Get Real America

Jin Zhong: My Legal Proceedings Story

2/17/2018 Chinese Americans

  • Chinese American Jin Zhong experienced biased treatment by the lawyers he hired.

  • He's taken TEN years to deal with this legal conflict.

  • Let's hear his story here. The voice of a Chinese American who couldn't express himself in 10 years!

  • **Jin Zhong: "I need a good and reliable lawyer!" **

  • Jin Zhong's phone number: +1 _610570 5349  _**Email : **jinfzhong99@gmail.com

  • More info about the case: https://tongshing.wordpress.com/

    {% qnimg Jin-Zhong.jpeg %}

The following was written by Jin Zhong:

Two local large newspapers, the “Morning Call” and the “Express Time”, published libelous content in different articles about Tong Shing restaurant on January 28, 2005 and January 29, 2005, respectively, thoroughly devastating the business that I devoted my life for the past 19 years. The libel published by these newspapers are totally baseless with malicious intent, which constitute defamation. In addition, it is actually illegal to use newspaper in such way.

Sweeny, a food inspector, and her husband were not satisfied with the discount given by a new waiter when they paid for the check of their dinner in 3/23/2003. She together with her supervisor and her colleagues, crazily tried to extort from me and take revenge against me for more than 3 years, so that I cannot operate my business anymore and had no other choice but to sell my business to someone else at a lower price in the end of 2008.

Case #1: on May 20, 2008, I retained attorneys Jean Wang, Tsiwen Law, Sharon Lopez, and Stephen Murphy to sue Sweeny, Kinder, and Phillips in United States District Court- Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After 3 years, on March 28, 2011, Case 5:08-cv-02204-LS.  The judge Stengal, J. stated in the order that that I have no basis to sue and only the Tong Shing restaurant, which is the subject of the business, would have the basis to sue. All my attorneys that I retained did not include Tong Shing restaurant as a plaintiff. As a result, the case was dismissed.

When the case was in the docket, I told my attorney Tsiwen Law that; 1) my business Tong Shing restaurant is S corporation, but he still didn’t include            Tong Shing restaurant Inc. as a plaintiff; 2) I also told Tsiwen law that I tried to sell my restaurant to my brother Jinwen Zhong in 2005, however, the sale transaction was not completed due to a sale condition. 3)  Tsiwen law also knew about civil RICO predicate acts. He asked me about my business range. I told him, that my restaurant staff ordered grocery from New York City and Philadelphia. Please see Superior court I.O.P. 6537 Pg. 9 section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion) Section 1952 (relating to racketeering). My lawyer didn’t add this predicate acts to the complaint.

On November 15, 2011, the owner of Wang & Wang Associates, a law office in New York, called me and asked me to visit his office because he wanted to represent me. He told me that his firm could help me to sue Tsiwen Law, Jean Wang, Lopez, and Murphy for legal malpractice and demand damage compensation. He also told me: Lawyers all have insurance, he will sue them for me.

When a lawyer called James Schmitz from Wang & Wang Associates contacted the court in Philadelphia to ask about my case, he was told that Merit Certificate must be filed within 60 days of the filing the complaint in order to retain the case.

Case #2: on January 15, 2013, Schmitz and Mathew Miller filed a complaint to the First Judicial District of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Case ID: 130101389. They should send the Merit Certificate on or before March 15, 2013, but they didn’t. It was Wang, & Wang Associates who made the case dismissed.

On May 29, 2013, in the Philadelphia Court which I, Schmitz, Miller and Defendants’ attorney appeared in the court, the Judge said that I would have two months to find a new lawyer, and if  I was not able to find a lawyer, my case would be dismissed.

Case #3: on July 12, 2013, I had a meeting with a lawyer, J Craig Currie, at his office in Philadelphia. We signed a retainer and he became my new attorney. We didn’t know each other before. He appeared in court on my behalf, so my case was not dismissed.

Currie told me that he would make the following two new cases: Case #3, Mar. Team 2014 No. 0346, suing Tsiwen law, Jean Wang, Lopez  (see Case #1) and Case #4, July Team 2014 No. 1010, suing Wang & Wang, Schmit and Miller (see Case #2). He told me that Case # 3 little complex, Case # 4 easy. He would put Case #4 aside, and do Case #3 first. When Case #3 finished, he would then start Case #4. When Case #3 was in progress, Currie told me three times that “You no English, you don’t know law, you will lose”, which was outright discrimination towards minority and vulnerable groups. He distorted the facts and misused the law. He did not defend for me and even deprived the rights that I should have.

  1. I gave Currie the damage statement that my accountant made for me, but he didn’t submit it to the court. As a result, Judge Massiah Jackson mentioned six times that she was not able to find my business damage.
  2. I told Currie that I didn’t sell my business in 2005 (There was a sale condition. I didn’t sell my restaurant, because we did not complete the transaction).  I sold my business in the end of 2008.
  3. My case was within a statute of limitation. The main party Ms. Sweeny in the latest event on June 9th, 2006, closed my restaurant for 3 days which was the whole weekend, and resulted in a big financial damage for me. On May 20th, 2008, I sued Sweeny in Federal Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the time duration was less than two years.
  4. Currie filed summary judgment for my case because English is my second language, which was not fair to me. Why didn’t he request for jury trial? There were multiple reasons including: a) he tried to escape me and did not provide a lot of good strong evidence to the court; b) he just shield me what he did and make me knew nothing until the end of the case; and c) I paid him attorney fees, but he helped the defendants to deny my case.
  5. My case is a civil RICO case and it is not hard to find a predicate act. Please see Superior Court I.O.P. 65.37 No. 2504 EDA 2015. Pg 9 Section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering). But Currie used the wrong law, “criminal mischief”, instead of “civil RICO”. He just wanted to ruin my case. Please see how Currie did things to me. Please refer to Order of Case No. 0346 by the Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson J., March Team 2014, on Oct. 23, 2014 (EXHIBIT 1) :  

“My attorney Craig Currie made many mistakes when he represented me in this case:

  1. _Pg 2, _‘……, the party did not properly object to preliminary objections and waived the right to the form of pleading’;

  2. Pg 2, ‘……having failed to file preliminary objections to preliminary objections raising statute of limitations, party is deemed to have waived any objection’;

  3. Pg 2,‘……when a party erroneously asserts substantive defenses in preliminary objections, the failure of opposing party to file preliminary objections to the defective preliminary objections, waives the procedural defect’;

  4. Pg 2,‘……a party waived the right to object by filing an “Answer” rather than a preliminary objection to a substantive defense’;

  5. _Pg 3, _‘……statute of limitations may be considered by the court when the defense is clear on the face of the pleading and responding party has not filed preliminary objections to preliminary objections;

  6. _Pg 4, _‘** In the Absenceof Proof of Damages Neither Professional ** Negligence Nor Breach of Contract Can Be Established.’

  7. _Pg 4, _‘The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Kituskie v. Corbman, 714 A.2d 1027 at 1030 (Pa.1998), that only after a plaintiff proves that he would have recovered a judgment in the underlying action can that former client proceed on a negligence action’;

  8. _Pg 4, _‘All courts consistently reiterate that an essential element of a legal malpractice action is proof of actual loss rather than claims of remote or speculative harm’;

  9. _Pg 4, _‘……where as here, this Plaintiff would not have prevailed under the civil RICO claim’😭 I have a lot evidences to proof ).

  10. _Pg 4-5, _‘……**the District Court reviewed the essentials of a civil RICO claim at 15-16: “To establish a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that a person: (1) conducted (2) an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity……a ‘pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity within the span of 10 years… A plaintiff must show that ‘(1) the defendants’ predicate acts are related, that is they have similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission’, and (2) the defendants’ conduct is ‘continuous’…

…Predicate acts are specific federal and state offenses….”……’

(  I have a lot evidences to proof ).

  1. Pg 6, ‘Plaintiff-Zhong asserts that the Federal Court did not comprehend the extent of his personal loss of rental income “from both the restaurant beyond 2005 and the contiguous rental properties.” Paragraph 78b. The record does not support this contention’;
  2. Pg 6, ‘……but recognized that after Mr. Zhong sold the restaurant in 2005 the relevant parameters of the underlying litigation ended. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum, dated September 15, 2014, is silent on this issue’;
  3. Pg 6, ‘……**the Appellate Court noted at 494: ** “Proof of damages is as crucial to a professional negligence

action** for legal malpractice as is proof of the negligence itself.”**

  1. Pg 6, ‘……summary judgment affirmed in the absence of ability to demonstrate success in underlying case’;

  2. Pg 6, ‘Proof of damages is also essential to successfully maintain a cause of action for breach of contract. Moreover, there must be reasonable certainty of damages. Not speculation or conjecture’;

  3. _Pg 7, _‘……Plaintiffs’ Memorandum, dated September 15, 2014, has not cited any case law in support of their legal theory that the Restaurant has a cause of action based on either professional negligence or breach of contract’; ( On March 28 2011, Honorable Lawrence Stengel deny my case that Tsiwen Law didn’t put restaurant on plaintiffs. )  

  4. Pg 8,‘……This means that the Complaint must not only apprise the defendant of a claim being asserted, but it must also summarize the essential facts in support of the claim. The adverse party must be able to prepare his case’;

  5. Pg 8, ‘……This court notes simply that although paragraphs are to be read in the context with all other allegations in a complaint, the broad language of 67(f) and 78(g) suggests additional “failure” not yet listed’;

  6. Pg 8, ‘The language herein is surprisingly similar to language challenged in the Connor Case, supra, which states that a defendant “otherwise failed to use due care and caution under the circumstances”’;

  7. _Pg 8, _‘The Supreme Court commented that the defendant could have filed preliminary objections for a more specific pleading or to move to strike that portion of the complaint’.

  8. Currie took my case on July 12th, 2013, but this litigation was commenced by writ of summons on March 4th, 2014. Our litigation could have been commenced five months earlier in around September, 2013, had he not delayed the filing of the case.

  9. _ 5_, He improperly used “criminal mischief” as the predicate act. He should have used civil RICO claim for my case.

  10. 3, Why did the plaintiffs only filed preliminary objections to defendant-wang’s preliminary objection?Why not filed to Lopez and Tsiwen Law? …”

On April 9, 2015, I fired Currie as my attorney.

Later, I found a new lawyer, Geoffrey V. Seay, and I didn’t know him before. He made many mistakes for my case, so he was as bad as Currie. Please refer to EXHIBIT 2:

**Superior Court 2504 EDA 2015 **

Court of Common Pleas 140300346.

Order: August 26, 2015

Hon. Judge Ellen Ceisler

“My attorney Geoffrey V. Seay made many mistakes when he represented for me in this case:

  1. Pg 1, ‘……Appellants have waived their ability to challenge this Court’s decision on appeal to the Superior Court, by failing to comply with this Court’s July 6, 2015 directive to serve a copy of their Statement of Errors upon this Court’;
  2. Pg 5, ‘On July 6, 2015, and pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), this Court ordered Appellants “to file of record with the Prothonotary [,] and serve upon this Court and all parties in interest, a concise and itemized Statements of Errors Complained of not late than twenty-one (21) days after entry of this Order,’ cautioning Appellants that noncompliance would “be deemed a waiver of issues.”Ceisler Order, 7/6/15 at 1. Despite this ,and though it appears that Appellants did electronically docket a Statement of Errors in this matter with the First Judicial District’s Prothonotary on July 24, 2015, Appellants never served this Court with a copy of their Statement’;
  3. Pg 5, ‘……** Appellants failed to comply with this Court’s July 6, 2015 Order, by not serving their Statement of Errors upon this Court**’;
  4. Pg 5, ‘……(“Judgment on the pleadings is proper only where the pleadings evidence that there are no material facts in dispute such that a trial by jury would be unnecessary.”)’;
  5. Pg 8, ‘Moreover, this Court maintains that Appellants have waived any appellate issues by failing to serve their Statement of Errors upon this Court, thereby not complying with this Court’s Order, pursuant to Pa. R.A.P, 1925(b). The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure state, in pertinent……’;
  6. Pg 8, ‘Failure to file a Statement of Errors in accordance with the mandated twenty-one (21) day period will result in the waiver of issues on appeal. ……(reaffirming bright-line rule where untimely filing of a Statement of Errors results in waiver of all issues on appeal)’;
  7. _Pg 8, _‘……(“[I]n determining whether an appellant has waived his issues on appeal based on non-compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.’;
  8. Pg 9,‘……** In sum, an “[a]pplellant’sfailure to comply with the service requirement of Rule 1925(b)… [combined with] docket evidence [showing that the trial court’s Pa. R.A.P.1925(b) order was filed and that notice was provided to the parties], render[s] waived [their] complaints on appeal.”**’ ;
  9. _Pg 9, _‘……** they failed to subsequently serve this Statement of Errors upon this Court.**’;
  10. Pg 10, ‘……see Statement of Errors at 5-6, it remains that this Court never received this mailing, ……’;
  11. Pg 10,‘……this Court respectfully maintains that Appellants’failure to serve a copy of their Statement of Errors upon this court renders any and all issues waived for purposes of appeal.’ …”

Please see Judgment No. 3 (EXHIBIT 3):

Judge: Denis P. Cohen, J.

**Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County 140300346 **

Superior Court 2504 EDA 2015

Dated Oct. 6, 2015

“Again, my attorney Geoffrey V. Seay made more mistakes when he represented for me in this case:

  1. Pg 1-2, ‘……the Plaintiffs did not serve this Court with a Statement of Errors as required by the July 9, 2015 Order’;
  2. Pg 2, ‘……The Plaintiffs, however, did not list any specific errors that the Court made in deciding that the claims were time barred’;
  3. Pg 4, ‘……, the Plaintiffs did not argue in its response to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, that the statute of limitations was tolled. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have waived any argument that the statute of limitations should be tolled’;
  4. Pg 4,‘……(where plaintiff failed to allege statute of limitations could be tolled, such an issue was waived on appeal)’;
  5. Pg 5,‘In the instant case, the plaintiff never alleged in the complaint that he was “unable, despite the exercise of due diligence,” to know he was injured by the Defendant Wang’s breach of contract’;
  6. _Pg 5, _‘……Moreover, the plaintiffs never filed a reply to the statute of limitations defense raised in defendant Wang’s new matter. Therefore, since “lack of knowledge, mistake or understanding will not toll the running of the statute,” and the plaintiff has not pled any facts suggesting that there was a barrier which prevented the plaintiff from learning between 2008 and 2011 (the time of summary judgment) of the legal significance of Defendant Wang’s omissions, the plaintiff has not availed itself of the discovery rule’; …”

Please take a look. I hired lawyers but what they did for me!

Please see Judgment No. 4 (EXHIBIT 4):

Non-precedential decision – see **Superior court I.O.P. 65.37 in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania No. 2504 EDA 2015. **

“I have reviewed the Superior court judgment No.2504 EDA 2015. I have found the following mistakes made by my lawyers contributed to the failure of my case.

Pg 2 “……In retaliation, Sweeny broke into the restaurant kitchen, dumped chicken in the trash, and wrote two pages of approximately twenty violations….”

  1. Pg 3 “……that he failed to state a cause of action….”
  2. Pg 4 “……Appellants did not allege that Tong Shing(or Zhong) could have prevailed in the underlying federal case on any claim….”
  3. Pg 4 “……Appellants failed to state a valid malpractice claim……”
  4. Pg 4 “……Appelants could not have asserted a valid RICO claim in the underlying federal case….”
  5. Pg 4 “……Appellants conceded that they could not have mounted a successful section 1983 action in the underlying federal case.”
  6. Pg 6 “……Appellants’ **waiver of all **arguments by failing to serve Judges Ceisler’s and Cohen’s chambers with their Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statements).”
  7. Pg 6 “……Appellants’ alleged waiver for failing to make proper service of their Rule 1925(b) statements).”
  8. Pg 6 “……Appellants **failed to state **a valid cause of action in the underlying federal action and therefore have no valid malpractice action in the present case.”
  9. Pg 6 “……[A] legal malpractice action in Pennsylvania requires the plaintiff to prove that he had a viable cause of action against the party he wished to sue in the underlying case and that the attorney he hired was negligent in prosecuting……”
  10. Pg 7 “……[T]o prove actual injury, appellant must demonstrates that she would have prevailed in the underlying action in the absence of [attorney’s] alleged negligence.”
  11. Pg 7 “……in order to prevail on their legal malpractice claims against Appellees, Appellants must allege facts which, if proved, establish that they would have prevailed in their underlying federal action, but for Appellees’ negligence.”
  12. Pg 7 “ ……Appellants do not claim in their second amended complaint that they could have prevailed in the underlying federal action on any claim other than RICO…..”
  13. Pg 7 “……Zhong did not plead a valid RICO claim in the underlying federal action,……”
  14. Pg 10, “……no valid RICO claim existed against the federal defendants due to the absence of predicate acts under……” On July 13, 2016, which was one year and three months after I fired attorney Currie, I never thought that he, together with two defendant’s attorneys, appeared in the court to withdraw my Case #4, July Team 2014 No. 1010, without my permission. This is very “malicious”! Currie is a lawyer and he should know that he was fired. How can he withdraw my case without my permission?

I am an American citizen who lived in the United States for 38 years. My legal business shall be protected by the Constitution. It is not true that I should lose legal business because I speak no English and don’t know the law. Currie dismissed my Case #4 is illegal and not valid. I hope that I can be treated with fairness and justice and my Case #4 will have a chance for jury trial.

I need people help. It’s very hard for me that I sustain serious discrimination and persecution.

Thank you very much!!!

Best regards

{% qnimg jinZhong2.jpeg %}

Jin F. Zhong Tong Shing Restaurant, Inc. Phone: +1 610  570 5349 Email : jinfzhong99@gmail.com[/caption]

11-14 2017

(The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Get Real America. Edited by Jianyu Hou)

Last Updated: 10/13/2019, 5:05:58 AM