|
COUNTY COURT : NASSAU COUNTY
STATE OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Respondent,
Index No. 17483, year 1958
against
FRANCIS E. DEC,
Petitioner-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
 I. Notice is hereby given that Francis
E. Dec, the appellant
above named, hereby
appeals to the Supreme Court of the United
States from the Final Order of the Court of
Appeals of New York
State, of July 7, 1961,
affirming the judgment of conviction of the
Nassau County, County Court of Forgery
Second Degree (two counts),
Grand
Larceny Second Degree and Violation of
Section 1820 A Sub. 2
of the Penal Law
and on December 23, 1958, was sentenced
to Sing
Sing Prison at Ossining, New York,
on each of the Forgery Second
Degree
convictions and on the Grand Larceny
Second Degree conviction
to a term of
imprisonment the maximum of which was
five years and
the minimum two and one-half years, all sentences to be served
concurrently, and
execution suspended and defendant to be placed on
probation for the maximum time allowed and
sentence suspended on the
last conviction.
This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A Section 1257,
(1), and (3).
Appellant was convicted of the crimes of Forgery in the
Second Degree (two counts); Grand
Larceny in the Second Degree and
Violation of Section 1820 A Sub. 2 of the Penal Law, all in
violation
of the Penal Law of New York State, appellant was
sentenced to Sing Sing Prison at Ossining, New
York on each of the
Forgery Second Degree convictions and on the Grand Larceny Second
Degree
conviction to a term of imprisonment the maximum of which was
five years and the minimum two and
a half years, all sentences to be
served concurrently, and execution suspended and and [sic] sen-
tence
suspended on the last conviction. Appellant is presently serving
probation, appellant has been
automatically disbarred because of
said conviction.
II. The Clerk will please prepare a transcript of the record
in this cause, for transmission to the
Clerk of the Supreme Court of
the United States and include in said transcript the following: All
pre-
trial motions, namely, Motion to Inspect the Grand Jury Minutes
and Dismiss the Indictment, May 13,
1958; Motion to Dismiss
Indictment, May 26, 1958; Motion to Resettle Erroneous Demurrer
Order,
July 8, 1958; The Court Reporter’s record of the trial and of
judgment and sentence (two volumes);
Motion to Amend the
Fraudulently Altered Official Trial Record, seven hundred and ninety
four (794)
amendments, 320 typewritten pages, submitted to the
Nassau County, County Court on September
14, 1959. Notice of Appeal
to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second
Judicial
Department and appeal motions, namely, Motion for an Order
Commanding the Trial Stenographers to
Produce the Trial Record in
Accordance with Section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
February
2, 1959; Motion to Dispense with Printing, February 2,
1959; Motion for an Order of Settlement on
March 30, 1959; Motion to
Extend Time to Amend the Trial Minutes, May 8, 1959; Motion to
Extend
Time to Perfect Appeal on October 5, 1959; Motion to Reargue
Motion to Dispense with Printing on
October 5, 1959; appellant’s and
prosecutions appeal briefs and Court Order of transference to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial
Department on October 11, 1960. Notice
of Appeal to the Court of
Appeals of New York and Motion to Dispense with Printing in the
Court of
Appeals on March 20, 1961; appellant’s brief and answering
brief and Order of Affirmance of the Court
of Appeals with no
opinion of July 7, 1961, and all other papers in this matter.
III. The following questions are presented in this appeal:
1.
May a State consistent with the due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment
to which guarantee is pertinent the
right to a speedy trial, repeatedly adjourn a citizen’s
criminal
trial over a period of nine months in spite of the citizen’s duly
undertaken repeated
demands for a speedy trial as guaranteed by the
Constitution.
2.
May a State consistent with the equal protection and due
process of the law guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment deprive a
citizen of his statutory right to appellate review by producing a
substantially fraudulently altered official trial record; which said
trial record is obviously wantonly fraudulently deleted,
abbreviated, juxta positioned, hashed together,
jumbled and lengthened with substitute material in an obvious attempt to keep
secret the gestapo like farce kangaroo court trial to support an
unjust felonious conviction of the citizen,
a volunteer Veteran of
World War II and a member of the Bar of the State of New York.
3.
May a State consistent with the equal protection and due
process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment uphold the
felonious conviction of a citizen brought about through the
halting
of the cross examination of the completely breaking down and
confessing perjurous
chief prosecution witness, Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning, wherein she through her sworn,
detailed, cross
examination testimony disproved the accusations of the false
indictment
created by and through the gestapo like frauds of the
District Attorney and his staff and the
Trial Court’s further
ordering the alternation of said Elizabeth Wirschning’s cross
examination
with that of the near non-existent hearsay testimony of
the near speechless, petrified, aged,
perjurous, life long District
Attorney’s stenographer, namely, Nathan Birchall, and then after
halting both said cross examinations in spite of the citizen’s
objections the court ordered the
halting of the citizen’s trial for
approximately one week during which week the citizen,
defendant, was
coerced through oral and written messages by Judge Philip Kleinfeld,
a Judge
of the New York State Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court for the Second Judicial
Department, the said messages warning
the citizen defendant that regardless of the citizen’s
innocence,
the citizen must surrender his Constitutional Rights as a citizen
and lawyer and
give up trying his own case because both judge and
jury were fixed and if the citizen did not
retain a “chosen” ex
District Attorney, namely, Edward Neary, as his lawyer to plead
guilty to the false charges then the citizen’s trial would lead only
to the citizen’s felonious conviction
and a severe prison sentence
because “the judge and jury are fixed”.
4.
May a State consistent with the equal protection and due
process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment uphold a
felonious conviction wherein the trial court in collusion with
the
prosecution and in spite of the citizen, defendant’s, objections
withheld the contradictory
sworn statements of complaint of the
prosecution’s perjurous only two chief witnesses,
namely, Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins, especially when the
withheld
statements disprove the indictment of the citizen,
defendant.
5.
May a State consistent with the due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment
uphold a felonious conviction of a
citizen brought about by a trial wherein repeated statements
by the
trial judge and prosecutor claim directly and impliedly and through
statutory definition
that a hearsay, unverifiable copy of the
District Attorney’s stenographic notes consisting
mostly of hearsay
conversations of others that the citizen defendant did [obscured] by
the
citizen defendant and thereby through statutory definition of
criminal confessions practically
convict the citizen defendant; when
subsequently through written admissions of the prose-
cution in the
prosecution’s appeal brief to the Court of Appeals of the State of
New York the
said District Attorney’s hearsay stenographic noted are
stated not to constitute a confession,
a contention obviously
directly opposite to that taken by the prosecution and trial judge
during
the citizen’s trial.
6.
May a State consistent with the right to due process of law
guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment place in evidence and permit
the prosecution to repeatedly read aloud to the jury
during the
citizen’s criminal trial copies of stenographic records of
conversations of people
other than the citizen who were never made
witnesses during the citizen’s trial although they
were available
and two of whom were important members of the judiciary, especially
when the
District Attorney’s stenographer testified that that
original stenographic records produced by
the said District
Attorney’s stenographer were written in his own personal secret code
of
shorthand which can be read and understood only by himself; and
in spite of the citizen’s
repeated objections the trial judge
precluded any inspection of the said original stenographic
notes and
ordered the citizen to accept the veracity of the District
Attorney’s stenographer’s
stenographic notes on the say so of the
District Attorney’s stenographer and further the said
hearsay
stenographic notes were falsely stressed by trial judge in collusion
with the
prosecution as a confession by the citizen, in that said
citizen’s criminal trial that brought
about the felonious conviction
of the citizen.
7.
May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and
due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment procure a
felonious criminal conviction against a citizen through
the fraud
and collusion of the trial court in conspiracy with the prosecution
8.
May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and
due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment deprive a
citizen of liberty and property through a felonious
conviction and
intentionally ignore the explicit statutory protection afforded by
Section 456 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for New York State,
which said section provides that the trial
record upon conviction
shall be produced within the maximum time of 12 days after notice of
appeal has been served and further intentionally disregard the said
statutory rights in spite of
the citizen’s formal written appellate
court motion for an order compelling the trial court
stenographers
to produce the trial record in accordance with said Section 456 of
the Code of
Criminal Procedure in order to minimize the time in
which court officials would have to
fraudulently alter said
citizen’s trial record, wherein support of said motion detailed
sworn
facts of other felonious fraudulent alterations of such trial
records by jurists was stressed by
the citizen.
9.
May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and
due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment repeatedly
coerce a citizen lawyer to surrender his Consti-
tutional Right to
defend himself by coercive statements of state court judges and
court officials
to the extent that the State’s Court of Appeals did
in detail letters wantonly with prejudice
prejudge the criminal
appeal taken by the citizen pro se and the said clerk of the Court
of
Appeals impliedly completely approved and sanctioned the wanton
fraudulently altered almost
unintelligible official record of this
citizen’s trial produced by the lower courts in collusive
conspiracy
with the District Attorney’s office, which said frauds this citizen
repeatedly
complained of in his appeal brief.
Dated:
Francis E. Dec, Appellant pro se
September 21, 1961 P 0.
Address
171 So. Franklin St.
Hempstead, New York
[Click
here to see AN INSERTED receipt FROM THE
Supreme Court fOR Dec’S petition FOR certiorari!]
^^^TOP
In the Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1961
No._ _ _ _ _ Misc.
People of the State of New York,
Respondent,
v.
Francis E. Dec,
Petitioner-Appellant.
On Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
Opinions Below
On appeal from the judgment of conviction of the Nassau
County Court of the State of New
York on December 23, 1958, to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial
Department for the State of New York, said Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court for the Second
Judicial Department on the hearing date
of this appeal, without notice to this petitioner ordered the
transfer of this appeal for hearing and determination to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
for the First Judicial
Department for the State of New York. The said Appellate Division
unanimously
affirmed the judgement of conviction with no opinion on
October 11, 1960. The Court of Appeals of
New York State unanimously
affirmed the judgement of conviction with no opinion on July 7,
1961.
^^^TOP
Jurisdiction
The judgement of the Court of Appeals of New York was
entered on July 7, 1961, and a copy
thereof is appended to this
petition in the Appendix at pages 100 to 101. The
jurisdiction of this Court
is invoked under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 (1),
(3).
^^^TOP
Questions Presented
1.
May a State consistent with the due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment
to which guarantee is pertinent the
right to a speedy trial, repeatedly adjourn a citizen’s
criminal
trial over a period of nine months in spite of the citizen’s duly
undertaken repeated
demands for a speedy trial as guaranteed by the
Constitution.
2.
May a State consistent with the equal protection and due
process of the law guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment deprive a
citizen of his statutory right to appellate review by
producing a
substantially fraudulently altered official trial record; which said
trial record is
obviously wantonly fraudulently deleted,
abbreviated, juxta positioned, hashed together,
jumbled and lengthened with substitute material in an obvious attempt to keep
secret the
gestapo like farce kangaroo court trial to support an
unjust felonious conviction of the citizen,
a volunteer Veteran of
World War II and a member of the Bar of the State of New York.
3.
May a State consistent with the equal protection and due
process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment uphold the
felonious conviction of a citizen brought about through the
halting
of the cross examination of the completely breaking down and
confessing perjurous
chief prosecution witness, Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning, wherein she through her sworn, detailed,
cross
examination testimony disproved the accusations of the false
indictment created by and
through the gestapo like frauds of the
District Attorney and his staff and the Trial Court’s further
ordering the alternation of said Elizabeth Wirschning’s cross
examination with that of the near
non-existent hearsay testimony of
the near speechless, petrified, aged, perjurous, life long
District
Attorney’s stenographer, namely, Nathan Birchall, and then after
halting both said
cross examinations in spite of the citizen’s
objections the court ordered the halting of the
citizen’s trial for
approximately one week during which week the citizen, defendant, was
coerced through oral and written messages by Judge Philip Kleinfeld,
a Judge of the New
York State Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court for the Second Judicial Department, the
said messages warning
the citizen defendant that regardless of the citizen’s innocence,
the
citizen must surrender his Constitutional Rights as a citizen
and lawyer and give up trying his
own case because both judge and
jury were fixed and if the citizen did not retain a “chosen”
ex
District Attorney, namely, Edward Neary, as his lawyer to plead
guilty to the false charges
then the citizen’s trial would lead only
to the citizen’s felonious conviction and a severe prison
sentence
because “the judge and jury are fixed”.
4.
May a State consistent with the equal protection and due
process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment uphold a
felonious conviction wherein the trial court in collusion with
the
prosecution and in spite of the citizen, defendant’s, objections
withheld the contradictory
sworn statements of complaint of the
prosecution’s perjurous only two chief witnesses,
namely, Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins, especially when the
withheld
statements disprove the indictment of the citizen,
defendant.
5.
May a State consistent with the due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment
uphold a felonious conviction of a
citizen brought about by a trial wherein repeated statements
by the
trial judge and prosecutor claim directly and impliedly and through
statutory definition
that a hearsay, unverifiable copy of the
District Attorney’s stenographic notes consisting
mostly of hearsay
conversations of others that the citizen defendant did [obscured] by
the
citizen defendant and thereby through statutory definition of
criminal confessions practically
convict the citizen defendant; when
subsequently through written admissions of the prose-
cution in the
prosecution’s appeal brief to the Court of Appeals of the State of
New York the
said District Attorney’s hearsay stenographic noted are
stated not to constitute a confession,
a contention obviously
directly opposite to that taken by the prosecution and trial judge
during
the citizen’s trial.
6.
May a State consistent with the right to due process of law
guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment place in evidence and permit
the prosecution to repeatedly read aloud to the jury
during the
citizen’s criminal trial copies of stenographic records of
conversations of people
other than the citizen who were never made
witnesses during the citizen’s trial although they
were available
and two of whom were important members of the judiciary, especially
when the
District Attorney’s stenographer testified that that
original stenographic records produced by
the said District
Attorney’s stenographer were written in his own personal secret code
of
shorthand which can be read and understood only by himself; and
in spite of the citizen’s
repeated objections the trial judge
precluded any inspection of the said original stenographic
notes and
ordered the citizen to accept the veracity of the District
Attorney’s stenographer’s
stenographic notes on the say so of the
District Attorney’s stenographer and further the said
hearsay
stenographic notes were falsely stressed by trial judge in collusion
with the
prosecution as a confession by the citizen, in that said
citizen’s criminal trial that brought
about the felonious conviction
of the citizen.
7.
May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and
due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment procure a
felonious criminal conviction against a citizen through
the fraud
and collusion of the trial court in conspiracy with the prosecution
8.
May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and
due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment deprive a
citizen of liberty and property through a felonious
conviction and
intentionally ignore the explicit statutory protection afforded by
Section 456 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for New York State,
which said section provides that the trial
record upon conviction
shall be produced within the maximum time of 12 days after notice of
appeal has been served and further intentionally disregard the said
statutory rights in spite of
the citizen’s formal written appellate
court motion for an order compelling the trial court
stenographers
to produce the trial record in accordance with said Section 456 of
the Code of
Criminal Procedure in order to minimize the time in
which court officials would have to fraud-
ulently alter said
citizen’s trial record, wherein support of said motion detailed
sworn facts of
other felonious fraudulent alterations of such trial
records by jurists was stressed by
the citizen.
9.
May a State consistent with the right to equal protection and
due process of law guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment repeatedly
coerce a citizen lawyer to surrender his
Constitutional Right to
defend himself by coercive statements of state court judges and
court officials to the extent that the State’s Court of Appeals did
in detail letters wantonly
with prejudice prejudge the criminal
appeal taken by the citizen pro se and the said clerk of
the Court
of Appeals impliedly completely approved and sanctioned the wanton
fraudulently
altered almost unintelligible official record of this
citizen’s trial produced by the lower courts
in collusive conspiracy
with the District Attorney’s office, which said frauds this citizen
repeatedly complained of in his appeal brief.
^^^TOP
Constitutional Provision
Involved
The United States Constitution, Amendment XIV,
Section 1, Clause 2; to the end of the section:
“…nor shall any State deprive
any person of…
liberty or property, without
due process of law nor
deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”
^^^TOP
STATEMENT
The Nassau County Court, New York, on December 23,
1958, after a gestapo like farce trial
with dishonest fixed judge,
William J. Sullivan, and a fixed jury convicted this defendant, a
lawyer, of
the false four count indictment, namely, Grand Larceny in
the Second Degree (third count): Defendant
took, stole from Allstate
Insurance Company a certain sight draft for $400 by false and
fraudulent
representations and pretenses [sic], namely, that Mrs.
Elizabeth Wirschning received certain medical
treatments from a Dr.
Milton E. Robbins, who treated Mr. Wirschning for her complained
injuries of
bursitis of her right shoulder and a bruised right thigh
and that the general release of Mrs. Wirschning
was a good and valid
general release. Forgery in the Second Degree (first count):
Defendant felon-
iously offered, uttered and disposed of a forged
general release of Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning above
mentioned.
Forgery in the Second Degree (second count): Defendant feloniously
offered, uttered and
disposed of a forged sight draft of Allstate
Insurance Company made to the order of defendant and
Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning in the amount of $400. Violation of Section 1820A Sub. 2
of the Penal
Law (fourth count): Defendant deceitfully made a
certificate upon a general release set forth in the
first count of
the indictment that Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning acknowledged that she
executed said
release, thereby committed a misdemeanor. After the
unprecedented near month long trial of this
defendant lawyer upon
this indictment upon this indictment upon the perjurous complaint of
one client
this defendant lawyer was automatically disbarred upon
conviction and sentenced to 2½ to 5 years
in prison, concurrently
for each of the three felony counts and sentence was suspended on
the
misdemeanor count with the execution of sentence suspended and
defendant ordered to serve
probation for the maximum period
allowable under the law, which sentence, of a lawyer upon one
complaint of one client is without precedent. The prosecution called
10 witnesses during the trial from
November 5th to 20th,
1958, inclusively. I have abstracted from the 991 pages extant in
the Court
Reporter’s record of my trial and the lengthy criminal
prosecution along with related motivating facts
and presented these
facts in a narrative forum coordinating the direct and cross
examination of the
trial for clarity.
 The gestapo like illegal
prosecution of this defendant has
been
carried on for over a decade since this
defendant made
complaints against one
Henry H. Meyer, a life long Assistant
District Attorney in Nassau County.
Over a decade ago, this
defendant
made complaints of the felonious crimes
committed by the
impish Henry H.
Meyer, who was forging and cashing
his son’s
Veteran’s Administration
monthly disability payment checks in
order
to systematically defraud his
son of the substantial monthly
dis-
ability payments and the same Henry H.
Meyer thereafter impishly
assisted in placing his son in an insane asylum. Convulsive, muddled
incoherent, jeering threats of revenge were stated by an Assistant
District Attorney, Edward Robinson,
Jr., during the two suppositive
grand jury hearings in July of 1957, in reference to this and other
complaints by this defendant.
Defendant testified in Court during his trial as to the
decade long gestapo like persecution of
this defendant by members of
the Nassau County judiciary and government. Even the impish
prosecutor of defendant’s trial somewhat summed up defendant’s said
testimony on page 909 of
the trial minutes. The many innumerable
written public records proving the said illegal persecution of
this
defendant cannot all be fraudulently altered to confirm the simple
false ravings of trial prose-
cutor, Arthur Nixon, that, “Yuh bet
yuh bottum dolla … its a pak o’ lies, where’s ‘iz proof”.
The gestapo mafia like illegal secret persecution of this defendant was
carried on to ruin this
defendant in revenge because of this
defendant’s repeated righteous complaints of omnipotent
gangsterism
and corruption of the judiciary and government. This same gestapo
like secret illegal
persecution of this defendant by the Nassau
County judiciary was evidenced through the pre-
determined prejudiced
attitude expressed by Judge Henry Uhgetta in the spring on 1958,
when Judge
Uhgetta was notified of the decade long persecution waged
against this defendant and in gestapo like
tacticts such as, the
removal of defendant’s name from an approved N. Y. State Police
Civil Service
employment list and from N.Y State Police employment
without any hearing and without any legal
reason by the orders of
Judge Joseph Conroy of the Supreme Court of the Second Judicial
Depart-
ment (29-32). Judge Henry Uhgetta was then informed that this
defendant was later ordered in
gestapo fashion into Police Inspector
Kirk’s office in the Nassau County Police headquarters in
Mineola, N. Y., in January 1955, and was harangued and coerced by three
Police Inspectors, namely,
Looney, Kirk and “Schufler”, the least of
whom was an unprosecuted sadistic murderer, with inspector
Pinell present part of the time. The three inspectors informed the
defendant that they had to force the
defendant to resign from the
Nassau County Police Force because of orders from the Nassau County
District Attorney’s Office and high members of the Nassau County
judiciary, in spite of their ad-
missions that their detailed records
accumulated through unprecedented special gestapo like search
of
defendant’s entire life history produced nothing but a record of an
extraordinary good citizen
and in spite of defendant’s acceptance to
the said police force after Civil Service examination. Upon
hearing
this, Judge Henry Uhgetta tacitly then stated that with the
background he had been informed
of this defendant, defendant could
never have been accepted to any police force. The gestapo like
false
and prejudicing information supplies to Judge Henry Uhgetta was
later set aside by Judge
Henry Uhgetta, when in a final message he
stated with reference to this defendant’s gestapo like
persecution, Judge Uhgetta stated, “the reason is someone in Nassau County
doesn’t like you.”
The defendant was subject to
repeated persecution in the
Nassau County Courts when as
a lawyer this defendant tried cases
before dishonest omnipotent judges who made a farce of the trials
and later on occasions on appeal defendant suffered further
injustice to discover that the trial record
was substantially,
fraudulently altered. As for example, in a case tried before
dishonest Judge Katha-
leen Kane, she, who after a farce trial wherein
she granted judgment to the opposing party despite
the confession of
said opposing party in open court that his sworn contentions were
false, she,
Kathaleen Kane, behested the substantial fraudulent
alteration of the trial minutes in order to destroy
defendant’s
case. Through the coercion of court officials, the defendant did not
stress Judge Katha-
leen Kane’s behested fraudulent alteration of the
said trial minutes when defendant went up on appeal
to the Appellate
Term of the Supreme Court, but still in the Appellate Term of the
Supreme Court, in
gestapo like mafia manner, the matter of
defendant’s complaints of Judge Kathaleen Kane’s ordered
fraudulent
alteration of defendant’s trial record was stressed by Judge Walter
Hart, who, for over an
hour harangued, chastised and coerced
defendant because defendant dared to accuse a judge of
ordering the
fraudulent alteration of any record. Judge Walter Hart’s over hour
long raving, co-
ercive, harangue was the defendant’s “oral argument”
on appeal.
The gestapo, mafia like persecution of this defendant
became open and notorious through-
out the Courts of Nassau County,
such as the fanatic illegal persecution of this defendant by Samuel
Greason as a District Court Judge, exemplified by his frantic direct
and indirect tirades against this
defendant whenever this defendant
appeared in his Court representing a client on many occasions,
earned Samuel Greason the title of “a judge who at certain times is
completely raving mad.”, which
is so unlike his present actions as
head of the complete farce Nassau County Judicial Inquiry.
Another unprecedented act of open gestapo like persecution
by the District Attorney’s office
was assigned to Moxey Rigby,
another Ass’t District Attorney recently elected a Judge, who
telephoned this defendant on one occasion and in raving simple
speech tried to coerce this defendant
under threat of criminal
action, stating that defendant, an attorney at law, could not
withdraw from a
client’s farce and false tort case even after this
defendant duly undertook substantial expense and
legal works for the
dishonest client’s false tort claim and this defendant, as the
retained lawyer,
retained no compensation.
The acts of persecution were assisted when circumstances
united several would be practising
[sic] lawyer felons together in
one Allstate Insurance Company office all who knew of defendant as a
practising [sic] lawyer and openly begruged [sic] this fact.
It was notorious habitual felonists
such as Charles
Martino, William Fitzgerald, Gerald
Chirello and Joseph Amoru (the
last mentioned, Joseph Amouru, who like the small pocked face
Assistant District Attorney, Joseph Hennegan, who like other Ass’t
District Attorney’s sat at or
near the prosecution’s table during
this defendant’s trial and sneered at this defendant for hours,
as this defendant as attorney pro se defended himself against the
false four count indictment) defend-
ant knew Joseph Amoru and Joseph
Hennegan from college as simple cheats and defendant told
them so in
college. These and other habitual felonists, Allstate Insurance
Company officers, who
knew of this defendant and this defendant’s
absolute refusal to enter into the usual lawyer bribery
and fraud conspiracies with them in the settlement of claims against Allstate
Insurance Company
who aided and abetted the gestapo like search of
each of this defendant’s few claims against Allstate Insurance
Company to the extent of questioning this defendant’s clients in
detail, illegally, before and after defendant’s client’s claims were
settled by Allstate Insurance Company. These felons, all of
whom were eventually discharged from Allstate Insurance Company and their
years of habitual felonious crimes, defrauding Allstate Insurance
Company, were condoned by all law enforcement agencies to the extent
that only belatedly one or two of these habitual felons received
censures as lawyers or civil disbarment. It was this group of
habitual felons that rabble roused other Allstate Insurance Company
officers to complain against this defendant to the Nassau County
District
Attorney, after singling this defendant out for persecution
instead of the many notorious habitual felonious and fraudulent
ambulance chasing lawyers they know of, including themselves. They
did
so in spite of the fact that the Allstate Insurance Company had
written records from both Mr. and
Mrs. Wirschning proving that Mr.
and Mrs. Wirschning were the actual conspiring felonious culprits
who falsely claimed they knew nothing about Mrs. Wirschning’s injury
claim and never retained the
defendant as Mrs. Wirschning’s lawyer.
These factors together with a sadistic life long omnipotent
gangster, District Attorney, Frank Gulotta, who, as head henchman to
this defendant’s decade long
gestapo like secret mafia type
persecution brought about the false secret mafia type indictment of
this defendant.
 Defendant was ordered to the
District Attorney’s office on
July 2, 1957,
by Edward Robinson Jr., an Ass’t District
Attorney. Without reason or justification the
said Edward Robinson Jr. then
accused this
defendant of
ambulance chasing fraudulent
accident
claims and in simple, convulsive,
incoherent conversation, Edward
Robinson
attempted to accuse defendant, based on
suppositive
knowledge gained from the know
nothing about everything Wirschning’s
that
the defendant was operating a fraudulent
ambulance chasing ring
on a small scale,
similar to the gigantic fraudulent ambulance
chasing ring notoriously operated by such
habitual gangster lawyers
as Sidney and Walter Siben and their gang of lawyers, who are
unprose-
cuted and condoned felonious lawyers. The incoherent ravings
of Edward Robinson finally enumerated
the complaint of Mrs.
Wirschning and her husband, Fred Wirschning, who claimed that they
never
knew the defendant and only saw the defendant once and never
retained defendant as their lawyer
for Mrs. Wirschning’s injury
claims against Allstate Insurance Company and they never prosecuted
or made any injury claims for Mrs. Wirschning against the Allstate
Insurance Company. In fact, in
simple incoherent ravings Edward Robinson informed defendant that both Wirschning’s swore they
knew
nothing about the entire injury claim and settlement of it by
Allstate Insurance Company;
therefore defendant was an ambulance chasing lawyer. Defendant quelled the screaming convulsive
Edward
Robinson sufficient to point to the Allstate Insurance Company file
of Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning’s injury claim on his desk and specifically point out various papers that proved the claims
of the
both Wirschning’s to be false and then demanded to be informed of
any Grand Jury hearing on
the matter. The defendant’s quelling of the convulsive Edward Robinson and Robinson’s agreement
as to the
defendant’s demands immediately caused Frank Gulotta’s interruption
of the discussion with
requests that Edward Robinson end the
discussion. The defendant, then demanded that Frank Gulotta
and
Edward Robinson come to his office and see the records on Mrs.
Wirschning’s injury claim file
and Mrs. Wirschning’s separation file, in addition to the records they had of the Allstate Insurance
Company. Defendant’s written records and written signed retainer of
both Elizabeth and Fred
Wirschning prove their complaints to be
false and as defendant stated earlier to Robinson that it was
a
continuation to a scheme by Fred Wirschning to coerce this defendant
out of his fees for defendant’s
legal works in reference to Mrs. Wirschning’s marital difficulties with her wayward, perverted,
felonious
car thief husband. Defendant then again informed Gulotta
and Robinson of his many legal works and
services in reference to
his retainer by Mrs. Wirschning as her lawyer for her impending
legal
separation action for which she deposited her share of the
injury claim settlement money, namely
$200, in escrow, with this
defendant, in order to guarantee defendant the minimum agreed fee of
$150 she agreed with defendant for defendant’s completed legal
services should she decide not to go
ahead with the legal separation action and also as part payment toward her agreed fee of $450 for
the legal separation action.
 Edward Robinson Jr. in
obvious petrification,
convulsive
and in hysterics attempted to stop
defendant by screaming
“LEVEL
WITH ME” over and over again as
he slumped over his desk
perspiring
and looking up at the District
Attorney Frank Gulotta.
Defendant
informed Robinson and Gulotta, that
defendant’s records
and the Allstate
Insurance Company records would
prove that
defendant was retained by
Mrs. Wirschning as her lawyer for an
impending separation action and
because of this fact the defendant
did
withdraw from her wayward perverted
husband’s loss of services
claim of her
injury claim. Defendant again informed both Gulotta and
Robinson of the repeated efforts of Mrs.
Wirschning’s husband
through various coercive schemes to obtain his wife’s settlement
money she
deposited with defendant in escrow, and that recently the
defendant put the husband out of his office
under threat of arrest,
at which time the defendant informed Fred Wirschning that he had
coerced his
wife, probably through the usual physical abuse of her,
into evading the defendant while he coerced
the defendant into
giving him the $200 she left in escrow, based on his claims of being
the husband
and head of the family and that therefore the money was
actually his and not hers and further that
Fred Wirschning attempted
to coerce the defendant into a fear of legal prosecution claiming
the
defendant was not entitled to accept the money in escrow from
Mrs. Wirschning regardless of the
agreement the defendant made with
her. It was up to the defendant to collect from his wife because
she
had no right to use the husband’s settlement money, so claimed Fred
Wirschning. Frank Gulotta
then gesticulated in a frenzied manner for
Edward Robinson to compose himself. Defendant offered to
take both
Gulotta and Robinson to his office immediately and show them the
legal separation file of
Mrs. Wirschning and the file with reference
to her injury claim, both files with the various papers in
them as
defendant stated earlier to Edward Robinson. The defendant once
again demanded to be
notified of any Grand Jury hearing and demanded
to be confronted by the perjurous Wirschnings.
Both Gulotta and
Robinson agreed to call defendant should there be a Grand Jury
hearing on the
matter. In frenzied movements Gulotta took hold of
Robinson while speaking to a detective Becker
who was present.
Gulotta ordered detective Alva Becker to take this defendant in
custody to
defendant’s office before arresting defendant in order to
prove that the defendant had no files on Mrs.
Wirschning, because
she swore she had never retained defendant and saw defendant once in
her life.
Defendant went with detective Becker to defendant’s
office. Detective Becker examined Mrs.
Wirschning’s injury claim
file and her separation claim file, after defendant took both file
envelopes out
of the locked filing cabinet. Detective Becker
examined the various papers in the two files and opened
the lettersized [sic] titled envelope containing Mrs. Wirschning’s $200
escrow money. Detective
Becker then took and purloined the
defendant’s written retainer signed by both Wirschnings and like
the
simple raving Edward Robinson accused the defendant of ambulance
chasing with a “no good”
false retainer. Detective Becker refused to
give defendant back the written retainer with the Wirsch-
nings and
instead stated that by his purloining the retainer made it possible
for the District Attorney to
finally bring and [sic] end to the
lengthy investigation of the “dumb polok” [sic] defendant and
finally
send the “dumb polok” to prison.
 Thereafter on July 22, 1958, at
the District Attorney’s
non existent
Grand Jury hearing to which defendant
appeared through
illegal subpoena by
the gangster District Attorney, Frank
Gulotta
stood in charge of Edward
Robinson while detective Becker sat
adjacent to defendant. Defendant was
informed to forget about
complaining as
to the accusations of Edward Robinson
falsely
accusing the defendant of
running an ambulance chasing ring of
fraudulent accident cases. Defendant
was informed he had no right to
object
and that defendant was in the District
Attorney’s office
subject to immediate
arrest and jailing because Mrs. Wirsch-
ning had
placed new charges against the defendant and those new charges
against the defendant
were true because she also swore to these new
charges. The convulsive Edward Robinson then
stated that the new
charges did not include ambulance chasing but that defendant
negotiated and
settled on an injury claim for her of which she knew
nothing about. The defendant interrupted the raving
Robinson and
informed him that his accusations were false because detective
Becker, who was then
sitting adjacent to the defendant, had taken
the defendant in custody to defendant’s office and had
seen the
separation file and the injury claim file on Mrs. Wirschning with
the various papers in both
files along with the $200 escrow money
she had deposited with the defendant and also the signed
written
retainer of Mr. and Mrs. Wirschning. Further, that these two files
and the various papers in the
said two files corroborated the facts
of the Allstate Insurance Company file on Edward Robinson’s desk
which state in detail that Mrs. Wirschning retained defendant as her
lawyer for her injury case and that
she repeatedly claimed the
injuries to the Allstate Insurance Company doctor and officers for
which
said injury claim she received her share of the settlement,
namely $200, which money she deposited
in escrow with defendant as
part payment toward an impending separation action and to guarantee
defendant’s minimum legal fee of $150 for defendant’s completed
legal services should she decide not
to proceed ahead with her
separation action. Detective Becker admitted purloining the written
retainer
of Mr. and Mrs. Wirschning. Detective Becker then admitted
that the titled envelope containing the
$200 escrow money was
inspected by him along with the other papers in the two files. Only
Fred
Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins were then called into the
office in defendant’s presence.
Defendant rapidly questioned Dr.
Milton E. Robbins and then Dr. Robbins admitted that immediately
after being informed by the District Attorney’s office of the
investigation and Mrs. Wirschning’s denial
of her original claims of
injuries and treatments by him; Dr. Robbins telephoned the defendant
to come
to his, Dr. Robbins’ office in order that Doctor Robbins
could get back his, Dr. Robbins handwritten
medical bill for his
treatments given to Mrs. Wirschning for injuries stated on the bill.
This same hand
written medical bill from Dr. Robbins was used by
Mrs. Wirschning to state in detail her injuries and
doctor
treatments for such injuries on May 24, 1956, when the parts of her
body she, Mrs. Wirschning,
claimed were injured and constituted her
entire injury claim, were examined by the Allstate Insurance
Company
doctor, Dr. Joseph Rosenheck, in order that Allstate Insurance
Company evaluate the cash
value of her total injury claim. Doctor
Robbins then broke down and admitted further that the defendant
did
not telephone or contact him but that he, Dr. Robbins, through
hysterical petitions through his
telephone call to the defendant
lured the defendant to his, Dr. Robbins’ office and then informed
the
defendant that he, Dr. Robbins, had been informed of the
investigation by the District Attorney’s office
and that he, Dr.
Robbins, begged the defendant to get back his hand written medical
bill for his, Dr.
Robbins’, medical treatments to Mrs. Wirschning,
which bill defendant sent to the Allstate Insurance
Company many
months before when settling Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim, as was
required by the
Allstate Insurance company in order to settle such
injury claim. Dr. Robbins broke down and admitted
he became
hysterical while defendant was in his office and attempted to commit
suicide in defendant’s
presence and that the defendant dissuaded him
by informing him that Mrs. Wirschning repeatedly
claimed the exact
same injuries and doctor treatments as her total injury claim to the
Allstate In-
surance Company representatives. Doctor Robbins then
admitted that he in hysterical threats caused
the defendant to
remove many of Dr. Robbins x-rays from his, Dr. Robbins’ office.
Frank Gulotta
quelled Dr. Robbins’ confession at this point. Still,
sufficient incriminating statements were made by
Dr. Robbins to
confirm the defendant’s statement to Gulotta and Robinson, namely,
that Dr. Robbins,
under hysterical threats of suicide ordered the
defendant to cart away and destroy many X-Rays
from Dr. Robbins’
office because Dr. Robbins’ stated fear that he and his lawyer
brother in law,
both of whom had their professional offices in New
York City, were under investigation by the New
York City Arkwright
Judicial Investigating Committee (which Committee was investigating
New York
City lawyers and doctors as to improper professional
practices) and that the many X-Rays in his office
would prove his,
Dr. Robbins’, lengthy injury claim business association with his
lawyer brother in law.
In addition to this Fred Wirschning, the
wayward, perverted, felonious car thief husband of Mrs.
Wirschning
had already admitted the matrimonial troubles with his wife and that
he lived with negro
prostitutes and that he ran stolen cars down
south. During defendant’s further rapid questioning of
Fred
Wirschning in the presence of Dr. Robbins, Fred Wirschning, further
incriminated himself and
proved the defendant innocent by breaking
down and admitting that after defendant’s repeated re-
quests of him
and his wife, Elizabeth Wirschning, to produce Mrs. Wirschning’s
medical bill from Dr.
Milton E. Robbins, her claimed doctor, for her
claimed doctor treated injuries, constituting her injury
claim
against Allstate Insurance Company, Fred Wirschning, gazing at Dr.
Robbins, in the District
Attorney’s office, admitted that he, Fred
Wirschning, did go to Dr. Milton E. Robbins’ office and did
obtain
and did pay for the hand written medical bill from Dr. Milton E.
Robbins. Upon hearing Fred
Wirschning make this admission, Dr.
Robbins acknowledged the truth of said admission by making
significant motions of his head and by speech. The said Dr. Robbins’
hand written medical bill obtained
by Fred Wirschning was used by
Mrs. Wirschning to repeatedly state her total doctor treated injury
claim to the Allstate Insurance Company doctor. The defendant then
reached across Robinson’s desk
and pointed out the pertinent
Allstate Insurance Company records of Mrs. Wirschning’s medical
examination by the Allstate Insurance Company doctor, which
confirmed the fact that Mrs.
Wirschning’s personally stated doctor
treated injury claims against Allstate Insurance Company
was
identical to the injuries listed on the hand written medical bill
Fred Wirschning obtained from Dr.
Robbins; which both Gulotta and
Robinson claimed to be false. After the defendant gained these
admissions from Fred Wirschning and Dr. Milton E. Robbins, the life
long omnipotent gangster, the
District Attorney, Frank Gulotta,
quickly, in frenzied movements and speech, while gesticulating and
actually seizing and quelling both the convulsive Edward Robinson
and Fred Wirschning, Gulotta then
ordered all conversation to cease.
Frank Gulotta immediately brought the interview with Dr. Robbins
and
Fred Wirschning to an end quickly ushering Dr. Robbins, his lawyer
and Fred Wirschning out of
the office. These incriminating
admissions of Fred Wirschning and Dr. Robbins, which prove the
defendant’s innocence were later stressed by this defendant in
defendant’s pre-trial motion to Dismiss
the false indictment on
October 8, 1958, in County Court. Before ushering out Dr. Robbins’,
his lawyer
and Fred Wirschning, Frank Gulotta obviously stunned,
frenzied and frightened after hearing Dr.
Robbins’ and Fred
Wirschning’s incriminating admissions, Gulotta, gave no hint that
any Grand Jury
hearing would be held on the matter but instead
assured the defendant that the matter of the complaint
was a
misunderstanding and it was a small matter that was not important.
This defendant was illegally subpoena [sic] by the
District Attorney to the above mentioned non
existent Grand Jury
hearing a few days after this defendant voluntarily appeared at
Frank Gulotta’s
office and this defendant in accordance with his
statutory rights repeatedly demanded to be notified of
any Grand
Jury hearing of the matter and this defendant was assured by both
Robinson and Gulotta
that if the matter was referred to a Grand
Jury, the defendant would be notified. Instead of notifying this
defendant as promised and as required by statute, many months later,
in gestapo like secret mafia
tactics, Frank Gulotta assembled his
approved “upright citizens” for the secret Grand Jury and without
this defendant’s knowledge and without the required statutory
notification of the defendant the many
month belated secret gestapo
like indictment of defendant was created in violation of this
defendant’s
statutory rights set forth in section 250 of the New
York Code of Criminal Procedure. The Nassau
County Supreme Court’s
hashed together, jumbled official record in the said court’s record
book
indicated that the multiple four count indictment took up a few
minutes of the Grand Jury’s time, with
no hesitation to notify this
defendant.
An example of the type of “unbiased citizens” chosen to
serve as gestapo like secret original
judges of all serious crimes
is one so called “Arthur Lem”, who like many other Grand Jurors
depends
upon doled out business and high salaried income from
government employment, which income is
doled out solely at the
approval of the omnipotent gangster, the District Attorney. Such
people as this
newspaper publicized notorious alien Chinese, life
long gangster, smuggler, perjurer, defrauder and
imposter, “Arthur Lem” make up the rosters of “unbiased, upright citizens”, who
constitute the original
secret gestapo like judges of all serious
crimes, namely, the Grand Jury. As an example, this “Arthur
Lem” is
a friend of and high salaried member of the staff of the omnipotent
gangster, Frank Gulotta,
life long District Attorney of Nassau
County, who recently in dictatorship like farce, fixed unopposed
election was elected Supreme Court Judge. This defendant was
deprived of his Constitutional Rights
under section 250 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure by the District Attorney not notifying this
defendant of the belated secret Grand Jury hearing as promised by
the said District Attorney. There-
fore, the defendant was denied the
Constitutional right to challenge the validity of the secret gestapo
like indictment proceedings of the Grand Jury.
This defendant challenged the false secret indictment in
his two pre-trial motions to Dismiss
the false indictment in the
Nassau County Supreme Court on May 13, 1958, and in the County Court
on May 26, 1958. Both motions, both courts illegally refused to
entertain and refused to decide. Said
second motion Judge Cyril
Brown of the County Court improperly deprived this defendant of his
Constitutional and statutory rights as set forth by section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure by
wantonly deciding defendant’s
motion to Dismiss the Indictment as a Demurrer. This defendant duly
made motion to resettle the unjust demurrer order on July 24, 1958,
but said Judge Cyril Brown’s
decision on resettlement once again
denied defendant’s statutory rights to a Motion to Dismiss the
Indictment and again decided defendant’s motion as a Demurrer.
The incriminating admissions of Fred Wirschning and Dr.
Milton E. Robbins during the July 22,
1957, hearing in the District
Attorney’s office, which proved the defendant’s innocence were
stressed
by this defendant in his later pre-trial motion to Dismiss
the Indictment for Lack of Prosecution on
October 8, 1958, in the
County Court. Several months passed after the indictment prior to
said motion.
During this period Judge Philip Kleinfeld and Judge
Henry Wenzel of the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of the
Second Judicial Department were informed of the defendant’s decade
long
persecution by members of the Nassau County judiciary and
government and the defendant’s false
indictment. Both Judge Philip
Kleinfeld and Judge Henry Wenzel requested that the defendant give
them a detailed written statement of the actual facts of defendant’s
defense to the false indictment.
They doubted that the defendant had
Dr. Milton E. Robbins’ original hand written medical bill, which
bill stated the identical injuries and doctor treatments as claimed
by Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning to the
Allstate Insurance Company
representatives and the Allstate Insurance Company doctor as the
total
injuries and doctor treatments that constituted her personal
injury claim which said injuries and doctor
treatments were
identical to the injuries and doctor treatments the indictment
claimed false. A
typewritten detailed statement as to defendant’s
defense to the false indictment was given to both
Judge Philip
Kleinfeld and Judge Henry Wenzel as per their request. In addition
in further messages
to this defendant Judge Henry Wenzel requested
that the defendant insert small typewritten state-
ments pointing out
each item of evidence the defendant had which the District Attorney
did not have,
which request the defendant adhered to. The reason
Judge Henry Wenzel stated he wanted the small
inserted slips was “so
that we know what we have to go against”. The defendant suspected
the ob-
vious ulterior motive of such request by Judge Henry Wenzel.
Thereafter several months passed after
the defendant gave the
requested detailed statement to the two said judges. Defendant then
made
motion to Dismiss the Indictment for lack of Persecution.
Nearly two years had passed since the
perjurous Mr. and Mrs.
Wirschning made their original complaints about knowing nothing
about
everything. Many months had passed by after Dr. Robbins and
Fred Wirschning admitted in the
District Attorney’s office that they
and not this defendant were guilty of the crimes charged to the
defendant. In addition several months had passed since the defendant
had given his statement to
Judge Philip Kleinfeld and Judge Henry
Wenzel. Nevertheless defendant was required to remember
the many
detailed facts that disproved the false by easy to remember
know-nothing simple stories of
Mr. And Mrs. Wirschning and Dr.
Robbins for this defendant’s eventual trial. The trial of this
defendant
was repeatedly adjourned by the District Attorney. During
such adjournments, repeated coercive
efforts were made by the
District Attorney and the Court to force this defendant into giving
up his
Constitutional right to defend himself even though this
defendant was a practicing lawyer. Defendant’s
repeated demands for
a prompt trial which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution
and State
statutes were repeatedly ignored and the trial court and
District Attorney coerced and harassed the
defendant in efforts to
force defendant to give up his rights to defend himself to the
extent that various
lawyers were brought into court to harass and
embarrass this defendant into approving them as
defense attorney.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Lack of Prosecution
was
disregarded and denied even after several months of adjournments
by the District Attorney. Finally,
during November 1958, a month
after the said motion, the day after Frank Gulotta, the District
Attorney and several of his Ass’t District Attorney’s were “elected”
court judges, then this defendant’s
trial was commenced, on November
5, 1958.
 During the trial it was obvious that the cardinal count of
the
indictment was the third count, namely, grand larceny in the
second
degree, allegedly based on the larceny of $400 from Allstate
Insurance Company through false pretenses; actually committed
by the
admitted felonious culprit, Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning, in
collusive
conspiracy with her husband Frederick Wirschning and
assisted by Dr.
Milton E. Robbins. These facts are definitely proven
through the
many repeated admissions even the fraudulently altered
trial minutes
still contain. Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s testimony
confirms that
this defendant was her legally retained lawyer and
that:
“By Mr. Dec: Q. But you remember we made
preparations to
have an appointment set up for you to go to an
insurance
company doctor for an examination as to your injuries that you
claimed in the accident; correct?
By Mrs. Wirschning: A. Yes. You drove us to the doctor’s
office. It was during the daytime and I couldn’t get a baby
sitter for my son so we brought him along and my husband took
care of him out in the waiting room and you stayed out in the
waiting room, also.” (77)
“By
Mr. Dec: Q. Do you remember on May 24, 1956 going to the
insurance company doctor to examine you for your claim of
injuries in the accident wherein I was retained?
By Mrs. Wirschning: A. Yes.” (80)
“By
Mr. Dec: Q. At that time you told him your injuries and
your treatments as they were fresh in your mind; correct?
By Mrs. Wirschning: A. I believe I did, yes,” (80-81)
In the above testimony Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning admits
that she alone stated to the Allstate
insurance Company doctor,
Joseph Rosenheck, her injuries and treatments for such injuries by a
doctor, which constituted her entire personal injury claim during
her private, personal, detailed medical
examination on May 24, 1956,
which medical examination was undertaken by the Allstate Insurance
Company in order to evaluate Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning’s personal
injury claim. Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning testified during her direct
examination that her total injuries were: “my right wrist was
hurt.”
(36) and also to the prosecutor’s question whether any doctor
treated her:
“Did he treat you for any injury?
By Mrs. Wirschning: A. No., he just looked
at my wrist. (40)
Thereafter Mrs. Wirschning, during cross examination, admitted that
this direct testimony of only a
hurt right wrist with no doctor
treatments was:
“in direct contradiction of” … “at the time
the insurance
company doctor examined you, you (did) tell
him that you had
bruises on the right thigh and bursitis of the
right shoulder”
… “It would be in direct contradiction of what
you said
today?
By Mrs. Wirschning: A. That’s correct.” (81)
Allstate Insurance Company’s procedure for evaluating the monetary
value of any injury claim is based
upon the typewritten report of
Doctor Joseph Rosenheck, of Allstate Insurance Company, who
evalu-
ated his medical examination of Mrs. Wirschning’s claimed
injuries, “bruises of the right thigh and
bursitis of her right
shoulder, for which she claimed she was treated by a doctor eight
(8) times at
the doctor’s office” in his typewritten report of her
medical examination; this report determines what
the cash reserve
was for Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim. (448) (Dr. Joseph Rosenheck’s report is
Defendant’s Exhibit I in Evidence). Mrs.
Wirschning further testifies that she “may have, I probably
did
have” a copy of Doctor Joseph Rosenheck’s report of her medical
examination shown to her by
defendant during the prosecution of her
injury claim in 1956 and that it was correct (79).
After an approximate week long interruption of this
defendant’s trial, the prosecution’s witness,
Charles Martino, who
because of his many felonious frauds against Allstate Insurance
Company was
dishonorably removed from his position as an Allstate
Insurance Company officer, he, did confirm Mrs.
Wirschning’s
incriminating testimony wherein she made her contradictory injury
claims. Charles
Martino testified the he undertook all the works in
settlement of Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim for the
Allstate
Insurance Company. He further testified that the Allstate Insurance
Company complete up to
date of trial file on the Elizabeth
Wirschning injury claim, which file included Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning’s signed complaining statements of February 1957, wherein
she confirmed her original
doctor treated injury claim; was the
basis of his testimony (440). Charles Martino then testified that
the repeated and confirmed claims of doctor treated injuries stated
by Mrs. Wirschning throughout the
settlement of her injury claim and
during her later complaining statements of 1957, wherein she
confirmed her original personally stated doctor treated injuries as,
namely, “number one, bursitis of
the right shoulder; number two,
bruises of the right thigh.” (456) Further, that those were the
total
doctor treated injuries claimed by Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning
during her medical examination by the
Allstate Insurance Company
doctor, Joseph Rosenheck on May 24, 1956. Charles Martino confirmed
the fact that Mrs. Wirschning’s total injury claim for which she
stated she was treated by a doctor
was recorded and evaluated in the
detailed typewritten report of Dr. Joseph Rosenheck, the Allstate
Insurance Company doctor and that Mrs. Wirschning’s personally
stated and confirmed injuries she
claimed were treated by a doctor
did duplicate and were identical with her injuries found in Doctor
Milton E. Robbins’ hand written medical bill to her stating the same
treatments of her, (363-364 and
Defendant’s Exhibit H and I in
Evidence) and Mrs. Wirschning stated the identical injuries that are
claimed to be false in this defendant’s indictment, namely, bursitis
of the right shoulder and bruises
of her right thigh. Charles
Martino further testified that in examining the up to date of trial
file of the
Allstate Insurance Company on the Mrs. Wirschning injury
claim (440) he found that Mrs. Wirschning
never contradicted her
original claims of injuries and that Mrs. Wirschning never made any
claim of
any wrist injury (459-461).
The prosecution produced Dr. Milton E. Robbins, who
admitted that he is a perjurous liar
(385), and that he, Dr.
Robbins, gave a formal statement to the District Attorney of Nassau
County
completely based upon falsehoods in reference to the
defendant and the issues being tried. (388-389,
392) This perjurer,
Dr. Robbins, testified that when he was first called to the Nassau
County District
Attorney’s office, early in July 1957, he, Dr.
Robbins, went to the District Attorney’s office alone
immediately
(390) and that he “absolutely” gave his first statement off hand
without any consultation
with any lawyer, (391) and Dr. Robbins
stated in his first statement to the District Attorney “that he
had
treated Mrs. Wirschning for the injuries claimed” in the indictment
(954). Dr. Robbins also testified
that after he was notified by the
District Attorney’s staff about Mrs. Wirschning’s complaint, he, Dr.
Robbins, called and begged this defendant to come to his medical
office in order to recover his hand
written medical bill for his
treatments of Mrs. Wirschning’s injuries and that this defendant
informed
him that several months earlier his, Dr. Robbins’, medical
bill was sent to the Allstate Insurance
Company for purposes of
settling Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim (344-345). Dr. Robbins in
further
testimony admitted the following:
“he (Mr. Dec) was angry at Mrs. Wirschning.
There was some-
thing to do with a separation or other and
that he (Mr. Dec)
decided to retain some money in this
particular case.” (345)
Thereafter, during the interim of two weeks, after Dr. Robbins gave
the above mentioned original sworn
unpremeditated and offhand
statement to the District Attorney, Dr. Robbins consulted his
brother in
law, who is a lawyer, and then for unexplained reasons
Dr. Robbins retained a distant Nassau County
Lawyer J.D.C. Murray, a
friend of Frank Gulotta, Nassau County District Attorney (390). Dr.
Robbins
further admitted the following:
“Therefore, after consulting with two lawyers
you (Dr. Robbins)
arrive at a different story to tell the
District Attorney than
your original story to the District Attorney
before consulting
two lawyers, is that correct?
Dr. Milton Robbins: A. Yes.
Q. You say yes, you seem very sure, is that
correct?
Dr. Milton E. Robbins: A. That’s correct.”
(391)
In his final story, which Dr. Robbins admitted he arrived
at through consulting the above
mentioned two lawyers, the admitted
perjurer (385), Dr. Milton E. Robbins forgets all of his personal
knowledge about Mrs. Wirschning’s marital troubles and her impending
separation action against her
husband, Fred Wirschning, with the
defendant as her lawyer. Dr. Robbins forgets all his previously
stated detailed statements to the District Attorney that he treated
Mrs. Wirschning and knew the
Wirschning’s personally. Dr. Robbins
forgets his detailed statement that he treated Mrs. Wirschning
for
her claimed injuries of bursitis of her right shoulder and bruises
of her right thigh; in his final story
concocted after two weeks of
consultation with the above mentioned lawyers, Dr. Robbins
completely
contradicts his dated hand written medical bill to Mrs.
Wirschning stating the above mentioned injuries
for which he treated
her. Further, in complete contradiction with all of his original
detailed statements,
Dr. Milton Robbins, in his final story claims
he never saw or knew of Mrs. Wirschning until he met her
at the
Grand Jury hearing of the matter. Dr. Robbins’ admissions during his
cross examination
completely disproves his ridiculous know-nothing
story, commencing with his testimony about his
original hand written
medical bill and the identical hand written copy on his stationery,
as follows:
“Q. The two pieces of paper are identical as
to contents are
they not?
Dr. Milton Robbins: A. Yes.
Q. Completely as to the letterhead, the
statement as to treat-
ments of injuries, who was treated, who it was
addressed to
and as to the signature on the bottom;
correct?
Dr. Milton Robbins: A. Yes.” (363-364)
Dr.
Milton Robbins admitted that his hand written bill to Mrs.
Wirschning and the hand written copy of
his hand written bill are on
his stationary and completely identical word for word, including the
form
and layout are identical (374).
During further cross examination Dr. Robbins admitted that
he is a doctor practising [sic] 27
years and he has treated injury
claims “where a lawyer was making a claim for that patient against
the
insurance company.” (367) But, Dr. Robbins does not recall that
as the reason he forwarded defen-
dant a copy of his blank bill head
was because “you need two copies of a bill … if one insurance
company were to pay the medical payments and another insurance
company to reimburse a person
for injuries.” (368) Instead, Dr.
Robbins admits that he forwarded defendant a blank copy of his bill
head because:
“When (Dr. Robbins) draws up bills … (Dr.
Robbins) makes no
record" … and he doesn’t keep any records of
his medical
bills. (368)
Further Dr. Robbins admitted he writes his medical bills
and that his written medical bill to
Mrs. Wirschning is written in
his usual handwriting and in his usual way and his usual style and
in
his usual form and layout in writing his medical bills (363-364,
374).
Dr. Milton E. Robbins further contradicted his
know-nothing story concocted with the aid of two
lawyers herein
mentioned by testifying that after being notified about Mrs.
Wirschning’s complaints by
the District Attorney’s staff early in
July 1957, he, Dr. Robbins, telephoned and urged this defendant to
come to his office (344), in order that he, Dr. Robbins, could get
back his hand written medical bill for
his treatments to Mrs.
Wirschning (346), which medical bill was sent to the Allstate
Insurance
Company files during the settlement of Mrs. Wirschning’s
injury claim several months ago and this
defendant informed Dr.
Robbins that “He couldn’t give it back any more because it was
gone.” (346)
and that “He (Mr. Dec) had sent it to the Allstate files.” (346)
Dr. Robbins claimed in his final story,
he admitted
he arrived at after consulting with two lawyers in the interim of
two weeks in July 1957,
namely, that approximately 48 hours before,
during the same weekend, before Dr. Robbins reached
defendant by
telephone in order to lure defendant to Dr. Robbins’ office in order
to get back his hand
written medical bill to Mrs. Wirschning that
was sent to the Allstate Insurance Company several
months earlier
during the settlement of Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim, Dr. Robbins
claimed the on
the preceding “Friday nite” defendant “He just walked
into your busy office unexpectedly … He came
to my office because he
wanted me to copy a typewritten bill on a Mrs. Wirschning … It was
an old
case and he wanted to keep it in his files. I was quite busy
and I dashed it off and then he left.” (338)
In his final story concocted with the aid of two lawyers
as mentioned herein before, Dr. Robbins
and the prosecution never
explained why the handwritten copy of his original hand written
medical bill
is identical word for word, line for line, and
identical in form and layout to his hand written medical bill
to Mrs. Wirschning, which he wrote in his usual form, layout and style
(363-364); After Dr. Robbins
testified in his final story that he,
Dr. Robbins, “dashed off” his medical bill from “a typewritten” bill
nearly a year after the identical handwritten copy of his hand
written bill “was sent to Allstate files.” and
further neither the
prosecution nor Dr. Robbins explained why these two identical hand
written medical
bills list the total doctor treated injuries claimed
by Mrs. Wirschning throughout the prosecution of her
personal injury
claim and are the identical injuries Mrs. Wirschning stated in
detail to the Allstate
Insurance Company doctor, Joseph Rosenheck,
during his evaluating medical examination of her
claimed injured
parts of her body as her total doctor treated injury claim against
the Allstate Insurance
Company, on May 24, 1956, over a year before
Dr. Robbins and the prosecution claim Dr. Robbins
wrote his medical
bill to Mrs. Wirschning. (Defendant’s Exhibits H and I in Evidence)
which claims of
doctor treated injuries by Mrs. Wirschning are
identical to the doctor treated injuries claimed by the
indictment
as being false and not claimed by Mrs. Wirschning.
 This defendant’s indictment alleged a $400 larceny
from
Allstate Insurance Company by use of false and fraud-
ulent representations and pretenses by this defendant. All-
state Insurance
Company singled this defendant out and
complained of the said
alleged $400 larceny. Mrs. Wirschning
did state her entire medically
treated personal injury claim to the Allstate Insurance Company
doctor, Joseph Rosenheck,
on May 24, 1956, during Dr. Rosenheck’s
private medical
examination of her claimed injured parts of her body
(Defendant’s Exhibit I in Evidence) and she later confirmed
her
personally stated injury claim to the Allstate Insurance Company
officers in her signed statements
of complaint in February 1957
(500). This fact was confirmed by the Allstate Insurance Company
complete up to date of trial injury claim file on Mrs. Elizabeth
Wirschning’s injury claim (460-461).
The Allstate Insurance Company
evaluated and settled Mrs. Wirschning’s injury claim for $400 on
only
Mrs. Wirschning’s personally stated detailed injuries, namely,
bursitis of her right shoulder and bruises
of her right thigh;
without said personally stated claims of doctor treated injuries by
Mrs. Wirschning
there could not be a settlement made and only
through evaluating these stated doctor treated injuries
stated by
Mrs. Wirschning during her said medical examination by the Allstate
Insurance Company
doctor, Dr. Rosenheck, did the Allstate Insurance
Company set up a cash reserve for Mrs.
Wirschning’s injury claim and
only because of Mrs. Wirschning’s said stated doctor treated injury
claim did Allstate Insurance Company offer $400 in settlement of her
injury claim. Up to the date of
trial Mrs. Wirschning stated no
other injuries and she, Mrs. Wirschning, never contradicted these
injuries as her total doctor treated injury claim according to the
Allstate Insurance Company complete
file on her injury claim. The
Allstate Insurance Company paid the sum of $400 in settlement of
Mrs.
Wirschning’s claim in order to be free from all legal
obligations in reference to the said Mrs. Wirsch-
ning personally
stated injury claim. At the time of this defendant’s trial and up to
the present date,
which is after the expiration of the statute of
limitations, the Allstate Insurance Company has been
free from all
legal obligations in reference to the Elizabeth Wirschning injury
claim in accordance with
the $400 settlement. This was made possible
solely through the evaluation by the officers of Allstate
Insurance
Company of Mrs. Wirschning’s claims of injuries for which she
claimed she received eight treatments from a doctor during eight
visits to the doctor’s office; when she was asked the nature of
her
injury claim by Dr. Joseph Rosenheck on behalf of Allstate Insurance
Company on May 24, 1956,
Mrs. Elizabeth Wirschning stated:
“ALLEGED INJURIES:
1. Bursitis of the right
shoulder.
2. Bruises of the right thigh.
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
Right Shoulder -- There
is no external evidence
of injury to the right shoulder.
There is no
tenderness anywhere on firm
pressure. Motion
at right shoulder joint is free.
&n |
