William Hamel And Dinkes & Schwitzer Alleged Malpractice And Disciplinary Committee Defense Attorney Office In Same Building As Disc. Committee: By Coincidence Or By Contrivance, Coincidence, And Conflict Of Interest?– We Think the Latter Three- Part 1

April 26, 2013 § 2 Comments

Dear Readers,

Our Honorable Court Comrades have alerted us to the fact that, oh yes, as said in our headline: William Hamel’s and Dinkes & Schwitzer’s Malpractice and alleged Disciplinary Committee defense attorney firm and/or alleged Disciplinary

Committee members, Godosky & Gentile are in the same building as the Disciplinary Committee.

Now let’s take a good look at this. The Disciplinary Committee’s address is:

Appellate Division - First Department
Departmental Disciplinary Committee

61 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
(212) 401-0800
(212) 287-1045 FAX
Chair
Roy L. Reardon, Esq.

Chief Counsel
Jorge Dopico, Esq.

As we have shown in a previous  article of ours entitled: “Dinkes & Schwitzer NEVER “OUR” ATTORNEYS They’ve Been Sued For Malpractice-Again”,  published on Jan 7, 2013 @ 3:20-, which referenced the case of Thomas v Dinkes & Schwitzer, for among other things, Malpractice and Unlawful Enrichment, their attorney firm was Godosky & Gentile whose address is:

Godosky & Gentlie

61 Broadway

New York NY 10006

We have also been told by our highly reliable legal contacts that a member attorney of Godosky & Gentile is allegedly a member of the Disciplinary Committee.–How conveeeenient.

As far as we know, and as we have previously mentioned, there have allegedly  been plenty of complaints lodged against William Hamel, –and that’s not even including his conviction of a Class A Misdemeanor inclusive of a $300K Fine that was  Plea Bargained down from 19 Felony Counts,–and allegedly an abundance of Disciplinary Committee complaints exacted against Dinkes & Schwitzer.

Could the reason that Hamel and his fellow attorneys at Dinkes & Schwitzer allegedly got off scot-free from the wrath and punishment of the Disciplinary Committee be because the latter two allegedly hired a malpractice defense attorney who’s also a member of the Disciplinary Committee and within finger’s length of them?

Well, while our Readership is deciding about the answer to that question, we will say that thus far we have not seen, –and it may be there and it could be that we have seen no evidence of it,–any proof that Hamel has been suspended since he admitted to committing a Class a Misdemeanor and in fact paid out $300K to the public, even though, as in our very recent article his own lawyer, Gustave Newman, on public record says in a letter to Judge Barrett that “As can be seen from all of the above, the exact misdemeanor offense to which our client pleads has important disciplinary consequences for him. The label of the misdemeanor is of no consequence for anybody but our client.”

Dear Disciplinary Committee, whom we know is part and parcel of our Readership, where are those consequences?

And by the way, Mr. Newman, the label IS of consequence to everybody, INCLUDING your client.

The internet is mightier than the sword.

THE INTERNET IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD

Advertisements

§ 2 Responses to William Hamel And Dinkes & Schwitzer Alleged Malpractice And Disciplinary Committee Defense Attorney Office In Same Building As Disc. Committee: By Coincidence Or By Contrivance, Coincidence, And Conflict Of Interest?– We Think the Latter Three- Part 1

  • willy says:

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Based upon information and belief, Robert Godosky is a member of the “N.Y. Departmental Disciplinary Commitee.” His law firm is tied directly to Chairman Roy Reardon of Simpson and Thacher. The members enjoy private practice yet have government status – this is were the corruption begins. You may be interested to know, Mr. Reardon and Simpson Thacher has been retained by Godosky & Gentile in cases where attorneys were accused of misconduct by other attorneys. I would imgaine if you dig deeper into the story, you would find your lawyer was protected. Don’t expect much help from the Manhattan D.A., his father was a partner for Simpson Thacher and members of the DDC enjoy free legal reimbursement from the AG – so, yes, a lawyer can be accused of a crime and use the “right” people to avoid justice with this “watchdog” agency. Until the public demands Roy Reardon’s removal for allowing this system of influence peddling to cease the conflicts of interests, the people and honest lawyers will be unjustly burdened so they can enjoy the high life.

    Like

    • Publisher says:

      To our Audience:

      We feel it is our journalistic duty to disseminate information of interest to the public. The comment above is a response to the article we posted in April last (4/26/13). We find this information very intriguing to say the very least. However, we cannot say that it is necessarily true but what we can say is that we can believe it. We are not familiar with this Reardon fellow. But we are faithfully doing some digging per the suggestion.

