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.

From Ken Ditkowsky–We must stand up for our rights if we want to preserve our Democracy

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 28, 2015 12:01 PM
To: “loamu@aol.com” , “joanne@justice4every1.com” , “verenusl@gmail.com” , “timlahrman@aol.com” , “nasga.org@gmail.com” , “matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov” , “jdit@aol.com” , “askdoj@usdoj.gov” , “civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov” , “chicago@ic.fbi.gov” , “drditkowsky@aol.com” , “tips@tribune.com” , “janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com” , “bev.cooperscorner@yahoo.com” , “letters@suntimes.com” , “foxnews_7d7b711af105dca690ab56169c0ff242@newsletters.foxnews.com” , “ginny.johnsoncheeserings@gmail.com” , “sa3456@msn.com” , “fiduciarywatch@gmail.com” , “statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov” , “isba@list.isba.org” , “aclu@aclu.org” , “scottcevans@hotmail.com” , “ecarter@atg.state.il.us” , “glenest03@yahoo.com” , “bstone12@hotmail.com” , “prov2828@hotmail.com” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , “schwagerlawfirm@live.com” , “tips@cbschicago.com” , “sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov” , “zamirkatan@aol.com” , “llessura@gmail.com” , “jnjgldmn@aol.com” , “activistpost@gmail.com” , “tvfields@oh.rr.com” , “newseditors@wsj.com” , “nvallone1@gmail.com” , “webmaster@abajournal.com” , “consult4lj@yahoo.com” , “jimdit@earthlink.net” , “kozakm1@gmail.com” , “drrob2007@yahoo.com” , “k_bakken@att.net” , “utterby@sbcglobal.net” , “info@deepfriedbrownies.com” , “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>, “johnhowardwyman@gmail.com” , “maryrichards45@gmail.com” , “truthbetoldradio@gmail.com” , “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” , “writejanet@live.com” , “kev_pizz@hotmail.com” , “information@iardc.org”
Cc: “pmanson@lbpc.com” , “pusateri@lbpc.com” , “sgarmisa@hoeyfarina.com” , “rstrom@lbpc.com” , “lwood@lbpc.com” , “questions.insideout@gmail.com” , “arin@nextions.com” , “kmcdonough@smsm.com” , “mscodro@jenner.com” , “denise.c.garcia@microsoft.com” , “oluk@nshn.com” , “bhaan@leesheikh.com” , “celia.gamrath@cookcountyil.gov” , “lyndsay@lmarkey.com” , “seth.darmstadter@klgates.com” , “alongo@cassiday.com” , “jgabala@illinoiscourts.gov”
Subject: Re: Amu’s Supplement to Motion to Reverse Suspension of Law License

Subject:  Racism
 
Unlike the racism of the 1950’s today’s bigots are much more subtle but just a venal.     Some of these miscreants have found their way into the political closet and occupy positions of important and public protection.    Today’s racist does not refer to his victim in a pejorative manner, and in fact he open donates money to organizations that ostentatiously claim to be monitoring and protecting the rights, privileges and immunities of the minority targeted.    The big lie that today the ‘show’ is more important than the substance and thus there are huge numbers of ordinary people who feel that they have been sold out or at not considered important by their leaders and their government.
 
The Judicial process is the ‘escape value’ of American society.     It is in this forum that the founders of America decreed that individuals, corporations, and mighty and the powerless would all be equal, receive due process of law and adjudicate fairly and appropriately their disputes.     Thus, it is reasoned that while citizens had the right to protest and exercise their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS it would be unnecessary.     Of course the naivety was obvious as humanity has and will always have an element of corruption and avarice that cannot be filtered out.
 
This does not mean that Americans have to live with corruption.     We of course have to be diligent and we have to ‘stand up’ for our rights if we wish to retain them.    
 
The Lanre Amu case is particularly interesting in that it was the Administrator of the IARDC’s duty to prove by clear and convincing evidence whatever facts that he alleged constituted Mr. Amu’s misbehavior.    In particular the Illinois Court has stated:
it is a rule well recognized, that where the evidence to prove a fact is chiefly, if not entirely, in control of the adverse party and such evidence is not produced, his failure   [395]  to produce the evidence tends to strengthen the probative force of the evidence given to establish such claimed fact. [Citation.] The burden of producing evidence, chiefly, if not entirely, within the control of an adverse party, rests upon such party if he would deny the existence of claimed facts. [Citation.] Where a party alone possesses information concerning a disputed issue of fact and fails to bring forward that information, and it is shown that it can be produced by him alone, a presumption arises in favor of his adversary’s claim of fact. [Citation.]”
In the cause at hand, the Administrator failed to show that the means of proving the proportionality of the fees was in the exclusive possession of respondent such that the burden-shifting rule of Beldingapplies.  HN7 SHAPE  \* MERGEFORMAT   It is essential that the Administrator prove each allegation by clear and convincing evidence. In re Enstrom, 104 Ill. 2d 410, 416, 84 Ill. Dec. 486, 472 N.E.2d 446 (1984).  The complaint alleges that respondent participated in a division of legal fees that was not in proportion to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by each  lawyer . Thus, it was the Administrator’s burden to prove  that the fee division was disproportionate to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by both respondent and Rosenblum.
 
It has been Mr. Amu’s contention that the Judge’s that he was complaining concerning were corrupt.     One of the Judges’ (Judge Egan) was the subject of a Crain’s Chicago Business article that ironically made the very same assertion that Mr. Amu made.        This fact is hardly a coincidence as the hearing panels of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission have very ‘sorry’ reputations.     “Wired” is a polite way of referring to them as it is not unusual for them to make findings in favor of the Commission without any evidence being presented to them [1] .      Amu has complained vigorously of being ‘railroaded’ and wrongfully suspended to deaf ears.
 
The publication of the Crain’s Chicago Business article making the exact averments that Attorney Amu has made highlights the disconnect between the Illinois commission doing its job of protecting the public and having a private agenda contrary to the Constitutional mandate of both the Federal and State Constitutions.       The public certainly would give much more credence to Crain’s than Jerome Larkin!       Indeed, it is a matter of public record whether Judge Egan is on the board of plaintiff, her brother is the attorney for the plaintiff, and whether the judge is presiding at the trial.      Such is an up or down situation.      If the commission found by clear and convincing evidence that the public record, Amu, and Crain’s were all lying and the Administrator was the only ‘truth teller’ such would and should be suspect.     That apparently is what they did and the Supreme Court of Illinois not only affirmed but found by the interim suspension of Amu that reciting the public record by an attorney is inherently dangerous to the public safety.
 
Forgetting that a reading of the decision of the hearing board, review board et al gives the impression of a racial nexus for the proceeding and forgetting the history of Mr. Larkin – i.e. the barring of Diane Nash from the kangaroo proceedings involving JoAnne Denison, and his refusal to apologize or even disingenuously try to offer an excuse for the racist act,  this latest act by Larkin individually and as the alter=ego of the Illinois Supreme Court is so outrageous as to call for an investigation by the Justice Department of yet another act of racism, and Larkin’s corruption.
 
When lawyers cannot count on fair play and honesty in their own personal dealing with the Supreme Court of Illinois it is no wonder that the public in general holds the Court system of the 2nd oldest profession is such low repute.    In point of fact the justice system if the ‘elder cleansing cases’ and these disciplinary cases are examples the public is correct that the Illinois Justice System is terribly corrupt and unreliable.
 
Let is backtrack for a moment.    Assume for the purpose of argument only that Mr. Larkin was misled and acted in objective good faith.     The Crain’s article is now called to his attention!   What does he do?   
 
The fact is Mr. Larkin has not apologized to Mr. Amu and now that he knows that Amu’s statements were in point of fact truthful he is not in the forefront of seeking Mr. Amu’s license to be returned to him.      Certainly, Larkin is not offering restitution to Amu for the defamation, insult, and personal wrongful conduct!      Basic decency would have required Larkin to come forth immediately upon finding out about a “mistake” and tendering an apology.      He did not I expect he will not.      The fact remains that Amu has been punished because he, as man having a dark hue to his skin, complained about a fair skinned judge and accused her of corruption.     To Larkin it is intolerable that a respected publication made the same averment!      
 
By my definition Larkin’s conduct is unacceptable,  racist and so ethically challenged that he has forfeited any respect that he might have had and should be instanter investigated and removed from public office.      There is no place for ‘racists’ in government.    The principle of equality before the law for all is too important to be shoved under the rug no matter what political mentor sponsors Mr. Larkin.


[1] In my proceeding a panel solved a jurisdictional problem by inventing without any testimony or even an assertion by the Administrator that required notice to family members of a hearing was obviated by the family members having knowledge of a hearing to determine Mary Sykes incompetent.      The panel was so anxious to please the administrator that they found that the undisclosed family members had knowledge.    The knowledge was not specified to be prior, but, as the result was predetermined that fact or the fact that the Court record in the Mary Sykes case revealed that no such hearing ever was held.    The finding of Mary Sykes’ incompetency was based upon an order being handed to a judge and she rubber=stamping the same.     The Court file was kept out of the proceeding as it would have disclosed that the Administrator once again was not truthful.

Copy of Petition to SCOI for a Supervisory Order

Dear Ms. Farenga, Mr.Stern, Mr. Schmiedel,
Attached hereto is the Motion of attorney JoAnne Denison that was electronically filed by Ms. Denison (via my office) with the Illinois Supreme Court.
This Motion seeks in part that the Illinois Supreme Court order an investigation of the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation cases – such as the case of Mary Sykes in which sans jurisdiction a plenary guardian was appointed who is reported to not have inventoried a large number of gold coins and other valuables.
By the United States Postal Service  mail a copy of the document is being mailed to the ARDC as it is an interested party.
In the interests of justice and the interest of Mary Sykes and the other persons similarly affected, we invite you to join with us in requesting an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes matter and in particular, the admitted lack of the service of the 14 day notices required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Ken Ditkowsky, as it was in 1961

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 25, 2013 10:26 AM
To: JoAnne Denison , NASGA , probate sharks , yjd
Cc: states attorney , Cook Sheriff
Subject: Fw: Firing bad judges – NEWS: (Cook County) How clout keeps court cases secret

On November 28, 1961 I took the same oath that every lawyer in the State of Illinois is mandated to take.    A few days later I tried my first case in the Superior Court of Cook County and a couple of days later tried a case in the Circuit Court of Cook County.    In 1970 by the ‘blue ballot’ Constitutional convention the Superior Court merged with the Circuit Court.
The practice of law in 1961 -62 was quite different from what exists today.    Lawyers belonged to the same fraternity.    95% of us were friends and we had an interest in solving our client’s problems rather than churning their files and bankrupting them.    When a case came into the office, the lawyers discussed the case and determined what, if anything, could be agreed upon.  We then submitted the matters that were in issue to the Judge.   Most of the time the ‘Judge’ would cut to the heart of the issue and the matter would be further reduced in complexity.     The net result that except of very few cases trial and expense was avoided.     Oh, there were clients who would not settle for love or money, but, most of the lawyers could be said to have had an agreement to agree.    What we did not have was the ‘take no prisoners’ approach that exists today.
Yes, in 1961 were had corruption and some of it was blatant.    The perniciousness of the corruption was as bad as it is today; however, the big difference was that we did not have as many pious public officials and organizations fostering it.    When a court file was not open to the public, the lawyers, the judge, and everyone else knew that there was hanky/panky going on.     Most miscreants were not anxious to broadcast their “motion to fix.”     Most judges wanted no part in the ‘game’ and they acted accordingly.   There of course were a few who played the ‘game’ but the Chicago Daily News and the Chicago Tribune reporters made them very nervous.      A Sykes case as an example would have been addressed on day one – the guardian ad litem, assuming that they were innocent would have covered themselves with detailed reports to the Court.    As an example, Mr. Stern upon observing the extensive remodeling going on at the plenary guardian’s home would have reported this to the Judge and would have reported Ms. Gloria Sykes statement concerning that event.      The pending Motion for a Protective order filed by Mary Sykes would have disqualified the plenary guardian on day one, and 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 would have been carefully observed.
Ms. Gloria Sykes reported the disappearance of the Court file in Sykes.    It has now reappeared – so there is hope that it is in the same condition that it was prior to its disappearance!
Mr. Mayor – thank you for forwarding the article.   Chicago is not ready for reform – we cannot even obtain an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.   The two Chicago newspapers are apparently disinterested in the fact that senior citizens are being deprived of their liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights right now in Chicago.     Mary Sykes has suffered for more than 3.5 years!
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

The First Amendment and Attys JoAnne Denison and Kenneth Ditkowsky

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.

okay to publish?and many of these stories act as if these cases are MY grievances that I’m airing and they’re not. (Some of the news stories did get this wrong and said that I was petitioning for guardianship, when I was not, but many corrected that and said I only filed an appearance and then was disqualified because I notarized a document, and then a couple years later started the blog when the Sykes case drug on and was clearly without jurisdiction and then via the probate victims’ blogs I was finding a similar disturbing pattern of cases not following the Illinois Probate Act with large amounts of funds uninventoried, no jurisdiciton, etc.).
I am REPORTING these stories, I am calling for an INVESTIGATION by the authorities and by the ARDC because courts are acting without jurisdiction and the authorities are not investigating and they should.  The probate victims come to me AND you Ken and they wonder why they are not getting the basic forms of justice–due process, notice to all relatives so the court can be fully informed and appoint the best guardian, inventory of all assets and possible assets belonging to the estate.  Millions in about half a dozen cases reported directly to me are uninventoried and missing.  The family and legatees/heirs want to know why.

I am REPORTING on corruption in the Illinois courts so that it can be brought to light and eliminated.  The regular news does much of this.  Why not me?  Why not you?

Subject: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.

Ms. G___ S____ in an e-mail  furnished me with a list of some of the blogs that are carrying the JoAnne Denison story.    The attack unconstitutional attack on Ms. Denison’s First Amendment Rights by the Illinois ARDC is not unprecedented.   The First Amendment is often not held in high regard by government when it decides not to be transparent or decides to obviate the rights of a particular group of people.    Government with something to ‘hide’ or that is embarrassed by its own conduct is usually behind the miscreant conduct.   A review of the Mary Sykes case 09 P ____, pending in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County  is clear in disclosing a quagmire of bad behavior by ‘judicial officials.’     In Sykes and in all of these situations, the victims are senior citizens, the disabled (with money) and their families.
It is our belief that the ARDC did not receive a mandate to suppress Attorney speech and therefore lacks jurisdiction.   The ARDC’s mandate comes from the Illinois Supreme Court and that Court is bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.    The Alvarez, NY Times, et al decisions are clear in pointing out that ‘content’ based speech cannot be suppressed.    That is not to say that the same speech might under the right circumstances be subject to defamation suit, but government (including the ARDC) does not have standing to prevent the publication. l
In light of the history of Illinois and the 15+ judges who went to jail in the Greylord scandal and the number of Illinois high ranking political types that are in jail the ban on suppression of free speech is vital and a core basis of America.    The blogs who are reported to have carried the story are:
Ken Ditkowsky

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/

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!