26. I fully informed the Appellate Division of these facts
in the appeal papers submitted. They are contained in my
appeal brief and in the motion papers (a part of the record
on appeal) in the matter. Those documents are attached
hereto and marked Exhibit "A".
27. The trial court denied my motion, and the Appellate
Division denied my appeal. They were within their right to
do so. The Appellate Division continued, however, to
order me to show cause why I should not be sanctioned for
filing a"frivolous" appeal.
28. I informed the Court of my entirely innocent motive
for bringing the appeal - to protect my good name. That
information is contained in my Affidavit in Opposition to
the Imposition of Sanctions, and Reply Affidavit, dated
June 9, 1998 and June 11, 1998 respectively and submitted
to the Appellate Division (true copies of those documents
are attached hereto and marked Exhibits "B" and "C"
29. I am convinced that the Appellate Division
"finding" that I filed the appeal for the sole purpose of
harassing my former wife was incorrect. It flies in the face
of the facts as I know them.
30. The matter might however have ended there, as has
been the case with every other imposition of sanctions in
similar circumstances in this state ( a matter which is
further addressed below), were it not for influence
exercised upon the
Grievance Committee by Emmerich Handler-against whom
I myself had filed a complaint, and others who have been
my adversaries in contested matters in Kings County. (A
true copy of my complaint is attached hereto and marked
Exhibit "D"). This matter also is further addressed below.
31. First, however, I address a further tragedy that
emerges from the events herein.
32. Had the attorney disciplinary committees in the
First and Second Judicial Departments taken action against
the attorneys involved in the underlying cases we would not
be here today. The courts would not be wasting their time
with this proceeding.
33. The truth is that the attorneys involved in both
underlying cases are an embarrassment to civil discourse,
and would no longer be practicing law were the
disciplinary rules to be the guide of attorney conduct-and
appropriate sanctions provided for in those rules imposed.
34. In the underlying case of Weinstock v. Weinstock I
informed the First Department Disciplinary Committee of
the unlawful, indeed criminal activities of the offending
attorney, Stanley Alter, on June 16, 1995. (A true copy of
my letter of complaint is attached hereto and marked
35. I had described these activities to the First
Department Disciplinary Committee, without naming the
attorneys, as early as August 4 1989, in an effort to
persuade the Committee to take forceful action to dissuade
attorneys from abusing their position for personal profit. (A
true copy of my letter is attached hereto and marked Exhibit
36. No action has been taken with respect to my
complaints against Stanley Alter and Emmerich Handler (as
well as others practicing law in Kings County).
37. Had disciplinary action been taken against the
offences of Stanley Alter conducted in the case of
Weinstock v. Weinstock I an sure that the decision of Kings
County Supreme Court Justice the Honorable Simeon Golar
in the matter of Weinstock v. Weinstock would not have
38. As set forth in detail elsewhere herein (at
paragraphs 214 et seq.), the motion that gave rise to that
appeal simply attempted to put before the Appellate
Division the evidence that surfaced at the trial of my
matrimonial action. That evidence showed that the
Appellate Division, which had made its own findings of
fact on appeal of the late J.H.O. Modugno's decision
denying me a conversion divorce based on our separation
agreement, had been the subject of a fraud committed by my
former wife's attorney Stanley Alter, Esq. That fraud
resulted directly in new findings that greatly damaged my
39. At the very least, had appropriate disciplinary
action been taken against my former wife's attorney the
Appellate Division's view of the merit and motive for the
appeal I took would have favored me.
40. Had disciplinary action been taken to condemn the
offences of Emmerich Handler, the Appellate Division
could not have affirmed the decision of Justice Lewis
Douglass in the case of Emmerich Handler, Jack Walker
and the Kaminetzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem v. Israel
Weinstock (Kings County, Index No. 27600/86). The
factual issues respecting Charges One and Two herein arise
out of that litigation.
41. I am presently seeking reversal of the decision of
Justice Lewis Douglass in the case of Emmerich Handler,
Jack Walker and the Kaminetzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem v.
Israel Weinstock (Kings County, Index No. 27600/86) in
light of new evidence in the form of testimony recently
given by Emmerich Handler and his attorney Edward
Rubin. Both gave testimony diametrically opposed to
Handler's position (and of course his testimony) at trial
before Judge Douglass, which trial testimony resulted in the
findings upon which Charges One and Two herein are
42. On February 28, 2001 I requested that United
States Bankruptcy Judge Carla E. Craig lift the automatic
stay of proceedings attendant upon Emmerich Handler's
bankruptcy filing of May 8, 2000 in United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York to
allow me to file a motion for reconsideration of Justice
Douglass' decision of March 13, 1997, published as
Walker v. Weinstock, 173 Misc.2d 1, 658 N.Y.S.2d 167
(Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., 1997) pursuant to CPLR 5015, and
upon reconsideration, to vacate that judgment and enter
judgment in my favor.
43. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit "G" is a true
copy of my proposed affirmation in support of motion for
44. The motion seeks to establish that the findings in the
case were the result of the continuing frauds perpetrated
upon the courts -as admitted by Handler and his attorney
45. Judge Craig has adjourned the hearing on the
Bankruptcy Court motion to September 12, 2001.
46. Should my CPLR § 5015 motion be successful the
allegations of Charges One and Two herein would find no
support in Judge Douglass' decision of March 13, 1997.
47. Indeed, the facts as I know them, without collateral
estoppel obtaining, and as recently testified to by both
Emmerich Handler and his attorney Edward Rubin, Esq. as
set forth in Exhibit "G" hereto, exonerate me. They show
that the public needs protection from Emmerich Handler
and Edward Rubin, Esq., as well as other attorneys
implicated in the various Handler frauds, and that it needs
no protection from me.
48. I firmly believe that the public needs no protection
United States District Court Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr.
Has Found That Emmerich Handler
Committed Fraud Respecting 4200 Avenue K Realty Corp.
This Matter Underlies Charges One and Two Herein
49. Charges One and Two herein allege that I engaged in
conduct involving overreaching and coercion, and
improperly acquired a proprietary interest in the subject
matter of litigation. The charges flow from findings of
Judge Lewis Douglass in the case of Emmerich Handler,
Jack Walker and the Kaminetzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem v.
Israel Weinstock (Kings County, Index No. 27600/86).
50. The new testimony upon which my proposed motion
to Judge Douglass under C.P.L.R. § 5015 is based, given by
Emmerich Handler and Edward Rubin in October, 1999 in
United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York before Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the case
of MLE Realty Associates v. Handler, (S.D.N.Y. Case No.
0668/93), is in stark and frank contrast to the testimony
upon which Justice Douglass relied