THE OFFICIAL FRANCIS E. DEC FANCLUB PRESENTS:

THE "MAXIMUM-CONVICTION APPEAL BRIEF"
- FRANCIS E. DEC WRITES THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
- A LEGAL DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY FRANCIS E. DEC, ESQ. TRANSCRIBED BY zer0.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

zer0 SAYS:
The material contained within this page is almost mythical. Those of you
who have read Dec's rant "To All Judges" know that he once sent a letter of
appeal (and for a writ of Certiorari) to the U.S. Supreme Court. Said letter of
appeal is by Dec in his aforementioned rant referred to as his "MAXIMUM-
CONVICTION APPEAL BRIEF". Well, fans of Dec; this is that brief, added
to the Fanclub at last. And god-fucking-damn-it is it ever long!!

 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 
 

For a long time, this appeal brief was locked away and forgotten in some dusty archive some-
where. That is, up until 2006 when it was recovered by dedicated Decologist Ted Torbich. After
several months of hard work, I have now transcribed and illustrated it fully. The result is one of the
longest, most hate-filled pieces of writing Dec has ever cranked out; aimed at getting the Supreme
Court of the United States to re-hear the case (see Timeline and FAQ) that lead to him losing his
job as a lawyer by being disbarred from the NY Bar Association. It also contains one of the best
examples of hate-fueled slander and proto-schizophrenic paranoia I have ever seen. Dec literally
slanders every last living person who was involved in the trial against him in this damn thing!
It's positively mind-numbing!!

The more observant among you (possibly with a background in web design) will notice how
there is no background image used on this page. The reason for this is very simple; Dec's Supreme
Court appeal brief is so goddamn long that the image I use as a backdrop on the Fanclub starts to
repeatedly loop itself over and over again due to the sheer vertical length of the page, in spite of
said backdrop being more than 15 000 pixels in height! Yeah, that's a long-ass brief, alright!

The humor in Dec's brief almost had me rolling on the floor the first time I read it. Besides his
aforementioned hatred for precisely everyone, I utterly love the "pet names" he's got going on for
the people involved in his trial, like Charles "felonious 10% kick-back" Martino or Fred "the car
thief"
Wirschning! My absolute favorite description, however, is of Nat Birchall. It's hard for me to
see how Dec thought it was a good idea to point out how someone was standing "...PETRIFIED,
AS IF AWAITING FATE TO END HIS MISERABLE PERJUROUS LIFE"
in an official document
he sent to the U.S. Supreme Court. But he did. Seriously. Maybe that's why the brief was turned
down and the judgment in the case was not overturned. Man, I love Dec's style of writing so much!

Funny as though it may be, this brief is also very dry in certain parts and contains a great deal of
legalese. Also; Dec for some reason continually repeats himself throughout it, which in my opinion
is very annoying. As such, even though this brief contains definite humor throughout, it may be too
long even for some fans of Dec out there. If so, try reading this rant instead. It is based on this brief
and contains a shortened version of the funniest parts thereof. Not only that, but it has the first new
audio material based on Dec (and recorded by Yours Truly) in over 20 years!

For your reading pleasure, I have highlighted parts of this brief that have struck me as funny in
bold.
Also highlighted in bold are some parts that stood out to me as suspicious and as possible
evidence of a real, honest-to-gosh Conspiracy against Dec (as is also alleged by him) by members
of the Nassau County judiciary. When I first read Dec's lower courts appeal brief, I dismissed his
accusations of a Conspiracy as the insane fantasies of a deranged mind. However, after having
read this brief, I've changed my mind. It would actually seem likely, at least in my humble opinion,
that there really did exist some kind of conspiracy towards Dec, possibly aimed at getting him
excluded from the NY Bar by setting him up for a crime he did not commit. Don't take my word for
it, though; read through the brief and see for yourselves!

I have transcribed Dec's brief as carefully as possible. Dec sometimes includes other documents,
such as receipts or letters sent to him from court personnel in his appeal. When this happens, I
have inserted hyperlinked miniatures of these that you can click on to see the complete thing, so
as not to interrupt the running narrative of his appeal. Enjoy, Parroting Puppet Gangster Slaves!

 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Click here to go back to the rants page!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
QUICK LINKS TO CONTENTS
Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States
Opinions Below
Jurisdiction
Questions Presented
Constitutional Provision INVOLVED
Statement
Reasons for Granting the Application
     Reason #1
     REASON #2
     REASON #3
     REASON #4
     REASON #5
     REASON #6
     REASON #7
     REASON#8
     REASON#9
Conclusion
APPENDIX
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COUNTY COURT    :    NASSAU COUNTY
STATE OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
                                                           Respondent,
                                                                            Index No. 17483, year 1958
                           against
FRANCIS E. DEC,
                                  Petitioner-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

      I.   Notice is hereby given that Francis
E. Dec, the appellant above named, hereby
appeals to the Supreme Court of the United
States from the Final Order of the Court of
Appeals of New York State, of July 7, 1961,
affirming the judgment of conviction of the
Nassau County, County Court of Forgery
Second Degree (two counts), Grand
Larceny Second Degree and Violation of
Section 1820 A Sub. 2 of the Penal Law
and on December 23, 1958, was sentenced
to Sing Sing Prison at Ossining, New York,
on each of the Forgery Second Degree
convictions and on the Grand Larceny
Second Degree conviction to a term of
imprisonment the maximum of which was
five years and the minimum two and one-half years, all sentences to be served concurrently, and
execution suspended and defendant to be placed on probation for the maximum time allowed and
sentence suspended on the last conviction.
          This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A Section 1257, (1), and (3).
          Appellant was convicted of the crimes of Forgery in the Second Degree (two counts); Grand
Larceny in the Second Degree and Violation of Section 1820 A Sub. 2 of the Penal Law, all in violation
of the Penal Law of New York State, appellant was sentenced to Sing Sing Prison at Ossining, New
York on each of the Forgery Second Degree convictions and on the Grand Larceny Second Degree
conviction to a term of imprisonment the maximum of which was five years and the minimum two and
a half years, all sentences to be served concurrently, and execution suspended and and [sic] sen-
tence suspended on the last conviction.  Appellant is presently serving probation, appellant has been
automatically disbarred because of said conviction.
     II.   The Clerk will please prepare a transcript of the record in this cause, for transmission to the
Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States and include in said transcript the following: All pre-
trial motions, namely, Motion to Inspect the Grand Jury Minutes and Dismiss the Indictment, May 13,
1958; Motion to Dismiss Indictment, May 26, 1958; Motion to Resettle Erroneous Demurrer Order,
July 8, 1958; The Court Reporter’s record of the trial and of judgment and sentence (two volumes);
Motion to Amend the Fraudulently Altered Official Trial Record, seven hundred and ninety four (794)
amendments, 320 typewritten pages, submitted to the Nassau County, County Court on September
14, 1959. Notice of Appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial
Department and appeal motions, namely, Motion for an Order Commanding the Trial Stenographers to
Produce the Trial Record in Accordance with Section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, February
2, 1959; Motion to Dispense with Printing, February 2, 1959; Motion for an Order of Settlement on
March 30, 1959; Motion to Extend Time to Amend the Trial Minutes, May 8, 1959; Motion to Extend
Time to Perfect Appeal on October 5, 1959; Motion to Reargue Motion to Dispense with Printing on
October 5, 1959; appellant’s and prosecutions appeal briefs and Court Order of transference to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on October 11, 1960. Notice
of Appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York and Motion to Dispense with Printing in the Court of
Appeals on March 20, 1961; appellant’s brief and answering brief and Order of Affirmance of the Court
of Appeals with no opinion of July 7, 1961, and all other papers in this matter.
     III.   The following questions are presented in this appeal:

1.       May a State consistent with the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
to which guarantee is pertinent the right to a speedy trial, repeatedly adjourn a citizen’s
criminal trial over a period of nine months in spite of the citizen’s duly undertaken repeated
demands for a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Constitution.

2.       May a State consistent with the equal protection and due process of the law guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment deprive a citizen of his statutory right to appellate review by producing a substantially fraudulently altered official trial record; which said trial record is obviously wantonly fraudulently deleted, abbreviated, juxta positioned, hashed together,
jumbled and lengthened with substitute material in an obvious attempt to keep secret the gestapo like farce kangaroo court trial to support an unjust felonious conviction of the citizen,
a volunteer Veteran of World War II and a member of the Bar of the State of New York.

3.       May a State consistent with the equal protection and due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment uphold the felonious conviction of a citizen brought about through the
halting of the cross examination of the completely breaking down and confessing perjurous
chief prosecution witness, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning, wherein she through her sworn,
detailed, cross examination testimony disproved the accusations of the false indictment
created by and through the gestapo like frauds of the District Attorney and his staff and the
Trial Court’s further ordering the alternation of said Elizabeth Wirschning’s cross examination
with that of the near non-existent hearsay testimony of the near speechless, petrified, aged,
perjurous, life long District Attorney’s stenographer, namely, Nathan Birchall, and then after
halting both said cross examinations in spite of the citizen’s objections the court ordered the
halting of the citizen’s trial for approximately one week during which week the citizen,
defendant, was coerced through oral and written messages by Judge Philip Kleinfeld, a Judge
of the New York State Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial
Department, the said messages warning the citizen defendant that regardless of the citizen’s
innocence, the citizen must surrender his Constitutional Rights as a citizen and lawyer and
give up trying his own case because both judge and jury were fixed and if the citizen did not
retain a “chosen” ex District Attorney, namely, Edward Neary, as his lawyer to plead guilty to the false charges then the citizen’s trial would lead only to the citizen’s felonious conviction
and a severe prison sentence because “the judge and jury are fixed”.

4.       May a State consistent with the equal protection and due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment uphold a felonious conviction wherein the trial court in collusion with
the prosecution and in spite of the citizen, defendant’s, objections withheld the contradictory
sworn statements of complaint of the prosecution’s perjurous only two chief witnesses,
namely, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins, especially when the withheld
statements disprove the indictment of the citizen, defendant.

5.       May a State consistent with the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
uphold a felonious conviction of a citizen brought about by a trial wherein repeated statements
by the trial judge and prosecutor claim directly and impliedly and through statutory definition
that a hearsay, unverifiable copy of the District Attorney’s stenographic notes consisting
mostly of hearsay conversations of others that the citizen defendant did [obscured] by the
citizen defendant and thereby through statutory definition of criminal confessions practically
convict the citizen defendant; when subsequently through written admissions of the prose-
cution in the prosecution’s appeal brief to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York the
said District Attorney’s hearsay stenographic noted are stated not to constitute a confession,
a contention obviously directly opposite to that taken by the prosecution and trial judge during
the citizen’s trial.

6.       May a State consistent with the right to due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment place in evidence and permit the prosecution to repeatedly read aloud to the jury
during the citizen’s criminal trial copies of stenographic records of conversations of people
other than the citizen who were never made witnesses during the citizen’s trial although they
were available and two of whom were important members of the judiciary, especially when the
District Attorney’s stenographer testified that that original stenographic records produced by
the said District Attorney’s stenographer were written in his own personal secret code of
shorthand which can be read and understood only by himself; and in spite of the citizen’s
repeated objections the trial judge precluded any inspection of the said original stenographic
notes and ordered the citizen to accept the veracity of the District Attorney’s stenographer’s
stenographic notes on the say so of the District Attorney’s stenographer and further the said
hearsay stenographic notes were falsely stressed by trial judge in collusion with the
prosecution as a confession by the citizen, in that said citizen’s criminal trial that brought
about the felonious conviction of the citizen.

7.       May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment procure a felonious criminal conviction against a citizen through
the fraud and collusion of the trial court in conspiracy with the prosecution

8.       May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment deprive a citizen of liberty and property through a felonious
conviction and intentionally ignore the explicit statutory protection afforded by Section 456 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for New York State, which said section provides that the trial
record upon conviction shall be produced within the maximum time of 12 days after notice of
appeal has been served and further intentionally disregard the said statutory rights in spite of
the citizen’s formal written appellate court motion for an order compelling the trial court
stenographers to produce the trial record in accordance with said Section 456 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in order to minimize the time in which court officials would have to
fraudulently alter said citizen’s trial record, wherein support of said motion detailed sworn
facts of other felonious fraudulent alterations of such trial records by jurists was stressed by
the citizen.

9.       May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment repeatedly coerce a citizen lawyer to surrender his Consti-
tutional Right to defend himself by coercive statements of state court judges and court officials
to the extent that the State’s Court of Appeals did in detail letters wantonly with prejudice
prejudge the criminal appeal taken by the citizen pro se and the said clerk of the Court of
Appeals impliedly completely approved and sanctioned the wanton fraudulently altered almost
unintelligible official record of this citizen’s trial produced by the lower courts in collusive
conspiracy with the District Attorney’s office, which said frauds this citizen repeatedly
complained of in his appeal brief.

                                                                
Dated:                                                        Francis E. Dec, Appellant pro se
September 21, 1961                                         P 0. Address
                                                                      171 So. Franklin St.
                                                                      Hempstead, New York



[Click here to see AN INSERTED receipt FROM THE
Supreme Court fOR Dec’S petition FOR certiorari!]

                                                                                                                                  ^^^TOP

   In the Supreme Court of the United States
                                             October Term, 1961

No._ _ _ _ _ Misc.

                               People of the State of New York,
                                                                           Respondent,
                                                         v.
                               Francis E. Dec,
                                                                           Petitioner-Appellant.


On Appeal from the Court of  Appeals of the State of New York
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

                                            Opinions Below
          On appeal from the judgment of conviction of the Nassau County Court of the State of New
York on December 23, 1958, to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial
Department for the State of New York, said Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second
Judicial Department on the hearing date of this appeal, without notice to this petitioner ordered the
transfer of this appeal for hearing and determination to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
for the First Judicial Department for the State of New York. The said Appellate Division unanimously
affirmed the judgement of conviction with no opinion on October 11, 1960. The Court of Appeals of
New York State unanimously affirmed the judgement of conviction with no opinion on July 7, 1961.

                                                                                                                                  ^^^TOP

                                            Jurisdiction
          The judgement of the Court of Appeals of New York was entered on July 7, 1961, and a copy
thereof is appended to this petition in the Appendix at pages 100 to 101. The jurisdiction of this Court
is invoked under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 (1), (3).

                                                                                                                                  ^^^TOP

                                            Questions Presented

1.       May a State consistent with the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
to which guarantee is pertinent the right to a speedy trial, repeatedly adjourn a citizen’s
criminal trial over a period of nine months in spite of the citizen’s duly undertaken repeated
demands for a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Constitution.

2.       May a State consistent with the equal protection and due process of the law guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment deprive a citizen of his statutory right to appellate review by
producing a substantially fraudulently altered official trial record; which said trial record is
obviously wantonly fraudulently deleted, abbreviated, juxta positioned, hashed together,
jumbled and lengthened with substitute material in an obvious attempt to keep secret the
gestapo like farce kangaroo court trial to support an unjust felonious conviction of the citizen,
a volunteer Veteran of World War II and a member of the Bar of the State of New York.

3.       May a State consistent with the equal protection and due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment uphold the felonious conviction of a citizen brought about through the
halting of the cross examination of the completely breaking down and confessing perjurous
chief prosecution witness, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning, wherein she through her sworn, detailed,
cross examination testimony disproved the accusations of the false indictment created by and
through the gestapo like frauds of the District Attorney and his staff and the Trial Court’s further
ordering the alternation of said Elizabeth Wirschning’s cross examination with that of the near
non-existent hearsay testimony of the near speechless, petrified, aged, perjurous, life long
District Attorney’s stenographer, namely, Nathan Birchall, and then after halting both said
cross examinations in spite of the citizen’s objections the court ordered the halting of the
citizen’s trial for approximately one week during which week the citizen, defendant, was
coerced through oral and written messages by Judge Philip Kleinfeld, a Judge of the New
York State Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department, the
said messages warning the citizen defendant that regardless of the citizen’s innocence, the
citizen must surrender his Constitutional Rights as a citizen and lawyer and give up trying his
own case because both judge and jury were fixed and if the citizen did not retain a “chosen”
ex District Attorney, namely, Edward Neary, as his lawyer to plead guilty to the false charges
then the citizen’s trial would lead only to the citizen’s felonious conviction and a severe prison
sentence because “the judge and jury are fixed”.

4.       May a State consistent with the equal protection and due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment uphold a felonious conviction wherein the trial court in collusion with
the prosecution and in spite of the citizen, defendant’s, objections withheld the contradictory
sworn statements of complaint of the prosecution’s perjurous only two chief witnesses,
namely, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins, especially when the withheld
statements disprove the indictment of the citizen, defendant.

5.       May a State consistent with the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
uphold a felonious conviction of a citizen brought about by a trial wherein repeated statements
by the trial judge and prosecutor claim directly and impliedly and through statutory definition
that a hearsay, unverifiable copy of the District Attorney’s stenographic notes consisting
mostly of hearsay conversations of others that the citizen defendant did [obscured] by the
citizen defendant and thereby through statutory definition of criminal confessions practically
convict the citizen defendant; when subsequently through written admissions of the prose-
cution in the prosecution’s appeal brief to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York the
said District Attorney’s hearsay stenographic noted are stated not to constitute a confession,
a contention obviously directly opposite to that taken by the prosecution and trial judge during
the citizen’s trial.

6.       May a State consistent with the right to due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment place in evidence and permit the prosecution to repeatedly read aloud to the jury
during the citizen’s criminal trial copies of stenographic records of conversations of people
other than the citizen who were never made witnesses during the citizen’s trial although they
were available and two of whom were important members of the judiciary, especially when the
District Attorney’s stenographer testified that that original stenographic records produced by
the said District Attorney’s stenographer were written in his own personal secret code of
shorthand which can be read and understood only by himself; and in spite of the citizen’s
repeated objections the trial judge precluded any inspection of the said original stenographic
notes and ordered the citizen to accept the veracity of the District Attorney’s stenographer’s
stenographic notes on the say so of the District Attorney’s stenographer and further the said
hearsay stenographic notes were falsely stressed by trial judge in collusion with the
prosecution as a confession by the citizen, in that said citizen’s criminal trial that brought
about the felonious conviction of the citizen.

7.       May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment procure a felonious criminal conviction against a citizen through
the fraud and collusion of the trial court in conspiracy with the prosecution

8.       May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment deprive a citizen of liberty and property through a felonious
conviction and intentionally ignore the explicit statutory protection afforded by Section 456 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for New York State, which said section provides that the trial
record upon conviction shall be produced within the maximum time of 12 days after notice of
appeal has been served and further intentionally disregard the said statutory rights in spite of
the citizen’s formal written appellate court motion for an order compelling the trial court
stenographers to produce the trial record in accordance with said Section 456 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in order to minimize the time in which court officials would have to fraud-
ulently alter said citizen’s trial record, wherein support of said motion detailed sworn facts of
other felonious fraudulent alterations of such trial records by jurists was stressed by
the citizen.

9.       May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment repeatedly coerce a citizen lawyer to surrender his
Constitutional Right to defend himself by coercive statements of state court judges and
court officials to the extent that the State’s Court of Appeals did in detail letters wantonly
with prejudice prejudge the criminal appeal taken by the citizen pro se and the said clerk of
the Court of Appeals impliedly completely approved and sanctioned the wanton fraudulently
altered almost unintelligible official record of this citizen’s trial produced by the lower courts
in collusive conspiracy with the District Attorney’s office, which said frauds this citizen
repeatedly complained of in his appeal brief.

                                                                                                                                  ^^^TOP

                                       Constitutional Provision Involved
      The United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2; to the end of the section:
         “…nor shall any State deprive any person of…
         liberty or property, without due process of law nor
         deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal
         protection of the laws.”

                                                                                                                                  ^^^TOP

                                            STATEMENT
          The Nassau County Court, New York, on December 23, 1958, after a gestapo like farce trial
with dishonest fixed judge, William J. Sullivan, and a fixed jury convicted this defendant, a lawyer, of
the false four count indictment, namely, Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (third count): Defendant
took, stole from Allstate Insurance Company a certain sight draft for $400 by false and fraudulent
representations and pretenses [sic], namely, that Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning received certain medical
treatments from a Dr. Milton E. Robbins, who treated Mr. Wirschning for her complained injuries of
bursitis of her right shoulder and a bruised right thigh and that the general release of Mrs. Wirschning
was a good and valid general release. Forgery in the Second Degree (first count): Defendant felon-
iously offered, uttered and disposed of a forged general release of Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning above
mentioned. Forgery in the Second Degree (second count): Defendant feloniously offered, uttered and
disposed of a forged sight draft of Allstate Insurance Company made to the order of defendant and
Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning in the amount of $400. Violation of Section 1820A Sub. 2 of the Penal
Law (fourth count): Defendant deceitfully made a certificate upon a general release set forth in the
first count of the indictment that Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning acknowledged that she executed said
release, thereby committed a misdemeanor. After the unprecedented near month long trial of this
defendant lawyer upon this indictment upon this indictment upon the perjurous complaint of one client
this defendant lawyer was automatically disbarred upon conviction and sentenced to 2½ to 5 years
in prison, concurrently for each of the three felony counts and sentence was suspended on the
misdemeanor count with the execution of sentence suspended and defendant ordered to serve
probation for the maximum period allowable under the law, which sentence, of a lawyer upon one
complaint of one client is without precedent. The prosecution called 10 witnesses during the trial from
November 5th to 20th, 1958, inclusively. I have abstracted from the 991 pages extant in the Court
Reporter’s record of my trial and the lengthy criminal prosecution along with related motivating facts
and presented these facts in a narrative forum coordinating the direct and cross examination of the
trial for clarity.
          The gestapo like illegal
prosecution of this defendant has been
carried on for over a decade since this
defendant made complaints against one
Henry H. Meyer, a life long Assistant
District Attorney in Nassau County.
Over a decade ago, this defendant
made complaints of the felonious crimes
committed by the impish Henry H.
Meyer, who was forging and cashing
his son’s Veteran’s Administration
monthly disability payment checks in
order to systematically defraud his
son of the substantial monthly dis-
ability payments and the same Henry H.
Meyer thereafter impishly assisted in placing his son in an insane asylum. Convulsive, muddled
incoherent, jeering threats of revenge were stated by an Assistant District Attorney, Edward Robinson,
Jr., during the two suppositive grand jury hearings in July of 1957, in reference to this and other
complaints by this defendant.
          Defendant testified in Court during his trial as to the decade long gestapo like persecution of
this defendant by members of the Nassau County judiciary and government. Even the impish
prosecutor
of defendant’s trial somewhat summed up defendant’s said testimony on page 909 of
the trial minutes. The many innumerable written public records proving the said illegal persecution of
this defendant cannot all be fraudulently altered to confirm the simple false ravings of trial prose-
cutor
, Arthur Nixon, that, “Yuh bet yuh bottum dolla … its a pak o’ lies, where’s ‘iz proof”.
The gestapo mafia like illegal secret persecution of this defendant was carried on to ruin this
defendant in revenge because of this defendant’s repeated righteous complaints of omnipotent
gangsterism and corruption of the judiciary and government. This same gestapo like secret illegal
persecution of this defendant by the Nassau County judiciary was evidenced through the pre-
determined prejudiced attitude expressed by Judge Henry Uhgetta in the spring on 1958, when Judge
Uhgetta was notified of the decade long persecution waged against this defendant and in gestapo like
tacticts such as, the removal of defendant’s name from an approved N. Y. State Police Civil Service
employment list and from N.Y State Police employment without any hearing and without any legal
reason by the orders of Judge Joseph Conroy of the Supreme Court of the Second Judicial Depart-
ment (29-32). Judge Henry Uhgetta was then informed that this defendant was later ordered in
gestapo fashion into Police Inspector Kirk’s office in the Nassau County Police headquarters in
Mineola, N. Y., in January 1955, and was harangued and coerced by three Police Inspectors, namely,
Looney, Kirk and “Schufler”, the least of whom was an unprosecuted sadistic murderer, with inspector
Pinell present part of the time. The three inspectors informed the defendant that they had to force the
defendant to resign from the Nassau County Police Force because of orders from the Nassau County
District Attorney’s Office and high members of the Nassau County judiciary, in spite of their ad-
missions that their detailed records accumulated through unprecedented special gestapo like search
of defendant’s entire life history produced nothing but a record of an extraordinary good citizen
and in spite of defendant’s acceptance to the said police force after Civil Service examination. Upon
hearing this, Judge Henry Uhgetta tacitly then stated that with the background he had been informed
of this defendant, defendant could never have been accepted to any police force. The gestapo like
false and prejudicing information supplies to Judge Henry Uhgetta was later set aside by Judge
Henry Uhgetta, when in a final message he stated with reference to this defendant’s gestapo like
persecution, Judge Uhgetta stated, “the reason is someone in Nassau County doesn’t like you.”
          The defendant was subject to repeated persecution in the Nassau County Courts when as
a lawyer this defendant tried cases before dishonest omnipotent judges who made a farce of the trials
and later on occasions on appeal defendant suffered further injustice to discover that the trial record
was substantially, fraudulently altered. As for example, in a case tried before dishonest Judge Katha-
leen Kane, she, who after a farce trial wherein she granted judgment to the opposing party despite
the confession of said opposing party in open court that his sworn contentions were false, she,
Kathaleen Kane, behested the substantial fraudulent alteration of the trial minutes in order to destroy
defendant’s case. Through the coercion of court officials, the defendant did not stress Judge Katha-
leen Kane’s behested fraudulent alteration of the said trial minutes when defendant went up on appeal
to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, but still in the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, in
gestapo like mafia manner, the matter of defendant’s complaints of Judge Kathaleen Kane’s ordered
fraudulent alteration of defendant’s trial record was stressed by Judge Walter Hart, who, for over an
hour harangued, chastised and coerced defendant because defendant dared to accuse a judge of
ordering the fraudulent alteration of any record. Judge Walter Hart’s over hour long raving, co-
ercive, harangue
was the defendant’s “oral argument” on appeal.
          The gestapo, mafia like persecution of this defendant became open and notorious through-
out the Courts of Nassau County, such as the fanatic illegal persecution of this defendant by Samuel
Greason as a District Court Judge, exemplified by his frantic direct and indirect tirades against this
defendant whenever this defendant appeared in his Court representing a client on many occasions,
earned Samuel Greason the title of “a judge who at certain times is completely raving mad.”, which
is so unlike his present actions as head of the complete farce Nassau County Judicial Inquiry.
          Another unprecedented act of open gestapo like persecution by the District Attorney’s office
was assigned to Moxey Rigby, another Ass’t District Attorney recently elected a Judge, who
telephoned this defendant on one occasion and in raving simple speech tried to coerce this defendant
under threat of criminal action, stating that defendant, an attorney at law, could not withdraw from a
client’s farce and false tort case even after this defendant duly undertook substantial expense and
legal works for the dishonest client’s false tort claim and this defendant, as the retained lawyer,
retained no compensation.
          The acts of persecution were assisted when circumstances united several would be practising
[sic] lawyer felons together in one Allstate Insurance Company office all who knew of defendant as a
practising [sic] lawyer and openly begruged [sic] this fact.
          It was notorious habitual felonists such as Charles Martino, William Fitzgerald, Gerald
Chirello and Joseph Amoru (the last mentioned, Joseph Amouru, who like the small pocked face
Assistant District Attorney, Joseph Hennegan,
who like other Ass’t District Attorney’s sat at or
near the prosecution’s table during this defendant’s trial and sneered at this defendant for hours,
as this defendant as attorney pro se defended himself against the false four count indictment) defend-
ant knew Joseph Amoru and Joseph Hennegan from college as simple cheats and defendant told
them so in college. These and other habitual felonists, Allstate Insurance Company officers, who
knew of this defendant and this defendant’s absolute refusal to enter into the usual lawyer bribery
and fraud conspiracies with them in the settlement of claims against Allstate Insurance Company
who aided and abetted the gestapo like search of each of this defendant’s few claims against Allstate Insurance Company to the extent of questioning this defendant’s clients in detail, illegally, before and after defendant’s client’s claims were settled by Allstate Insurance Company. These felons, all of
whom were eventually discharged from Allstate Insurance Company and their years of habitual felonious crimes, defrauding Allstate Insurance Company, were condoned by all law enforcement agencies to the extent that only belatedly one or two of these habitual felons received censures as lawyers or civil disbarment. It was this group of habitual felons that rabble roused other Allstate Insurance Company officers to complain against this defendant to the Nassau County District
Attorney, after singling this defendant out for persecution instead of the many notorious habitual felonious and fraudulent ambulance chasing lawyers they know of, including themselves. They did
so in spite of the fact that the Allstate Insurance Company had written records from both Mr. and
Mrs. Wirschning proving that Mr. and Mrs. Wirschning were the actual conspiring felonious culprits
who falsely claimed they knew nothing about Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim and never retained the
defendant as Mrs. Wirschning’s lawyer. These factors together with a sadistic life long omnipotent
gangster, District Attorney, Frank Gulotta, who, as head henchman to this defendant’s decade long
gestapo like secret mafia type persecution brought about the false secret mafia type indictment of
this defendant.
          Defendant was ordered to the
District Attorney’s office on July 2, 1957,
by Edward Robinson Jr., an Ass’t District
Attorney. Without reason or justification the
said Edward Robinson Jr. then accused this
defendant of ambulance chasing fraudulent
accident claims and in simple, convulsive,
incoherent conversation, Edward Robinson
attempted to accuse defendant, based on
suppositive knowledge gained from the know
nothing about everything Wirschning’s that
the defendant was operating a fraudulent
ambulance chasing ring on a small scale,
similar to the gigantic fraudulent ambulance
chasing ring notoriously operated by such
habitual gangster lawyers as Sidney and Walter Siben and their gang of lawyers, who are unprose-
cuted and condoned felonious lawyers. The incoherent ravings of Edward Robinson finally enumerated
the complaint of Mrs. Wirschning and her husband, Fred Wirschning, who claimed that they never
knew the defendant and only saw the defendant once and never retained defendant as their lawyer
for Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claims against Allstate Insurance Company and they never prosecuted
or made any injury claims for Mrs. Wirschning against the Allstate Insurance Company. In fact, in
simple incoherent ravings Edward Robinson informed defendant that both Wirschning’s swore they
knew nothing about the entire injury claim and settlement of it by Allstate Insurance Company;
therefore defendant was an ambulance chasing lawyer. Defendant quelled the screaming convulsive
Edward Robinson sufficient to point to the Allstate Insurance Company file of Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning’s injury claim on his desk and specifically point out various papers that proved the claims
of the both Wirschning’s to be false and then demanded to be informed of any Grand Jury hearing on
the matter. The defendant’s quelling of the convulsive Edward Robinson and Robinson’s agreement
as to the defendant’s demands immediately caused Frank Gulotta’s interruption of the discussion with
requests that Edward Robinson end the discussion. The defendant, then demanded that Frank Gulotta
and Edward Robinson come to his office and see the records on Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim file
and Mrs. Wirschning’s separation file, in addition to the records they had of the Allstate Insurance
Company. Defendant’s written records and written signed retainer of both Elizabeth and Fred
Wirschning prove their complaints to be false and as defendant stated earlier to Robinson that it was
a continuation to a scheme by Fred Wirschning to coerce this defendant out of his fees for defendant’s
legal works in reference to Mrs. Wirschning’s marital difficulties with her wayward, perverted, felonious
car thief husband. Defendant then again informed Gulotta and Robinson of his many legal works and
services in reference to his retainer by Mrs. Wirschning as her lawyer for her impending legal
separation action for which she deposited her share of the injury claim settlement money, namely
$200, in escrow, with this defendant, in order to guarantee defendant the minimum agreed fee of
$150 she agreed with defendant for defendant’s completed legal services should she decide not to go
ahead with the legal separation action and also as part payment toward her agreed fee of $450 for
the legal separation action.
          Edward Robinson Jr. in
obvious petrification, convulsive
and in hysterics attempted to stop
defendant by screaming “LEVEL
WITH ME” over and over again as
he slumped over his desk perspiring
and looking up at the District
Attorney Frank Gulotta.
Defendant
informed Robinson and Gulotta, that
defendant’s records and the Allstate
Insurance Company records would
prove that defendant was retained by
Mrs. Wirschning as her lawyer for an
impending separation action and
because of this fact the defendant did
withdraw from her wayward perverted
husband’s loss of services claim of her
injury claim. Defendant again informed both Gulotta and Robinson of the repeated efforts of Mrs.
Wirschning’s husband through various coercive schemes to obtain his wife’s settlement money she
deposited with defendant in escrow, and that recently the defendant put the husband out of his office
under threat of arrest, at which time the defendant informed Fred Wirschning that he had coerced his
wife, probably through the usual physical abuse of her, into evading the defendant while he coerced
the defendant into giving him the $200 she left in escrow, based on his claims of being the husband
and head of the family and that therefore the money was actually his and not hers and further that
Fred Wirschning attempted to coerce the defendant into a fear of legal prosecution claiming the
defendant was not entitled to accept the money in escrow from Mrs. Wirschning regardless of the
agreement the defendant made with her. It was up to the defendant to collect from his wife because
she had no right to use the husband’s settlement money, so claimed Fred Wirschning. Frank Gulotta
then gesticulated in a frenzied manner for Edward Robinson to compose himself. Defendant offered to
take both Gulotta and Robinson to his office immediately and show them the legal separation file of
Mrs. Wirschning and the file with reference to her injury claim, both files with the various papers in
them as defendant stated earlier to Edward Robinson. The defendant once again demanded to be
notified of any Grand Jury hearing and demanded to be confronted by the perjurous Wirschnings.
Both Gulotta and Robinson agreed to call defendant should there be a Grand Jury hearing on the
matter. In frenzied movements Gulotta took hold of Robinson while speaking to a detective Becker
who was present. Gulotta ordered detective Alva Becker to take this defendant in custody to
defendant’s office before arresting defendant in order to prove that the defendant had no files on Mrs.
Wirschning, because she swore she had never retained defendant and saw defendant once in her life.
          Defendant went with detective Becker to defendant’s office. Detective Becker examined Mrs.
Wirschning’s injury claim file and her separation claim file, after defendant took both file envelopes out
of the locked filing cabinet. Detective Becker examined the various papers in the two files and opened
the lettersized [sic] titled envelope containing Mrs. Wirschning’s $200 escrow money. Detective
Becker then took and purloined the defendant’s written retainer signed by both Wirschnings and like
the simple raving Edward Robinson accused the defendant of ambulance chasing with a “no good”
false retainer. Detective Becker refused to give defendant back the written retainer with the Wirsch-
nings and instead stated that by his purloining the retainer made it possible for the District Attorney to
finally bring and [sic] end to the lengthy investigation of the “dumb polok” [sic] defendant and finally
send the “dumb polok” to prison.
          Thereafter on July 22, 1958, at
the District Attorney’s non existent
Grand Jury hearing to which defendant
appeared through illegal subpoena by
the gangster District Attorney, Frank
Gulotta stood in charge of Edward
Robinson while detective Becker sat
adjacent to defendant. Defendant was
informed to forget about complaining as
to the accusations of Edward Robinson
falsely accusing the defendant of
running an ambulance chasing ring of
fraudulent accident cases. Defendant
was informed he had no right to object
and that defendant was in the District
Attorney’s office subject to immediate
arrest and jailing because Mrs. Wirsch-
ning had placed new charges against the defendant and those new charges against the defendant
were true because she also swore to these new charges. The convulsive Edward Robinson then
stated that the new charges did not include ambulance chasing but that defendant negotiated and
settled on an injury claim for her of which she knew nothing about. The defendant interrupted the raving
Robinson and informed him that his accusations were false because detective Becker, who was then
sitting adjacent to the defendant, had taken the defendant in custody to defendant’s office and had
seen the separation file and the injury claim file on Mrs. Wirschning with the various papers in both
files along with the $200 escrow money she had deposited with the defendant and also the signed
written retainer of Mr. and Mrs. Wirschning. Further, that these two files and the various papers in the
said two files corroborated the facts of the Allstate Insurance Company file on Edward Robinson’s desk
which state in detail that Mrs. Wirschning retained defendant as her lawyer for her injury case and that
she repeatedly claimed the injuries to the Allstate Insurance Company doctor and officers for which
said injury claim she received her share of the settlement, namely $200, which money she deposited
in escrow with defendant as part payment toward an impending separation action and to guarantee
defendant’s minimum legal fee of $150 for defendant’s completed legal services should she decide not
to proceed ahead with her separation action. Detective Becker admitted purloining the written retainer
of Mr. and Mrs. Wirschning. Detective Becker then admitted that the titled envelope containing the
$200 escrow money was inspected by him along with the other papers in the two files. Only Fred
Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins were then called into the office in defendant’s presence.
Defendant rapidly questioned Dr. Milton E. Robbins and then Dr. Robbins admitted that immediately
after being informed by the District Attorney’s office of the investigation and Mrs. Wirschning’s denial
of her original claims of injuries and treatments by him; Dr. Robbins telephoned the defendant to come
to his, Dr. Robbins’ office in order that Doctor Robbins could get back his, Dr. Robbins handwritten
medical bill for his treatments given to Mrs. Wirschning for injuries stated on the bill. This same hand
written medical bill from Dr. Robbins was used by Mrs. Wirschning to state in detail her injuries and
doctor treatments for such injuries on May 24, 1956, when the parts of her body she, Mrs. Wirschning,
claimed were injured and constituted her entire injury claim, were examined by the Allstate Insurance
Company doctor, Dr. Joseph Rosenheck, in order that Allstate Insurance Company evaluate the cash
value of her total injury claim. Doctor Robbins then broke down and admitted further that the defendant
did not telephone or contact him but that he, Dr. Robbins, through hysterical petitions through his
telephone call to the defendant lured the defendant to his, Dr. Robbins’ office and then informed the
defendant that he, Dr. Robbins, had been informed of the investigation by the District Attorney’s office
and that he, Dr. Robbins, begged the defendant to get back his hand written medical bill for his, Dr.
Robbins’, medical treatments to Mrs. Wirschning, which bill defendant sent to the Allstate Insurance
Company many months before when settling Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim, as was required by the
Allstate Insurance company in order to settle such injury claim. Dr. Robbins broke down and admitted
he became hysterical while defendant was in his office and attempted to commit suicide in defendant’s
presence and that the defendant dissuaded him by informing him that Mrs. Wirschning repeatedly
claimed the exact same injuries and doctor treatments as her total injury claim to the Allstate In-
surance Company representatives. Doctor Robbins then admitted that he in hysterical threats caused
the defendant to remove many of Dr. Robbins x-rays from his, Dr. Robbins’ office. Frank Gulotta
quelled Dr. Robbins’ confession at this point. Still, sufficient incriminating statements were made by
Dr. Robbins to confirm the defendant’s statement to Gulotta and Robinson, namely, that Dr. Robbins,
under hysterical threats of suicide ordered the defendant to cart away and destroy many X-Rays
from Dr. Robbins’ office because Dr. Robbins’ stated fear that he and his lawyer brother in law,
both of whom had their professional offices in New York City, were under investigation by the New
York City Arkwright Judicial Investigating Committee (which Committee was investigating New York
City lawyers and doctors as to improper professional practices) and that the many X-Rays in his office
would prove his, Dr. Robbins’, lengthy injury claim business association with his lawyer brother in law.
In addition to this Fred Wirschning, the wayward, perverted, felonious car thief husband of Mrs.
Wirschning had already admitted the matrimonial troubles with his wife and that he lived with negro
prostitutes and that he ran stolen cars down south. During defendant’s further rapid questioning of
Fred Wirschning in the presence of Dr. Robbins, Fred Wirschning, further incriminated himself and
proved the defendant innocent by breaking down and admitting that after defendant’s repeated re-
quests of him and his wife, Elizabeth Wirschning, to produce Mrs. Wirschning’s medical bill from Dr.
Milton E. Robbins, her claimed doctor, for her claimed doctor treated injuries, constituting her injury
claim against Allstate Insurance Company, Fred Wirschning, gazing at Dr. Robbins, in the District
Attorney’s office, admitted that he, Fred Wirschning, did go to Dr. Milton E. Robbins’ office and did
obtain and did pay for the hand written medical bill from Dr. Milton E. Robbins. Upon hearing Fred
Wirschning make this admission, Dr. Robbins acknowledged the truth of said admission by making
significant motions of his head and by speech. The said Dr. Robbins’ hand written medical bill obtained
by Fred Wirschning was used by Mrs. Wirschning to repeatedly state her total doctor treated injury claim to the Allstate Insurance Company doctor. The defendant then reached across Robinson’s desk
and pointed out the pertinent Allstate Insurance Company records of Mrs. Wirschning’s medical
examination by the Allstate Insurance Company doctor, which confirmed the fact that Mrs.
Wirschning’s personally stated doctor treated injury claims against Allstate Insurance Company
was identical to the injuries listed on the hand written medical bill Fred Wirschning obtained from Dr.
Robbins; which both Gulotta and Robinson claimed to be false. After the defendant gained these
admissions from Fred Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins, the life long omnipotent gangster, the
District Attorney, Frank Gulotta, quickly, in frenzied movements and speech, while gesticulating and
actually seizing and quelling both the convulsive Edward Robinson and Fred Wirschning, Gulotta then
ordered all conversation to cease. Frank Gulotta immediately brought the interview with Dr. Robbins
and Fred Wirschning to an end quickly ushering Dr. Robbins, his lawyer and Fred Wirschning out of
the office. These incriminating admissions of Fred Wirschning and Dr. Robbins, which prove the
defendant’s innocence were later stressed by this defendant in defendant’s pre-trial motion to Dismiss
the false indictment on October 8, 1958, in County Court. Before ushering out Dr. Robbins’, his lawyer
and Fred Wirschning, Frank Gulotta obviously stunned, frenzied and frightened after hearing Dr.
Robbins’ and Fred Wirschning’s incriminating admissions, Gulotta, gave no hint that any Grand Jury
hearing would be held on the matter but instead assured the defendant that the matter of the complaint
was a misunderstanding and it was a small matter that was not important.
          This defendant was illegally subpoena [sic] by the District Attorney to the above mentioned non
existent Grand Jury hearing a few days after this defendant voluntarily appeared at Frank Gulotta’s
office and this defendant in accordance with his statutory rights repeatedly demanded to be notified of
any Grand Jury hearing of the matter and this defendant was assured by both Robinson and Gulotta
that if the matter was referred to a Grand Jury, the defendant would be notified. Instead of notifying this
defendant as promised and as required by statute, many months later, in gestapo like secret mafia
tactics, Frank Gulotta assembled his approved “upright citizens” for the secret Grand Jury and without
this defendant’s knowledge and without the required statutory notification of the defendant the many
month belated secret gestapo like indictment of defendant was created in violation of this defendant’s
statutory rights set forth in section 250 of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure. The Nassau
County Supreme Court’s hashed together, jumbled official record in the said court’s record book
indicated that the multiple four count indictment took up a few minutes of the Grand Jury’s time, with
no hesitation to notify this defendant.
          An example of the type of “unbiased citizens” chosen to serve as gestapo like secret original
judges of all serious crimes is one so called “Arthur Lem”, who like many other Grand Jurors depends
upon doled out business and high salaried income from government employment, which income is
doled out solely at the approval of the omnipotent gangster, the District Attorney. Such people as this
newspaper publicized notorious alien Chinese, life long gangster, smuggler, perjurer, defrauder and
imposter, “Arthur Lem” make up the rosters of “unbiased, upright citizens”, who constitute the original
secret gestapo like judges of all serious crimes, namely, the Grand Jury. As an example, this “Arthur
Lem” is a friend of and high salaried member of the staff of the omnipotent gangster, Frank Gulotta,
life long District Attorney of Nassau County, who recently in dictatorship like farce, fixed unopposed
election was elected Supreme Court Judge. This defendant was deprived of his Constitutional Rights
under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the District Attorney not notifying this
defendant of the belated secret Grand Jury hearing as promised by the said District Attorney. There-
fore, the defendant was denied the Constitutional right to challenge the validity of the secret gestapo
like indictment proceedings of the Grand Jury.
          This defendant challenged the false secret indictment in his two pre-trial motions to Dismiss
the false indictment in the Nassau County Supreme Court on May 13, 1958, and in the County Court
on May 26, 1958. Both motions, both courts illegally refused to entertain and refused to decide. Said
second motion Judge Cyril Brown of the County Court improperly deprived this defendant of his
Constitutional and statutory rights as set forth by section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by
wantonly deciding defendant’s motion to Dismiss the Indictment as a Demurrer. This defendant duly
made motion to resettle the unjust demurrer order on July 24, 1958, but said Judge Cyril Brown’s
decision on resettlement once again denied defendant’s statutory rights to a Motion to Dismiss the
Indictment and again decided defendant’s motion as a Demurrer.
          The incriminating admissions of Fred Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins during the July 22,
1957, hearing in the District Attorney’s office, which proved the defendant’s innocence were stressed
by this defendant in his later pre-trial motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Lack of Prosecution on
October 8, 1958, in the County Court. Several months passed after the indictment prior to said motion.
During this period Judge Philip Kleinfeld and Judge Henry Wenzel of the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of the Second Judicial Department were informed of the defendant’s decade long
persecution by members of the Nassau County judiciary and government and the defendant’s false
indictment. Both Judge Philip Kleinfeld and Judge Henry Wenzel requested that the defendant give
them a detailed written statement of the actual facts of defendant’s defense to the false indictment.
They doubted that the defendant had Dr. Milton E. Robbins’ original hand written medical bill, which
bill stated the identical injuries and doctor treatments as claimed by Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning to the
Allstate Insurance Company representatives and the Allstate Insurance Company doctor as the total
injuries and doctor treatments that constituted her personal injury claim which said injuries and doctor
treatments were identical to the injuries and doctor treatments the indictment claimed false. A
typewritten detailed statement as to defendant’s defense to the false indictment was given to both
Judge Philip Kleinfeld and Judge Henry Wenzel as per their request. In addition in further messages
to this defendant Judge Henry Wenzel requested that the defendant insert small typewritten state-
ments pointing out each item of evidence the defendant had which the District Attorney did not have,
which request the defendant adhered to. The reason Judge Henry Wenzel stated he wanted the small
inserted slips was “so that we know what we have to go against”. The defendant suspected the ob-
vious ulterior motive of such request by Judge Henry Wenzel. Thereafter several months passed after
the defendant gave the requested detailed statement to the two said judges. Defendant then made
motion to Dismiss the Indictment for lack of Persecution. Nearly two years had passed since the
perjurous Mr. and Mrs. Wirschning made their original complaints about knowing nothing about
everything. Many months had passed by after Dr. Robbins and Fred Wirschning admitted in the
District Attorney’s office that they and not this defendant were guilty of the crimes charged to the
defendant. In addition several months had passed since the defendant had given his statement to
Judge Philip Kleinfeld and Judge Henry Wenzel. Nevertheless defendant was required to remember
the many detailed facts that disproved the false by easy to remember know-nothing simple stories of
Mr. And Mrs. Wirschning and Dr. Robbins for this defendant’s eventual trial. The trial of this defendant
was repeatedly adjourned by the District Attorney. During such adjournments, repeated coercive
efforts were made by the District Attorney and the Court to force this defendant into giving up his
Constitutional right to defend himself even though this defendant was a practicing lawyer. Defendant’s
repeated demands for a prompt trial which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution and State
statutes were repeatedly ignored and the trial court and District Attorney coerced and harassed the
defendant in efforts to force defendant to give up his rights to defend himself to the extent that various
lawyers were brought into court to harass and embarrass this defendant into approving them as
defense attorney. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Lack of Prosecution was
disregarded and denied even after several months of adjournments by the District Attorney. Finally,
during November 1958, a month after the said motion, the day after Frank Gulotta, the District
Attorney and several of his Ass’t District Attorney’s were “elected” court judges, then this defendant’s
trial was commenced, on November 5, 1958.
          During the trial it was obvious that the cardinal count of the
indictment was the third count, namely, grand larceny in the second
degree, allegedly based on the larceny of $400 from Allstate
Insurance Company through false pretenses; actually committed
by the admitted felonious culprit, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning, in
collusive conspiracy with her husband Frederick Wirschning and
assisted by Dr. Milton E. Robbins. These facts are definitely proven
through the many repeated admissions even the fraudulently altered
trial minutes still contain. Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s testimony
confirms that this defendant was her legally retained lawyer and
that: 

                      “By Mr. Dec:     Q. But you remember we made preparations to
                      have an appointment set up for you to go to an insurance
                      company doctor for an examination as to your injuries that you
                      claimed in the accident; correct?
                      By Mrs. Wirschning:     A. Yes. You drove us to the doctor’s
                      office. It was during the daytime and I couldn’t get a baby
                      sitter for my son so we brought him along and my husband took
                      care of him out in the waiting room and you stayed out in the
                      waiting room, also.” (77) 

“By Mr. Dec:     Q. Do you remember on May 24, 1956 going to the
                      insurance company doctor to examine you for your claim of
                      injuries in the accident wherein I was retained?
                      By Mrs. Wirschning:     A. Yes.” (80) 

“By Mr. Dec:     Q. At that time you told him your injuries and
                      your treatments as they were fresh in your mind; correct?
                      By Mrs. Wirschning:     A. I believe I did, yes,” (80-81) 

          In the above testimony Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning admits that she alone stated to the Allstate
insurance Company doctor, Joseph Rosenheck, her injuries and treatments for such injuries by a
doctor, which constituted her entire personal injury claim during her private, personal, detailed medical
examination on May 24, 1956, which medical examination was undertaken by the Allstate Insurance
Company in order to evaluate Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s personal injury claim. Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning testified during her direct examination that her total injuries were: “my right wrist was
hurt.” (36) and also to the prosecutor’s question whether any doctor treated her: 

                      “Did he treat you for any injury?
                      By Mrs. Wirschning:     A. No., he just looked at my wrist. (40) 

Thereafter Mrs. Wirschning, during cross examination, admitted that this direct testimony of only a
hurt right wrist with no doctor treatments was: 

                      “in direct contradiction of” … “at the time the insurance
                      company doctor examined you, you (did) tell him that you had
                      bruises on the right thigh and bursitis of the right shoulder”
                      … “It would be in direct contradiction of what you said
                      today?
                      By Mrs. Wirschning:     A. That’s correct.” (81)

Allstate Insurance Company’s procedure for evaluating the monetary value of any injury claim is based
upon the typewritten report of Doctor Joseph Rosenheck, of Allstate Insurance Company, who evalu-
ated his medical examination of Mrs. Wirschning’s claimed injuries, “bruises of the right thigh and
bursitis of her right shoulder, for which she claimed she was treated by a doctor eight (8) times at
the doctor’s office”  in his typewritten report of her medical examination; this report determines what
the cash reserve was for Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim. (448) (Dr. Joseph Rosenheck’s report is
Defendant’s Exhibit I in Evidence). Mrs. Wirschning further testifies that she “may have, I probably
did have” a copy of Doctor Joseph Rosenheck’s report of her medical examination shown to her by
defendant during the prosecution of her injury claim in 1956 and that it was correct (79).
          After an approximate week long interruption of this defendant’s trial, the prosecution’s witness,
Charles Martino, who because of his many felonious frauds against Allstate Insurance Company was
dishonorably removed from his position as an Allstate Insurance Company officer, he, did confirm Mrs.
Wirschning’s incriminating testimony wherein she made her contradictory injury claims. Charles
Martino testified the he undertook all the works in settlement of Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim for the
Allstate Insurance Company. He further testified that the Allstate Insurance Company complete up to
date of trial file on the Elizabeth Wirschning injury claim, which file included Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning’s signed complaining statements of February 1957, wherein she confirmed her original
doctor treated injury claim; was the basis of his testimony (440). Charles Martino then testified that
the repeated and confirmed claims of doctor treated injuries stated by Mrs. Wirschning throughout the
settlement of her injury claim and during her later complaining statements of 1957, wherein she
confirmed her original personally stated doctor treated injuries as, namely, “number one, bursitis of
the right shoulder; number two, bruises of the right thigh.” (456) Further, that those were the total
doctor treated injuries claimed by Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning during her medical examination by the
Allstate Insurance Company doctor, Joseph Rosenheck on May 24, 1956. Charles Martino confirmed
the fact that Mrs. Wirschning’s total injury claim for which she stated she was treated by a doctor
was recorded and evaluated in the detailed typewritten report of Dr. Joseph Rosenheck, the Allstate
Insurance Company doctor and that Mrs. Wirschning’s personally stated and confirmed injuries she
claimed were treated by a doctor did duplicate and were identical with her injuries found in Doctor
Milton E. Robbins’ hand written medical bill to her stating the same treatments of her, (363-364 and
Defendant’s Exhibit H and I in Evidence) and Mrs. Wirschning stated the identical injuries that are
claimed to be false in this defendant’s indictment, namely, bursitis of the right shoulder and bruises
of her right thigh. Charles Martino further testified that in examining the up to date of trial file of the
Allstate Insurance Company on the Mrs. Wirschning injury claim (440) he found that Mrs. Wirschning
never contradicted her original claims of injuries and that Mrs. Wirschning never made any claim of
any wrist injury (459-461).
          The prosecution produced Dr. Milton E. Robbins, who admitted that he is a perjurous liar
(385), and that he, Dr. Robbins, gave a formal statement to the District Attorney of Nassau County
completely based upon falsehoods in reference to the defendant and the issues being tried. (388-389,
392)  This perjurer, Dr. Robbins, testified that when he was first called to the Nassau County District
Attorney’s office, early in July 1957, he, Dr. Robbins, went to the District Attorney’s office alone
immediately (390) and that he “absolutely” gave his first statement off hand without any consultation
with any lawyer, (391) and Dr. Robbins stated in his first statement to the District Attorney “that he
had treated Mrs. Wirschning for the injuries claimed” in the indictment (954). Dr. Robbins also testified
that after he was notified by the District Attorney’s staff about Mrs. Wirschning’s complaint, he, Dr.
Robbins, called and begged this defendant to come to his medical office in order to recover his hand
written medical bill for his treatments of Mrs. Wirschning’s injuries and that this defendant informed
him that several months earlier his, Dr. Robbins’, medical bill was sent to the Allstate Insurance
Company for purposes of settling Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim (344-345). Dr. Robbins in further
testimony admitted the following: 

                      “he (Mr. Dec) was angry at Mrs. Wirschning. There was some-
                      thing to do with a separation or other and that he (Mr. Dec)
                      decided to retain some money in this particular case.” (345) 

Thereafter, during the interim of two weeks, after Dr. Robbins gave the above mentioned original sworn
unpremeditated and offhand statement to the District Attorney, Dr. Robbins consulted his brother in
law, who is a lawyer, and then for unexplained reasons Dr. Robbins retained a distant Nassau County
Lawyer J.D.C. Murray, a friend of Frank Gulotta, Nassau County District Attorney (390). Dr. Robbins
further admitted the following:

                      “Therefore, after consulting with two lawyers you (Dr. Robbins)
                      arrive at a different story to tell the District Attorney than
                      your original story to the District Attorney before consulting
                      two lawyers, is that correct?
                      Dr. Milton Robbins:     A. Yes.
                      Q. You say yes, you seem very sure, is that correct?
                      Dr. Milton E. Robbins:     A. That’s correct.” (391) 

          In his final story, which Dr. Robbins admitted he arrived at through consulting the above
mentioned two lawyers, the admitted perjurer (385), Dr. Milton E. Robbins forgets all of his personal
knowledge about Mrs. Wirschning’s marital troubles and her impending separation action against her
husband, Fred Wirschning, with the defendant as her lawyer. Dr. Robbins forgets all his previously
stated detailed statements to the District Attorney that he treated Mrs. Wirschning and knew the
Wirschning’s personally. Dr. Robbins forgets his detailed statement that he treated Mrs. Wirschning
for her claimed injuries of bursitis of her right shoulder and bruises of her right thigh; in his final story
concocted after two weeks of consultation with the above mentioned lawyers, Dr. Robbins completely
contradicts his dated hand written medical bill to Mrs. Wirschning stating the above mentioned injuries
for which he treated her. Further, in complete contradiction with all of his original detailed statements,
Dr. Milton Robbins, in his final story claims he never saw or knew of Mrs. Wirschning until he met her
at the Grand Jury hearing of the matter. Dr. Robbins’ admissions during his cross examination
completely disproves his ridiculous know-nothing story, commencing with his testimony about his
original hand written medical bill and the identical hand written copy on his stationery, as follows:

                       “Q. The two pieces of paper are identical as to contents are
                      they not?
                      Dr. Milton Robbins:     A. Yes.
                      Q. Completely as to the letterhead, the statement as to treat-
                      ments of injuries, who was treated, who it was addressed to
                      and as to the signature on the bottom; correct?
                      Dr. Milton Robbins:     A. Yes.” (363-364) 

Dr. Milton Robbins admitted that his hand written bill to Mrs. Wirschning and the hand written copy of
his hand written bill are on his stationary and completely identical word for word, including the form
and layout are identical (374).
          During further cross examination Dr. Robbins admitted that he is a doctor practising [sic] 27
years and he has treated injury claims “where a lawyer was making a claim for that patient against the
insurance company.” (367)  But, Dr. Robbins does not recall that as the reason he forwarded defen-
dant a copy of his blank bill head was because “you need two copies of a bill … if one insurance
company were to pay the medical payments and another insurance company to reimburse a person
for injuries.” (368) Instead, Dr. Robbins admits that he forwarded defendant a blank copy of his bill
head because:

                      “When (Dr. Robbins) draws up bills … (Dr. Robbins) makes no
                      record" … and he doesn’t keep any records of his medical
                      bills. (368) 

          Further Dr. Robbins admitted he writes his medical bills and that his written medical bill to
Mrs. Wirschning is written in his usual handwriting and in his usual way and his usual style and in
his usual form and layout in writing his medical bills (363-364, 374).
          Dr. Milton E. Robbins further contradicted his know-nothing story concocted with the aid of two
lawyers herein mentioned by testifying that after being notified about Mrs. Wirschning’s complaints by
the District Attorney’s staff early in July 1957, he, Dr. Robbins, telephoned and urged this defendant to
come to his office (344), in order that he, Dr. Robbins, could get back his hand written medical bill for
his treatments to Mrs. Wirschning (346), which medical bill was sent to the Allstate Insurance
Company files during the settlement of Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim several months ago and this
defendant informed Dr. Robbins that “He couldn’t give it back any more because it was gone.” (346)
and that “He (Mr. Dec) had sent it to the Allstate files.” (346)  Dr. Robbins claimed in his final story,
he admitted he arrived at after consulting with two lawyers in the interim of two weeks in July 1957,
namely, that approximately 48 hours before, during the same weekend, before Dr. Robbins reached
defendant by telephone in order to lure defendant to Dr. Robbins’ office in order to get back his hand
written medical bill to Mrs. Wirschning that was sent to the Allstate Insurance Company several
months earlier during the settlement of Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim, Dr. Robbins claimed the on
the preceding “Friday nite” defendant “He just walked into your busy office unexpectedly … He came
to my office because he wanted me to copy a typewritten bill on a Mrs. Wirschning … It was an old
case and he wanted to keep it in his files. I was quite busy and I dashed it off and then he left.” (338)
          In his final story concocted with the aid of two lawyers as mentioned herein before, Dr. Robbins
and the prosecution never explained why the handwritten copy of his original hand written medical bill
is identical word for word, line for line, and identical in form and layout to his hand written medical bill
to Mrs. Wirschning, which he wrote in his usual form, layout and style (363-364); After Dr. Robbins
testified in his final story that he, Dr. Robbins, “dashed off” his medical bill from “a typewritten” bill
nearly a year after the identical handwritten copy of his hand written bill “was sent to Allstate files.” and
further neither the prosecution nor Dr. Robbins explained why these two identical hand written medical
bills list the total doctor treated injuries claimed by Mrs. Wirschning throughout the prosecution of her
personal injury claim and are the identical injuries Mrs. Wirschning stated in detail to the Allstate
Insurance Company doctor, Joseph Rosenheck, during his evaluating medical examination of her
claimed injured parts of her body as her total doctor treated injury claim against the Allstate Insurance
Company, on May 24, 1956, over a year before Dr. Robbins and the prosecution claim Dr. Robbins
wrote his medical bill to Mrs. Wirschning. (Defendant’s Exhibits H and I in Evidence) which claims of
doctor treated injuries by Mrs. Wirschning are identical to the doctor treated injuries claimed by the
indictment as being false and not claimed by Mrs. Wirschning.
          This defendant’s indictment alleged a $400 larceny
from Allstate Insurance Company by use of false and fraud-
ulent representations and pretenses by this defendant. All-
state Insurance Company singled this defendant out and
complained of the said alleged $400 larceny. Mrs. Wirschning
did state her entire medically treated personal injury claim to the Allstate Insurance Company doctor, Joseph Rosenheck,
on May 24, 1956, during Dr. Rosenheck’s private medical
examination of her claimed injured parts of her body
(Defendant’s Exhibit I in Evidence) and she later confirmed
her personally stated injury claim to the Allstate Insurance Company officers in her signed statements
of complaint in February 1957 (500). This fact was confirmed by the Allstate Insurance Company
complete up to date of trial injury claim file on Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s injury claim (460-461).
The Allstate Insurance Company evaluated and settled Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim for $400 on only
Mrs. Wirschning’s personally stated detailed injuries, namely, bursitis of her right shoulder and bruises
of her right thigh; without said personally stated claims of doctor treated injuries by Mrs. Wirschning
there could not be a settlement made and only through evaluating these stated doctor treated injuries
stated by Mrs. Wirschning during her said medical examination by the Allstate Insurance Company
doctor, Dr. Rosenheck, did the Allstate Insurance Company set up a cash reserve for Mrs.
Wirschning’s injury claim and only because of Mrs. Wirschning’s said stated doctor treated injury
claim did Allstate Insurance Company offer $400 in settlement of her injury claim. Up to the date of
trial Mrs. Wirschning stated no other injuries and she, Mrs. Wirschning, never contradicted these
injuries as her total doctor treated injury claim according to the Allstate Insurance Company complete
file on her injury claim. The Allstate Insurance Company paid the sum of $400 in settlement of Mrs.
Wirschning’s claim in order to be free from all legal obligations in reference to the said Mrs. Wirsch-
ning personally stated injury claim. At the time of this defendant’s trial and up to the present date,
which is after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Allstate Insurance Company has been
free from all legal obligations in reference to the Elizabeth Wirschning injury claim in accordance with
the $400 settlement. This was made possible solely through the evaluation by the officers of Allstate
Insurance Company of Mrs. Wirschning’s claims of injuries for which she claimed she received eight treatments from a doctor during eight visits to the doctor’s office; when she was asked the nature of
her injury claim by Dr. Joseph Rosenheck on behalf of Allstate Insurance Company on May 24, 1956,
Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning stated:

“ALLEGED INJURIES:
                               1.     Bursitis of the right shoulder.
                               2.     Bruises of the right thigh. 

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
                                    Right Shoulder -- There is no external evidence
                                    of injury to the right shoulder. There is no
                                    tenderness anywhere on firm pressure. Motion
                                    at right shoulder joint is free.

                           &n