      We must stress that we are not responsible for the opinions of others. We are just the messengers. In a free Internet society the exchange of opinions is possible and allowable. And, if there is no truth to these allegations and further, nothing wrong, then there are no worries.

      But, we will also say that if there’s not even a modicum of truth to these allegation, then why hasn’t the DDC done anything about the admitted criminal, William Hamel? We think absolutely that’s something to ponder and the DDC’s inaction in terms of Hamel seems to strengthen such suspicions.

      The devoted readers of our site are always on top of the the goings-on as are we. And we find them so helpful in the truthful and legal fight for justice.

      We invite and welcome any of the components of this extremely troubling accusation to give their rebuttal at anytime. In fact we demand a response from the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC), an agency that advertises in (http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/committees&programs/DDC/index.shtml#intro)
      “III. WHAT THE COMMITTEE DOES,” (as):

      The purpose of the Committee is to protect the public and the legal profession by ensuring that lawyers adhere to the ethical standards set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”). The Committee protects the public by reviewing and investigating complaints against lawyers and by recommending sanctions against those who are proven to have violated the Rules. It protects the legal profession by enforcing high standards of conduct, while at the same time ensuring that complaints are dealt with fairly.

      Dear Readers,
      Our Honorable Court Comrades have alerted us to the fact that, oh yes, as said in our headline: William Hamel’s and Dinkes & Schwitzer’s Malpractice and alleged Disciplinary Committee defense attorney firm and/or alleged Disciplinary Committee members, Godosky & Gentile are in the same building as the Disciplinary Committee.
      Now let’s take a good look at this. The Disciplinary Committee’s address is:

      Departmental Disciplinary Committee
      61 Broadway
      New York, NY 10006
      (212) 401-0800
      (212) 287-1045 FAX
      Chair
      Roy L. Reardon, Esq.
      Chief Counsel
      Jorge Dopico, Esq.
      As we have shown in a previous article of ours entitled: “Dinkes & Schwitzer NEVER “OUR” ATTORNEYS They’ve Been Sued For Malpractice-Again”, published on Jan 7, 2013 @ 3:20-, which referenced the case of Thomas v Dinkes & Schwitzer, for among other things, Malpractice and Unlawful Enrichment, their attorney firm was Godosky & Gentile whose address is:
      Godosky & Gentlie
      61 Broadway
      New york NY 10006

      We have also been told by our highly reliable legal contacts that a member attorney of Godosky & Gentile is allegedly a member of the Disciplinary Committee.–How conveeeenient.

      As far as we know, and as we have previously mentioned, there have allegedly been plenty of complaints lodged against William Hamel, –and that’s not even including his conviction of a Class A Misdemeanor inclusive of a $300K Fine that was Plea Bargained down from 19 Felony Counts,–and allegedly an abundance of Disciplinary Committee complaints exacted against Dinkes & Schwitzer.

      Could the reason that Hamel and his fellow attorneys at Dinkes & Schwitzer allegedly got off scot-free from the wrath and punishment of the Disciplinary Committee be because the latter two allegedly hired a malpractice defense attorney who’s also a member of the Disciplinary Committee and within finger’s length of them?

      Well, while our Readership is deciding about the answer to that question, we will say that thus far we have not seen, –and it may be there and it could be that we have seen no evidence of it,–any proof that Hamel has been suspended since he admitted to committing a Class a Misdemeanor and in fact paid out $300K to the public, even though, as in our very recent article his own lawyer, Gustave Newman, on public record says in a letter to Judge Barrett that “As can be seen from all of the above, the exact misdemeanor offense to which our client pleads has important disciplinary consequences for him. The label of the misdemeanor is of no consequence for anybody but our client.”

      Dear Disciplinary Committee, whom we know is part and parcel of our Readership, where are those consequences?

      And by the way, Mr. Newman, the label IS of consequence to everybody, INCLUDING your client.

      THE INTERNET IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD

      Like

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 )

w

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading William Hamel And Dinkes & Schwitzer Alleged Malpractice And Disciplinary Committee Defense Attorney Office In Same Building As Disc. Committee: By Coincidence Or By Contrivance, Coincidence, And Conflict Of Interest?– We Think the Latter Three- Part 1 at world-news-media.com.

meta

%d bloggers like this: