From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 28, 2015 12:01 PM
To: “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com”
Cc: “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org” , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org”
Subject: Re: Amu’s Supplement to Motion to Reverse Suspension of Law License
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  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  . 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.
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.