PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF

PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF   Now comes JoAnne Denison, Kenneth Ditkowsky and move for this Honorable Court for a Supervisory Order and for other relief and in support thereof states as follows: Prefatory Statement   That in recent years this Court has entered rulings making it very clear that Americans enjoy the full spectrum of First AmendmentRights and Privileges and in particular that content related speech cannot be regulated by government or the judiciary directly or indirectly.   United States v Alvarez, 132 US. Ct 537, Brown v Entm’t Merchants Asss’n 13 S. Ct 2729, Ashcroft v ACLU 124 Sc.D.  2783, Snyder v. Phelps 131 S. Ct 1207, Citizens United V FEC 13) S. Ct 876, McCutcheon v FEC 2014 WL 1301866.       It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid cases and their holdings are the LAW OF THE LAND and the RULE OF LAW.     This Court determined in Direct TV Inc vs. Imburgia   ___ S Ct _____, decided December 14, 2015 case 14 – 465 that certain State Courts ignore the Rule of Law as determined by this Court.    In the Direct TVcase this Court noted that its decisions are not advisory or suggestions, but are intended to be the Rule of Law and binding of the States of the Union. It is evident from the license prosecutions of lawyer for speaking out pursuant to Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4, that the States ignoring the Rule of Law as this Court has determined the realm of Free Speech.    The cases of Alvarez, Brown, Ashcroft, Snyder, Citizens United, McCutcheon et al are not only being ignored, but are being unilaterally abrogated.     It is clear that while it is abundantly clear that the Rule of Law prohibits States from interfering with political or content related speech,  groups of State sponsored corrupt judicial officials, judges, lawyers and public officials openly and notorious defy the rulings of this Court with impunity.    Thus, the people who are most knowledgeable of corruption in the Judicial System are being intimidated and coerced to participate in a “cover up” of the isolation, abuse, exploitation, deprivation of rights of senior citizens and disabled people.      The gravamen of this Motion is to solicit this Court to order enforcement of its ruling in Alvarez, Brown, Ashcroft, Snyder and the other Civil Right/First Amendment rulings. [1]       Summary of the Motion     Corruption in government is a ‘given.’    The distinction that exists between America and the world is that the corruption in the American government has always been mitigated so that it remains at manageable levels.   The Key precursor in reducing avarice and corruption has been and is the First Amendment to the US Constitution.     Lawyers, who work in the Courts, are aware of the perfidy, breaches of fiduciary relationship, and outright criminal behavior that the elderly[2] and the disabled are subjected to in corrupt guardianships.      Lawyer Rule 8.3 demands that Lawyer report criminal activities.   18 USCA 4 makes it a crime to not report felonies.     18 USCA 2, 18 USCA 3, 18 USCA 242, 18 USCA 371 all are Congressional statements attempting to discourage “cover ups” and citizen participation in corruption. Today, assaults on Civil Rights are clandestine and subtle.     Elder Cleansing[3] as an example of the criminal activities that are engaged in by miscreant Judicial and political individuals and cover-ups and intimidate have become the norm.   See:http://www.ktnv.com/news/contact-13/guardianship-commission-to-ask-for-criminal-investigations) As this court’s authority and rules are negated by the judicially supported cover-ups the petitioners as respectfully requesting that this Court enter and decree such orders as will protect the citizen rights to address grievances to law enforcement.[4]  [5] Motion     1.       At all times relevant, JoAnne Denison and Kenneth Ditkowsky individually were (and are) persons who received law degrees.      The Information as to Kenneth Ditkowsky is contained in his denied Petition for certiorari filed herein as case 13 – 1473.     The Information as to JoAnne Denison is ******.    This information is incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.  2.       That the petitioners are Citizens of the United States of America and prior to the deprivation of their Civil Rights  were licensed to practice Law in the State of Illinois and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.    3.       That the petitioners were not sanctioned or otherwise admonished by the Illinois Disciplinary Commission (IARDC), the Supreme Court of Illinois, or any other lawyer disciplinary commission or law enforcement group for any criminal or recognized by America jurisprudence as ethically deficient conduct[6].    