Battle with Corrupt NY Family Court Judge Tandra Dawson: David Weigel’s Fight

By Richard Luthmann

Parental Alienation Warrior David Weigel and his ongoing battle with a corrupt NYC Family Court system is back in the news.

Before, a Court Attorney Referee, Judge Sue Ann Hoahng, defaulted David Weigel because she was “Out To Lunch” and didn’t bother reading her email. Dave Weigel had flown to Miami to attend a close friend’s funeral.

Now, David Weigel and his estranged wife, Georgina Dimasin, have finally resolved their differences. They want to end their ten-year battle in court, stop the bleeding, and return to civilized life.

But like a mafia chieftain, their Family Court judge and NYS Supreme Court Justice, Judge Tandra Dawson, would not oblige. Apparently, the vultures had not yet finished with the carcass.

Allegations of “Attorney Lies”

Georgina fired her high-priced and “ethically challenged” shark attorney. In open court and publicly available documents, Dave Weigel alleged that New York Attorney Daniel B. Nottes had lied “dozens if not hundreds of times” and submitted documentation to that effect.

David Weigel said that New York State Supreme Court Justice, Judge Tandra Dawson, presiding Judge of New York County’s Integrated Domestic Violence Court (IDVC), did nothing, even when squarely confronted with the allegations in black-and-white.

Attorney Daniel B. Nottes’ alleged lies and mistruths went unnoticed by Judge Tandra Dawson.

Dave Weigel says Nottes’ biggest lie was the one that landed his case in IDVC in the first place. He alleges that Attorney Nottes counseled Georgina into false and dishonest domestic violence claims to ensure that the divorce case landed in Judge Dawson’s IDVC Part.

A Columbia Business School Salutatorian and leading fixed-income asset manager, Weigel was shortly detained on these claims, and then all charges against him were dismissed.

Weigel says Attorney Nottes managed to send him to Rikers for a weekend based on “an imaginary Connecticut warrant.”

Everyone knows that lawyers can’t lie except, it appears, in NYC IDVC Court.

The Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys in New York, Rule 3.3 states:

Conduct Before a Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal controlling legal authority known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal…

The Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys in New York, Rule 8.3 states:

Misconduct

A lawyer or law firm shall not:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;…

Weigel claims Attorney Nottes violated both these rules. He claims the attorney repeatedly misled Judge Dawson, offering half-truths, baseless allegations, and outright falsities that harmed Weigel.

In an egregious misrepresentation in Open Court, Attorney Nottes accused David Weigel of behaving like a “criminal menace” at a local hospital during COVID-19. Nottes falsely claimed that Weigel was involved in “breaking and entering” and was “on the run.”

Contrary to Nottes’ dramatic narrative, Weigel explained he had been at the hospital in a full hazmat suit, with express permission, to be with his dying mother during her final moments—a context Nottes deliberately omitted in his statements to Judge Dawson. Weigel emphasized his presence was out of compassion, to ensure his mother did not die alone, not the sinister motives Nottes described.

“David was a hero that day because he brought an iPad to the hospital room, and we all had a chance to say goodbye,” said Danielle Catando, David’s sister. “It’s pretty disgusting that this is what an attorney would concoct in the hours after my mother’s death just to gain an advantage in a Family Court case. Nottes traumatized our entire family.”

But last month was a “Road to Damascus” moment for David and Georgie, who fired Attorney Nottes. Sick and tired of five-figure monthly legal bills, and looking at the reality of the situation, they decided together to call it quits in NYC Divorce Court.

David Weigel: “We Want To End All Of This”

David Weigel and Georgina Dimasin mutually agreed to stop being bled dry by NYC’s Divorce-Industrial Complex. The duo realized that the only money they had left was the money they could each generate. They had no “slice of the pie” because the lawyers took it all.

More than that, Georgina and her children all want David in their lives and want all Court-imposed restrictions dropped. Typically, the court orders supervised visitation for 90 days to assess if a person poses a danger to their children. In this case, the court subjected David to four years of supervised visits, daily alcohol tests, and drug screens every fourth day. He paid for everything – $6,000 per month for six hours each week – feeding into the Family Court-Industrial Complex money trough, and failed not one of the drug tests administered during that entire period.

Georgina told Judge Dawson that Social Services was overkill and pure attorney-recommended litigation tactics. Nottes had previously stated that David was “harmful” and “rageful”:

GEORGINA WEIGEL: David and I, just recently, have started really co-parenting and communicating, very civilly. My daughter is now 15 going on 25, my son is 13 and they both had a sit-down with me and said it has been five years…and Evo and I want to have a relationship with him outside of Social Services. Because when they see Dave and when they zoom with their father there is always Social Services present physically and on Zoom. And I also believe…we’re better — we can better communicate and co-parent and I would like my children to have a relationship with their father. They’re now in their teens without a third person or Social Services. I do not believe he is harmful or rageful and he has really tried to do what he can as a father within the boundaries but I believe he can do more and I honestly need the help.

With Attorney Nottes gone from the case, David and Georgina submitted a stipulation stating they wanted to withdraw all motions and discontinue the divorce action.

David and Georgie had similarly attempted an earlier agreement last October. That document, called a “Family Divorce Agreement,” opens with this statement:

Both Georgina Dimasin & David Weigel have voluntarily decided to put [an] end [to] this divorce abuse on our families.

The lawyers and Judge Tandra Dawson ignored the first October agreement wholesale. Although filed on the NYSCEF document filing system, the Court treated it as a “legal nullity.” It was as if nothing had happened.

According to their Stipulation, David and Georgie agreed to mediation/arbitration and a future submitted case as a no-contest, agreed-upon divorce, potentially in Connecticut, where both parties and their children now live. They were finished with the New York courts.

Weigel explained himself to Judge Tandra Dawson this way:

DAVID WEIGEL: I’m a dad. I was built to be a dad. I was put on this earth to be a dad. The children have suffered enough. We want to end all of this. I’m putting everything behind me. We put in the stipulation, in the divorce decree that we were going to have discipline to not even speak about the past only about the present or the future for the next few years to insolate the chance of another kind of a blow up. It’s time the children’s best interest finally have taken hold here.

Seems pretty reasonable and straightforward, right? Not for the lawyers. And especially not for the Judge.

Dave Weigel and Georgie Damasin said the same thing last October – now in terms used by “professional people.” They and their children wanted the “hell” of New York State Divorce Court over and done with.

But Justice Tandra Dawson wouldn’t let them leave. This was the courtroom exchange:

DAVID WEIGEL: Judge, our wishes are to rescind all actions. That’s what the paper work said. All actions. That’s what we signed.

JUDGE DAWSON: Unfortunately, that document that you signed is really defective.

DAVID WEIGEL: We’ve reached a global settlement, Judge. Are you going to force us to stay in this Court and pay with money we don’t have?

JUDGE DAWSON: I will finish what I’m saying without you interrupting me. Let me first start by reiterating to you, Mr. Weigel, the rules for appearing in this courtroom and being able to remain in the courtroom.

So Judge Tandra Dawson read David the Riot Act for having the audacity to ask to end the Divorce case, the relief that both he and Georgie agreed to.

Then she told David and Georgina that she wouldn’t discontinue the case:

JUDGE DAWSON: As I was saying the document that you uploaded is defective and cannot be so ordered by me. It cannot be a document that is an order in this case. Now, I’ve just heard from Ms. Weigel, she wants to be divorced. She does not want to discontinue the action. She wants to proceed and be divorced. That can happen and you can still co-parent your children. You don’t have to be married to be able to co-parent.

Wise Judge Dawson believed continuing the proceedings was in everyone’s best interest. The only problem was that the good Judge was reading the wrong document:

DAVID WEIGEL: May I respond?

JUDGE DAWSON: Yes, go ahead.

DAVID WEIGEL: Can the Judge explain, on the record, what was defective about that? That was prepared by professional people.

JUDGE DAWSON: Yeah. It is — I don’t really even know what it is. It can seem vague and extraneous matters, it talks about you suing Courts versus not bashing Ms. Weigel’s family –

DAVID WEIGEL: Judge, you’re looking at the wrong family agreement.

JUDGE DAWSON: You’re looking at the wrong what?

DAVID WEIGEL: You’re looking at the previous [October] family agreement. You’re not looking at what was just loaded.

JUDGE DAWSON: Let me see. One second.

DAVID WEIGEL: Not the 10/23 — the 10/19/23 document, that was a family agreement. There was an official divorce degree loaded last Monday at the same time as the dismissal of Mr. Nottes. That is what was professionally prepared. That’s not a defective document.

JUDGE DAWSON: Let me look at it

At that point, wise Judge Dawson became even more confused. She wasn’t sure about the case’s posture in front of her. But the wise Judge had a sure-fire method of getting up to speed when in doubt. She asked the newly pro se defendant in front of her about the legal pleadings.:

JUDGE DAWSON: Did you file a counterclaim?

GEORGINA WEIGEL: I did not.

DAVID WEIGEL: Judge, if I may, one more thing, I want to make 100 percent clear, I was advised that our intentions here today is to finish completely with the Courts. We do not wish to continue with Court intervention any longer. We’ve made a global settlement that we do not need this.

JUDGE DAWSON: So, is it your intention to just discontinue the action and then just have some kind of private agreement? That means you won’t be divorced. What I need to determine is whether or not the fact that you didn’t file a counterclaim means that he can just discontinue as the plaintiff and then there is really nothing to proceed on in terms of granting you a divorce…

So Judge Dawson did what all wise Judges do. She ran away. She called a recess and scurried back into her chambers.

