Sunday, 15th September 2019

   home     about     authors     news     sitemap     privacy     contact us

add to favorites
make home page

Introductory Remarks
Legal Documents
Most Recent Material
News Releases
Published Articles

Our Newsletter

  Voting Poll

Can the judicial system be successfully overhauled?

  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



Overview: Disbarred with Honor
Viewed: 0 time(s)
[ Not Rated Yet ]

Disbarred with Honor... The Weinstock Story




Fabrication, deception, fraud, denial, cover-up, are words that are not normally associated with America's best and prestigious law firms. One would think that these negative descriptions are best reserved for the firms featured on late night infomercials hawking their brand of unscrupulous litigation. When one of America's most prestigious firms is accused of the aforementioned, it never sees the light of day. Why?  Because the powerful and well-connected stick together, and squash the notion of improper doings
from the get go. They immediately paint the accuser as a "fool" or an "idiot", whose accusations are without merit, and whose motions are attention seeking and reactionary.  Then, of course, the “fool” or “idiot” has an uphill battle to vindicate his position.  Witness a recent statement by John C. Coffee Jr., a Columbian Law School expert on white collar crime, “...the fact that reputable law firms, bigger than one person in one case, were behaving systematically in an unlawful fashion, I find that almost unimaginable.”

For more than ten years, Israel Weinstock has been fighting the labels bestowed upon him by Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (“CGS&H”), the well oiled and connected Manhattan law firm. As a former Federal Judge stated recently with regard to the Milberg Weiss indictment for RICO violations, “It would cripple the firm – it could be a death sentence for the firm.”  Weinstock has carried on his fight despite his continuing battles against stomach, kidney and thyroid cancer and five major surgical procedures in just the past four years.  He is determined to overcome his many health problems and to right the incredible wrongs committed against him.  The case is about protecting the integrity of the justice system in America.  Once before Israel had been the target of a plan to break his legs and “eliminate” him.  The plan hatched by an attorney, was thwarted by Israel.  Five people were arrested and convicted.  But the attorney involved did not have the prominence of CGS&H.  Most would have folded under the pressure, but not Israel Weinstock.

It started out innocently enough, a standard real estate deal. It ended up convoluted and criminal. In 1983, Israel Weinstock was retained by Jack Walker of 4200 Avenue K Realty Corp. ("Realty Corp."), a corporation which was wholly owned by Jack Walker.  "Realty Corp." had entered a contract for the purchase of two properties (4200/4211 Ave. K in Brooklyn, NY). The contract provided that "Realty Corp." would purchase the said properties for $1.9 million. $ 50,000 was to be paid at contract, $350,000 to be paid at the closing of the title and the balance of $1.5 million dollars by taking title subject to a mortgage held by the Lincoln Savings Bank.
Litigation ensued when both the seller and the purchaser blamed each other for the failure of the contract to be concluded. Weinstock represented the claim against the seller. The trial ended up in a mistrial.

After the mistrial, Walker had agreed to compensate Weinstock for the legal services rendered and to be rendered at the retrial, and was to recompense Weinstock with 20% of the stock in "Realty Corp." It was a gamble, but Weinstock agreed. At that time, 20% of the stock was worth $10,000 (20% of $50,000 invested), at the most. The value of the properties however had risen dramatically, and if "Realty Corp." were victorious with its case, the 20% would have substantial value. If "Realty Corp.", lost the trial, the 20% would be worthless. This is quite linear and easy to understand up to this point. Here's where the water gets murky. 

Enter Emmerich Handler, Professional Plaintiff

In 1984, after Weinstock had agreed to represent Jack Walker and "Realty Corp.", Walker sued Weinstock. Walker claimed that Weinstock had defrauded him, forged his name without authority and had otherwise deprived him of his rights to a property in Lawrence, New York. Lawsuit number one - Walker v. Weinstock.

Handler is a lawyer who claims to be a non practicing rabbi. His expertise lies in filing frivolous lawsuits that are intended to wear down its victims. Handler has been involved as a party in over 100 of these suits, dating back to at least 1978.  The Walker v. Weinstock lawsuit was conceived by Emmerich Handler. It was commenced in 1984, at a time when Handler was engaged in a bitter battle with his law partners. The lawsuit against Weinstock was intended to enable Walker to file a lis pendens, a mechanism that would render Handler's law partners unable to sell the (Lawrence) property and be forced to carry the expenses of the mortgage and real estate taxes.

The facts were this: In 1983, Walker sold the Lawrence property to the law partnership. He was paid by a check signed by Emmerich Handler on which Handler endorsed, in his own writing, that the check constituted "full payment" for Walker's property. This clearly meant that the suit brought by Walker in 1984 against Weinstock was without merit, as Walker had no claims to the Lawrence property and no basis for a lawsuit with regards to the property. Handler had talked Walker into filing the suit, to "persuade" Weinstock to apply pressure upon Handler's law partners into succumbing to Handler's demands.  Walker later admitted under oath, that the lawsuit was fabricated at the request and the expense of Handler, who retained Brooklyn attorney Robert Gutman, Esq. a Court Street lawyer, to "represent" Walker. Attorney Gutman had been Handler's long time friend and attorney. Emmerich Handler and his actions continue to plague and haunt Weinstock to the present day. 

Handler has used his claimed rabbinical status to gain trust and confidence. He has used his legal knowledge to coerce, defraud, and financially ruin those who dare challenge him on his designs. In 1978, The Court of Appeals, State of California, Second
Appellate District Division, in a unanimous decision concluded:

"Defendant Handler used the respect afforded him by his rabbinical status to deceive and defraud plaintiffs. Further both Handler and Kleinman (Handler's law partner) carried that deceit to the witness stand and, as attorneys and officers of the court, failed to show any remorse with regard to the fraud that they committed on the plaintiffs".


When this judgment was handed down, Handler was ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiffs. Rather than pay the judgment, Handler retained the services of a former counsel of the New York State Disciplinary Committee, to bring about disciplinary charges against the attorneys for the plaintiffs. He also commenced
litigation against the attorney(s) in New York who were attempting to enforce the judgment. This caused the plaintiffs and their attorneys’ huge expense in time and money. This is Handler's modus operandi. He loses then hires reputable, big name firms to exact punishment on those who beat him in the court of law or those who seek to protect their rights. Worn down both emotionally and financially, the plaintiffs and their attorneys exchanged releases without Handler paying one single dime of the fraud judgment.

As stated, in 1984 Walker had agreed to give Weinstock 20% of the corporate stock in "Realty Corp." In January 1985, the case in dispute with the seller came to trial for the second time. After a full trial, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County rendered a decision that declared that "Realty Corp." had no right to enforce the contract for the purchase of the properties. Unless the Decision was overturned on appeal, the stock was worthless. Walker then sought a release from Weinstock with respect to the admittedly false accusations that he had made against Weinstock in the previous (1984) lawsuit that had been orchestrated by Handler. On February 15, 1985 Weinstock agreed to release Walker in exchange for the 80% of the then worthless stock in "Realty Corp.". "Realty Corp's." only asset was the contract for the purchase of the two properties at 4200/4211 Avenue K in Brooklyn. The assignment to Weinstock of this corporate stock and Walker's interest in another project which Walker had abandoned (Glenwood Estates) was only a small part of several multi-party agreements signed on February 15, 1985. 

With all the stock now his (100% of "Realty Corp."), Weinstock proceeded to take on the appeal. He ordered the trial transcripts at his own expense, prepared the necessary briefs, and did whatever was necessary to perfect the appeal. If successful, Weinstock would have a very valuable asset. The properties in 1986 at a 1979 price. If he lost, he would gain nothing in return and lose the many thousands of dollars he had spent on the appeal process. 

In June of 1986, Weinstock was struck with an almost fatal blow. A cancerous tumor had ruptured in his stomach. He was diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer and was not expected to live. Most of his stomach was removed as was his spleen and part of his esophagus. He then developed peritonitis. The outlook was not good for Israel Weinstock. He was in tremendous physical pain, and he was also going through an agonizing divorce. But he kept on fighting to live, to live to take care of his children, and live to see another day. 

On September 1, 1986 the Appellate Division reversed the findings of the Trial Court, on the law and the facts. Weinstock's successful appeal spawned another lawsuit against him. That suit was commenced against him some 19 months after Walker assigned the then nearly worthless stock to him.  The papers were served on him as he lay helplessly waiting for chemotherapy at New York Cornell University Hospital – wondering whether he would survive. 

It was after Weinstock's victory in the Appellate Division, that Handler resumed his methods. The lawsuit is entitled, Jack Walker, Emmerich Handler, and Kamenitzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem v. Israel Weinstock. Handler and Kamenitzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem (“KYJ”) were represented by Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (“CGS&H”) and Walker by other Handler attorneys Schlam, Stone & Dolan (“SS&D”). SS&D were retained by Handler to "represent" Walker. They were simultaneously representing Handler against Walker. Their claims, under oath, were that Handler "jointly" with KYJ owned 48% of the stock in "Realty Corp." and that Jack Walker owned 32% of the stock of "Realty Corp.". It was acknowledged under oath that Weinstock was given 20% of the stock as a legal fee.

This second lawsuit was filed in Brooklyn and as will later been seen--for good reason. The creation of such a dispute would preclude or at least discourage law enforcement agencies from pursuing criminal activities that were to follow. CGS&H and SS&D (former Ass't US Attorneys) knew that law enforcement agencies do not become involved in “civil disputes”, and thus headed off what would have otherwise been a clear case of bank and mail fraud.  In order to facilitate the theft of Weinstock's 100% ownership in the corporation, CGS&H "graciously" offered to "assist" Weinstock in obtaining the properties in question      (4200/4211 Ave. K) from the sellers in accordance with the Appellate Division decision. CGS&H induced Weinstock to allow them to be substituted as attorneys for Realty Corp., acknowledging in writing that " the substitution was based solely on the ground that Weinstock's current illness has left him temporarily unable to handle the urgent matters which it is expected would imminently have to be addressed". George Weisz, Esq., a senior partner at CGS&H, would later challenge under oath, the fact that Weinstock was severely ill, noting to the court that Weinstock had not submitted any medical proof that he has been ill.  Had not Weinstock been served with papers while he was in his hospital room? Was not Weinstock's illness the reason for CGS&H to be substituted as attorneys for the "Realty Corp." purchase? The fact is: Weinstock's critical illness was the reason for that lawsuit. CGS&H and Handler simply did not expect Weinstock to survive. If he had died, it would have been a windfall for all involved. Weinstock's ownership would have disappeared without a trace. The almost perfect crime. 

To obtain Weinstock 's consent to be substituted as attorneys for Realty Corp, they assured Weinstock in writing, that the substitution would not in any way affect Weinstock's rights to the stock in "Realty Corp.". The assurance provided that:

“It (CGS&H) will see to it that pending a final determination of the
action entitled Jack Walker, et al. v. Israel Weinstock, et. al., now
pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, either by final judgment
or by settlement, that:


Fee title will remain in the corporation, which will not transfer or encumber the title to the real property, except insofar as it may be necessary or appropriate to refinance the mortgage and obtain a first mortgage from a lending institution; "(emphasis added)


The Brooklyn lawsuit was predicated upon a newly minted assertion by Walker that Weinstock had coerced him into assigning all of the stock in the corporation, some 19 months earlier. Weinstock had threatened to sue Walker for having previously fabricated serious charges of fraud and forgery against him and having initiated the fabricated lawsuit in 1984. Walker had admitted under oath, that the 1984 lawsuit was contrived.

Walker asserted under oath, in affidavits prepared for his signature by Handler attorneys (CGS&H and SS&D) that he had assigned the stock in "Realty Corp." to Weinstock because he was afraid of Weinstock initiating litigation against him and he wanted a release from Weinstock.  Ironically, it was Walker who initiated the lawsuit against Weinstock in 1984 and then again initiated the lawsuit against Weinstock in 1986. Walker in 1986 revived the claims he had made in the first lawsuit in 1984 which he had admitted under oath was fabricated. Walker had discontinued it in 1985, with prejudice, therefore expressly surrendering the right to ever make the same claims again.

The allegations that were made under oath in the 1986 lawsuit violated the sworn statements made by Walker in connection with the 1984 lawsuit and more importantly, in the underlying suit against the seller in which Walker had sworn that he was the sole owner of all the stock in "Realty Corp."(with no mention of Handler or KYJ). During the
course of the 1986 lawsuit Walker and SS&D presented to the Court several contradictory versions of Walker's interest in the corporation. As the litigation progressed, each new version attributed an ever shrinking interest to Walker and an ever-growing interest to Handler.  Was it possible that SS&D (Handler's attorneys) were using Walker as a "shill" to assist Handler and CGS&H? 

During more than the decade long litigation, Handler and CGS&H offered, under oath, 12 mutually contradictory versions of his alleged ownership in "Realty Corp.", and how he acquired the interest. All under oath. He swore that he had no (-0- ) interest whatsoever and also swore that he had 14%, 50%, 60% and then finally, 1%. From
whom did he acquire the interest? Handler's testimony varied: he acquired it from Walker, then from KYJ, and then from his law partners. When? His claims, all under oath, ran for a period of eight years from 1979 through 1987. Handler's methods were purely improvisational, making it all up as he went along. The fact that each version contradicted the previous one was deemed irrelevant in the Brooklyn courts. 

CGS&H had assured Weinstock in writing that the "fee title to the property will remain in the corporation." This is how they stripped the corporation of its assets by using a two-step process:

1. In 1987, Handler obtained a mortgage loan secured by the properties
owned by "Realty Corp." in the amount of $3.8 million dollars. He did
so after falsely representing to the bank (First Nationwide Bank) that
neither he nor his wife were parties to any litigation and that Handler owned 90% of the corporate stock.


2. Also, in 1987, one Samuel Roth (investor, friend and partner of Handler, who purportedly owned the remaining 10% of "Realty Corp".) forged a deed to the corporate properties transferring the same out of the
corporation and into a partnership in which Handler's wife was
designated as the general partner.


These actions accomplished exactly what CGS&H had assured Weinstock in writing, would not happen. Following these clandestine dealings, the bank wired $2.2 Million directly into a Handler account (not the "corporate" account) and CGS&H later received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Handler from the proceeds of the mortgage loan. 

They (Handler, Walker, CGS&H and SS&D) in fact, were waiting for Weinstock to draw his last breath, and to go away. Forever. In fact, Walker confirmed this notion when he stated, in testimony, that the attorneys expected Weinstock to die and thus the false affidavits would never be scrutinized. They acted liked vultures disguised in gray flannel suits with briefcases, hovering over helpless prey.  Predatory in motive, just waiting for the precise moment to go in for the kill. But as will be seen, they could not wait-they relied on their confidence that Weinstock would soon die, as everyone had expected. 

For almost two years, Israel Weinstock was rendered helpless, but not hopeless by his condition. His medical condition steadily worsened and Weinstock was prevented from mounting a defense to the lawsuit that CGS&H, Handler, SS&D and Walker had launched against him. 

In 1988, after Weinstock battled and survived cancer, severe side effects from chemotherapy and a heart attack, he inquired from CGS&H about the properties. CGS&H, through George Weitz, Esq., a senior partner repeatedly falsely responded in various letters and under oath, that the status quo had been maintained and that CGS&H had fully complied with its written assurances given to Weinstock. Walker, Handler, CGS&H, and SS&D were confident that Weinstock would succumb to his illness before he would discover that the foregoing sworn statements of compliance were false. In a blatant display of defiance and denial, CGS&H attorneys stated as recently as 1998, that the title to the properties was still in the corporation. It is a matter of public record that the corporation was stripped of its properties in 1987, when Weinstock was unable to defend himself due to his illness.
          Upon Weinstock’s painstaking recovery, he discovered that the corporation had indeed been stripped of its assets and that the affidavits given by George Weisz and CGS&H were completely and utterly false. What was true was that Handler had given the bank a false certification and Roth, to whom Handler had sold 10% of the corporation, had forged the deeds to the properties when transferring them from Realty Corp. to a partnership. CGS&H knowingly and exponentially provided Weinstock and the courts with false written statements denying that the corporation had been stripped of its assets.

There was documentary evidence showing the transgressions committed by CGS&H that proved the falsity of their positions and their participatory roles in the fraud.  The evidence of fraud perpetrated by CGS&H was air tight.  Weinstock had not died as they expected.  Weinstock commenced a Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) lawsuit in Federal Court in Manhattan against CGS&H, SS&D, and the other perpetrators. CGS&H felt compelled to bring in a hired gun of their own. Bernard Nussbaum, Esq. (who shortly thereafter was named Special Counsel to President Clinton), was called in to represent CGS&H in the proceedings. Nussbaum’s job was to reroute the case back to the Brooklyn judge, who had accepted the lies of CGS&H favorably. While acknowledging that the RICO Complaint properly set forth five RICO Causes of Action which arise under federal law, a federal judge dismissed the federal case without prejudice and sent it back to the state courts.  Had the federal court allowed the case against CGS&H and the others to go forward, the “prestigious law firm:” could have faced the same headline publicity as Milberg Weiss is currently facing because of its alleged unlawful activities.  CGS&H certainly would have lost its credibility and its position as one of the “most prestigious and leading law firms in the nation”. 

The Handler camp and Nussbaum had contributed at least 5% of that Brooklyn judge’s campaign for his judgeship. That Brooklyn Judge was not the one who would eventually decide this case. He would later arbitrarily assign it to his colleague, Justice Lewis Douglass by bypassing the random assignment process. Before the matter was returned by the Federal Court to the State Court, two of CGS&H’s senior partners called Weinstock to see if Weinstock would meet with them. On the spot, they offered Weinstock approximately one million dollars for his release.

They suggested that Weinstock continue his case against Handler from whom, they said, he would eventually get his buildings back. Weinstock stood his ground and refused the offer. Handler, as stated above, had already mortgaged the properties for $3.8 million dollars. After Weinstocks refusal, the two senior partners from CGS&H threatened to turn Weinstocks life “inside out”. Undaunted, Weinstock remained firm in his position, knowing that only a re-writing of documented history could possibly save CGS&H, SS&D, Handler and Walker from criminal prosecution. 

A Ringer with an Agenda is Recruited to Preside over Trial 

Justice Lewis D. Douglas Rewrites History
          Justice Douglas was no stranger to Evan A. Davis, a senior and prominent partner at CGS&H.  A way had to be found to eliminate Weinstock ownership interest in Realty Corp.  A rewrite of history is precisely what happened. Justice Lewis Douglass of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brooklyn) declared that Handler was at “all times the owner of 100% of “Realty Corp.”. Handler had only asked the Court to declare him owner of 48% of the corporation. As previously mentioned, Handler had given testimony to the various percentages of ownership, and the way he had obtained the said percentages. Under oath. To overcome the documentary and testimonial evidence that Handler was never the owner of any stock in the “Realty Corp.”, Justice Douglas had to:

A)                            accept Handler’s “explanations” that he had consistently lied and caused others to perjure themselves in order to conceal his interest in Realty Corp.


B)                             ignore the testimony of the attorney who had handled the original transaction for “Realty Corp.”, who had testified in “Realty Corp’s” case against the seller, that only Walker and Pfeffer were the stockholders of ‘Realty Corp.” Walker later purchased Pfeffer’s interest in “Realty Corp.”


C)                            retroactively strip Weinstock of the 20%, which the sworn complaint prepared by CGS&H had admitted was given to Weinstock for legal fees rendered.


D)                            attribute the valuation of the corporate stock which was achieved only after Weinstocks success in the Appellate Division and had to ignore the valuation of the stock at the time that Walker assigned it Weinstock.


E)                             ignore the testimony of the seller in the original litigation and the seller’s attorney who both testified that they were unwilling to pay more than “nuisance” value if ‘Realty Corp.” would forego the right to appeal the case which they had won and that the Handler team had stated to him that it had delayed proceedings subsequent to Weinstocks Appellate Division victory because they expected Weinstock to die, although his testimony was uncontroverted.


F)                             ignore the admissions in the sworn complaint that Weinstock was the owner of 20% of the stock.


G)                            ignore the evidence that CGS&H had concealed the fact that the corporation was stripped of its assets.


H)                            ignore the testimony of more than one dozen witnesses including an FBI agent whose testimony totally corroborated the assertings by Weinstock and litigated the Handler/Cleary Gottlieb claims.


Justice Douglass went on to declare that the 20%, ‘standing alone” was a reasonable fee. But, because of Weinstocks alleged “unconscionable” conduct toward Walker (which Walker had admitted was contrived by Handler), the 20% fee should be retroactively forfeited.

With this decision, Justice Douglass unwittingly established that Handler filed a fraudulent application for the mortgage loan of $3.8 Million and committed a fraud on the bank as he had certified that between himself and his partner Roth they owned 100% of the corporation. But at that time, according to Justice Douglass, Weinstock had 20% of the Realty Corp. which was only subsequently “retroactively” forfeited. Additionally, CGS&H had wrongfully permitted and then covered up the fraudulent loan. But what is most important is that Justice Douglass ignored Walker’s admissions under oath, that the allegations of misconduct on Weinstocks part were totally fabricated at the request of Handler and his attorneys.
           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 KYJ. 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. 

Although Walker had admitted, under oath, that the Brooklyn lawsuit was 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), Justice Douglas 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 of Realty Corp.”


“Weinstock had no authority to sign my name to the contract.”


“I never owned any stock of Realty Corp.” 


“I gave Weinstock complete authority to sign my name to the contract.”




Unbeknown to Israel, the N.Y. State Supreme Court Justice Lewis Douglas whose decision legitimized the theft from Israel had prior thereto been singled out for a special commendation as a jurist by Cleary Gottlieb partner Evan A. Davis, then counsel to Governor Cuomo who also had input into the appointment of many justices to the Appellate Divisions in New York State. That commendation was memorialized in a letter written by Attorney Evan Davis to then Governor Mario M. Cuomo dated January 28, 1982 on behalf of the Task Force of Judicial Diversity appointed by the Governor.  The Task Force also had as its members Amy Schulman, Ray Kohier, and Mary Ann Bernicka all of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton as well as the Honorable Marilyn Go, a U.S. Magistrate Judge married to Attorney Richard Dolan who purportedly “represented” Jack Walker in his admittedly fabricated lawsuit against Israel.   A finding by Justice Douglas that Israel had any interest in Realty Corp. would have sent CGS&H to jail.  How and why was Justice Douglas selected to preside over this case?  Why was the random assignment process bypassed?

The decision by Justice Douglass did not have just a rippling and trickle down effect; it opened the floodgates and crippled due process. It retroactively legitimized Handler’s false mortgage application to the First Nationwide Bank, where he had stated that he (his wife Rita) owned 90% and Samuel Roth had owned 10% of “Realty Corp.”. The application to the First Nationwide Bank was at odds with the sworn complaint that was submitted to the court, as it omitted mention of any interests of Walker and KYJ as a shareholder in “Realty Corp.”, in any capacity whatsoever. The decision attempted to absolve CGS&H of its liability for having violated the terms of the undertaking they had provided Weinstock in writing. If CGS&H thought that Handler was the owner of the stock, why did it have to continuously lie to Weinstock and submit fraudulent affidavits to the courts? CGS&H could have simply admitted that Handler, as owner of the stock, stripped the corporation of its assets, mortgaged the properties and transferred the properties to his wife and his associates. Justice Douglass did not seem to consider the conduct of Handler and CGS&H in the course of litigation, why did CGS&H continuously lie?
            Prior to the trial, Weinstock had received a phone call from Jacques Catafago, Esq., who informed Weinstock that he was Walker’s new attorney, replacing SS&D. Catafago explained that Walker had been “used” by Handler, and Walker now had wanted to come clean with the “truth”. Walker then went on to admit that he had been the 100% owner of “Realty Corp.”, that there had been no fraud, coercion or duress in his settlement with Weinstock on February 15, 1985. He also admitted that there was no fraud, coercion, or duress in his assigning the stock in “Realty Corp.” as consideration for the settlement. Walker further admitted that Handler and his attorneys had instructed him to make these fraudulent allegations. He explained that he had to go along out of fear of certain “unspeakable” threats made by Handler. Walker spoke to agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), concerning the foregoing. Walker gave a full statement to the agents and was very forthcoming with information regarding Handler. Additionally, Walker provided his new attorneys written answers to questions which corroborated that the scheme was created by Handler, CGS&H and SS&D. Those answers in the handwriting of one of Walker’s new attorneys, was given by one of his new attorneys to Weinstock. Walker then admitted to all of the foregoing during trial testimony.  No one could claim that the attorneys had no knowledge of the perjurious nature of Walker’s testimony he would later offer in connection with the lawsuit, which inexplicably continued (even as to Walker’s 32% admission) notwithstanding Walker’s confession.
            Now that Walker had told the truth, that he had knowingly voluntarily and willingly assigned all of his stock to Weinstock and that he was the owner of 100% of the stock of Realty corp., it would seem that the lawsuit would die from exposure. Walker had confessed that the complaint was a fabrication instigated by Handler like the first lawsuit. It should have resulted in a dismissal.
            Weinstock was encouraged by this development and had filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, an application for the suit to be dismissed on the grounds that there were no issues of fact. Surprisingly, Walker’s new attorney, Jacques Catafago, who had stated that Walker, had merely been a “pawn” and who had heard Walker testify as to his participation in the fraud against Weinstock had filed an opposition to Weinstocks Motion for Summary Judgment.
            Mr. Catafago had flatly admitted that his own client Walker had lied. However, he argued, that since the Court could not tell at which time Walker was lying, (whether in his previous affidavits or in his testimony) there were issues of fact that required the case to proceed to trial.
            The foregoing essentially proposed that a party could create a triable issue of material facts by testifying to two contradictory facts. This would require a Court to ignore a person’s admission against his (penal) interest and to disregard the Walker confession that there was no fraud, coercion, duress or overreaching on Weinstock’s part and that such claims had been fabricated.
            Further evidence of the irregularities in this case is the fact that Justice Douglas awarded Handler 100% of the stock in Realty Corp. although the complaint in which Handler had joined with KYJ and Walker had asked the court to return 100% of the stock to Walker – not Handler. 

Thus, Justice Douglass accepted the incredible testimony of admitted perjurers Walker and Handler, rejected the testimony of an FBI Agent and at least one dozen other disinterested listeners and retroactively legitimized a case of bank fraud. As stated, the Court rewrote history by attributing a $4 million valuation “to the buildings”--a value achieved by the corporation only after the reversal by the Appellate Division 19 months after the assignment from Walker to Weinstock.


Two False Stories Collide

 While the foregoing case was ongoing, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) obtained a judgment against Handler and his wife Rita. The Brooklyn lawsuit and the FDIC case intersected one another. Handler was compelled to take totally contradictory positions -in each, under oath. The conduct of Handler with respect to these two contradictory positions was reminiscent of the “now you see it-now you don’t” routine often times used by magicians. Handler swore that he had “sold his 54% interest in 4200/4211 Avenue K but refused to divulge the purchaser of that interest.  Because of Handler’s refusal to identify the purchaser, Weinstock sensed that the alleged “sale” was only another act in the improvisational theatre that he had been facing for years. 

Handler and his associates had concealed Handler’s assets in order to avoid paying the FDIC. Therefore, the FDIC had sold its seemingly “uncollectible” judgment to Denis Joslin, whose efforts at collection were also unsuccessful. Joslin had then sold the judgment to Weinstock. Weinstock knew where Handler’s assets were hidden and thus would be in a position to recover the full judgment. In an affidavit he had submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Handler had asserted that he had no income and was subsisting on social security payments as well as assistance from his daughter, Henshe Leibowitz.

Weinstock was persistent.    An investigation by Weinstock revealed that Henshe Leibowitz was not just a good, supportive daughter. She had received $726,433.56 from Samuel Roth, Handler’s partner. Subpoenaed documents showed transfers by Samuel Roth to the tune of at least $1,845,712.82 to various parties, as directed by Handler, including hundreds of thousands of dollars to a number of attorneys acting in Handler’s behalf. Additional evidence was uncovered that Roth paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to one Morton Silberberg, Esq.  Silberberg was allegedly the principal of Andover Equities, who purchased the position of the FDIC in several Handler controlled properties at a very steep discount. Weinstock obtained copies of numerous checks signed by Morris Roth (Samuel’s unemployed son) on an account at the European American Bank. Morris Roth had testified that he never had signed any checks on any such account.  

Subsequent testimony of Handler and Rubin (Walker/Handler attorney) in the U.S. District Court put additional “nails in the coffin” to all of the allegations in the Brooklyn lawsuit which had been instituted by CGS&H and SS&D.

At a hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Robert Patterson Jr., in attempts to enforce the FDIC judgment, Handler testified under oath with respect to “Realty Corp” that Walker had not only assigned his own stock to Weinstock, but also part of Handlers. Thus, undermining the decision of Justice Douglass. At that same time, Attorney Rubin testified that he knew that Walker was really indebted to Weinstock to the tune of $1.5 or $2 million. This testimony flew in the face of the Justice Douglass decision. One could not find a clearer and more conclusive evidence of the fraud perpetrated by Handler, Walker and their attorneys. 

In the federal enforcement proceeding following the FDIC judgment, Handler swore that he had sold his interest in 4200 to his then partner, Samuel Roth.  Admittedly, neither Handler nor Roth had any documentation – no checks, contracts, bills of sale, deeds or notes of any kind to support such a claim.  Roth swore that he had donated it to KYJ, the charity organization which Handler had previously admitted had been only his “front.” When KYJ denied that it ever received such a donation, Roth swore that KYJ had returned the “donation” to him. He admitted that there never existed even a single document to support his contention of the donation or its return to him by KYJ. Has anyone ever heard of a charitable organization returning a $1.5 Million donation to its donor? Then again, Handler also swore that he did not sell anything since 1991. Roth swore that Handler owed him substantial sums. Handler swore that he did not owe Roth anything-that the monies advanced by Roth were gifts. And so on, and so on.

The documents and facts presented by Weinstock resulted in U.S. District Court Judge Robert Patterson, Jr. declaring:

“It is obvious that he (Emmerich Handler) has not stated the truth in answers td these questions.” (Transcript at p. 29)

“I haven’t had one judgment like this, and I’m not going to end my career on this bench with having one either, not when people have money and tell falsehoods”. (Transcript at p.34) (emphasis added)

It is becoming evident from the papers that have been put before me that the Handlers part (sic) they’re (sic) assets with Mr. Roth, and that Mr. Roth has been supporting them, and their lawyers, by payments there is some evidence that a fraud was committed in connection with your judgment.” (Transcript at pages 4 and 5) (emphasis added)

“Handler’s claim that the Kaminetzer [sic] Yeshiva was a transferee of an interest in 4200-4211 Avenue K was proven false .“ (emphasis added)

“He (Handler) could have responded in that way. He hasn’t responded in that way. The answer is not truthful, then. I’m going to give him 48 hours or he’s going to jail, and his wife. So let’s have the answers is obvious he has not stated the truth in answers to these questions.” (Transcript at p. 28) (emphasis added)


“It’s absolutely outrageous conduct ... its outrageous conduct by a judgment debtor, and it has gone on since 1991. . . . He is in contempt.” We gave him a second chance. He didn’t take it. I think he is going.  I think he is going to surrender to the Marshals Friday. Tell him to bring whatever underclothes he needs. I’m not going to put up with this person.” (Transcript at pp. 30-31) (emphasis 5 added)

“They (the Handlers) are more than obstreperous, let’s face it. I am about to issue an order of arrest of Mr. Handler and Mrs. Handler.” (Transcript at p. 18) (emphasis added)

“And if I have to make it clear to everybody in the city that you don’t mess around with a federal judgment, I will. That’s how serious it is. Now, I mean, it’s really important. And that goes to the alders and abettors too. So they better think about it. And think about it very, very carefully.  About what they want to do in terms of destroying the world around them. Because it isn’t just them.” (Transcript at pp. 34-5). (emphasis added)

I am not just talking about your clients. I am talking about the whole world around them. it is just going to fall apart

Article Pages:  1  

Support Material

There is no support material available for this article.

Related Articles There are no related articles available for this article.

Related Links

There are no related links for this article.

All content © 2019 Israel Weinstock, Lawyer Fraud. Site Powered By New Vision.