BOMBSHELL: Chief Counsel Jorge Dopico Of Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Allegedly Deliberately Ignores Complaints Against Criminal Record, Hamel, Dinkes & Schiwtzer and Staffers Joellle Jensen and William Schwitzer, In 2012 While Criminal Hamel Was Being Prosecuted By OAG Allowing Him To Continue To Practice, Rigging Decisions So Favoring Certain Lawyers And Law Firms Preferring Cronyism Over Protection Of The Public
March 30, 2014 § Leave a comment
The DDC, oft tells the complainants that contact them–the latter doing so, in good faith mind you, that they can at any time add to the complaint if more evidence comes available and to the fore. In fact they are known for doing that. Well we have evidence to the contrary about who other than Criminal Record, William Hamel, and Dinkes & Schwitzer and their unholy relations to the DDC.
We have come across one, among several complaints and one of the responses to them, that we are aware of, sent to the DDC, complaints against Dinkes & Schwitzer and William Hamel. Please notice the response only mentions Dinkes & Schwitzer. We can tell you the complaint pointedly mentions Admitted Criminal Hamel. Notice the very telling arrow also pointing at Robert Godosky’s name-How convenient for Dinkes & Schiwtzer and attorneys therefrom as well as Admitted Criminal, William Hamel!
The letter below refers to a complaint made to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, (DDC) regarding Criminal Record William Hamel, Dinkes & Schiwtzer, and staff members of the latter Joelle Jensen, William Schwitzer –the latter two of which not even mentioned in the response. Please take a gander at how it took being “formally Advised” by the Chief Counsel Jorge Dopico to sign a letter that doesn’t even address the complaints nor does it address the reasons or the people complained about, one of whom was Criminal Record Hamel who at the time of this complaint was being prosecuted simultaneously by the New York Office Of the Attorney General.
Mr. Dopico, why would complaints against Admitted Criminal William Hamel and Dinkes & Schwitzer need any “Formal Advisement” at all? And why when you speak to those in supervisory positions at the DDC, do they tell callers that the latter can add to complaints when in fact the letter below disputes that? Which is it Mr. Dopico. By the way, we would address you, Mr. Dopico as Chief Counsel or even counselor, but our attorney friends and colleagues object to the undeserved honorific vehemently. (For the protection of, and to prevent possible further repercussions to, the Complainant, we have erased out the name.)
As we have previously posted on many occasions, Convicted Criminal William Hamel, was arrested and arraigned in 2009 for 19 Felony Counts and was fighting the charges through 2013 trying to get them dismissed on bogus grounds, i.e., as he was accidentally caught as the Department of Investigation, (DOI), was investigating other people who everyone–get this, Hamel should have been let go because the government inadvertently caught him violating the law and engaging in bribery!
We also have posted, the rules of the DDC (below) which include instances of attorneys who have been convicted of crimes as well as the link to such information that the DDC advertises ecourts.
III. WHAT THE COMMITTEE DOES
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. –Oh really. Is that so!
The Committee has the authority to take the following actions, depending upon the seriousness of the lawyer’s conduct and the circumstances surrounding it:
Refer the complaint to a special Mediation Program, in which a trained volunteer mediator meets with the lawyer and the client to assist them in resolving the complaint privately;
Issue a private sanction to the lawyer (a “Letter or Admonition”);
Recommend to the Court that the lawyer receive a public condemnation (“censure”);
Recommend to the Court that the lawyer’s right to practice law be taken away for a specified period of time (“suspension”); or
Recommend to the Court that the lawyer’s license to practice law be taken away (“disbarment”).
New York State Supreme Court
Appellate Division – First Department
Departmental Disciplinary Committee
§ 603.12 Attorneys Convicted of Crimes; Record of Conviction Conclusive Evidence
Upon receipt by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of a certificate demonstrating that an attorney has been convicted of a crime in this State, or in any foreign jurisdiction, whether the conviction resulted from a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or from a verdict after trial or otherwise, the committee shall determine whether the crime is a serious crime as defined in subdivision (b) of this section. Upon a determination that a crime is a serious crime, the committee shall forthwith file the certificate of conviction with the court. This court shall thereupon enter an order directing the Chairperson of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee to designate a Hearing Panel or appointing a referee, justice or judge, to conduct forthwith disciplinary proceedings. If the committee determines that the crime is not a serious crime as defined in subdivision (b) of this section, it may hear such evidence as is admissible under subdivision (c) of this section and take such other steps as are provided for in Part 605 of this Title.
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”
It would seem to us that the only reason the DDC advertises itself saying it “protects the public” so contact with complaints is not to protect the public but rather to keep the illegalities of Attorneys under wraps so that they are protected.
We suggest to the public, when it has a complaint about an attorney that whomever not go to the DDC as they cannot be trusted as they simply are not trustworthy– The Complaint response posted above is evidence. We suggest that the public think about other venues to complain about renegade attorneys who cannot control their lack of honesty . or, DDC–You bill yourselves as an entity who protects the public: Hogwash!
Mr. Dopico, why don’t you explain this letter to us, the profession, and the rest of the public. We challenge you for your rebuttal. We’ve heard say that Criminal Record Hamel was prosecuted after he confessed to the Class A Misdemeanor and ergo convicted of same with a $300K fine–UNHEARD OF,—and only allowed out of prison on a Conditional Discharge. Since Hamel confessed to such and since on your won website you claim you punish attorneys for such and similar, AND Hamel AND Dinkes & Schiwtzer had allegations of criminality leveled against them—–AND DDC, AND MR. DOPICO, WE, HERE ARE WORLD-NEWS-MEDIA.COM WILL BE PLEASED TO POST THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ENUMERATING SUCH and simultaneous to Hamel’s conviction, you allowed him to still practice further harming the public?
DDC we will be glad to post your rebuttal with the caveat that we will post the complaint where just some of the laws that Dinkes & Schwitzer and Criminal William Hamel violated as well as the examples of such.–Try us.
THE INTERNET IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD
THE INTERNET IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD