Thomas J. Hillgardner, Esq. Thomas J. Hillgardner, attorney, harassment, defamation, arrested for harassment, arrested, arrest, lawsuit, sued Queens, New York

HILLGARDNER IS LOSING IT

On February 2, 2014, Hillgardner sent an email to the attorney who was drafting the lawsuit against Hillgardner and stated quote:

When was the last time you saw an ETHICAL and MATURE attorney write like that?
What makes Hillgardner's statement foolish is that the FACTS in the email he mentions are DOCUMENTED and he makes GENERALIZED statements so he does not have to prove himself. Hillgardner also insulted the attorney he was writing to by inferring they take MERITLESS cases. Talk about a nutbag attorney. 

HILLGARDNER MADE A FOOL OF HIMSELF

On January 31, 2015, Hillgardner wrote an email to an attorney at Rosenberg & Estis complaining that a landlord was having another attorney prepare a lawsuit against Hillgardner for aiding and abetting a nuisance and for sanctions for filing frivolous  motions and applications with the Courts and Loft Board. Hillgardner did NOT realize that the attorney he was speaking to was the attorney who was drafting the lawsuit against Hillgardner........this is hilarious. I have never witnessed such reckless and foolish behavior from an attorney in my 24 years working in the legal system. Hillgardner is a clown. 

HILLGARDNER LACKS FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL KNOWLEDGE

On December 15, 2014, Hillgardner appeared at a conference within the Surrogate Court to push his frivolous claim for attorney fees on a pending L&T case that did not award him any attorney fees. Hillgardner foolishly sat there while four (4) seasoned attorneys schooled him on how the estate of the deceased would NOT be liable to him for attorney fees because, by law, the new owner of the building would take liability for the pending L&T case. Plus, the new owner indemnified the estate from any claims dealing with the building. Hillgardner sat there laughing through his crooked yellow teeth like a dysfunctional school child agreeing that he would withdraw his frivolous claim if the attorneys educated him further by sending him case law. 

 

 

HILLGARDNER LOSES YET AGAIN

On June 11, 2014, Hillgardner filed an application with the NYC Loft Board claiming that a building located in NYC did NOT register with that agency in 2013 and that he wanted the landlord to be sanctioned. In fact, the building was registered with the NYC Loft Board in 2013. Hillgardner is an idiot. A good attorney would have made a FOIL REQUEST first before filing such a frivolous application. A major law firm in NYC is now preparing a lawsuit against Hillgardner to be filed within the NYC Supreme Court in 2015 for his multiple frivolous applications and motions. 

HILLGARDNER LOSES AGAIN!

On September 23, 2013, Judge Love of the Queens Civil Court DENIED Hillgardner's motion to amend the complaint on fundamental grounds (The main motion was dismissed; but Hillgardner knowingly filed a cross-motion under the dismissed motion). Any good attorney would have NEVER filed a cross-motion under a dismissed motion. It makes it fundamentally defective requiring dismissal. Hillgardner could not even understand this issue.

Hillgardner v. Chambi 008274/10 (Queens)

HILLGARDNER SETTLED THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY CLAIMS

Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 64682/11

On December 2, 2011, Thomas Hillgardner gave legal papers to his ex-girlfriend, Ruth Baumann, to serve on me in Court. She committed an assault and battery during her service of those papers. A police report and a lawsuit was filed against her for the assault and battery. 

On August 6, 2013, Thomas Hillgardner settled the lawsuit against and on behalf of his ex-girlfriend, Ruth Baumann. He wanted the words "settled amicably" to be mentioned and he did not want the "terms" of the settlement to be disclosed to the public. 

**If Thomas Hillgardner has harmed you, contact TenantProtection.org**

HILLGARDNER VIOLATES DR 2-103 under Porter vs. NYC Housing Authority Index No. 017424/11 (Queens)


A complaint has been filed with Tenant Protection Services against Mr. Hillgardner by a former client for his solicitation of the client in Court and for abandoning the client. The Disciplinary Committee is being informed and an attorney is being hired to determine whether there is a claim for legal malpractice.

Mr. Hillgardner knew that his former client was homeless and her lawsuit was to get her back into an apartment she lived in for the last 29 years and for damages. Her complaint shows Mr. Hillgardner's complete disregard for her well-being and her situation. 

The Disciplinary rule reads as follows:

"DR 2-103 [1200.08] Solicitation and Recommendation of Professional Employment.A. A lawyer shall not engage in solicitation:1. by in-person or telephone contact, or by real-time or interactive computer-accessed communication unless the recipient is a close friend, relative, former client or existing client"

COMPLAINT AGAINST THOMAS HILLGARDNER BY FORMER CLIENT:


April
15, 2013



Reference:
Mr. Hillgardner


Mr. Mehmet,
 
As per our conversation on 4/10/13 when I emailed you about seeking another lawyer, I am stating my case briefly to you so can help me.
 
On June 14, 2010 I was in Civil Court for a Travis Hearing to be reinstated back to my home of 29years, when I was called in for the hearing was first when I came across Mr. Hillgardner. Before I went into the hearing Mr. Hillgardner approached me and asked me could he sit in on my hearing and that he was an Attorney. At the time I was very distressed, confused and did not think twice about Mr. Hillgardner sitting in on my hearing since he presented himself to me as an Attorney. After the hearing I had to return after lunch for the decision. After I won the decision he asked me could he represent me
as his client. I had agreed to him being my Attorney because I did not know any better at the time.
 
Since June 14, 2010 he became my Attorney and I thought that he was going to represent me in a professional manner. During the first year I had many problems with getting in contact with him, and when I did he seemed to be very disrespectful most of the time. He talked very nasty to me and my son on numerous of occasion. I lived at the time
from one family relative to another until March 2011. Due to the seriousness of me being homeless I was unable to deal with anyone especially my Attorney that made me feel worse than I did. By May of 2011 he pushed me to the limit and I decided not to call him for awhile. I stopped calling October 2011 up until December 2012 a little over a year later. I have not heard anything from him for nothing. The last time I heard from him was when I was waiting to hear from an Appeal from Supreme Applet Courts.
 
When I called him December 2012 he stated, "Ms. Porter I was just thinking of you, I just got the decision for your Civil Court Case and you won the decision." He also stated, "That something was wrong with his phone back in July of 20112 and he could not contact me." I did not understand because I still have the same number and I never received a call from him nor did I get a missed called neither. OK, I felt that all was water under the bridge something good is about to happen with my case. Still his attitude was rude and unbearable to deal with for me and my son. So when he hung up the phone on me this time I decided to GOOGLE him to find out what kind of Attorney record he has and only then I realized that I made the biggest mistake by signing a retainer with him. I also found out on March 28, 2013 that my Supreme Court case was removed of the calendar because when I was called to appear in Court sometime in July of 2012 he (when I decided because of his disrespectful manner not to call him) never contact me until I called him in December 2012.
 
He stated to me that he was putting a motion into the court and I was to wait for his call the week of April 8. 2013 and he did not called me. When I called him April 10, 2013 he was very disrespectful to me and told me, "you are not paying me any money." I stated, Why would you say that when I signed a retainer so you would get paid. He stated, I can not call him when ever I wanted to and expect him to talk to me, and if I do not like what he is saying then I can find
another Attorney. Besides you get more from a person being sweet as honey bees, than sour like vinegar. He then hung up the phone and I have not heard anything from him since then. I only called him because he never returned my call and it is important to speak with him ASAP to get my case back on the calendar.

PLEASE HELP me I have a case in Civil Court with Judge Badio for NYCH to restore me back into a place. I am currently living in a family shelter for 2 years and need to get out.. I also have a Supreme Court case for damages that I need to be restored back to the calendar. I can be reached anytime at (((ROR redacted))). I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Thank You,

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report. Once lawyers are willing to take on a case against a business, those lawyers will make arrangements with Rip-off Report to put alleged victims in touch with them. Read this link to see why this is for your own protection.

Talk about a loser....This lawyer Hillgardner is a clown....He lost 2 more times......

HILLGARDNER LOSES YET AGAIN!

On? January 8, 2013, Judge Rakower immediately signed an Order denying
Hillgardner's re-argument motion she received that same day. The
Judge rejected his ridiculous and flawed arguments. About 95% of the
legal arguments that defeated him were drafted by a paralegal. It is my
opinion that Hillgardner is a very bad lawyer. At times, his arguments
are unintelligible.
Chanbi v. Baumann Index No. 111569/2010

AND YET AGAIN HILLGARNER LOSES

On February 13, 2013, the New York City Loft Board REJECTED
Hillgardner's ridiculous and foolish letter that claimed a landlord
failed to comply with their Order No. 2135 and 2271 when the building
plans clearly? showed compliance.

Hillgardner is one of the worst attorneys I have every met in my entire life...Did this guy even go to law school?

HILLGARDNER IS A REAL CREEP

This idiot lawyer Hillgardner knew that my mother passed away and that I took her body overseas for burial. But instead of informing the Judge and allowing the court to adjourn my motion, he allowed the court do deny the motion on non-appearance. He's a real creep of a human being. Nevertheless, the motion will be re-filed against him when? I get back. When I get back, I have a surprise for this creep.

Hillgardner v. Chambi 008274/10 (Queens)

This is more proof why I have always believed that Mr. Thomas J. Hilgarder is a bad lawyer. If a paralegal can continue to defeat him in Court, what do you think a seasoned and well educated attorney can do to him:

In addition to the prior defeats, Mr. Hillgarder suffered the following defeats in 2012 at the hands of a paralegal:

DEFEAT #1

Mehmet v. Hillgardner Index No. 103282 (Supreme. NY)

Judge Oing denied Mr. Hillgardner's motion to dismiss the complaint and he stated that Mr. Hillgardner's letter was defamatory and there exists an issue of fact as to whether an absolute privilege defense exists. However, Mr. Hillgardner foolishly re-published the defamatory letter to another 3rd party while the defamation claim against him was still pending. Thus, there is NO absolute or qualified privilege defense in his favor (The Order is made on the transcripts, which will be so Order shortly and placed in the court file).

DEFEAT #2

Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 111569/10 (Supreme, NY)

His motion to dismiss his case against his client/ex-girlfriend, Ruth Baumann (Defendant),  was denied and the paralegal's cross-motion, which was submitted by the Plaintiff's attorney was granted.

Here is the Order
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2010OCT/3001032822010001SCIV.pdf

DEFEAT #3

Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. 64682/11 (Civ., NY)

This is the assault case. Mr. Hillgardner's ridiculous request to examine the Plaintiff's clothing on the side walk outside Baumann's apartment was denied by the Judge. The Judge ruled that compliance with the conditional order for discovery was met and Mr. Hillgardner can no longer examine the clothing before the trial.

DEFEAT #4

Mehmet v. Baumann L&T Index No.065389/12 (Housing Court)

His motion to dismiss this housing court case is being denied.

This is the L&T case to remove Baumann from the apartment she is only using as an office and NOT as her primary residence. Mr. Hillgardner took about 3-5 minutes arguing to Judge Schrieber that Baumann has a strong nexus (connection) to the apartment. Even after the Judge explained to him that she could have a strong nexus to the apartment; but it had to be for "actual living purposes", he still couldn't understand the legal theory. And he continued arguing the nexus to the apartment without disclosing any facts that would establish "actual living purposes". He foolishly told the Judge that the issue of "SLEEPING IN THE APARTMENT" was irrelevant when it was a major element to prove "actual living purposes". It was very clear that he had NO experience with L&T practice.

**They don't realize that we know Baumann is MARRIED and she has been living with her husband for a few years in another location. She thinks she is fooling us by NOT wearing her wedding ring. We know more than she thinks...She has already lost her case....she just doesn't know it yet.***

THIS IS MORE PROOF WHY I THINK MR. THOMAS J. HILLGARDNER IS A BAD LAWYER.

This psycho lawyer, Thomas Hillgardner, is still harassing people. It seams getting arrested twice for harassment is NOT enough for Mr. Hillgardner. It appears he is working on a third arrest for harassment.

On February 20, 2012, I got the following message from my prior attorney from GEICO who was representing me in a car accident where a Taxi hit my side passenger door and attempted to blame me. My prior attorney accused  Mr. Hillgardner of harassing her.


Rec'd on February 20, 2012 @ 9:58AM

Hi David, It's Leah Chipkin, your attorney at GEICO for the car accident
that you were sued for by a Taxi company. Please call me back at
516-________. I got a very strange call from a man named Tom
Hillgardner just trying to grill me about this particular lawsuit. He
started going into details about some landlord and tenant debacle you
guys are involved in. And I don't appreciate him calling me and
trying to ______ in what is going on with this suit. And I would like
to speak to you and just find out what is going on? Do you have a
lawyer in that suit who should be calling that man or just
controlling him because this lawsuit between you and me, he has no
business in.


Rec'd on February 20, 2012 @ 10AM

David, this is Leah Chipkin. Never mind. I do not represent you anymore. You
represented yourself in this case. It was a whole big deal. You
didn't want to be represented by inhouse counsel to GEICO. So, I am
going to call Tom Hillgardner and tell him that this case is no
longer with me and to not harass me again.

The ex-girlfriend of Mr. Hillgardner, Ruth Buamann, was called into Court under an Order to Show Cause for disobeying a Court Order to attend her deposition.

After the OSC hearing, Mr. Hillgardner gave Ruth Baumann motion papers to serve on me outside the courtroom. Ms. Baumann then starting running toward me and screaming at the top of her voice. She then hit me on the chest with the motion papers so hard that the plastic edge of the binder punctured my skin. She then screamed "It works both ways!". She meant that if I can serve her with an OSC, she can serve me with a motion. Her statement uncovered actual malice toward me that Mr. Hillgardner was aware of. Her bad conduct was foreseeable. Mr. Hillgardner could have just mailed the motion papers to me. Instead, he and his ex-girlfriend, Ruth Baumann, sought the satisfaction of retaliation in the courthouse by committing assault and battery upon me.

This is NOT the normal behavior of law abiding decent people. This act further uncovers the bad character of Mr. Hillgardner. And like minds associate with each other.


I filed a criminal complaint with the Fifth Police Precinct against Ms. Ruth Baumann for aggravated harassment in the second degree (NY Penal Code 240.30), I notified the Judge in the Civil case against Mr. Hillgardner and I sued Ms. Baumann for the assault and battery within the New York Civil Court under Mehmet v. Baumann Index No. CV-064682-11/NY



 

This is an UPDATE to the previous post claiming that Mr. Hillgardner is NOT a good attorney.

Mr. Hillgardner followed his discovery request documents with a Motion to Compel me to answer his demands I described in the above post.  After two months and 3 court dates, the Judge REFUSED to grant Mr. Hillgardner's motion to compel to force me to respond to his discovery....The Judge told Mr Hillgardner to just go take my deposition. I am also now able to take Mr. Hillgardner's deposition on December 5, 2011. I am going to show the World that Mr. Hillgardner is a liar, and that he has repeatedly made false statements in documents he filed with the City of New York.

If Mr. Hillgardner was your attorney in this case, you may have paid him for these Court dates and this failed motion to compel. You wouldn't even know if he made any mistakes in your case. And thus, you couldn't fight him on the bill.

I told you....It is my opinion that he is NOT a good lawyer.  It is also my opinion of 17 years working in the legal industry that this would have not happened to a good attorney.

UPDATE

I was forced to post this update in RESPONSE to Mr. Hillgardner's continued statements that he is a good lawyer. I believe that Mr. Hillgardner is NOT a good lawyer. My belief is based on the following evidence:

In the Mehmet v. Hillgardner lawsuit recently, Mr. Hillgardner made demands in his Interrogatory and document requests that contradict his claims that he is a good lawyer.

Examples of Hillgardner's demands:

10. All prescriptions written for you by a physician or pharmacist from January 1, 1991 to the present time.

11. All emails sent to you by the Defendant (Hillgardner)

13. Identify the addressee of the letter of Defendant (Hillgardner) dated November 6, 2010 as alledged in paragraph 21 of the amended complaint.

20. The death certificate of Orhan Mehmet

22. All video recordings and photographs of the Defendant (Hillgardner)

23. Any records of communication between Linda Levitt and Bahia Mehmet Bin Chambi.

Any good attorney would know that demand 10 is overly broad and abusive and no court would grant a request for 20 years of prescription records. A good attorney would not draft demand 11 like that since it requests emails that Hillgardner sent himself and he has personal knowledge of it. A good attorney would not draft demand 13 like that since it requests the address on the letter Hillgardner sent himself and he has personal knowledge of it. A good attorney would know that demand 20 is irrelevant and goes beyond the scope of the demand as the death of my brother 11 years ago has nothing to do with the present lawsuit against him for defamation and harassment. A good attorney would further know that demand 22 is overly broad as it requests "ALL" video recordings and photographs on a global scale. Even the ones in his possession. A good lawyer would also know that demand 23 goes beyond the scope of the demand because it requests records that were created by two separate people outside of the lawsuit and Hillgardner was suppose to serve them with a subpoena.

Hillgardner's drafted legal demands are NOT examples of a good lawyer. They are examples of an amateur. Hillgardner made many more ridiculous demands like these. In addition to these ridiculous demands, Mr. Hillgardner sued the City of New York multiple times and lost. He also lost his motion to move my my lawsuit against him to Queens county. A good lawyer would have known that a person can have more than one residence for jurisdictional purposes.As a senior litigation paralegal with over 16 years of experience, I have never seen a GOOD attorney draft such bad interrogatory and document demands. Nor have I ever seen a good lawyer lose motions and lawsuits on such fundamental issues.Thus, the evidence contradicts Hillgardner's claims that he is a good lawyer.

Therefore, I must disagree with Hillgardner's claims that he is a good lawyer. I believe Mr. Hillgardner is NOTa good lawyer.

As you can see from Mr. Hillgardner's writing, he is clearly not a stable person and he acts very immature for his age. Especially for an attorney. It may disclose that he has some psychologicalproblems. But it is clear that he is a person of questionable character.

It is very disturbing to watch him in Court. He twitches, speaks to himself and at times laughs for no reason as he stands alone. I and other people have witnessed this abnormal behavior of his in Court.

I stand by my claims against Mr. Hillgardner. He was arrested twice. Once for harassing a police officer. He gave a statement to the New York Times reporter who quoted him in the article admitting to the arrest, which he forgot. And he was arrested a second time for abusing a Court officer. The Judge in that civil case stated the arrest was quote "Justified" because Mr. Hillgardner had abused the Court officer repeatedly and he refused to stop when ordered. This adds to the belief that Mr. Hillgardner may be suffering from psychological problems. In my 16 years working with attorneys, I have never heard of an attorney being arrested for this type of behavior before. It is highly unusual.

Hillgardner's first arrest for harassing a police officer:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/13/nyregion/the-space-race-why-is-it-so-hard-to-find-a-parking-spot-in-manhattan.html?pagewanted=1

Hillgardner's quoted statement in the article:

'I told the cop that he could not give a ticket if there was no 'No Parking' sign on the block,'' said Mr. Hillgardner, who no longer has a car of his own. The officer was unconvinced, he said, and told him to move along. Twice.Mr. Hillgardner did not comply and was arrested for harassment. He was held in a station house jail for six hours, he said, before he was released and told to appear in court in December.

Hillgardner's second arrest for abusing a Court Officer:http://www.nccr.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=410:thomas-j-hillgardnerclaimant-v-the-state-of-new-york

In the Civil lawsuit involving his abuse of the Court officer, Mr. Hillgardner testified that quote:

"I know how to push people's buttons and I felt that there was no downside to pushing a button or two at that point, and I might have done that"

Abusing the court officer was a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, by his own statement, Mr. Hllgardner admitted that he intentionally violates attorney ethical codes when he sees no downside.

In Mr. Hillgardner's lawsuit in Queens against my mother and I, Mr. Hillgardner was scolded by the Queens Civil Judge for about 10 min. for filing his lawsuit against me and my mother. The judge told Mr. Hillgardner that he was wasting the Judge's time and the Court's time with his defamation lawsuit because if there was any defamation, which there was NOT, he failed to prove any damges. Thus, any award would be nominal of $1. The judge went on to tell him the the trial judge was going to be upset with the lawsuit too because the court has other more important cases to deal with.

Nevertheless, I stand by my statements against Mr. Hillgardner 100%. My statements against him are true and I have documented evidence to prove that Mr. Hillgardner made intentional false statements to the Loft Board and the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings while representing his ex-girlfriend. This includes engaging in harassment. I will be presenting this documented evidence to the Court. I will also post it on the internet.

When Mr. Hillgrardner asked the Manhattan Judge in my lawsuit against him to dismiss the harassing statements within my complaint that he made about my mother, the Judge refused. The judge merely dismissed statements about Mr. Hillgardner's arrest because she believed the jury would be overly influenced by the separate incident of harassment that did not include me or my mother.

Finally, I am a senior litigation paralegal not an attorney and I act as such. And a paralegal who has defeated Mr. Hillgardner in Court. This is where his anger comes from as witnessed by his immature comments meant to insult me; but instead add they proof to his mental instability.

If you have suffered any abuse at the hands of Mr. Hillgardner, you can send me an email via badisse dot com and I will put you in touch with someone within the legal industry who can help you.

Mr. Mehmet filed his lawsuit against me in response to my lawsuit against him and his mother (Hillgardner v. Chambi, Civ. Ct., Queens Co., Index No. 8274/2010) for defamation arising from a letter that he and/or his mother filed with the Loft Board making many false statements about me. His goal is to intimidate me so that I cease representing the tenants of the building that his mother owns. He filed a letter with the New York City Loft Board falsely accusing me of drug use, being arrested (as if that is a crime), and being a leader of a political party that actually is defunct.None of his allegations were even remotely relevant to the Loft Board access application in which he made those allegations. They were gratuitous, irrelevant, and designed solely to slander me and harm my reputation before a city agency before which I frequently practice.

Mr. Mehmet believes his allegations constitute proof of facts. Mr. Mehmet attends an online law school and thinks he is an attorney and is in for a rude awakening when he attempts to get admitted to the bar of the State of New York, if he even passes the bar exam, let alone is allowed to sit for it.

Mr. Mehmet claims I lost my motion to strike when in fact the Court granted my motion to the extent of ordering the same allegations upon which I sued him for defamation stricken from his complaint as irrelevant. Soon Mr. Mehmet will learn about the limitations of the legal doctrine of absolute immunity in defamation lawsuits.

Mr. Mehmet claims I was arrested based on a New York Times article that itself got the facts wrong. I would write more here, but I'd rather see the look on his face in open court when he finds out the truth. Today, December 20, 2010, in open court, a Judge (Hon. Leslie J. Purificacion, J.C.C.) told Mr. Mehmet that he better not rely on a report in the New York Times to prove that I was arrested. Good advice!

As for my second arrest, there is no mention of my acquittal after trial. Again, Mr. Mehmet believes his allegations constitute proof of facts. While I lost my civil suit for false arrest that I subsequently persued against the court officer who arrested me, I have appealed that decision and am hopeful that the trial judge will be reversed on appeal. Moreover, that case was in the NYS Court of Claims where you are not entitled to a jury trial. I suspect the result would have been different if the trial was before a jury instead of before a judge.

With regard to the parking tickets, I am one of the most knowledgeable attorneys in the City of New York on the subject of parking tickets. While Mr. Mehmet argues that my lawsuit against the City was dismissed, he fails to mention that the City completely caved on the case and refunded the fine on the parking ticket and admitted that I was not guilty as charged. Moreover, the Court's decision (Hon. Harold Tompkins, J.S.C.) dismissing my lawsuit as moot (the City having offered to dismiss the ticket and refund the fine)has been proven to be improper as per the decision of Justice Anne Schlesinger, J.S.C. in Ko v. City of New York (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co., 100664/2009).

Mr. Mehmet's conduct in sliming my reputation here is motivated by his desire to get me to stop representing the tenants of 26 Bond Street where I have zealously advocated for the tenants insisting that his mother strictly comply with the Loft Law in legalizing her Loft Law building. I represent every Loft Law tenant in the building and my clients are so pleased with my representation that they have stayed with me for fifteen years while Mr. Mehmet's mother has gone through more attorneys than I can count.

Mr. Mehmetsuffers from impaired ability to reason. He believes that if I am opposed to the Waron Drugs then I must be a drug addict. The American Bar Association supports drug decriminalization. Mr. Mehmet has psychological issues with drugsbecause his brother died of a heroin overdose. Yet he is quick to run to his doctor to get a prescription for generic Xanax when he receives an attorney letter warning him against unlawful conduct.

Ultimately, he is in desperate search of evidence that I use illegal drugs because he is afraid that I am going to win my defamation suit against him. That is what this Rip-off Report is all about. (Check out the solicitation for information.) Frankly, if you are a New York City tenant living in a rent stabilized apartment and you have issues with your landlord, I am one of the best people in NYC that you could know. I am an attorney with many reported decisions in favor of my clients and the vast majority of my clients rave about their representation. Mr. Mehmet was not a customer of mine; he was an adversary. That adversarial relationship is the source of his bile.