The Stated Policy of the ARDC–DO NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION!

Yep, that’s it.  After Greylord and 2 Illinois governors sitting in club fed med, the ARDC is following along party lines and is telling both myself and Ken, go ahead, do what you want but never call for an investigation!  Senior are robbed, deprived of life, liberty,  property, forced to enter the worst and most dangerous nursing homes in the nation, BUT NEVER CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION!

I don’t know about you, but that’s the lamest thing I have ever heard in my life. 

That’s what it is all boiling down to.  Apparently the ARDC is nothing but part of the official  CYA Illinois civil servant club.  They must have a lot of CYA in their computers and copiers, that’s all I’m saying.

So my 10 page complaint about censoring me and this blog, ignoring the relatives of Gore, Tyler, Bedin, Sykes, Wyman who are furious with the courts for probate abuse of their grandmas, are supposed to do just what?

In any case, Atty Ditkowsky and my ARDC cases march along.

See below:

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 22, 2013 8:06 PM
To: Tim NASGA , NASGA , GL– , Steven D Schwartz
Subject: You are invited to join with us in our petition to the Illinois Supreme Court

On Tuesday I intend to file on behalf JoAnne Denison the Motion to the Illinois Supreme Court for an HONEST, complete and comprehensive examination of the “judicial officials” who the Illinois ARDC is protecting.    In Cook County the rogues gallery is believed to have at the top of the list such illuminaries as:   Miriam Solo, Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga et al.
If you have been allegedly injured by any of the “judicial officials” you are invited to request that the Court give you leave to join with us, incorporate by reference and make part of your petition the JoAnne Denison motion so that you can request the Supreme Court of Illinois to require the Illinois ARDC to actually do its duty and protect the public from miscreants who are reported to have engaged (and are engaging) in a pattern of conduct designed and reasonably calculated to deprive senior citizens of their liberty and property.
As Gore has 1.5 million, Tyler approximately 8 million, and each of the other estates large sums of money there is a real incentive for at least the taxing authorities to be interested.    A breach of fiduciary relationship is a ‘taxable event.’   This generates ‘ordinary income.’   The failure to report the income is tax fraud.   A civil tax penalty of 50% plus interest at 5% can go a long way to provide the revenue that the president has been seeking.    In the Sykes case the United States of America should after all more than 3.5 years should have income taxes due it of at least a million dollars.    Aiding and abetting tax fraud is a criminal offense and accessories during the commission of the tax fraud bear the same responsibility as the person responsible.
I do not believe that the Supreme Court delegation to the IARDC was intended to include helping them fend off the victims, the families of victims and a few assorted attorneys (JoAnne and yours truly) who keep raising this point!    JoAnne and I both are under the impression that everyone is equal under the eyes of the law and therefore, law enforcement ought to conduct an investigation of Solo, Schmiedel, Stern, Farenga et al and determine who is correct in their assertions.   In Sykes as an example it is very clear that Farenga, and Stern were appointed by a Court that lacked jurisdiction – that is most troubling!    Mary Sykes therefore has been denied her rights and property for 3.5 years by a court that lacked jurisdiction.     If your loved senior is in a similar situation – the time is now to join with us.
Illinois does not need another Greylord or Son of Greylord.   Two governors, and a bunch of legislators in jail is enough.   If the Illinois ARDC does its job maybe we can have our judges in black robes and sitting on benches deciding disputes rather than in orange jumpsuits in prison cells.   Just a thought
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Advertisements

What is the standard of the ARDC in free speech? Or, Where is my refrigerator for my Chilled Speech?

That is what I found in Ken’s case.  It was clear the ARDC panel thought that for a lawyer, the burden was on the lawyer to prove the statements were true by clear and convincing evidence and not the other way around.

The the ARDC brought in two miscreant, nefarious lawyers (according to NASGA’s “most wanted list”) who obviously lied through their teeth and said there was “nothing wrong” with the Sykes case.  Well, Sykes is on appeal.  I doubt that the appeals court would even come close to saying the appeal was frivolous, so are we lawyers all supposed to stand by and say nothing because that’s a safe position?  The ARDC won’t slam some time wasting 10 page complaint on our desks at the whim of the lawyers involved.

Think of the unfairness to the families.  They don’t want that.  They like my blog I have heard.

I think the ARDC is dragging everything out on Ken’s case and they might be doing that on mine too because if GJS wins on appeal, (which should happen hands down if the Ill. Ct. of Appeals does its job), we will both be vindicated we were in fact telling the truth about jurisdiction and the ARDC panel had bricks for brains.  I have the Wyman case too up on appeal, and that should be another case clearly lacking jurisdiction.

I believe therefore it will be up to the LAWYERS and the PUBLIC to demand that lawyers have the right to free speech and the ARDC will just have to DEAL WITH blogging.

I maintain a lawyer cannot blog and watch every word.  Further, what words are we prohibited from using?  What words should be “chilled” in put in the refrigerator?  What words and phrases must be frozen, never used and put in my freezer until hell obtains exactly the same temperature?  What do they want us to say?  And if the warm and cozy words and phrases they will accept and can be put by the fire are outrageous lies but it makes the ARDC attys feel warm, cooey and safe, what then?  Must we say them so we have something to say?

Monitoring speech and thought is not only near impossible, it is actually impossible.  SCOTUS knows that.  It’s clearly the slippery slope, the wedge with the edge, a falling star in a black hole.

What words, what phrases, what inferences?

The ARDC has not said.  In Ken’s trial, they seemed to not like the fact he was incessantly calling out for an investigation by the authorities.  Well, probably GJS was responsible for most of that, but still they never knew who was pounding Officer Pecks with 500 emails one weekend.  Ken clearly wanted to take the credit for that one, but I’m not sure.

Again, exactly how is the ARDC using its $450 annual lawyer fees and tax dollars to investigate and control.  SCOTUS says “there must be a problem to solve” if the state wants to control speech.  And, there must be a “clear solution.”  And finally both must be subject to “strict scrutiny” (which is actually saying “fat chance.”)  I see none of that here.  Just a whole lot of vague, unsolvable territory.  Sham proceedings.  Reverse standards of what Congress and SCOTUS has promulgated.

What solution can there possibly be in putting this blog into my freezer?

I can’t make ice cubes out of it, you know!

Is my blog a problem in need of solving? The ultimate solution: censorship!

On 2-20-13, I published a post regarding a most amazing case, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants–complete with dozens of quotes as to how under the First Amendment the government has absolutely no interest in censoring or regulating content based speech and that speech covers not only my blog, but apparently it can cover the trashiest of computer and Wii-Fi games and what not, ie, Grand Theft Auto (GTA).

From Brown:
Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R.A.V., 505 U.S., at 395, 112 S.Ct. 2538. The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving, Playboy, 529 U.S., at 822–823, 120 S.Ct. 1878, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution, see R.A.V., supra, at 395, 112 S.Ct. 2538. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” Playboy, supra, at 818, 120 S.Ct. 1878. *** end of quote.

So is the ARDC saying that my blog is a “problem in need of solving?”

Now, as any parent knows, GTA and perhaps Postal has got to be about the trashiest, most obnoxious, detestable, despicable digital media games out there.

The US Supremes says this is “content based speech” and the government cannot regulate its dissemination to even children.

You know, this is the game where you get to rob whatever–a bank, a 7-11, a gas station, kill the clerk, pay for a hooker in an alley, beat her up or kill her, and you get points!  That’s right, points for evil deeds.  You can even get points for killing a cop during your robbery. (I wonder if they have demerits for feeding the poor, or donating clothes).

I digress.  The game is a parental nightmare and a horror show.

So my question is, why is the ARDC going after my blog and saying I cannot speak out against corruption, I am lying about it (despite the fact the court records are published here, the evidence is published here and the blog is complete in and of itself)–when the US Supremes have said you have to leave even the worst and most despicable of trashy video games alone–it’s protected speech?

Can ANYONE answer that one?

What if a lawyer wrote that game or portions of it?  Would the Illinois ARDC go after that lawyer?

What if my blog were put into book form and sent to the ARDC, could they draft up a complaint against a book?  Can they ban a book or discipline a lawyer in the US for writing a book about corruption in the courts?

