Lawyer Fraud and Reverse Due Process: A Look at Bogus Litigation and How The Legal Industry 'Legally' Punishes the Innocent Citizen

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