Monday, 18th December 2017

   home     about     authors     news     sitemap     privacy     contact us

add to favorites
make home page


Introductory Remarks
Legal Documents
Letters
Most Recent Material
News Releases
Published Articles
Synopsis

Our Newsletter



Subscribe
Unsubscribe
  Voting Poll

Can the judicial system be successfully overhauled?
no
yes


  Handy Tip


The next Information Age
Phones, computers, radio, television and the
Internet -- and their benefits -- are converging into
a new technology accessible anytime, anywhere.

 

  Contact Info


Lawyer Fraud
140-06 Rockaway Blvd.
 Belle Harbor, NY. 11694

 Phone: 718-318-1000
 Email:
weinfirm@ix.netcom.com

 


 


Synopsis
Viewed: 0 time(s)
[ Not Rated Yet ]


  
George Washington Turns Over in His Grave

 

One would have expected that the fraudulent nature of Handler's lawsuit against Weinstock that was exposed by his own blizzard of lies would have resulted in a dismissal. At the very least, one would have expected that the Court would not award Handler any more than he had claimed in the sworn complaint, i.e. 48% of the corporation "jointly" with the non-for-profit organization. Instead, it awarded Handler more than twice as much as Handler had sworn he was entitled to. Incidentally, immediately before the trial in front of Justice Douglass, Handler was forced to admit that KYJ was merely a bogus plaintiff; that it had no financial interest in "Realty Corp.", that is was only a "front' for Handler. Only by giving Handler 100% of the stock could Handler and the law firm(s) escape liability for their participation in the fraud. Justice Lewis Douglass ignored Handler (and Walker's) transparent perjury and allowed Handler to escape the limitations of his own sworn complaint, which had been drafted by CGS&H, and ruled:

 

"[What's in the pleadings] is not important. That's lawyer talk. ...Lawyer talk on both sides."

 

Then trivializing the importance of a sworn statement, the judge proceeded to "testify," sua sponte (at his own initiative):

 

"I don't think you can carry the day by simply identifying these inconsistent lawyer phrases. I know how these phrases are written. Your associates are told to draft a complaint. They go to the books." "…I am not impressed with the [sworn] verified complaints. I know how they are drafted. They tell the kids in the office to write the book."

 

Moreover, Walker swore to the contents of the complaint and Handler acted as the notary public of Walker's oath. Although no one testified that "the kids in the office wrote the book [sworn complaint]," the Judge proffered to have knowledge of how "the book" was prepared. Not only in this case, but generally how sworn complaints are prepared. The Judge further mused, that when verifying (swearing) to the contents of the complaint the party swearing to its contents simply said:

 

"I got to get out of here, where do I sign?"

 

Not one party or witness had even suggested that such an event had in fact occurred. The Court itself "testified" as to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the complaint.

 

 

Perjury Pays

 

Although Walker would later admit, under oath, that the Brooklyn lawsuit was also contrived and fabricated at the request of Handler and Handler's attorneys, despite the irreconcilable and blatantly contradictory testimony of Walker, few examples of which

follow (compare left and right columns), the Trial Judge declared:

 

"I have reviewed those alleged inconsistencies. It is true that if you match up sentences…Jack Walker did not always use the same words or make precisely the same point. The … thrust {Walker's testimony} is consistent."

 

            'I owned 100% of the stock / I never owned any stock of Realty Corp.'

           'Weinstock had no authority to sign my name to the contract/ I gave Weinstock 

           complete authority to sign my name to the contract.'

 

        The Judge surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, acknowledged that Walker's position "had been back and forth over the years", but declared:

 

"I do not find any inconsistencies so significant as to suggest that Walker did not tell the truth in this proceeding."

 

Furthermore, the Court justified Walker's contradictory testimony:

 

"…because Walker has done whatever he perceived to be in his financial interest."

 

Precisely the opposite of what the laws prohibiting perjury are intended to accomplish.

 

Attorney Rubin openly stated in relation to Walker (his own client):

 

Rubin: "He's gone back and forth. That's what he said about half the time. But the other half the time as part of going back and forth he changes that story".

 

The Court: "Right."

 

Justice Gammerman of the Supreme Court, New York County, referring to Handler and Walker stated:

 

"[You] are all a band of rogues. In spite of the fact that Mr. Handler is an ordained
rabbi."

 

       Also, Justice Gammerman found that perjury did in fact take place by Walker and that
Walker either "submitted a false affidavit or is lying here in court about this claim of
duress." Walker's attorney then promoted the argument that while Walker did in fact perjure himself, there was no way of knowing which of Walker's version was true. Justice Douglass nevertheless declared that "the …thrust… is consistent."

 

 

 


Article Pages:  « Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next »  



All content © 2017 Israel Weinstock, Lawyer Fraud. Site Powered By New Vision.