Monday, 18th December 2017

   home     about     authors     news     sitemap     privacy     contact us

add to favorites
make home page


Introductory Remarks
Legal Documents
Letters
Most Recent Material
News Releases
Published Articles
Synopsis

Our Newsletter



Subscribe
Unsubscribe
  Voting Poll

Can the judicial system be successfully overhauled?
no
yes


  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
 Email:
weinfirm@ix.netcom.com

 


 


Affidavit and Supporting Documentation 7/27/01
Viewed: 0 time(s)
[ Not Rated Yet ]


  
Affidavit

80. In August- September, 1997 at the time Emmerich Handler and Jack

Walker complained to the Grievance Committee these matters were still before

this court.

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

matter.

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

Realty Corp.

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

the offer.

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

Committee's request.

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

proceedings.

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

the proceeding.

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

Cleary Gottlieb!

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

numerous attachments.

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

light.

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

proceeding.

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

other respects.

119. Based on research done by my office the disciplinary charges brought

against me are unprecedented in the State of New York.


Article Pages:   Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next   



All content © 2017 Israel Weinstock, Lawyer Fraud. Site Powered By New Vision.