f

•

Draft Copy Draft Copy

MEMORANDUM In SUPPORT CF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT WESTEM DISTRICT OF 14ISSOURI

RICHARD CASE NIGELL, A-166C6B, ) 6T ; c-se A(6-L -r3

• . Petitioner,

Vs.

Civil Action No. WAR. DEM:, J. r. PL-N ITC/17, 4:V„ .4 EA C.s.r./

n.1 'Tea s"-Ti.e.vey = EN 1.7'71,11.

DIRECTOR, U.S. IEDICAL CENTER ) 6,C FOR FEDEPAL PRISO:E?3, ma, ) UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CEYERAL, ) et el, )

Respondents. )

CONES .the petitioner in the matter pending, end, by his own counsel, files a 1.2`..:C.?1:;DUM IN SUPFCRT of Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus, alleging generally and specifically as folloas:

Petitioner was arrested at El Paso, Texas, on September 20, 1963, and charged by state authority with vagrancy, flight to avoid prosecution, and suspicion of armed robbery. He vas booked and lodged in the El PE-30 City Jail after interrogation at the city's Federal Building by agents of the Federal Bureau of Invaatigation.

FIPST SPECIFIC ALL:MATIM That On September 20, 1963, while being tremapar-ted by autcmobile from the State National Baal, El Paso, Texas, to the city's Federal Buildicg, petitions' exclaimed to Mr. Thomas H. White, Jr., a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, "I would rather be arrested than com...it treasca" or "I would rather be arrested than comsat nurder and treason"; that amother'Special Scent . of the F.B.I. (not futther identified) who was present in the autbmobile, asked petitioner what, he meant; that petitioner did not then or ever later answer his question; that petitionerh outburst:and the aforesaid question was heard by another ?Green net berein,identified. that either utterance by petitioner later developed into eridinai A Ads A-impoaar is'defense ezainst the crime for which be WEB indicted; that such evidence was ulthheld'by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and suppressed by petiticnerls court-appointed counsel, againstimal-nili, at both trials on the merits and cm appeal therefrom. rzfr.zt.,

SECOND SPTCTFIC ALL That petitioner, while confined in the 71 Pane City:rail, after being ordered to remove all his clothing emd ordered inside a strip-cell, was abused by Kr. Pete Blanco and abused, threatened :math bodily harm and assaulted by Carl D. Fortune, both officers of the El Peso Police Depart:meat; the* such abuse,IWNiXIX threat, aad assault was without just cause or prove:lei= smi was witnessed by persona not herein identified; that shertly thereafte petitioaez reported such abuse, threat and assault to a person not herein identified .to gated his complaint and found it to be fact; that netiticaer was not permitted by his COUniel to rel3e the foregoing issue or subpoena witnesses in r.Ler.7. th-ete,Yirni/idATVIYALIAXAIWA4.1.4M agaiasts will, at ether trial nn the mert: cr dm a.r.pc:-1 therefrom. f 7) a 7.45

2.

' The next day, September 21, 1963, petitioner :me traesferred to the El Pee° County Jail where he W33 booked and lodged. Se as erralened before a Unleed Statea Commissioner under the beak robbery statute. He pleeied not guilty to the charge and waived a prelim-Ina-7 herring. Bond was set at $25,000.00. Petitioner failed to post. bond andAl was remanded to the custody of the United S tates Marshal. The state charges were eventually dropped.

THIRD SPECIFIC ALLEGATIM That during an interview by F.B.I. Special Agent Thomas B. White, Jr., and the afore:entioned unidentified F.B.I. Special Agent, held on September 21, 1963, Mr. Nhite exclaimed to petitioner, "'Jo dcn't think you tried to rob that beak either, but we want to know why you vent yourself arrested," or: words eimilar and to that effect; that such exclamatioa later developed into evidencee etial-to petitioner's defeaes ageism the crime charge?; that such evidenee was withheld by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and suppreaaed by petiticner's comrt-appointed counsel, against petitioner's will, at both trials on the merits and on appeal therefrcm. Thereafter (exact date unknown), the baited States District Court judge at El Peso, on the government's motion, directed thit petitioner be given a nental examination by Dr. R. J. Bennett, an El PR30 psychiatrist. On Cetcbar 11, 1953, Dr. Bennetti reported to the court that on two occasions he had attempted to examine petitioner, without success, because he W33 unwilling to furnish any information. Thereafter (exact date unknown), petitioner wrote the court, statine, emong other things, that.be had always acted from love for his country and that his ccndurt in the beak had bean predicated on such love, "novever incomprehensible it may appoar." The court first appointed Mr. James 3. Ea=ond of B1 Pee() to represent petitioner. During a hearing held at petitioner's instance on Sovezber 4, 1963, petitioner infozned the court he no longer desired the services of Mr. Hammond becY.Ise be had disclosed soma confidential information to the F.B.I. Mr. Ea.-mond denied the charge, but was relieved as counsel.

(emeeesee. Le tees-3) At the same hearing, petitioner, by hand-erittea leplicatica Weagag, requested habeas corpus in order to ascertain the particulars of the government's case against him, and to compemsate for his waiver of a preliminary hearing. F.B.I. Special Agent Thomas H. White, Jr.-, testified for the gcvernmemt e13 e. prima fade \:a.e.e was established. Petitioner offered neconmeat with respect thereto. e. FOCBTR SPECIFIC ALLIDATICU: That in the latter part of October 1953 (exact date unknown), While discussing his contemplated defense with Mr. James3. ammond, eourteappoLated Counsel, petitioner i-evea/ed he had made an unauthorized trip to Cute; that several days later counsel: admitted to petitioner he had disclosed this privilefeed commumieetion and other information given him in confidence by petitioner to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; that counaci cited his reason., for. doing so; that such reasons were invalid; that.such disclosure was later confirmed by persons not herein identified; that all such information reveled by petitioner to counsel was mater1,1 .and vital to his defense against the crina,charged; that at no'time did petitioner . authorize the disclosure of any information he provided Mr. Eammond; that by the foregoing, petitioner's privilegge to the sten:lord ettornay-client relatiomship W33 abrogated; that counsel's aforementioned conduct had a direct bearing en petitiener's. refusal to accept the'sereicee of another El Paso /eerier (!'fZ. Jr._. Langford) thereafter by the court; that counsel's aforemeatioeed coeluat bred in petitienee a distrust of other local attorneys subsequently appointed by the court to dared him; • that petitioner was not permitted by his court-apy..ointei counsel, against petitism.-m's will, to raise the aforesaid issue at either trial on the merits cr on appeal there.hr=.

3.

„, eie fle-et7EP. 221463, FIFTH SPECIFIC ALL7CATICYA: That(the aforesaid note laleerreoa.,Novembee-22,--

-1-963e-develoned into evidence vital to petitioner's defense against the crime charged; that such evidence *se withheld by the Federal Bureau of Investigation fro= the United States Attorney mrceecuting petitioner'a case then and ever later; that such evidence was withheld by the F.B.I. Iron petitioner's geWrniagq counsel appointedjy_the Court evr later; that such evidence was suppressed by petitioner's courteAodeeel'at both trials on the merits and on appeal therefrom, in that he refused to ask the court to issue a subpoena dupes tecum for such evidence,efter petitioner insisted he do so.

On November 22, 1963, at approximately 1:00 P.M. Central Standard Time, petitioeee .rote a note and handed it to Mr. Mendoza (also known as "Chuy"), a deputy sheriff and jailer on duty at the El Pane County Jail, asking that he take it to the Jail Captain immediately. The note was a request to speak to the Secret Service as soon as possible, that it weefi importent s.; The writing of such note and the banding of such note to Mr. Mendoza was witnessed in its entirety by a person not herein identified.

Thereafterl(exact date unknown), petitioner was visited by F.B.I. Special Agent Tholes H. White, Jr. Petitioner stated to Mr. White that he had asked to speak to the Secret Service, not the F.B.I. 1.{,4 He said he had sent %a letter to the F.B.I. in Washington prior to his arrest "about Lee Os....ald," and that the F.B.I. had neglbeted to do anything about it. Mr. White asked petitioner where and tow he had met lir. /g Oswald, and other questions. Petitioner answered several questions but refused to enswer-reeeteeothers. He said.he would speak only to the Secret Service. Whereupon, }.r. White became angry and left the interview room.

Thereafter (exact date unknown)7petitioner was visited by ler. White, another Special Agent of the F.B.I. eho stated he W33 handling the F.B.I.'s investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy, and a man who identified himself as a menber of the Secret Service. Whereupon, petitioner refused to answer any questions truthfully or elaborate on any answere,he gave, because of the presence of the aforesaid F.B.I. agents. 1.

That same night petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief, Secret Se Bice Division, U.S. Treasury Departmeat, Washington, D.C., advising that there had been a corespira*- to metrder President Kennedy and other government officials; that he would be weitiez to give information in regerd4 thereto; that he had bean questioned by a member of the Secret Service in the presence of the F.B.I., and that he could not be expectsd to answer questions truthfully under these conditions. Petitioner never received a response to his letter from the Secret Service.

Thereafter, the court appointed Mr. John Langford of El Paso to represent petitioner, but petitioner informed him, and later the court, he did not desire the services of any court-appointed counsel, that he would defend hi-self. Mr. Lan-ford was encased en co- 3S1 during a hearing held cn Decezher 4, 1963.

On November 19,1963, during en interview held at the El Peso County Jail, petitioner alleged certain violations of his constitutional safeguards by the authorities to It". Edward J. MUrphy and Mr. Lawrence W. Gorman, Special. Agents of the Federal Bureaus of Investigation. He signed a written statement they took in that regard. When the interview terminated, petitioner wrote a note to F.BiI. Special Agent Thomas H. White, Jr., and asked Mr. Murphy to give it to Mr. White. Yr. Murphy stated he would do so.

At the same hearing, petitioner, by hand-written application and verbal argument, contended he being denied a speedy His petition wax summarily denied. .Petitioner they informed the court that certain personal effects taken from

-him at the time of his arreat by agents of the F.B.I. had •not yet been returned to him, and that he-needed -these effects to present as evidence for his defense if he was iaa. to stand trial.. The preeiding judge, the Honorable R. E. Thomasen, thereupon instructed the Assistant United States Attorney present at the hearing, Mr. Fred Morton, to see that the personal effects belonging to petitioner were returned to him.

On December 14,,1963, F.B.I. Special Agent Thomas H. White, Jr., brought most of the aforementioned personal effects to the El Paso County Jail and permitted petitioner to inspect them, but he would not return the its petitioner stated he needed. Petitioner was made to sign a receipt for what personal effects were returned to him, but Er. White Ali refused to give petitioner any kind of a receipt for the it be kept.

. 3I1TH SPECIFIC .ALLATICja That on September 20, 1953, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized and confiscated personal and private property belonging to and in the poasession of petitioner, such property constituting evidence crucial to his 'defense against the crime charged; that such property consisted in pert of two pocket-size notebooks (one of them containing .names-of certain agents and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency); two receipts for registered mail, ten or more lornotogrephs of various individuals,:ltwo Mesican tourist cards (one of them for AW multiple entrance) made out to the names"Joseph Kramernand"Albert'orllesei HidelPthat the F.B.I., having been duly apprised of the court's instructions to

on the merits or on appe therefrom; that prior to each trial petitioner insisted court-appointed counsel ask the court to issue a subpoena duces . tecum far such

return the aforesaid property to petitioner, refueed ever to do so; that such refusal precluded petitioner from presenting evidence crucial to his defense at either trial al

evidence and that counsel refused to do sof,that-the-foreeoing,-in-pert-and-aa_a -1.tole,-cons t tut eli-bt-s w-other-tr ens gr sions-at-peti-tione-Le-rights-aa-a-dcf eni. en t easonable-s eivare--of-privete-property-in-rio-leticlr-of- -petition er ele--suards-parauent-to-thejiourth-Amenamest-to-the-Uaitei-Cit at es —

-Gone -titutionr-7-

' Meanefhilef (exact date unknown), petitioner had written -to the United States Department of Justice complaining of an "illegal seizure of personal and private property by the F.B.I.," and mentioning the statement he had signed for F.B.I. Special:Age:its Edward J. Murphy and.Lawrence W. Gorman on November 19, 1963.

by tom. Murphy and 1r. Gorman, F4,1-", .He was accased of having acted as an "uareeistered Agent° for a foreign power 'end: of aiding and abetting in the commission of a capital. offense. Be was accused of having resigned his commission from the Army for reasons l

Petitioner never received en answer to his letter.

• On January 6, 1964, petitioner was interviewed at the El 'Paso County Jail

not included in his Letter of Resignation. Mr. Murphy said he thought petitioner had "something you want to get off your chest," or words similar and to that effect, and added "we are glad we got to you before you did anything to yourself," or words similar and to'that effect. In the latter regard, Mr. Murphy drew a camperison be teen petitioner and nne Jack Dunlap, a suspected spy, who allegedly committed suicide in July 1963. Mr. Murphy asked petitiOner if he would be willing to go to "Springfield" - for awhile, 'and when petitioner replied that he would not, that he wanted to stand , trial because he aels•innocent leirphy stated "Well, you night have to go to prison for awhile," or words similar and to that effect, indicating

i.

