From Ken Ditkowsky–how a new Yale Law Articles reinforces the First Amendment and occupational speech and the rights of lawyers who can and should speak out against improprieties in the US Court System

Trying to draw a distinction between professional speech and private speech as suggested in the article  Professional Speech

Professional Speech

By Claudia E. Haupt
abstract. Professionals speak in the course of exercising their profession.
is to create a distinction without a difference.   The unexplored portions of the 1st Amendment are an illusion in light of the cases of Citizens United, Alvarez, et al.  Government in America is ‘LIMITED’ and while it is not politically correct to mention that fact we added to our Constitution the BILL OF RIGHTS and every State has adopted something similar.   In `1865 *** with the enactment of the 14th Amendment we made certain that the limitations of the Bill of Rights applied to the States.
Many in our government would like to limit mandates of the First Amendment and create barriers to speaking out against x or y or z, but In Citizens United the Supreme Court of the US ruled that government could not stop political speech or content related speech no matter what its source.   (In Citizens United the SCOTUS is dealing with speech not criminal activity such as bribing public officials)    In Alvarez the SCOTUS made it clear even false speech was protected.   (The Court was not dealing with deceit, misrepresentation or fraud – it was pointing out that ‘fact checkers’ could not bar a citizen would asserting anything he/she desired in the context of political or content related speech – even if it was fraudulent)
A distinction as a “professional speech” is a distinction without a difference – with all due respect.  It is not professional speech for a lawyer to act in concert with a client to defraud.   Thus, when a Guardian ad Litem in the Sykes case asserted without any basis of fact that there were no gold coins in Mary’s safety deposition box she was acting in concert with the guardian who had in fact removed a million dollars in gold coins.  (The GAL had never been to the safety deposit box, had not been present with the box was wrongfully entered, and the guardian has to this day not denied the theft).    The GAL’s act was an acting concert with the guardian – and if the GAL received any remuneration for her assistance *****.
The call for an HONEST INVESTIGATION is clearly protected speech even if it is objected to be such esteemed political elites as Jerome Larkin and the Illinois Supreme Court.
The article refers to the professional requirements of informing a patient of the dangers of an medical procedure  – noting that the First Amendment also protects the Right not to speak.   Requirements of candor, honesty, and truth toward persons receiving professional services is part of the oath taken by lawyers, doctors and other professionals.   It is what makes then professionals.    It is not relevant to the discussion as to the issue of whether a professional can be prohibited by professional associations, Courts, government, or corrupt members of the political and judicial elite from reporting judges who are ‘wired’ or ‘fixed’, judicial proceedings in which civil liberties are abrogated, lawyers who use their position wrongfully, etc.
The Canons of Ethics 8.3 obviates the issue.   It requires the reporting of such wrongful action.  18 USCA 4 places the burden on every citizen to report felonies.   Simply put,  Jerome Larkin and the IARDC can posture all they want – but they have not only violated the public trust, but are acting and continue to act in concert with the criminals who are preying on the elderly and the disabled.    (Ditto for any public official or judicial official who abandons to the public trust to affirmatively aid and abet the criminal enterprise of elder cleansing).   Barring these individuals from public service should be mandatory and must be one of our goals.
Right now the bad guys are in control.   That will not be the case forever.   With the State of Illinois on the verge of Bankruptcy, the State’s fortunes could be turned around quickly by enforcing the existing laws (and particularly the tax laws) against the miscreants who are literally making fortunes by elder cleansing our senior citizens and disabled citizens.    The gross taxes that could be assessed against Jerome Larkin for his 18 USCA 371 violation in the Sykes case alone is $3,000,000 plus interest and penalties!    Why is the State of Illinois not collecting the taxes that he owes!    Attempting to thwart a CALL for an HONEST INVESTIGATION of the elder cleansing frauds, and referring to a blog disclosing criminal corruption of Judges as being akin to “yelling fire in a crowded theater” is strong evidence of Larkin’s corruption!
Ken Ditkowsky
Lawyer suspended for 4 years for speaking out against corruption
Advertisements

One thought on “From Ken Ditkowsky–how a new Yale Law Articles reinforces the First Amendment and occupational speech and the rights of lawyers who can and should speak out against improprieties in the US Court System

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