What is your opinion, based on what you currently know, as to whether Dec was "rail-roaded" in his trial, OR was he an "ambulance chaser" crook?

My opinion is split, I think that Dec HAD made enemies who would have loved to get him out of their hair, but I think it may be that he was guilty of something that the "powers-that-be" used to accomplish that goal.

zer0 wrote on 10/31/06 at 06:49:12:


This is definitely a worthy assessment.  I think there can be no doubt that there was some chicanerous activity going on in Hempstead, and Nassau County at this time.  Dec was a likely scapegoat being, as he was, obviously, mentally disturbed "anyway", the people in positions of authority might have thought that he could just be thrown onto the rubbish heap of history.  Thank the Lord that whatever the "truth" is that Mr. Dec took it upon himself, even after his being laid low by the authorities to write and produce so much information that has enriched our lives, and which has attempted to tell us all and warn us of the impending doom we al face because of THE WORST DEADLIEST ENEMY OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE AND THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE!

After having now spent several years thinking this whole thing through (my last post in this thread hails from waaaaay back in 2006!), I've more and more come to view Dec's trial in accordance with your opinion, Ossanha4. From having intitially thought there might at least have been a possibility Dec was set up for a crime he did not commit, I've more and more begun to lean towards Dec having actually committed the crime in question, much as you suggest.

Of course, this doesn't mean that there weren't any corrupt lawyers, judges or the like in Nassau County back when Dec was a lawyer, or that they did not commit similar crimes as did Dec. I think, however, that what Dec might have done "wrong" was to act all high-and-mighty towards people who were just as corrupt as he, turning his nose up at them and accusing them of swindling their clients when, in fact, he was guilty of doing pretty much the same thing. Self-righteous finger-pointing like this  isn't going to win you any friends, regardless of what field you're employed in. So, when the other judges and attorneys finally saw a chance to get rid of him and his behavior, they took it. Dec was made a "warning example" for the public and other corrupt lawyers, in spite of his crime being quite minor (or, perhaps, because he wasn't "in the loop" and didn't have any strings he could pull; take your pick.)

I've therefore come to think that it was his overall behavior towards others that ultimately made Dec a "target" for prosecution. He eventually came to be the one who was singled out for disbarment, in spite of other judges and lawyers having committed more serious scams over a longer period of time (see the accusations contained in his appeal brief). I think Dec might very well have done the crime, but also think he was unable (or unwilling) to fess up to it, even to himself. At the same time, he knew he was, in effect, being made an example of. He knew he had been "chosen" as a warning example of sorts to all the other corrupt lawyers who ran similar schemes, and this is why hate-filled accusations towards them are so prevalent in his appeals. He knew others had committed far more severe scams, that had in some cases spanned several decades, and he was incensed that he had been chosen as a sort of catch-all scape goat for these people ("being crucified", as I believe he calls it in one place).

In spite of his own crime having been comparatively minor, he still couldn't come out and fess up to having done it, even to himself. He just couldn't mentally reconcile himself with the fact that he was, when push came to shove, just as bad as the people against whom he directed his accusations. Dec seems to have had a mental need to live in a world in which he was morally "good" and most everyone else was "evil" (a fact I've tried to illustrate by the black and white color scheme in my drawings.) I think most of the evidence in the appeal points towards Dec actually having done what he was accused of doing, and so he tried to obfuscate this by his insane finger-pointing and slanderous accusations throughout (what is referred to as "a slanderous attempt by this appellant to destroy by innuendo and suggestion Mrs. Wirschning and everyone else connected with the trial or the investigation" in the Respondent's Brief.) That's my two cents after having thought the whole thing through for several years, at least. Of course, I don't know how right I am.

Hi zer0,

Thanks for your input; it seems like we are on the same page.

It's really nice to have a site like this to share ideas about our beloved Francis!  Thanks for all the work that you and others have put into it.