William Hamel Of Dinkes & Schwitzer Gets Unheard Of Sentence Crim. Facil. : Plea Deal Of No Jail Time, $300K In Fines, With Conditional Discharge, For Acutal Federal Crime: Bribing Public Servant, Is Allegeldly Up To His Old Tricks Again, Making Fools Of Public, OAG, And Legal System, By Defying Subpoena and Court Order For 3rd Time
January 2, 2014 § Leave a comment
That’s right. William Hamel, who is still a practicing attorney– but allegedly, (Yeah) shouldn’t be practicing,–(and that, is according to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Departmental Disciplinary Committee’s (DDC’s) own nycourts.gov website:http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/committees&programs/DDC/part603.shtml
*”§ 603.12 Attorneys Convicted of Crimes; Record of Conviction Conclusive Evidence.”……”b. ……” )* (Proof /photo, of which, as well as the footnoted reference to, (*) is posted below.) is now attempting to flee from justice.
And if that doesn’t cut it, the Public, still wants to know why this guy, William Hamel, –as rumor strongly has it,– is still running around practicing law, and the DDC who prominently says on their website that under circumstances such as these, where Hamel was convicted of a crime of –and not just any Crime, but the Federal Crime of Criminal Facilitation born out of the federal charges of bribery–, why, nothing has been done since at the least, Hamel should have been suspended.
Therefore, we can accurately say that something definitely smells rotten in the (New York) State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Departmental Disciplinary Committee, as he admitted to and thus was convicted of committing these crimes, (He got 19 Felony Counts shrunk to a Class A Misdemeanor for Criminal Facilitation–Yes, Crim. Facil) is still lead attorney at Dinkes & Schiwtzer And Ladies and Gentlemen if that is not quite enough, let us tell you he is allegedly, (Right),up to his old tricks again, ostentatiously violating a not just a Subpoena demanding his obedience but to a Court Order confirming it. The non-adherence to just one of these is illegal.
But the DDC is not an arm of the law–thank goodness. And obviously they, the DDC, allegedly, (uh- huh) has no intention of protecting the public as they claim, * * (who can prove intention, or the lack thereof,–we can! Just glance at above and below!) Guys you are welcome to rebut what we post. And when you do something about Hamel and Dinkes & Schiwtzer–(because we know there have been complaints lodged against them), then we will retract.
Now, let us look at the facts: The guy below, in a not-so-attractive “SELFIE”—-or as they accurately call it in (Hamel’s), criminal quarters, William Hamel’s mug shot, and case Docket#4794 09. By The way, Hamel AND/OR Dinkes & Schwitzer AND/Or Godoskies & Gentile, –(we’ve been informed that the litigant is such a formidable foe that not just one Godosky must show up to make an attempt in futility to substantiate their case–the (non) prosecution of the underlying case of which, is what is in question, but rather two, (2) Godoskies must show up to Court– Now surely the respectable plural of Godosky is “Godoskies”. Wouldn’t you all agree; that is, pursuant to the laws the English Language!), apparently think that now the OAG, who supposedly vigorously prosecutes white collar criminals and crime is going to shelter him.
Nonetheless, Hamel’s “Selfie” below, plus record of his conviction is not conclusive evidence then we ask you what is, pursuant to: “§ 603.12 Attorneys Convicted of Crimes; Record of Conviction Conclusive Evidence??
- Mug shot/“Selfie” along with a plea of guilty by notorious criminal William Hamel, for Criminal Facilitation, (Crim. Facil.) Photo Courtesy of World-News-Media
Let us inform the public that a Conditional Discharge is different in every state. And in New York State the law stipulates that a Conditional Discharge*** does not mean that the charges are dropped.
What it does mean instead is that when a criminal, such as Hamel, (or anyone else for that matter), is given a Conditional Discharge,–which usually expires in about a year, violates the law–that is, in any way according to the prerequisites of the Conditional Discharge, –and we are not talking about a parking ticket, but we are talking about violating a Subpoena, which is, without question illegal, he can be charged with the crimes that got him the sentence in the first place. It’s dependent upon the crimes as well as the provisos of the Conditional Discharge.
Having said that, when you consider Hamel was caught in the act of bribing a Public Servant which is a Federal Crime–and taped while doing so, he was compelled to confess to his crimes. This guy is so cocky that despite the fact that he was caught in the commission of the crime, (the Felony Complaint already posted), he tried to get the charges dismissed!–This guy is some piece of criminal work!
