A reminder of the stated public polity of 47 USC 230–preserve and enhance free speech!


Dear All;

Ken wanted me to remind everyone and esp. the IARDC of the stated policy of 47 USC sec 230 and that is–to preserve and enhance free speech in the US.

I have to notice, often after I appear before a judge, some months later, someone will call or email me from one of the bar associations and ask me to rate the judge.  I have to note that I have rated about a dozen or so judges, but interestingly enough, it would none of them were the dishonest ones–the ones that ignore jurisdiction, summons and complaint, cut attorneys fees to keep an “outsider” out of the courtroom, a judge that sells a ward’s home for far less than market value and what is allowed–the usu. shennanagins.

I never get a ratings call on those judges.  I wonder if the bar associations have a “do not rate” list for the clout heavy judges.

I’m just noticing.  I bet Mr. Amu never got that call either.  What do you think Ken.


47 USC § 230:

(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

Please note that there is plenty of case law that says no court, hearing board or tribunal is to rule in any manner contrary to the stated policy of the Illinois or Federal legislature.

Yet, I have a Tribunal chair who says that he “might allowed me”  47 USC 230 as a defense to my blogging and Ken’s blogging and the posting of information, comments, fact and opinions by others.

Suppression of free speech is a very serious claim in the the US which should not be summarily dismissed or taken lightly.  The Record on Appeal of Sykes 09 P 4585 has been spread of record and on the internet and on this blog, and shows the severe deficiencies published and commented upon heretofore.  The depositions of the crucial witnesses involved–Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans, Yolanda Bakken and Kathie Bakken have been similarly spread of record.

And yet how does the IARDC tribunal respond?  Under heavy pressure from SO and MS, they pressure me to withdraw the truth from the record–those deposition transcripts and exhibits!  That must be the nadir of the legal profession for 2013. A new low, suppress the truth.

The ARDC has been now well informed of the case 1) Hunter v. VBS, where the attorney was allowed to publish a blog containing the truth or substantial truth, even if it embarrassed the client; 2) Citizens United which says the government cannot regulate political speech at all–it has no jurisdiction to do this; 3) Peel  which says that an attorney can truthfully advertise a speciality without interference from the Bar Assn and this is a first Amendment right and finally, the original SCOTUS case Sawyer which says that an attorney not appearing on a case or after his involvement on the case, can criticize a court, a decision, a judge, a statute or ruling under the First Amendment.  It would appear that the IARDC has whittled down its quotes in the opposite direction to only that an attorney cannot posthumously criticize a judge.  In Mr. Amu’s decision, they seemed to infer that even the best, most honorable witnesses attesting to inadherance of laws and regulations will not overcome the omnipotence of a judge.  They seem to take the strange position that a judge is perfect, a judge is infallible, a judge never has a bad idea or decision–in summary, the judges are cardinals and Timothy Evans is Pope.

We all know how well THAT works out.

Joke:  Why does the Pope believe he’s infallible?  Answer:  He never gets a wife!

But at the end of the day, when the public complains about overt and hidden corruption with the courts, the clout heavy attorneys, the high cost of corruption to us all, unless the PUBLIC demands that the IARDC follow the law, it will only be the fault of the public when honest, ethical attorneys are the scape goats of the system and no one comes to their rescue.

The public should read and understand these cases and teach them to their children and those of lesser understanding who think that a system where secret deals are made behind closed doors with the judges, attys freely wander into the judges’ private areas despite signs and despite a long standing prior court order, then the public has only itself to blame.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s