|
Robert
S. Catz, a Washington D.C. civil rights attorney and counsel for
disbarred New York attorney Israel Weinstock, has filed a brief with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan in
response to the March 17 decision of the “Grievance Committee of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
v. Israel Weinstock” that stripped Israel Weinstock of his
federal license to practice law.
Weinstock’s
appeal asserts that the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y)
Grievance Committee ignored blatantly improper conduct by New York Bar
Counsel Robert Saltzman, and that it made its decision without
“clear and convincing” evidence of professional misconduct
and unjustly disbarred Israel Weinstock in the federal courts without
an evidentiary hearing.
Weinstock,
who was disbarred in the New York state courts in 2002 after an
unblemished record of 42 years of practice, charges that in the initial
proceedings of the “New York Grievance Committee for the Second
and Eleventh Judicial Districts v. Israel Weinstock”, New York
Bar Counsel, Robert Saltzman, committed prosecutorial misconduct,
obstruction of justice, witness tampering and retaliatory conduct
against a him as a cooperating witness in the United States Justice
Department’s criminal probe of Bar complainants. Weinstock was
the key witness against the Bar complainants who had brought the
charges of professional misconduct against him.
The
records in Weinstock’s case show that during the initial
disbarment proceedings, Weinstock was denied the opportunity to present
evidence of prosecutorial misconduct by use of collateral estoppel.
Catz explains, “the application of collateral estoppel prevented
Weinstock from offering any defense that would otherwise have served to
demonstrate whether the charges against him were valid.”
The
recent federal reciprocal disbarment proceedings further denied
Weinstock the opportunity to offer a defense. In the District Court, a
federal reciprocal disbarment proceeding entitles an attorney to a
plenary evidentiary hearing if he was denied an “ample”
opportunity to present evidence in the prior disbarment proceeding
regarding alleged professional misconduct. The District Court ignored
the blatantly improper conduct of Bar Counsel and refused to conduct an
evidentiary hearing. Catz said, “the district court entered
federal reciprocal disbarment even though allegations of professional
misconduct in that court since 1939 require proof supported by clear
and convincing evidence”.
Catz
states that “all eight judicial members of the S.D.N.Y Grievance
Committee ignored shocking [ostensible evidence of prosecutorial
misconduct by New York bar counsel of coercion, overreaching and abuse
of public office supported by documents in the district court record .
. . including the filing of a “confidential memorandum”
with the Appellate Division by New York Bar Counsel that was willfully
withheld from Weinstock in the underlying New York bar proceeding. That
memorandum contained allegations that if found true by a fact finder at
a plenary evidentiary hearing would render [Weinstock’s New York
disbarment void as wanting in substantive and procedural due process on
grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and obstruction of justice.”
Catz’
brief states that not only has Weinstock been confronted with highly
irregular court procedures but every court’s decision, has
rendered a new “crime” to the alleged misconduct that
served as the source of Israel Weinstock’s disbarment. For
example: among the original charges of misconduct, the Committee used a
ruling of an underlying case that Weinstock’s interest in the
corporation was achieved by “overreaching and undue
influence” despite that sworn testimony to the FBI and the Court
claimed those charges were fabricated. The Appellate Division upheld
the ruling but inserted an additional criminal act:
“coercion”. Most recently, the United States District Court
for the Southern District created yet another crime that Israel
Weinstock allegedly committed: “extortion.” In each
instance of court rulings, the characterization of the alleged crimes
committed by Weinstock were elevated to a higher crime, but at no time
was Weinstock allowed to present evidence in defense of the disbarment
charges.
According
to Catz, “the order by Judge Rakoff, joined by the seven other
judges on the Grievance Committee, ‘carefully’ found on its
own volition and without a plenary evidentiary hearing that Weinstock
had used ‘extortionate threats’”. Further, Catz
describes the recent decision as “shockingly erroneous, reckless,
utterly ridiculous and unfounded as there is not one single word in the
entire Appellate Division’s disbarment record, nor in the
underlying trial records to support such a slanderous and preposterous
judicial proclamation”.
Weinstock pleads, “How many courts does it take to repeatedly
violate my constitutional rights before someone recognizes that there
is a valid reason as to why they want to shut me up?” said
Weinstock “This is not just about me and getting my licenses
back, it’s about the judicial system going awry.” 9-16-05
|
