Kings County Supreme Court House Of Horrors: Judge Allegedly Says To Dinkes & Schwitzer Adversarial Litigant: “I Can Do Anything I Want”-Part III
May 15, 2013 § 2 Comments
Dear Readers, Friends, and Contributors,
Firstly, thank you all for your responses and support; especially those of you from the County of Kings, and those of you from elsewhere who are in the legal profession, attorneys and justices. Your help and responses, some of which we are keeping confidential for obvious reasons, are always appreciated.
But back to business and the judge who wines outs to all of us, “I can do what I want!”
In our last entry, we all were so outraged by the juvenile “Roy Bean” attitude, that we didn’t explain the situation. And so to explain, we will:
This alleged lawless Adjudicator, after the passage of a year and a half of the latter’s alleged delays, (delays allegedly based on neither rhyme nor reason), put forth an alleged Court Order decreeing that Dinkes & Schwitzer had to provide the litigant with their records in full AND that there would be a Hearing with a Judicial Hearing Officer or a Special Referee.
As we previously explained Dinkes & Schwitzer allegedly cannot produce their records in full, for among reasons, they can’t produce the allegedly illegal –(allegedly illegal yeah right!), funds allegedly paid to them by the defendant’s firm, a Goldberg Segalla referenced in the following letter:
The payment of such funds is illegal in and of itself since as we explained that in any kind of case, defendants and or their attorneys do not pay-off plaintiff’s lawyers–that is unless they are engaging in illegal pay-offs.
That being the situation, OF COURSE Dinkes & Schwitzer allegedly won’t provide the records in full.
But it’s not just that, since Dinkes & Schwitzer were allegedly paid off by Goldberg Segalla–Hey that’s what the letter says, guys.—they also didn’t prosecute the case.
Per our Court Sources, one of the ways William Hamel and Dinkes & Schwitzer didn’t prosecute the case was that, in the course of allegedly making illegal deals with the defendants and their lawyers, they didn’t have their own client’s deposition, recorded!–This is the same client who is the litigant fighting them in this case claiming, and rightfully so, that Hamel, and Dinkes & Schyster aren’t entitled to their fees and disbursements because they didn’t prosecute the litigant’s case-. Very simply, and in lay terms, attorneys are entitled to their fees and disbursements when they do everything within the law in the best interest of their client. That alone excludes making alleged under the table deals with the opponents and their attorneys such that their own client’s Deposition goes unrecorded.
We might add that, our friends at the Kings County Court House of Horrors, the judge is absolutely aware that William Hamel Dinkes & Schwitzer also allegedly secured the dismissal of one of the defendants by not taking a Default Judgment, fully betraying their client, and insuring the forfeiture of money for their client, and suffice it to say forfeiting winning the case.
In layperson’s terms, if you don’t take a Default judgment you are letting the other side off the hook. The only reason to do that is if a lawyer is bribed to do it. When an attorney doesn’t take a default judgment, the lawyer loses money as does the client because the source of money is now gone and the lawyer has lost the case to boot. Lawyers only take cases they think they’ll win. And, let us be very real here. NO lawyer is going to take a case only to lose it.
Either William Hamel and his alleged con men and con women friends at Dinkes & Schwitzer were allegedly thoroughly incompetent or allegedly were paid bribes to not take a default judgment –Dear Readers, you decide–And take into consideration the fact that William Hamel had some familiarity to the concept of bribes as he pleaded guilty to such!
Furthermore, within the legal profession, it is extremely well known that something illegal has gone down when a lawyer fails to take a default judgment. In fact everyone in the legal profession knows that. What the dishonest lawyers do is hide this fact from the innocent, uninformed public to avoid such things as Malpractice for losing the case for the client.
And as far as we know, it was Hamel who was allegedly in charge of the case. Therefore, a slam dunk right?–Not when the judge is trying to act as prophylaxis to his own brothers, who just happen to be alleged criminals, William Hamel and Dinkes & Schwitzer.
But that’s not enough, as we previously mentioned, the Judge, despite all this damning evidence against Dinkes & Schwitzer showing they didn’t prosecute the case ordered a Hearing with a Judicial Hearing Officer/Special Referee. Well, according to the website of http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/1jd/supctmanh/References.shtml , not only were these types of hearings indefinitely suspended since 2011, but the Court must obtain the consent of the parties.–We have gotten these documents from the Court record, the documents of which the judge on this case has thus far, been unable to allegedly hide from us as we are far too swift for him
Please notice the the writing on the documents. The litigant specifies that among things the hearing has been suspended, the litigant cannot make the hearing at the time specified which, this Judge Sherman knows, as the previous appearances had to be scheduled in the afternoon because of the litigant health limitations, (a look at the index # 22335/2003 in New York Kings County Supreme Court indicates appearances scheduled for 2:30 PM which confirms what our court comrades have told us), and because the litigant didn’t consent to this hearing thus it cannot go on.
The litigant submitted an Order to Show Cause asking for a Dismissal of the case in her favor for
among reasons, (we will get more deeply into this issue in our next installment), that Dinkes & Schiwtzer violated the Court order on two fronts as they couldnt’ provide their records in full, and because the reasons mentioned above.
Obviously, the judge resents a layperson showing him up pointing out that this type of Hearing was done away with since 2011 and especially that she didn’t consent to it as this is when, according to our sources the judge in response to refusing to either admit to his mistake, and deliberate violation of the law, and refusal to withdraw the illegal order, the litigant proclaiming she didn’t consent to it allegedly explodes and Roy Beans with, “I can do what I want”.
The internet is mightier than the sword.