This newsletter documents Michael T. Hewitt's unlicensed practice of law in New York.
The Disbar Michael Hewitt Campaign regrets any shame, humiliation or embarrassment that its activities and this website may cause to licensed attorneys named "Michael Hewitt." We are very sorry.
But because Michael T. Hewitt's unlicensed practice of law has harmed many people, it is imperative to document that unlicensed attorney's crimes until he gets disbarred.
We urge readers to write to the NYS Attorney General: letitia.james@ag.ny.gov and ask her to stop defending Michael T. Hewitt's unlicensed practice of law in federal court and start prosecuting it in state court.
The sooner she does so, the sooner we can stop sending newsletters and take down this website.
| Date: | Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 7:46 AM |
| From: | Mark U. Fichael-Hewitt |
| To: | Mark E. Klein |
| Subject: | CUNY's Unlicensed Practice Law in Federal Court |
Dear Friends,
Welcome to the first edition of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Newsletter, where our goal is to make the next edition the last edition.
We should not have to distribute a newsletter at all. Over the past year, we have repeatedly tried to report Mr. Hewitt's unlicensed practice of law. We have tried to report it to law enforcement as well as to state and city agencies and officials.
We'll keep trying.
In the meantime, we encourage you to visit the UCS website -- https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorneyservices/search -- where anyone can check the registration status of attorneys licensed to practice in New York.
There you will find every attorney licensed to practice in New York. But you will not find a registration for Michael Hewitt, the University Executive Director of Labor Hearings and Appeals at the City University of New York.
Michael Hewitt is not a licensed attorney. He never passed the bar.
And because Mr. Hewitt's unlawful practice of law adversely affects tens of thousands of CUNY faculty and staff (and by extension their students), we'll keep documenting that unlicensed attorney's crimes until he gets disbarred.
In this edition of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Newsletter, we'll discuss the case of Wilson v. State of New York, et al., 15-cv-23 (CBA) (MMH), a case pending before the Eastern District of New York, where Mr. Hewitt is listed on the docket as an Esquire Defendant.
You may have read about the case in the NY Daily News a few years ago. Attached is the article. It describes the Jan. 2012 raid of Prof. Wilson's office. The raid occurred almost ten years ago. The lawsuit was filed almost seven years ago. And recently, it has become very interesting.
Last week, attorneys for Plaintiff Joe Wilson asked the Court to "so order" a subpoena for the NYS Attorney General's Investigative File.
Attached is their motion. As the Plaintiff's attorneys explain, the NYS Assistant Attorney General thought the raid was conducted under the Law Enforcement Privilege. During that raid ten years ago, the Plaintiff's property was confiscated. And it was never returned to him.
All of Prof. Wilson's books, artwork, letters, notes and files got locked in a vault somewhere and no one knows where.
As the Plaintiff's attorneys explain, law enforcement does not appear to have conducted the raid. According to the complaint, CUNY used its own security personnel to conduct a warrantless search in violation of the Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Then they filed charges against the Plaintiff with the NYS Attorney General.
Despite these efforts, neither the NYS Attorney General nor the AAA's neutral arbitrator found that Prof. Wilson had engaged in criminal activity.
That must be cold comfort. He lost his job anyway. All of his research is still locked in a vault somewhere. And I wonder how many of Prof. Wilson's former colleagues at Brooklyn College know that there was no finding of criminal activity.
The NYS Assistant Attorney General will file a response this week. We look forward to hearing why he thought the raid was conducted under the Law Enforcement Privilege.
We hope he will locate Prof. Wilson's property. And we hope he will put an end to Mr. Hewitt's unlicensed practice of law.
Sincerely,
Mark U. Fichael-Hewitt
Chairman of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Campaign
https://DisbarMichaelHewitt.com
ps: Please excuse this unsolicited message. It is important. And it is important to give the NYS Assistant Attorney General an opportunity to respond, so we will share his response next week.
We hope that next week's edition will be the last edition of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Newsletter. But if a third becomes necessary, we'll offer an "unsubscribe" option and tell you about the case of Kovach vs. CUNY, et al., 13-cv-7198 (LGS).
According to the complaint in that case, Ms. Kovach suffered respiratory health damage from a Freon leak in her office. Mr. Hewitt refused to accept letters from two physicians about her worsening health condition. He rejected her request for an accomodation. He would not allow her to relocate her office.
And Mr. Hewitt allowed her supervisor to smoke in the same office. According to the complaint, that's how Mr. Hewitt accomodated a respiratory health condition. He allowed her supervisor to smoke in the same office.
We wish Ms. Kovach and Prof. Wilson well. Stay tuned next week for a newsletter entitled either: "Thank you NYS Assistant Attorney General" or "Let's pull the cover off the cover up."
attachments:
addendum: Below is Ms. Kovach's complaint. It was not attached to the original message. We include it here for completeness.
| Date: | Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:52 AM |
| From: | Mark U. Fichael-Hewitt |
| To: | Mark E. Klein |
| Subject: | Let's pull the cover off the cover up. |
Dear Friends,
Welcome to the second edition of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Newsletter, where our goal once again is to make the next edition the last edition.
And thank you for your patience. After our last edition, the NYS Assistant Attorney General requested a few more weeks to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to "so order" a subpoena for the NYS Attorney General's Investigative File in the case of Wilson v. State of New York, et al., 15-cv-23 (CBA) (MMH).
Attached is Mr. Klein's letter. He requested a few extra weeks for the Jewish Holidays. And now that Yom Kippur has passed, we hope that he's feeling well atoned.
Sadly, the response that he filed yesterday (also attached) does not reflect the spirit of the rabbi who said: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
We imagine that it would be hateful to the NYS Assistant Attorney General if someone conducted a warrantless search and seizure of his office. We imagine that it would be hateful to him if his life's work got locked in a vault somewhere, no one knows where.
We imagine that it would be hateful to him if someone accused him of a crime and then refused to acknowledge two findings of no criminal activity. We imagine that it would be hateful to him if that wrongful accusation cost him his job and reputation.
We imagine that would be hateful to him, but that's what his representation has done to his fellow.
To his credit, the NYS Assistant Attorney General is no longer representing Michael Hewitt. And his response explicitly acknowledges that CUNY conducted a warrantless raid of Plaintiff Joe Wilson's office in violation of the his Fourth Amendment rights. He deserves credit for that.
But Mr. Klein failed to account for the bad information that the Unlicensed Attorney poured into his motions. And the Defendants do not even acknowledge that the NYS Attorney General's Investigative File might contain the location of Prof. Wilson's property.
Instead, their response objects to the proposed subpoena on two grounds. First, that the Plaintiff's motion was not made sooner.
In their own words: "Plaintiff does not even attempt to explain, much less justify, this lengthy delay in any way." There's some chutzpah! The Defendants do not even attempt to explain, much less justify, their ten-year delay in returning the Plaintiff's property.
And their second objection is downright puzzling. They argue that an investigation by law enforcement has no relevance to an investigation of criminal activity.
In their own words: "an investigation by a nonparty law enforcement agency has no relevance to Plaintiff's three remaining claims" -- a Fourth Amendment violation for the warrantless search, conversion of Prof. Wilson's property and defamation for telling Brooklyn College faculty members that Prof. Wilson "was engaging in criminal activity."
We'll see what the Court says. We hope the Court will restore our confidence in the practice of law. And we hope the Court will put an end to Mr. Hewitt's unlicensed practice of law.
Sincerely,
Mark U. Fichael-Hewitt
Chairman of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Campaign
https://DisbarMichaelHewitt.com
ps: Please excuse this unsolicited message. We had hoped that this would be the last edition of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Newsletter. But because Mr. Hewitt's unlawful practice of law adversely affects tens of thousands of CUNY faculty and staff (and by extension their students), we'll keep documenting that Unlicensed Attorney's crimes until he gets disbarred.
In the meantime, we encourage you to read a recent opinion and order in the case of Dikambi v. CUNY and Adams, 19-cv-9937 (RA), where NYS Assistant Attorney General Mark Klein is once again defending CUNY.
Attached is the opinion and order. The Plaintiff alleges gender discrimination, sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation. Last week, the Court allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with her claims of a hostile work environment.
We wish Ms. Dikambi and Prof. Wilson well. Stay tuned for our next newsletter entitled either: "No more free legal services for CUNY" or "We're all going to need a lawyer."
attachments:
| Date: | Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 6:54 AM |
| From: | Mark U. Fichael-Hewitt |
| To: | Mark E. Klein |
| Subject: | We're all going to need a lawyer. |
Dear Friends,
Welcome to the another edition of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Newsletter, where our goal once again is to make the next edition the last edition.
We look forward to the day when our last edition celebrates the end of Michael Hewitt's unlicensed practice of law.
We're tired of cheap excuses. And we are horrified by the warrantless search of Dr. Wilson's Brooklyn College office in pursuit of evidence for a criminal investigation that the Office of the NYS Attorney General later initiated.
The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures. Sadly, the Office of the NYS Attorney General does not share our understanding of the Fourth Amendment.
As you will remember, we've been closely following the case of Wilson v. State of New York, et al., 15-cv-23 (CBA) (MMH), a case pending before the Eastern District of New York. The docket in that case lists Defendant Michael Hewitt as an "esquire" even though he is not (and has never been) an esquire.
Since our last newsletter, the Court denied Plaintiff Joe Wilson's request for leave to subpoena the NYS Attorney General's investigative file because the NYS Attorney General investigation began after CUNY's warrantless search. But the Court granted Prof. Wilson's request to subpoena CUNY for 22 boxes of his personal property and information relating to those 22 boxes. (attached, ECF 140).
CUNY seized those 22 boxes in January 2012. The Court gave Prof. Wilson a subpoena to recover them in April 2022.
That's right. It took 10 years and a court-ordered subpoena for CUNY to return Prof. Wilson's (badly damaged) research collection. And that's what NYS Assistant Attorney General Mark E. Klein thinks is reasonable.
Attached is Mr. Klein's opinion (ECF 157 and ECF 165). After CUNY finally returned the what little remains of Prof. Wilson's African-American history collection, Mr. Klein moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the CUNY's search of Prof. Wilson's office "was reasonable at its inception and in its scope."
And in support of the motion, Mr. Klein included an affadavit and emails from Michael Hewitt. (attached, ECF 154). According to those documents, there was a "troubling incident" when Michael Hewitt gave Joe Wilson permission to access to his property on May 8, 2014. (Two years after the initial raid).
The sight of Joe Wilson at Brooklyn College appears to have troubled Defendant Paisley Currah. Michael Hewitt's emails do not reveal the nature of the "troubling incident," but we can infer that there was a dispute over how Prof. Currah handled Prof. Wilson's property.
According to Michael Hewitt's email: "Paisley's account is overblown" and "none of this would have been necessary had the chair [Currah] not taken it upon himself, contrary to my counsel, to empty Joe Wilson's office in the first place."
That's a very revealing statement. As anyone who worked at Brooklyn College back then knows, Michael Hewitt was involved in more than one "troubling incident" where a professor's office got emptied.
So which is more likely to be true? That many Brooklyn College employees were carelessly handling the personal property of others, contrary to good counsel of Michael Hewitt? Or is it more likely that the unlicensed attorney Michael Hewitt was giving bad counsel to many Brooklyn College employees?
And if the latter is true, then one also has to wonder what bad counsel the unlicensed attorney Michael Hewitt gave to the other defendants in this case.
We hope the Court will address these questions one day. On Friday, the Court will hear oral arguments in Defendants' motion for summary judgment. And Prof. Wilson's lawyers appear well-prepared. Attached is their response (ECF 159).
They remind us that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." And they argue that Prof. Wilson's Fourth Amendment and conversion claims should move forward because the Defendants conducted an unlawful, warrantless search and seizure of Prof. Wilson's offices.
Reading their memorandum, we find it frightening that CUNY conducted that warrantless search in pursuit of evidence for a criminal investigation. Reading their memorandum, we find it frightening that Brooklyn College officials described Prof. Wilson as a "thief."
If CUNY had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, then why didn't CUNY seek a warrant? Why did CUNY refuse to return Prof. Wilson's property? Who is the "thief" who stole Prof. Wilson's research collection?
We hope the Court will address these questions one day. And we wish Prof. Wilson the best on Friday.
Sincerely,
Mark U. Fichael-Hewitt
Chairman of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Campaign
https://DisbarMichaelHewitt.com
attachments:
| Date: | Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 9:04 AM |
| From: | Mark U. Fichael-Hewitt |
| To: | Bronx District Attorney |
| CC: | Hunter College and School of Visual Arts |
| Subject: | Let's make CUNY safe again |
Dear Friends,
Welcome to the fourth edition of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Newsletter, where our goal (as always) is to make the next edition the last edition.
In this edition, we'll discuss the case of Shellyne Rodriguez. We'll take a close look at the photos of her holding a machete to the neck of a New York Post reporter at her home.
And we'll ask why the NYPost sent two people with video cameras to the home of a Hunter College professor. What were they doing at her home? Why did this violent incident occur at her home?
Helpfully, at their YouTube channel, the NYPost posted a video of the initial confrontation. We encourage everyone to watch what happened and listen to her words: "Get away from my door! Get the fuck away from my door!"
Importantly, the NYPost reporter, Reuven Fenton, did not feel menaced when she told him to "get the fuck away from [her] door." As he said at the 1:51 mark of another YouTube video: "I don't believe that she, for a second, that there was ever any intention to actually do me harm."
That's right. He admitted that she never had any intention to harm him when he made an unwanted visit to her home. He admitted it one day after he filed a criminal complaint against her for menacing him at her home.
Another example of Mr. Fenton's dishonesty appears at the 0:33 mark of the video, where he recalls: "and she said, uh, what is now sort of becoming, uh, almost famous line about cutting me up with a machete, if, uh, if I didn't get lost."
That "almost famous line" does not appear in either video. We are disheartened that Mr. Fenton refused to "get lost," but we are delighted that his videos did not "get lost." We hope they'll be used against him in court one day.
And to make sure those videos will be available for use against Mr. Fenton, we downloaded the video files from YouTube. You can use the links below to download them.
Sadly, Fox News reported yesterday that the Bronx DA is moving forward with the case against Prof. Rodriguez. She's facing criminal charges for "menacing in the second degree" (among other charges), so we think it's important to ask who felt menaced that day. Who felt menaced at her home?
But before we consider that question, we invite you to watch a video in which Prof. Rodriguez discusses survival from slavery, how an enslaved woman emancipated her own mind and how her experience continues today.
And we invite you to consider what a woman with such a deep knowledge of slavery in America would see when she sees a young white man give a presentation on behalf of "Students for Life." We imagine that she would see a white man who wants to regulate a Black woman's body. That's triggering.
It was impolite to push the student's pamphlets onto the floor, but an impolite discussion on the academic quad is not newsworthy. There was no legitimate reason to write a news article about that impolite discussion. There was no legitimate reason to broadcast a pamphlet spilling on national television.
There was no legitimate reason to subject Prof. Rodriguez to a torrent of angry phone calls and emails. The harassment must have been distressing. And then two strangers knocked on her door.
They came with cameras to take pictures of her. They came to make another video of her. They came to write another news article that would further endanger her safety.
So we hope that the Bronx DA will consider the possibility that Prof. Rodriguez felt menaced by the two strangers who made an unwanted visit to her home. We hope she'll drop the charges against Prof. Rodriguez. And we hope she will ask the NYPost what conversations they had with CUNY officials prior to visiting Prof. Rodriguez' home.
We also hope that both Hunter College and the School of Visual Arts will rehire Prof. Rodriguez. They should have listened to their own faculty member's words. They should have protected their own professor from muckraking journalists. They should not have left her alone, isolated and frightened. So we hope they will rehire her.
Finally, the Disbar Michael Hewitt Campaign hopes that the CUNY attorneys will stop making provocative videos of CUNY faculty members for the malicious purpose of harassing them out of their jobs.
We hope that CUNY colleges will once again flourish with vigorous discussion. And when the conversation becomes impolite, we hope that the arguing will help both sides better understand each other.
We need Prof. Rodriguez' work to better understand ourselves.
Sincerely,
Mark U. Fichael-Hewitt
Chairman of the Disbar Michael Hewitt Campaign
https://DisbarMichaelHewitt.com
sources:
addendum: After publication of our newsletter, a comprehensive reconstruction of events became available. We encourage you to read:
Michael Hewitt is not a licensed attorney. He never passed the bar.
And because Mr. Hewitt's unlawful practice of law adversely affects tens of thousands of CUNY faculty and staff (and by extension their students), we'll keep documenting that Unlicensed Attorney's crimes until he gets disbarred.
We urge readers to write to the NYS Attorney General: letitia.james@ag.ny.gov and ask her to stop defending Michael T. Hewitt's unlicensed practice of law in federal court and start prosecuting it in state court.
And if you have any questions, comments or concerns, you may also write to Mark U. Fichael-Hewitt at: mark@disbarmichaelhewitt.com or message him at: twitter.com/Mark_UFH.