Add to that fact he was charged with 19 counts of Felonies which his defense attorney negotiated down to Class A Misdemeanor,– which can still yield jail time,–and on top of that had to pay $300K in Fines, we know that these were very severe crimes, that even paying the $300K alone couldn’t satisfy as a punishment.
Furthermore from Hamel’s own admittance, (albeit forced), and resulting conviction, Hamel is allegedly, (Oh right)), no stranger to engaging in the crime. He is just an alleged, (yeah), sociopath, (like all the rest of his sort), who either thinks the OAG comprises gullible attorneys who, and /or because he is a fellow attorney, thinks the OAG allow him extra slack and/or thinks he won’t get caught because the OAG is dumb.
Moreover, who of us have $300K to take out of the bank to pay in Fines? Very few of us. Who of us regular people even have the means to pay a fine of $300K?-Very very few of us. And in an economy where we are all living hand to mouth, who of us of honest people even earn a salary of $300K , so that we could afford to flout the law again and again, with the seeming confidence that the OAG–(and we are trying to get into his head to figure out what Hamel and his cohorts must be thinking), will look the other way, –VERY VERY VERY FEW OF US.
And what too often goes unacknowledged in American culture is the severity and the frequency of White Collar Crime–which ofttimes is worse than Blue Collar Crime, in that it impacts on and creates more victims than its counterpart, (Blue Collar),–And worse the perpetrators of White Collar Crimes take the money with them.
And ponder this: in regard to a salary or bank amount, if $300K is Hamel’s supposed salary or that or more is how much the amount he has or had in the bank, how much of that is or was legitimately earned and declared on his taxes……
It has been our experience that allegedly, (uh-huh) engaging in Bribery is Hamel’s constant Modus Operandi–at least that is what we’ve constantly heard. After all why would Hamel run from a Subpoena where, according to court records, he is being accused of, yet again and this time in Kings County Supreme Court, of what else, BRIBERY.
We will be very clear, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING AS COINCIDENCE. Example: Just eyeball the following document below which is from the Defendant’s Lawyers , Goldberg Segalla to Dinkes & Schwitzer funnelled through a now defunct employee at Dinkes & Schwtizer, to Hamel who was in charge of the case, referencing illegal bribery payments. We must inform those who may not know, NO DEFENDANT’S OR DEFENDANT’S LAWYERS PAY FUNDS TO LAWYERS OF PLAINTIFF(S) WITH THE LAW ON THEIR SIDE.
Please notice that plaintiff has written that the litigant ” Did not authorize”. And adds, “These are bribery pay offs”.
For the information of our readers this was taken from the Court House records for all the world to see. Needless to say there is no legal explanation to the letter below–and there never will be. —
We welcome a rebuttal or even a legal explanation from, let’s see, oh how ’bout, William Hamel–No, he’s illegally avoiding a Subpoena–We wonder why. Oh, how ’bout from the Godoskies? NO they haven’t come forward with a rebuttal–because they can’t because there is no explanation that’s legal!
- Letter to Dinkes & Schwitzer, Plaintiff’s Attorneys, siphoned through one of their minor attorneys,– who has since left the firm, –(Again, we wonder why. But then not really as it is allegedly, (uh-huh), in line with the tremendous turnover of lawyers and employees seeking refuge and shelter away from Dinkes & Schwitzer into the arms of an honest law firm), elaborating on illegal pay-offs to them from Defendant’s attorneys Goldberg Segalla. Which neither firm or anyone in this letter have ever been able to explain in legal terms– the contents of-Surprise! Photo Courtesy of world-new-media.com
And let’s look at the Affidavit of Service , (this is Side 1/the first page of it) that complies with the laws of New York State. Because Hamel was running from the Subpoena it had to be a nail and mail which in New York State is accordance with the law. (For the protection of the litigant we have erased out the address–After all, it is not the litigant who is the criminal here.
- Affidavit of Service of Subpoena demanding William Hamel testimony and appearance violated by none other than William Hamel. Photo courtesy of world-news-media.com
Per the filing of the above, William Hamel was subsequently supposed to appear for the 1st Court date of 9/11/13, to answer the above subpoena-He did not. During that court date the Godoskies brought in with them, not Hamel but rather a Motion to Quash which was denied via a Court Order (Below)
- Special Referee’s Court Decision/Order denying the Motion to quash filed by the Godoskies, (Godosky & Gentile), thus demanding the appearance to testify by William Hamel and the adherence not only by law and by the virtue of the Plaintiff’s Subpoena but now also by court Order
This meant that by the 2nd appearance William Hamel was supposed to appear to testify.–Now, Dear Audience, we know why he didn’t show. He’s petrified to show because his appearance on the stand will guarantee his incarceration. And so naturally, he didn’t show.
(We’d actually like to know why he and/or his lawyers were not sanctioned–But then they’ve been sanctioned for none of their transgressions committed during this case–Hey guys, you’re welcome to rebut what we say–Anytime….
Be that as it may, William Hamel didn’t show for the 2nd time. At this point he was in violation of a Subpoena and the Court Order that fortified it. At this point William Hamel has illegally as a criminal violated the Subpoena and the Court Order twice. And, William Hamel has illegally violated the Subpoena and Court Order as a citizen and Lawyer.–We’re not sure what’s worse.
The 3rd appearance was December 11, 2013. Need we say that William Hamel didn’t show up for this Court date either.–We don’t think we need to.
And so, in an effort to try to get into the mind of a criminal, like William Hamel who thumbs his nose up to, and laughs at, the OAG, we can only postulate that Hamel’s belief system dictates that the OAG genuflects and cow tows to him, as supposedly he is more powerful they, and he further has carte blanche to violate the law because, according to Hamel the OAG will accept that.
* “§ 603.12 Attorneys Convicted of Crimes; Record of Conviction Conclusive Evidence.”……”b. ……” The term “serious crime” shall include any felony, not resulting in automatic disbarment under the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, and any crime, other than a felony, a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of such crime, involves interference with the administration of justice, criminal contempt of court, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file income tax returns, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a “serious crime”…….”
**III. WHAT THE COMMITTEE DOES
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/committees&programs/DDC/index.shtml#whatddcdoes ‘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.”
***N.Y. PEN. LAW § 65.05 : NY Code – Section 65.05: Sentence of conditional discharge – ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/TWO/E/65/65.05#sthash.c6cHLbIj.dpuf )
1. PossibleCriteria. (a) Except as otherwise required by section 60.05, the court may impose a sentence of conditional discharge for an offense if the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character and condition of the defendant, is of the opinion that neither the public interest nor the ends of justice would be served by a sentence of imprisonment and that probation supervision is not appropriate. (b) When a sentence of conditional discharge is imposed for a felony, the court shall set forth in the record the reasons for its action. 2. Sentence. Except to the extent authorized by paragraph (d) of subdivision two of section 60.01 of this chapter, when the court imposes a sentence of conditional discharge the defendant shall be released with respect to the conviction for which the sentence is imposed without imprisonment or probation supervision but subject, during the period of conditional discharge, to such conditions as the court may determine. The court shall impose the period of conditional discharge authorized by subdivision three of this section and shall specify, in accordance with section 65.10, the conditions to be complied with. If a defendant is sentenced pursuant to paragraph (e) of subdivision two of section 65.10 of this chapter, the court shall require the administrator of the program to provide written notice to the court of any violation of program participation by the defendant. The court may modify or enlarge the conditions or, if the defendant commits an additional offense or violates a condition, revoke the sentence at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the period of conditional discharge. 3. Periods of conditional discharge. Unless terminated sooner in accordance with the criminal procedure law, the period of conditional discharge shall be as follows: (a) Three years in the case of a felony; and (b) One year in the case of a misdemeanor or a violation. Where the court has required, as a condition of the sentence, that the defendant make restitution of the fruits of his or her offense or make reparation for the loss caused thereby and such condition has not been satisfied, the court, at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the period of conditional discharge, may impose an additional period. The length of the additional period shall be fixed by the court at the time it is imposed and shall not be more than two years. All of the incidents of the original sentence, including the authority of the court to modify or enlarge the conditions, shall continue to apply during such additional period.
To conclude, thank the legal fates that DDC is NOT an appendage of the law as they have allegedly, (Sure!), been mischaracterizing their role and efforts to the public running rampant with cronyism.–Unnecessary to say, –they should be involved in some introspection.
We also welcome a rebuttal explaining your inaction DDC–which eventually you are going to have to do we should and do think.
THE INTERNET IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD