|
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!]
▲
BACK TO 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.
▲
BACK TO 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).
▲
BACK TO 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.
▲
BACK TO 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.”
▲
BACK TO 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.
Right Thigh -- There is
no external evidence of
injury to the right thigh. There
is no tend-
erness anywhere on firm
pressure. Motion at the
right hip joint is free,
complete and painless
in all directions.”
(Above excerpt is from Defendant’s Exhibit I in Evidence)
On
the basis of these doctor treated injuries stated by Mrs. Wirschning
to Dr. Rosenheck and made
into the permanent record report, the
Allstate Insurance Company made a contractual offer with this
defendant as Mrs. Wirschning’s lawyer and legal agent to amicably
settle Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s
personally stated injury claim
for $400 in order to be free from legal liability in reference to
Mrs.
Wirschning’s personally stated injury claim. The offer was
accepted by Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning and
the claim was settled. All
the Allstate Insurance Company records and indictment confirmed the
fact
that the terms of the settlement contract were fulfilled and
even to this date, even after the statute of
limitations frees the
Allstate Insurance Company from all liability, the Allstate
Insurance Company has
never denied the validity or complained of the
falseness of Mrs. Wirschning’s personally stated injury
claim for
which the Allstate Insurance Company paid $400. The larceny of the
$400 from Allstate
Insurance Company can only be charged against the
self admitted felonious culprit, Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning,
predicated upon her contradictory claims of injuries she testified
to in court. Therefore
there is no basis of charging this crime
against the defendant as claimed in the false indictment.
This statement of law and fact was stated in detail by
this defendant at the beginning of this
defendant’s trial. This
defendant’s detailed statement of fact and law was wantonly,
fraudulently
deleted, juxtapositioned, hashed together and jumbled
to a mere half page (31) by the arrogant,
wanton, sadistic,
perverted, gangster, District Attorney, Manual Levine, and his
impish staff; some of
whose arrogant, wanton gangsterous lawless, gestapo like felonious crimes of persecution against
this defendant
were set forth in detail in this defendant’s detailed motion in this
defendant’s appeal in
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court,
Second Judicial Department on May 8, 1959, including
this defendant’s complaint to the obviously wanton felonious fraudulent
alteration of this defendant’s
trial minutes. In said motion this
defendant set forth two lengthy examples of the obviously wantonly
fraudulently altered trial minutes of this defendant’s trial,
namely, the above mentioned page 31and
page 845, which are
reproduced below.
“And I say that Mr. and Mrs. Wirschning knew
that the moneys was there and are being used as
dupes because they are fearful either they prose-
cute me or they bring it forth, the insurance
company, to show Mrs. Wirschning you were hurt so
and so and so and so and retained the lawyer.
He has a retainer. You committed fraud and your
husband automatically is guilty of an attempt of
committing a fraud on the insurance company and
the lawyer has done his work according to the
routine which the District Attorney has -- fifty
per cent of the fee is mine, $200 -- which they
agreed to, but if the client knows nothing of it” (p.
31)
“The conversation in these records they claim
that were made is not such that I would have nor
anyone would have where direct questions in refer-
ence to a crime. I have never acknowledged these.
They were admitted in evidence over my objection,
that they were hearsay, as not in accordance with
the best evidence rule, as not in accordance with
material and essential items, to the Court and other
objections. I have not adopted them.” (p.
845)
This defendant has repeatedly objected to the trial court
and appeal courts to the fraudulent
alterations of the defendant’s
trial minutes. This defendant made specific mention of each of the
multitude of fraudulent alterations of this defendant’s trial
minutes in support of this defendant’s
motion in the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department on October
5,
1959, wherein said motion this defendant did submit a copy of the
794 Amendments, 320 pages in
length, that substantially correct the
fraudulently altered trial minutes of defendant’s trial, the
original
copy of said 794 Amendments correcting the fraudulently
altered trial record were submitted earlier to
the trial court.
Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning testified that she signed the
general release and $400 settlement
check, thereby disproving the
remaining first, second and fourth counts of the indictment.
Throughout
the early testimony of Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning, this
defendant elicited repeated incriminating
admissions from the
felonious culprit, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning, that she signed the
general release
and that she signed the $400 settlement check for
the Allstate Insurance Company; both of which
she signed incorrectly
in her usual way of signing her new married name and by misspelling
it as she
usually did misspell her new married name. In spite of the
fraudulent alterations of the incriminating
testimony of Mrs.
Wirschning through the deletion of the substantive portions of the
incriminating
testimony and substitution of two dash marks (--) on
page 222, an often repeated method used to
fraudulently alter
defendant’s trial minutes, still the lengthy detailed statements by
Mrs. Wirschning
in the fraudulently altered trial minutes proves
that Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning did sign the general
release in the
usual way she signed her new married name and as she usually
misspelled it, without
the defendant leading her to one word answers
to rehearsed questions as did the prosecutor.
“Q. Look closely at the paper. Do you see a mistake
in the handwritten signature on the paper?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it the usual mistake you usually make?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. I don’t remember if it is or not, I
can’t
remember that far back. I could have left out --
Q. But you could have left out the letter you left out there,
is that correct?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. That’s right.” (p.222)
The definite admissions of Mrs. Wirschning that she signed
her general release remain in the
trial minutes in spite of the
wanton fraudulent substitution of unrelated answers and actual
imposition
of remarks by the court reporter and words stating that
the witness is “indicating” and the inclusion of
fraudulently
created answers three times under the guise of readback by the court
reporter. Such
deviation from the recording of the spoken word are
never found in other trial minutes. Still in this
section of the
wantonly fraudulently altered trial minutes, pages 217 to 230,
sufficient scattered
admissions by Mrs. Wirschning remain stating
that she signed the general release misspelling her
name and also
that immediately below the line where Mrs. Wirschning signed her
name, misspelling
it as she usually does; the defendant typed it
correctly and that the defendant typed Mrs. Wirsch-
ning’s name
correctly on all his records and papers, including five times on the
general release,
spelling her name properly, which was the only way
he knew how to spell her name (223-224). The
defendant further asked
Mrs. Wirschning how she signed the settlement check of $400.
“that the signature on the back, Elizabeth A. Wirschning, was
signed as you usually sign your name, Elizabeth A. Wirschning?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. When I was first married I used to
sign my
name that way, yes.” (858)
Further, the culprit, Mrs. Wirschning admitted that she
signed the settlement check during
this stated period.
“that was when you were first married, correct?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. That’s right.” (858-859)
Mrs. Wirschning admitted that she had this peculiar
personal way of signing her name with her
middle initial included
only during the early period of her married life at the time of her
endorsement of
the said $400 settlement check and that the defendant
not only had no knowledge of this particular
personal style of Mrs.
Wirschning of her signing her name, but also the check is clearly
designated without her middle initial and no where is her middle
initial included in the lengthy Allstate Insurance
Company records
on her and in defendant’s memo’s, letters, statements and bills to
her, all of which
are in evidence.
The Allstate Insurance Company complete file on Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning’s personal injury
claim was the total real
evidence upon which the indictment was claimed to be founded, but it
was not
the prosecution, but the defendant, who, throughout the
trial repeatedly emphasized complete reliance
upon such undisputed
and unquestioned authentic written records as the unquestioned,
undisputed
authentic standard of real evidence which must be
accepted as the standard by which all inferior oral
evidence must be
compared to and judged by in ascertaining the truthfulness of all
the oral evidence
in the trial. Even the wantonly fraudulently
altered trial minutes still contain remnants of these often
repeated
important statements of law and fact by this defendant (26 to 32,
863, 866, 873, 882, 894,
896, 899, 900).
Instead of emphasizing the importance of these
unquestioned, authentic records of real
evidence, both the judge and
prosecutor openly, wantonly, continually, repeatedly, fanatically,
frantically and impishly attempted to thwart any and all efforts of
the defendant to inspect, examine
read and have the prosecution’s
witnesses explain and place in evidence any item of the authentic
Allstate Insurance Company file on Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s
injury claim. The illegal said efforts
of judge and prosecutor were
concentrated on minimizing the examination, inspection, reading,
explanation and especially the placing in evidence of any item of
the said Allstate Insurance Company
file on Mrs. Wirschning, which
although the total real evidence upon which the indictment was
sup-positively based, each item of the said real evidence, the
unquestioned, authentic Allstate Insurance
Company file on Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning’s injury claim completely contradicted the
false indictment
that was created through the gestapo like mafia
coercion of the gangster District Attorney, Frank
Gulotta, and his
impish staff.
The defendant repeatedly tried to inspect and examine and
read the contents and place in
evidence each item of said Allstate
Insurance Company file on Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s injury
claim,
but each effort of the defendant was thwarted by said frantic
efforts of judge and prosecutor.
Finally the dishonest judge, in
order to completely prevent the defendant from inspecting,
examining,
reading and offering any item in evidence of the Allstate
Insurance Company file on Mrs. Wirschning’s
injury claim, the judge
ordered this defendant to cease his efforts to do so stating:
“The Court: I think you will have to do it. We will give
you
until 3 o’clock, by which time you must complete your
examination,
after all, the file is not in evidence, Mr. Dec. He only used
and gave testimony, so I don’t see what you can accomplish by
going through the file.” (438)
Can the prosecution representing the “people of New York
State” produce even a kangaroo
court decision to support such wanton
illegal orders by the dishonest judge, W’m Sullivan?
The defendant repeatedly made efforts to place in evidence
the two page typewritten report of
the Allstate Insurance Company
doctor, Joseph Rosenheck, of this doctor’s medical examination of
Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning. The defendant in support of these efforts
stated to the imp judge; that the
judge had examined the said report
and it contains:
“statements in reference to what (the Allstate Insurance
Company)
their doctor found and what statement the claimant (Mrs.
Wirschning) made. (The said report) It is definitely made
your Honor, in reference to comparison of these two things,
(Dr. Robbins’ handwritten bill and Mrs. Wirschning’s stated
doctor treated injury claim) Because it is alleged in the
complaint this is not true. (That the two are identical)
This is definitely necessary item.
The Court: No. I don’t think it (said report on Mrs.
Wirschning’s injury claim medical examination) alleges that so
much as other allegations. I do not think it is relevant as to
cross examination.” (442-443)
Then the court ordered defendant not to cross examine any
witness about any of the items of
said Allstate Insurance Company
file on Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim and further ordered the
defendant to return the last item of the said file, the said two
page report on Mrs. Wirschning’s medical
examination for her total
injury claim by the Allstate Insurance Company doctor, to be
impounded by
the Court.
“The Court: You can’t because it is not going to be
admitted. You
will have to confine your cross examination to what you have
there.
Give it (Dr. Rosenheck’s report) back here to the file (the
Allstate
file on Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim) because it is not in
the
case.” (444)
Defendant again stressed the fact that the said report of
Dr. Joseph Rosenheck states in detail
only the injuries claimed by
Mrs. Wirschning and contains no other information.
“The Court: I don’t think that is it. I have made my
ruling.
You will have to continue without regard to that statement.”
(Dr. Rosenheck’s report) (444)
In spite of such wanton stifling of defendant’s efforts
the defendant continued and amid
screaming, ridiculous objections by
the imp prosecutor, A. Nixon and the laughs of the jeering fixed
jury, the important, undisputed, authentic Allstate Insurance
Company doctor, Joseph Rosenheck’s
report evaluating all of Mrs.
Wirschning’s personally stated claims of doctor treated injuries
against
Allstate Insurance Company was admitted into evidence as
Defendant’s Exhibit I in Evidence.
The same said impish and frantic opposition by
judge and prosecutor took place when this
defendant made repeated
efforts to inspect, examine in detail and read and stress in
evidence the
contents of the general release and the $400 settlement
check, both of which are addressed to Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning as
the single claimant. The defendant’s meticulous steps of proof have
remnants
in the fraudulently altered trial minutes, when this
defendant cross examined Mr. Martino as follows:
“Q.
In accordance with the ordinary course of business these
(complete Allstate file on Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim) are
Documents kept to show whose claim was settled, is that not correct?
Mr. Martino: A. Yes.
Q. These documents (the Allstate file on Mrs. Wirschning’s injury
claim) show that only the claim of Elizabeth Wirschning was settled;
correct?
Mr. Martino: A. Yes.” (473)
Disregarding the continuing wanton harassment by judge and
prosecutor, the defendant took
the entire said Allstate file on Mrs.
Wirschning’s injury claim and read the pertinent headings on each
document and all headings state that Mrs. Wirschning was married and
her singular personal injury
claim was settled by the Allstate
Insurance Company (486). Then the defendant verified this fact:
“Q.
Is not that sight draft made out only in payment of
Elizabeth Wirschning’s claim and not in any way in payment
of Fredrick Wirschning?
Mr. Martino: A. That’s right.
Q. The said sight draft and the general release was solely
in reference to Elizabeth Wirschning’s claim is that not true?
Mr. Martino: A. Right.
Q. Does not Allstate Insurance Company have certain rules in
reference to claims made with married women?
Mr. Martino: A. Certain rules?
Q. Yes that are different from women that are not married?
Mr. Martino: A. Are you speaking of loss of services.
Q. Yes.
Mr. Martino: A. When it is a married woman we generally get
a release from both husband and wife.
Q. Unless the woman is separated from her husband or widowed
is that not correct?
Mr. Martino: A. Right.
Q. From the papers (said Allstate file on Mrs. Wirschning’s
injury claim) Allstate Insurance Company obtained no release from
Mr. Wirschning, did they?
Mr. Martino: A. No.” (481-482)
The
defendant then stated:
“The witness (Charles Martino) has admitted the usual
procedure that with reference to husband
and wife claims they
require a joint release. Here there is no such release. Said release
is in evidence
and it only release the party George Sauer,
represented by Allstate Insurance Company from the
claims of Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning. Now in my original letter to Allstate
Insurance Company I stated
that I represented both parties which
letter was in the files in the ordinary course of business of the
insurance company’s files. There after I informed the insurance
company that I would no longer
continue with the claim of Frederick
Wirschning and that I would only prosecute the claim of Elizabeth
Wirschning in that she was separating from her husband.”
(477-478)
The prosecutor and his witnesses confirmed these facts
stated by this defendant. The
prosecutor produced from hiding the
defendant’s retainer, that was purloined by detective Becker, it
is
the written retainer with Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning and her husband,
Frederick Wirschning, marked
People’s Exhibit 1 in Evidence. In
addition to this real evidence, the prosecutor admitted in stating
the
people’s case that this defendant did duly commence to prosecute
both Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s
personal injury claim and her
husband’s loss of services claim together in accordance with their
signed retainer with this defendant as their lawyer, the prosecutor
stated:
“Before that point, shortly after Mr. Dec was retained, he sent a
letter to the other side, the other
person involved in the accident,
stating that he represented Mrs. Wirschning and that letter
eventually
came into the file of Allstate Insurance Company, giving
them notification that Mr. Dec was the
attorney for Mr. and Mrs.
Wirschning.” (16-17)
In confirming defendant’s statements of his retainer by
Mrs. Wirschning in her impending
separation action, the defendant
testified:
“I
told her (Mrs. Wirschning) that thereafter I would notify the
insurance company representative that I
would proceed ahead only
with her claim for injuries in the matter and I would no longer
proceed ahead
with her husband’s loss of services in that she was
going ahead determined to have a separation. She
said yes. I
contacted the representative of the insurance company and told him I
was only proceeding
ahead with Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s claim for
injuries.” (752)
Prosecutor Nixon confirmed these undenied facts during
cross examination of this defendant:
“A.
Nixon: Q. You called in April of 1956, though, that is your
testimony?
Mr. Dec: A. In and around April ’56.” (812)
“Mr. Dec: A. I said I called the Allstate Insurance Company
adjuster. I didn’t state any name to these people and this
jury, and if you want you can read back the evidence. I called
the Allstate Insurance Company adjuster and told him that.
The Court: As a matter of fact, he used the term
representative.”
(812)
“I
stated there was a lawyer adjuster representative of the
insurance company handling the case (Mrs. Wirschning’s claim).”
(881)
Thereafter the defendant stressed that the felonious
10% kick-back Charles Martino is not
a lawyer and was not an
adjuster. The defendant pointed out that the lawyer adjuster of
Allstate was:
“It
was a Mr. Urso. The D.A. knows there was a Mr. Urso in on this
claim. Mr. Urseo handled this
claim. Mr. Urso handled this claim up
to settlement. The examiner (Charles Martino) only approves
the
amount of settlement. The adjuster makes the statements and the
commitments in negotiation.
Mr. Urso was not brought into this
trial. I asked Mr. Martino, ‘When did you come into this case?’
And
he said, ‘I was the settlement examiner.’ The examiner is the
supervisor over the adjuster. The
adjuster does all the footwork in
the case. And I told Mr. Urso, and Mr. Martino knows that, I was
proceeding ahead only with Mrs. Wirschning’s claim in that this was
a claim for her injuries and that
the husband’s claim was relatively
a nuisance claim, that her claim for injuries was specifically hers
and especially in that she was being separated.” (881-882)
In spite of this defendant’s production of all the
unquestioned and undenied real and oral
evidence confirming these
stated facts, which facts completely contradict the entire
indictment. The
prosecution never denied or impeached these
vindicating facts that the defendant produced through
the
prosecution’s real evidence. The total real evidence of the trial
and the substantial oral evidence
based upon this authentic
unquestioned real evidence confirm defendant’s retainer by Mrs.
Wirsch-
ning as her lawyer in her impending legal separation action
and this defendant’s withdrawal from her
husband’s loss of services
claim because of the defendant’s retainer as Mrs. Wirschning’s
lawyer in
her impending separation action. This defendant arranged
said withdrawal from Mrs. Wirschning’s
husband’s loss of services
claim with Mr. Urso, the Allstate Insurance Company adjuster who
handled Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s injury claim and negotiated it’s
settlement with this defendant.
The prosecution inadvertently
confirms these facts by questioning its witnesses. The prosecutor
questioned Charles Martino who inadvertently admitted this
defendant’s negotiations with Mr. Urso,
the adjuster of Allstate
Insurance Company, who negotiated and settled Mrs. Wirschning’s
injury
claim with the defendant (411).
The defendant objected to Mr. Martino’s hearsay testimony
because the negotiations were with
Mr. Urso and the judge stated:
“you can’t talk about that.” (411) Thereafter during cross
examination
Mr. Martino admitted that the first time he
requisitioned the Mrs. Wirschning claim file was on 9/27/56,
which
was three days after his claimed first telephone call to this
defendant; in spite of the imp, lying
judge’s, W’m Sullivan,
harassment, this defendant obtained this important admission from
Charles,
felonious 10% kick-back, Martino:
“Mr. Martino: A. There is a requisition from their when
you
asked me when I got the file. There are two memos in there one
dated 9/27 from mr.
Q. What year?
Mr. Martino: There is no date on it, just says 9/27 and
right
underneath this memo there is another memo from the adjuster.
Q. Both dated 9/27?
Mr. Martino: A. No.
The Court: He didn’t tell you.
Mr. Martino: (Continuing) One dated 7 something, I
believe--
I think in July from adjuster Urso.” (470-471)
In these lengthy statements of Charles Martino still
remaining in the fraudulently altered trial
minutes Charles Martino
further confirms the facts that the defendant negotiated Mrs.
Wirschning’s
injury claim completely with Mr. Urso, the adjuster,
and Mr. Martino was the examiner in charge, to
whom the adjuster,
Mr. Urso, submitted his settlement for approval in accordance with
the established
business requirements of the Allstate Insurance
Company. Charles Martino’s readings from the All-
state file on Mrs.
Wirschning’s injury claim confirms the defendant’s statements of
facts that the
defendant made all arrangements with Mr. Urso, the
adjuster, in April, 1956, for defendant’s pro-
secution of only Mrs.
Wirschning’s injury claim and this defendant’s withdrawal from the
husband’s
loss of services claim because this defendant was Mrs.
Wirschning’s retained lawyer for her
impending legal separation
action and by so doing defendant conformed with the Canon of Ethics
and
this defendant fulfilled the strict procedural requirement of
Allstate Insurance Company, namely, that
a married woman’s claim
must be settled with her husband’s loss of services claim unless the
woman
be separated from her husband, or widowed. In spite of these
facts, Mr. Urso was never called as a
witness by the prosecution
although the trial was repeatedly held up by the prosecution for
other so
called witnesses.
This
defendant testified that he entered into an agreement with Mrs.
Wirschning to prosecute
her legal separation action for
$450 and with:
“a
minimum retainer fee of $150 should she decide during the course,
after my completing some works and spending time consulting with
her
advising her, to discontinue the separation action.” (747)
This defendant further testified:
“I
told Mrs. Wirschning I would rather not see her go ahead with a
separation because there would be
very little she could gain and
mostly she could gain pain and suffering and humiliation. She was
very
much upset. In fact, to me appeared she was in hysterics. She
told me she would be better off dead
then living with her husband
the way he was treating her and felt like committing suicide. I was
embarrassed and I said I would proceed ahead. Thereafter I went
ahead with her and I drew a rough
copy of a complaint.” (Defendant’s
Exhibit A in Evidence) (747) “Mrs. Wirschning wanted her husband
served.” (748) “Thereafter I drew up a more formal copy of her
complaint.” (Defendant’s Exhibit B and C
in Evidence) (749) “I
called up Mrs. Wirschning to go over the more formal copy of the
complaint.” (750)
“This was in the later part of January (1956) …
she came over and almost in hysterics and she was
crying, sobbing
that her husband had beaten her … but I informed her that she was
pregnant what
appeared to be in an advanced stage and that it would
be very very difficult for her not only physically
but mentally to
undergo the strain during pregnancy or after child birth of a
separation.” (750-751)
Under defendant’s advice Mrs. Wirschning agreed to wait
until after her child was born, before
proceeding ahead with a separation action. (751) After the birth of her child Mrs. Wirschning notified
defendant that her husband had become worse and that she wanted to
move ahead with the legal
separation action.
Defendant agreed with
her and informed Mrs. Wirschning of the necessity of him
withdrawing
from
her husband’s loss of services claim and thereafter this
defendant completed
arrangements with Mr.
Urso, the Allstate
Insurance Company adjuster assigned to the claim, to
proceed ahead
with only
Mrs. Wirschning’s personal injury claim and made an
appointment for Mrs.
Wirschning’s personal
injury claim and made an
appointment for Mrs. Wirschning’s medical
examination by the
Allstate
Insurance Company doctor, Joseph Rosenheck, (753) Mrs.
Wirschning
feared her husband’s beatings
and because of this
repeatedly questioned the defendant whether the
defendant was
keeping the
matter in confidence. Defendant assured Mrs. Wirschning
that in accord-
ance with her requests, the
entire matter of her
matrimonial troubles and defendant’s legal works in
the matter as
her lawyer was
being kept in confidence and the defendant stressed
this fact in an
explanatory statement of charges
of their agreed
retainer for her separation action, defendant mailed
to Mrs.
Wirschning on April 27,
1956. (Defendant’s Exhibit D in Evidence)
(757) Mrs. Wirschning
received the statement of charges
and she told
defendant not to write to her:
“because her husband was around the house and he had picked up other
mail that she knew about
from other people that she knew and that if
he picked up the mail he would know about the impending
separation
action and give her further abuse and that she would call me up or I
was to call her up or
she would visit my office, to protect her.”
(758) Thereafter I asked her; Mrs. Wirschning, we agreed to
a fee of
$450. I have undertaken works and services already and you keep
promising me to bring in
money to make payment and I haven’t
received anything yet, could you please come to my office or
forward
me payment on my fees in that I may go ahead … as we agreed that you
would come in and
pay me.” (760)
The defendant went along with the Wirschning’s to Mrs.
Wirschning’s medical examination, in
order that the husband would
not cause a scene in the doctor’s office. The day after Mrs.
Wirschning’s
medical examination by the Allstate Insurance Company
doctor on May 24, 1956, she called this
defendant up and:
“Begged me to go ahead,” (762) I told her Mrs. Wirschning you said
you would come in and make
payment and you haven’t paid me anything,
I have done works already, You consulted me many times
with
reference to the matter … Mrs. Wirschning I would appreciate if you
could come in and make
payment in your agreement for the separation.
She said she would. I said all right, I would wait until
she made
payment on the agreed figure for the separation. Thereafter she
called me up and told me
that she had no income and she couldn’t
make payment that I could take the money out of her
settlement for
injuries when it came in” (763) “I told her … I think it would be
best for her to give in to
her husband and maybe he would improve.
She said no. Well, I said I wouldn’t be interested in going
ahead on
the terms of the contingency of being paid on a possibility that she
would have a recovery
in her injury case … I said I haven’t been
paid and I am sure she wouldn’t extend the courtesy to me
that I
have extended to her … I told her I would go ahead with the
separation if we received any
recovery on her personal injury claim
… but definitely I would hold off until she made payment. But in
the
meantime if anything of a sort of an improvement came through she
wouldn’t have to separate.”
(765-766) because she was penniless “and
alone couldn’t stand up against him and her mother-in
-law.” (767)
This defendant managed to settle Mrs. Wirschning’s injury
claim for $400 and she agreed she
was satisfied. Mrs. Wirschning had
no bank account and wanted her settlement money in cash so her
husband could not get it (768). Defendant gave Mrs. Wirschning half
of the settlement money, $200,
in cash. Mrs. Wirschning stated, she:
“begged me to go ahead,” (with her separation action because her
husband was worse.) (768)
Mrs. Wirschning offered the $200 as part payment and told
this defendant, “she would go out
to work and live with a girl
friend” (769) to earn the balance of the $450. The defendant told
Mrs.
Wirschning that she could not possibly accomplish her plan
without extreme hardship upon herself
and her newly born baby.
Instead the defendant stated:
“I
will go ahead under one condition, that only will I accept your
money if you leave it in escrow as a
deposit as part payment on the
$450 charges for your separation and that if I can settle the matter
with her husband peaceably out of court and thereby save her much
misery, if he is reasonable and I
can settle, and most people are
reasonable like that, I would not go ahead … I told her that is the
only
ground I would go ahead with the separation … I told her
definitely that I would only undertake the
separation if she brought
in the balance of the other $250 in reference to her fee for
separation. She
told me she was agreeable and I said in the interim
until she brought the balance of $250 she had to
consent to permit
me to contact her husband to negotiate a friendly settlement
agreement and not to
go to court and cause her further hardship.”
(770-771) “I took and put this $200 in the envelope and
put it into
her file cabinet and locked it.” (772) (Defendant’s Exhibit J in
Evidence). “Some days later I
managed to contact Fred Wirschning and
I told him that his wife had retained me for separation” (773)
“I
told him the situation, He was very much upset.” (774) “He was
vulgar.” (774)
 “He (Fred Wirschning) came back after a
couple of days and
he told me that I couldn’t scare
him with a separation … that all
the money was in
his name, even the car was in his name … lived in
his
mothers house … he had no worries and in fact if
things got
worse to worse he had been in trouble
before, he had no fears, he
could run down south
to running (stolen) cars again … and he knew
other
fellows that were supposed to pay alimony and never
paid
anything.” (776-777) “Thereafter Mr. Wirschning
came into my office
some days later and told me -- he
slightly changed his attitude and
he told me he would
think it over … I told his wife I tried to make
some sort
of a settlement with him … She told me she was very
much
interested in going ahead with the separation.”
(778) “(In December
1956) Mr. Wirschning came into
my office and said that he knew that
there is a
settlement of the injury claim of his wife and what
happened to the money. I told him I was not allowed
to disclose
that.” (779)
“I contacted Mrs. Wirschning. She said she
didn’t know
anything about how he could find out.” (780) “Thereafter after the
turn of the year … (in
1957) after him asking me several times in
the office and on the phone, where is the money … I called
her up a
couple times. She wasn’t home, and when I call her she said not to
worry about it, she would
get the money and I wanted to know whether
she wanted to go ahead.” (781)
Therefore on January 14, 1957, I drew up a statement of
account (781). (Defendant’s Exhibit E
in Evidence) Stating also,
“your husband has visited my office several times for your
settlement
money, he informs me you are living with him and that you
have a new home at the end of the Island.
If this is so and you no
longer desire a separation, please visit my office and I will return
you $50 from
your deposit of the $200 of your settlement money. This
is in accordance with our agreement that I
have a minimum fee of
$150 for my services in the event of an incomplete separation.”
After, she
phoned me in reference to said letter “She told me that
her husband … was working on a house on the
Island and what she
gathered he was planning to sell it for a profit” … (and that) … she
was still living
at 42 Honeywell Avenue and she didn’t know about
moving out to any new house on the Island … and
during argument … he
had found out about the settlement money … she told me not to
believe him …
she told me not to write to her because there is a
good possibility of him getting the letters.” (783-784)
“Some days later Mr. Wirschning came into my office and
told me that he was the head of the
household and he was the one
that was supposed to get the $200 and that even though I did works
for
her separation if I entered into an agreement with her, he had
nothing to do with that; that was for me
to collect from her.” (784)
“I called back to the home of Mrs. Wirschning and what usually
occurs
when I called back before he would get home, I would get her.
But I didn’t get her on the phone that
day.” (785) I called up again
later in the evening and her husband came to the phone and he
steered
the conversation … about … when would I give him the
settlement money and I told him could he
please leave a message for
his wife to have her call me … a few days went by I didn’t receive a
telephone call from her. I then called up Mrs. Wirschning.” (786) “I
didn’t get an answer … but when
Fred Wirschning appeared in my
office again and told me that he was authorized to pick up the money
for his wife that she no longer was interested in a separation and
that the works I did for a separation
were not to be taken out of
her settlement money in that he was the head of the household and it
was
supposed to go to him and I told him to bring his wife in and we
would settle the matter. He agreed to
bring his wife in. Sometime
passed and he didn’t bring in his wife. Now I remember writing a
letter to
both of them in reference to this matter … I can’t find
this letter.” (787) This was in February (1957)
he stated to me not
to bother his wife any more, that he had gotten the letter … Well, I
said, the letter
stated and you stated you were bringing her into my
office … He told me he didn’t have to bring any
body into my office
and he wanted the money.” (788) “Upon his leaving the office I once
again tried to
call Mrs. Wirschning. She wasn’t in. I called again.
There was no answer, later in the evening I be-
came highly suspicious
… I called again and I didn’t get her … I knew this was probably a
scheme
on his part to cheat me out of my fee for services … The days
went by and he would call me.” and
threaten me. (790) “Thereafter I
remember it was around the final days of income tax time. He dropped
into my office late in the afternoon … barged into a conversation
that I had better give him the money
and in the heat of argument
that followed (I told him) this was a scheme on his part to cheat me
out
of my fees due me for my works and services and consultations to
his wife in reference to her intended
separation … he said -- and
further filthier conversation … that I had better give him the money
or else
he would fix me … I told him … this money (was) being held
in escrow he had nothing to do with it
and I told him if she came in
I would settle with her … if she is truthful she will come in or at
least
write me a postcard or letter.” (791-792)
“Thereafter in May he came in with a laugh … and he told me,
‘I might not get the money from
you, but you will be sorry you
didn’t give it to me.’” (792) “I said if he didn’t leave I would
call the police.
I picked up the phone and he left.” (793)
“Thereafter, it was some weeks later the District Attorney
telephoned me to come down to his office.” (793) I told him the
facts as I now state and instead of
immediately arresting me as an
assistant, Edward Robinson, threatened me to do in his incoherent
simple speech; the assistant Edward Robinson, was taken aside in the
corridor by the gangster
Frank Gulotta and was held by the shoulder
by the mafia type gangster, Frank Gulotta, and told
to order
detective Becker to go with me immediately to my office to disprove
my statements before
they arrested me. (798)
Detective Becker took me into custody to my office
immediately. At my office detective Becker
saw Mrs. Wirschning’s
injury claim file and I took Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim file
envelope out of
the locked filing cabinet and showed him the $200
escrow money in this envelope. (Defendant’s
Exhibit J. in Evidence)
Then detective Becker coercively purloined the injury retainer of
Mr. and Mrs.
Wirschning (People’s Exhibit 1 in Evidence) and like
simple Edward Robinson accused me of
ambulance chasing which the “no
good” retainer would prove. According to his requests I took out
Mrs. Wirschning’s separation file folder from the filing cabinet and
showed Detective Becker all of the
papers in the Mrs. Wirschning
separation file folder. Detective Becker “saw the file with
reference to
her separation.” (798)
Thereafter, during my illegal subpoena to the non-existent
grand jury hearing, two weeks later,
on July 22, 1957, at the
District Attorney’s office, “I told the District Attorney and
detective (Becker)
was sitting adjacent to me, that I showed the
detective (Becker) the money ($200). I showed him the
file, the
money being held in escrow in the envelope, in her file envelope in
the locked cabinet, and
the detective signified approval of my
statement. He didn’t deny it. He said it was there.” (795)
“Detective Becker, it was stated by the District Attorney
in the opening, was a key link here
throughout this proceeding.”
(884) Now why did the District Attorney not call detective Becker …
As
he stated.” (885) “Detective Becker was here throughout this
trial.” (885) “Now detective Becker wasn’t
called to the stand
because on cross examination I would bring out these, these facts
that there could
be no crime.” (889)
During the trial, the prosecution’s witnesses and all the
unquestioned, authentic real evidence
confirmed the facts of
defendant’s legal works and services for Mrs. Wirschning in
reference to her
retainer of him as her lawyer for her impending
legal separation action. Even Mrs. Wirschning temp-
orarily forgot
that she knew nothing and admitted to the prosecutor, “Now did you
ever consult the
defendant concerning a possible separation with
your husband? Mrs. Wirschning: A. Yes.” (44-45)
Inadvertently, some of Mrs. Wirschning’s admissions about
defendant’s legal works as her
retained lawyer for her impending
separation action still remain in the fraudulently altered trial
minutes. During cross examination Mrs. Wirschning admitted:
“Now Mrs. Wirschning you stated that you had troubles at home with
your husband, is that correct?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. Yes I did.
Q.
That you contemplated undertaking a separation action, correct?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. That’s correct.
Q.
That you did telephone me in reference to a separation action being
undertaken, is that correct?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. That’s correct. (64)
Q.
At one time did you tell me that you were pregnant and that to
obtain funds for a separation you
would take a waitress job and you
had a girl friend by the name of Rose that would help you get a
waitress job?
Mrs. Wirschning: No I didn’t. In fact I wasn’t pregnant at the time.
I already had my child when I
called you about the separation
case.” (65)
Even the fraudulently altered trial minutes bring out the
fact that Mrs. Wirschning admitted
that this defendant was her
attorney for a certain “the separation case” and that she telephoned
the
defendant about the progress of the separation case defendant
was handling for her. This remaining
scintilla of evidence in the
fraudulently altered trial minutes undeniably confirms defendant’s
statement
of being retained by Mrs. Wirschning for “the separation
case” after many consultations after defend-
ant, “I described to her
matrimonial actions in order to see if she could find the type of
action she
would want.” (745) Further, in confirmation of
defendant’s statements about her husband taking her
mail during
defendant’s retainer for her legal separation action, Mrs.
Wirschning admitted:
“Q.
In that telephone conversation about the income tax return I had
filled out for him did you not
mention that you had trouble with
your mails and you didn’t receive the check?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. Something to that order, yes.” (66)
Mrs. Wirschning even confirmed the important statement of
fact by the defendant that she was
unable to pay defendant the fee
for her legal separation action because she had no money and her
husband had complete control of her; facts that defendant acquired
during his many lengthy
consultations with Mrs. Wirschning during
his retainer as her lawyer for her legal separation action.
“Q.
Have you any income?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. No. I don’t.
Q.
At the time was it not true that your husband had a bank account on
his name only?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. Yes it is true.” (68)
“Were you ever employed after your marriage?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. No.
Q.
Then since your marriage you have worked solely as a housewife;
correct?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. That’s correct.
Q.
You have undertaken no other part time employment whatsoever?
Mrs. Wirschning: A. That’s correct.” (218)
Further, Fred Wirschning admitted that he could not
remember exact dates but it is “quite a
few times” he, Fred
Wirschning, visited defendant’s office. (275) Without leading
questions and
without single word yes and no answers, Fred, the car
thief, Wirschning admitted:
“Q.
You state now after due consideration that you came to my office for
no other reasons?
Fred Wirschning: A. I came to your office for that reason, but I
may have spoken to you about
something else while I was there.”
(282)
The defendant repeatedly attempted to directly prove that
Fred, the car thief,
Wirschning and his wife are perjurers. The
defendant asked:
“Mr. Wirschning, do you remember coming into my office and stating
to me that you would
return to running (stolen) cars down south?”
(321)
Immediately
this defendant was thwarted by the imp dishonest judge and
prosecutor
from bringing out the facts of the felonious background of Fred, the
car thief, Wirschning
and that Fred Wirschning knew about the $200 settlement money,
being held in escrow by defendant
as part payment for his wife’s legal separation action and to
guarantee this defendant his minimum
agreed fee for legal services rendered. The
only reason why Fred Wirschning visited the defendant’s
office many
times was because he attempted to coerce the defendant into giving
him the escrow
money. Defendant questioned:
“Do
you remember telling me that you would return to running (stolen)
cars down south if
your wife didn’t forget about the separation
action?
A.
Nixon: I object your honor.
The
Court: Objection sustained.” (322)
Here, even
the fraudulently altered trial minutes prove the judge completely
set aside the basic
concept of the right of the adverse party to cross examine each
witness. The imp judge and prosecutor harangued and harassed this
defendant in order to force defendant to dis-
continue his cross examination of Fred Wirschning on prime facts in
issue, namely, that
Fred Wirschning “was living with negro women.” (prostitutes) (841)
and that because of this
infidelity toward his wife, his wife deposited her share of the
settlement money $200, in
escrow with the defendant as part payment toward her legal
separation action fee and that
Fred Wirschning “would return to running (stolen) cars down south if
your wife didn’t forget
about the separation action.” (322)
At the end of the trial,
the dishonest judge in
kangaroo court style improper comment
on the evidence did admit
that the ascertained proven evidence during the trial established
that the
defendant was retained by Mrs. Wirschning for her legal
separation action and the defendant did
undertake legal works for
the legal separation action. In the prepared typewritten charge to
the jury
the judge stated:
“I
further charge you that the defendant, Francis E. Dec, performed
some legal serviced for Elizabeth
Wirschning with respect to a
separation action and that by reason thereof he was entitled to some
legal fee for such services, that would not justify him in
committing of the crimes, the charges in the
indictment and his
performance of services for the separation action is no defense
whatsoever to the
counts alleged in the indictment.” (970)
 This defendant’s trial was
worse than any gestapo trial
in
Europe during the Nazi Regime,
with a total disregard of
defend-
ant’s Constitutional Rights to an
impartial fair trial. This
defend-
ant repeatedly so complained
but defendant’s complaints have
been fraudulently deleted from
the record and only a few words
of
the defendant’s repeated
condemnation of the gestapo like
farce
trial of this defendant remain (127-135, 836, 839, 845).
Defendant repeatedly complained
about the prejudicial false
statements and testimony of the lying imp judge, W’m Sullivan, who
assisted the prosecution throughout the trial. In efforts to
overcome the nearly irrebuttable presumption
of regularity favoring
this dishonest judge, the defendant finally, in accord with all
rules of evidence
repeatedly petitioned that in order to confirm the
falsehoods and lies of the judge, W’m Sullivan,
in accordance with
defendant’s petitions:
“Call members of the jury to the witness stand to prove your Honor
stated all those prejudicial
statements.” (132)
The imp, lying judge, W’m Sullivan, refused to do so. The
defendant then requested that
the falsehoods stated by the dishonest
judge could be proven as lies and falsehoods if the end of the
prior
recorded trial minutes were read back to prove the trial judge’s
false character testimony in
support of the prosecution’s witness
Nat Birchall and Nat Birchall’s fraudulently altered copies of
his
records of the two non-existent Grand Jury Hearings in the District
Attorney’s office in July 1957,
defendant stated to the judge:
“That such statements were made by your Honor and those statements
are also statements that I
wish to have restated to refresh my
memory and the jury’s memory.” (150)
The defendant attempted to have the trial judge’s
prearranged false character testimony as to
Nat Birchall and his
fraudulently altered records reread. These are the same fraudulently
altered
records produced by Nat Birchall, the District Attorney’s
stenographer, of the two non-existent Grand
Jury Hearings in the
District Attorney’s office in July 1957, that were admitted into
evidence in spite
of defendant’s repeated objections (161-165) that
the records were hearsay fraudulently altered
typewritten copies of
Nat Birchall’s original hearsay stenographic notes; which original
notes Nat
Birchall testified were written in his own secret short
hand code which no one could understand or
read beside himself
(197-198). Even with this admission the imp trial judge, W’m
Sullivan, ordered the
defendant to accept the veracity of the said
hearsay fraudulently altered notes on the say-so of Nat
Birchall,
the prosecution’s witness and life long employee. The dishonest
judge allowed these
fraudulently altered hearsay notes of
conversations of Edward Robinson, Jr. with detective Becker,
Dr.
Milton E. Robbins, J.D.C. Murray, Frank Gulotta and Fred Wirschning
into evidence in spite of
defendant’s repeated objections, that
these people would not be called to testify in reference to
these
fraudulently altered hearsay typewritten notes (161-165), The
prosecution refused to call Edward
Robinson, Jr., Detective Becker, J.D.C. Murray and Frank Gulotta in reference to producing the
prosecution’s prima facie case and to substantiate Nat Birchall’s
hearsay notes.
 Shortly after Mrs. Wirschning completely broke down during
cross
examination and admitted her sworn complaints were perjuries,
defendant’s
cross examination of her was ordered
stopped by the fop
judge over
defendant’s objections and the judge
and prosecution
called Nat Birchall to
testify. The dishonest, perjurous, life
long aged fop, stenographer, Nat
Birchall, stood petrified, mumbling,
leaning, against the judge’s bench,
his face red and dripping wet with
perspiration; staring aimlessly at
his fellow County employees who
were the selected fixed “spec-
tators” of the trial while all other
citizens were excluded by force of
the numerous County Court Officer
Attendants in uniform. Nat Birchall,
the aged, life long District
Attorney’s stenographer stood
petrified as if awaiting Fate to end
his miserable perjurous life, when
suddenly, Assistant District Attorney
Harold Spitzer barged into the
courtroom and ordered the trial stopped and under his orders the
judge, W’m Sullivan,
stopped the trial and adhered to the commands
of Harold Spitzer who took the stupefied old
perjurer Nat Birchall
off the witness stand, in the midst of his, Nat Birchall’s
testimony, and
actually assisted Nat Birchall out of the court room.
Defendant objected vigorously, Harold Spitzer
informed the defendant that Nat Birchall had duties with the Grand
Jury and the Grand Jury duties of
Nat Birchall were much more important than Nat
Birchall wasting time at the defendant’s trial testi-
fying as a
witness.
The felonious conniving culprit, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning
had just admitted she signed her
general release and her $400
settlement incorrectly in her usual peculiar manner of signing her
name,
and that she personally stated each and every injury to the
Allstate Insurance Company doctor which
are listed in the indictment
as being false and which injuries are identical to those injuries
listed in her
doctor bill, handwritten by Dr. Milton E. Robbins.
For anyone but a “DUMB POLOK” (as defendant was called
by the hand picked fanatic
detective Becker) the trial would [have]
been ended immediately and the gangsterous
gestapo like sadistic
decade long persecution of this defendant would be investigated,
especially if such persecution was inflicted upon any other lawyer.
Instead, in complete kangaroo court manner the defendant’s
trial was then interrupted with not
one but two important witnesses
in the middle of cross examination, namely, Mrs. Wirschning and
Nat
Birchall, the trial was adjourned for approximately a week from
November 6, 1958, to November
12, 1958, without notice to the
defendant and in spite of defendant’s vigorous repeated objections
calling for a mistrial (130-131).
During this illegal week long interrupting pause in the
middle of this defendant’s trial, Judge
Philip Kleinfeld, of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial
Department,
repeatedly forwarded messaged to this defendant warning
this defendant that the defendant had to
capitulate. During a court
session of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the
Second
Judicial Department, on Friday, November 7, 1958, Judge
Philip Kleinfeld did interrupt the said court’s
session, in the
presence of the other Judges and a Court Attendant, Vincent
Gubitosie, in order that
he, Judge Philip Kleinfeld stressed that
even though this defendant was a practicing lawyer, this
defendant
must give up his Constitutional Rights of defending his innocence
and the defendant must
discontinue trying his own case and retain
the lawyer “chosen” to capitulate for the defendant. As in
the
Spring of 1958, shortly after this defendant was indicted and Judge
Philip Kleinfeld and Judge
Henry Wenzel, both of the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Depart-
ment,
caused this defendant to give Judge Philip Kleinfeld and Judge Henry
Wenzel a typewritten
statement as to this defendant’s defense to the
false indictment, Judge Philip Kleinfeld was once
again respectfully
notified that this defendant did not need a lawyer to capitulate to
the false indict-
ment, but defendant desired to be given a fair trial
to prove his innocence and to prove the over
decade long gestapo
like illegal persecution of this defendant by Nassau County jurists
and other
Nassau County officials. After hearing this often repeated
request on the defendant’s behalf, Judge
Philip Kleinfeld, in a
message to the defendant, finally stated that regardless of
defendant’s inno-
cence, defendant had created ill feelings amongst
the important Nassau County jurists and therefore
defendant’s
innocence did not matter; defendant must give up trying his own case
and accept
retaining the lawyer “chosen” to capitulate for defendant
without a fee, because Judge Philip Kleinfeld
then stated “THE JUDGE
AND JURY ARE FIXED” therefore regardless of this defendant’s
innocence
this defendant would be convicted and “GIVEN A TERRIBLE
PRISON SENTENCE.”
IN ORDER
TO MAKE CERTAIN THE DEFENDANT RECEIVE HIS COMPLETE MESSAGE,
JUDGE PHILIP KLEINFELD HAND WROTE A NOTE TO THIS DEFENDANT OUTLINING
THE
ARRANGED APPOINTMENT WITH “HONORABLE” EDWARD NEARY, A FORMER
DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF NASSAU COUNTY, THE LAWYER “CHOSEN” TO CAPITULATE THIS
DEFENDANT,
AND ARRANGED DATE AND TIME OF THE APPOINTMENT WAS MONDAY, NOVEMBER
10,
1958, 2:30 P.M. WHICH IS STATED ON THE NOTE. A PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF
THIS NOTE IS
ATTACHED BELOW.
Defendant did not
surrender to the coercive efforts of Judge Philip Kleinfeld. The
farce
kangaroo court trial of defendant with “fixed judge and jury” and
fixed selected County
employee “spectators” with roving, sneering Assistant District
Attorneys seated near the trial
judge’s bench, was more than sufficient to made defendant cognizant
of his status as the innocent “Dumb Polok” scape goat to be made an
example of in order to atone for hund-
reds of established, gangsterous, felonious, ambulance chasing,
fraudulent injury claim
lawyers, who are secretly reprimanded, without criminal prosecution
through the near farce
activities of the Arkwright Committee investigating felonious
lawyers. Prior to the week long
interruption of this defendant’s trial, during which interruption
Judge Philip Kleinfeld attempted to
coerce the defendant to capitulate to the false indictment because
as he stated “the Judge and Jury
are fixed”, the repeated degrading remarks aganst defendant by the
imp, lying trial judge W’m
Sullivan, such as:
“The Court feels that everybody here is well advised of what we are
contending with. Now please go
ahead.” (Mr. Dec) (160)
openly and wantonly, the trial judge corroborated the inadvertent
admission of Judge Philip Kleinfeld,
when he warned that “the Judge and Jury are fixed”.
The fixed trial judge’s illegal, fanatical, frantic,
wanton and obvious efforts of preventing the
prosecution’s witnesses from breaking down in their perjurous
stories are repeatedly found in even
the fraudulently altered trial minutes. On direct examination when
the perjurous Fred, the car thief,
Wirschning began to break down and nearly admitted his felonious
actions, namely:
“Q.
I will repeat the question. Up to May of 1957 did you know a Dr.
Milton E. Robbins?
Fred Wirshning: A. Could I explain it.
By the Court: Can you answer the question yes or no?
Fred Wirschning: A. The first time I ever heard of it --
The Court: Just a minute. Just a minute. Don’t answer yet. The
question was, as I recall it, up to
May of 1957. Is that what you said Mr. Nixon?
Mr. Nixon: Yes.
The Court: Did you even know a Dr. Milton E. Robbins? You will
have to answer that yes or no.”
(270)
 The
imp judge, W’m Sullivan, did not in the least
doubt that Fred Wirschning was breaking down in his
perjurous story against the defendant. The imp, lying
judge, W’m Sullivan, interrupted the breaking
down, confessing, perjurous Fred, the car thief,
Wirschning and then not only prevented Fred
Wirschning from breaking down and admitting his
felonious actions of going to Dr. Milton E. Robbins’
office and obtaining and paying for Dr. Milton E.
Robbins’ hand written medical bill for his wife’s injury
treatments in order that defendant could process
her injury claim, as Fred Wirschning admitted in the
District Attorney’s office in July 1957 during the non-
existent Grand Jury hearing. In addition the lying,
fancy feather hair cut, hold over judge, W’m
Sullivan, a self admitted neurotic psychotic in
open court (839), in further kangaroo court style,
ordered the faltering, breaking down, perjurer,
Fred, the car thief, Wirschning, to answer only his own (judge
W’m Sullivan’s) leading questions
with a one word answer only, in order to prevent Fred Wirschning
from explaining how he, Fred
Wirschning, did go to Dr. Milton E. Robbins’ office and did pay for
and obtain his wife’s hand written
medical bill from Dr. Milton E. Robbins, which said medical bill
Mrs. Wirschning relied upon to state
her doctor treated injuries to the Allstate Insurance Company
doctor, Joseph Rosenheck on May 24,
1956; which injuries are identical to the medical bill injuries
claimed by the defendant as false.
Defendant having tried cases in Nassau County Courts
prior to defendant’s own trial and on
appeal defendant found his trial records fraudulently altered,
defendant purposefully testified at length
and repeatedly in order to thwart complete fraudulent alteration of
the trial minutes. This defendant
after defending himself during the gestapo like farce trial
repeatedly requested that the minutes of
his trial be furnished for purpose of appeal. After many repeated
oral and written complaints to the
Nassau County Court, the trial stenographer and the District
Attorney, this defendant duly made a
detailed motion of 17 pages in the appellate court, the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court for
the Second Judicial Department, on February 2, 1959, for an order
compelling the stenographer,
Michael Wowk, at this defendant’s trial to produce the trial records
of this defendant’s trial in accord-
ance with section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to
minimize the time in which the
District Attorney and his staff could fraudulently alter the lengthy
trial minutes. The said defendant’s
motion was put aside a week by the clerk of said Court, John
Callaghan, his stated reason was be-
cause the District Attorney failed to reply. The said motion set
forth in detail some of the illegal
gestapo like persecution of this defendant by the District
Attorney’s office and the motion also set
forth in detail other Court behested fraudulent alterations of trial
records of cases tried by this citizen.
The motion urgently petitioned the said appellate court to expedite
its decision upon said motion in
accordance with section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After
hearing said motion, the said
appellate court, finally a month and a half later, after Michael
Wowk finally produced his obviously
wantonly, fraudulently altered version of this defendant’s trial
minutes, approximately five months
after this citizen’s trial, the said appellate court dismissed this
citizen’s motion as academic and
disregarded this citizen’s statutory rights under section 456 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, which
states the trial record must be delivered within the maximum time of
12 days after notice of appeal is
served upon a conviction. The appellate court that delayed its
decision on this citizen’s said motion
for an order commanding the stenographer at this citizen’s trial to
produce the trial minutes in accord-
ance with section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the
Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court for the Second Judicial Department; the same court the afore
mentioned Judge Philip Kleinfeld
and Judge Henry Wenzel were Judges.
The wanton fraudulently altered trial record and unjust
conviction was sanctioned by the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial
Department to which said latter court
the said former court transferred this citizen’s appeal on the
hearing date without notice for hearing
and determination. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for
the First Judicial Department
connivingly affirmed judgment without opinion on October 11, 1960,
as did the Court of Appeals on
July 7, 1961.
▲
BACK TO TOP
REASONS FOR
GRANTING THIS APPLICATION
The decision below should be reviewed because:
1. New York State denied this
citizen due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to which guarantee is pertinent the right to a speedy
trial when the State repeatedly
adjourned this citizen’s criminal trial over a period of nine months
in spite of this citizen’s duly
undertaken repeated demands for a speedy trial as guaranteed by the
Constitution.
This citizen’s trial had not only been delayed by the
District Attorney, but even worse, the
District Attorney repeatedly adjourned this citizen’s trial date
several times, month after months,
during a period of nine months. This citizen repeatedly demanded a
speedy trial basing his demands
upon the United States Constitution. Month after month, at each set
trial date, this citizen’s demands
for a speedy trial were ignored by the County Court. Instead, the
County Court Judge and District
Attorney coerced and harassed this citizen in efforts to force this
citizen to give up his Constitutional
Rights of defending himself. This citizen’s repeated demands for a
speedy trial were ignored and the
District Attorney’s repeated requested adjournments were granted
without any cause stated by the
District Attorney. This citizen duly made a formal detailed written
Motion to Dismiss the Indictment
for Lack of Prosecution in the County Court. On October 8, 1958, the
County Court heard the motion
and dismissed this citizen’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for
Lack of Prosecution. This citizen
stressed section 668 of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure,
namely,
“Section 668: When a person indicated is not brought to
trial
at the term thereafter. If a defendant, indicted for a
crime whose trial has not been postponed upon his
application,
be not brought to trial at the next term of the court in
which
the indictment is triable, after it is found the court may
on
application of the defendant, order the indictment to be
dismissed, unless good cause to the contrary be shown.”
The District Attorney gave no cause whatsoever for the
District Attorney’s repeated
adjournments of this citizen’s criminal trial in his answering
affidavit. The District Attorney in his
answering affidavit promised the Court to commence this citizen’s
trial shortly in the October Term
of 1958. Even this sworn promise by the District Attorney was
ignored and disregarded by the District
Attorney and this citizen’s trial was postponed for another month
until November 1958. The intentional
final delay alone was sufficient for a dismissal of the indictment
for lack of prosecution without
considering the prior eight months of delay with this citizen’s
repeated monthly appearances at trial
call during which this citizen objected to the repeated adjournments
of this citizen’s trial is in complete
derogation of this citizen’s Constitutional Rights to a speedy
trial. These same rights to a speedy trial
are incorporated in the New York Code of Criminal Procedure, Section
8, namely,
“Section 8. Right of defendant in criminal action. In a
criminal action the defendant is entitled
1. To a speedy and public trial.”
This citizen repeatedly complained to the trial court of
the obvious reason why the District
Attorney gave no reason for the repeated adjournments from trial
term to trial term of this citizen’s trial.
The trial court ignored this citizen’s appeals to the trial court
that the lengthy repeated delays ordered
by the District Attorney substantially weakened this citizen’s
defense to the indictment in that this
citizen was required to remember the many detailed occurrences that
proved this citizen’s innocence
and disproved the District Attorney’s tutored know-nothing stories
of Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning
assisted by Dr. Milton E. Robbins. The many months delay assisted
the said perjurous Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins in forgetting the facts and
assisted them in adhering to their
tutored know-nothing stories. In addition to this many month delay,
the District Attorney had delayed
this citizen’s indictment for nearly a year subsequent to this
citizen’s appearances to the District
Attorney’s office, at which time both Dr. Milton Robbins and the
only other person present, who was
involved in the matter, namely, Fred Wirschning, Mrs. Wirschning’s
husband, both confessed to this
citizen’s innocence and to the falseness of Mrs. Wirschning’s
complaint.
The said statutes Section 8 and 668 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure set forth the specific
requirements of a speedy trial.
The Court of Appeals of New York dismissed a judgment
after plea of guilty to a new rein-
dictment; after the original indictment was dismissed under a said
section 668 in People v. Wilson,
208 N.Y.S. 2d 963; restressing the statutory rights of a speedy
trial and that “the prosecution failed
to show the slightest ‘good cause’ for that delay”, quoting
People v. Prosser 309 N.Y. 353.
In the case of Ex Parte Gregory, Okl. Cr. (1957), 309 p.
2d 1083, where such statute defined
what constituted a speedy trial the deciding court relied upon the
time set by such statute, deciding
that the statute 22 O.S. 1951 section 812 providing for discharge of
an accused unless trial is had
within stated time after indictment, information or commitment was
enacted for the purpose of en-
forcing the Constitutional Right to a speedy trial and must be
construed fairly to the accomplishment
of that end. The provisions of said statute cannot be obviated
because of a jury was not provided due
to lack of fund or local derilication.
In the cases of People v. Travis, 72 N.Y.S.
2d 804; People v. Warden, 199 Misc. 570, 102
N.Y.S. 2d 969, the courts reiterated the importance of the
Constitutional and statutory right to a
speedy trial.
