What's the deal with the ARDC complaints taking sooooo long to be dismissed

Dear Readers;

One of the issues I have been wondering about is the ARDC complaints against Ken and myself for simply running a blog about the Sykes case.  I just can't figure that one out.

It's clearly a blog, it's clear neither Ken nor I represent Gloria or Mary, we're just concerned.  I also have known Gloria, Carolyn, Fred, Mary G, Scott, Doris and other friends and family for years.  I don't get that.  Ken was the family attorney, so why is Ken accused of lying about all of this?  If anyone should know about $1 million in gold coins and cash in the mattress, Ken would know.  I also checked directly with the friends and family and the gold coins and cash are well known.  No one is amused by the cash grab by the miscreants.  All the family--with the exception of the miscrants--agrees that Gloria was doing a great and loving job of taking care of her mother for 10+ years.  

There's little to dispute in this case--outside of the 18th floor, where the case suddenly enters the Twilight Zone with time, space and perception being dramatically warped into something bizarre, twisted and unreal.  And out of that twisted, warped court room media has flowed a story that is strangely not investigated at all by the ARDC prior to filing a public complaint against Ken Ditkowsky.

So here is his most interesting explanation below.

take care all,

JoAnne Denison

Now from Ken Ditkowsky:

My theory on why the ARDC complaints against us prosper is that fact that there is a great deal of money involved.   The value of the commodity goes down if there is a risk of disbarment.   Lets take an example.   A GAL for being deaf and dumb and running cover for the plenary guardian is promised a fee of $100,000.00.   this 100,000 can be paid part in taxable currency (check and/or court award and part in under the table funds - or all in under the table funds) The under the table funds can be a discount on a vehicle, discount on real estate, some fungible, gold coins etc.    

A referral fee of 1/3 is paid to the sponsor.   In Sykes we believe it is a political person who is receiving 'nursing home dollars.'    In that case it would be a campaign contribution.   (Gloria unearth a bunch of campaign contributions to the person she suspects as being the 'clout!' - she has come to her conclusions from a different angle and would probably resist my analysis.)    

If the political person receives campaign contributions he/she incurs no taxable income until she/he elects to pay the taxes on the funds.    As no one knows that our GAL has received dollar one he is not going to tell anyone.   He has a windfall.    All that happens is the disabled person's estate is reduced and no one is the wiser.   

In the Sykes case about a million dollars is not inventoried.   Shut you up, me up, Gloria up and no one has to pay dollar one in Federal Income Taxes!    Let us go one step further.   Why do the GALs et al fear an investigation.  A trained investigator is going to ask questions.   Questions lead to answers.   Answers lead to more questions and in the investigator is independent someone is going to have to account for about a million dollars of inventoried treasure trove.    

The GALs and the attorney for the plenary guardian have filed numerous complaints with the ARDC concerning you and me.    Ask yourself why?   Ask yourself if the regulators are 'pure!'    The GSA scandal of recent days should give a clue to the right answer!    Also ask yourself why my 'safe harbour' (settlement) e-mails were taken out of context and are the basis of the ARDC complaint against me filed by the ARDc.   Why is unethical for me to offer the GALs a release from the Civil Rights claim that I have against them in exchange for them just doing their jobs?   As you know I wrote the GALs et al and suggested that if they had nothing to hide join and ask for an independent investigation!   We have a better chance of having the President appointing either one or us  Secretary of STate 

Of course the GALs, et al all might be pure, sweet and a virgin.   It might just be a coincidence that the ARDC complaints against us are given credence even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary and the complaints against the GALs and attorney for the plenary guardian are just tossed!   As I said we have a right to differ and I will fight to the death to protect your right to disagree with me.

Do not fall down a rabbit hole!

 

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com