William Hamel Of Dinkes & Schwitzer Fights Bribery Charges, Plea Bargains, Pays $300K And Gets Conditional Discharge On Same While Allegedly Taking Bribes On Other Cases-Alleged Proof Posted
April 27, 2013 § 2 Comments
After many meetings, we’ve taken a consensus among our contributors and friends at the Kings County Supreme Court Courthouse and thusly decided to post the damning letter that demonstrates Dinkes & Schwitzer’s and William Hamel’s alleged involvement in a bribery scheme at the same time the latter was fighting federal felony charges for exactly that, a bribery scheme. We certainly add that Hamel was not only fighting the Bribery charges against him, simultaneous to allegedly illegally taking bribes on this case Salzburg v Emmons Ave, Inc.,– (which is what this letter attests to), but was also concurrently pleading guilty to the Federal charges for bribery, taking a Plea Deal for such, paying out $300K in fines, and getting a Conditional Discharge while trying to allegedly trying to hide this crime from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York.
A little background to explain this letter: Dinkes & Schwitzer were the plaintiff’s attorneys. Goldberg Segalla were the defendant’s attorneys. There is no legal defense for defendants or their lawyers to pay plaintiff’s lawyers.
A little comment to any of the parties mentioned in this letter who may object to its posting: Object away, this letter is part of public record. We have redacted the plaintiff’s 1st name because the plaintiff is the innocent victim of the alleged machinations of the other parties mentioned in this letter.
It is our opinion that parties mentioned in this letter, such as William Hamel, and certain lawyers of Dinkes & Schwtizer, as well as a Bert Taras, (also mentioned in this letter), the plaintiff’s former lawyer whom the plaintiff fired apparently years before, as well certain lawyers from Goldberg Segalla who are saying in this letter to Dinkes & Schwitzer: “…we will not have the disbursement check drafted until such time as the issue regarding the proceeds between your office and Bert Taras, Esq., are resolved.”, which indicate alleged illegal under the table payoffs,are very dangerous. Therefore should they or and the Court from which this comes, (that is, Kings County Supreme Court), retaliate against us or the plaintiff, we will be quite amenable to publishing that as well.
From the prior article:
To satisfy the terrific demand of our audience we give you this Breaking News: Our legal compatriots at the New York State and City Supreme Court Court Houses have found out that William Hamel, ESQ. was allegedly fighting for his legal life and career, and allegedly taking the Felony charges filed against him seriously, he was allegedly taking bribes in relation to other cases.
Situation in point: our Court Contacts have discovered a communique from a case Dinkes & Schiwtzer and their lawyers, inclusive of William Hamel were involved in from the Defense Attorneys on the case saying: “Please note that we will not have the disbursement check drafted until such time as the issue regarding the proceeds between your office and bert taras, esq. are resolved.”
Some clarity to any of our readers with no legal background. There is absolutely no legal justification for the defendants or their counsel, –(according to this letter, a firm allegedly called, Goldberg Segalla), to pay a plaintiff’s counsel a “disbursement check” or any type of payment without the written authorization of the plaintiff. We forcefully add that:
1- According to this document these payments were unauthorized by Dinkes & Schwitzer’s client, the plaintiff, and according to the latter, these were bribery payments.
2-When the Court ordered on record as well,l as signed a Court Order demanding Dinkes & Schiwtzer to surrender the records regarding this case, Dinkes & Schiwtzer, allegedly failed to. –And, we don’t expect them to, as by doing so they would be compelled to reveal details of the above.–at the very least.
3-What was Hamel, and Dinkes & Schwitzer, as well as this, Bert Taras, (the plaintiff’s former attorney who, as we found out, was fired by the plaintiff years ago doing taking payments of any sort from the defendant’s lawyers)
4-What was Bert Taras doing still being involved in a case he was fired from years ago?
5-This letter is dated 5/12/2011. Hamel’s case was going on from 12/23/09 until its disposition which was 3/28/13.
6-It sure seems like Hamel and his cohorts at Dinkes & Schwitzer were involved in alleged dirty dealings with the defendants, their lawyers, and this Bert Taras.
7-William Hamel, Esq. and Dinkes & Schiwtzer, and this Bert Taras, Esq., Goldberg Segalla, we will be quite glad to post this letter if it please you all. In fact we’re deliberating as to whether we will post it whether it please you all it or not.
The plaintiff has repeatedly mentioned a fear for safety on court papers given that these are allegedly dangerous people–and we agree.
We will be so very glad to post the whole OSC, (Order to Show Cause), this document is contained in to accommodate the Kings County Supreme Court.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have found this information out through the diligent work of our wonderful contacts at the Kings County Supreme Court Courthouse. We cannot thank them enough.
We must tell you all we are tenaciously working to get more information on the matter
THE INTERNET IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD.