A review of the correspondence sent by Handler's criminal attorneys to the Disciplinary Committee has made it clear that they are proposing a new concept of due process, i.e. reverse due process:
First, determine the punishment; second, determine the guilt; third, file charges; and last, conduct a "hearing."
Among the documents Weinstock reviewed were copies of four letters to the Disciplinary Committee written by three different Handler lawyers, together with numerous attachments. (Does the reader remember that Handler is "impoverished"?) The first, from Diana Parker, Esq. of the well known criminal defense firm Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Silberberg, P.C. dated July 8, 1998 (within days of the Disciplinary Committee's call to Weinstock to schedule a hearing respecting the Handler/Walker complaints filed in August/September, 1997, nearly a year earlier), was addressed to Susan Korenberg, Esq. (an attorney with the Disciplinary Committee) and had the salutation "Dear Susan".
The letter began:
"I thought you would be interested in the enclosed decision from the Court of Appeals in Maryland. It certainly lends support for any action you decide to take with respect to Mr. Weinstock since Mr. Allison only filed three frivolous actions…"
The article referred to the indefinite suspension from the practice of law of the Maryland attorney. Interestingly, Handler's criminal attorneys had to reach out to a precedent in Maryland as obviously they could not find one in the State of New York. The Morvillo law firm had previously appeared before Judge Patterson in behalf of Samuel Roth, Handler's partner. It is both shocking and incredible that on July 8, 1998, before Weinstock was given any hearing and before any charges were brought against Weinstock, the Morvillo firm was already suggesting to the Disciplinary Committee what the punishment for Weinstock should be!—Indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
Two of the letters were from Michael Ross, Esq., of the firm LaRossa and Ross. Mr. Ross stated that he, along with the firm Kramer Levin, represents Emmerich Handler. The letter dated February 1, 2000 proceeded to relate an often inaccurate and thus damning history of litigation involving Emmerich Handler and Weinstock. The letter attempted to paint Weinstock in an extremely unflattering light.
Mr. Ross' letter dated May 9, 2001 enclosed a copy of a document Weinstock filed with United States District Court Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the case of MLE v. Handler - in which Weinstock sought to execute on a judgment he holds against the Handlers. Judge Patterson in that case expressed his outrage at the lies told him by Emmerich Handler. Judge Patterson had referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney's office for investigation. In Weinstock's letter, however, he expressed his conviction that these Disciplinary Committee proceedings constitute an attempt by Emmerich Handler to obstruct justice. The submission by Attorney Ross of the Weinstock letter to Judge Patterson was obviously intended to inflame counsel for the Disciplinary Committee, whose motives Weinstock questioned in that letter, as he questions him in this synopsis. The reader can determine whether Weinstock's contentions have merit.
The fourth letter, dated April 25, 2001 and authored by Susan Brotman, Esq., of the firm Gentile Brotman Maltz & Benjamin, LLP, enclosed a copy of a second document submitted by me to Judge Patterson. Ms. Brotman claimed that the letter constituted "additional evidence of the fact that Mr. Weinstock is unfit to practice law…". Weinstock believes that Mr. Gentile represented Emmerich Handler in Handler's pursuit by civil action and Disciplinary Committee complaint of attorneys for plaintiff Simke, who had obtained a judgment awarding punitive damages against Handler for fraud.
In short, it is clear that Mr. Handler and his attorneys "protest too much". Engagement of no less than four law firms to represent him in pursuing his complaint against Weinstock to the Disciplinary Committee, while contemporaneously claiming that he has no assets with which to satisfy Weinstock's judgment against him, and ultimately filing for bankruptcy; reflect a concerted and coordinated effort by Emmerich Handler to discredit Weinstock.
Perhaps even more importantly, in view of Judge Patterson's referral to the U.S. Attorney's office, Handler and his attorneys attempt to derail that office's investigation of Handler's wrongdoing by painting Weinstock, his longtime accuser, as coercive, abusive and unbelievable. Mr. Handler testified that his attorneys Kramer, Levin sent similar materials to the U.S. Attorney's office. Andrew Maloney, Esq., a former U.S. Attorney, has represented Handler in the investigation launched by the office of the U.S. Attorney as a result of the referral by Judge Patterson.
Weinstock can no longer live in a culture of deception. He can no longer tolerate the inequities that result from the willingness of the Courts to accept deception as proper methodology in the practice of law. In instances in which Weinstock has pointed out to the Courts that his adversaries have been guilty of misquotations, mistranslations, misrepresentations, gross distortion and flagrant perjury, Weinstock has been criticized for making ad hominem attacks on his adversaries. That is, attorneys are permitted to practice law-above the law, without regard to the truth of statements submitted to the courts. In instances in which he has brought such conduct to the attention of the Courts, the Courts have reacted with indifference or by castigating him for accusing attorneys in ad hominem attacks.
Israel Weinstock wants to make it crystal clear that he does not in any way attribute lack of integrity or ethics to any government officials and/or judges who have had a relationship or who today have a relationship with CGS&H. He has not the slightest doubt that most, if not all of those persons possess the highest ethical standards. It is entirely possible that certain government officials and/or judges have refused to believe that CGS&H would have or could have engaged in the conduct described above. But the documentary evidence proves otherwise, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Weinstock has elected to be judged by the public and not by his executioners. While Weinstock has been pursuing justice alone,
Handler and his aiders and abettors have retained the following attorneys in order to avoid prosecution:
Andrew Maloney, a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Silberberg, a firm that primarily consists of former Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Handler also retained the firm of Gentile Brotman Maltz & Benjamin. Mr. Michael Gentile of that firm was former counsel to the Grievance Committee in New York City. Additionally, Mr. Handler retained the firm of LaRossa & Ross, former Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and another criminal defense firm. Mr. Ross has chaired the Committee on criminal advocacy in the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Mr. Handler and his partner, Samuel Roth, although they have clearly conflicting interests and conflicted stories, are currently being represented by Mel Barkan, Esq. of Brauner Baron Rosenzweig & Klein. Mr. Barkan was formerly an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chairman of the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board. The "impoverished" Handler.
The reader might also recall that the mega firm (600 attorneys) CGS&H retained Bernard Nussbaum, former White House counsel to President Clinton and at one point "acting" Attorney General of the United States.
The full detailed documented story can be found at www.lawyerfraud.com. The story describes how Handler, his aiders and abettors and various law firms have thus far succeeded in their fraudulent conduct and have nevertheless avoided prosecution.