SYNOPSIS OF BOGUS L-I-E-TIGATION FOR WHICH THE VICTIM IS SOUGHT TO BE PUNISHED

Introductary Remarks

Fabrication, deception, fraud, denial, cover-up, are words that are not normally associated with America's best and prestigious law firms. One would think that these negative descriptions are best reserved for the firms featured on late night infomercials hawking their brand of unscrupulous litigation. When one ofAmerica's most prestigious firms is accused of the aforementioned, it never sees the light of day. Why? Because the powerful and well-connected stick together, and squash the notion of improper doings from the get go. They immediately paint the accuser as a "fool" or an "idiot", whose accusations are without merit, and whose motions are attention seeking and reactionary. For more than ten years, Israel Weinstock has been fighting the labels bestowed upon him by Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, the well oiled and connected Manhattan law firm. Most would fold under the pressure, but not Israel Weinstock. He is ready for the truth to be told without the fear of retaliation.

It started out innocently enough, a standard real estate deal. It ended up convoluted and criminal. In 1983, Israel Weinstock was retained by Jack Walker of 4200 Avenue K Realty Corp. ("Realty Corp."), a corporation which was wholly owned by Jack Walker."Realty Corp." had entered a contract for the purchase of two properties (4200/4211 Ave. K in Brooklyn, NY). The contract provided that "Realty Corp." wouldpurchase the said properties for $1.9 million. $ 50,000 was to be paid at contract, $350,000 to be paid at the closing of the title and the balance of $1.5 million dollars by a mortgage held by the Lincoln Savings Bank. Litigation ensued when both the seller and the purchaser blamed each other for the failure of the contract to be concluded. Weinstock represented the claim against the seller. The trial ended up in a mistrial. After the mistrial, Walker had agreed to compensate Weinstock for the legal services rendered and to be rendered at the retrial, and was to recompense Weinstock with 20% of the stock in "Realty Corp." It was a gamble, but Weinstock agreed. At that time, 20% of the stock was worth $10,000 (20% of $50,000 invested), at the most. The value of the properties however had risen dramatically, and if "Realty Corp." were victorious with its case, the 20% would have substantial value. If "Realty Corp.", lost the trial, the 20% would be worthless. This is quite linear and easy to understand up to this point. Here's where the water gets murky.

Enter Emmerich Handler, Professional Plaintiff. In 1984, after Weinstock had agreed to represent Jack Walker and "Realty Corp.", Walker sued Weinstock. Walker claimed that Weinstock had defrauded him, forged his name without authority and had otherwise deprived him of his rights to a property in Lawrence, New York. Lawsuit number one--Walker v. Weinstock. Enter Emmerich Handler. Handler is a lawyer whoclaims to be a non practicing rabbi. His expertise lies in filing frivolous lawsuits that are intended to wear down its victims. Handler has been involved as a party in over 100 of these suits, dating back to at least 1978. The Walker v. Weinstock lawsuit was conceived by Emmerich Handler. It was commenced in 1984, at a time when Handler was engaged in a bitter battle with his law partners. The lawsuit against Weinstock was intended to enable Walker to file a lis pendens, a mechanism that would render Handler's law partners unable to sell the (Lawrence) property and be forced to carry the expenses of the mortgage and real estate taxes.

The facts were these: In 1983, Walker sold the Lawrence property to the law partnership. He was paid by a check signed by Emmerich Handler on which Handler endorsed, in his own writing, that the check constituted "full payment" for Walker's property. This clearly meant that the suit brought by Walker in 1984against Weinstock was without merit, as Walker had no claims to the Lawrence property and no basis for a lawsuit with regards to the property. Handler hadtalked Walker into filing the suit, to "persuade" Weinstock to apply pressure upon Handler's law partners into succumbing to Handler's demands. Walker later admitted under oath, that the lawsuit was fabricated at the request and the expense of Handler,who retained Brooklyn attorney Robert Gutman, Esq. to "represent" Walker. Attorney Gutman had been Handler's long time friend and attorney. Emmerich Handler and his actions continue to plague and haunt Weinstock to the present day. Handler has used his claimed rabbinical status to gain trust and confidence. He has used his legal knowledge to coerce, defraud, and financially ruin those who dare challenge him on his designs. In 1978, The Court of Appeals, State of California, Second Appellate District Division, in a unanimous decision concluded:

"Defendant Handler used the respect afforded him by his rabbinical status to deceive and defraud plaintiffs. Further both Handler and Kleinman (Handler's law partner) carried that deceit to the witness stand and, as attorneys and officers of the court, failed to show any remorse with regard to the fraud that they committed on the plaintiffs".

When this judgment was handed down, Handler was ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiffs. Rather than pay the judgment, Handler retained the services of a former counsel of the New York State Disciplinary Committee, to bring about disciplinary charges against the attorneys for the plaintiffs. He also commencedlitigation against the attorney(s) in New York who were attempting to enforce the judgment. This caused the plaintiffs and their attorneys huge expense in time andmoney. This is Handler's modus operandi. He loses then hires reputable, big name firms to exact punishment on those who beat him in the court of law or those who seek to protect their rights. Worn down both emotionally and financially, the plaintiffs andtheir attorneys exchanged releases without Handler paying one single dime of the fraud judgment.

Dishonesty, Dastardly Deeds and Near Death

As stated, in 1984 Walker had agreed to give Weinstock 20% of the corporate stock in "Realty Corp." In January 1985, the case in dispute with the seller came to trial for the second time. After a full trial, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County rendered adecision that declared that "Realty Corp." had no right to enforce the contract for the purchase of the properties. Unless the Decision was overturned on appeal, the stock was worthless. Walker then sought a release from Weinstock with respect to the admittedly false accusations that he had made against Weinstock in the previous (1984) lawsuit that had been orchestrated by Handler. On February 15, 1985Weinstock agreed to release Walker in exchange for the 80% of the then worthless stock in "Realty Corp.". "Realty Corp's." only asset was the contract for the purchase of the two properties at 4200/4211 Avenue K in Brooklyn. The assignment to Weinstock of this corporate stock and Walker's interest in another project which Walker had abandoned (Glenwood Estates) was only a small part of several multi-party agreements signed on February 15, 1985. With all the stock now his (100% of "Realty Corp."), Weinstock proceeded to take on the appeal. He ordered the trial transcripts at his own expense, prepared the necessary briefs, and did whatever was necessary to perfect the appeal. If successful, Weinstock would have a very valuable asset. Theproperties in 1986 at a 1979 price. If he lost, he would gain nothing in return and lose the many thousands of dollars he had spent on the appeal process. In June of 1986,Weinstock was struck with an almost fatal blow. A cancerous tumor had ruptured in his stomach. He was diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer and was not expected to live. Most of his stomach was removed as was his spleen and part of his esophagus. He then developed peritonitis. The outlook was not good for Israel Weinstock. He was in tremendous physical pain, and he was also going through an agonizing divorce. But he kept on fighting to live, to live to take care of his children, and live to see another day.

On September 1, 1986 the Appellate Division reversed the findings of the Trial Court, on the law and the facts. Weinstock's successful appeal spawned another lawsuit against him.

A Case Grows in Brooklyn

It was after Weinstock's victory in the Appellate Division, that Handler resumed his methods. The lawsuit is entitled, Jack Walker, Emmerich Handler, and Kamenitzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem v. Israel Weinstock. Handler and Kamenitzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem (KYJ) were represented by Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (CGS&H) and Walker by other Handler attorneys Schlam, Stone & Dolan (SS&D). SS&D were retained by Handler to "represent" Walker. They were simultaneously representing Handler against Walker. Their claims, under oath, were that Handler "jointly" with KYJ owned 48% of the stock in "Realty Corp." and that Jack Walker owned 32% of the stock of "Realty Corp.". It was acknowledged under oath that Weinstock was given 20% of the stock as a legal fee. This second lawsuit was filed in Brooklyn and as will later been seen--for good reason. The creation of such a dispute would discourage law enforcement agencies from pursuing criminal activities that were to follow.

The agencies do not wish to become involved in what CGS&H and SS&D had deemed a "civil dispute". CGS&H and SS&D (former Ass't US Attorneys) knew the policies of the law enforcement agencies, and thus headed off what would have otherwise been a clear case of bank and mail fraud.

In order to facilitate the theft of Weinstock's 100% ownership in the corporation, CGS&H "graciously" offered to "assist" Weinstock in obtaining the properties in question (4200/4211 Ave. K) from the sellers in accordance with the Appellate Division decision. CGS&H induced Weinstock to allow them to be substituted as attorneys for Realty Corp., acknowledging in writing that " the substitution was based solely on the ground that Weinstock's current illness has left him temporarily unable to handle the urgent matters which it is expected would imminently have to be addressed". George Weisz, Esq., a senior partner at CGS&H, would later challenge under oath, the fact that Weinstock was severely ill, noting to the court that Weinstock had not submitted any medical proof that he has been ill.

Had not Weinstock been served with papers while he was in his hospital room? Was not Weinstock's illness the reason for CGS&H to be substituted as attorneys for the "Realty Corp." purchase? The fact is: Weinstock's critical illness was the reason for that lawsuit. CGS&H and Handler simply did not expect Weinstock to survive. If he had died, it would have been a windfall for all involved. Weinstock's ownership would have disappeared without a trace. The almost perfect crime...more

Top Notch Cover Up by Top Legal Eagles

In 1988, after Weinstock battled and survived cancer, severe side effects from chemotherapy and a heart attack, he inquired from CGS&H about the properties. CGS&H, through George Weisz, Esq., a senior partner repeatedly falsely responded in various letters and under oath, that the status quo had been maintained and that CGS&H had fully complied with its written assurances given to Weinstock. Walker, Handler, CGS&H, and SS&D were confident that Weinstock would succumb to his illness before he would discover that the foregoing sworn statements of compliance were false. But when Weinstock stubbornly refused to die for Handler's benefit, he went to Court in June, 1989, seeking to have a judge order CGS&H come clean and tell what it knew about the 4200 Avenue K properties it had plainly and repeatedly lied about. Weisz's sole defense for the CGS&H was, in effect, the epitome of arrogance and power: Hey! We're Cleary Gottlieb. How dare that peon accuse us? And that was enough for Brooklyn Justice Jerome D. Cohen, who denied the motion without even bothering to read the papers submitted by either side. (In light of these events, it would hardly be surprising to learn that Judge Cohen, who was previously indicted , was tossed off the bench a mere three days later, after deciding the motion by the New York Court of Appeals . It found that Cohen obtained no-interest and lower than market interest loans from a specific Credit Union, in exchange for ordering litigants whose cases he was hearing, and especially minors, to put the winnings from their cases into the Credit Union in exchange for ordering litigants whose cases he was hearing, and especially minors, to put the winnings from their cases into the Credit Union. Though the court found removal was "rarely warranted" and only justified in "the most egregious circumstances" it did not hesitate in Cohen's case, finding his excuses "unconvincing" and that he "acted as if his decisions could be influenced by personal gain " because the "appearance diminishes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and destroys -Cohen's- usefulness on the bench.").

In a blatant display of defiance and denial, CGS&H attorneys stated as recently as 1998, that the title to the properties was still in the corporation. It is a matter of public record that the corporation was stripped of its properties in 1987, when Weinstock was unable to defend himself due to his illness.

Upon Weinstock's painstaking recovery, he discovered that the corporation had indeed been stripped of its assets and that the affidavits given by George Weiz and CGS&H were completely and utterly false. What is true is that Handler had given the bank a false certification and Roth had forged the deed to the properties when transferring them from Realty Corp. to a partnership. CGS&H knowingly and exponentially provided Weinstockand the Courts with false statements denying that the corporation had been stripped of it's assets and by representing to Weinstock and the courts that the status quo had been maintained, as CGS&H had promised, in writing.

Justice With One Eye Closed

There was documentary evidence showing the transgressions committed by CGS&H and SS&D that proved the falsity of their positions and their participatory roles in the fraud. Weinstock commenced a lawsuit in Federal Court in Manhattan against CGS&H, SS&D, and the other perpetrators. CGS&H felt compelled to bring in a hired gun of their own. Bernard Nussbaum, Esq.(who later served as Special Counsel to President Clinton), was called in to represent CGS&H in the proceedings. Nussbaum's job was to reroutethe case back to Brooklyn judge Richard D Huttner, who had accepted the lies of CGS&H favorably. The Handler camp and Nussbaum had contributed at least 5% of Judge' Huttner's campaign for his judgeship. That Judge Huttner (later found to have "displayed a remarkable insensitivity to his ethical responsibilities and to the ethical problems created by his actions" when he took an active role in litigation involving his own cooperative apartment board and also held to have "recognized that such heavy-handed communications convey the unseemly impression that the cooperative was using his judicial status to advance its position in ... litigation," Judge Huttner was censured by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for violating 5 different Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, all of them relating to judicial integrity and extracurricular activities, and told this: "The ethical rules prohibit a judge from lending the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests and from engaging in extra-judicial activities that are incompatible with judicial office or detract from the dignity of judicial office") was not the one who would eventually decide this case. He would later assign it to his colleague, Justice Lewis Douglass.

Before the matter was returned by the Federal Court to the State Court, two of CGS&H's senior partners called Weinstock to see if Weinstock would meet with them. On the spot, they offered Weinstock approximately $1 million dollars for his release. They suggested that Weinstock continue his case against Handler from whom, they said, he would eventually get his buildings back. Weinstock stood his ground and refused the offer. Handler, as stated above, had already mortgaged the properties for $3.8 million dollars. After Weinstock's refusal, the two senior partners from CGS&H threatened to turn Weinstock's life "inside out". Undaunted, Weinstock remained firm in his position, knowing that only a re-writing of documented history could possibly save CGS&H, SS&D, Handler and Walker from criminal prosecution.

Back to the Future

A rewrite of history is precisely what happened. Justice Lewis Douglass of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brooklyn) declared that Handler was at "all times the owner of 100% of "Realty Corp.". Handler had only asked the Court to declare him owner of 48% of the corporation. As previously mentioned, Handler had given testimony to the various percentages of ownership, and the way he had obtained the said percentages. Under oath. To overcome the documentary and testimonial evidence that Handler was never the owner of any stock in the "Realty Corp.", Handler, "explained" that he had previously lied and caused others to lie in order to hide his interest in "Realty Corp.". In order to make his finding, Justice Douglass had to accept Handler's "explanations" that he had consistently lied and caused others to perjure themselves in order to conceal his interest in Realty Corp. To overcome the overwhelming documentary evidence that Handler did not own any interest in Realty Corp., the judge had to ignore the testimony of the attorney who had handled the original transaction for "Realty Corp.", and who had testified in "Realty Corp's" case against the seller, that only Walker and Pfeffer were the stockholders of "Realty Corp." Walker later purchased Pfeffer's interest in "Realty Corp." In order to make the finding that Handler was at all times "the owner of 100% of "Realty Corp." Justice Douglass had to also retroactively strip Weinstock of the 20%, which the sworn complaint prepared by CGS&H had admitted was given to Weinstock for legal fees rendered. Justice Douglass had to attribute the evaluation of the corporate stock which was achieved only after Weinstock's success in the Appellate Division and had to ignore the evaluation of the stock at the time that Walker assigned it Weinstock.

Justice Douglass went on to declare that the 20%, "standing alone" was a reasonable fee. But, because of Weinstock's alleged "unconscionable" conduct toward Walker (which Walker had admitted was contrived by Handler), the 20% fee should be retroactively forfeited. With this declaration, Justice Douglass unwittingly established that Handler filed a fraudulent application for the mortgage loan of $3.8 Million and committed a fraud on the bank as he had certified that between himself and his partner Roth they owned 100% of the corporation. But at that time, according to Justice Douglass, Weinstock had 20% of the Realty Corp. which was only subsequently "retroactively" forfeited. Additionally, CGS&H had wrongfully permitted and then covered up the fraudulent loan.

But what is most important is that Justice Douglass ignored Walker's admissions under oath, that the allegations of misconduct on Weinstock's part were totally fabricated at the request of Handler and his attorneys. The decision by Justice Douglass did not have a rippling and trickle down effect; it opened the floodgates and crippled due process. It retroactively legitimized Handler's false mortgage application to the First Nationwide Bank, where he had stated that he owned 90% and Samuel Roth had owned 10%of "Realty Corp.". The application to the First Nationwide Bank was at odds with the sworn complaint that was submitted to the court, as it omitted Walker as a shareholder in "Realty Corp.", in any capacity whatsoever.The decision attempted to absolve CGS&H of its liability for having violated the terms of the undertaking they had provided Weinstock in writing.

If CGS&H thought that Handler was the owner of the stock and Handler was the owner of the stock, why did it have to continuously lie to Weinstock and submit fraudulent affidavits to the courts? CGS&H could have simply admitted that Handler, as owner of the stock, stripped the corporation of its assets, mortgaged the properties and transferred the properties to his wife and his associates. Justice Douglass did not seem to consider the conduct of Handler and CGS&H in the course of litigation. Why did CGS&H continuously lie?

Admitted Perjurers Trusted to Tell the Truth

Weinstock received a phone call from Jacques Catafago, Esq., who informed Weinstock that he was Walker's new attorney, replacing SS&D. Catafago explained that Walker had been "used" by Handler, and Walker now had wanted to come clean with the "truth". Walker then on went on admit during trial testimony, that he had been the 100% owner of "Realty Corp." , that there had been no fraud, coercion or duress in his settlement with Weinstock on February 15, 1985. He also admitted that there was no fraud, coercion, or duress in his assigning the stock in "Realty Corp." as consideration for the settlement. Walker further admitted that Handler and his attorneys had instructed him to make these fraudulent allegations. He explained that he had to go along out of fear of certain "unspeakable" threats made by Handler. Walker then spoke to agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI), concerning the foregoing. Walker gave a full statement to the agents and was very forthcoming with information regarding Handler. Additionally, Walker provided his new attorneys written answers to questions which corroborated that the scheme was created by Handler, CGS&H and SS&D. Those answers in the handwriting of one of Walker's new attorneys, was given by one of his new attorneys to Weinstock. No one could claim that the attorneys had no knowledge of the perjurious nature of Walker's testimony he would later offer in connection with the lawsuit, which inexplicably continued (even as to Walker's 32% admission) notwithstanding Walker's confession.

Now that Walker had told the truth, that he had knowingly voluntarily and willingly assigned all of his stock to Weinstock and that he was the owner of 100% of the stock of Realty Corp., it would seem that the lawsuit would die from exposure. Walker had confessed that the complaint was a fabrication instigated by Handler just like the first lawsuit. It should have resulted in a dismissal. Weinstock was encouraged by this development and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, an application for the suit to be dismissed on the grounds that there were no issues of fact. Surprisingly, Walker's new attorney, Jacques Catafago, who had stated that Walker had merely been a "pawn" and who had heard Walker testify as to his participation in the fraud against Weinstock filed an opposition to Weinstock's motion for summary judgment. Mr. Catafago flatly admitted that his own client Walker had lied. However, he argued, that since the Court could not tell at which time Walker was lying, (whether in his previous affidavits or in his testimony) there were issues of fact that required the case to proceed to trial.

The foregoing essentially proposed that a party could create a triable issue of material facts by testifying to two contradictory facts. This would require a Court to ignore a person's admission against his (penal) interest and to disregard the Walker confession that there was no fraud, coercion, duress or overreaching on Weinstock's part and that such claims had been fabricated. Further evidence of the irregularities in this case is the fact that Justice Lewis Douglass stated that "Weinstock concedes that defendant Walker was the sole cash investor in Realty Corp" and but, nevertheless awarded (rewarded) Handler 100% of the stock in Realty Corp. Thus, Justice Douglass of the Brooklyn Court accepted the incredible testimony of Walker and Handler, rejected the testimony of an FBI Agent and retroactively legitimized a case of bank fraud. As stated, the Court rewrote history by attributing a $4 million valuation "to the buildings"a value achieved by the corporation only after the reversal by the Appellate Division 19 months after the assignment from Walker to Weinstock. In so doing, the Court also had to ignore the testimony of the seller in the original litigation and the seller's attorney who both testified that they were unwilling to pay more than "nuisance" value if 'Realty Corp." would forego the right to appeal the case which they had won. Although the seller's testimony was uncontroverted by anyone, the Court declared that the seller knowingly perjured himself. Both the seller and his attorney, Weinstock's former adversaries in the underlying case, testified in Weinstock's behalf. The seller also testified that the Handler team had stated to him that it had delayed proceedings subsequent to Weinstock's Appellate Division victory because they expected Weinstock to die. His testimony was uncontroverted.

Subsequent testimony of Handler and Rubin (Walker/Handler attorney) in the U.S.District Court put additional "nails in the coffin" to all of the allegations in the Brooklyn lawsuit which had been instituted by CGS&H and SS&D. At a hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Robert Patterson Jr., in attempts to enforce the FDIC judgment, Handler testified under oath with respect to "Realty Corp" that Walker had not only assigned his own stock to Weinstock, but also part of Handlers. Thus, undermining the decision of Justice Lewis Douglass. At that same time, Attorney Rubin testified that he knew that Walker was really indebted to Weinstock to the tune of $1.5 or $2 million. This testimony flew in the face of the Justice Douglass decision. One could not find a clearer and more conclusive evidence of the fraud perpetrated by Handler, Walker and their attorneys.

FDIC is Hoodwinked by Handler the Magician

While the foregoing case was ongoing, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") obtained a judgment against Handler and his wife Rita. The Brooklyn lawsuit and the FDIC case intersected one another. Handler was compelled to take totally contradictory positions in each, under oath. The conduct of Handler with respect to these two contradictory positions was reminiscent of the "now you see it, now you don't" routine often times used by magicians. Handler swore that he had "sold his 54% interest in 4200/4211 Avenue K to his partner Samuel Roth. Roth swore that he had donated it to KYJ, the charitable organization which Handler had previously admitted had been only his "front."

When KYJ denied that it ever received such a donation, Roth swore that KYJ had returned the "donation" to him. He admitted that there never existed even a single document to support his contention of the donation or its return to him by KYJ. Has anyone ever heard of a charitable organization returning a $1.5 Million donation to its donor? Then again, Handler also swore that he did not sell anything since 1991. Roth swore that Handler owed him substantial sums. Handler swore that he did not owe Roth anything that the monies advanced by Roth were gifts. And so on, and so on.

Handler and his associates concealed Handler's assets in order to avoid paying the FDIC. Therefore, the FDIC sold its seemingly "uncollectable" judgment to Denis Joslin, whose efforts at collection were also unsuccessful. Joslin then sold the judgment to Weinstock. Weinstock knew where Handler's assets were hidden and thus would be in a position to recover the full judgment. When Weinstock attempted to recover on the judgment, Handler again made a complete u-turn and denied that he owned the properties in question. In an affidavit he had submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Handler had asserted that he had no income and was subsisting on Social Security payments as well as assistance from his daughter, Henshe Leibowitz.

Henshe Leibowitz, Money Cleaner

An investigation by Weinstock revealed that Henshe Leibowitz was not just a good, supportive daughter. She had received $726,433.56 from Samuel Roth, Handler's partner.

Subpoenaed documents showed transfers by Samuel Roth to the tune of at least $1,845,712.82 to various parties, as directed by Handler, including hundreds of thousands of dollars to a number of attorneys acting in Handler's behalf. Additional evidence was uncovered that Roth paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to one Morton Silberberg, Esq.. Siberberg was allegedly the principal of Andover Equities, who purchased the position of the FDIC, in several Handler controlled properties at a very steep discount. Weinstock obtained copies of numerous checks signed by Morris Roth (Samuel's unemployed son) on an account at the European American Bank. Morris Roth had testified that he never had signed any checks on any such account. The documents and facts presented by Weinstock resulted in U.S. District Court Judge Robert Patterson, Jr. stating:

"It is obvious that he (Emmerich Handler) has not stated the truth in answers to these questions." (Transcript at p. 29) "I haven't had one judgment like this, and I'm not going to end my career on this bench with having one either, not when people have money and tell falsehoods". (Transcript at p.34) (emphasis added)

"It is becoming evident from the papers that have been put before me that the Handlers part (sic) they're (sic) assets with Mr. Roth, and that Mr. Roth has been supporting them, and their lawyers, by payments &...there is some evidence that a fraud was committed in connection with your judgment." (Transcript at pages 4 and 5)(emphasis added)

"Handler's claim that the Kaminetze [sic] Yeshiva was a transferee of an interest in 4200- 4211 Avenue K was proven false &" (emphasis added) "He (Handler) could have responded in that way. He hasn't responded in that way. The answer is not truthful, then. I'm going to give him 48 hours or he's going to jail, and his wife. So let's have the answers here&.It is obvious he has not stated the truth in answers to these questions." (Transcript at p. 28) (emphasis added)

"It's absolutely outrageous conduct, & It's outrageous conduct by a judgment debtor, and it has gone on since 1991. &He is in contempt." &We gave him a second chance. He didn't take it. I think he is going. I think he is going to surrender to the Marshals Friday. Tell him to bring whatever underclothes he needs. I'm not going to put up with this person." (Transcript at pp. 30-31) (emphasis added)

"They (the Handlers) are more than obstreperous, let's face it. I am about to issue an order of arrest of Mr. Handler and Mrs. Handler." (Transcript at p. 18) (emphasis added)

"And if I have to make it clear to everybody in the city that you don't mess around with a federal judgment, I will. That's how serious it is. Now, I mean, it's really important. And that goes to the aiders and abettors too. So they better think about it. And think about it very, very carefully. About what they want to do in terms of destroying the world around them. Because it isn't just them." (Transcript at pp. 34-5). (emphasis added)

"I am not just talking about your clients. I am talking about the whole world around them. It is just going to fall apart. And everyone is going down with the ship." (Transcript at p. 37)(emphasis added)

"I'm not going to have a federal judgment flouted. Not in this court. You can do whatever you want in the state court. I don't care. But you're not going to flout a federal judgment here. Anything (sic) that had anything to do with flouting it is going to pay a price." (Transcript at pp. 7-8). (emphasis added)

At one point, Handler and his attorneys obtained an Order from a Brooklyn Judge enjoining (prohibiting) Weinstock from continuing the proceedings before Federal Judge Patterson. Judge Patterson gave Handler and his attorneys 48 hours to have that Brooklyn Court Order vacated.

Handler was facing the ire of a Federal District Court Judge, when on May 8, 2000, he filed a Petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act. That maneuver froze all proceedings pending against him. However, the Handler testimony in connection with the bankruptcy has again been at variance with the documentary evidence he provided to the FDIC as well as testimony he gave in prior proceedings. Characteristically, Wayne Greenwald, Esq. represented the Handlers in connection with the filing of the Petition in Bankruptcy. Wayne Greenwald had also been representing Samuel Roth, a Handler partner and alleged creditor, and Chaim Tescher, another Handler partner and alleged creditor. Handler's bankruptcy filing failed to explain the disappearance of at least a "baker's dozen" partnership interests listed on Handler's 1995 tax return, which is the last one he was known to file. In that year, his returns reflected in excess of $6 million dollars of income.

They Call it the Department of Justice?

Judge Patterson referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation. Despite the fact that Weinstock amassed extensive documentary evidence of fraud perpetrated against him as well as the FDIC, other lending institutions and investors and that the FDIC had lost approximately $5 million, no legal action was taken by the Justice Department. Witnesses to the fraud were not interviewed, and available financial records proving the fraud went unread. This absence of reasoning persisted throughout the litigation, which involved nationally known law firms, a former "acting U.S. Attorney General," a
former U.S. Attorney and several former Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Additionally, Handler through the use of the judicial system caused the filling of seven fraudulent bankruptcy petitions. The FDIC has lost approximately $5 Million, and it looked the other way. The blatant lies by attorneys and their partners and clients were exposed in documentary form as a result of the filing of false financial statements, and the shifting of assets.

George Washington Turns Over in His Grave

One would have expected that the fraudulent nature of Handler's lawsuit against Weinstock that was exposed by his own blizzard of lies would have resulted in a dismissal. At the very least, one would have expected that the Court would not award Handler any more than he had claimed in the sworn complaint, i.e. 48% of the corporation "jointly" with the non-for-profit organization. Instead, it awarded Handler more than twice as much as Handler had sworn he was entitled to. Incidentally, immediately before the trial in front of Justice Douglass, Handler was forced to admit that KYJ was merely a bogus plaintiff; that it had no financial interest in "Realty Corp.", that is was only a "front' for Handler. Only by giving Handler 100% of the stock could Handler and the law firm(s) escape liability for their participation in the fraud. Justice Lewis Douglass ignored Handler (and Walker's) transparent perjury and allowed Handler to escape the limitations of his own sworn complaint, which had been drafted by CGS&H, and ruled:

"[What's in the pleadings] is not important. That's lawyer talk. ...Lawyer talk on both sides."

Then trivializing the importance of a sworn statement, the judge proceeded to "testify," sua sponte (at his own initiative):

"I don't think you can carry the day by simply identifying these inconsistent lawyer phrases. I know how these phrases are written. Your associates are told to draft a complaint. They go to the books." "&I am not impressed with the (sworn) verified complaints. I know how they are drafted. They tell the kids in the office to write the book."

Moreover, Walker swore to the contents of the complaint and Handler acted as the notary public of Walker's oath. Although no one testified that "the kids in the office wrote the book (sworn complaint)," the Judge proffered to have knowledge of how "the book" was prepared. Not only in this case, but generally how sworn complaints are prepared. The Judge further mused, that when verifying (swearing) to the contents of the complaint the party swearing to its contents simply said:

"I got to get out of here, where do I sign?"

Not one party or witness had even suggested that such an event had in fact occurred. The Court itself "testified" as to thecircumstances surrounding the execution of the complaint.

Perjury Pays

Although Walker would later admit, under oath, that the Brooklyn lawsuit was also contrived and fabricated at the request of Handler and Handler's attorneys, despite the irreconcilable and blatantly contradictory testimony of Walker, few examples of which follow (compare left and right columns), the Trial Judge declared:

"I have reviewed those alleged inconsistencies. It is true that if you match up sentences&Jack Walker did not always use the same words or make precisely the same point. The & thrust (Walker's testimony) is consistent."

'I owned 100% of the stock / I never owned any stock of Realty Corp.'

'Weinstock had no authority to sign my name to the contract/ I gave Weinstock complete authority to sign my name to the contract.'

The Judge surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, acknowledged that Walker's position "had been back and forth over the years", but declared:

"I do not find any inconsistencies so significant as to suggest that Walker did not tell the truth in this proceeding."

Furthermore, the Court justified Walker's contradictory testimony:

"&because Walker has done whatever he perceived to be in his financial interest."

Precisely the opposite of what the laws prohibiting perjury are intended to accomplish.

Attorney Rubin openly stated in relation to Walker (his own client):

Rubin: "He's gone back and forth. That's what he said about half the time. But the other half the time as part of going back and forth he changes that story".

The Court: "Right."

Justice Gammerman of the Supreme Court, New York County, referring to Handler and Walker stated:

"(You) are all a band of rogues. In spite of the fact that Mr. Handler is an ordained rabbi."

Also, Justice Gammerman found that perjury did in fact take place by Walker and that Walker either "submitted a false affidavit or is lying here in court about this claim of duress." Walker's attorney then promoted the argument that while Walker did in fact perjure himself, there was no way of knowing which of Walker's version was true. Justice Douglass nevertheless declared that "the &thrust& is consistent."

Handler Uses Grievance Committee to Quash Investigation

After Weinstock purchased the FDIC judgment from Mr. Joslin and pursued Handler in the Federal Court, Handler, following his modus operandi of attempting to defeat Weinstock by a war of attrition, filed a complaint against Weinstock with the Disciplinary Committee. In that complaint Handler was joined by Walker. The script was the same one that Handler had followed in the Simke (that was the case which gave rise to the California decision) case.

To defeat the Simke judgment, Handler retained Michael Gentile, Esq., former counsel to the Disciplinary Committee in Manhattan. Now it was Weinstock's turn. Handler retained the Michael Gentile firm to pursue Weinstock in the Brooklyn Disciplinary Committee and to thus discredit Weinstock and head off his relentless pursuit of the truth.

Handler had also sued Joslin (the one who originally purchased the FDIC judgment) and his attorneys and others from whom he had taken millions of dollars in investments. After Handler and Walker filed the aforesaid complaint with the Disciplinary Committee, Handler's emissaries appeared at Weinstock's office with an offer: if Weinstock would stop his pursuit of justice with respect to Handler and his associates, Handler would withdraw and cause Walker to withdraw the complaints they had filed with the Disciplinary Committee. Weinstock flatly rejected such an effort at extortion. Notwithstanding the express policy of the Disciplinary Committee to take no action on grievances while civil litigation is still outstanding, the Disciplinary Committee asked Weinstock to respond to the Handler/Walker complaint which was filed in 1997, while the appeal of the Justice Douglass decision was still pending. The Disciplinary Committee demanded that Weinstock appear at its offices for a "hearing" on the Walker/Handler complaints on August 4, 1998. Weinstock's appeal to the Appellate Division had not yet been heard. It was not to be heard until October 19, 1998.

Little did Weinstock know that the call from the Disciplinary Committee was instigated by Handler's criminal attorneys.

Handler's emissaries went to Weinstock's office after the August 4, 1998 "hearing", at which Weinstock gave testimony at the Disciplinary Committee offices. By a letter dated September 3, 1998 Weinstock informed the Disciplinary Committee of the said offer by the Handler emissaries. During the course of the "hearing" on the Handler/Walker complaint, which was held on August 4, 1998, counsel for the Disciplinary Committee asked on several occasions to speak to Weinstock "off the record." In that "off the record" conversation, counsel for the Disciplinary Committee suggested that Weinstock should not pursue his claims against Handler and CGS&H, as it was not worth it in view of the tremendous cost to him in both health and finances. Weinstock rejected the suggestion made by the counsel. The Disciplinary Committee then formally filed charges against Weinstock essentially alleging two violations of the Disciplinary Rules:

1.that Weinstock improperly acquired a proprietary interest in the subject matter of litigation in that when Weinstock represented Walker (as a principal of 4200 Avenue K Realty Corp.) Weinstock agreed to accept a 20% of the stock of the "subject matter of the litigation". Thus a violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102 (a)(8) of the Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 5-103 of said code.

2.that Weinstock violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(a)(5) of the Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 7-102(a)(1) of the said code when Weinstock took an appeal from the Supreme Court's Order of March 26, 1997, from a decision made by Justice Simeon Golar which denied Weinstock's application to set aside and vacate an order which had set aside a separation agreement entered between Weinstock and his former wife.

The latter charge came about as a result of the fact that during Weinstock's divorce trial held before Justice Simeon Golar, Weinstock's former wife admitted, inter alia, that contrary to what she had testified to in a prior trial to set aside the Separation Agreement, that at the time she entered into the Separation Agreement, she was Weinstock's bookkeeper and was fully familiar with all of Weinstock's finances. In all prior proceedings, Weinstock's former wife had denied having any knowledge whatsoever of his finances and denied that she had ever been his bookkeeper.

In an unprecedented and unique decision, the Appellate Division sanctioned Weinstock $10,000 for bringing that one appeal. The Disciplinary Committee "sua sponte" (at its own initiative), charged Weinstock with a violation of the Disciplinary Rules following the imposition of the sanction herein above set forth. Both of those charges brought against Weinstock by the Disciplinary Committee are unique to Weinstock. Disciplinary proceedings charging an attorney with taking an interest in the subject matter of litigation are rare and charges with respect to a contingency fee type arrangement, such as Weinstock had with Walker are unique to Weinstock. Acquisition of stock in a client corporation is favored by
the Courts.

Furthermore, no published reports exists of any disciplinary action ever taken against any attorney for having filed one single appeal and/or of having been sanctioned $10,000 for taking one appeal. Not even such notorious attorneys like Roy Cohn, William Kunstler or Bruce Cutler had ever been sanctioned like Weinstock was. In another case in which Weinstock has relentlessly pursued justice, his adversaries filed approximately 25 appeals, all of which they lost. Unlike the Weinstock case, the trial judge had warned those attorneys of the frivolous nature of their motions and appeals. They were fined a total of approximately $6,000 between the Trial Court and the Appellate Division. Can anyone rationally explain such a discrepancy in the administration of justice?

While the Disciplinary Committee has been furnished with many documents pertaining to the frauds described herein by the various firms, the position taken by the Disciplinary Committee is that it would not entertain those complaints or investigate those charges until the litigation was concluded. A position not being applied to "the matter of Israel Weinstock." The Appellate Division has ruled that Weinstock is "collaterally stopped" from presenting the evidence and the facts set forth herein on the basis that all those "facts" have already been ruled upon by Justice Douglass and the decision of the Appellate Division which sanctioned Weinstock $10,000. Thus, Weinstock is only entitled to a "hearing" on the issue of "mitigation." That is, a plea that the punishment to be imposed on Weinstock to be reduced. Weinstock is proud that in more than four decades of practicing law, the Disciplinary Committee could only come up with the above two charges which are both unique in the history of jurisprudence of the State of New York. Weinstock has asked the Disciplinary Committee that any hearing (in "mitigation") should be open to the public, so the world could bear witness to his treatment by the Court.

Following his often practiced tactics, Handler (and Roth) sued Weinstock for having shared the information he had with the FDIC and allegedly "defamed" them. Since Handler is in bankruptcy and any hypothetical proceeds of such lawsuit would belong to Handler's creditors (Weinstock holds over $2 Million in judgments against Handler), Handler has sworn that he "assigned" his defamation case to Roth. At a deposition of Handler held in June, 2001, in connection with the "defamation lawsuit", Handler revealed that his criminal defense attorneys had sent materials to the Disciplinary Committee on his behalf. The Disciplinary Committee had not provided Weinstock with his information, nor had it even informed Weinstock of the correspondence and given Weinstock an opportunity to rebut whatever it was the attorneys had provided to the Disciplinary Committee. On learning of the material Weinstock asked the Disciplinary Committee for copies, which the request was met with an invitation to view the material at the Disciplinary Committee's office.

During Weinstock's review, the Disciplinary Committee photocopied certain of the documents at his request, but refused to copy others.

In an attempt to deter Weinstock from continuing his pursuit of Handler's assets and proceeding before Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr., Handler's criminal defense lawyers filed (and authored) a complaint with the New York State Grievance Committee. The level and intensity of the proceedings by the Grievance Committee bore a direct correlation to Judge Patterson's escalating challenges to the (mis)conduct of Mr. Handler and his attorneys. In a dramatic and telling departure from the express and established practices of the Grievance Committee not to process any disciplinary complaints while litigation is pending between the complainant and the attorney, the Grievance Committee in this instance proceeded to hold a "hearing" while the litigation was still pending as the appeal had not yet been heard. Thus: · The Grievance Committee counsel clearly suggested to Weinstock at the "hearing" that if he dropped his proceedings against Handler, the complaints (Handler and Walker) pending against Weinstock at the Grievance Committee would then "go away".

Weinstock adamantly refused to succumb to such blackmail. Recently Weinstock found a letter written by Handler attorney Diana Parker, Esq. to the Grievance Committee (with a salutation "Dear Susan" (Susan Kornberg, Esq. being Deputy Counsel to the Committee)) in July 1998, suggesting, even before Weinstock had a hearing at the Offices of the Grievance Committee, that his license to practice law should be indefinitely suspended. As noted above, in May 1999 she swore that her firm had not performed any services of that nature on behalf of the Handlers. Weinstock respectfully submits that it was more than coincidence that counsel for the Grievance Committee placed a telephone call to him requesting that he appear at its offices for a hearing at or about the time that Diana Parker, Esq. wrote to the Committee and suggested that Weinstock be indefinitely suspended. It was at that "hearing" that the suggestion was made to Weinstock that the Grievance Committee complaint against him would be withdrawn if he were to discontinue his proceedings before Judge Robert P. Patterson against Handler.

It was further disclosed at the defamation deposition, that counsel for the Grievance Committee attempted to "broker" a deal whereby Weinstock's claims against Handler would be resolved, not in Judge Robert P. Patterson's court, but rather by a "Din Torah" - a rabbinical tribunal. Handler's testimony further revealed that contemporaneously with his filing a Grievance complaint against Weinstock, he also filed another grievance against another attorney whom he accused of theft. Allegedly, counsel for the Grievance Committee requested the consent of Handler and his attorneys to defer action against the other attorney because it was short staffed and was concentrating its efforts on the proceedings against Weinstock, although Weinstock was not being accused of anything as serious as theft. Mr. Handler testified that "we agreed" (that the complaint against Weinstock should take priority). Thus, according to Handler, the Grievance Committee sought the approval of Handler and his attorneys with respect to the management of the grievance against Weinstock.

At that deposition, Handler disclosed that his criminal defense attorneys had provided the Grievance Committee with a compendium as thick as a Brooklyn telephone book. He also disclosed that a similar compendium was provided by his criminal defense counsel to the Office of the U.S. Attorney. Significantly, neither the Grievance Committee nor the U.S. Attorney ever notified Weinstock that it received such a compendium and never gave Weinstock an opportunity to respond.

Within that time frame, Handler sent emissaries on at least two separate occasions offering to have the complaint to the Grievance Committee withdrawn if Weinstock stopped his efforts to enforce his rights before Judge Robert P. Patterson. Weinstock was told in no uncertain terms that if he were to pursue his rights, a number of "innocent" people would be implicated in Handler's criminal conduct. In short, if Weinstock would stop his pursuit of his rights the complaints to the Grievance Committee would be withdrawn.

On another occasion, Weinstock was told that if he ceased his pursuit of his rights before Judge Robert P. Patterson, the complaints filed with the Grievance Committee would be withdrawn and, in addition, Weinstock would be paid several hundred thousand dollars. Weinstock staunchly refused to succumb to such blackmail. On yet another occasion, Weinstock was "warned" that if he did not stop his pursuit of his rights, one of his attorneys would fraudulently implicate him in an unrelated criminal matter, which was being handled by their office. In reality it was a threat thatWeinstock would be framed.

Weinstock rejected all of the foregoing entreaties. The proceedings of the Grievance Committee resulted in a "mitigation hearing," which Weinstock insisted should be publicly held. Several hundred people attended the hearing on August 21, 2001 to demonstrate their support of Weinstock. This "affair" has become an ugly stain on the judicial system. Perjury, fraud, extortion, influence have all become ingredients of this sordid affair. It is to be noted that the charges filed against Weinstock by the Grievance Committee are unique and unprecedented in the jurisprudence in the State of New York! [two of the charges are predicated upon the testimony of Handler associate, Jack Walker, who has admitted to the F.B.I. and in open Court that he fabricated his charges against Weinstock at the request of Handler, who then retained counsel for him.

Reverse Due Process

A review of the correspondence sent by Handler's ncriminal attorneys to the Disciplinary Committee has made it clear that they are proposing a new concept of due process, i.e. reverse due process:

First, determine the punishment; second, determine the guilt; third, file charges; and last, conduct a "hearing."

Among the documents Weinstock reviewed were copies of four letters to the Disciplinary Committee written by three different Handler lawyers, together with numerous attachments. (Does the reader remember that Handler is "impoverished"?) The first, from Diana Parker, Esq. of the well known criminal defense firm Morvillo , Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Silberberg, P.C. dated July 8, 1998 (within days of the Disciplinary Committee's call to Weinstock to schedule a hearing respecting the Handler/Walker complaints filed in August/September, 1997, nearly a year earlier), was addressed to Susan Korenberg, Esq. (an attorney with the Disciplinary Committee) and had the salutation "Dear Susan". The letter began:

"I thought you would be interested in the enclosed decision from the Court of Appeals in Maryland. It certainly lends support for any action you decide to take with respect to Mr. Weinstock since Mr. Allison only filed three frivolous actions&"

The article referred to the indefinite suspension from the practice of law of the Maryland attorney. Interestingly, Handler's criminal attorneys had to reach out to a precedent in Maryland as obviously they could not find one in the State of New York. The Morvillo law firm had previously appeared before Judge Patterson in behalf of Samuel Roth, Handler's partner. It is both shocking and incredible that on July 8, 1998, before Weinstock was given any hearing and before any charges were brought against Weinstock, the Morvillo firm was already suggesting to the Disciplinary Committee what the punishment for Weinstock should be! Indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

Two of the letters were from Michael Ross, Esq., of the firm LaRossa and Ross. Mr. Ross stated that he, along with the firm Kramer Levin, represents Emmerich Handler. The letter dated February 1, 2000 proceeded to relate an often inaccurate and thus damning history of litigation involving Emmerich Handler and Weinstock. The letter attempted to paint Weinstock in an extremely unflattering light.

Mr. Ross' letter dated May 9, 2001 enclosed a copy of a document Weinstock filed with United States District Court Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the case of MLE v. Handler -in which Weinstock sought to execute on a judgment he holds against the Handlers. Judge Patterson in that case expressed his outrage at the lies told him by Emmerich Handler. Judge Patterson had referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney's office for investigation. In Weinstock's letter, however, he expressed his conviction that these Disciplinary Committee proceedings constitute an attempt by Emmerich Handler to obstruct justice. The submission by Attorney Ross of the Weinstock letter to Judge Patterson was obviously intended to inflame counsel for the Disciplinary Committee, whose motives Weinstock questioned in that letter, as he questions him in this synopsis. The reader can determine whether Weinstock's contentions have merit.

The fourth letter, dated April 25, 2001 and authored by Susan Brotman, Esq., of the firm Gentile Brotman Maltz & Benjamin, LLP, enclosed a copy of a second document submitted by me to Judge Patterson. Ms. Brotman claimed that the letter constituted "additional evidence of the fact that Mr. Weinstock is unfit to practice law&". Weinstock believes that Mr. Gentile represented Emmerich Handler in Handler's pursuit by civil action and Disciplinary Committee complaint of attorneys for plaintiff Simke, who had obtained a judgment awarding punitive damages against Handler for fraud.

In short, it is clear that Mr. Handler and his attorneys "protest too much". Engagement of no less than four law firms to represent him in pursuing his complaint against Weinstock to the Disciplinary Committee, while contemporaneously claiming that he has no assets with which to satisfy Weinstock's judgment against him, and ultimately filing for bankruptcy, reflect a concerted and coordinated effort by Emmerich Handler to discredit Weinstock.

Perhaps even more importantly, in view of Judge Patterson's referral to the U.S. Attorney's office, Handler and his attorneys attempt to derail that office's investigation of Handler's wrongdoing by painting Weinstock, his longtime accuser, as coercive, abusive and unbelievable. Mr. Handler testified that his attorneys Kramer, Levin sent similar materials to the U.S. Attorney's office. Andrew Maloney, Esq., a former U.S. Attorney, has represented Handler in the investigation launched by the office of the U.S. Attorney as a result of the referral by Judge Patterson...more

Weinstock Charges Handler et al with fraud

Legal Documents

Kangaroo Court

News Release and Notice of Motion

A Matter of Justice

Evaluation of Judicial Performance