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

What, no smile Hamel? William looks none too happy at being caught. (Photo courtesy World-News-Media)

What, no smile Hamel? William looks none too happy at being caught. (Photo courtesy World-News-Media)

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:

Date CourtPart Type Disposition Activity Date Filed
05/27/2011 60 TO DISMISS Denied Decided

The actual Felony Complaint papers are just below via New York law Journal:





-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.


Richard Smith

Senior Investigator

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:

Pg1 Pg 1 of Judge Barrett's Decision Denying Dismissal of Hamel's Criminal Felony Case

Page 1 of Judge Barrett’s denial of Motion to dismiss Hamel’s Criminal Felony Case.
Photo courtesy World-News-Media.com

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.

4-16-13 *** Pg9 Pg 9 Judge Barrett's Decision In Hamel's Case Barrett asserts Fraudulent cases were given to Oterh Lawyers at Dinkes & Schwitzer D&S IMG_1059

Photo courtesy World-News-Media.com

4-23-13 Last Page Pg of Judge Judge :Barrett's Decision Denying Hamel's Bid for Dismissal of His Criminal Felony Case IMG_1081

Photo courtesy World-News-Media.com

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.


§ One Response to 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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading 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 at world-news-media.com.


%d bloggers like this: