SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY, COMMERCIAL DIVISION ------------------------------------X : Greg Waltman, Plaintiff(s) : Against : Index No. Jess Berkowitz : SUMMONS Defendant(s), : ------------------------------------X Date Index No. Purchased May 8, 2017 To the above-named Defendant: 401 Broadway Suite 311 New York, New York 10013, Telephone: (212)-431-4453 You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. The basis of venue is the residence of the Plaintiff, which is 235 Sullivan St. Apt. 2 New York, NY 10012. Dated: New York, New York May 8, 2017 By: Greg Waltman Greg Waltman, pro se 235 Sullivan St. Apt. 2 New York, N.Y. 10012 Tel:(347)-445-8227 Email: Greg@g1quantumfund.com 1 of 37
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY, COMMERCIAL DIVISION ------------------------------------X Greg Waltman, : Plaintiff, : Against : Index No. Jess Berkowitz Defendant, : ------------------------------------X : COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Greg Waltman pro se, as and for his complaint against Defendant Berkowitz alleges, upon knowledge as to himself and otherwise upon information and belief, as follows: 1. Dkt. No. 2016NY003806 Malpractice: This malpractice action originates from an incident on January 13, 2016 where the Plaintiff was arrested without any probable cause in relation to contacting Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. about payment for fraud as defined in SCCNY 152168/2014, TCR1424794910224. (See evidentiary email Exhibit I.) Defendant Berkowitz malpractice sought to cover up and accommodate the intent of the Plaintiffs communications with Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., in an elaborate effort to cover up shadow banking and insider trading fraud involving 2 of 37
Jamie Dimon CEO of JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. This criminality involved Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. shadow banking with the Burmese Junta leading up to and after 2008, passing non-public performance and non-performance data about the NBCUNI GE Comcast merger to Steve Cohen of S.A.C. Capital (now point 72 asset management)in late 2009 early 2010. Defendant Berkowitz criminality also sought to cover up improper relations involving the District Attorney, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., and subsequent criminality as defined in Greg Waltman v. Legal Aid Society SCCNY 650683/2017, Greg Waltman, G1 Quantum Fund, LLC v. Time Warner Inc. SCCNY 162168/2014, Greg Waltman, G1 Quantum Fund, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. SCCNY 152168/2014, and various Securities and Exchange Commission TCR complaints that have gone unprosecuted or paid as defined by Special Prosecutor and Relief Requests (See pdf s attached to emails in Exhibit I in Exhibit II). Before Defendant Berkowitz took on representing the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was represented by Legal Aid Society who gave the Plaintiff bad advice on numerous occasions throughout representing the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed a civil malpractice action against Legal Aid Society where Summary Judgment is pending. Defendant Berkowitz was 18B value appointed 3 of 37
to represent the Plaintiff after a purposeful lapse in representation during the transition of the Legal Aid Society representation of the Plaintiff to Defendant Berkowitz in violation of the 6 th Amendment of the Constitution (See Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373-74 (1979) & Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335. (1963). This comes against a value legal backdrop where the District Attorney is manipulating the NYState Bar to no end not allowing the Plaintiff to retain private counsel. Providing more background as it pertains to Defendant Berkowitz, the Legal Aid Society repeatedly misinformed the Plaintiff failing to exercise ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession in breach of Legal Aid Society s duty proximately causing the Plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages in the amount of ~$1.8Billion dollars (See Steve Cohen S.A.C. Capital Exhibit III) (Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer,8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 867 N.E.2d 385, 387, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 536 (2007). Again, the Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause on January 13, 2016 and the Legal Aid Society s purposeful and continuous malpractice aided and abetted criminality SCCNY 4 of 37
162168/2014, SCCNY 156844/2014, TCR WI-47439, TCR1314809806435 (see Special Prosecutor and Relief Requests Dkt. No. 2016NY003806 Exhibit II) to cover up and accommodate multi- Billion dollar securities, and wire fraud. Defendant Berkowitz malpractice is similar in nature to that of Legal Aid Society. Perhaps Defendant Berkowitz malpractice is not as extensive as the Legal Aid Society, but it is still as equally damaging. Several Judges have presided over Dkt. No. 2016NY003806 with Justice Watters most recently presiding over this case. As you can see from the transcript from the previous Court dates, the Plaintiff makes a request for Special Prosecutor, Motions, Subpoena, Order to Show Cause, and Memorandum through proper filing procedure in accordance with the Criminal Rules of the State of New York, and are adopted by the Court. The Court also acknowledges the Plaintiffs call for the Court to issue a warrant for Jamie Dimon et. al. arrest. However, the Court does not issue a warrant for Jamie Dimon et. al. s arrest, People do not produce the documents as required by Criminal Rules of the State of New York, and Justice Watters does not respond to Plaintiffs motions in an elaborate attempt to cover up and accommodate Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. s ongoing criminality. Departmental Disciplinary Committee Complaints are in the process of being filed, and will be filed 5 of 37
as Exhibits in this case. Defendant Berkowitz makes no mention of the violation of the Criminal Rules of the State of New York to the Judge on behalf of the Plaintiff, in breach of his duty to the Plaintiff, which is malpractice. Furthermore, this is in violation of the Criminal Procedure of the State of New York. The criminal Subpoena was filed by the Plaintiff 11 months ago and again has not been complied with. Complaints against all Judges presiding over this case allowing this value criminality to continue on in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct and the Criminal Rules of the State of New York are being made to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee. The District Attorney and Court have neglected the Plaintiffs claims in favor of practicing a one sided value application of law. This value social media federal pattern and practice of wire criminality executed by the District Attorney to not respond to the Plaintiffs request for Special Prosecutor, Motions, Subpoena, and supporting documents allow Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al., the People, to execute just another month of dragnets, month after month executing wire fraud dragnets to try to entrap and murder the Plaintiff. This graft and malversation is in line with similar judicial fraud involving Justice Lebovits SCCNY 156844/2014 where Justice Watters similarly try s to talk over the Plaintiff as if the 6 of 37
Plaintiff was not present in the Court room, ignorant of what the law is, and does not respond to any of the Plaintiffs requests, Motions or supporting documents, improperly not issuing a warrant for Jamie Dimon, et. al. s arrest in violation of Criminal Procedure of the State of New York, which is also in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 B (1)(2), D (1) (2) E, 1.16 A (1)(2) B (1) (2), 1.18 D (1)(2) E(1)(2) 2.4 A & B, 3.4 A (1) (2) (3) (6) B(1) (2) E, 3.5 A (1) (2) i, ii, iii, iv, (3), 3.6 A, B (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) E, 3.9, 4.3, 4.4 A 7.1 A (1)(2) B (1)(2)(3)(4) C (3), (4) D (1) G, H, K 8.2 A, B, 8.3A, B, 8.4 A, B, C, D, E (1)(2), F, G, H, (See Departmental Disciplinary Complaint Exhibit V). Justice Watters goes as far as allowing the District Attorney and Legal Aid Society to call fake Court cases and in particular one with the last name Frank just to try to shape a value Court room narrative which is beyond repulsive, disrespectful, and a disgrace to families of the value September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. The Plaintiff has recommended Justice Watters be disbarred nunc pro tunc (See Bruno Ward L. Thrasher 308 AD2d 160 Suspended 2 years nunc pro tunc 5/26/0222 NYCRR 603.3 (reciprocal discipline Supreme Judicial Court of Mass. Value Slip. op. 45) 7 of 37
Clearly Justice Watters says This is put down for hearings and trial May 16 th, 2017 which is a flagrant lie and another useless collusive ½ measure in trying to intimidate the Plaintiff after a failed yearlong prosecution by the District Attorney executing wire dragnets coordinating with Time Warner Inc., and other media to try to entrap the Plaintiff to cover up and accommodate Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. s criminality which criminality has been ongoing for the past Seven years rendering JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. insolvent (See Withdrawal of Motion and Merger Application Exhibit IV). Defendant Berkowitz does nothing on behalf of the Plaintiff to question Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. s criminality or Justice Watters or the District Attorney s conduct as it pertains to Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. in breach of his duty to the Plaintiff which is malpractice (See Exhibit IV District Attorney s non-prosecuted assault by Andrew Rasiej, and SCCNY 156844/2014 Justice Lebovits fraudulently not responding to Motions to Renew and Reargue, Recuse, Order to Show Cause, and not signing Subpoena rendering previous claims SCCNY 162168/2014 to ad valorem animus nocendi properly placing claims to res judicata malum in se). 8 of 37
Not only did Defendant Berkowitz malpractice proximately cause damages to the Plaintiff allowing Justice Watters, the District Attorney, and Jamie Dimon, JPMrogan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. criminality to continue on with the collusive value prosecution resulting in a loss in excess of Ninety Six Thousand dollars ($96,000.00), but Defendant Berkowitz coordinated with the District Attorney, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), other law enforcement officials, and the media to allow wire dragnets to continue on against the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff explicitly asked for the matters to be addressed. The wire dragnet executed by the District Attorney and corporate entities continuously carried on for Seven years to present producing no results, and manifest into a wire dragnet with the intent to entrap and murder (see Appellate Division 1 st Dept. 162168/2014 & 156844/2014 Again, ad valorem animus nocendi properly placing claims to res judicata malum in se, Plaintiffs email to Southern District Attorney Kim about the media purposefully misinforming the public about the Border Wall s cost trying to defraud the public and the Plaintiff out of Billions of dollars, and defraud the Plaintiff out of approximately $291Billion dollar per year (Cleary, Gottlieb v. Legal Services Staff, 837 F. Supp. 582 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). 9 of 37
The Plaintiff establishes a Case Within a Case with respect to Defendant Berkowitz malpractice through his flagrant breach of duty to the Plaintiff catering to the District Attorney, Justice Watters, and Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., collusive one sided value prosecution of the Plaintiff. In the Plaintiffs Request for Special Prosecutor, Motion, and supporting documents, now over a year late, the request for Special Prosecutor is clearly made. Again, Defendant Berkowitz is aware of the Plaintiffs requests, Motion and supporting documents (See email Exhibit I) but does nothing flagrantly and purposefully taking an inferior course of action catering to the incestuous revolving door collusion between the District Attorney, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. and Justices in their failed over 1 yearlong prosecution of the Plaintiff in violation of speedy trial laws and Rules of Professional Conduct (Again, See Bruno Ward L. Thrasher 308 AD2d 160 Suspended 2 years nunc pro tunc 5/26/0222 NYCRR 603.3 (reciprocal discipline Supreme Judicial Court of Mass. Value Slip. op. 45) Clearly there are conflicts of interest, but Defendant Berkowitz does nothing, establishing a case within a case and breach of duty to the Plaintiff, which is malpractice. Rule: In order to establish the element of causation in a legal 10 of 37
malpractice action arising from an underlying litigation, the Plaintiff must prove a case within a case. Defendant Berkowitz is a private lawyer that provides 18B services to the Court in the event of a conflict of interest. Clearly there are various conflicts of interest between the District Attorney, Justice Watters, and Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. and Defendant Berkowitz. Defendant Berkowitz purposefully does nothing about these conflicts of interest trying to cover up Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. s ongoing criminality. The conflicts of interest Defendant Berkowitz try s to accommodate establishes causation to continuously misinform the Plaintiff on behalf of the District Attorney, Justice Watters, and Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. collusive revolving door criminality while purposefully negligent mens rea establishing a case within a case which meets or exceeds the statutory burden the Plaintiff must establish to recover damages under a malpractice action stating a claim against the Defendant, and placing the claim in good standing. On March 16 th 2017 Defendant Berkowitz took on representation of the Plaintiff. After no attempt to contact the Plaintiff ahead of the Court date on March 16 th 2017 in line with Justice Watters 6 th amendment constitutional abuses, graft, 11 of 37
malversation, collusion with the District Attorney, corporate entities, and the Defendant. Clearly the Defendant acted in bad faith misinforming the Plaintiff repeatedly causing damages in the Billions of dollars giving Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. and the value sickness more time to execute wire dragnets against the Plaintiff. This criminality is in line with the unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University graft and malversation legal doctrine derived from September 11, 2001 using Warren Buffett s ties to Columbia University as a means to circumvent all Criminal and Civil laws in the United States as they relate to the Plaintiff (See Exhibit IV Motion to Renew to Reargue A.D. First Dept. 162168/2014 rendering claims ad valorem animus nocendi properly placing claims to res judicata malum in se). This comes against the backdrop of SCCNY 156844/2014 Entry 108 where the Plaintiff puts forth a proposal that saves Hundreds of Thousands of lives and creates a $500Billion dollar surplus for the United States in the next Eight years, and $4Trillion dollar surplus in the next Thirty Two Years, and SCCNY 162168/2014 Entry 108 where the Plaintiffs put forth a Border Wall solution creating thousands of jobs producing 242Trillion kwh of energy per year ($291Bikllion dollars per year) thoroughly striking down the one sided value prosecution 12 of 37
of the Plaintiff in Dkt. No. 2016NY003806 in its totality and exposing the Courts prejudice regarding implementing the unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University legal doctrine and one sided value application of law derived from September 11, 2001. The Plaintiffs proposal in Entry 108 of SCCNY 156844/2014, now A.D. 1 st Department 156844/2014, Entry 108 A.D. 1 st Department 162168/2014, and in Dkt. No. 2016NY003806 Memorandum in Support of the Order to Show Cause exploits the depth at which the unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University graft and malversation legal doctrine extends into the Justice System of the United States improperly prejudicing the Court in seemingly any argument Criminal or Civil that runs contrary to the unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University graft and malversation legal doctrines interests (See SCCNY 156844/2014 Appellate Division First Department Decision and Order SCCNY 156844/2014 and Motion to Renew and Re-argue Exhibit VI)In this context, the Plaintiffs proposal in Entry 108 of SCCNY 156844/2014 and Entry 108 SCCNY 162168/2014 places the Plaintiffs standing above the unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University graft and malversation legal doctrine in monetary terms, legal, and in terms of National Security internal value risk concerns within immigrants migrating from the Middle 13 of 37
Eastern region (see Greg Waltman v. Harvard Clay Math Institute Black Swan of Japan stripping the value establishment of its political position regarding September 11, 2001 20068SCN2016). Defendant Berkowitz malpractice and conflicts of interest proximately caused the Plaintiff in excess of ~$96,000.00 dollars in damages, which malpractice coordinated with District Attorney, Justice Watters, and other law enforcement officials placing the Plaintiffs interests last in breach of the Defendants duty to the Plaintiff. In a malpractice action the injury suffered is the loss of a cause of action, the measure of damages is generally the value of the claim lost. However, Defendant Berkowitz does not have the ability to repay the Plaintiff the amount of damages lost, nor does the Plaintiff whish to impose a Chapter law resolution against the Defendant. In this instance the Plaintiff calculates the amount of damages by projecting the Defendants net income as it relates to 18B services. Assuming Defendant charges $50USD per hour, and works 40 hour weeks for 48 weeks per year the Defendant makes approximately ~$96,000.00 dollars from 18B services. The Defendant also has a lucrative private practice. The Plaintiff strongly suggests that the damages from the Defendants malpractice should be adjusted accordingly in line with the 14 of 37
District Attorney s fraudulent one sided value prosecution trying wrongfully intimidate the Plaintiff trying to jail the Plaintiff for a year without a jury, flagrantly ignoring Jamie Dimon et. al.'s criminality, an assault, and staging a fake Court case by the last name of Frank to fraudulently shape the narrative of the prosecution (Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton v. Department of Heath and Human Services, 844 F. Supp. 770 (D.D.C. 1993) With the spirit of the fraud psychotically implying something to the extent of hey look at us ( Judge, Legal Aid, and District Attorney ) were going to make up a fake Court case named Frank to talk over you, infuriate you, and cater to a one sided value prosecution of you, and not issue a warrant for Jamie Dimon, et. al. s arrest, not acknowledge your solutions, and keep executing wire dragnet with the intent to entrap and murder. The District Attorney and Judge are so over confident and arrogant about getting away with this fraud to cater to Warren Buffett and September 11, 2001 that they even call another fake court case Michael Clayton while the Plaintiff is recording the conversation, implying intent to murder the Plaintiff. Michael Clayton is the name of a lawyer from a film based on a true story from 2007 where the Government tries multiple times to murder Michael Clayton exposing fraud. 15 of 37
Ironically the lawyer Michael Clayton records the antagonist s conversations and the value Government antagonists are arrested. (See Exhibit I link to Plaintiff exposing the Courts Value Fraud Show with the Intent to Entrap and Murder) (Again, See Bruno Ward L. Thrasher 308 AD2d 160 Suspended 2 years nunc pro tunc 5/26/0222 NYCRR 603.3 (reciprocal discipline Supreme Judicial Court of Mass. Value Slip. op. 45) https://youtu.be/vxzcgefe5ps Due to this criminality the Plaintiff has filed complaints with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee. Unrelated to this malpractice action, but still of significance is the fact that the Plaintiff exposes the element of this criminality in such depth that it allows a Lehman to come to an understanding that the victims of similar fraud involving Bernard Madoff only recovered a few Billion dollars out of the over a Sixty Billion dollar fraud because recovering the money lost runs contrary to the corrupt Court, District Attorney, and unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University legal doctrine, and quite frankly the lawyers representing the Madoff victims know this, presumably don t mention it to their clients, and don t care. The lawyers are interested in collecting outrageous derivative legal fees, investing those fees into the value bubble stock market, then insider trading to maximize profit, and then if a hedge fund causes them to lose 16 of 37
money they complain to the Southern District Court where Defendant hedge fund s insider trade to pay their legal bills, and this pattern and practice of revolving door criminality continues on and on to no end (See United States v. Bernard L. Madoff, 09 Cr. 213 (DC). In this instance the Plaintiff seeks an extremely modest $96,000.00 dollars of damages proximately caused by Defendants malpractice. Authority: Damages in a legal malpractice action are designed to make the injured client whole The object of compensatory damages is to make the injured client whole Campagnola v. Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 N.Y.2d 38, 42, 555 N.E.2d 611, 556 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1990) at the Plaintiff and Courts discretion. The Plaintiff further establishes probable cause and Case Within a Case regarding Defendant Berkowitz malpractice and if the Defendant executed the superior strategy set forth by the Plaintiff would have put an end to the District Attorney s yearlong value bias prosecution, properly appointing a Special Prosecutor to investigate, indict, and prosecute Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. and, if it were not for the Case Within a Case conflicts of interest the Plaintiff would have succeeded on the underlying application. Defendant Berkowitz clearly misinforms the Plaintiff as to the proper course of action and what rights the Plaintiff has in pursuing 17 of 37
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. criminally or civilly (Aquino v. Kuczinski, Vila & Assoc., P.C.,39 A.D.3d 216, 218, 219, 835 N.Y.S.2d 16 (1stDep t 2007). Proximate Cause: But For Defendant Berkowitz malpractice the Plaintiff would have had Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. arrested, and a Special Prosecutor appointed. Proximate Cause Causation Rule: In order to establish the element of proximate cause, the Plaintiff in a legal malpractice action must demonstrate that he/she would have prevailed or had a better result on the underlying matter but for the attorney s malpractice. Clearly the Plaintiff would have had a better result in a timely manner so that the Plaintiff may get justice for Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. s ongoing criminality. The Plaintiffs contact with Jamie Dimon is related to SCCNY 156844/2014 and TCR1424794910224 where Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. personally responds to the Plaintiff. Clearly the Plaintiff was arrested without any probable cause on account of District Attorney thinking that mens rea through abuse of power could, put on a big value show to try to intimidate the Plaintiff and but for Defendant Berkowitz malpractice in not pointing out or correcting these conditions 18 of 37
proximately caused the Plaintiff damages in the amount of $96,000.00 dollars. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was and is still being illegally monitored by Laura Dimon by way of cell phone hacking and computer tampering targeting the Plaintiff through the Daily News L.P. Laura Dimon fraudulently passing performance and nonperformance data about the Plaintiff to her father placing trades asymmetrically relative to the marketplace in violation of various securities laws. The Plaintiff expects that Laura Dimon has done this with numerous other individuals abusing provisions set aside for reporting news to target individuals that her father Jamie Dimon has questions or problems with. But for Defendant Berkowitz malpractice in relation to the ongoing wire fraud purposefully misinforming the Plaintiff about the Defendants ability to stop the criminality and about how to proceed selecting an inferior course of action, would have resulted in the investigation, indictment, and prosecution of the ongoing criminality. Clearly the Plaintiff sets forth a superior course of action Jamie Dimon et. al. s criminality would have been investigated, indicted, and prosecuted (Barbara King Family Trust v. Voluto Ventures LLC, 46 A.D.3d 423, 424, 849 N.Y.S.2d 41 (1 st Dep t 2007). Defendant Berkowitz representation is so horrific the Plaintiff is forced to file a 19 of 37
Notice of Withdrawal of Motion removing Defendant Berkowitz Motion documents. However, the Court again does not acknowledge the Plaintiffs Notice of Withdrawal of Motion fraudulently responding to Defendant Berkowitz anyway. The Plaintiff would have prevailed in his efforts regarding the underlying action and application for Special Prosecutor, But For the Defendants malpractice (Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 867 N.E.2d 385, 387, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 536 (2007). As the Court can clearly see from Exhibit I Defendant Berkowitz malpractice and un-replied emails the Defendant makes no attempt to negotiate with the Plaintiff allowing this matter to escalate to no end, and transgress yet another Three months before filing this action. Damages: In accordance with statutes pertaining to the Standard of Care Rule regarding malpractice the Plaintiff establishes damages in the amount of ~$96,000.00 dollars and demonstrates that the Defendant failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession due to various conflicts of interest involving Defendant Berkowitz, District Attorney, Justice Watters, and Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. (Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 867 N.E.2d 20 of 37
385, 387, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 536 (2007). Where the injury suffered is the loss of a cause of action, the measure of damages is generally the value of the claim lost. Authority: Damages in a legal malpractice action are designed to make the injured client whole The object of compensatory damages is to make the injured client whole. Campagnola v. Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 N.Y.2d 38, 42, 555 N.E.2d 611, 556 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1990). Defendant Berkowitz malpractice resulted in real, actual, and ascertainable damages to the Plaintiff in excess of $96,000.00 dollars. Authority: The damages claimed in a legal malpractice action must be actual and ascertainable resulting from the proximate cause of the attorney s malpractice. The Plaintiff demonstrates that Defendant Berkowitz malpractice resulted in damages that are actual and ascertainable that resulted in the proximate cause of Defendant Berkowitz malpractice (Zarin v. Reid & Priest, Esqs.,184 A.D.2d 385, 387, 388, 585 N.Y.SW.2d 379 (1 st Dep t 1992). The Plaintiffs satisfies the Collectability Requirement Rule regarding damages, to The extent of a legal malpractice Plaintiffs damages will depend on the extent to which he/she could have collected on a judgment if one had been obtained in 21 of 37
the context of the underlying action. Again, it was the Plaintiffs expectation at the time that reporters report the news not coordinate with the likes of JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. to execute fanciful wire fraud delusions like JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. s Bruno Iksil to defraud the public, and then hide behind an unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University graft and malversation legal doctrine derived from September 11, 2001 with no Court dates or Jury to continue to get away with the fraud in Court proceedings in violation of Criminal Rules of the State of New York. Defendant Berkowitz malpractice resulted in the Plaintiff having to endure Three more months of the District Attorney s year long failed one sided value prosecution, and Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. s wire criminality closely coordinating with Justice Watters. Defendant Berkowitz should have coordinated with the Plaintiff, not the Judge, nor the District Attorney, nor Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al., and should have executed the superior strategy clearly outlined by the Plaintiff. Defendant Berkowitz did not execute the superior course of action in breach of his duty to the Plaintiff which is malpractice. Plaintiff proves the element of collectability irrespective of any possible defense that can be established by Defendant Berkowitz. The First Department holds that collectability is an 22 of 37
affirmative defense, whereas the Second Department holds that collectability is Plaintiffs burden to establish. To the extent that Larson v Crucet (105 AD2d 651 [1984]) holds that proof of the collectability of the underlying judgment is an essential element of the Plaintiffs cause of action for legal malpractice, we overrule that decision. Lindenman v. Kreitzer, 7 A.D.3d 30, 35, 775 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1 st Dep t 2004) The Supreme Court previously determined that a Plaintiff in an action to recover damages for legal malpractice bore the burden of establishing that a hypothetical judgment in the underlying action would have been collectible against the third party debtor. Jedlicka v. Field, 14 A.D.3d 596,597, 787 N.Y.S.2d 888 (2d Dep t 2005). In this instance the Plaintiff is not only able to prove that a hypothetical judgment in the underlying action would have been collectible against the third party debtor, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., but the Plaintiff exposes Defendant Berkowitz purposefully trying to misinform the Plaintiff about this and other legal nuance s and technicalities trying to fraudulently bank on the Plaintiffs perceived inexperience and lack of legal knowledge in breach of the Defendants duty to the Plaintiff. But for Defendant Berkowitz malpractice the Plaintiff would have prevailed on the underlying action more effectively and the Plaintiffs application for Special 23 of 37
Prosecutor, Motion, and supporting documents would have been addressed in accordance with Criminal Rules of the State of New York. That being said, the Court s graft and malversation as it relates to covering up and accommodating Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. value criminality is beyond repulsive, and Defendant Berkowitz is merely a pawn in an expansive value zero sum federal wire fraud scam involving value aligned corporations not limited to Time Warner Inc. This expansive wire fraud criminality is coordinated at the hands of federal law enforcement, District Attorney, Justices, and Court appointed Counsel, on account of value aligned corporate entities, manipulating the NYState Bar to no end preventing the Plaintiff from retaining private counsel in violation of the Plaintiffs 6 th Amendment rights obstructing justice for the Plaintiff in every capacity. Furthermore, the Plaintiff establishes punitive damages against Defendant Berkowitz. Punitive Damages Rule: Plaintiff must demonstrate a high degree of moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty in order to recover punitive damages. Defendants malpractice highlight a high degree of moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty in favor of purposeful malpractice to 24 of 37
accommodate Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. s criminality for various conflicts of interest. Statutorily imposed treble damages are also available to a legal malpractice Plaintiff under certain specific circumstances pursuant to Judiciary Law 487. Here the Plaintiff meets or exceeds the statutory guidelines establishing and demonstrating that Defendant Berkowitz conduct was so outrageous respective of the evidence demonstrating a high degree of moral turpitude and showing such wanton dishonesty to the Plaintiff as to imply a criminal indifference (see, Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401, 405). Zarin v. Reid & Priest, Esqs., 184 A.D.2d 385, 388, 585 N.Y.SW.2d 379 (1 st Dep t 1992). However, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court waive imposing further punitive damages against Defendant Berkowitz in addition to the relief sought. Judiciary Law 487: An attorney or counselor who: 1. Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party; or, 2. Willfully delays his client s suit with a view to his own gain; or, willfully receives any money or allowance for or on account of any money which he has not laid out, or becomes answerable for, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to 25 of 37
the punishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action. The Plaintiff meets or exceeds the statutory burden of Judiciary Law 487 where Defendant Berkowitz is clearly colluding, and consenting to deceive the Plaintiff willfully delaying the Plaintiffs trial in violation of speedy trial laws so that Defendant Berkowitz may gain favors from the Court, and District Attorney who have conflicts of interest regarding representing the Plaintiff forfeiting treble damages. Again, the graft, malversation, and one sided value prosecution by District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. is so egregious that Justice Watters is allowing Legal Aid Society call fake court cases as retribution for the Plaintiff exposing Legal Aid Society s continuous Seven year malpractice and horrendous representation causing the Plaintiff proximate damages of ~$1.8Billion dollars (Weinstock v. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton No. 830, Docket 93-7727, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Jan. 12, 1994). The Legal Aid Society has repeatedly called some fake court case with the last name Frank with the intent to psychologically distress the Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiffs cousin Peter C. Frank who was murdered in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center by way of Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. abuse of improperly formed monopoly s 26 of 37
influence over the Middle East to murder David Alger of Fred Alger asset management. This is the exact type of graft and malversation that has been ongoing for over a year in relation to the District Attorney s failed one sided value prosecution, and ongoing in its totality for the past Seventeen years. The District Attorney s sense of value entitlement to prosecute this case irrespective of SCCNY 162168/2014 Entry 108, SCCNY 156844/2014 Entry 108, and the fact that Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. s Bruno Iksil doesn t exist is beyond alarming and detached from reality. The problems between Warren Buffett and David Alger are well documented leading into September 11, 2001. This is the exact context in which the criminality is derived, and remains ranging from the Courts current disgusting graft and malversation, to the lawyers packaging Credit Default Swaps and not prosecuting Bankers for 2008, to the previous invasion of Irag after the events of September 11, 2001 executing an expansive federal miss-informative value fraud against the public similar to the current federal fraud involving sarin gas in Syria and the border wall, in line with an obsolete unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University legal doctrine. 27 of 37
That being said, Alger Asset Management is not without fault. Secretary State Colin Powell s staff negotiated with Fred Alger in Switzerland after the attacks on the World Trade Center. However, for the past Seven years Daniel Chung, now CEO of Alger Asset management, has ignored the Plaintiff selling out to federal point 72 value pressure, in return for fraudulent investment. In the eyes of the Plaintiff Daniel Chung s fraudulent actions warrant Alger Asset Management no placement in the global marketplace especially where the Plaintiffs solutions SCCNY 156844/2014 Entry 108 and SCCNY 162168/2014 Entry 108 properly strike down the unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University legal doctrine derived from September 11, 2001. Daniel Chung s spineless federal posture regarding selling out for fraudulent investment, thinking that the Plaintiff was unaware of events in Switzerland, not communicating with the Plaintiff, contributing to fraudulently forcing the Plaintiff onto Social Security Disability, and the Plaintiff defeating the value scam anyway, is perhaps the most insidious fraud ever stemming from September 11, 2001(See Alger Asset Management SEC TCR1488836331541 Exhibit V). The graft and malversation outlined by the Plaintiff above is further highlighted by Justice Watters, Legal Aid Society, and the District Attorney s value arrogance and over confidence 28 of 37
that would not stand a chance at trial even with the Plaintiffs 6 th Amendment Constitution rights violated, let alone if argued in front of a jury, or in a public context globally for everyone to see. Defendant Berkowitz malpractice is complicit in allowing this type of collusion to persist in breach of the Defendants duty to the Plaintiff. Pre Judgment Interest Rule: In New York a Plaintiff in a legal malpractice action is entitled to pre judgment interest, which runs at 9% per year, from the date of the malpractice. Authority: CPLR 5001 operates to permit an award of prejudgment interest from the date of accrual of the malpractice action in actions seeking damages for attorney malpractice. In relevant part, CPLR 5001(b) provides: [I]nterest shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed, except that interest upon damages incurred thereafter shall be computed from the date incurred. Where such damages were incurred at various times, interest shall be computed upon each item from the date it was incurred or upon all of the damages from a single reasonable intermediate date. Barnett v. Schwartz, 47 A.D.3d 197, 208, 848 N.Y.S.2d 663, 671 (2d Dep t 2007). 29 of 37
Defendant Berkowitz malpractice is further highlighted by evidentiary emails placing this claim in good standing and well within Statute of Limitations for malpractice (Macaluso v. Del Col, 95 A.D.3d 959, 960,944 N.Y.S.2d 589, 590 (2d Dep t 2012). Through the Defendants malpractice the Plaintiff is able to pick apart and expose the Courts graft, malversation, and one sided value prosecution by the District Attorney. In this context the Courts find themselves in a legal paradigm shift away from the unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University graft and malversation legal doctrine derived from September 11, 2001 in favor of a balanced legal egalitarian doctrine where the merits of the case decide the outcome. The merits of this case stand tall cemented by Plaintiffs superseding proposals in SCCNY 156844/2014 Entry 108 saving Hundreds of Thousands of lives and creating ~$500Billion dollar surplus for the United States Government in the next Eight years and SCCNY 162168/2014 Entry 108 generating 242Trillion kwh of energy per year (Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948). Aiding and Abetting Rule: Separate causes of action can be asserted for claims such as aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting a fraud. Authority: 30 of 37
A cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty merely requires a prima facie showing of a fiduciary duty owed to a Plaintiff,... a breach of that duty, and Defendant substantial assistance... in effecting the breach, together with resulting damages. Yuko Ito v. Suzuki, 57 A.D.3d 205, 869 N.Y.S.2d 28, 31 (1 st Dep t 2008). Dkt. No. 2016NY003806 Jamie Dimon personally writes to the Plaintiff indicating his intent to begin to pay for the outstanding liability and ongoing criminality. However, due to the graft, malversation, and bias the Court has flagrantly overlooked this very simple fact, and very simple facts like Bruno Iksil not existing. However, the Court, District Attorney, and Defendant Berkowitz seem to think the Plaintiff is not aware of this ongoing coordinated collusion, malpractice, graft, and malversation laced with fanciful circumlocutive banter of value lies to obstruct justice for the Plaintiff Court date after Court date. In this context Defendant Berkowitz seeks to aide and abed mens rea Defendant Jamie Dimon, and JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. s ongoing criminality. In order to plead properly a claim for aiding and abetting fraud, the complaint must allege: (1) the existence of an underlying fraud; (2) knowledge of this 31 of 37
fraud on the part of the aider and abettor; and (3) substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in achievement of the fraud (Stanfield Offshore Leveraged Assets, Ltd. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 64 A.D.3d 472, 476, 883 N.Y.S.2d 486, 490 (1 st Dep t 2009). The Plaintiff establishes that Defendant Berkowitz aided and abetted Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. s criminality in favor of purposefully playacting to District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. and Courts value conflicts of interest fraudulently receiving favors to do so in line with the unspoken Warren Buffett Columbia University graft and malversation legal doctrine, which is again a doctrine derived from September 11, 2001 where Warren Buffett wanted David Alger murdered and did so through improperly formed monopoly of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. financially manipulating Jewish and Arab business entities domestically and abroad murdering the Plaintiffs cousin Peter C. Frank. Furthermore, In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a Plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney s breach of this duty proximately caused the Plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages (Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 32 of 37
867 N.E.2d 385, 387, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 536 (2007). The Plaintiffs state a claim for malpractice against Defendant Berkowitz who clearly fails to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession in favor of accommodating District Attorney and Courts conflicts of interest. For a Defendant in a legal malpractice action to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, evidence must be submitted in admissible form establishing that the Plaintiff is able to prove at least one of [the] essential elements. Shopsin v. Siben & Siben, Esqs.,268 A.D.2d 578, 702 N.Y.S.2d 610 (2d Dep t 2000). Defendant Berkowitz malpractice in trying to not recognize Dkt. No. 2016NY003806 Plaintiffs request for Special Prosecutor, Subpoena, Order to Show Cause, and Memorandum in Support of the Order to Show Cause are sufficient to satisfy the expert testimony requirement rule. Expert Testimony Requirement Rule: Expert testimony is generally required in order to establish an attorney s malpractice. Authority: Expert testimony is normally needed to establish that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, unless the ordinary experience of the fact finder, in this instance the Court, provides sufficient basis for judging the adequacy of the professional 33 of 37
service, for the attorney's conduct falls below any standard of due care. Northrop v. Thorsen, 46 A.D.3d 780, 782, 848 N.Y.S.2d 304, 308 (2d Dep t 2007). The malpractice by Defendant Berkowitz is alarming. Clearly the Plaintiff works in good faith with Defendant Berkowitz making request for Special Prosecutor, writing Subpoena, Order to Show Cause and Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum in Support. These documents are filed with affidavit of service. However, Defendant Berkowitz, District Attorney, and Court clearly fail in taking these filings into account, after accounting for the filing on the record, flagrantly trying to cover up and accommodate Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et. al. s fraud where Defendant Berkowitz malpractice not only fails to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession in breach of Defendant Berkowitz duty, but is in violation of New York Codes Rules and Regulations of Criminal procedure. This type of incestuous revolving door criminality isn t only facially sufficient to meet the prima facie burden to establish Plaintiffs malpractice claim, but exposes a wider criminal nexus within the Court involving Court justices and the District Attorney implementing an unspoken Warren Buffett 34 of 37
Columbia University graft and malversation legal doctrine and one sided value application of law with the intent mens rea to cover up and accommodate Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. s et. al. ongoing criminality being perpetrated against the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs company G1 Quantum Fund, LLC where clearly a warrant for Jamie Dimon et. al. s arrest should have been made in accordance with New York Codes Rules and Regulations of Criminal procedure 11 months ago. 35 of 37
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays for relief against Defendant Berkowitz as follows: (a) compensatory damages for loss proximately caused by the malpractice in the amount of ~$96,000.00 dollars with interest; (b) interest, costs, and reasonable fees incurred by the Plaintiff in prosecution of this action; 36 of 37
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable in this action. May 8 th, 2017 New York City, New York By: 235 Sullivan St. Apt 2 New York, New York 10012 Ph: (347-445-8227) Email: Greg@g1quantumfund 37 of 37