The suspensions were based upon their compliance with Rule 8.3 and their reporting of corruption in the Circuit Courts of Illinois.    Both Ditkowsky and Denison, as examples of the class of attorneys who spoke out against corruption and were punished with loss of (or suspension of law license for requesting the First Amendment right (and obligation) of an HONEST INVESTIGATION of corrupt judges and judicial officials depriving a citizen of liberty, civil rights and/ or property. 4.       It should be noted that there are no allegations that either Ditkowsky or Denison (or any of the similarly effected attorneys) stole any money, breached any fiduciary obligations, neglected clients, engaged in contemptuous behavior etc.     In Ditkowsky’s and Denison’s case, the file in case file 09 P 4585 supports their call for an Honest investigation of the Mary Sykes[7] case.    The case file in the Alice Gore case is so replete with impropriety as to be infamous.  (See Probate Sharks blog and www.activistpost.com › Politics).   The NASGA web-site connotes that the Government Accounting Office rendered several reports to Congress as to the guardianship corruption (elder cleansing).   Those reports are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail. 5.       That the mindset of the Illinois Supreme Court as an example is exemplified by two facts, to wit: a.        The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission argued in its papers to the Illinois Supreme Court that the Alvarez case was their authority for regulating Ms. Denison’s blog.     The very section that the IARDC cited specifically was rejected by this Court, and b.      In it documents in words and phrase the IARDC argued that Ms. Denison’s blog which exposed corruption in the Circuit Courts of Illinois was akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.  The Illinois Supreme court negated this Court’s decisions in Alvarez and related cases by granting an interim suspension of Ms. Denison’s license and approximately a month later suspending her license for three years.      (interim suspensions are usually given when there is a danger to the public – the only danger was to corrupt lawyers, corrupt judges, corrupt judicial officials and persons who were engaged in 18 USCA 371 and 18 USCA 242 conspiracies). 6.       That at all times relevant Ditkowsky and Denison were private citizens – who happened to have law degrees.     They each protested pursuant to the First Amendment Rights and were punished for such conduct.     Ditkowsky’s demand for an Honest investigation in a letter to the Attorney General of the United States resulted in a four year suspension of his law license, and Denison in echoing the request and disclosing in her blog MaryGSykes corruption received an interim suspension and a three year suspension.   (See blog MaryGSykes and blog Probate Sharks). 7.       That in derogation of the attempts by the State government (Illinois in the case of Ditkowsky and Denison) to censor attorney speech the legal profession promulgated Rule 8.3 which requires reporting of corruption and the Congress 18 USCA 4 which mandates the reporting of felonies.   Theft and Exploitation of senior citizen assets, even when approved by a corrupt court, is a felony. 8.       That in addition to Ditkowsky and Denison, other persons with law degrees were similarly punished for exercising their First Amendment Rights[8], to wit: a.       Lanre Amu.     Mr. Amu in the opinion of the authors of this motion, Kenneth Ditkowsky and JoAnne Denison was punished for Practicing Law while Black.    This provocative statement is made because Crain’s Chicago Business made a similar corruption averment as Mr. Amu, however, the Illinois Supreme Court and the Attorney Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) treated the citizen complaint of Mr. Amu with benign neglect and demonstrated that Lawyer Amu had no Civil Rights in their view.[9]      They took the unusual step of punishing him with an Interim suspension normally reserved for lawyers who pose a danger to the public and then a three year suspension.     Amu’s Petition for Cert is filed herein is incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set out in detail.  b.      O (Last name deleted because of fear of retaliation)[10]     O was a civil rights lawyer whose practice led him to become involved in some controversial cases and to embarrass some prominent establishment figures.   Mr. O was not compliant with the wishes of the establishment and when asked to participate in conduct that was detrimental to his client, he refused.    Unfortunately, when O became seriously medically infirm, it is believed and therefore alleged that his adversaries induced a client who was adversely affected by O’s illness to file a bar complaint against him.    The complaint was adjudicated adversely as to O, and he was disciplined with a suspension.    Ironically the client who filed the bar complaint subsequently returned to O requesting further representation.    The record in the Bar proceedings were interpreted in the matter least positive for O.   Hopeful of rejuvenating his career, not only has O had to remain silent as to the assault on his Civil Rights, he has had to be demonstrate that he was "repentant". c.       Jeffery Norkin.      Mr. Norkin is a Florida attorney, who was disciplined for representing a business client and being aggressively critical of a ‘clouted’ brother attorney who opposed Norkin’s client’s claim.      Even though the Judge did not sanction Norkin his exercising of his First Amendment rightscaused to him receive a two year suspension.    Norkin’s petition for cert is incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.[11] d.       RG, PO, and many more lawyers are victims of the assaults on this Court’s express mandates, the First Amendment protections.       The mainstream media has been silent as to this attack on the core values of America and the Rule of Law, but a trickle is found on the Internet.    See:  https://www.laprogressive.com/courts-squelch-dissent e.        RG determined that his mother’s estate was being alleged pillaged by a Washington State legal administrator.    After he was stonewalled, he made application to the Court (he had an inactive license).    Even though the administrator did not deny the fiduciary theft, the Washington Bar disbarred RG for practicing law without a license. f.           PO was critical of a judge and criticized the Indiana commission for being discriminatory against lawyers who were not affiliated with large law firms.    He was disciplined with a suspension. 9.        That the States actively ignoring the mandates of United States v Alvarez, 132 US. Ct 537, Brown v Entm’t Merchants Asss’n13 S. Ct 2729, Ashcroft v ACLU 124 Sc.D.  2783, Snyder v. Phelps131 S. Ct 1207, Citizens United V FEC 13) S. Ct 876, McCutcheon v FEC 2014 WL 1301866 have been discovered to be using economic coercion to further intimidate and coerce lawyers not to assert their rights, or comport to their oaths of office.      Most State disciplinary statutes provide for “costs” to be charged against the professional who is found to be guilty of conduct that is subject to discipline.     Thus, if a lawyer continues his call for an end to (for example) elder cleansing in a guardianship case substantial sums can be assessed as “costs” (sometimes in the tens of thousands of dollars).    With the loss of professional status, loss of livihood and pecuniary punishment, few lawyer victims continue to object to or defy the “code of silence.” 10.     That it is imperative that all citizens, and especiallylawyers, all feel free to speak out against corruption.     In Illinois for example, a little over a decade ago , more than a score of Judges were sentenced to prison for corrupt acts that included but were not limited to bribing taking, extortion,  and other crimes.      Many more judges were forced to resign their positions.    Operation Greylord was more than a scandal – it was a lynch pin of distrust of the credibility that the public holds as to the legal profession.        Trust is earned and no amount of rhetoric will promulgate the America public to respect the decisions of the Courts.   The respect must come for positive action that manifests facts that taken together generate respect.(???)    The Direct TV case, the Alvarez case, and the other First Amendment cases are positive action.[12] 11.    That this Petition is directed to this Supreme Court of the United States predicated upon the open and notorious refusal of certain State Supreme Courts to follow and/or submit to the authority of this Supreme Court of the United States.     For instance, Attorney JoAnne Denison has received an interim suspension of her law license followed by a three year suspension.    The rationale of the Illinois Disciplinary Commission and the Supreme Court of Illinois was that her exposing corruption in her blog – MaryGSykes – was akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.    This argument advanced by a lawyer employed by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission is repugnant to the most basic tenets of the American democracy.     However, the Illinois Supreme Court not only attorned but it punished Attorney Denison with an interim suspension.    Interim suspensions are only granted when the public safety is involved. 12.   That certain principles cannot be brushed under the rug.   InLoving v IRS 917 F. Supp 2d 67, aff’d 742 F 3d 1013 it was established that an agency and/or government entity has a finite jurisdiction and actions that are ultra vires are not allowable.      This Court is the arbitrator of jurisdiction, interpretation of statutes, Constitutional rights, liabilities and protections.    A free society and a democratic society must be able to be able to rely upon the words and phrases of the Supreme Court of the United States.       This Court in Alvarez made it clear that government could not, except under extreme circumstances – that are not present herein – (remove repetition)regulate speech.   47 USCA 230 made it clear that Internet blogs were also free from regulation as to speech of the content or political variety.     13.   In the recent case of Rosemond v Markham (US District Court , Central District of Kentucky 13 42 GFkVT) the District Court applied the principles espoused by this Court  thus demonstrating that the aforesaid First Amendment decision were not obtuse, vague or not readily understandable.    In fact this Court’s decisions are totally clear and the misapplication and refusal by the Illinois Supreme Court and other State Supreme Courts and lawyer disciplinary commissions is ethically challenged.     To be blunt the actions of the State Supreme Court in denying lawyers their First Amendment Rights is a direct criminal contempt of Court that cannot be tolerated if America is to remain a Nation of Laws, Honor, Integrity and self-respect. 14.    That the petitioners and the lawyers similarly situated have no adequate remedy at law, and unless this Court acts affirmatively to address the ‘code of silence’ and unofficial injunction levied by State Supreme Courts against compliance with the lawyer oath of office, Rule 8.3, 18 USCA 4, and the requirements that any free society imposes on its citizens the assaults on the First Amendment Rights of the legal profession will persist and more importantly thousands of senior citizens will be routinely elder cleansed and deprived of their property and human dignity.   Wherefore the petitioners, each of them, and lawyers everywhere pray this court will follow its mandate elicited in the Direct TVcase and issue such orders and judgments as might be necessary to induce the State Supreme Courts and others to understand and attorn to the Fact that the Supreme Court of the United States judgments, decrees and pronouncement are not mere suggestions, but the Rule of Law   Respectfully Submitted, Kenneth Ditkowsky/ JoAnne Denison [1] It should be noted that part of the criterion for becoming a lawyer, a judge, a public official or other office holder is to take an oath to defend the Constitution.     This is a serious oath as the Core values of America and in particular the First Amendment are the lynch pin that keeps our democracy viable.      The petitioners do not create a danger to the public by their seeking Honest Investigations of corruption and misdeeds in government, but, it is respectfully submitted,are doing their duty as Citizens and professionals.      The attempt by public officials to silence lawyers who are doing their 18 USCA 4 and Rule 8.3 duty is reprehensible and wrong.     It is submitted that the ‘cover-up’ action is a direct violation of Federal Law and the Oath to defend the Constitution. [2] The isolation, abuse, exploitation and deprivation of citizenship rights to senior citizens is defined as elder cleansing.    Elder cleansing is the first cousin to racial cleansing, ethnic cleansing etc.’ [3] Elder Cleansing is the herding of senior citizens into guardianships so that the senior citizens are isolated from their former lives, placed into guardianships wherein with the connivance of local corrupt judicial officials (judges) the victims are abused, their estates are looted and ultimately the seniors are subjected to involuntary assisted suicides.    The Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County, Illinois) is a representative case.   [4] Kenneth Ditkowsky requested an Honest Investigation of the ‘elder cleansing’ of Mary Sykes, Alice Gore and others.   He wrote to law enforcement and the Attorney General of the United States.    He pointed out that the Sykes file revealed that Mary appeared not have been afforded a lawyer, notice or hearing before her Ditkowsky's guardianship was decreed.(??????????)    In the Gore case the horrific situation of her mouth being prospected so that the gold from her teeth could be harvested.    Ditkowsky’s punishment for the audacity of requested an Honest Investigation was a four year suspension of his law license.   (Ditkowsky was never of record in the Sykes case, except to defend a sanction motion which the Appellate Court ruled had been brought by certain judicial officials to a Court lacking jurisdiction) [5] JoAnne Denison authored a blog (MaryGSykes) which reiterated Ditkowsky’s call for an HONEST INVESTIGATION and pursuant to 47 USCA 230 was a forum for disclosure of corruption in the Courts.    Denison’s disclosure of judicial corruption so infuriated the corrupt judicial officials that they absurdly likened her blog to yelling fire in a crowded theater.  She was suspended on an interim basis and for an additional three years.    Interim suspension are usually based upon a clear and present danger to the public.   How exposure of judicial corruption is a clear and present danger to the public is one of the great mysteries of American jurisprudence. [6] Demanding Law Enforcement do its job, or demanding that the Rule of Law as set forth by the SCOTUS is no matter who characterized NOT ethically disqualifying conduct - it is protected by the First Amendment and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution. [7] In the Mary Sykes case the Illinois Statutes are very specific in their requirements prior to a guardian be appointed. See 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq.     The guardianship is not willy nilly awarded, the petitioner must prove the need and the extent of the need for guardianship by clear and convincing evidence.   755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b discloses the extent and nature of the guardianship.   The procedural protections are contained in 755 ILCS 5/11a -10.     The Summons required to be served on Mary Sykes was never served, the family members required to be notified prior to the hearing were never notified and there was never any hearing held.   No testimony was taken, and Mary was denied a lawyer.   The affidavit of the daughter of Mary Sykes revealed a million dollars in gold coins were never inventoried.  (This fact has never been denied by the guardian). [8] Many citizens are intimidated by the criminal elements who have invaded the Lawyer Disciplinary Commission and who are using the commissions to censor and bar compliance with Rule 8.3 and the Oath of Attorneys.  (Attorneys in most states pledge to protect the Constitution).      Retaliation is not an idle threat.    Thus, the identity of some of the aggrieved lawyers is disguised.    [9] In the case of Lanre Amu, he spoke out against Judge Lynn Egan, and subsequently Crain’s Chicago Business investigated and found the allegations to be true.  Then, the corporations involved discharged her from her position on the Board of Directors and publicly apologized for the breach of ethics and corruption.  [10]  Sad but true, most lawyers who have been singled out for an assault on their civil rights (and in particular First Amendment Rights) are hesitant to come forth and overtly demand the restoration of those rights and the punishment of the violation of 18 USCA 241 and 18 USCA 242. [11]  disbarringthecritics.blogspot.com/.../florida-supreme-court-badly-bungle [12] Justice Black and Justice Douglas took the position that the First Amendment was absolute.    They argued that if America’s principles were good, no words and no phrases could deter from the dominance of the aforesaid principles.   Thus, they advocated that content related and political speech were paramount.      TheAlvarez case  is unequivocal in making that point; however, too many State Bar Disciplinary Commissions and State Supreme Courts are rejecting not only this Court’s mandates, but the mandate of the State Constitutions.   Such is intolerable and a mockery of this Court that cannot be tolerated in our republic. Ken Ditkowsky www.ditkowskylawoffice.com On 12/21/15 4:45 PM, kenneth ditkowsky wrote: Subject to whatever Attorney Denison wishes to add or subtract from this post, this is the petition that I wish to file before the Supreme Court of the United States     PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF   Now comes JoAnne Denison, Kenneth Ditkowsky and move for this Honorable Court for a Supervisory Order and for other relief and in support thereof states as follows: Prefatory Statement   That in recent years this Court has entered rulings making it very clear that Americans enjoy the full spectrum of First AmendmentRights and Privileges and in particular that content related speech cannot be regulated by government or the judiciary directly or indirectly.   United States v Alvarez, 132 US. Ct 537, Brown v Entm’t Merchants Asss’n 13 S. Ct 2729, Ashcroft v ACLU 124 Sc.D.  2783, Snyder v. Phelps 131 S. Ct 1207, Citizens United V FEC 13) S. Ct 876, McCutcheon v FEC 2014 WL 1301866.       It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid cases and their holdings are the LAW OF THE LAND and the RULE OF LAW.     This Court determined in Direct TV Inc vs. Imburgia   ___ S Ct _____, decided December 14, 2015 case 14 – 465 that certain State Courts ignore the Rule of Law as determined by this Court.    In the Direct TVcase this Court noted that its decisions are not advisory or suggestions, but are intended to be the Rule of Law and binding of the States of the Union. It is evident from the license prosecutions of lawyer for speaking out pursuant to Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4, that the States ignoring the Rule of Law as this Court has determined the realm of Free Speech.    The cases of Alvarez, Brown, Ashcroft, Snyder, Citizens United, McCutcheon et al are not only being ignored, but are being unilaterally abrogated.     It is clear that while it is abundantly clear that the Rule of Law prohibits States from interfering with political or content related speech,  groups of State sponsored corrupt judicial officials, judges, lawyers and public officials openly and notorious defy the rulings of this Court with impunity.    Thus, the people who are most knowledgeable of corruption in the Judicial System are being intimidated and coerced to participate in a “cover up” of the isolation, abuse, exploitation, deprivation of rights of senior citizens and disabled people.      The gravamen of this Motion is to solicit this Court to order enforcement of its ruling in Alvarez, Brown, Ashcroft, Snyder and the other Civil Right/First Amendment rulings. [1]       Summary of the Motion     Corruption in government is a ‘given.’    The distinction that exists between America and the world is that the corruption in the American government has always been mitigated so that it remains at manageable levels.   The Key precursor in reducing avarice and corruption has been and is the First Amendment to the US Constitution.     Lawyers, who work in the Courts, are aware of the perfidy, breaches of fiduciary relationship, and outright criminal behavior that the elderly[2] and the disabled are subjected to in corrupt guardianships.      Lawyer Rule 8.3 demands that Lawyer report criminal activities.   18 USCA 4 makes it a crime to not report felonies.     18 USCA 2, 18 USCA 3, 18 USCA 242, 18 USCA 371 all are Congressional statements attempting to discourage “cover ups” and citizen participation in corruption. Today, assaults on Civil Rights are clandestine and subtle.     Elder Cleansing[3] as an example of the criminal activities that are engaged in by miscreant Judicial and political individuals and cover-ups and intimidate have become the norm.   See:http://www.ktnv.com/news/contact-13/guardianship-commission-to-ask-for-criminal-investigations) As this court’s authority and rules are negated by the judicially supported cover-ups the petitioners as respectfully requesting that this Court enter and decree such orders as will protect the citizen rights to address grievances to law enforcement.[4]  [5] Motion     1.       At all times relevant, JoAnne Denison and Kenneth Ditkowsky individually were (and are) persons who received law degrees.      The Information as to Kenneth Ditkowsky is contained in his denied Petition for certiorari filed herein as case 13 – 1473.     The Information as to JoAnne Denison is ******.    This information is incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.  2.       That the petitioners are Citizens of the United States of America and prior to the deprivation of their Civil Rights  were licensed to practice Law in the State of Illinois and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.    3.       That the petitioners were not sanctioned or otherwise admonished by the Illinois Disciplinary Commission (IARDC), the Supreme Court of Illinois, or any other lawyer disciplinary commission or law enforcement group for any criminal or recognized by America jurisprudence as ethically deficient conduct[6].    The suspensions were based upon their compliance with Rule 8.3 and their reporting of corruption in the Circuit Courts of Illinois.    Both Ditkowsky and Denison, as examples of the class of attorneys who spoke out against corruption and were punished with loss of (or suspension of law license for requesting the First Amendment right (and obligation) of an HONEST INVESTIGATION of corrupt judges and judicial officials depriving a citizen of liberty, civil rights and/ or property. 4.       It should be noted that there are no allegations that either Ditkowsky or Denison (or any of the similarly effected attorneys) stole any money, breached any fiduciary obligations, neglected clients, engaged in contemptuous behavior etc.     In Ditkowsky’s and Denison’s case, the file in case file 09 P 4585 supports their call for an Honest investigation of the Mary Sykes[7] case.    The case file in the Alice Gore case is so replete with impropriety as to be infamous.  (See Probate Sharks blog and www.activistpost.com › Politics).   The NASGA web-site connotes that the Government Accounting Office rendered several reports to Congress as to the guardianship corruption (elder cleansing).   Those reports are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail. 5.       That the mindset of the Illinois Supreme Court as an example is exemplified by two facts, to wit: a.        The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission argued in its papers to the Illinois Supreme Court that ... [Message clipped]  View entire message