▲
BACK TO TOP
2. New York State deprived this
citizen of equal protection and due process of law guaran-
teed by the Fourteenth Amendment when New York State deprived this
citizen from 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,
juxtapositioned, hashed together,
jumbled and lengthened with substitute material in an obvious
attempt to keep secret the gestapo like
farce kangaroo court trial to support the unjust felonious
conviction of this citizen, a volunteer Veteran
of World War II and a member of the Bar of the State of New York.
This citizen’s first post trial motion was made in the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for
the Second Judicial Department of New York State. It was a Motion
for an Order Compelling the Trial
Stenographers to Produce the Trial Record of this Defendant’s Trial.
The motion was heard on February
2, 1959. Said motion was premised upon section 456 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of New York
State, namely,
“Section 456: Where the defendant is convicted of a crime
the
clerk of the Court in which the conviction was had shall
within two days after a notice of appeal shall be served
upon
him notify the stenographer that an appeal has been taken
whereupon the stenographer shall within ten days after
receiv-
ing such notice deliver to the clerk of the Court a copy
of
the stenographic minutes of the entire proceeding of the
trial.”
This citizen devoted much of the 17 page motion to cogent reasons
for said motion, based upon
specific occurrences of injustice because of delays in the delivery
of stenographic notes which were
finally delivered to this lawyer citizen fraudulently altered. The
motion was specific and detailed in its
repeated petitions for expeditious adjudication, in order to prevent
or curtail possible intentional
fraudulent alteration of this citizen’s lengthy trial record. Due to
the District Attorney’s failure to reply,
the said motion was put aside a week. Thereafter, a month and a half
later, when one of the trial
stenographers, Michael Wowk, finally delivered his fraudulent record
of this citizen’s trial, the said
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial
Department dismissed this citizen’s
motion as academic and useless. This citizen stressed said motion
later in his appeal brief with
reference to the recently decided case of People v.
Chester Pitts, (6 N Y 2d 288).
On October 5, 1959, this citizen made application to the
County Court to amend the trial re-cord. This citizen submitted 794
Proposed Amendments, 320 typewritten pages in length to the
County Court; said amendments substantially corrected the
fraudulently altered trial minutes of this
citizen’s trial produced by Michael Wowk, one of the trial
stenographers at this citizen’s trial. This
citizen incorporated said 794 Amendments in his later motion to
extend time to perfect his appeal in
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial
Department. This citizen also
incorporated said 794 Amendments by reference in his appeal brief in
said Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court. This citizen extracted several excerpts from the
wantonly fraudulently altered trial
minutes produced by Michael Wowk, the Nassau County Court
stenographer and included said
excerpts in this citizen’s lower appeal courts briefs and motions
are included below:
“And I say that Mr. and Mrs. Wirschning knew
that the moneys was there and are being used as
dupes because they are fearful either they prose-
cute me or they bring it forth, the insurance
company, to show Mrs. Wirschning you were hurt so
and so and so and so and you retained the lawyer.
He has a retainer. You committed fraud and your
husband automatically is guilty of an attempt of
committing a fraud on the insurance company and
the lawyer has done his work according to the
routine which the District Attorney has -- fifty
per cent of the fee is mine, $200 -- which they
agreed to, but if the client knows nothing of it” (p. 31)
“The conversation in these records they claim
that were made is not such that I would have nor
anyone would have where direct questions in refer-
ence to a crime. I have never acknowledged these.
They were admitted in evidence over my objection,
that they were hearsay, as not in accordance with
the best evidence rule, as not in accordance with
material and essential items, to the Court and other
objections. I have not adopted them.” (p. 845)
The Court of Appeals of New York State in deciding the
monumental People v. Pitts Case
(6 N Y 2d 288) cited both Griffin v. Illinois (351 U. S. 12) and
People v. Pride (3 N Y 2d 545) and
based its opinion on the denial to Pitts of his Constitutional Right
to appellate review within the
meaning of the equal protection and due process clauses of the
Constitution. Stressing the factors of
Pitts’ indigence and lack of counsel the Court of Appeals primarily
based its decision upon the fact
that there were no trial minutes produced in accordance with section
456 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and that upon dismissal of the Pitts’ appeal there still
were no trial minutes produced by
the State in derogation of Pitts’ Constitutional Rights to appellate
review. This citizen has been not
only deprived of the trial record through the State’s production of
the obviously wantonly fraudulently
deleted, abbreviated, juxta-positioned, hashed together, jumbled and
lengthened with substitute
material trial record, still worse, this citizen’s gestapo like
farce kangaroo court trial which supported
the unjust felonious conviction of this citizen has been kept secret
by the wanton fraudulent alteration
of this citizen’s trial record by and under behest of New York State
jurists. The Court of Appeals of
New York in the said Pitts case decried the deprivation of the
Constitutional Right to appellate review
because of the lack of the trial record. But in this citizen’s farce
appellate review to the said Court of
Appeals, the said court sanctioned the wanton fraudulent alteration
of this citizen’s trial record by and
under behest of State Court Jurists. The obvious wantonly
fraudulently deleted, abbreviated, juxta-
positioned, hashed together, jumbled and lengthened with substitute
material lengthy trial record was
stressed by this citizen as depriving this citizen from appellate
review, but the Court of Appeals of
New York sanctioned this impish deprivation of this citizen’s
Constitutional Rights and this citizen still
remains convicted through the wanton frauds of the New York
judiciary and as this citizen warned in
his Court of Appeals of New York appeal brief, namely, that the
Constitution and laws of this Country
resolve into a façade for a dynamic, labyrintical, omnipotent,
lawless, judicial dictatorship.
▲
BACK TO TOP
3. The State of New York did deprive
this citizen of equal protection and due process of law
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment when it halted the gestapo
like farce kangaroo court trial
of this citizen for a period of approximately one week, after the
court’s ordering 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 alteration 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 this citizen’s objections,
the court ordered the halting of this citizen’s trial for
 approximately
one week during which week this
citizen, defendant, was coerced through oral and
written messages by Judge Philip Kleinfeld, a Judge
of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for
the Second Judicial Department of New York State,
the said messages warning this citizen, defendant,
that regardless of this citizen’s innocence, this
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 this citizen did not retain a “chosen” ex District
Attorney, namely, Edward Neary, as his lawyer to
plead guilty to the false charges then this citizen’s
trial would lead only to this citizen’s felonious
conviction and a severe prison sentence because
“the judge and jury are fixed”.
Shortly after the trial began, the felonious
conniving culprit, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning, had just broke
down during cross examination and
admitted her signing her general release and her $400 settlement
check, she further broke down and
in detailed lengthy testimony admitted she personally stated and
claimed each and every injury as
her total injuries listed as false in the indictment and that these
injuries she claimed were identical to
her doctor bill, handwritten by Dr. Milton E. Robbins. Quickly the
trial judge interrupted this citizen’s
cross examination of the completely breaking down and confessing
Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning. The
Court ignored this citizen’s objections and quickly called “Nat”
Birchall to the stand for the prose-
cution. “Nat” Birchall, the dishonest, aged, perjurous, life long
fop, District Attorney’s stenographer
stood petrified, mumbling, leaning against the judges bench, his
face red and dripping wet with
perspiration; staring aimlessly at his fellow county employees who
were the selected fixed “spec-
tators” as if awaiting Fate to end his miserable perjurous life,
when suddenly Assistant District
Attorney Harold Spitzer barged into the court room and ordered the
trial stopped and took the stupe-
fied old perjurer, “Nat” Birchall, quickly out of the court room
under the excuse that the Grand Jury
duties of the old perjurer, “Nat” Birchall, were much more important
than his wasting his time testifying
as a witness at this citizen’s trial.
For anyone but a “Dumb Polok” (As this citizen was called
by the hand picked fanatic,
Detective Becker) the trial would be immediately dismissed and the
gangsterous gestapo like sadistic
persecution of this citizen would be investigated, especially if
such persecution was inflicted upon any
other lawyer. Instead, in complete kangaroo court manner this
citizen’s trial was then interrupted with
not one but two important witnesses in the middle of cross
examination, namely, Mrs. Wirschning, the
complainant, and “Nat” Birchall, the District Attorney’s
stenographer. The trial was suddenly adjourned
for approximately a week from November 6, 1958, to November 12,
1958, without notice to this citizen
and in spite of this citizen’s vigorous repeated objections calling
for a mistrial (130-131).
During this illegal week long interrupting pause in the
middle of this citizen’s trial, Judge Philip
Kleinfeld, of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the
Second Judicial Department of New
York State, repeatedly forwarded messaged to this citizen warning
that this citizen had to capitulate.
During a session of the said Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
for the Second Judicial
Department of New York State, on Friday, November 7, 1958, Judge
Philip Kleinfeld did interrupt the
court session in the presence of the other Judges and a Court
Attendant, Vincent Gubitosie, in order
that he, Judge Philip Kleinfeld, give a message for this citizen
from the Bench of the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department of New York
State. Judge Philip Kleinfeld
stressed that this citizen, even though a practicing member of the
Bar of New York State, must give
up his Constitutional Rights of defending his innocence and retain
the “chosen” lawyer, Edward Neary,
a former District Attorney of Nassau County, to capitulate for this
citizen. Judge Philip Kleinfeld was
once again respectfully notified, as Judge Kleinfeld was informed in
the spring of 1958, that this
citizen did not need a lawyer to capitulate to the false indictment,
but this citizen desired to be given
a fair trial to prove his innocence and prove this over decade long
gestapo like illegal persecution of
this citizen by Nassau County Jurists and Public Officials. After
hearing this often repeated request
from this citizen, Judge Philip Kleinfeld, in a message to this
citizen finally stated that regardless of
this citizen’s innocence, this citizen had created ill feelings
amongst several important Nassau
County Jurists and therefore, this citizen’s innocence did not
matter; this citizen must give up trying
his own case and accept retaining the lawyer “chosen” to capitulate
for this citizen without a fee,
because Judge Philip Kleinfeld then stated “THE JUDGE AND JURY ARE
FIXED” therefore, if this
citizen did not capitulate, regardless of this citizen’s innocence,
this citizen would be convicted and
“GIVEN A TERRIBLE PRISON SENTENCE.”
In order to make certain that this citizen received his
complete message, Judge Philip Kleinfeld
hand wrote a note to this citizen outlining the arranged appointment
with “Honorable Edward Neary”,
a former District Attorney of Nassau County, the lawyer “chosen” to
capitulate this citizen, the
arranged date and time of the appointment was Monday, November 10,
1958, 2:30 P.M. which is
stated on the note. Photostatic copy of this note is attached below:
The warning by Judge Philip Kleinfeld, namely, “THE JUDGE
AND JURY ARE FIXED” and this
citizen’s trial would only lead to a “TERRIBLE PRISON SENTENCE” was
fulfilled and this citizen
received three felonious suspended execution sentences of 2½ to 5
years in prison at hard labor.
This citizen has found no citation describing similar
gestapo like persecution during a farce
kangaroo court trial. This citizen’s persecution through criminal
prosecution is obvious when con-
sidered and compared with the usual anonymous and semi secret civil
disbarment or simply a short
suspension or a token censure imposed upon life long felonious
lawyers, as often exemplified in the
said Second Judicial Department and especially by the many
investigations of the Arkwright Judicial
Investigative Committee. See Anonymous v. Baker (360
U.S. 287), Albert Martin Cohen v. Denis M.
Hurley, Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on
April 24, 1961. The near farce activities
of the Arkwright Judicial Inquiry, the originator of the above cited
cases, produced no felonious
conviction of any of the multitude of life long felonious lawyers
brought before the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department. After this
citizen’s gestapo like kangaroo
court felonious conviction on the contradictory, perjurous,
complaint of one client and this citizen’s
sentence to three felonious five year prison terms, than belatedly
an unknown, unimportant life long
felonious lawyer, Armand Kolodny, was belatedly selected from Nassau
County by the District
Attorney, instead of one of the many important life long notorious
felonious lawyers, to attempt to
“disprove” this citizen’s contentions of this citizen’s
unprecedented gestapo like persecution. This
Armand Kolodny, whose entire legal career for years was a series of
felonious, fraudulent insurance
injury claim settlements pleaded guilty to his belated indictment,
which in token was composed of
only four counts of second degree grand larceny. This lawyer, Armand
Kolodny, conveniently received
a Certificate of Reasonable Doubt from a Nassau County Supreme Court
Judge after pleading guilty
to a token reduced indictment and was illegally immediately released
from prison pending the farce
appeal on the Constitutional grounds quoted in United States Code
Annotated, Constitution
Amendments 14 to End, Note 590, Page 184, as follows:
“If persons convicted in Nassau County were required to be
sentenced to state prison because of lack of county peniten-
tiary while others similarly convicted in other countries
received lesser sentence to county penitentiaries, question
of whether sentencing procedure violated equal protection
clauses of state and federal Constitutions arose entitling
one convicted in Nassau County and sentenced to state prison
to certificate of reasonable doubt pending appeal to Appellate
Division. People v. Kolodny, 1959, 194 N.Y.S. 2d
735, 20 Misc
2d 267.”
This above citation and the law in reference to it is erroneous. The
Said Armand Kolodny pleaded
guilty to a reduced token indictment, there was no trial or
conviction for which a sacrosanct Certificate
of Reasonable Doubt could be issued. The Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court for the Second
Judicial Department, with said Judge Philip Kleinfeld concurring,
sacrosanctly not only approved this
farce Certificate of Reasonable Doubt issued after a greatly reduced
plea of guilty by a life long
felonious, fraudulent, lawyer, Armand Kolodny, (whose crimes were
notorious and even known to
this citizen) but also the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
for the Second Judicial Department
agreed with the contentions of Armand Kolodny, and the said court
ruled that “a prison sentence was
excessive” and said court completely dispensed with the prison
sentence received by Armand Kolodny
upon his token plea of guilty for his many year long legal career as
a felonious lawyer which amount-
ed to “a series of (felonious) transgressions” as stated by the said
Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court for the Second Judicial Department in People v.
Kolodny, (10 A D 2d 950). Even this life long
felonious lawyer, Armand Kolodny, was placed above a felonious
prison sentence by the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department and
even though Kolodny’s token
guilty plea to a greatly reduced indictment was illegally in
kangaroo court style appealed and set aside
in derogation of the pertinent sections of the statutory law. The
District Attorney of Nassau County
took no appeal from the illegal kangaroo court style appeal and
farce reversal by the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department.
▲
BACK TO TOP
4. The State of New York did deprive
this citizen of equal protection and due process of law
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment by upholding a felonious
conviction of this citizen wherein
the trial court in collusion with the prosecution, and in spite of
this citizen’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 this citizen defendant.
When this citizen first appeared at the District
Attorney’s office relative to this matter, in July
of 1957, this citizen complained of the falseness of the raving
incoherent accusations made by an
Assistant District Attorney, Edward Robinson, accusing this citizen
of ambulance chasing false injury
claims. The convulsive Edward Robinson, in muddled raving
accusations accused this citizen, a
lawyer, of being a felonious ambulance chasing lawyer without a
retainer on the say so of one client,
a Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning. Edward Robinson based his raving
accusations upon the sworn com-
plaint of Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning, who he alleged swore she never
signed any retainer with the
lawyer citizen and further Mrs. Wirschning swore she never retained
this citizen as her lawyer and
that she, Mrs. Wirschning, never made nor settled any injury claim
against the Allstate Insurance Company.
The raving, incoherent, psychotic like ravings of Edward
Robinson Jr. have been fraudulently
altered in the District Attorney’s stenographic record. (Such
practice of fraudulently altering such
statements as a District Attorney’s office sees fit is common
knowledge, especially to the legal
profession, and is considered a sacrosanct right of any District
Attorney’s office.) At this citizen’s
trial, even after the year and a half delay impishly created by the
District Attorney, Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning completely contradicted her original sworn complaint. In
order to further prove the per-
jurous nature of Mrs. Wirschning short answer direct testimony, this
citizen demanded the original
complaining statement of Mrs. Wirschning upon which Edward Robinson
based his raving incoherent
accusations of this citizen nearly a year and a half before this
citizen’s trial. The Court repeatedly
refused this citizen’s requests for an inspection of such document.
The only other alleged actual witness for the prosecution,
Dr. Milton E. Robbins, the self
admitted perjurer and liar also admitted that he, Dr. Milton E.
Robbins, gave two completely
contradictory sworn statements as to the matters pertaining to this
citizen’s indictment. Dr. Milton
E. Robbins in repeated sworn cross examination testimony broke down
and admitted that he, Dr.
Milton E. Robbins made an original detailed statement to the
District Attorney’s office in July of 1957.
Dr. Robbins during cross examination admitted that he, Dr. Robbins,
made this first detailed state-
ment unpremeditated and offhand unassisted by any lawyer and that
he, Dr. Robbins, stated in detail
his knowledge of the Wirschning’s and his medical treatments given
to Mrs. Wirschning relative to the
injuries the indictment claimed false. Dr. Robbins during cross
examination broke down and confirmed
his first sworn statement to the District Attorney and also admitted
that his first unpremeditated sworn
statement to the District Attorney was in complete contradiction
with his direct short answer testi-
mony of knowing nothing about everything. Dr. Robbins further broke
down during cross examination
and admitted that his direct testimony of knowing nothing about
everything was a story concocted in
a two week period after his first visit to the District Attorney’s
office; Dr. Robbins also broke down and
admitted that during the two week period he was aided in concocting
his final know-nothing story by
his long time lawyer brother in law, and a noted Nassau County
lawyer and friend of the District
Attorney, J.D.C. Murray. During cross examination Dr. Robbins
further admitted that his detailed
unpremeditated statement recorded by the District Attorney
completely contradicted his concocted
know-nothing story he stated during his direct examination and that
his, Dr. Robbins’ first detailed
unpremeditated statement to the District Attorney in no way
implicated this citizen in any crime. This
citizen repeatedly demanded during the trial that the recorded first
unpremeditated statement by Dr.
Robbins to the District Attorney be produced by the District
Attorney. Even the extant trial record
produces defendant’s (this citizen’s) requests, namely, “Mr. Dec:
Your Honor: I now make a request
to see the first statement made and recorded by the District
Attorney in that the District Attorney is
here present in this Court. (p. 391.” The Court repeatedly refused
this citizen’s righteous requests,
claiming that Dr. Robbins’ said statement was not in evidence
therefore the defendant could not
inspect it.
In the farce appellate review to the Court of Appeals
wherein said Court haughtily affirmed the
original farce “no opinion” affirmation of judgment, the District
Attorney’s office in typical wanton
omnipotent above the law reply brief stated “Dr. Robbins testified
that when he was first examined
during the investigation he denied his criminal involvement.
Thereafter, following consultation with
counsel, he made a further statement readily admitting and
confessing his guilt. Dr. Robbins testified
to these facts at the trial and there is no real inconsistency
between the investigation and the witness’
testimony at the trial.” On the omnipotent say-so of the District
Attorney, the established law stressed
in People v. Luis Manuel Rosaric decided by the Court
of Appeals of New York on March 23, 1961,
was ignored by the Court of Appeals, as was the importance of Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning’s and Dr.
Robbins’ contradictory sworn statements against this citizen. In
typical kangaroo court fashion the
Court of Appeals agreed with the dictated lies and falsehoods of the
District Attorney and both Mrs.
Wirschning’s and Dr. Robbins’ original sworn statements during the
investigation and the completely
contradictory much later stated direct testimony (which direct
testimony consisted of tutored short,
or yes and no answers to leading questions of the trial judge or
prosecutor) were wantonly ignored by
the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals intentional disregard of
this citizen’s rights as set down
in such cases as People v. Walsh (262 N.Y. 140, 149);
People v. Shainuck (286 N.Y. 161); People v.
Dales (309 N.Y. 97); People v. Bai (7 N.Y. 2nd
152, 155); cases cited by the Court of Appeals in its
sacrosanct summation of the prior existing pertinent law to such
contradictory statements of
witnesses in its decision of People v. Luis Manuel Rosario
the Court of Appeals stated: “in New York
we have allowed the defendant to see and use the statement only if
it contains matter which is
inconsistent with the testimony given by the witness from the
stand.”
The case of People v. Luis Manuel Rosario
(supra) is an important decision of the Court of
Appeals in that through this decision finally New York State
corrected its narrow interpretation on
the subject of defense counsel’s right to see a witness’ prior
statement and has finally assumed the
more just interpretation of the United States Supreme Court as set
forth in Jencks v. United States
(353 U.S. 657, 667, 668) in which case the Supreme Court has
held that a defendant is entitled to
inspect any statement made by the government’s witnesses which bears
on the subject matter of
the witness’ testimony. Therefore, this being the New York Law
established upon appeal to the New
York Court of Appeals prior to this citizen’s appeal to the said
Court of Appeals the benefits of this
decision of the Court of Appeals automatically accrued to this
citizen because this citizen stress this
identical point of law as one of his contentions to the said Court
of Appeals and this citizen specifi-
cally
stressed the said People v. Luis Manuel Rosario
decision of the said New York Court of Appeals
which said decision assumed the established interpretation of the
United States Supreme Court set
forth in the case of Jencks v. United States (353 U.S.
657), and Alvin R. Campbell, Arnold S.
Campbell and Donald Lester v. United States, Decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States
on January 23, 1961.
▲
BACK TO TOP
5. The State of New York did deprive
this citizen of due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment by upholding a felonious conviction of this
citizen brought about by a farce
kangaroo court 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 than this citizen, defendant,
did constitute a confession by this citizen, defendant, and thereby
through statutory definition of
criminal confessions practically convict this citizen, defendant;
when subsequently through written
admissions of the prosecution in the prosecution’s appeal brief to
the Court of Appeals of the State
of New York the said District Attorney’s hearsay stenographic notes
are stated not to constitute a
confession, a contention obviously directly opposite to that taken
by the prosecution and trial judge
during this citizen’s trial.
The
prosecutor and the trial judge throughout the trial and in the final
summation and charge
to the jury did imply and state that the fraudulently altered
hearsay copy of the hearsay stenographic
noted of “Nat” Birchall constituted a confession by this citizen.
The said notes suppositively contained
the conversations of Frank Gulotta, Edward Robinson Jr., J.D.C.
Murray, Detective Alva Becker and
others allegedly stated at the non-existent Grand Jury hearing to
which this citizen was subpoenaed
to the District Attorney’s office in July of 1957. The trial judge
in his prepared charge to the jury defined
the law in reference to the “Nat” Birchall stenographic notes and
ordered that the jury must consider
the “Nat” Birchall stenographic notes as defined by statute, namely,
“With respect to that type of
evidence, our law provides that a statement of a defendant whether
in the course of prejudicial
proceedings or given to a private person can be introduced in
evidence against him but that statement
alone is not sufficient to warrant a defendant’s conviction without
additional proof that the crime
charged has been committed.” (949). This instruction to the jury by
the trial judge as to the law as to
the evidentiary value of “Nat” Birchall’s fraudulently altered
stenographic notes in the judge’s charfe to
the jury is a verbatim excerpt of Section 395 of the N.Y. Code of
Criminal Procedure titled, “Confession
of defendant, when evidence, and its effect.” Without considering
the other statements of the judge in
his charge to the jury which imply that “Nat” Birchall’s
fraudulently altered stenographic notes
constituted a confession by this citizen, the verbatim excerpt of
Section 395 of the N.Y. Code of
Criminal Procedure defined “Nat” Birchall’s fraudulent stenographic
notes an all encompassing
confession by this citizen, and thereby, by statute literally
convicted this citizen with the simple
requirement of any additional evidence. Actually, the hearsay
fraudulently altered stenographic noted
of “Nat” Birchall, the aged District Attorney’s stenographer, in no
way constitute a confession and
subsequently on appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the
District Attorney in his brief, for
expediency in order not to make the appeal a complete obvious farce,
the District Attorney admitted
that the fraudulent Birchall stenographic notes did not constitute a
confession.
This is reversible error. An Admission Written or Oral
(Peo. v. Giro 197 N. Y. 152, 160) as
distinguished from a confession, is not direct, but circumstantial
ecidence (Peo v. Bretagna, 298 N.Y.
323, 326; Peo. v. Koslow, 2nd Dept. 6 A. D.
2nd 713.
Three doctrines control it:
(1.) Like a confession, it must be found not only voluntary, but
true in fact, else it is ineffectual. (cf.
Peo v. Elmore, 277 N.Y. 397, 404; Gangi v.
Fraudus, 227, N.Y. 452); The fraudulent alteration the
Nathan Birchall notes by the District Attorney’s office was
specifically stressed by the defendant by
objection and Motion for Mistrial.
(2.) “all circumstances surrounding its making are material thereon”
(Elmore Case, supra, p. 404)
which here meant the asserted non-existent Grand Jury hearing and
the wanton fraudulent alteration
of said notes by the District Attorney’s office to implicate the
defendant from the said records and
fraudulently alter the felonious incriminating admissions of Fred
Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins.
(3.) Where a statement is exculpatory and open to a construction
favoring innocence --
This citizen, even in these fraudulently altered records
is not in any way claimed to state
any incriminating fact or admission of guilty knowledge, instead
defendant, even in the said records,
disclaims the accusations and tells of his legal works and services
in reference to the impending legal
separation action of Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning and her retainer of
him for such legal separation action
and her depositing her $200 share of her injury claim settlement
money with defendant which the
defendant was holding in escrow as part payment for her legal
separation fee and also to guarantee
the defendant his minimum fee of $150 for completed legal services.
The said fraudulent records also
produce the admissions of Detective Becker that he immediately took
the defendant’s statements to
be true. Mrs. Wirschning’s titled injury claim file and written
retainer which both Mr. and Mrs. Wirsch-
ning signed (but claimed and swore they never retained the defendant
and never signed anything for
the defendant) along with said file was Mrs. Wirschning’s separation
file titled envelope with the many
legal papers, and copies of statements of account for defendant’s
services in reference to his works
for Mrs. Wirschning’s legal separation action, which said papers
Detective Becker inspected and read
along with his opening the titled letter sized envelope holding Mrs.
Wirschning’s $200 in escrow.
-- defendant is entitled “to
whatever benefit such statement affords” (III Wig-
more on Evidence 3rd ed. Sec. 821; Richardson on Evidence
8th Ed. Secs. 305-306;2Wh. Grim. Evid.,
11th ed. Sec 840; Peo v. Reilly 224 N.Y.
90, 96; Gangi v. Fraudus, supra), and the Court is
under duty
to make plain to the jury its exculpatory features (cf. Peo v. Doria,
3rd Dept. 281 A.D. 918).
None of these doctrines were charged, instead the Court
and the prosecutor stated and implied
that the said notes were a confession or admission of guilt by this
citizen. The Law prohibits such a
construction of statements (People. v. Reilly, supra)
or testimony (People. v. Gorbisiero, 290 N.Y. 191,
194) intended and definitely showing the opposite.
▲
BACK TO TOP
6. The State of New York did deprive
this citizen of due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment by placing in evidence and permitting the
prosecution to repeatedly read
aloud to the jury during this citizen’s trial copies of stenographic
notes, of conversations of people
other than this citizen, who were never made witnesses during this
citizen’s trial, although they were
available and two of them were important members of the judiciary;
especially, when the District
Attorney’s stenographer testified that the original stenographic
records produced by the said District
Attorney’s stenographer were written in his own personal secret
gestapo like code of shorthand, which
can be read and understood only by himself. In spite of this
citizen’s repeated objections, the trial
judge precluded any inspection of the said original stenographic
notes and ordered this citizen to
accept the veracity of the District Attorney’s stenographer’s
stenographic notes on the say-so of the
District Attorney’s stenographer. Further, the said hearsay
stenographic notes were falsely stressed
by the trial judge in collusion with the prosecution as a confession
by this citizen, in this citizen’s
criminal trial that brought about the felonious conviction of this
citizen.
This citizen repeatedly objected to the admission into
evidence and repeated reading aloud to
the jury, by the prosecutor, the fraudulently altered hearsay typed
copies of the stenographic notes
of Nathan Birchall, the District Attorney’s stenographer. The said
stenographic notes suppositively
consisting principally of conversations of people such as, Frank
Gulotta, District Attorney, Edward
Robinson Jr., an assistant District Attorney, Detective Alva Becker
and lawyer J.D.C. Murray, none
of whom were witnesses during the trial and all of whom the
prosecution refused to call as witnesses.
The said Nathan Birchall testified that he did not see the person
who actually typed the copies of his
hand written stenographic notes from his dictated tape recordings.
