That's actually quite interesting. Was he familiar with Dec since earlier? Or had he never heard of him before you spoke? I would be quite interested in his opinion on Francis, should he have read through the legal material Dec wrote first. It would be very interesting to know whether he knew about any similar cases from the past (or, for that matter, which may have taken place in Hempstead or in the Long Island area), where lawyers were accused of "ambulance chasing" as was Francis, and were excluded from the Bar just as was he.

Personally, as I wrote in another thread, I've come round to the opinion that Dec likely probably did it and that he, as such, likely was guilty. However, it'd be nice to get a fresh perspective from someone who was actually active while Dec was, and who had what you might call "behind-the-scenes" knowledge of how a possible "rail-roading" might, conceivably, have taken place. You should direct this guy to Dec's appeal briefs. Although by no means objective or even neutrally written, they do a fair job of introducing his opinions of what happened before, during and after the trial.

It amuses me greatly Dec might have simply been able to continue to practice law by moving somewhere else and starting all over again. I wonder if he would have continued to martyr himself on the cross of the Worldwide Mad Deadly Communist Gangster Computer God (or even if he would have developed his glaringly obvious case of schizophrenia) had he known that?

This is rather incredible news to me that Dec is known and discussed among lawyers.  This needs to be plumbed.

Ugh. Haven't logged in here for a long time. Busy with work, etc.

Yes, by all means, plumb the lurking, loitering lawyer for what he knows, AnneMartin. I'm especially interested in whether or not Dec is actually discussed with any frequency among professional lawyers and, if so, how they came to learn of him. My gut instinct tells me he likely isn't known among very many lawyers, but it would be ever so exciting if I was wrong! See if your lawyer acquaintance knows someone who knew what the "status quo" was among lawyers and prosecutors (and Frank Gulotta) in Hempstead during the 1950s. I've always wondered if Dec stepped on some toes by refusing to conform to corruption and bribery, as he alleges in his appeals. Of course, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I think it's more likely that Dec probably did it. Still, it would be highly interesting to learn whether or not I am wrong, so ask away!

annemartin1 wrote on 12/14/11 at 17:28:28:


Yeah, please do. It would be interesting to hear if Dec is actually discussed with any frequency among lawyers, or if there is some sort of general awareness of him in legal circles. Like I said; my guess would be no, but it would be ever so exciting to be proven wrong...

I presently work in marketing - primarily as a translator but I also get to do a lot of product photography, editing, layouting, photoshopping, etc. It's fun.

annemartin1 wrote on 01/02/12 at 11:43:01:


That's interesting. Very interesting, even. How did the people at the AVA conferences first hear tell of Francis in the first place? Was Dec's case public knowledge to this extent among attorneys and prosecutors in the Long Island area? If so, what were their opinions on any eventual lawyer corruption in Nassau County? Not to mention on Frank Gulotta (and other people accused by Dec in his rants) and whether or not on if Dec actually did it? Any additional information you can find out would be very exciting, indeed!

The JEWellery selling lawyer was back. I asked him if he recalled WHEN other lawyers discussed Dec. He didn't recall, but said that they always discussed who was getting disbarred at legal conferences. It is pretty rare. Usually, the most that happens is a lawyer is sanctioned; IE; if there's something funny about a deparment store case he's working he is sanctioned (prevented from working department store cases for several months.) He had no thoughts on Frank Gulotta, but said Dec DID NOT necessarily have to had his conviction overturned before re-taking the bar exam in another state, and being able to practice in that state!

I completely concur with Tjodolf. However, I would like to add that I think Dec's inherent litigiousness (a term which, as I've mentioned before, is called "rättshaveri" in Sweden) may also have been a large contributing factor in the matter. Dec seems like a person who would just have HAD to be "right", no matter what. His rants are shock-full of the most black-and-white, rigid thinking imaginable as well as a complete inability to notice the erroneous nature of many of his own opinions, and his earlier legal correspondence is really no different. Interestingly, this is also a common theme among many crazy people, with so-called "tax protesters" being one among them. Or, in the words of attorney Daniel Evans:

Quote:


Quote:


Heh, yeah. Remind you of someone? If you replace "US tax system" with "US justice system" and "Worldwide Mad Deadly Gangster Computer God", that is..?

I think that, even if Dec had known that he could have moved to another state and safely continued to practice law there, it wouldn't have mattered to him. He knew he was "right", and so the overarching goal of his life became proving that he was, no matter what. It didn't matter that his arguments were continually stricken down, I think, because he had constructed a reality around himself in which he was absolutely correct and morally as pure as snow, and the government was corrupt and evil. His "martyrdom" at the hands of the US government (or, as he puts it, his living in "forced, jobless poverty" for years on end) was just more "proof" to him that his opinions were completely accurate and that the US courts and government were to blame for all his woes rather than himself. Just my two cents.