Are we fast approaching the decline of our democratic, open and free speech civilization where the ARDC will start rounding up and banning books?  Will they have the Illinois sheriff do it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

In Germany in the 1930’s the Gestapo took away all the weapons from the Jews.  A Jew was shot on sight, frisked in the street and shot if he had any weapon–gun or knife.  When that was done, the Gestapo then went and rounded up Jewish lawyers in the courts and banned them from practicing law.

The slippery slope, the wedge with the edge.
While the US Supreme Court has clearly spoke, apparently not all lawyer have heard–apparently the lawyers at the ARDC have not heard.

A 2011 decision. The latest. Confirming over 100 years of free speech case law that I get to say what I want unless someone can prove it is blatantly false or made up–and even then, as long as it is clear it is satire or my imagination, I don’t think they can regulate that either.

What if Lewis Carroll were a lawyer?  Could he have written Alice in Wonderland, clearly making fun of royalty as pompous asses?

I still have a lot of questions that no one has answered.

Is the next step book burning?

 

Just so you know, Attys Jerome Larkin, Haspel and Opryczek, you are free to posts your comments here.  I won’t ban them and you can link anywhere you please.

I WILL FREELY GIVE YOU FREE SPEECH, why do you not afford me the same courtesy?

And between the ARDC and myself, who IS the most transparent and appears the least corrupt?

It’s interesting to note that the ARDC has charged me with lying on this blog.  Not only have most of the other major blogs come to my defense in this matter and have offered to testify on my behalf, but one thing really sticks out in all of this, and that is TRANSPARENCY.

The ARDC posts a complaint utilizing my copyrighted materials, and I expect to receive the copyright registration soon, then Ken Ditkowsky files a Motion to Dismss the complaint, the ARDC responds with a Motion to Stricke his MTD,  KDD files leave for interrogatories, the ARDC files a Motion to Disqualify Ken, he files an answer–all of that is on my blog.

During the “hearing” today on the Motion to disQ one thing struck me about all this.  While the ARDC claims they will call KDD to testify as a witness regarding the blog, he responded with it’s not his blog, he does not control it, nor does he publish anything there.  I make the requests to publish to him.

But the blog, I told the ARDC and the hearing panel, is complete in and of itself.  Documents published there include everything needed to show from the courts own records that the cases I publish about–Gore, Bedin, Tyler, Sykes, Wyman, etc. all appointed a guardian without jurisdiction. The motions, affidavits and all relevant documents are published on this blog so I have transparency when I say something.

Ken is not needed for that.

Further, what does the ARDC publish for transparency.  Are they engaging in “fair reporting”, providing all the facts.

For example, they say I am lying about jurisdiction, service upon Mary, service upon Yolanda and Josephine BUT THEY HAVE PUBLISHED NO DOCUMENTS ON THEIR WEBSITE TO BACK THAT UP.

I challenge them to do so.  I find it highly offensive they publish something about me and I cannot comment, I cannot respond, I cannot reply, they do not publish any proof whatsoever of their claims, and then they go whining to the hearing panel that I am lying and my counsel must be disqualified.

Disgraceful.  There are no words….

I am TRANSPARENT, they are not.  I do not make conclusory statements, but I investigate and back it up with facts–declarations, conversations, anything.

The ARDC just runs to the hearing board to get my atty disqualified.

 

That’s all they got.  No blog, no proof, nothing.

The ARDC must really be afraid of this blog and want it censored

because increduously, they just disqualified Atty Ken Ditkowsky as my attorney!

The first thing you do, when you really have no case is get rid of opposing counsel on a bogus motion to disqualify. That is what happened here.  The ARDC says “there might be a conflict”–no there is not–we are on the same side, reporting on misconduct and lack of jurisdiction in the Mary G Sykes case.  The ARDC says it wants to use him as a witness regarding the blog, but in reality, I run the blog, the blog is mine, and there is nothing to question him about.  The documents speak for themselves. The blog speaks for itself.  I have heard no adverse comments to this blog, only laudatory, confirming comments that there IS a problem with jurisdiction in the Mary G Sykes case, that justice must be done there  and in other cases lacking jurisdiction–Taylor, Gore, Drabik, Bedin, Spera, Wyman.  There are others I cannot mention because I have been asked not to mention them, the victims are soooo afraid of probate court and their GAL’s.

I don’t understand all of this.  Ken Ditkowsky has come up with wonderful, wonderful cases to send to Attys Larkin, Haspel and Opryczek–all ignored.  The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) makes it clear whatever you put on the internet–you have no liability, except for copyright infringement–and I have done none of that.  My posts are my own, I always ask to publish.  The ARDC has no complaint about that.

My blog is like a book.  I have never heard of a lawyer disciplined for writing a book–the content of a book is clearly first amendment protected.

So why then, are they rubber stamping all of the ARDC’s motions and denying me my choice of counsel.  I have a 6th and 14th amendment right to the counsel of my choice.  All the ARDC attorneys did was cite a bunch of criminal law cases about co-defendants.  It was crazy. They can’t question KDD because he has no first hand knowledge of blogs or blogging.  He doesn’t run my blog, I do.

Time to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  I need the findings of fact and conclusions of law ASAP.

If we have to, we need to take it to US Supreme Court.

I don’t understand why I can’t freely write about corruption and blog.

The concept that KDD “might” be a “witness” is bogus.  Further, the concept that I cannot have him for my counsel up until trial is further bogus and just use another attorney then is bogus.  I asked for that and they turned down my request.  I have seen courts do that one over and over, just bring in another atty for quesitoning your own atty, which as we know, questioning an atty is generally a waste of time.

AS and CF said there was jurisdiction at the ARDC hearing–despite the fact that Yolanda and Josepine both have exeucted affidavits they were never served with the 14 day prior notice of time, date and place of hearing.  The hearing panel today wasn’t concerned one bit that the ARDC was promulgating that big hairy lie.  They didn’t want to hear it.  A probate court without jurisdiction for 3 years.

Can someone please explain all of this to me?

thanks

joanne

What has happened to our little boy? Did he grow up or just get older?

In the search to find out just whom is prosecuting/persecuting me for speaking out about corruption in Illinois courts, I ran across this:

Jerome (Jerry) E. Larkin, Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, ex officio, is Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), responsible since his appointment to that position in March 2007, for administering the agency which registers Illinois lawyers and investigates and prosecutes allegations of ethical violations.  Mr. Larkin is a graduate of Niles College of Loyola University and the Loyola University School of Law.  After he was licensed to practice law in 1978, he joined the ARDC as staff counsel.  He investigated, litigated and appealed countless attorney disciplinary cases.  He later served as Senior Counsel, Chief Counsel, Assistant Administrator, and then Deputy Administrator from 1988 until his appointment as Administrator.

He is a past President of the National Organization of Bar Counsel (NOBC), the bar association of lawyer regulators.  In 2003, he received the ARDC’s 25-year leadership and service award.  In 2006, he won the NOBC President’s Award for lifetime achievement in the field of lawyer regulation.  In 2009, he was a recipient of an ABA CoLAP Meritorious Service Award.  He was also given the Robert Bellarmine award for distinguished service to the Loyola Law Alumni Association in 1992.  Mr. Larkin is the fourth Administrator of the ARDC.  He follows the late Carl H. Rolewick (1973-1988), John C. O’Malley (1988-1992) and Mary Robinson (1992-2007).

You will note it says nothing in his bio about knowing about First Amendment or Free Speech rights, nor does it say he ever protected any of those.

Just how does it happen that Atty Jerome Larkin, the recipient of an ARDC award, a Loyola Law Award, an ABA award (I’ll skip NOBC, never heard of them)  is somehow demoted to the position of reading atty blogs on corruption and drumming up some sort of ridiculous notion of regulating our speech and thought patterns?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Check out his full bio with a picture at:

http://ilsccp.org/home/commissioners/jeromelarkin.htm

And can somebody please ask for those awards back for being an idiot about the US Constitution and bill of rights?

Really.  Who would have thought.

I’m very glad I speak out about corruption and represent people with no money and have no money myself rather than go to fancy expensive dinners and get fancy awards.

Save the money on your fancy awards, and take the money from the plaques, trophies, whatever, turn it into dollars and give it to the homeless on the streets.  At least they give you a blessing.