THE OFFICIAL FRANCIS E. DEC FANCLUB PRESENTS:
"IN FORMA PAUPERIS"
- DEC IS TOO BROKE FOR A RE-HEARING
  - A LEGAL DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY FRANCIS E. DEC. TRANSCRIBED BY TJODOLF.  
 

 

zer0 SAYS:
This is an ancillary document from Dec's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of Certiorari and a re-hearing of the charges against him. It, as the name implies, contains a motion for the leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis. This means that Dec, when he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, did not have enough money to pursue the normal costs and had to rely on the charity of the Court. Of course; this would probably have something to with Dec being disbarred from the NY Bar Association and being forbidden to practice law after his "felonious Gestapo-like kangaroo court farce trial", as mentioned by him in his appeal brief, and hence being deprived of an income. This writ was transcribed by Norwegian Decologist "Tjodolf", and originally recovered by Ted Torbich. Enjoy, people!

 
 
Click here to go back to the list of Dec's rants!

 

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.
                      MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
                      Petitioner-appellant, Francis E. Dec, moves the Court for an order permitting him to proceed in this Court, in forma pauperis, with his appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York entered in this cause on July 7, 1961, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915, and Rule 53 of the Rules of this Court, and in support thereof attaches the affidavit of said petitioner-appellant.
                      Petitioner-appellants's statement as to jurisdiction, petition for writ of certiorari, is being filed with this motion and petitioner-appellant's affidavit.

                                                                                                    
                                                                                                      Francis E. Dec
                                                                                                      Petitioner-appellant
                                                                                                                            pro se
                                                                                                      P.O. Address
                                                                                                      171 So. Franklin Street
                                                                                                      Hempstead, New York.

 
                              Affidavit of Francis E. Dec

State of New York)
                             ss.:
County of Nassau)

      Francis E Dec, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

      1. I am a citizen of the United States and the petitioner-appellant in the above entitled action.

      2. I desire to prosecute an appeal from the judgment entered by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, on July 7, 1961, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. Section 1257 (1), (3), but because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of such appeal or give secuity therefor and still be able to provide myself with the necessities of life. I have no income, I have been in jail and unemployed since my automatic disbarment from the practice of law upon my conviction nearly three years ago.

      3. I have been unable to obtain a certified copy of the record in the court below without payment of fees and costs.

      4. I believe that I am entitled to the redress I seek by such an appeal, and that such an appeal presents substantial federal questions.

      The nature of the questions to be presented upon such appeal is as follows:

      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 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, abreviated, juxta positioned [sic], hashed together, jumbled and lengthened withsubstitute 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 at 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 gestapo like farce kangaroo court trial of the 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 testimoy 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 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 falsecharges 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 than the citizen defendant did constitute a confession by the citizen defendant and thereby through statutory definition of criminal confessions practically convict the 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 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 the 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 the trial judge in collusion with the prosecution as a confession by the citizen, in the 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 equal protection and due process of the 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 provided 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 equal protection and due process of the 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 extend 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 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.

       I contend that the Court of Appeals of the State of New York erred in affirming the judgment of conviction of the petitioner-appellant in the Nassau County, County Court, namely, of second degree grand larceny, two counts forgery in the second degree and violation of the Penal Law section 1820 A subdivision two.

       Wherefore, this affiant prays that he may have leave to proceed in this Court on appeal in forma pauperis.
                                                                                    
                                                                         
           Francis E. Dec

State of New York
County of Nassau

Sworn to before me this

 20 date of September, 1961


             [Conrad F. Hykys]
                Notary Public

                                                                                                                                                     ▲ BACK TO TOP

     
  CLICK HERE TO READ A SCAN OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION! (.PDF)  
 
  Bookmark and Share
 

Click here to go back to the rants page!
 

More features by zer0:

     
Main
Page
Bento & Starchky
- the Online Comic!
Bob the Corpse
- An Online Comic!
Stop on by and
chat in the forum!

This page created and maintained worldwide as a Frankenstein
slave (usually at night) by zer0 (Peter Branting) 2006 and onwards.
Original rants by Francis E. Dec, esq.
Audio recorded by Boyd "Doc" Britton,1986
All illustrations
by zer0, 2006. Quit stealing other people's stuff, eBaum.
*
- -THE OFFICIAL FRANCIS E DEC FANCLUB -- Consisting mostly of HEARSAY CONVERSATIONS! - -