From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 8, 2014 6:20 AM
To: Eric Holder , matt senator kirk , Cook County States Attorney , "
sheriff@dupagesheriff.org" , "
sheriff@dupagesheriff.org" , Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , Janet Phelan , Chicago Tribune , Jo Anne M Denison , Necla Lane , SUNTIMES , Kathie Bakken , GLORIA SYKES , Tim NASGA , "
tips@elderabuseexposed.com" , "
tips@cbschicago.com" , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky
Subject: Fw: opening argument of the IARDC
JoAnne
I have not read the transcripts as yet, but if your analysis is accurate pursuant to 18 USCA 4 and Himmel these admissions must be reported to the law enforcement people.
Mr. Larkin is fully aware that a blog that reports corruption in the legal community is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Not even close! Mr. Larkin is fully aware that jurisdiction can be attacked at any time and at any place. He is also aware that no less an authority other than the Supreme Court of Illinois has pointed out that the failure to comply with 755 ILCS 5/11a - 10 is to deny the proceeding jurisdiction. Proceedings that do not start with jurisdiction are void! The family and friends of Mary Sykes have certainly not stopped complaining about this fact!
Larkin is a public official and has a special duty toward the public. The opening statement is an admission that he and his crew are taking public funds and either not doing their jobs or using public facilities to foster, aid and abet criminal activities aimed at elder cleaning, i.e. elder abuse/financial exploitation of the elderly and involuntary assisted suicide. [He is taking state funds and diverting them for personal purposes which is a violation of the Hobbs Act and it is that Act that was used for prosecution of miscreants in Greylord]
People have been reporting that the words and phrases that you reiterate as being the basis of the prosecution of you by Mr. Larkin and the IARDC was surreal and sounded like a cover-up, so I am not surprised by your e-mail. What I am indeed surprised is the fact that the panel did not throw out the charges right after opening statement. Certainly the lawyers on the panel are presumed to understand the Rule of Law and the core values of the United States of America. (sorry - tongue in cheek - comment. I've gone through the same process and am now before the Supreme Court of Illinois being denied First Amendment Rights uniformly - however, I am still surprised that the corruption goes so deep).
Larkin and SO have provided a rare opportunity for the public to observe in the opening statement the core values of corruption and how their tax dollars are spent so that elder abuse, financial exploitation of the elderly and involuntary assisted suicide (elder cleansing) is fostered so political favorites receive their 'welfare!'
Of course = I urge all who read your blog, read these e-mails to not believe a word that is said in the blog, these e-mails or in the reports of your fellows! Do an Honest, intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation on your own! Everyone gets old! Everyone get vulnerable! You too may have PS, AS, CF, MS et al in your future!!!! THEN IT WILL BE TOO LATE!
Indeed, your family may write your Senator and receive a copy of his speech on how he is protecting social security as you are being elder cleansed!
Ken Ditkowsky
Let us discuss her arguments:
1) yelling fire in a crowded theatre is an admission that the statements are in fact First Amendment Statements. Thus, there is a requirement to show clear and present danger. To show clear and present danger there has to be:
1) danger - what is the danger? Where are the large members of the public to be harmed? In fact the only harm that can come are to criminals who are preying on the elderly.
2) 755 ILCS 5/11a - 1 et seq. if there is jurisdiction requires constant supervision and section 17 and 18 so provide. Of course a lack of jurisdiction can be brought up at any time. Exploitation of the elderly is a criminal event and therefore 18 USCA 4 requires that it be reported to law enforcement authorities. The Himmel case requires that it be reported to the IARDC. The IARDC is supposed to be prosecuting the miscreant attorneys - not the whistle blowers. 320 ILCS 20/4
3) 47 USCA 230 obviates that argument. If there is damage to the Sykes case some expert witness is required to so testify. If damage to the Sykes case means that the interests of the elder cleaners is interfered with that is acceptable damage and is proof of the violation of public civil rights and criminal conduct on the part of the Administrator. 18 USCA 371.
4) There is no such law, and the words and phrases of the First Amendment, Article 1, and 735 ILCS 110/5 all are contrary. You can cite Gillespe, Sawyer, et al.
As this was promised as what was to be proved and not proved you are entitled to a directed finding. The IARDC saying it, does not make it true.
Ken Ditkowsky
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.