First Amendment and Abuse of grandmothe​r - Motion in Limine

First Amendment and Abuse of grandmothe​r - Motion in Limine




kenneth ditkowskyBEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINA...

8:27 AM (10 hours ago)

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINA...


BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THEILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATIONANDDISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

 In the Matter of: ) )

 KENNETH KARL DITKOWSKY, ) ) Commission No. 2012 PR 00014 Attorney-Respondent, ) ) No. 642754 ) MOTION IN LIMINE Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky moves for a Rule in Limine prohibiting further violation of his Rights protected under the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution:1) That the respondent is a citizen of the United States of America and the State of Illinois and therefore entitled to the protections of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.2) That the respondent is a citizen of the United States of America and the State of Illinois and therefore entitled to the protections of the First, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,3) That the policy of the State of Illinois is stated in 735 ILCS 110/5. 735 ILCS 110/5 in words and phrases states:§ 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation.Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and communicate with government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney's fees and costs to prevailing movants. IL ST CH 735 § 110/5 4) That the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. USCA CONST Amend. I-Full Text 5) That it axiomatic that a respondent is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of both the Constitution of the State and the United States of America[1]. The United States Supreme Court has stated in numerous cases ( previously cited - the citations are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail) that limitations of Free Speech are intolerable and that Free Speech cannot be limited except in very special circumstances[2]. A lawyer objecting to corruption, fraud, legal proceedings commenced and prosecuted without jurisdiction and/or depriving a senior citizen of her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights are not among the categories of speech that the State or the Administration can bar.Wherefore the respondent moves that the Respondent be barred from presenting at any hearing or proceeding any testimony that the respondent (or any other citizen) made any statement as evidence of wrongdoing that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In particular, the Administrator be barred from presenting as derogatory evidence the following: 1) Respondent was engaged by any other citizen to do any legal act. (Association)2) Respondent communicated in any way with another person or entity (free speech)3) Respondent communicated with any other attorney, judge, guardian, public official. (Right to petition government – free speech)4) Respondent made charges that a government official (including a judicial official) committed some wrongful act or refused to do some act. (right of petition)5) Respondent communicated with other persons that Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Judge Connors, or some other persons did some act (including acts that might be deemed criminal) (free speech and assembly)6) Respondent disseminated words and phrases that placed and caused others to believe that Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, other lawyers, or other persons had been miscreant or otherwise committed acts that were improper.[3] (free speech, assembly and petition to government) 7) Respondent used words and phrases that might tend to cause anxiety or concern in 3rd persons that they might be or might have committed acts that were in derogation or neglect of their professional responsibilities. (free speech) 8) Respondent may have authored, disseminated or otherwise published any other and different statement containing words and phrases which was offensive to Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, Lea Black, Cynthia Farenga, one or more Judges, the Administrator and other members of the political elite or judiciary. (free speech and/or right of assembly)9) Respondent may have authored, disseminated or otherwise published words and phrases that were critical of judicial decision, legislation, law enforcement activities, or the policies of the ARDC and/or any other government agency or entity.10) Otherwise affecting Respondent’s right to communicate with regards to any other word, phrase, display, or other form of communication protected by the United States Constitution, Article One of the Illinois Constitution, or law of the United States of America.Respectfully Submitted Kenneth K. Ditkowsky Attorney number 0642754Pro se5940 W. Touhy AveNiles, Illinois 60714847 600 3421







[1] he first amendment to the United States Constitution states, in part, that “Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const., amend. I. Although the amendment, by its terms, addresses only the power of Congress, the United States Supreme Court has long held that its provisions are also binding on the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment (U.S. Const., amend. XIV). See, e.g., Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108, 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1295 (1943). Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo's Designer Direct, Inc., 227 Ill. 2d 381, 393, 882 N.E.2d 1011, 1019 (2008) [2] “It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers” (Bachellar v. Maryland (1970), 397 U.S. 564, 567, 90 S.Ct. 1312, 1315, 25 L.Ed.2d 570, 574), and it is entirely clear that the wearing of distinctive clothing can be symbolic expression of a thought or philosophy. The symbolic expression of thought falls within the free speech clause of the first amendment (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731), and the plaintiff village has the heavy burden of justifying the imposition of a prior restraint upon defendants' right to freedom of speech (Carroll v. President of Princess Anne County (1968), 393 U.S. 175, 89 S.Ct. 347, 21 L.Ed.2d 325; Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971), 402 U.S. 415, 91 S.Ct. 1575, 29 L.Ed.2d 1).Vill. of Skokie v. Nat'l Socialist Party of Am., 69 Ill. 2d 605, 612, 373 N.E.2d 21, 23 (1978) [3] While objecting to Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, et al’s apparent active participation in the alleged deprivation of Mary Sykes’ liberty, property, civil and human rights as revealed in the Gloria Sykes affidavit , Scott Evans affidavit and ADA Federal Court complaint may appear to be unethical conduct on the part of the Respondent, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled: “The plain, if at all times disquieting, truth is that in our pluralistic society, constantly proliferating new and ingenious forms of expression, ‘we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes.’ Rowan v. Post Office Dept., (397 U.S. 728,) 736, 90 S.Ct. 1484, 25 L.Ed.2d 736. Much that we encounter offends our *619 esthetic, if not our political and moral, sensibilities. Nevertheless, the Constitution does not permit government to decide which types of otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for the unwilling listener or viewer. Rather, absent the narrow circumstances described above (home intrusion or captive audience), the burden normally falls upon the viewer to ‘avoid further bombardment of (his) sensibilities simply by averting (his) eyes.’ Cohen v. California (403 U.S. 15,) 21, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284.” 422 U.S. 205, 210-11, 95 S.Ct. 2268, 2273, 45 L.Ed.2d 125, 131-32. Vill. of Skokie v. Nat'l Socialist Party of Am., 69 Ill. 2d 605, 618-19, 373 N.E.2d 21, 26 (1978)It is respectfully suggested that this panel, the Administrator, and the ARDC are barred from imposing restrictions on the free expression of the Respondent and his clients.