Kings County Supreme Court House Of Horrors: Judges(s) Allegedly Scheme With Dinkes & Schiwtzer to Deter Justice Part 2
April 25, 2013 § 1 Comment
Let us be very straightforward here. Dinkes & Schiwtzer would never be able to allegedly pull what they’ve been pulling if there weren’t Judges to help them do so along the way. And, that also goes for the Bar. We know of many complaints lodged against Dinkes & Schiwtzer to the Bar Association and the latter has let them go. Our sources in the Court have alerted us to the fact that the attorneys that have defended them in their malpractice cases are coincidentally highfalutin members of the Bar Association who have gotten them off. We are still deciding to name the Judge who is allegedly withholding incriminating evidence from the public record. According to our reliable and honest court sources here are the whys and wherefores of that comprise and will influence our decision: The litigant, a layperson, is disputing allegedly fraudulent Attorney’s Fees and Disbursements charged by Dinkes & Schwitzer. The litigant has accused Dinkes & Schiwtzer of skimming from the settlement and taking Bribes to thwart the prosecution of said litigant’s case, to the benefit of the opposition, allegedly proving these assertions with tons of documented evidence. The litigant has made countless requests, of the Court, via motions, for the minutes of each appearance to be provided. And since the former is disabled, said litigant by law is legally due these minutes either for free (The 14th Amendment provides such). In a motion, the movant is allowed to ask for whatever he/she wants and as much as he/she wants. The judge on the case has allegedly withheld the minutes from the litigant allegedly having no legal grounds to do so. This request is a normal workaday request, that is routinely requested and granted–unless there is some other unsavory agenda which allegedly seems to be the situation in this case. By the very dependable word of our Court sources, when the litigant, accused Dinkes & Schwitzer of taking bribes to foil the litigant’s/their own case, on record, the judge allegedly asked what the amount of the bribes were thus confirming that bribery took place, yet allegedly didn’t grant the litigant the return of the stolen money. (It is no wonder the judge allegedly doesn’t want the litigant to retrieve the minutes from the appearances). According to our Court contacts, in a Court Order this same Judge has allegedly and coincidentally ordered the litigant to enter into a non-existent Hearing with a non-existent Judicial Hearing Officer, (JHO), or Special Referee, with Dinkes & Schwitzer, —-that is, this type of Hearing was suspended indefinitely since 2011 .–Thus, no such thing exists. This particular Hearing even when it existed, also would have demanded the consent of the litigant as, the consent of all parties would be needed for this type of Hearing to be conducted.–No such thing occurred. We have absolutely no tolerance for lawyers or judges who who flout the law-None.