From Ken Ditkowsky–the breadth of the First Amendment!

Posted on June 30, 2012

From Ken Ditkowsky:

Yesterday I re-read the ARDC complaint that was filed concerning my protests and communications in regard to Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and the miscreants who acted under color of statute to deprive Mary Sykes of her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.   The action taken is not even subtle.   It is a heavy handed attempt to shut me up.  My protest and exercise of my First Amendment Rights are particularly unpleasant to Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga and those aiding and abetting their conduct.   I mentioned the fact that the breach of a fiduciary relationship is a ‘taxable event!’   When Stern, Farenga et al concealed the isolation and abuse of Mary Sykes by not filing reports to the Court of such conduct and instead defamed and castigated Gloria Sykes and those who protested they breached their fiduciary relationships to Mary Sykes.    When the plenary guardian drilled the safety deposit box and removed from it a large number of double eagle gold coins and other valuables and did not inventory the same it was not only a breach of fiduciary relationship but ‘theft!’    If the Federal and STate Income taxes have not been paid – that is tax evasion and possibly tax fraud.

As this has been now disclosed and made public we have called for an honest, comprehensive and complete investigation.   There is no just reason for Mary Sykes (aged 93) to be denied her civil rights and there is no reason why those persons who benefited by the non-inventory of the very valuable double eagle gold coins (worth about $3000 each) should not pay the Federal and State of Illinois taxes on the collectibles.

My continued mention of the fact that usually non-inventoried valuables in the possession of a guardian are not reported as income by the fiduciary has generated personal attacks on me from not only the two guardian ad litem, the plenary guardian and her attorneys, but now the ARDC.   Indeed, the fact that I undertook an investigation is the sole complaint against me.   I am also defending an attorney who is being investigated upon similar charges.  My defense to the Gulag is the First Amendment.    The following quote is particularly appropriate:

Like freedom of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly was considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at the foundation of a government *523 based upon the consent of an informed citizenry-a government dedicated to the establishment of justice and the preservation of liberty. U.S.Const., Amend. I. And it is now beyond dispute that freedom of association for the purpose of advancing ideas and airing grievances is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States. De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364, 57 S.Ct. 255, 259, 81 L.Ed. 278; N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 1170, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488.
3 Freedoms such as these are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660; Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292; American Communications Ass’n, C.I.O. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 402, 70 S.Ct. 674, 685, 94 L.Ed. 925;

Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 522-23, 80 S. Ct. 412, 416, 4 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1960)

Last week there was a protest outside a courtroom near Riverside California instituted by a group of persons protesting similar elder abuse and financial exploitation of senior citizens.   I understand that the Media blackout and political censorship of this ‘dirty little secret’ continues just as in a past decade the Gulag florished in Soviet Russia.   I hope that in the year 2012 the 4th of July celebration is all form and no substance.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

In response to Gloria’s reply yesterday:

Gloria -

I was just having the very same thought.    Rudy Bush wrote me and I remembered the situation with his mother and how her death was handled.

The League of Women Votes had a slogan – “democracy is not a spectator sport!”   Indeed, it is not and while we were complacent our democracy was hijacked!   Instead of protections for ‘grandma’ we have a gulag!    The Supreme Court decision of Buck vs. Bell was the legal precedent for the Holocaust.    Today we are more subtle however, like the National Socialists and the Communists we surround our miscreat behavior with Judicial CYA.    The distinction between the Sykes case and most of the others is the fact that because no one bothered to follow strictly the statute and provide the appropriate Sodini protections – i.e. naming in the petition the close relatives and giving them 14 days notice prior to the hearing to appoint a guardian the Probate Court lacked jurisdiction and the expropriation of approximately a million dollars of your mother’s (and your) assets lacks ‘judicial cover!’    In my opinion it is pure theft and if law enforcement believes in equal protection we will see some people in jail.   If our Federal Government is serious about enforcing taxes on an equal and equitable basis the unreported ‘income’ will be collected from the guardians (plus every penalty and interest due and payable).

We have only ourselves to blame!   We have the ballot but *****.    We have a right of assembly and free speech (except for me in the opinion of the ARDC).   Democracy is not a spectator sport!

From JoAnne:

What do the courts have to say about the First Amendment:

102 S.Ct. 929
Supreme Court of the United States
In re R. M. J., Appellant.
No. 80-1431. | Argued Nov. 9, 1981. | Decided Jan. 25, 1982.
Disbarment proceedings were instituted against attorney. The Missouri Supreme Court, 609 S.W.2d 411, issued a private reprimand. Appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Justice Powell, held that the provisions of the Missouri Supreme Court rule regulating lawyer advertising which prohibit deviating from a precise listing of areas of practice included in the advisory committee addendum to the rule, which prohibit a lawyer from identifying the jurisdictions in which he is licensed to practice and which prohibit the mailing of cards announcing the opening of an office to persons other than “lawyers, clients, former clients, personal friends and relatives” violate the First Amendment where there was no showing that the advertising was misleading or that the mailings and handbills would be more difficult to supervise.
Judgment reversed.

Most notable quotes from this case:

Truthful advertising related to lawful activities is entitled to protections of First Amendment. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
Although potential for deception and confusion is particularly strong in context of advertising professional services, restrictions upon such advertising may be no broader than reasonably necessary to prevent deception. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
Under commercial speech doctrine, states may not place absolute prohibition on certain types of potentially misleading information if information may be presented in way that is not deceptive. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
Even when communication is not misleading, state retains some authority to regulate; but state must assert substantial interest and interference with speech must be in proportion to interest served. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
In regulating communication which is not misleading, restrictions must be narrowly drawn and state lawfully may regulate only to extent regulation furthers state’s substantial interest. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14
Restriction prohibiting attorney from mailing cards announcing opening of his office to persons other than “lawyers, clients, former clients, personal friends and relatives” violated First Amendment without indication that inability to supervise mailings and handbills was reason state restricted potential audience of announcement cards, nor was it clear that absolute prohibition was the only solution. V.A.M.R. 4, Code of Prof.Resp., DR2-102(A)(2); U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1,
Although states may regulate commercial speech, First and Fourteenth Amendments require that they do so with care and in manner no more extensive than reasonably necessary for their substantial interests. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1,