William Hamel, Admitted Criminal Subpoenaed To Testify, Motion To Quash Denied; Thus CRIMINAL HAMEL, Allowed Out Of Doing Prison Term On Conditional Discharge MUST Testify

December 10, 2013 § 4 Comments

Dear Readers,

As per our last installment we told you of the ecourts website deliberately being given, and thus reflecting erroneous information to the public. As promised we’ve gotten our hands on some other documents. Therefore, here we cite further proof as in a September 23 ,2013 Decision, the Motion to Quash, (the Subpoena filed for the testimony of Confessed Criminal, William Hamel) — is denied. (Photos below)

 Hamel Case #4794 09 Folder/File Please notice, First 1/2 of written line in the 6th Column: "Crim Facil 4". --(which means Criminal Facilitation). Second written line in the 6th Column: PG--(which means Pleads/Plead Guilty) to 115.00 (Photo courtesy World-News-Media)

Hamel Case #4794 09 Folder/File Please notice, First 1/2 of written line in the 6th Column: “Crim Facil 4”. –(which means Criminal Facilitation). Second written line in the 6th Column: PG–(which means Pleads/Plead Guilty) to 115.00 (Photo courtesy World-News-Media)

Anyone recognize this Soda jerk? (Hey, what’s the matter with being a soda jerk?) What, no smile Hamel? William Hamel looks none too happy at being caught. (Photo courtesy World-News-Media)

Hamel Case #4794 09 Folder/File Please notice, First 1/2 of written line in the 6th Column: “Crim Facil 4”. –(which means Criminal Facilitation). Second written line in the 6th Column: PG–(which means Pleads/Plead Guilty) to 115.00 (Photo courtesy World-News-Media)
For the readers who don’t know, it is against the law to violate a Subpoena. In other words, everyone who is subpoenaed, other than members of the Press, via the Shield laws–must testify.

We will post the laws via http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVP/23/2305 and courtesy of findlaw.com

N.Y. CVP. LAW § 2305 : NY Code – Section 2305: Attendance required pursuant to subpoena; possession of books, records, documents or papers –

“(a) When person required to attend. A subpoena may provide that the person subpoenaed shall appear on the date stated and any recessed or adjourned date of the trial, hearing or examination. If he is given reasonable notice of such recess or adjournment, no further process shall be required to compel his attendance on the adjourned date. At the end of each day’s attendance, the person subpoenaed may demand his fee for the next day on which he is to attend. If the fee is not then paid, he shall be deemed discharged. (b) Subpoena duces tecum; attendance by substitute. 1. A subpoena duces tecum may be joined with a subpoena to testify at a trial, hearing or examination or may be issued separately. ”

And there are no other exceptions, Ladies and Gentlemen. And don’t let anyone tell you differently. It is against the law to invent one’s own legislation to express anything other than the laws regarding Subpoenas quoted above. When one doesn’t obey a Subpoena, no matter who it is, is breaking the law. And we add that if one or some assist in the avoidance of of a Subpoena they are in collusion, (in the commission of the violation of the law.

And notice, given there are certainly no exceptions THIS LAW DOES NOT SAY: This law does not apply to known and admitted criminal William Hamel! And beyond that, the law doesn’t excuse any lawyer from being subpoenaed either.
9/23/13 Decision Denying Godosky & Gentile’s Motion to Quash the Subpoena filed demanding known and admitted Criminal of Federal Crimes, William Hamel’s testimony. –According to the County Clerk’s Office, although there was a subsequent appearance after this Order, Hamel has not appeared to testify as anyone else who is a member of the public would be obligated to do.

Ergo, given the laws that are very prominently posted on the internet for everyone to see, (To the tears and depression of Roy Bean Sherman, Dinkes & Schwitzer, and Godosky & Gentile!), and since the Motion to Quash for his being Subpoenaed was denied months ago,—LOOK AT THAT DATE, 9/23/13, –how is it that Criminal William Hamel has not shown up to testify? According to the County Clerk’s Office he has not come in to do so. And of course he would come in with the rest of his alleged strong arm, gang. Remember, Hamel is a known criminal as he is an admitted criminal–(Hamel is an admitted criminal as he was discovered as being such while in the commission of the crime by the investigative arm of among other agencies as the Criminal Enforcement and Financial Crimes Bureau) and his cohorts have acted allegedly in league with him, (Allegedly?, Yeah right).

Is the fact that Hamel hasn’t come into testify it because he’s a criminal and has threatened, this “Special Referee” with repercussions of bodily harm? It’s quite possible. We can’t think of any other reason than her being fearful of bullying tactics. (Well, actually we can but we’ll save it…..)

Way beyond that however, is that, it is not the assignment/job or within the capacity or part of the calling of any lawyer or for that matter any person acting pro se to hypothesize who is going to testify when some person in charge thinks that despite the filing of a Subpoena compounded by his own Order Denying the Motion to Quash the Subpoena, (Photo above), that either he can choose and/or he can assign someone else to choose who will respond to same or any Subpoena! In fact it is very much in violation of the law.