Some time passed, presumably for consultation with higher legal authorities. When Judge Dawson emerged, she had her answer:

JUDGE DAWSON: [W]ith respect to your request to discontinue the action, Mr. Weigel, I have a couple of concerns. I’m looking at a case, Kane v. Kane, which is a Second Department case which indicates that the Court has to consider, with respect to a request to discontinue, one of the issues that has to be considered is the potential economic detriment that a discontinuance would cause to the other party, to the other spouse. Where it would require the wife to commence a new action for divorce in which property that may have been, for example; acquired by the wife, since the commencement of this action, would be deemed marital property. So, there may be some economics issues that would negatively affect your spouse if the Court were to allow you to discontinue the action.

But the recess appears to have been a waste of time. Not only did Judge Dawson get it wrong, but she got it really wrong. In Kane Appellate Division reversed a trial court’s grant of discontinuance to a husband where discontinuance was sought in “bad faith” to inconvenience the wife and cause her potential financial detriment.

In the Kane case, the husband-plaintiff wanted to withdraw the case, but the wife-defendant didn’t. She wanted to continue with the court proceedings. The spouses were adversarial.

In the Weigel matter, both spouses want to pull the case. Their agreement states this in black and white. So did the earlier October one (“Both Georgina Dimasin & David Weigel have voluntarily decided to put [an] end [to] this divorce abuse on our families.”) The spouses are aligned. They have been for some time. If anyone acts in bad faith, the Court is chaining these litigants.

The Kane case does not provide a basis for Judge Dawson to keep Dave Weigel and Georgina Damasin in the NYC Court. So, Judge Dawson’s ruling must be based on something else. She states, “that there may be some economics issues that would negatively affect your spouse.”

But Georgina agreed to the economic consequences. They have since October when they drew up the original roadmap. She wants out of New York Divorce Court as much as anyone ever has. What could be this Judge’s “economics” reason?

Could it be that “Mr. Green” has not yet appeared? Does Judge Dawson want to give her “NYC Family Court Goons” more time to milk this Wall Street pair? The parties have spent over $1 million on divorce lawyers, court appointments, related fees, and expenses. When is enough enough? Never for the greedy, drunk with power, and with no one who would dare challenge them. The “Law of the Jungle” rules those who dispense with the laws. The same “Law of the Jungle” that governs prisoners and organized crime: take everything you can, destroy anything that gets in your path/

Is there a Family Court “mafia” in the New York State Courts? Looking at the Weigel v. Weigel case, the tactics and “reasoning” in NYC’s IDVC part sure look thug-like.

Reminiscent of a scene from the mafia movie A Bronx Tale, Judge Dawson has “locked the doors” to the courtroom to the Weigels. The “NYS Family Court Goons” can now have at them. “Now Youse Can’t Leave.”

Judge Dawson would not accept the parties’ joint stipulation ending the case. She is requiring the parties to appear before her again later this month. What was her reasoning? What does she need from Dave Weigel and Georgina Damasin to end things? We still don’t know:

DAVID WEIGEL: Just to be clear, the reason — I’m sorry, Judge, I just want to be clear, the reason that we’re not able to have this dismissed today is because I used the wrong form?

JUDGE DAWSON: It’s because the document that you entered is defective.

DAVID WEIGEL: On what legal basis?

JUDGE DAWSON: Pardon?

DAVID WEIGEL: On what legal basis? Just for the record.

JUDGE DAWSON: Defective.

DAVID WEIGEL: Defective how?

JUDGE DAWSON: Based upon everything I stated today. You can order the minutes if you would like.

DAVID WEIGEL: Okay.

It seems Judge Dawson is relying on the age-old Family Court Judge justification: “I’m right because I’m the Judge and because I said so.”

Remarkably, she used the “defective” court document to dismiss all of David Weigel’s pending motions. But she never asked Georgina Weigel to withdraw her pending motions. And Georgina’s motions, drafted and filed by Attorney Nottes, whom Dave Weigel alleges is a scoundrel, remain on the Court’s docket.

Maybe the rule in New York County’s IDVC is that women need help because even when they want to make their own choices, Judge Tandra Dawson always knows best. That should make feminists and DV advocates happy – a Domestic Violence court where female litigants can’t and aren’t permitted to decide things for themselves.

As of press time, the New York Office of Court Administration and Attorney Daniel B. Nottes, the attorney relieved by Georgina Damasin, has not responded to requests for comment about the IDVC part in New York County.

We contacted Dave Weigel, who said he still believed he was under a “gag order” on the case.

Reporters will be standing by on the upcoming April 25 court date.

Richard Luthmann

Richard Luthmann is a writer, editor, and investigative journalist.