BOMBSHELL UPDATE!: Chief Counsel Of 1ST Departmental Disciplinary Committee, (DDC) Tries To Strongly Discourage Complaints Against Favored Lawyers With Criminal Records, I.E., William Hamel, And Favored Law Firms Such As Dinkes & Schwitzer, While Having Other Staffers Tell Complainants They Can Always Add Evidence To Complaints: Mr. Dopico, While You Were Giving Preferential Treatment To Lawyer With Criminal Record, William Hamel, And William Schwitzer, Joelle Jensen, And Dinkes & Schiwtzer, You Forgot To Send The Complaint Rebuttal Letter From Them To The Complainant Per The DDC’s Own Website! Dopico It’s Too Late To Send The Non-Existent Response Rebuttal Letter Now!
April 1, 2014 § Leave a comment
Pursuant to the DDC’s own website, all complaints will be responded to by the Lawyers and law firms complained about. But then we guess, not when it comes to complaints about Criminal Record William Hamel, William Schwitzer, Joelle Jensen, and crew at Dinkes & Schwitzer –as there was none!
As we previously mentioned the complaint that was lodged against the above motley crew of lawyers not only enumerated the criminal laws they violated but it mentioned the above lawyers individually as well as collectively. And yet the rejection of the response not only did not include at any time a response by any of the above mentioned alleged crooks individually, or cabal of alleged, crooks but didn’t include any response collectively.
Now, how on earth did that happen?
B. Initial Investigation
If the initial screening reveals that the complaint is within our Committee’s authority and may involve an ethical violation, the legal staff will carry out an initial investigation of the case. During this investigation, the attorney about whom you complained will be sent a copy of your complaint and will be given the opportunity to respond to it. You, in turn, will be given the opportunity to reply to the lawyer’s response.
We might add that the complainant specifically asked for such response. And in addition to the complainant enumerating each criminal law that they broke, in writing, the complainant requested an explanation to the reasoning of any response by the DDC which again the latter deliberately failed to give–Surprise!
So the response rebuttal to the complaint by Criminal Record, William Hamel, Joelle Jensen, and William Schwitzer and Dinkes & Schiwtzer, is still missing–(complaint filed in 2012 it is 2014!-DDC, but the DDC website claims, such a letter is part and parcel of the process) –supposedly under any circumstances the complainant will receive such–yet never did.
Mr. Dopico, you and the DDC are hoist by your own petard!
THE INTERNET IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD