William Hamel’s Bid for Dismissal Of His Case Denied. Judge In His Decision Case Says “…..He, (Hamel) Fed Cases To Other Attorneys In The Law Firm”,— Allegedly Dinkes & Schiwtzer
April 24, 2013 § 1 Comment
Dinkes & Schwitzer’s William Hamel Allegedly Caught In The Act, Tried To Get Bribery case Against Him Dismissed But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Barrett Denies His Bid For Dismissal-The Arrogance
Now, Dear Readership, Trying to get one’s case dismissed is one’s prerogative. However, as we have shown on many occasions, Hamel was caught redhanded, while in the act, on videotape per his Felony Complaint:
The actual Felony Complaint papers are just below via New York law Journal:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF THE BRONX
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
-against- FELONY COMPLAINT
Richard Smith, a Senior Investigator with the New York State Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”), being duly sworn, deposes and says that during a period
from on or about March 12, 2007, to about April 16, 2007, in the County of the Bronx, State of New York, the defendant, William Hamel, committed the offenses of:
BRIBERY IN THE 3rd DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law § 200.00, a class D Felony, in that the defendant did confer and offer and agree to confer any benefit upon a public servant upon an agreement and understanding that such public servant’s vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision and exercise of discretion as a public servant would thereby be influenced.
Defendant committed this crime as follows:
1. This felony complaint is based upon information and belief, with the source of deponent’s information and the grounds for his belief being his involvement in
the investigation conducted by the OAG, the New York City Department of Investigation, and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (“HHC”) Office
of the Inspector General; the business records of HHC; records of the New
York State Office of Court Administration; telephone records of the defendant and others; observations made and photographs taken of a meeting between the
defendant and Gladys Diaz (“Diaz”) on March 14, 2007, in the vicinity of 597-99 Grand
Concourse, Bronx, New York; and the statements of the defendant and Gladys Diaz, overheard during court-ordered eavesdropping.
2. I have reviewed HHC business records indicating that Diaz is and was during the relevant period of time employed by HHC as a Clerical Associate at Lincoln
Medical & Mental Health Center (“Lincoln”), located at 234 East 149th Street, Bronx, New York, and that her responsibilities are to assist a surgical unit by
assembling patient charts upon admission and discharge of patients; otherwise to assist in maintaining certain information in patient charts; to communicate
with the admitting office regarding patient discharges; and to act as a receptionist.
These records also demonstrate that Diaz had access to confidential patient information.
3. Based on my review of the telephone information compiled during this investigation, telephone calls were made during the relevant period of time between the
defendant’s cellular telephone and Diaz’s cellular telephone. Based on this investigation, I am familiar with defendant’s and Diaz’s voices. I have listened to
telephone calls recorded pursuant to court ordered eavesdropping warrants of the defendant’s cellular telephone for the following dates and times, and in sum and
substance the following was stated:
a. Call # 660, 3/12/07 at 2:48 p.m.: Diaz told the defendant that she passed along patient and accident information to his office. The defendant stated that she can
contact him directly.
b. Call # 778, 3/20/07 at 4:36 p.m.: Diaz left the defendant a voicemail message with patient information, including the name, type of accident and hospital
c. Call # 1160, 4/16/07 at 11:24:01 a.m.: Diaz discussed meeting with the defendant and that Diaz was not receiving the full amount of money she was owed from
the defendant on cases.
4. Based on records of the Office of Court Administration, the defendant is an attorney
admitted to practice in the State of New York. According to a listing on Martindale Hubble and a website for the law firm Dinkes & Schwitzer found at
http://www.dandsatlaw.com, Dinkes & Schwitzer is a law firm that specializes in, among other things, bringing lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs in automobile accident,
medical malpractice, and construction accident cases. The defendant is listed in the Dinkes & Schwitzer website as being a trial lawyer with the firm.
5. Based on my experience investigating motor vehicle insurance fraud at the OAG, including de-briefing admitted participants, listening to thousands of
intercepted telephone calls in this investigation, conducting undercover operations, and conducting surveillance, I have learned that that there are several similar
features in most no-fault insurance fraud rings. First, steerers or no-fault personal injury attorneys must recruit Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA) Victims to become
patients. Steerers or attorneys find victims and recruit them as patients in a variety of ways. Often, hospital employees sell confidential patient information to
“steerers” or attorneys. In other situations, the steerer or attorney pays a tow-truck driver or an insurance broker for victim information. Sometimes, the steerer
listens to a police scanner and solicits victims at the accident scene. Once the steerer or attorney has the victim information, they direct the MVA victims to attend
corrupt no-fault medical clinics owned by co-conspirators. The clinics provide the patients with medically unnecessary treatment or fail to provide treatment and
then submit fraudulent claims to insurance carriers based on that purported treatment;
and the attorneys then pursue fraudulent personal injury lawsuits for pain and suffering.
False statements made herein are punishable as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Law § 210.45.
New York State Office of the Attorney General
Dated: ______________, 2009
________________, New York
Despite the above, Hamel had the bizarre and balmy bluster, braggadocio, and brass, to waste taxpayer’s money to try to get the charges against him dismissed. We might add Hamel and Dinkes & Schwitzer don’t stop. They/Hamel under the alleged auspices and approval of Dinkes & Schwitzer allegedly commit Bribery–a Federal Offense. They allegedly, (allegedly–yeah right!!!), try to get away with it by denying it and allegedly waste taxpayer’s money to boot!
Supreme Court Justice Barrett composed and submitted a 20 page denial of this nonsense. We are posting the 1st page, the 9th page of same–where Justice Barrett tells the story of the William Hamel and Dinkes & Schwitzer’s alleged skullduggery. Please look below. We will post them in order. Please look closely at Page 9 of Barrett’s Decision:
Please examine Line 13 through Line 16 below. AND WE QUOTE “The information obtained in the Levy investigation also led the Attorney General to defendant De Los Santos, who was acting as a “steerer” with defendant Hamel, an attorney in the law firm, Dinkes & Schwitzer, who occupied a role, roughly parallel to that of Connell in that he fed cases to other attorneys in the law firm”
Ladies and gentlemen of our audience, this is what the Judge, Supreme Court Justice Barrett says. This is something that we are more than inclined to believe given the nightmarish stories from former clients that we’ve heard tell.
And Dear Readership, please take note of the last line in the denial of Gustave Newman’s motion to have the case against the “Hamel defendants“,–(if that doesn’t imply that Hamel was the alleged Ringleader, than we don’t know what would), and in full it says: “The motion to dismiss the involvement of the Hamel defendants for want of subject matter jurisdiction is denied in all respects”.
We hope all Dinkes & Schwitzer clients past and potential take a good look at our articles before they hire these alleged crooks. If we deter just one client from being damaged by Dinkes & Schwitzer, then we have done our job.
The internet is mightier than the sword.