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

My mother used to look at the public official who invoked religion

My mother used to look at the public official who invoked religion in his presentation with a jaundiced eye.     The fellow who talked the most about integrity when closely examined appeared to have the least, and the largest donors to the church in too many cases were attempting to purchase absolution with dollars.

      

It occurred to me that I have been ranting about the need to protect America’s core values and how the corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt judicial and public officials ***** were all assaulting them.   Am I being viewed with that same jaundiced eye?      Should I be?      This morning I read on the Wall Street Journal web site the following article, to wit:

http://on.wsj.com/1HfXS0b

 

The health care industry has a massive fraud coefficient.     It has been estimated at 700% fraud and growing.     The Elder Cleansing Industry (isolation, abuse, and exploitation, deprivation of liberty, humanity and property rights of the elderly terminating in assisted involuntary citizenship) is fueled by this fraud.    The fraud is metastatic and has polluted our political system like a stage 4 cancer.    Looking at the Sykes case 09 P4585 and the Gore case over four million dollars has been stolen by fiduciary Court appointed guardians and their 18 USCA 371 and 18 USCA 242 comrades.      Indeed, the Illinois Department of Revenue knowing the State is bankrupt has not camped on Mr. Jerome Larkin’s door and demanded that he as a 18 USCA 371 and 18 USCA 242 co-conspirator pay the taxes, interest, and penalties he owes as the result of his participation in the cover-up.    Law enforcement has not hauled Larkin before the dock to answer for his felonies and misuse of his public position in protecting the criminals who are preying on the elderly and the disabled.    Hell – he is not even being forced to make the ethics disclosures that all public officials have to provide the public.    The Americans with Disabilities Act is mere words!     Apparently it is not politically correct to protect the elderly and the disabled from Judicial corruption.

When Jerome Larkin’s gang of hoodlums and criminals deprived Lanre Amu of Equal Protection of the Law and attempted to racially cleanse the legal profession of an uppity **** who had the temerity to complain concerning a respected judge who openly and notorious exhibited her contempt for the Law, honesty, and decency in open Court not a protest emanated from the media or our political system.   The assassination of Amu’s civil and human rights was ignored.    The obvious fact that he was a ‘man of color’ who refused to accept institutionalized judicial corruption merited in the eyes of the legal establishment that he was such a danger to the community that his law license had to be summarily suspended, and after a sham hearing worthy of the gulag he be suspended for three years.     The media, the political establishment, and even the civil rights establishment was silent.   Regrettably, for too long I was also silent.  

    

Indeed, when Civil Rights Icon Diane Nash was denied public accommodation in the hearing room wherein a sham Kangaroo hearing was being held for Attorney JoAnne Denison I was not silent.   My protest was however polite.   (That is the code word for benign!)    I sent an e-mail to Jerome Larkin demanding an apology.    I suggested that one of his insincere apologies would suffice.    I would like to think that I was being sarcastic.    The test would be determined if I sent a copy of my note to Ms. Nash.   However, the long and short was the fact that Larkin and his co-conspirators did not apologize and the legal lynching of Attorney Amu continues with the blessing of the entire court system.     The Dred Scottdecision apparently remains the Law of the Land.

Whether I am a phony or not really does not matter – America is in crisis.     The corruption is flowing from every pore of our democracy.    We have candidates for high public office who are strangers to the truth, embrace Bankruptcy as an acceptable business practice, and who demonstrate that they are above the law.   Unfortunately, the trend continues.      Yesterday, a family member of a victim cried out that when she tried in Florida to eliminate one of the elder cleansing guardianships, her father suddenly died!    Others across the United States related similar experiences.     I noted that I asked a question at a hearing in which a nursing home was trying to obtain a guardianship that exposed the frugality with the truth of one of the paid experts and my client suddenly developed a fatal condition and died.    Of course there are no criminal prosecutions!     The spoliation of evidence is rampant and standard operating procedure.     JoAnne Denison in her blog mentioned that fact.     Larken’s stooge and co-conspirator wrote in a document filed with the Lawyer Disciplinary Commission and the Illinois Supreme Court that Denison’s blog in disclosing pursuant lawyer Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 judicial corruption was akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.    The Supreme Court of Illinois agreed and Denison received an interim suspension of her law license and a 3 year suspension.

