We Secured An Interview With The Litigant On the Case We Have been Profiling: The Litigant Speaks
December 6, 2013 § 2 Comments
Due to overwhelming response, and requests and work on our part, we have snagged at least one interview with the litigant in this case-so, so much to our glee. We will address the litigant as such and not identify this person’s name as we know the Litigant is dealing with allegedly dangerous criminals, one of whom, William Hamel admitted to committing Criminal Facilitation in the course of Bribing a public official. He only got off because he is an attorney–but so what! He’s an admitted criminal, (He had to confess to the charges levied against him. As we have posted, the government witnessed him in the commission of such), who was allowed out of doing prison time on a Conditional Discharge and was only allowed out of that as he paid $300K–YES, HAMEL PAID $300,000 in fines. That’s just goes to show you the seriousness of his crimes. Therefore in that vein, we won’t use the Litigant’s name for we believe there’s a distinct possibility that William Hamel, Roy Bean Sherman, anyone from Dinkes & Schwitzer, Godosky & Gentile, or their personal friends and/or hirelings allegedly might be in the habit of, or allegedly have a pattern of possessing, and using firearms or weapons of violence and destruction.
We start the interview:
WNM: “Firstly, thank you for your time and effort, for taking a chance, and possibly risking your safety in fact your life”
LITIGANT: “You’re welcome. I hope my efforts are not in vain and I help others. And I hope to help other people from falling victim to the predatory attorneys, of which, unfortunately there are quite a few.
And by the way, I do want to thank you for following my case. You’ve really helped me escape the clutches of, as you call him Roy Bean Sherman, and Dinkes & Schiwtzer, and Godosky & Gentile, so I must do the same in kind and give you at least this interview.”
WNM: “Oh you’re welcome. Well with that in mind, would you please tell us about your experiences on and with this case. Your experiences with Criminal, William Hamel and his henchmen at Dinkes & Schwitzer and please don’t leave out Godosky & Gentile, Roy Bean Sherman and whomever else you know of who has been involved.”
LITIGANT: “I will do my best. I can’t promise I will do so in the chronological order of events. I will however tell of the events that stick out in my mind.”
Wmn: “That’s fine; at your leisure. And if you like you can give other interviews to us. We and our Readership have been on tenterhooks. We have given our audience a lot of information that we’ve gotten from court staffers that have heard you argue your case, from our own sources and the like. But there’s nothing like getting it from the victim/the one who personally went through the abuse you did via the aforementioned above.”
LIT: “To begin with I will say that I don’t wish Dinkes & Schwitzer on my worst enemy–Wait,—- they are my worst enemy,–in fact they are everyone’s worst enemy, including their own. So I’ll have to rethink that wish…..
They’ve wasted taxpayer’s money with their vain vindictiveness.”
WNM: “Yes we agree.”
LIT: “Having said that, I will say there is one reason, –and only one reason, mind you, that William Hamel and his friends at Dinkes & Schwtizer have been able to get away with, –oh yes, “allegedly,” —as you would say…..”
WMN: “No, no. That’s okay. You are telling us your experiences, observations, and opinions. We know these lawyers would love to “Quash” it all–naturally as they will be put in a very bad light, correct?”
WMN: “But they can’t tell you what you heard, saw and experienced.”
LIT: “Well, then to continue only one of the reasons, –and there are others, that they’ve been able to get away with abusing their own clients, –and I’m one, — as well as the public is because of such judges as Sherman.
From Day One I saw something was wrong but I really tried to give the benefit of the doubt.”
WMN: “What do you mean from “Day One”?
LIT: “Well, when I was in front of him, he would be condescendingly rolling his eyes, and clucking his tongue, with disdain and this when I had never even met him before. It was obvious he had been given a preview about the case before it even started. He already made up his mind. In fact one time I actually said to him to not look at me askance!”
WMN: Did you really?
LIT: Oh, yes. That’s how obvious it was. And yet he was taken aback! But that’s how blatantly derisive his attitude was. And that was just at the beginning of the passage of almost three, unnecessary years ago. Sherman couldn’t stand that I had the audacity as a client, as a layperson and pro se litigant to stand up for myself, and fight for the money stolen from me by Hamel, and Dinkes & Schwitzer, thus owed me. Sherman was determined to drag out the case as far into the future as he could. There is no doubt. But then, judge Sherman, I do have the audacity.
I could tell you that I got this miserable attitude from him expressed in this supercilious demeanor,–and perhaps since we are talking about someone who in my opinion socializes with criminals, i.e., Hamel, Misdemeanor, — demonstrating a philosophy of How dare I! and I should accept abuse and keep quiet about it! (As was made perfectly clear when he continued to try to have the proceedings occur without the presence of a Court stenographer transcribing and recording them since I constantly had to beg for one).(Would you believe that Sherman told me that the charges against Hamel were simply “allegations.
And, would you believe that Sherman told me that the charges against Hamel were simply “allegations” when in fact Hamel was caught in the act, on tape.–And then subsequently was compelled to admit to his crimes.”
WNM: “And this is a judge,–and we use that word loosely, who sits on the bench telling the public what to do. The utter nerve of this guy. It is obvious that the public who voted him him knew absolutely nothing about him–as we never know about the judges we put on the bench. We all put them in if we like their names. That’s the only criteria we all use to elect them to a Judgeship.
And to defend your adversaries, too. Hmmm, we wonder where his allegiance really was!”
LIT: “Yeah. –And for that matter, he further revealed a disgusting attitude that all litigants who want justice and want it from the system should fade into a corner because if they were going to fight for their rights and their opponents just happened to be lawyers, as in my case, Sherman was going to make things as difficult as possible. And it was very obvious to me, given his behavior, –the illegal ex parte communication he indulged in, and I have this stuff is documented and in writing,—- that he, Sherman, would do anything including breaking the law, which meant nothing to him,–and to put it another way he had this unrealistic and imaginary view that he could do so, that he is and was Teflon, and he could break the law and be complicit in doing so, without the accompanying repercussions. When you consider that perspective, there’s this kind of delusional element about him that I witnessed.
I mean consider, he was willing to illegally deny me my rights, such as when he would continually make me beg for a Court stenographer–At the start of each session, I would say I wouldn’t say anything off record unless it was recorded by a Court reporter.–just to please Dinkes & Schiwtzer, and that admitted criminal, William Hamel, who I have no doubt, –in fact I know, he committed similar crimes, (and have said so on record, proudly) instead of prosecuting my case.
What’s more, if you look at the documents from the beginning of just this segment of the case you will see that he not only had no intention of having anything come to fruition but he was going to hide these intentions as well.–And by the way, supposedly in court you cannot prove intention. Well in this instance, I can and did specifically at my last court appearance for which I have the minutes.–Which by the way I had to request 10 to 20 times of Sherman as he would solely grant Dinkes & Schwitzer what they wanted instead of granting both sides relief.
It was so bad that I finally put that in one of my briefs. And then suddenly, a Court Reporter appeared without my asking!–How coincidental!
Oh, and I’m not finished yet. So let us not leave out the fact that one time, at the start of the proceedings, I was called into an office off the small 4th floor court room we were supposed to be in. There was a big desk that Sherman went to sit behind, and 2 chairs facing him, and it–AND THAT WAS ALL. There were only 3 people in that room including me. I never consented to this, mind you. –How do you like that?
WNM: “Outrageous!–And, Actually, we heard of this incident and we agree. We’ve spoken to our sources as well regarding this. And we are compelled to say, how allegedly corrupt is this guy–And that’s not a question. ”
LIT: “Isn’t it!! I at that point demanded to have a Court Stenographer present–AGAIN! I marched right out with those two following me like two puppies with their tails trembling between their legs because their master plan of having a covert appearance was NOT going to take place.–And they were annoyed that I didn’t fall for it, and wasn’t threatened by it!
I will say that I have spoken to many a legal pundit who has said they never heard of such a thing and that this type of thing is never done especially when one of the parties is a pro se litigant.–Which by the way they don’t like either as Godosky of Godosky and Gentile came out and,–get this,– demanded to know who I was speaking to, and guided by! ”
WNM: “That’s a riot! For him to think that he has that type of authority and you have to cowtow to him and reveal your activities to him. Perhaps Sherman’s allegedly delusional nature is contagious.”
LIT: “Maybe they have the affliction simultaneously.” (Lit chuckles) “Whatever, Sherman, was really worried that I got them by their briefs.–if you know what I mean.”
WNM: Yes, of course. Or else who would do that other than someone who was allegedly crooked, biased, –in this instance they are one in the same,–and someone who had the undeniable desire to have Dinkes & Schwitzer win by any illegal means because they couldn’t win by legal ones.
WNM: “What about the time that we had a court appearance at 2:30PM, and I come in on time. And I’m waiting and waiting…. 2:30PM 2:45PM, 3:00PM, 3:15PM….I’m still waiting for both Godosky and Sherman, in that 4th Floor Court room waiting room.
When finally at just about 3:30PM I see that Sherman, saunter in through the other/alternate door to the courtroom, (this door apparently leads to that small office I referred to earlier). Sherman sees me and gives me his usual resentful sneer, (which I think is his permanent look, actually). No sooner does he close the door behind him when Robert Godosky comes in. ”
WNM: “So you’re telling me that unbeknownst to you they schemed to have you wait there an hour until they decided to show up keeping you waiting at least an hour, (we expect that they had to settle in)—”
LIT: “That’s right. They had me wait there while I twiddled my thumbs otherwise doing nothing.”
WMN: “And let me add pushing your face in the fact that you were a pro se litigant.”
WMN: “And far worse, not indicating but rather proving that they had illegal ex parte communication or else, how would they both know to come in late and at the same time and somehow you weren’t made privy to this so you were forced to wait and waste your time while they came in at their leisure.”
WMN: ” I suspect there’s more.”
LIT: ” Yes.”
To be continued Dear Readers in the next installment of the Litigant Interview: The Litigant Speaks…
THE INTERNET IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD!