This is going to be a better year. I hope that you received a copy of document that we sent to the Supreme Court. It has all the citations that you need to make your argument.
One of the things you should notice is the fact that Sawyer case = First the IARDC argued that Sawyer gave them the authority to regulate content (political) based speech; however, apparently their attorneys in addition to not reading the First Amendment failed to read the last paragraph of the case. In your Review Board decision (and in mine) a new tact is taken. Again drawing a distinction that is so absurd as to be intellectually dishonest they try to make a distinction between content related speech involving a legislative pronouncement and a legal proceeding. There is no such distinction if the First Amendment is given credence. The credence comes from reading Alvarez, Brown, Citizens United etc. Of course Peel vs. IARDC was never mentioned by the IARDC.
Peel dealt with the IARDC’s harassment of a lawyer who placed on his letterhead that the was trial specialist. They applied the same standard with him that they seem to apply universally – i.e. the accused lawyer who takes advantage of his First Amendment speech is wrong and even though they have to prove their claim by claim and convincing evidence – no evidence equals clear and convincing.
The Hunter vs. Virginia (bar) is also interesting as it is a recent pronouncement from the State court that they are going to give serious consideration to the United States Supreme Court. This case is quoted in my document. It is now very clear that Justice Black and Justice Douglas’ view of the Bill of Rights is accepted by the Court as what our core values ought to be. The Dred Scott decision except in your case before the IARDC does not appear to accepted by the United supreme Court. Buck vs. Bell has a bit more acceptance as lawyers in more jurisdictions than Illinois are treated to “two generations of idiots is enough” criterion. Maybe the fact that you are African and representing some African American clients ******
Please do not delay in filing your petition before the Supreme Court. You can rest assured that as you said things that the government reiterated in Greylord 1 and no one has contradicted you expect that the most procrustean approach will greet you. You cannot exceed 20 pages. Believe me keeping the ire down to those 20 pages is very difficult.
What is most disturbing was you cannot walk down the halls of the courthouse without over-hearing one lawyer talking to another complaining of exactly the conduct that you are complaining. Naturally no other lawyer is going to come forth and testify that Judge x or Judge y did something that ought to be looked at by the JIB or the IARDC. In my situation I have quoted from transcripts prepared by the official court reporter! As Ms. Farenga in her smoking gun letter attaches a copy of the probate sharks blog = that was all that was necessary.
In JoAnne’s and my situation we have 320 ILCS 20/4 to protect us! Indeed 735 ILCS 110/5 states the public policy and there are dozens of cases that say that the Court will not rule contrary to the public policy!
And I have to add, I believe over the last year, the IARDC has slowly come to realize, that if an attorney is not on a case, under the Sawyer case, the attorney has the right to criticize a law, a judge a statute, an opinion, a decision. That right was established in 1950. It seems that the only thing the IARDC is still clinging to is direct criticism of the judge herself, and then they strain to associate the decision, the opinion and the law interpreted by the judge as an assault on him or her–personally, when in fact it is all non commercial, work related speech, which is traditionally protected by the first amendment.
It is very odd how the IARDC seems to strain to bend over backward to say that my court observations, Ken’s court observations and even Mr. Amu’s amount to little more than personal attacks on the judges themselves, when nothing could be further from the truth. I could care less what the judges do in their private lives. I don’t care how they wear their hair, their clothes, what they do in their bedrooms, whether they knit or crochet or enjoy sports.
But what Ken and I do like to do is take a look at what is going on in particular cases–Sykes, Gore, Bedin, etc. where the parties are crying foul and see if what they are saying is true.
Ken and I and Mr. Amu all have opinions about that. It would seem under the Sawyer and the Peel cases, the IARDC does not have jurisdiction to regulate or become involved in truth or substantial truth, and if the parties/litigants/public are crying foul, then outside attorneys can and should take a look at what is going on and comment and publish and bring any wrongful actions to light.
This is especially true in the cottage industry of GAL’s, child reps, the overly familiar attorney picking up business in the courtroom on a regular basis. It often does not take long before someone is stepping over the line and finding nothing but a quagmire. Been there, done seen that.
The real question is, whether the IARDC will allow honest attorneys to speak out, even in face of extreme pressure from the politicians to sweep certain unfavorable and inconvenient truths under the rug.