Share This Profile
Share this profile on Facebook.
Link to this profile on LinkedIn.
Tweet this profile on Twitter.
Email a link to this profile.
See other services through which you can share this profile.
This profile was last updated on 3/27/03  and contains information from public web pages.
 
Background

Employment History

  • Counsel
    Plaintiff
  • Attorney

Education

  • Anthony Williams' master file
12 Total References
Web References
Second Lawsuit Filed by Atty Norman ...
www.paroleboardprisoners.com, 27 Mar 2003 [cached]
Second Lawsuit Filed by Atty Norman Sirak (29K)
...
©2003-2004, Norman Sirak
...
Second Lawsuit Filed by Atty Norman Sirak
...
NORMAN SIRAK : 4035 Cinwood Street, N.W. :Massillon, Ohio 44646, :
...
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Norman Sirak, by and through his undersigned counsel, and for his Complaint states as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. The Plaintiff, Norman Sirak, is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio.
...
17. Norman Sirak has approximately 2,500 clients as Plaintiffs in Michael v. Ghee, all of whom are Ohio prison inmates, having been convicted of one (1) or more felonies.A request for class certification is presently pending before the Honorable Judge James G. Carr, in Michael v. Ghee.
18. At all relevant times, the Defendants Margarette T. Ghee and Derek Farmer had express knowledge of Michael v. Ghee, the allegations contained in Michael v. Ghee and the relief sought by Norman Sirak for his 2,500 Ohio inmate clients, in Michael v. Ghee.
...
21. At all relevant times, Anthony Williams A251-884 (hereinafter Anthony Williams was an Ohio prison inmate at North Central Correctional Institution (herein after "NCCI"); a client of Norman Sirak's; and, a plaintiff in Michael v. Ghee.22. During Norman Sirak's representation and counsel of Anthony Williams, his mother Alma Kirk consulted with the Defendant Derek Farmer, at his law office, for counsel and advice on her son Anthony Williams' Ohio Parole Board status.
23. During this consultation, Alma Kirk expressly informed the Defendant Derek Farmer that her son was a client of Norman Sirak's, and a represented Plaintiff in Michael v. Ghee.
24. Despite Defendant Derek Farmer's express knowledge that Anthony Williams was a client of Norman Sirak's, and a represented Plaintiff in Michael v. Ghee, Derek Farmer informed and/or advised Alma Kirk as follows:
...
29. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Margarette Ghee had express knowledge that Anthony Williams was a client of Norman Sirak's, and a represented Plaintiff in Michael v. Ghee, at such time as Margarette Ghee made her unauthorized visit of Anthony Williams, at NCCI.
30. During Margarette Ghee's unauthorized visit of Anthony Williams, she had Anthony Williams' master file from the prison records office, without Anthony Williams' knowledge, consent and/or permission.
31. During Margarette Ghee's unauthorized personal visit with Anthony Williams at NCCI, she informed and/or counseled Anthony Williams as follows:
A. That Anthony Williams was not eligible for a "Layne review" because he was not outside of his Ohio Parole Board guidelines;
B. That Anthony Williams would not be paroled at his "half time review", and that Anthony Williams would have to serve at least 15 years incarceration and get his GED, before Anthony Williams would ever be considered for an Ohio parole; and,
C. The Defendant Margarette Ghee informed Anthony Williams that he was not eligible to be a Named Plaintiff and a member of this class and that he had just wasted his money by joining the Norman Sirak lawsuit of Michael v. Ghee, and spoke very disparagingly about Attorney Sirak and Michael v. Ghee.
D. The Defendant Margarette Ghee informed Anthony Williams that the defendants, of which she was one, had already won this law suit.
32. Both of these Defendants, Margarette Ghee and Derek Farmer, are well acquainted with the attitudes of inmates and know that confidence in the legal process and in attorneys in general is fragile.Margarette Ghee's statement to Anthony Williams, that the Defendants have already won this lawsuit, was directly calculated to erode support among inmate clients of Attorney Sirak.
33. The above set forth conduct of the Defendants Margarette Ghee and Derek Farmer was done knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously, with a direct purpose of interfering with Plaintiff Norman Sirak's legitimate business interest, to wit: legal representation of Anthony Williams and all other Ohio inmates similarly situated to Anthony Williams, who are clients of Norman Sirak, and Plaintiffs in Michael v. Ghee.
34. The above described conduct of the Defendants Margarette T. Ghee and Derek Farmer was done with the express intent to maliciously and tortuously interfere with Plaintiff Norman Sirak's attorney client relationship with Anthony Williams, and his approximately 2,500 Ohio inmate clients, all of whom are Plaintiffs in Michael v. Ghee.
35. The above described conduct of the Defendants Margarette Ghee and Derek Farmer was done without right and privilege; was done illegally and/or in violation of numerous Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rules; and, was done with the purpose of causing Anthony Williams, and all of Norman Sirak's 2,500 other clients who are Plaintiffs in Michael v. Ghee, to discontinue their attorney client relationship with the Plaintiff Norman Sirak.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants Margarette T. Ghee's and Derek Farmer's tortuous interference, the Plaintiff Norman Sirak has suffered damages in an amount which exceeds $25,000.00, the exact amount to be proven at the trial of this case.
37. Because the Defendants Margarette T. Ghee's and Derek Farmer's tortuous interference was done intentionally, illegally and maliciously, without any right and/or justification other than to harm the Plaintiff Norman Sirak, Norman Sirak is entitled to punitive damages at the highest rate allowed by law.
COUNT TWO - CIVIL CONSPIRACY
38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all allegations set forth in paragraphs one (1) through 36 above, and further alleges and states as follows:
39. The Defendants Margarette Ghee and Derek Farmer have maliciously combined to cause damage, injury and harm to Norman Sirak, through their tortuous interference with Norman Sirak's representation of Anthony Williams and others, to wit: Norman Sirak's approximately 2,500 clients, all of whom are Plaintiffs in Michael v. Ghee.
40. The Defendants Margarette T. Ghee and Derek Farmer have conspired together to tortuously interfere with Norman Sirak's representation of Anthony Williams and others, to wit: Norman Sirak's approximately 2,500 clients, all of whom are Plaintiff's in Michael v. Ghee; and, to tortuously interfere with the lawsuit known as Michael v. Ghee, which was brought by Norman Sirak, as counsel of record for the named Plaintiff and approximately 2,500 Ohio inmates, all of whom are Plaintiffs in Michael v. Ghee.
41. The malicious combination and conspiracy of the Defendants Margarette T. Ghee and Derek Farmer, required both to act in concert with one another, as each needed the other to accomplish their combined unlawful act of tortuously interfering with Norman Sirak's representation of his 2,500 Ohio inmate clients, all of whom are Plaintiffs in Michael v. Ghee.
42. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants Margarette Ghee's and Derek Farmer's malicious combination and conspiracy, the Plaintiff Norman Sirak has suffered damages in an amount which exceeds $25,000.00, the exact amount to be proven at the trial of this case.
43. Because the malicious combination and conspiracy of the Defendants Margarette Ghee and Derek Farmer was done intentionally, illegally and maliciously, without any right and/or justification other than to harm the Plaintiff Norman Sirak, Norman Sirak is entitled to punitive damages at the highest rate allowed by law.
...
Counsel for Plaintiff, Norman Sirak
Subscribe/Unsubscribeto our mailing list:
©2003-2004, Norman Sirak
Attorney Norman Sirak of ...
www.fixtexasparole.com [cached]
Attorney Norman Sirak of Ohio is currently pursuing a class action lawsuit on behalf of Texas Inmates against the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.This lawsuit is based upon grounds of civil rights and is being filed in Federal Court.
...
Letter from attorney Norman Sirak to Senator Eliot Shapleigh.
...
Listen to KIVY 92.7 FM Radio Broadcast featuring attorney Norman Sirak.Requires Windows Media Player 11. Click here to listenClick here to read the trancriptClick here to read the Spanish version of the transcript
October 13th, 2006Portion of the Ray Hill Prison Show for Oct. 6, 2006 which featured Attorney Norman Sirak and his paralegal Sheila Rutkowski, can be downloaded
...
2006 copyright © Norman Sirak
Attorney Norman Sirak of ...
www.fixtexasparole.com [cached]
Attorney Norman Sirak of Ohio is currently pursuing a class action lawsuit on behalf of Texas Inmates against the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. This lawsuit is based upon grounds of civil rights and is being filed in Federal Court.
...
Listen to KIVY 92.7 FM Radio Broadcast featuring attorney Norman Sirak.
...
Listen to KIVY 92.7 FM Radio Broadcast featuring attorney Norman Sirak.
...
Listen to KIVY 92.7 FM Radio Broadcast featuring attorney Norman Sirak.
...
Letter from attorney Norman Sirak to Senator Eliot Shapleigh.
...
Listen to KIVY 92.7 FM Radio Broadcast featuring attorney Norman Sirak. Requires Windows Media Player 11.
...
Portion of the Ray Hill Prison Show for Oct. 6, 2006 which featured Attorney Norman Sirak and his paralegal Sheila Rutkowski, can be downloaded
...
copyright © 2006-2008 Norman Sirak
However, when I read the offender ...
www.fixtexasparole.com, 26 Oct 2008 [cached]
However, when I read the offender funded Complaint filed by Attorney Norman Sirak, hope swelled like a beacon in the night.
...
Thank you, Attorney Sirak!
...
copyright © 2006-2008 Norman Sirak
Attorney Norman Sirak ...
www.fixtexasparole.com, 26 Oct 2008 [cached]
Attorney Norman Sirak 4974 Higbee Ave NW Suite 203 Canton, OH 44718 Ph: (330) 478-1947
Our Texas P.O. Box is closed.
All correspondence should be sent to Canton. Thank you!
copyright © 2006-2008 Norman Sirak
Other People with the name "Sirak":
Accelerate your business with the industry's most comprehensive profiles on business people and companies.
Find business contacts by city, industry and title. Our B2B directory has just-verified and in-depth profiles, plus the market's top tools for searching, targeting and tracking.
Atlanta | Boston | Chicago | Houston | Los Angeles | New York
Browse ZoomInfo's business people directory. Our professional profiles include verified contact information, biography, work history, affiliations and more.
Browse ZoomInfo's company directory. Our company profiles include corporate background information, detailed descriptions, and links to comprehensive employee profiles with verified contact information.
zirhbt201304