The Operation Greylord scandal looms in the background reminding everyone that Illinois (and many other States) elect judges.    More than a score of judges went to jail for corruption.    The chief Judge of the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County was reported to have taken a 200 dollar bribe!    Several score judges had to retire to avoid prosecution.     Had Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 comrades had their way the Federal investigators who conducted an Honest investigation would have gone to jail and those with law licenses would have received three year suspensions.

The fact remains --  all that appears to be my accomplishment by my complaints has been a four year suspension of my law license and my filling your mail box with my demands for an HONEST investigation.    

The bottom line is I do not give a rat’s ass.   I do not care whether anyone likes me or not!     I have to like myself!    I can do this only if I speak out against corruption, injustice, and the elder cleansing scandal.    My America will not and cannot tolerate a situation in which it is unsafe to grow old or become infirm.    In my America everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and everyone is entitled to Fairness and justice even if they might have a darker hue to their skin that I have.    No one has to belong to the “Party” to qualify for protection in America and even those who disagree with me enjoy all the same privileges and immunities as I do.  In my America, you and especially me have a duty to protect Jerome Larkin’s rights, privileges and immunities.

As an American citizen the First Amendment gives me the absolute right to scream to the heavens when I rub shoulders with corruption.    I need not look the other way when an American citizen has been murdered so that a bunch of political goons can ravage his estate.    I need not look the other way when grandmother is isolated, abused, exploited, deprived of her humanity, liberty and property.     I need not keep silent and suppress my horror when right here in America a grandmother’s mouth is converted into a gold mine so that the gold in her teeth can be harvested ******

In fact as an American I have a duty to complain and speak out.    As a lawyer Rule 8.3 requires me to speak out.    As a resident 18 USCA 4 requires me to complaint to law enforcement.    Only the corruption of the judicial and political system that is being orchestrated by a small group of miscreants acting in concert stands in the way of my fully exercising my duty to America.     As I promised – as long as the Stars and Stripes wave I intend to raise my voice in defense of what I believe to be America’s core principles.

Please note – America’s core PRINCIPLES, not principals is our credo. 

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Open Letter to Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Illinois ARDC From Ken Ditkowsky

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Open Letter to Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Illinois ARDC From Ken Ditkowsky

Dozens of  friends and family of victims of Elder Cleansing have written to your commission and all have received a letter that said that your agency stating that it was not interested in the obviously criminal conduct of a small group of lawyers being reported.     

Each complaint was essentially the same.    A senior citizen was railroaded into a guardianship in which his/her liberty and property were confiscated.     The looting of the estate was accomplished by the direct violation of the directive of 755 ILCS 11a – 3 (b) in that the elderly and/or disabled victim was separated from his/her prior life and family members who would not attorn to the artificial arrangement and the unjust enrichment of judicial and other officials.  (other officials include guardians and attorneys).    After the looting was complete the elderly person was subjected to a sometimes drawn out involuntary assisted suicide.

Some of the citizen complaints that were not investigated and not acted upon related attorney conduct that is so despicable and wrong that you dishonor the entire legal profession with your refusal to investigate.    The mining of the teeth of senior citizen Alice Gore orchestrated by an Illinois lawyer and ignored by your commission is illustrate of the neglect of duty that you have exhibited.     

The attempt to silence attorneys who speak out as to corruption in the Courts is another low point in your tenure and is at the very least the aiding and abetting of the felonies associated with elder cleansing. 

I written to you and your commission before and asked for you to join in calling for an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation of the cottage industry of elder cleansing and in particular that which occurred in the case of Mary Sykes 09 P 4585.    You of course have not joined in or conducted any investigation.     

The net was you marshalled your kangaroo panels and I am suspended for four years for the exercise of my First Amendment Rights.     You then started proceedings against JoAnne Denison who published on her blog some of my First Amendment utterances.     Currently, Ms. Denison in response to what appears to be the misreporting of the perjured words and phrases of a Judge you have continued with your ‘cover up’ by refusing Ms. Denison the audio transmission of the testimony.

You have accused me of making false statements but have never articulated a single statement that you claim was or is false.  I challenge you and herewith demand for you to instanter provide me and the community with a list of each statement that you claim was false.  Then for every statement you claim was false set forth the basis upon which you claim the statement was false. The foregoing notwithstanding the Friends and family of each of the victims of elder cleansing who have written attorney complaints to your commission want to know why you have refused to investigate the violations of the civil, human, property, and liberty rights of their loved ones who have been railroaded into guardianship by Illinois attorneys.    

We would like to know why you are protecting certain attorneys and not others.     Attorney Miriam Solo has been accused by the family of Alice Gore of what amounts to a human rights violation.    Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel and other have been accused by Gloria Sykes and the family of Mary Sykes of very very serious violations of Mary Sykes’ fundamental liberty rights.    This list is endless and each complaining person wants to know why you are not leading the investigation into the human rights It has not gone un-noticed that there is no ethics statement that can be found for you.   The ethics statements being your disclosure of assets and liabilities required by the State.

 A person placed in the position of judging the conduct of others should be able and willing to demonstrate at the drop of hat that he is more virtuous than Caesar’s wife.

~Ken Ditkowsky

Top New York Court Protects The Right To Annoy

Date posted: May 27, 2014 | Posted in First Amendment, Litigation | 0 comments

AAA

By IT-Lex Intern Kristin Bergman (Twitter / LinkedIn)

Anyone that thinks that the world of academia is dull, is in for a surprise with a recent decision from New York’s highest court. As we wrote over a year ago, (then disbarred) attorney Raphael Golb “concocted an elaborate scheme” impersonating scholars in emails and posting anonymously to blogs in order to defend and promote his father’s research on the Dead Sea Scrolls. For this campaign, Golb was convicted of identity theft, criminal impersonation, forgery, aggravated harassment, and unauthorized use of a computer. The New York appellate court affirmed Golb’s sentence of six months in jail and five years probation.

This month, the New York Court of Appeals vacated several of these convictions—including all of the counts of identity theft, aggravated harassment, and unauthorized use of a computer, and about one-third of the counts of criminal impersonation. This leaves Golb with misdemeanor convictions for on nine counts of criminal impersonation and 10 counts of identity theft.

In its opinion, the Court considered the harm contemplated by criminal impersonation charges. Under a New York criminal statute, a person is guilty of criminal impersonation when he or she “impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another.” The Court determined that the harm may come in a form other than monetary loss, such injury to reputation—very important in academia. That said, to be criminalized, a prosecutor must demonstrate “intent to cause a tangible, pecuniary injury to another . . . more than a prank intended to cause temporary embarrassment or discomfiture, and that he acted with intent to do real harm.” The Court distinguished creating email accounts in other scholars’ names from the malicious use of those accounts, holding:

[T]he mere creation of email accounts [impersonating scholars] (in contrast to the use of those accounts to send emails) does not constitute criminal conduct under Penal Law § 190.25. The mere creation of email accounts that are not used does no substantial harm to anyone.

It therefore dismissed those counts involving solely the creation of the email accounts or emails where Golb merely asked for the recipient’s opinion.

The Court went on to hold that New York’s aggravated harassment statute “is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad,” vacating Golb’s conviction under the statute. Extending People v Dietze’s reasoning, in which the Court struck down a harassment statute prohibiting use of obscene language with the intent to even annoy another, the Court quoted “any proscription of pure speech must be sharply limited to words which, by their utterance alone, inflict injury or tend naturally to evoke immediate violence.” Invoking the incitement doctrine, the Court found New York’s current statute similarly overbroad and unconstitutional. It said simply: “The statute criminalizes, in broad strokes, any communication that has the intent to annoy”—and its sweeping language violates free speech clauses in the First Amendment and New York’s own Constitution.

The Court remitted the case to the appellate court for resentencing in accordance with this order dismissing about one-third of the convictions.