from Ken Ditkowsky–
This morning I noted an e-mail that referred to the most recent Supreme Court of the United States decisions and alerted the public to the aforesaid decisions. As is my habit I sent copies of the e-mail to everyone is sight. I do this because even though I recognize the fact that Jerome Larkin, the Illinois attorney registration and disciplinary commission, and the Illinois Supreme Court do not believe in the rule of law and ignore the FIRST AMENDMENT as well as ABA Rule 8.3, 18 USCA 4, 18 USCA 371, 18 USCA 241,242, ***** these decisions are very important. Unfortunately the IARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court are not alone and lawyers who express complaints against corrupt judges, lawyers and judicial officials are intimidated and silenced. The perfidious miscreants in black robes and similar garb continue their evil ways unabated.
That said, in the document I sent you and others are two significant cases. The key case – which I hope to discuss with Andy on Thursday is summarized as follows:
Heffernan v. City of Paterson
Summarized by: Adam Mentzer
Date Filed: April 26, 2016
Case #: 14-1280
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1280_k5fl.pdf
First Amendment: Employers may be held liable under the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for demoting an employee in an attempt to prevent them from engaging in political activity protected by the First Amendment, even if the employer is factually mistaken about the nature of their employee’s activity.
Petitioner worked as a police detective when he picked up a campaign sign for his mother that endorsed a mayoral candidate running against the incumbent mayor, who had appointed the Chief of Police as well as Petitioner’s direct supervisor. Fellow officers saw Petitioner at one of the candidate’s distribution centers holding the sign and the following day Petitioner’s supervisor demoted Petitioner to patrol officer in retaliation for what the supervisor incorrectly perceived as involvement with the campaign. Petitioner filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court. The district court found that Petitioner’s First Amendment rights were not violated because he had not engaged in protected conduct and that conduct protected by the First Amendment must be actual and not perceived to be actionable. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that employees are entitled to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment when their employers demote them and intend to demote them in order to prevent them from engaging in political activity protected by the First Amendment, regardless of whether the employer was mistaken about the employees conduct. The Supreme Court found that the First Amendment’s textual focus on government conduct and concern about discouraging individuals from engaging in protected speech justified holding employers liable. It was further noted that the chilling effect on protected speech is the same with or without a factual mistake on behalf of the employer regarding the conduct of their employees. REVERSED and REMANDED.
The significance of this decision is that it is almost on all fours with the disciplinary cases that we have had to endure. Amu – had an absolute right to echo or have Crains Chicago Business disclose the Corruption of Judge ****** in not disqualifying herself in a case in which she was on the board of the defendant corporation, and her bother was the attorney for the corporation. Larkin had no right to insert himself into the POLITICAL speech abhorring the patently wrongful conduct of a sitting judge. Ditto for our calls for an HONEST INVESTIGATION, your blog and my letter to the Attorney General of the United States.
In Florida Norkin’s objection to the arbitrary ruling of a judge was protected speech and should not have subjected him to discipline because the corrupt judge found him to be annoying. Free speech may be annoying – it is however protected. *****
In the Direct TV case the SCOTUS made it clear that its ruling were not suggestions but the Rule of law. Each lawyer and each judge has sworn to uphold the Constitution. That means that sua sponde each is required to rebuke the criminal conduct of Larkin and the Larkin-like 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators.
This brings us to the 2nd case. Ocasio v. United States . While Mr. Larkin is not conspiring with the miscreants in the Sykes case, Gore Case, ***** to engage in nefarious vehicle transactions, it is very clear that his aggressive suppression/repression of objection to elder cleansing is an unmistakable manifestation of the elder cleaning for profit that occurred in so many Illinois cases including but not limited to Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Wyman ******. The fact that Larkin is reported not have filed the required ‘ethics reports’ is strong evidence that in some manner he is ‘wired’ and has been paid. The lack of interest in Judge Connor’s admission on page 91 of her evidence deposition that she was wire is another nail in the coffin. The lack of action on citizen complaints concerning a certain group of lawyers famous for their acumen in reducing the pecuniary value of guardianship estates or during their tenure at the Public Guardian’s office allegedly turning homeless people into cash!
The Ruling of the SCOTUS are not suggestions = they are the RULE OF LAW. It is time for the ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT to sua sponde rid Illinois Government of corrupt public officials such as Jerome Larkin and re-establish honor, dignity, integrity, honesty and respect for the Rule of Law to Illinois.
Ken Ditkowsky — Kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Reblogged this on Justice for Everyone Blog.