5. petitioner would he-convicted if he stood trial. Petitioner became angry and said that the F.B.I. was "trying to cover everything up," to which Fr. t• byanswered, "What do you meen?"....to which petitioner retorted, "you know? darn well what I mean."

At this interview, petitioner gave a signed statement ei-nttting the reason be had entered the be e.-.% on Sept.her 2J, 1563, and why he had wanted himeelf arrested by federal authorities. Petitioner told :r.r. ?...5.I.1-phy and 4r. Gorman he thought initially he would be tried for discharging a firearn on property subject to federal jurisdiction, but that now ha could "see the h=d...riting on the wen,"

SPF.CIFIC ALL7GiTIC.T: That the aforementioned earission, duly signed and witnessed, constituted evidence vital to petitioner's defense against the crime for which he was later indicted; that according to court-appointed counsel Joseph A. Ce_lania), the Federal Bureau of Investigation denied on his inquiry, before the first trial on the merits, that it was in possession of such evidence or that petitioner bad ever gives its i.,-;Lg agents such evidence; that if counsel's allegation is feet, the F.B.I. kmoerily withheld such evidence before and at the first trial on the merits; that counsel, at petitioner's second trial, having been provided with a copy of the eforem=tioned edo..-Ission or stat=ent per the court's order, refused 4.1-te.A-t-anzy--

-e.vi n. to nske any attempt to have the original introduced into evidence, despite petitioner's insistence he do so; that counsel's refusal amounted to suppression of evidence vital to petitioner's defense,for the court would surely have permitted the truth to be introduced; that had such evidence net been withheld or suppressed at either trial on the merits, but had it been introduced together with other evidence that was withheld or suppressed, it probably would have been so persuasive to reasonable members of the juries as to have Causal them to return a verdict of acquittal; that at the very least, introduction of such evidence at either trial on the merits or on appeal therefrom, would have opened the door for petitioner to t.tify as to the truth in his case, a right then and ever later denied hint.-that--by-the-foregoing-

-,in-part-or--e-a-whals,-petit-Iceler-Ls-r-ight-to-due-prooe-es-eaersuer.t-to-the-Fifth--, -1..mendmen-t7i--thenite?--S-ta.tes-Co^-e+itut!ecnwas-ahrogatedf.'

Thereafter, in January 1564 (exact date unlr...ola), petitioner was indicted by a federal. Grand j:ur-y at Secs Antonio, Texas, for having entered a federally insured bed, with intent to rob and for attempting to commit grobbery in violation of Section 2113 , Title 18, U.S.C.A. ••

Between January S, 1954 and January 21, 1964 (exact date unknown), petitioner wrote another letter to the United States Attorney General citing violations of his constitutions./ s af eguasds, that the F.B.I. still held evidence he neeed.for his defense, that he was being intimidated to incriminate himself in the alleged commission of an offense other than the one for which he was charged, and that he was being denied a speedy trial. Petitioner never received an answer to his letter.

• At a hearing held on January 24, 1964, the court, on the goverr_ment's motion, -ordered petitioner co=itted to the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Miesouri, for a period of psychiatric observation to determine his mental

-c=petency to stand trial. Petitioner cent-ended his military and Veterans Administration records would prove he had no psychosis. •

At the sane hearing, petitioner stated to the court he had been questitned_ by the F.B.I. regarding alleged subversive activities and activities of a nature inimical to the :test interests of the United States, t^ -the had been ached questions by the Secret Service regarding "Lee Harvey Os-aald,r, and that he would not willingly participate in a: psychiatric examination or consultation at Springfield. After

6.

leaving the courtrocm, petitioner was approached by a group of news=en, one of when

asked petitioner a question pertaining to the aesassination of President Kennedy;

whereupon, both of petitioner's arcs were grabbed by Deputy U.S. Marshals Jack Graves

and, possibly, Jim Johnson and he was hustled into an elevator. Before the elevator

door closed, petitioner shouted to the aforesaid nevaman, "The F.B.I. is responsible

for th:3 assassination of President Kennedy," nearing that it had neglected to take steps which efief in petitioner's opinion would have prevented the President's murder.

Petitioner's outcry was broadcast over a local radio station soon thereafter.

As a gig sidepoint, it night be menticnad here that during petitioner's long incarceration in the El Paso County Jail, then and later, he was never permitted

to read a newspaper, but that he did, on occasion in 1966, read g newspapers which were smuggled to him by another irate of the jail. Altogether, petitioner spent over one year confined in such jail.

-Thereafter, on January 26, 1964, petitioner was transported by autceobile to the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners.

On March 6, 1964, the Chief Medical Officer at the U.S. Medical Center fcr Federal Prisoners reported to the court a diagnosis that petitioner had a "eassive-

aggreseive personality"; that he vas competent to stand trial as he had a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him, and that he was able to assist rationally in his defense.

On or about March 12, 1964, petitioner was returned to the El Paso County . Jail.

SPECTFIC ALLEeATION: That petitioner was not at the tine of the offense alleged, at the time of any of his ccmmitPeents to the U.S. Medical Center for

Federal Prisoners, cr ever later, insane or otherwise devoid of his nental faculties;

that he is not ncw, nor has he ever been, certified psychotic or insane by aey eedical

authority, or adjudicated mentally incc=petent in a court of lawjor adjudged to be

incapable of acting or assisting in his can defense; that this preedse, unless

deternined otherwise in a ccert of law, should be considered as fact and pertinent to all allegations set forth herein.

etjeeee) le:_eaLe 4i_t a hearing held on 'March 21, e964, petitioner; convinced that the delay

in bringing bin to trial stee=ed from his refusal to accept the services of counsel appointed ty the court, requested such counsel be appointed. 7hereupon, the court

appointed Mr. Des Rallis and Mr. Richard B. Perrenct, both of El Paso, to represent him.

The case vas call?:d on !Anioh- 30, 1964, and then continued for tha purpose of allowing counsel additional tine in which to prepare for trial.

On April 10, 1954, at a hearing'involving a request for issuance of subpoenas

for certain records desired by petitioner, he exclaimed, "I think ISn being railroaded

because I'm an accused cc=unist and because I've been accused of being an espionage

agent."

FI/;TH SPECIFIC ALLEGATION: That on April 10, 1964, an enployea cf the sentencing court erred in recording petitioner's outburst, aforenantioned, in that te.e

court record shows eetitioner as stating, "I think that I an being railroaded teceuse

I an a communist and because I have been accused of being an espionage agente; that such erroneous etatement was made public in and around El Paso, Texas; that such error has never been corrected despite repeated efforts by petitioner tc have court-aepcented

that such uncoerace-d counsel'entertain an effianie effienine to the contrary; erne

_ • ' . _ _ • _ .

• • ::*7- 'az'

J; •

02C t . •

ft2-:

!-:

,.. tt-._ 7_"" .

a'. 1 . '3°7:

„A.A. c

_4_

.- .

• •-= - • • A, ••• " . oh.* : C- .t.

..

,- 6'1 •-• . -AZ:

-4 71Z. -

: -7:. 7: • .1` • 7 :

- • . e • i.• .7 . - -

'• .

- • - : .

..'_ZL77 - 7 1. ' • . :11•. 7":,; 7'

F • 7- r. ."

:77 777. 7". • • 7 '•

- -

"4--da."

y -4; ..

•

7. .was twice referenced in the appelate court's opinion reversing petitioner's first conviction; that such uncorrected error is and has been throughout the litigation in this case undule prejudical to petitioner.

At aceatime between April 10, 1964 and April 20, 1964 (eeact date unknown),, petiteener drafted a letter to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Wasbingtcn, D.C.e ea asked counsel, er. Rallis, to have the letter eyped and to n79 several carbon copies eade of it, which Yr. Rallis did the text day. After petitioner signed the original ha requested that ee. Rallis =ail it via postal registry, which he stated he would do, in the presence of !Ir. wow Perrenot.

In the letter, aforementioned, petitioner made reference to another letter, signed with either the nave "Joseph Kramer"' cr "Robert Nolan," which had been mailed at petitioner's instance, via postal registry, to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in September 1963 prior to his arrest. That letter advised of a conspiracy to murder the Chief Executive of the United States or President John F. Kennedy) during the latter part of Septeeber 1963, and the identity and whereabouts of one of the key persons, if not the key figure, involved: "Albert" or "Aleksei Fidel." - In the April Letter, aforementioned, petitioner explained that it was he rho had signed the September Letter, that the F.B.I. should realize this, and that the truth was going to be erouget out if he stood trial on "trumped—up charges."

.TENTH'S?ECIFIC ALLEeATION: That files and dossiers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including File No. 91 1189 14, will reveal that the names ".oseph Krazer" and eRcbert Nolan" are pseudonyms of petitioner, used ty him during the month of September 1963, and prior thereto) that the pseudonym "Robert Nolan" was authorised for petitioner's use by an intelligence organieseeeeeeeeeeleleegeinder the control of responsible officials of the United StateelleCeeriteenteetrieVeetitioner used both cf the aforesaid peeedonyme at various locations in the United States and in three foreign countries curing the period September 1962 through-September 1953; that petitioner's Air use of each pseudo:v=3 in the United States and eemico was well known to the F.E.I.e prior to his arrest; that files and doseier; of the F.BeI. and the Central Intelligence/ Agency will reveal -that the names "Albert Elder' and "Aleksei Hidel" were peaudenyee used by ur, Lee H. Oswald during the month of September 1953 and prior thereto. ELBVEeTH S?RCIFIC ALLEGATION: Tha—t a letter =ailed at petitioner's instance between Seetenter 9, 1963 and September 17, 1963, to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, later developed into evidence crucial to his defense against the cries charged; that sti.c4 evidence res withheld by the F.B.I. at both trials on the merits; that through intemieatioman*d ceercioe by court—appointed counsel petitioner was not alleeed to raise the aforesaid issue or subpoena witnesses in regards thereto at or before either trial on the --writs or on appeal therefrce; that had such evidence been introduced at either trial on the merits it probably would have been so persuasive to reasonable jurors that, coupled with_othereeidence petitioner was not permitted to introduce, it would have caused the= to return verdicts of acquittal; that, at the least, introduction of such evidence at either trial on the merits would have 'peened the doer for petitioner to testify as to the truth in his case, a right then and ever later denied him.

On April 20, 1954, the case was again called at which tine petitioeei requestee relief of One of his counsel, ee. Ferrenot. Petitions:. alleges that the reason he aekad for Er. Perrenot's relief cone wed his remark to'petitioner, in the presence of . •

1 1

B'. Ere Rallis, that he had heard Petitioner was a communist and that he despised everythine petitioner stood for, but that he would still represent him if he wanted his aseistaace. Petitioner did not feel he could safely go to trial with such counsel. The court permitted Mr. Perrenot to withdraw from the case and another El Paso laAyer, Mr. Joseph A. Calamia, was eubstithted in his stead.

At a hearing held in the afternoon of the same data, April 20, l964, Mr. Calamia reported tothe court the petitioner was refusing to cooeerate in the matter at obtaining what he termed "complete psychiatric reports." Petitioner denied any mental disability to,the district court judge and said he had already bean foujd mentally competent to stand trial.

-MUTH SPECIFIC ALL That prior to the aforesaid hearigz, counsel, Er. Calamia, had asked petitioner to sign papers authorizing the Veterans Administration , to forward his medical records to the court (through)! the United States Attorney who was prosecuting petitioner's case); that petitioner refused, advising counsel that though he had been ararded a 64% disability rating by the V.A., it W13 not for a mental condition and that neither the Army or the V.A. had ever found him to be afflicted with a nervous disorder; that petitioner did not then or ever later rant to raise the issue of insanity or mental incompetency as a defense against the crime charged, and that he so informed his counsel; that petitioner apprised counsel that the defense of insanity or mental incompetency was contrary to the truth and facts involved in his case; that petitioner apprised counsel, pointedly Ur. Rallis, before Mr. Calamie's appointment,of the reasons why he had wanted himself arrested by federal authorities on September 20, 1963, and why he had subjected himself to arrest in the menner he did; that such.reasons related to a conspiracy to murder the former Chief Executive of the United States, President John F. Kennedy.

At the same hearing, held in the afternoon of April 20, 1964, petitioner stated to the court he would not cooperate with his appointed counsel in so far as any defense denended on mental incompetency, citing that sucti a defense was centrary and' repugnant -to the truth in his case. The upshot of this was that the court allowed both" Ur. Calamia and Mr. Rallis to withdraw as ,counsel, at their request. The presiding judge, the Hanorable Homer T. Thornberry, instructed that petitioner ',will prepare his own defensin and stand trial the following Monday morning.

After the hearing ended, petitioner was returned to the El Faso County Jail, while then former counsel deposited all of petitioner's defense naterial'(inoluding 'emitten statements and adviZements.petitioner had given qpunsel, and photostats of documents petioner had paid for at prior Counsel's 454r) with the U.S. Deputy nerehel, whose office was in the Federal Building. Petitioner was told he could not take this material with him to his.tank in the jaile

THIRTEENTH SFICIFIC ALLEGATIOUT That as a result of the court's instructions, aforesaid, netitioner was coerced by the sentencing court to accept, cooperate in, and abide b7e the defense cf insanity or mental incompetency as his defense at the fire: trial on the merits, in that he was not given sufficient time to preaare a prcper defense after abrupt notification he was to stand trial without counsel; tnat, all other factors set aside, under the conditions of petitioner's confinement it was virtealle impoeeible for him to adequately prepare a defense in the short time allotted; that the the defense of insanity or mental incompetency was contrary to the truth: ih e caeieet ee with, and opposed to the facts responsible for petitioner's conduc-tin the bane en September 20, 1963; that such defense was inadequate and ineffeetiea when and ever let= and resulted in petiticner's conviction at both trials on the merits.

it a hearing held on April 21, 1964, petitioner agreed to accept and ce.,e_ea:

■.■

.9.

in the defense of insanity or mental incompetency for the,reasone already stated. Br. Calm .aand Mr. Bailie were reappointed by the court as petitioner's counsel.

At a hearing held on April 23, 1964, a continuance was granted counsel in which to prepare for trisl.,

On Vey 4, 1954, the case went to trial. = -e:eete).F. ereFer6eefal)

Briefly, by prosecution testimony, the record alleges that late in the afternoon-of September 20, 1963, petitioner went into the State National Bane, El Pain, Texas. He approached a lady teller and asked weere traveler checks =an be obtained. Ha was directed to another cage. Upon reaching the proper case he asked that lady teller fat one hundred dollars worth of travelers cheek.; in ten dollar denceiraticne. Allegedly the teller moved to get thee, whereupon petitioner was alleged to have zeid, "Lady this is a real gun." She immediately ran,.alleeedly, and petitioner took several steps away from the cage, fired two shots into the wall at a height of about seven feet, not aiming at the teller, and allegedly ran out of the hank. Ha was falcwed be a uniformed police officer who was acting as a guard inside the bank (guarding a display of currency, mostly counterfeit). Petitioner was, without gliga difficulty, arrested at a time when he.allegedly was about to leave in an autemobile he was alleged to have left parked near the bank.

Petitioner testified in his own behalf. He denied he had really intended e. attempted to rob the bank. He denied hs had said, "Lady, this is a real gen," or that he had run out of the bank. One witness, the vice-presider.t of the tank, sebstantisted his latter denial. Petitioner alleges this witness wee ateet to state, "I thought it was joke," when the prosecution, having been informed of meat ha was going to state, Jumped up Imeedietely and objected. Petitioner was asked hy his on counsel if he adhered to the coemunist philosophy, to communist teachings, but he declined to aeseer on the grounds that it might incriminate him. He contended that he did what he did in the bank not for robbery but .41mwe in order that he might be arrested by federal authorities. He refused to elaborate on why he wanted to e arrested kother then to say ha thought it would provide a solution, however teeperery or immediate, to a problem he considered at the time to be an unbearable problem, with which he was confronted. He said that before he went to the bank he was in the process of leaving the United States permanently, by way of VOX/X !lexico City. He insisted that if acquitted he planned to leave, because he had had weary basic constitutional right violated. , •

e.- . Although counsel had; prior to the trial, promised petitioner he would have

F.BI. Special Agents White, Murphy, Gorman and three other Special Agents not herein identified, steepeensed to the trial for questioning by petitioner, he failed to do so. Mr. bite was present at the prosecutor's table, tut did not testify. Coereel refeeed to put Mr. White en the stand, despite petitionerts insistence he do so. As a meteer of fact, no agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified at either trial on the merits.