This case was referenced and erroneously by Judge Roy Bean Sherman, as it says above in the Decision. How coincidental–and we know no such things exist,–when Roy Bean Sherman, Dinkes & Schwitzer and Godosky & Gentile are involved! Take a gander at what the record says:

Under Filed by it says Plaintiff. But then in the next column, it says “Relief Sought“: it says: Quash Subpoena.–Now c’mon folks, since the Plaintiff has filed the Subpoena, the Plaintiff is NOT going to ask for Relief to Quash it.  (Photo courtesy of World-News-Media.com)

Notice how this Court Detail of Motions erroneously reflects the events at the proceedings of this case and the wrongful posting of information goes back to the allegedly craven commissions of Roy Bean Sherman as he is allegedly in charge, of forwarding information to the ecourts website. Photo courtesy of World-News-Media.com

Notice how this Court Detail of Motions erroneously reflects the events at the proceedings of this case and the wrongful posting of information goes back to the allegedly craven commissions of Roy Bean Sherman as he is allegedly in charge, of forwarding information to the ecourts website.
Photo courtesy of World-News-Media.com

Notice how this Court Detail of Motions erroneously reflects the events at the proceedings of this case and the wrongful posting of information goes back to the allegedly craven commissions of Roy Bean Sherman as he is allegedly in charge, of forwarding information to the ecourts website.

Hey, Roy Bean, there’s a reason you’re known as such as according to OCA you are in charge of giving them the correct information to post on the web. This is so typical of someone so desperate because he can’t have his alleged friends win a case legally and allegedly can’t rule a case competently……

Lastly, when someone/anyone is Subpoenaed they must appear to testify. Should the opposing side in the case come forth with a Motion to Quash, (the Subpoena), and it is denied,–as in this case, the Subpoenaed person must appear to testify – anyway. Otherwise, the Subpoenaed person/ and their Counsel, the Judge/Special Referee are breaking the law.

And should any of the guilty parties in this case feel or deem any of our articles inflammatory we again wholeheartedly welcome if not challenge their rebuttal and/or denial of the Court documents we have posted.–Please rebut. We will again be so pleased and glad to publish and post every syllable of every word you want to rebut with!
BY THE WAY. WE DO HOPE WILLIAM HAMEL WON’T BRING ANY WEAPONS INTO THE KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT HOUSE AND THAT HE ISN’T ALLOWED IN THROUGH THE ATTORNEY ENTRANCE WITH ANY OF THE HONEST PEOPLE IN THE PROFESSION SINCE HE COMMITTED SERIOUS CRIMES TO WHICH HE PLEADED GUILTY. (see photo above)

We promise our Readership, that should Hamel not obey his Subpoena and thereby the law, by not appearing, we will instantaneously, within 48 hours, post it–WE PROMISE!

THE INTERNET IS SO MUCH MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD!

world-news-media.com

Dear Readers,

As per our last installment we told you of the ecourts website deliberately being given, and thus reflecting erroneous information to the public. As promised we’ve gotten our hands on some other documents. Therefore, here we cite further proof as in a September 23 ,2013 Decision, the Motion to Quash, (the Subpoena filed for the testimony of Confessed Criminal, William Hamel) — is denied. (Photos below)

And below is the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Bronx Criminal Division Docket # 4794 -09. We think these are numbers Hamel will never forget.  By the way, the “09” stands for the year Hamel was indicted.

For the readers who don’t know, it is against the law to violate a Subpoena. In other words, everyone who is subpoenaed, other than members of the Press, via the Shield laws–must testify.

We will post the laws via http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVP/23/2305 and courtesy…

View original post 861 more words

Advertisements

§ 4 Responses to William Hamel, Admitted Criminal Subpoenaed To Testify, Motion To Quash Denied; Thus CRIMINAL HAMEL, Allowed Out Of Doing Prison Term On Conditional Discharge MUST Testify

  • mick says:

    Exceptionally well written because friends tell us that the government is giving “a listen” so you must be getting your message across.

    Like

  • A.P. says:

    William Hamel, Admitted Criminal Subpoenaed To Testify, Motion To Quash Denied; Thus CRIMINAL HAMEL, Allowed Out Of Doing Prison Term On Conditional Discharge MUST Testify | world-news-media.com:

    Dear Sir or Madam:

    We have noticed that the Decision denying Dinkes & Schwitzer’s Motion to Quash is not posted on the internet. Since the County Clerk’s Office doesn’t have an ax to grind nor does any other office that might be in charge of posting such things on the internet, in our considered opinion, we positively agree that this is likely to be the work of Kenneth P. “Roy Bean” Sherman. We can say this with quite a bit of confidence as we are members of the legal profession, (paralegals), who are privy to the events of this and other cases.

    We know many others who vie not to argue a case in front of this guy, Roy Bean Sherman–as we all have referred to him for quite a while now,—- and before this high profile case, because of his hijinks.

    Like

    • Publisher says:

      Dear member of our Readership,

      The Decision denying Dinkes & Schwitzer’s Motion to Quash is not posted on the internet because “Roy Bean” Sherman and “Special Referee” have altered the records–and done so on several occasions despite the objections vocalized on record by the plaintiff.

      Like

  • DB says:

    Hi,I read your article named “William Hamel, Admitted Criminal Subpoenaed To Testify, Motion To Quash Denied; Thus CRIMINAL HAMEL, Allowed Out Of Doing Prison Term On Conditional Discharge MUST Testify | world-news-media.com” regularly. Bravo to your story-telling style keep it up! We are so grateful for all you do!

    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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading William Hamel, Admitted Criminal Subpoenaed To Testify, Motion To Quash Denied; Thus CRIMINAL HAMEL, Allowed Out Of Doing Prison Term On Conditional Discharge MUST Testify at world-news-media.com.

meta

%d bloggers like this: