To the IARDC today, I am NOT going to file a dispostive motion and here’s why

To Ken Ditkowsky who asks me to file a couple of dispositive motions:

Since the rules are that I cannot file a dispostive motion before the trial, I would prefer to file a series of notices with the IARDC that their jig is up. dismiss me because I’m going to the feds and I’m publishing ******s.  The ***** on record for Jerome Larkin being “taken care of” is despicable!  They do not publish salaries.

I disagree that this is a case for either a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim or a Summary Judgment Motion.  These people are ***** and they should dismiss of their own accord AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE TRIBUNAL.

They have not filed their ethical disclosures which are mandated by law, their ******** are a disgrace.  They admit they do not recognize the US constitution, the Illinois constitution, The Elder Abuse Act, 47 USC 230, they are ******l and they support attorneys and judges that are equally unjustly and without cause wreck the lives of Sykes, Taylor, Gore, Bedin, Wyman, Payton, etc.

They drain bank accounts and sell homes and order people to nursing homes against their will and often without jurisdiction.

They rendered Dom Spera homeless for 6 month when he had $***** in joint accounts with his mother and was beneficiary on the rest.

I don’t need a dispostive motion, like what we have demanded in Sykes, I WANT THE ARDC TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND DISMISS against you, me and Atty Lanre.  I read his Exceptions to the Review Board and I don’t know who reviews their writings who is in his or her right mind, but that decision rendered reeks of serious logical flaws and *****.

Since that panel cannot figure it out, I will write up another (sigh) detailed report to them. They think they’re right, they think they’re smart, but when you actually PAY ATTENTION to what they write and do not doze off over the long, boring pages, you realize IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER at its best and at it’s worst it appears to be a sheer, CYA operation and that’s JMHO.

joanne

PS–I’m putting this on the blog right now and without the gory details. Let SO and MS guess.  And btw after we had a huge argument over mailing and their BS over certificates of service, the ARDC included a self addressed stamped envelope for my reply  Too bad it was insufficent postage  60 cents does NOT cover an original and three copies, Ms. Smart.  Nice try, but that will not get you a gold star in life.  Every mailing to the ARDC costs me at least $3 to $5 and a a s ton of paper (to quote my daughter).  I note they are not paying for my 3 cases of copier paper every two months either–most of which is their filings and nonsense.

 

From Ken D.

JoAnne,

 
The reason for a dispositive motion is to give Mr. Larkin and the IARDC every opportunity to comply with the law and to inform the panel of the fact that 
 
1) they have no jurisdiction and as lawyers are charged with knowing that without jurisdiction there is no immunity.   The lawyers should know that the IARDC attorneys have misrepresented the Supreme Court cases of the last century and have ignored the most recent cases that set the RULE OF LAW.    A clear example is the Sawyer case which not only upheld Attorney Sawyer’s rights of Free Speech but pointed out that tradition did not trump the Constitution.
 
2) It is a violation of the public policy of the State of Illinois for any government agency (Judicial, Legislative, or Administrative) to interfere with the First Amendment Rights of citizens .   735 ILCS 110/5 restates the public policy of the State and County of DeWitt 298 Ill App3d 634 points out that actions in violation of the public policy will not be protected.
 
3) 42 USCA 1983 provides criminal and civil penalties against the individuals who use the ‘color ‘ of statute to deprive others of their First Amendment Rights.   In light of the foregoing lack of jurisdiction and the public policy of the State of Illinois Mr. Larkin, his panels, and his staff lack jurisdiction.
 
4) As to Attorney Emu – 42 USCA 1981 is applicable 
 
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require not only an investigation but something resembling a ‘safe harbor’ warning to people like those at the IARDC.     It is true that all the Himmel notices that we have been sending and the blog postings are more than sufficient; however, it appears that some members of the panels are being snowed by the IARDC staff and they should have the opportunity to indicate if they are acting in concert with those who are using their position as employees of the State of Illinois (IARDC) to undermine the Constitutional Rights of American citizens.    
I’ve copied this e-mail to the IARDC.    If they wish to ignore it, that is their privilege.  I’ve also copied law enforcement as the assault on the First Amendment by government is a serious matter and pursuant to the First Amendment I am demanding that law enforcement take such action as might be required to act affirmatively in stopping the criminal activity of violation of citizen civil
rights.
Government pursuant to Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution is limited and in particular required to respect every citizen’s First Amendment Rights.    Judges are elected in Illinois, and no agency of government has the right to restrict political speech or content related speech.
Advertisements