Further, Nathan Birchall testified
that the person who typed the typewritten copy of his stenographic
notes never saw his original
stenographic notes and further, that even if anyone saw his original
stenographic notes, no one could
understand his stenographic notes because he had improvised a secret
shorthand code over the
years that he, Nathan Birchall, alone could decipher. This citizen
objected to the gestapo like
stenographic notes and requested to inspect them. The Court refused
this citizen’s requests on the
ground that “it is against public policy”. This citizen objected to
the ruling and took exception
(183-184). This citizen further stressed in detail his objections to
the admission of the fraudulently
altered hearsay stenographic copies, principally of hearsay
conversations of people such as, Frank
Gulotta, Edward Robinson, Detective Alva Becker and J.D.C. Murray, a
lawyer for Dr. Robbins, into
evidence. This citizen objected further that he could not inspect
the original stenographic notes
because of the judge’s refusal to permit this citizen to do so, and
most important, because the
stenographer, Nathan Birchall, had his own secret gestapo like short
hand code whereby no one
could check the veracity of his shorthand notes. The judge overruled
this citizen’s objections and
allowed the said typed copies of the said stenographic notes into
evidence over this citizen’s ex-
ception (197-199).
The admission in evidence and repeated reading to the jury
by the prosecutor of the said
copies of Nathan Birchall’s stenographic notes flagrantly violated
this citizen’s rights to due process
under the Constitution of the United States. Such procedure is not
different from condemnation with-
out a trial as stated in Sheiner v. Florida, Supreme
Court of Florida, (82 So. 2d 657) wherein the Court
said (82 So. 2d 661):
“The last cited case (Matter of Murchison, 349 U.S.
133)
and the Peters Case (Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S.
331) are
pertinent here for the emphasis they place on confrontation,
cross-examination and fair trial as ingredients of due
process. Confrontation and cross-examination under oath are
essential to due process because it is the means recognized
by which we test the probity of the evidence and eliminate
that which is trumped up or of doubtful veracity. The
‘faceless informer’ theory of proof should never be substituted
for confrontation and cross-examination in a trial where
the end result is to deprive the accused of one of his most
precious assets – the privilege to practice law.”
▲
BACK TO TOP
7. The State of New York deprived
this citizen of equal protection and due process of law
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment when the State wantonly
procured a felonious conviction
against this citizen through the fraud and collusion of the trial
court in conspiracy with the prosecution.
This citizen still stresses the fact that the said wanton
fraudulent alteration of this citizen’s
trial minutes not only deprived this citizen of any semblance of due
process and equal protection
and statutory rights to an appeal of his conviction, but, also even
the fraudulently altered trial record
substantiates this citizen’s contentions that this citizen’s
trial was a gestapo like farce trial with
a dishonest fixed judge, William J. Sullivan, and a fixed jury,
which convicted this citizen of
the false four count indictment in order to create a dumb innocent
scape goat out of this
citizen as an example to atone for all unprosecuted notorious
felonious lawyers. This citizen’s
lower courts appeal briefs were replete with direct excerpts from
the fraudulently altered trial minutes
which would create an unwavering acquiescence to this said
contention in even the most prejudiced
person’s mind, especially, when such wanton persecution is
considered from a personal aspect.
This citizen’s lower courts appeal briefs stressed in
detail the repeated lengthy judicial
admissions of the witnesses for the prosecution which confirmed this
citizen’s contentions and more
important confirmed this citizen’s innocence. The judicial
admissions of important witnesses for the
prosecution, especially the chief witnesses, Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins,
were laboriously culled from the extant trial record furnished by
the Court Reporter. These extant
lengthy or repeated admissions during direct and cross examination
were then inserted in narrative
form in this citizen’s lower courts appeal briefs in order to stress
the falseness of the four count
indictment and the prosecution’s case.
Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning testified that she and her
husband knew this citizen, who was an
attorney, fairly well known by them and their friends and family. In
addition to this direct contradiction
to her original complaints Mrs. Wirschning admitted that this
citizen was repeatedly retained and had
undertaken other legal works for her family beside his legal works
in reference to her injury claim
case, for which she admitted she signed a written retainer with this
citizen for her injury claim
case (16). Mrs. Wirschning admitted that “we made preparation to
have an appointment set up to go
to an insurance company doctor for an examination” as to Mrs.
Wirschning’s injuries that she claimed
as damages against Allstate Insurance Company. That on May 24, 1956,
this citizen, she, her hus-
band and her baby drove to the Allstate Insurance Company doctor’s
office and this citizen waited
with her husband and baby out in the waiting room while she was
examined by the Allstate Insurance
Company doctor, Joseph Rosenheck, as to her claims of doctor treated
injuries received in the auto
accident (77). That then on May 24, 1956, a few months after the
accident when Mrs. Wirschning’s injuries and medical treatments were
fresh in her mind, she, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning, stated all
her injuries and medical treatments for these injuries to Dr. Joseph
Rosenheck, the Allstate Insurance
Company doctor and Dr. Joseph Rosenheck examined her claimed injured
portions of her body
(80-81) and that she knew that Dr. Joseph Rosenheck made a
typewritten report of her injury claim
and evaluated her injury claim in this said report for the Allstate
Insurance Company. Mrs. Wirschning
broke down and testified on cross examination that the prosecution’s
claims and her direct short story
answer testimony of not receiving any medical treatments for a
slightly hurt right wrist (15-16, 36, 40)
are in complete contradiction to her original detailed repeatedly
stated claims, namely, her claims of
eight treatments by a doctor for bursitis of her right shoulder and
bruises of her right thigh; which
claims by her are recorded correctly in the typewritten report of
Dr. Joseph Rosenheck based upon
his personal examination of the portions of her body she claimed
were injured and she received a
doctor’s treatments for said injuries (79 and Defendant’s Exhibit I
in Evidence).
The injuries and treatments stated by Mrs. Wirschning and
recorded by Dr. Rosenheck in his
typed report as to his medical examination of her for the Allstate
Insurance Company are:
“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.
Right Thigh -- There
is no external evidence of
injury to the right thigh.
There is no tend-
erness anywhere on firm
pressure. Motion at the
right hip joint is free,
complete and painless
in all directions.”
(Above excerpt from said Defendant’s Exhibit I in Evidence.)
There injuries stated to Dr. Joseph Rosenheck of Allstate Insurance
Company by Mrs. Wirschning
are identical to Dr. Milton E. Robbins’ hand written medical bill to
Mrs. Wirschning (Defendant’s
Exhibit H in Evidence) and both are identical to the doctor treated
injuries claimed false by the
indictment. Confirming those admissions by Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning
are the up to date of trial
records of the Allstate Insurance Company File on Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning. The prosecution’s
witness, Charles Martino, testified that all records of the Allstate
Insurance Company indicate that
Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning throughout the negotiations and settlement
of her injury claim and during
her later complaining signed statements of 1957, claimed only the
doctor treated injuries listed on Dr.
Milton E. Robbins’ hand written medical bill to her, (Defendant’s
Exhibit E in Evidence) which are
identical to Dr. Joseph Rosenheck’s typewritten evaluation report of
Mrs. Wirschning stated doctor
treated injuries she stated to Dr. Joseph Rosenheck (456) and also
identical to the doctor treated
injuries claimed false by the indictment (440) and that Mrs.
Wirschning never disclaimed any of
these injuries and further that Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning never made
any claim of any wrist
injuries (459-461).
Mrs. Wirschning admitted on direct examination that she
consulted this citizen concerning a
possible separation from her husband (44-45), because of troubles at
home (64), and further that out
of the various matrimonial legal actions Mrs. Wirschning admitted
that she called this citizen “about
the separation case”. Further, that she, Mrs. Wirschning, at the
time of the separation case, had no
money and no employment and that her husband had a bank account only
on his name (68, 218).
The copies of this citizen’s detailed letters and statements of
account mailed to Mrs. Wirschning
during this citizen’s works for her legal separation from her
husband state in detail many of her trial
court judicial admissions and said copies of this citizen’s letters
were submitted in evidence pro-
ducing much evidence of this citizen’s extended knowledge in
reference to Mrs. Wirschning’s
matrimonial troubles, her family life and background. (Defendant’s
Exhibits D and E in Evidence)
Dr. Milton E. Robbins’ direct testimony confirmed Mrs.
Wirschning’s judicial admissions; Dr.
Robbins stated that Mr. Dec, “he was angry at Mrs. Wirschning. There
was something to do with a
separation or other and that he (Mr. Dec) decided to retain some
money in this particular case.” (345)
Charles Martino, another prosecution witness testified that the
Allstate Insurance Company has a
requirement that in all settlements of claims by married women the
husband must join with the wife
in a general release for his loss of services, unless the married
woman is separated from her husband
or is a widow. Mr. Martino further testified that only Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning’s claim was settled,
therefore, the Allstate Insurance Company must have been properly
notified as to Mrs. Wirschning’s
separation from her husband (481-482). Mr. Martino repeatedly
admitted that this citizen did not
negotiate nor settle Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s claim with Mr.
Martino but that the Allstate Insurance
Company records disclose that this citizen did negotiate and settle
the Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning
injury claim with Mr. Urso, the Allstate Insurance Company Adjuster
in charge of all negotiations and
settlement of Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s injury claim (411); and
that he, Charles Martino, was the
Examiner, the supervising officer who only approved Mr. Urso’s
suggested money settlement offer
(411, 470-471). Mr. Martino’s testimony confirms this citizen’s
contentions, namely, that because of
Mrs. Wirschning’s legal retainer of this citizen to represent her in
an impending legal separation action
from her husband, this citizen properly notified Mr. Urso that this
citizen was withdrawing from Mrs.
Wirschning’s husband’s loss of services claim and only prosecuting
Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim
in that she was separating from her husband and had retained this
citizen as her lawyer to represent
her in an impending separation action (411, 470-471, 752, 812).
The many admissions of the prosecutions witnesses
corroborated this citizen’s detailed
testimony as to his legal works and services in reference to Mrs.
Wirschning’s retaining this citizen
to represent her in a legal separation action and how finally this
citizen agreed and accepted Mrs.
Wirschning’s $200 share of the settlement money from her injury
claim based upon the agreement
with Mrs. Wirschning that the $200 would be held in escrow (which
escrow money and two files in
titled file size file envelopes, one for Mrs. Wirschning’s
separation action and the other for her injury
claim case file Detective Becker inspected when he took this citizen
in custody to this citizen’s law
office in July of 1957 and Detective Becker purloined this citizen’s
written retainer with the Wirsch-
ning’s). The $200 would be held in escrow as part payment toward a
legal separation action and also
in order to guarantee this citizen’s minimum fee of $150 for this
citizen’s completed legal works should
Mrs. Wirschning decide not to go ahead with the legal separation
action. The judge charged, as a
matter of law, in his charge to the jury, that the citizen was
entitled to some legal fee for such legal
services performed with respect to a legal separation action (970).
In reference to contradicting Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s
indefinite and short answer direct
testimony in reference to her denial of signing her general release
and $400 Allstate Insurance
Company settlement check, this citizen commenced his cross
examination of Mrs. Wirschning in
reference to her indefinite and short answer direct testimony. Mrs.
Wirschning not only disproved her
original direct testimony by contradicting it, but, Mrs. Wirschning
also further contradicted her original
direct testimony in detailed statements during her cross
examination. Repeatedly, Mrs. Wirschning
admitted that she misspelled her new married name for some period of
time after being married and
that she usually left out the letter “c” in her new married name and
that upon her close examination
of her general release she testified that the “c” is left out of her
married name and that it is the usual
mistake in signing her new married name (222). While still examining
her signature on her general
release Mrs. Wirschning then further admitted that although she did
not remember leaving out the “c”
in her last name when she signed her general release, “that far
back”, it is her signature and she
signed it as she usually signed her name at that time when she was
first married (222). Thereafter,
this citizen referred Mrs. Wirschning to her $400 settlement check
from Allstate Insurance Company.
This citizen pointed out items on said check in detail. While Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning was still
examining her $400 settlement check this citizen pointed out in
detail that the check is made out to
Elizabeth Wirschning and it is endorsed on its rear Elizabeth A.
Wirschning and what explanation
can Mrs. Wirschning offer to this improper endorsement on the rear
of the check, when all of this
citizen’s records and all of Allstate Insurance Company records do
not include her middle initial, nor
is her name misspelled in said records. Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning
then admitted that when she was
first married for a period of time, during which period of time she
signed her $400 settlement check,
she always signed her name that way with her middle initial included
(218-226; 858-859).
This citizen then attempted to further cross examine Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning and have her
completely confirm her signing of her $400 Allstate Insurance
Company settlement check. The Court
immediately interrupted this citizen and prevented Mrs. Wirschning
from answering this citizen; the
Court stated: “Just a minute.” and the prosecutor quickly
interrupted with his often repeated objection
“A. Nixon: I object, your Honor. That is the ultimate for the jury
to decide (in) this case.” The Court
sustained the objection and even the extant trial record indicates
this citizen objecting and taking
“exception for purposes of appeal” (227). This is an example of the
concerted efforts of judge and
prosecutor which stifled this citizen’s cross examinations and
preventing Mrs. Wirschning from making
further repeated unrestrained, detailed judicial admissions the she
signed her $400 Allstate Insurance
Company settlement check. Such repeated concerted efforts by judge
and prosecutor illegally and
wantonly stifled the judicial confessions of the prosecution’s chief
witnesses evidence not only a pre-
arranged simple worded format, used by judge and prosecutor to
stifle this citizen’s cross examina-
tions but also wantonly and intentionally repeatedly the judge and
prosecutor concertedly overrode the
basic concept of any fair trial, namely, cross examination,
“universally recognized as the principal and
most efficacious test for discovery of truth” (Wigmore on Evidence,
3d Ed., Sec. 1367). “Cross
examination of adverse witnesses is a matter of right in every trial
of a disputed issue of fact” (Matter
of Friedel v. Board of Regents, 296 N.Y. 347, 352, 73
N.E. 2d 545). If cross examination is prevented
by accident or design, the direct examination is rendered
incompetent (People v. Cole, 43 N.Y. 508)
the Court of Appeals granted a new trial where through unusual
accident the witness was not able to
complete cross examination.
Further, Dr. Milton E. Robbins in his admitted final
concocted story testified on direct examin-
ation that he, Dr. Robbins, knew nothing until after the
investigation of the matter was commenced by
the District Attorney in July of 1957. During cross examination Dr.
Milton E. Robbins broke down and
admitted that he is a perjurer and liar (385). During further cross
examination Dr. Milton E. Robbins
broke down and admitted that his present story of knowing nothing is
a story concocted during a two-
week period in July of 1957, while consulting with his lawyer,
brother in law and also another lawyer
from Nassau County, J.D.C. Murray (390-391). Dr. Milton E. Robbins
further broke down and admitted
that shortly prior to concocting his present story of knowing
nothing with his lawyer, brother in law (so
related for 25 years) (360-391) and lawyer J.D.C. Murray that he,
Dr. Milton E. Robbins, went to the
District Attorney’s office without consulting any lawyer and that
he, Dr. Milton E. Robbins, gave an
extemporaneous, unpremeditated statement as to his treatments to
Mrs. Wirschning as indicated on
his medical bill (390-391) that he gave to her husband to forward to
this citizen. Dr. Robbins repeated-
ly broke down during cross examination and confirmed his
unpremeditated detailed original statement
to the District Attorney. Dr. Robbins also admitted that it was he
and not this citizen, who after being
notified of the investigation, on Monday, July 8, 1957, telephoned
this citizen and begged and lured
this citizen to come to Dr. Robbins’ office in order to get back his
hand written medical bill for his
treatments to Mrs. Wirschning, which bill Dr. Milton E. Robbins
admitted that this citizen had sent
said bill to the Allstate Insurance Company months before when
settling Mrs. Wirschning’s injury
claim (344-345; 383). On direct examination Dr. Robbins also
admitted that at the time he, Dr.
Robbins, was in hysterics while this citizen was at his office, and
that Dr. Robbins in his office, while
threatening suicide ordered this citizen to destroy many hundreds of
Dr. Robbins’ X-rays which linked
him to his lawyer brother in law and their lengthy collusive injury
claim practice.
During the trial this citizen repeatedly demanded that the
existent recorded, detailed, first and
unpremeditated offhand statement by Dr. Robbins to the District
Attorney be produced by the District
Attorney in order to prove false Dr. Robbins’ short-answer direct
testimony know-nothing story. The
extant trial minutes produce this citizen’s requests, namely, “Mr.
Dec: Your Honor; I now made a
request to see the first statement made and recorded by the District
Attorney, in that the District
Attorney is here present in this Court.” (391). The Court refused
this repeated request claiming that
Dr. Robbins’ statement was not in evidence therefore this citizen
could not see it. This citizen then
repeated his request and the Court again refused to allow this
citizen to see any part of the first
unpremeditated statement of Dr. Robbins, the witness for the
prosecution, first made to the District
Attorney and which statement was a detailed account as to Dr.
Robbins’ treatments of Mrs.
Wirschning’s injuries, which treatments and injuries are stated on
Dr. Robbins’ hand written bill and
are identical to those stated to the Allstate Insurance Company
doctor by Mrs. Wirschning, which
bill Dr. Robbins gave to Mr. Wirschning to forward to this citizen
and also in said first unpremeditated
statement to the District Attorney, Dr. Robbins stated a background
of his knowledge of the Wirsch-
ning’s. This detailed statement of Dr. Robbins completely
contradicted his ridiculous final concocted
know-nothing story given on direct testimony. This citizen took
exception to the court’s repeated
refusal to allow this citizen to use the said first statement made
by Dr. Milton E. Robbins to the
District Attorney for purpose of cross examination of Dr. Milton E.
Robbins (392). The court’s action
was in complete derogation of the prior established rule of law
governing such statements which
recently was made greatly more just in the recent Court of Appeals
decision in People v. Luis Manuel
Rosario, decided March 23, 1961, which is based upon and
confirming the United States Supreme
Court decision of Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S.
657, 667, 668.
Many excerpts of the trial judge, William J. Sullivan, and
prosecutor, Arthur Nixon, trial
statements and testimony for the completely faltering and breaking
down perjurous chief witnesses
were laboriously culled from the extant records of the trial
minutes. Some of the almost continuous
wanton, frantic, impish efforts of trial judge and prosecutor
undertaken in concert are still
extant in the said record of the extremely long trial. Substantial
examples were abstracted from the
trial minutes and the judge’s and prosecutor’s concerted wanton,
frantic, fanatic, kangaroo court
style of stifling of the breaking down confessions of the
completely faltering perjurous chief witnesses,
namely, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning, Dr. Milton E. Robbins and
especially the perverted, notorious,
felonious car thief, Fred Wirschning, wayward husband of Mrs.
Wirschning, were incorporated
in this citizen’s lower appeal courts briefs. Examples of these
wanton actions by judge and prosecutor
are included below; the first example is an excerpt from the direct
examination of Fred Wirschning:
“Q.
I will repeat the question. Up to May of 1957 did you know
a Dr. Milton E. Robbins?
Fred Wirshning: A. Could I explain it.
By the Court: Can you answer the question yes or no?
Fred Wirschning: A. The first time I ever heard of it --
The Court: Just a minute. Just a minute. Don’t answer yet.
The question was, as I recall it, up to May of 1957. Is that
what you said Mr. Nixon?
Mr. Nixon: Yes.
The Court: Did you even know a Dr. Milton E. Robbins?
You will have to answer that yes or no.” (p.
270)
Such actions of the trial judge display the wanton, zealous,
partisanship of the judge for the
prosecution decried in United States v. Francis J. De
Sisto, decided by the United States Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit, May 11, 1961; wherein said Court cited
United States v. Curcio, 2d Cir., 279
F. 2d 681 at 685; United States v. Brandt, 2d Cir.,
196 F. 2d 653. An example of the continuous
stifling of Fred Wirschning’s cross examination is below:
“Q.
Do you remember coming into my office and
telling me that you would return to running (stolen) cars down
south if your wife didn’t forget about the separation
action?
Mr. Nixon: I object your honor.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Dec: Your Honor, it is in reference to
a relevant point in the case.
The Court: I think it is not relevant. I have
sustained the objection.” (p. 322)
This citizen as a practicing lawyer had be-
come aware of the sacrosanct right of the judiciary
to fraudulently alter trial records to the desires of the
judiciary. In order to thwart the complete fraudulent
alteration of this citizen’s trial record this citizen
purposefully testified at length and repeatedly during
his trial. The extant remaining fraudulently altered trial
minutes are nine hundred and ninety one (991) pages long.
Inadvertently, a few of the impish derogatory statements by
the trial judge against this citizen are left in the extant trial
minutes. Part of one such derogatory statement of the trial
judge is found on pages 159-160 after this citizen complained
of the trial judge’s lengthy character testimony for the District
Attorney’s stenographer and the District Attorney’s
fraudulently altered stenographic notes; during which character
testimony the trial judge attempted
to coerce this citizen into allowing the fraudulently altered
stenographic notes; during which character
testimony the trial judge attempted to coerce this citizen into
allowing the fraudulently altered District
Attorney’s stenographer’s stenographic notes into evidence without
this citizen examining them. The
trial judge ordered this citizen to discontinue his objections to
the trial judge’s prearranged
false character testimony. This citizen objected and stated “under
our law I am forced to
proceed when your Honor denies me the right to object” (159). The
Court then stated: “The
Court feels that everybody here is well advised of what we are
contending with…proceed
from that point” (160). Laconically in the extant trial minutes the
dishonest, imp, fop, hold-
over judge, William J. Sullivan, wantonly reiterated the coercive
warning of Judge Philip
Kleinfeld of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the
Second Judicial Department,
namely, that “the judge and jury are fixed” and this citizen’s trial
would lead to a “terrible
prison sentence”.
The chief henchmen to this citizen’s persecution
through illegal prosecution, such as
Frank Gulotta, Edward Robinson Jr. (presently both automatically
elected Supreme Court
Judges) and Manuel Levine, District Attorney of Nassau County, are
above the law they so
wantonly create and administer. The falseness of this citizen’s
indictment and the prosecution’s
witnesses’ perjurous testimony are not only known to these men and
other important members of the
judiciary, but in addition, the said perjuries and frauds were
frantically and fanatically created by and
for these men. For me to now overlook these wantonly impish lawless
actions of these men would not
only be the undermining of my appeal rights but much more important,
it would be a tacit resignation
to the perpetuation of such wanton lawless actions by the judiciary.
▲
BACK TO TOP
8. The State of New York did deprive
this citizen of equal protection and due process of the
law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving this citizen
of liberty and property through
a felonious conviction when the State intentionally ignored 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, the state intentionally
disregarded the said statutory rights in
spite of this citizen’s formal written appellate court Motion for an
Order Compelling the Trial Court
Stenographers to Produce the Trial Record in accordance with Section
456 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in order to minimize the time in which court officials
would have to fraudulently alter this
citizen’s trial record. In support of said motion detailed sworn
facts of other fraudulent alterations of
such trial records by jurists was stressed by this citizen.
This citizen, after defending himself during a gestapo
like farce kangaroo court trial repeatedly requested that the
minutes of his trial be furnished him for his appeal. After many
oral and written
complaints to the Nassau County Court, the trial stenographer and
the District Attorney, this citizen
duly made a detailed motion of 17 pages in the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court for the
Second Judicial Department on February 2, 1959, for an order
compelling the two stenographers at
this citizen’s trial in accordance with section 456 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, in order to
minimize the time on which the District Attorney and his staff could
fraudulently alter the lengthy
trial minutes.
“Section 456. Where the defendant is convicted of a crime the
clerk of the Court in which the conviction was had shall within
two days after a notice of appeal shall be served unto him
notify the stenographer that an appeal has been taken whereupon
the stenographer shall within ten days after receiving such
notice deliver to the clerk of the Court a copy of the steno-
graphic minutes of the entire proceeding of the trial.”
This citizen devoted much of the 17 page motion to cogent
reasons for said motion, namely,
based upon specific fraudulent alterations of other trial minutes of
cases this citizen tried as a lawyer.
The said motion was specific and detailed in its repeated petitions
for expeditious adjudication, in
order to prevent or curtail intentional fraudulent alteration of
this citizen’s lengthy trial record by the
District Attorney and his staff. The said citizen’s motion was put
aside a week by the Clerk of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial
Department, John Callaghan, whose
written reason was that the District Attorney intentionally failed
to reply. Thereafter, after hearing said
motion, the said Appellate Court, finally, over a month and a half
later, when Michael Wowk, one of
the stenographers at this citizen’s trial, finally produced his
obviously wantonly fraudulently altered
version of this citizen’s trial minutes, the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court for the Second
Judicial Department dismissed this citizen’s motion as academic and
disregarded this citizen’s said
statutory rights. This wanton disregard of the protective statutory
rights under said section 456 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure by the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of the Second Judicial
Department was in complete contradiction of the statutory law and
case law as set forth by the high-
est Appellate Court, The Court of Appeals of the State of New York,
in the case of People v. Pitts, 6
N.Y. 2d 288, which said Court of Appeals in the monumental Pitts
Case reiterated the position held
by the United States Supreme Court in Griffin v. Illinois,
351 U.S 12, but in addition stressing as of
greater importance the violation of the statutory rights of a
citizen under section 456 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The said Pitts Case was decided on facts similar
to this citizen’s case, in that
Pitt’s trial record was not produced for months, but unlike the said
Pitts case this citizen’s trial record
was intentionally and wantonly withheld by the District Attorney for
months, even after this citizen
made an extremely lengthy and detailed motion to the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of the
Second Judicial Department stressing this citizen’s protective
rights under section 456 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of New York State. The said motion by this
citizen repeatedly petitioned the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Second Judicial
Department to expedite the decision
on said motion in order to minimize the time in which the District
Attorney and his staff would have to
fraudulently alter the extremely lengthy record of this citizen’s
trial, in order to protect this citizen’s
Appellate Review Rights. This citizen stressed the omnipotent, above
the law, position of any District
Attorney’s office and also stressed that once the trial minutes were
fraudulently altered by the said
District Attorney’s office then there would be no redress for this
citizen because of the omnipotent,
above the law position of the District Attorney. The District
Attorney’s office, after months, finally
produced this citizen’s trial minutes wantonly and obviously
fraudulently altered and this fraudulent
alteration the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for both the
Second and First Judicial
Departments and the Court of Appeals wantonly sanctioned.
▲
BACK TO TOP
9. The State of New York did deprive
this citizen of equal protection and due process of the
law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment by repeatedly coercing
this citizen lawyer to surrender
his Constitutional Right to defend himself by coercive statements
and warnings of New York State
Judges and Court Officials, to the extent that the State’s Court of
Appeals Court Clerk under orders of
the Justices of said Court of Appeals did in detail letters wantonly
with prejudice, prejudge the criminal
appeal taken by this citizen pro se, and the said Clerk of the Court
of Appeals impliedly completely
approved and sanctioned the wantonly fraudulently altered almost
unintelligible official record of this
citizen’s kangaroo court, farce 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 briefs.
The District Attorney’s office and trial court’s many
repeated efforts to coerce this citizen into
surrendering his Constitutional Rights to defend himself are stated
in detail in other portions of this
application. Also included in other portions of this application are
the coercive efforts by Judge Philip
Kleinfeld of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the
Second Judicial Department, who
personally made arrangements for an ex-Nassau County District
Attorney, namely, Edward Neary,
to be the “chosen” lawyer this citizen had to retain in order to
capitulate to the false charges of the
indictment against this citizen. Upon appeal and especially in the
Court of Appeals the coercion of
this citizen to cause him to surrender his Constitutional Rights to
defend himself once again became
open and wantonly notorious. The Clerk of the Court of Appeals in
letters to this citizen wantonly with
prejudice prejudged this citizen’s appeal to the Court of Appeals,
making obvious the farce appellate
review the Court of Appeals gave this citizen’s appeal. The true
frantic nature of the insidious coercion
of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals’ letters is obvious throughout
the unusual letters and especially
when the Clerk dispenses with the statutory requirements for
assignment of counsel in stating “If you
desire the assignment of counsel, you need only write a letter to
this office requesting that relief. No
service is required but this should be done immediately”.
Reproductions of the two letters from the
Clerk of the Court of Appeals follow, which letters not only warn
this citizen not to undertake his own
appeal but also the Clerk wantonly with prejudice prejudged this
citizen’s appeal and impliedly stated
the Court of Appeals approval of the wantonly fraudulently altered
and almost unintelligible official
record of this citizen’s trial as produced by the Court’s in
collusion with the District Attorney’s office.
|
