Israel Weinstock was finally vindicated by a jury of his peers which resulted from the trial of a defamation case brought against him by Emmerich Handler and his partner Samuel Roth. Mel Barkan, Esq., formerly Chairman of the New York City Civilian Complaint Board, was trial counsel for Handler and Roth. Israel represented himself and conducted the trial. After hearing all of the testimony, the jury determined that the following statements written by Israel Weinstock in a letter to the FDIC were true and not defamatory.
Emmerich Handler, “an attorney who defrauded me and many dozens of other innocent victims, using the courts as a vehicle.”
Mr. Handler and his attorneys “have literally ‘gotten away’ with sharp practices, outright fraud, blatant perjury, and essentially a systematic mocking of our administrative and judicial systems.”
Mr. Handler is a “one-man crime wave.”
“Handler succeeds in controlling the litigation while insulating himself directly from the swindles he has perpetrated.”
“… Handler’s and his attorneys’ schemes have not only defrauded me, but banks, the F.D.I.C., charities, colleagues, partners, investors, tenants, cooperative apartment owners, elderly widows, lawyers, and almost anyone else who has had the misfortune to cross his path, and in some situations, invest their life savings with him.”
“…Handler submitted false and fabricated mortgage applications to the First Nationwide Bank (among others) on numerous properties in New York City. Through these fraudulent bank applications, Handler obtained approximately $40 million, much of which subsequently evaporated.”
“Handler’s … willingness to blatantly perjure himself."
The letter referred to “fraudulent bank loan applications” and stated that “[an] example of Handler’s fraud is the loan application for 26 Court Street, Brooklyn.”
The letter referred to “the proceeds of the mortgage so fraudulently obtained” and stated that “Handler shared the bulk of it with one of his cohorts who had acted as his silent partner in crime, Samuel Roth.”
The letter stated that “Handler pledges assets belonging to others” and that “Handler …tried to pay off [a] judgment with stock he didn’t own.”
“On at least one occasion, Handler swindled the Government with an illegal ‘tax straddle’.”
“I have been personally swindled by Handler to the tune of millions of dollars.”
Additionally, the Jury found unanimously that the said letter did not defame plaintiff Roth by referring to him as plaintiff Handler’s “silent partner in crime” and by alleging that plaintiff Roth shared with plaintiff Handler “the bulk of” “… the proceeds of [a] mortgage…; fraudulently obtained.”
Incidentally, one of the witnesses called by Handler and Roth and the prosecution of their defamation case against Weinstock, was senior partner George Weisz of "one of the most prestigious" firms in the nation. It seems that the jury unanimously rejected that characterization of the law firm and unanimously rejected the testimony of attorney George Weisz. Later on in this saga we will provide evidence of the very strong connection between the Cleary, Gottlieb firm, whose illegal conduct was subsequently "koshered" by a New York State Supreme Court Justice Lewis D. Douglas. Any decision other than that which Justice Douglas rendered would have, undeniably, placed his friends at Cleary, Gottlieb in jeopardy of criminal prosecution and judgments in the millions of dollars. Could anybody in good faith believe that Justice Douglas would render a fair and impartial decision? My, my! Any relationship between a Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton senior partner and a Lewis D. Douglas, Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County who had previously singled out a Lewis D. Douglas for special recognition? What a coincidence!