|
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 |
