Thursday, August 18, 2016

Has anyone ever wondered why the public has so little respect for the American Bar Association and lawyers in general?

Has anyone ever wondered why the public has so little respect for the American Bar Association and lawyers in general?
Today’s WSJ has an article as to Rule 8.4 which the ABA proposes.      The Rule is an attempt to impose POLITICAL CORRECTNESS on all lawyers.     It is the next step in imposing a climate of arbitrary political correctness on the legal profession.     The WSJ looks at the new rule as imposing on the public punishment for any one that is not fully vested in asserting without reservation that homosexuality, gay marriage, trans genderness etc. are on an equal footing with people with a male appendage being calling men and marrying other individuals without the male appendage or people with the male appendage not using bathrooms designed for those people without the male appendage.     Indeed, now that the First Amendment is barred from the Courthouse, thinking or discussing the words of the Bible that do not fully agree with current political correctness are legally unethical.
Whether the American Bar Association decides that Lawyers who do not meet the standard of the current interpretation of political correctness may be disbarred is only one of the issues involved in the Rule.     Freedom of Religion, speech, and association will always be under attack by those amongst us who wish to destroy America’s freedom.    The ABA recently has exhibited such disrespect for itself and the legal profession in general that it and its rules are more of a joke than effective.    Rule 8.3 requires lawyers to expose corruption, however, when lawyers expose Judicial corruption they are disciplined by State Bar disciplinarians.      The ABA of course is silent!     JoAnne Denison being disciplined by the Illinois Supreme Court for publishing in her blog material as to certain corrupt Illinois Judges raised no a single word of protest from the ABA.     The characterization of the blog and its exposure of a Judge who on page 91 of her evidence deposition admitted to being influenced by the petitioner (wired) as being akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater was an overt repudiation of the LAWYER OATH!      It also was a violation of 18 USCA 4.
When the ABA surrendered its integrity to the Political and Judicial elite (and political correctness) it forfeited any respect that either the bar or the public can have for it.     Indeed, Rule 8.4 is a complete abdication of any moral standing that the ABA might enjoy.    Indeed, to illustrate:
Larne Amu is a citizen of the United States of America.    Mr. Amu has a dark hue to his skin, and an armful of credentials.     He is an engineer and a lawyer.     Mr. Amu also sees the world in what we call black and white terms.     To him right is right, correct is correct, left is left, right is right, and when one takes an oath that person is obligated to carry out the terms of the oath appropriately and diligently.      Mr. Amu observed (as did Crain’s Chicago Business) that certain Cook County, Illinois Judges had some very questionable habits.   For instance, Judge Egan was a board member of the defendant and her brother was the attorney for the defendant.    Amu viewed that position as a conflict of interest and grossly unethical.     So much so that pursuant to ABA Rule 8.3 he reported the Judge’s questionable conduct to the State of Illinois Disciplinary Commission *****.
Jerome Larkin on the other hand is a member of the judicial elite and occupies a position at the public watering hole.     He is the administrator of the IARDC.     Larkin, like Judge Egan, appears to have some very questionable background history – however, he is part of the establishment elite and a blind eye is turned to his indiscretions.     Even though an independent and highly regarded business publication made the same claim as Amu.  (Crain’s Chicago Business) Larkin independent determined that Amu was a liar and worse.     He petitioned to the Supreme Court and Amu was given a summary suspension and a 3-year suspension of his law license.        The IARDC had the duty to prove that Amu (and Crain’s Chicago Business) were not telling the truth by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.     So honest were the IARDC proceedings that CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE meant – NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED!     The Judge did not deny the charge!     In fact, no one denied the charge and only LARKIN claimed it was true.     Of course any HONEST investigation would have revealed that the Jude was on the Board of Directors of the defendant and her brother indeed was the defendant’s attorney.
In point of fact – Amu was telling the truth and Larkin was not telling the truth.     POLITICAL correctness was determined by Larkin!     He had abdicated Rule 8.3 and Amu was convicted under Rule 8.4 and for the audacity of PRACTICING LAW WHILE BLACK.
The WSJ Article states:
.@rrotunda: The ABA overrules the First Amendment
Rule 8.4 is an amorphous rule designed to protect the establishment’s activities and give them the force of law even if they are dead wrong, unconstitutional, or criminal.
Most people who read about SELMA or watched the movie SElMA know the name of Civil Rights Icon Diane Nash.     Ms. Nash fought all her life for the Rights of all citizen under the Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments to the US Constitution).     Among those rights are the right of all persons to be admitted to all public proceedings – including Kangaroo disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer whose Civil and Human Rights are being violated.     Thus, Mrs. Nash appeared in the Prudential Building Offices of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Proceedings to watch the Civil and Human Rights of Attorney JoAnne Denison be abridged and abrogated.    
Apparently Ms. Nash was recognized.    Even though there were ample seats in the hearing room, Ms. Nash was arbitrarily denied admittance.   (there was an empty seat -right next to me).     Why was Ms. Nash denied accommodation?     Ask Mr. Larkin.     I asked him to apologize.    Of course he did not even give one of those insincere apologies that the Political Elite are famous for.    “I’m sorry that I jeopardized the ****** - I was just not thinking clearly!”  
Rule 8.4 was violated.     The ABA, knowing of the obscene violation by Jerome Larkin and the IARDC of course determined that it was not interested – ditto for the Illinois Supreme Court, Justice Department *****.    
It is respectfully submitted that Rule 8.4 cannot be enacted without a strong statement by the ABA and law enforcement that THEY ARE ENFORCING THE RULE.     Indeed – when I see Jerome Larkin disbarred for his actions against Mr. Amu and Ms. Nash I will become a believer – but, it the law does not apply to any of the Political or the Judicial Elite the ABA should not only be admonished but it should be publicly reprimanded.     Practicing Law while Black should have gone the way of all flesh during the Civil War (1865) and should not occur in today’s America.    Diane Nash should have been allowed to sit next to this ‘fat old Jewish guy’ at the Kangaroo hearing that the IARDC was wrongfully conducting against JoAnne Denison.     
 Ken Ditkowsky

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.