80. In August- September, 1997 at the time Emmerich Handler and Jack
Walker complained to the Grievance Committee these matters were still before
81. Indeed, in May, 1995 I had complained to the Grievance Committee for
the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts of Emmerich Handler's activities
respecting 4200 Avenue K. I maintain that Mr. Handler committed fraud in the
82. The Grievance Committee informed me that the Committee's policy is to
take no action while civil matters are outstanding.
83. Notwithstanding such expressed policy the Grievance Committee asked
me to respond to Mr. Handler's complaint in 1997, shortly after it was filed and
while civil proceedings were outstanding. And again, in late June, 1998, before
the argument of my appeal in the case of Emmerich Handler, Kaminetzer
Yeshiva of Jerusalem, and Jack Walker v. Weinstock, (which was to take place
on October 19, 1998), Grievance Committee assistant counsel Susan
Korenberg, Esq. telephoned me to schedule my appearance at the office of the
Grievance Committee to hold a hearing on the Walker/Handler complaints.
84. The hearing with respect to the complaints of Emmerich Handler and
Jack Walker took place on August 4, 1998, two months before this court heard
my appeal on October 19, 1998.
85. And as we entered the courtroom for oral argument on the appeal,
Edward Rubin, Esq., counsel for Emmerich Handler and Jack Walker, told me
that if I didn't "back off" I would have problems with the Grievance Committee.
86. By contrast, I am informed and believe that no action has been taken to
date respecting my complaint against Emmerich Handler.
87. These events suggest that Emmerich Handler has indeed brought
influence to bear against me in Kings County. His testimony, and that of Robert
Saltzman, Esq., and Susan Korenberg, Esq., would assist this Court in
determining that considerations other than the protection of the public lie at the
heart of these proceedings.
88. I am a threat to Emmerich Handler beyond the matter of 4200 Avenue K
89. In June 1997 I purchased at a substantial discount a United States
District Court judgment against Emmerich Handler for approximately
$492,000.00 formerly held by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
90. On or about September 3, 1998 two emissaries of Emmerich Handler
told me that Emmerich Handler would withdraw his state bar complaint (and
that of Jack Walker) and make them go away if I would stop pursuing him.
91. I declined the offer.
92. By letter of September 3, 1998 I did inform the Grievance Committee of
93. I am informed and believe that Emmerich Handler claims that he
"cannot be touched" in Kings County.
94. I however was interviewed by Grievance Committee counsel Robert
Saltzman, Esq. and Susan Korenberg, Esq. on or about August 4, 1998 at the
95. At that time I attempted to inform the Committee of the true nature of the
complaints filed against me by Emmerich Handler and Jack Walker.
96. Robert Saltzman, Esq. expressed a need to speak with Mr. Handler:
"You know, Mr. Weinstock, I think at this point we may have to talk to Mr.
Handler, we may have to talk to some of these other people to really get a
better grasp, and then after we've done that, it might be more beneficial if we
had you come back in. (Tr. p. 114).
"I'm certainly not going to deny you an opportunity to make a statement for
the record but I would also ask you to keep it relevant and relatively short
because we will give you another opportunity to come back in". (Tr. 114).
97. Twice Mr. Saltzman represented that I would be heard further
"We're going to talk about Handler at a later date. I assure you. We're going
to give you every opportunity". (Tr. P. 117)
98. This occurred in the context of my discussion of Emmerich Handler
recruiting Jack Walker, as Walker himself admitted, to sue me twice upon
fabricated facts. Both lawsuits are central to the two charges brought in this
matter arising out of my representation of 4200 Avenue K and Jack Walker
(Jack Walker retained me to represent 4200 Avenue K, and he sued me as his
attorney in a real property transaction claiming that I forged his name to a
deed.) Both "stories", inventions of Emmerich Handler to further Handler's
interests, figured prominently in Judge Douglass' decision.
99. Shortly thereafter, in the same context, Mr. Saltzman stated
"..I'd like to close for today with the understanding that you will have an
opportunity to come back inhere and discuss this further...) (Tr. P. 118),
and in the same context Robert Saltzman stated that
"We will get back to this, I assure. We're going to talk to him--if he'll come
in--we're going to talk to Mr. Handler" (Tr. P. 117).
100. I was given no further opportunity to address these issues prior to this
Court's Decision and Order on Application dated November 16, 1999 which
referred to the Grievance Committee's confidential memorandum of date May
26, 1999 and authorized the institution and prosecution of these disciplinary
101. Further, on December 15, 2000 this Court ordered the matter referred
to the Special Referee for a hearing limited solely to the issue of mitigation on
the ground that I am collaterally estopped from contesting any factual issues in
102. The matters addressed here remain germane to these proceedings. I do
not here seek to contest any factual issue decided against me (although I
maintain that the factual issues are presently decided in error). The issue
presented is whether my actions in representing Jack Walker and 4200 Avenue
K suggest that my practice of law in any way constitutes a threat to the public.
103. During the August 4, 1998 Grievance Committee interview Mr.
Saltzman twice stated on the record that he wished to speak with me after the
interview off the record.
104. After the interview, in Ms. Korenberg's presence, Mr. Saltzman asked
me to consider whether it was worth it, in view of the tremendous cost to me in
both health and finances, to pursue my claims against Emmerich Handler and
105. I do not believe it coincidental that twice in one month I received
entreaties to drop my pursuit of Emmerich Handler (as well as his attorneys
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton.)
106. It is clear to me that these are not isolated events.
107. Emmerich Handler went to great pains in his efforts to discredit me,
enlisting several law firms to apply pressure on the Grievance Committee to
act against me.
108. At his deposition in June, 2001 Handler revealed that his attorneys had
sent materials to the Grievance Committee on his behalf. The Grievance
Committee had not provided me with this information, nor had it informed me
of the correspondence and requested my response. On learning of the material I
asked the Grievance Committee for copies, which request was met with an
invitation to review the material at the Grievance Committee office. During my
review the Grievance Committee photocopied certain of the documents at my
request, but refused to copy others.
109. Among the documents I reviewed were copies of four letters to the
Grievance Committee written by three different Handler lawyers, together with
110. The first, from Diana Parker, Esq. of the well known criminal defense
firm Morvillo , Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Silberberg, P.C. dated July 8,
19989 , was addressed to Susan Korenberg, Esq. 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.
111. 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 me. The letter attempted to paint me in an extremely unflattering
112. Mr. Ross' letter dated May 9, 2001 enclosed a copy of a document I
filed with United States District Court Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the case
of MLE v. Handler -in which I sought to execute on a judgment I hold 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 my letter I expressed my conviction that
these Grievance Committee proceedings constitute an attempt by Emmerich
Handler to obstruct justice.
113. The fourth letter, dated April 25, 2001 and authored by Susan
Brotman, Esq., of the firm Gentile10 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...".
114. 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 me to the Grievance Committee, while
contemporaneously claiming that he has no assets with which to satisfy my
judgment against him, and ultimately filing for bankruptcy, reflect a concerted
and coordinated effort by Emmerich Handler to discredit me.
115. His hope, I am sure, is to make it as difficult as possible for me to
pursue enforcement of my judgments. 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 me, his longtime accuser, as coercive, abusive and unbelievable.11
116. I believe that this evidence of Emmerich Handler's motive in pursuing
his complaint against me, revealed to me only upon Emmerich Handler's own
recent testimony, reflects the improper motive driving this disciplinary
117. I refused to drop my pursuit of Emmerich Handler. True to Mr.
Saltzman's implied promise, the Grievance Committee is now pursuing me.
118. The circumstances of that pursuit are extremely unusual in numerous
119. Based on research done by my office the disciplinary charges brought
against me are unprecedented in the State of New York.