be a threat to injure another person.
After his wife left him in 2010, Petitioner used the pseudonym “Tone Dougie” to post several obscene and ominous rap lyrics on Facebook. Although Petitioner included disclaimers to preface his lyrical tirades, he was indicted for using social media to communicate threats. During his trial, Petitioner requested the jury be instructed to consider whether he intended to communicate threats. The criminal statute under which Petitioner was indicted makes no explicit mens rea requirement, leading the District Court to deny the request. The jury convicted him under 18 U.S.C. §875(c ), on four out of five counts, for using social media to communicate threats to injure his ex-wife, law enforcement officers, a kindergarten class, and a FBI agent. Petitioner was acquitted of communicating similar messages to patrons and employees of the park. The Court of Appeals agreed that the jury instruction would be improper since the statute required only an intent for the Petitioner to understand his words and that a reasonable person could perceive the content as threatening. On review, the Supreme Court found that criminal statutes implicitly include scienter requirements. The Court reasoned that intent would be determined by the separation of wrongful conduct and “otherwise innocent conduct.” Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 269 (2000) (quoting United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 72 (1994)). It is the communication of a threat, not simply the communication of something, the Petitioner must have intended. Without this mens rea requirement, the criminal statute becomes a negligence standard and cannot stand without a proper jury instruction. REVERSED and REMANDED.
[Summarized by: Jessica Ismond]
Let us assume that Larkin and his co-conspirators were on the moon for the past 200 years as the American Courts developed the Rule of Law as to the First Amendment. Let us further assume that they came back yesterday. The aforesaid decision is another coffin nail in the ‘cover up.’ NB. Assuming at some point in time whatever the secret untrue statements that Larkin claims were made by Denison (or Amu or me for that matter) in addition to no proof of what the exact statements were or that there was any untruth specified the element of scienter has to be also proven. As Larkin holds a public trust pursuant to 8.3 he must report his misconduct to the Supreme Court of Illinois and the continuation of his misconduct is not only a criminal offense of deprivation of Constitutional Rights but of FRAUD. As 24 hours have elapsed since the decision was entered Larkin has had plenty of time to remediate his fraud = if he had any intention to do so.