Editor’s note: Your ProbateShark made an ARDC complaint against a lawyer alleging perjury and violation of Illinois Probate Law. The ARDC considers perjury and felony law violations as "civil" law and would not censure the attorney in question. Is this a clear cut case of discrimination against noisy Sharks or could this attorney be protected by the ARDC? Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
What is the standard of the ARDC in free speech? Or, Where is my refrigerator for my Chilled Speech?
by jmdenison
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 safe, what then? Must we say them so we have something to say?
Monitoring speech and thought is not only impossible, it is near 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 what is the ARDC using 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." 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!
| Comment | See all comments |
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://marygsykes.com/2013/02/ |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.