FOUR=ITH SPECIFIC kiIECATION: That 'petitioner MS intieidated by court-' appointed counsel, Mr. Calania„ not to tell the whole troth at his first trial cn the merits, in that he was advised during a pre-trial -interview if he told "any weld tales in court like you just told me," the judge told step the trial and he w=ould committed to a mental institution; that during the trial such Intimidation 7a3 reiterated counsel both inside and outside the ceertreem and prevailed threveh.:.t the, trial; tat a result of telling part of the,trethbat,not the whole trot h and the We'.geitleholding and suppression of evidenceet.I:en -Crucial to eetiticeerts

rly t •

tl

10. rightful defense, he was convicted at said trial; that counsel, by such intiaidaticn, denied petitioner adequate and effective legal assistance since the purpose of a jury trial is to bring out the whole truth in order that the jury itself, and only the jury, may accept it or reject it, and render a just verdict accordingly,

FIFTEENTH SPECIFIC ALLEGATION: That counsel, by asking petitioner during his testimony if he adhered to the communist philosophy, to cemmuniet teacanes, without ascortaining beforehand what his answer would be, so abused standard prcceeere and so conceivably Prejudiced petitioner's cause, as to influence the jury to re ere a verdict of guilty; that counsel, both during the first trial on the merits and in preparation thereof, well demonstrated his intent to raise only the issue of in=sanity or aentai incompetency as the 400 primary avenue of defense, when there eeested in fact and to his knouledge a different and accurate gowi primary avenue cf defense, that of the truth; that counsel advised petitioner before the first trial on the merits that he did not expect to win accuittal for petitioner at said trial, but that he would win a reversal on appeal.

On May 6, 1964, petitioner was convicted by the jury on both counts of the indictment.

.On May 8, 1964, petitioner was interviewed by both counsel at the it Faso County Jail. Mr. Calamia stated, "I told you, Richard, I was going to have to win this case on appeal," or words similar and to that effect. Petitioner made reference to a letter ha had maned to the court prior to the trial, in April 1964 (e=at data unknown), which later was 44e.t/A? read into the record by the judge, and rhich requeseed that he ea- examined by a Veterans Administraticn psychiatrist and given an electroencephalogram (EEG) teat. Petitioner also referred to Dr. Edwin A. Zeinstein, a consultant in neurology and psychiatry, who conducted awaninateoes of petitioner in 1955 when he was a patient at lealter Reed Army Hospital recovering frcn injuries sustained in the crash of a military aircraft.' Petitioner/ had, en or about April 23, 1964, provided counsel with Dr. Weinstein's name and address and the information that petitioner had —aufferred a negligible anaant of organic brain damage as the result of a head injary received in the plane crash,"Plus the information that wails :env medical authorities had determined such brain damage to be negligeble, Er. Teeinsteir. thecrized it to be'nore serious.

Petitioner asked counsel Why, if he was so bent on showing the 4ery-that petitioner was insane, had he not arranged for the EEG test petitioner had reeeestee, . and why had he not contacted Dr. Weinstein?

Counsel answered that he thought petitioner had, at the time, been treeing to prove there was "nothing mane with him.

. Be that as it way, petitioner alleges the foregoing to be significant mi=en, as will be eeen, the element of organic brain damage was not raised mntil petit±cne:0,7 hearing on a notion for a new trial (at which Dr. Feinstein was subpoenaed and t.est!!;ia.:1) which in turn, thcegh the motion was denied, provided substantial grounds for eWe:ea;e: petitioner's first appeal.

Petitioner alleges the foregoing to be more significant when it is ccesedeeee that the element of brain damage (alleged by counsel .on appeal, and through ceeeeee; perjured testimony of petitioner and perjured testimony of Ur. Rallis, to have been concealed by petitioner from counsel until after the first trial) materialieed iet: the so-called ecrucial evidemee newly discovered," which became the sole ere ?a. for the reversal of petitioner's first conviction.

£L. PetitionereeSsealleges the foregoing to be even =ore significant where it is considered that later, prior to the second trial on the merits, as will be seen, intensive psychological testing and electrcencephalciraphic examination. of petitioner at the U.S.- Medical Center for Federal Prisoner, failed to shear any evidence ef brain da=age. . _

- SISTEENTH SFECIFIC.ALLWATION: That eforenenticned court-appointed counsel, Isy.bie own design and for his own purpose, neglected to initiate action which could have raised the so—called newly discovered evidence at petitioner's first trial; that if such evidence could convince the appelata court to reverse petitioner's first conviction, it also could haire, conceivably, teen persuasive encush to cause the first trial jury to render a verdict of acquittal (rerardless of the final outcome of the brain dprege theory); that counsel deliberately lied in the notion for a new trial and in his brief submitted on the first apeeel, when he stated cr indicated that it was petitioner who had poncealed the facts leading to the "discovery" of the "new evidtaiTT-Uit as a result of counsel's uneruthe with reseect thereto, nr. Paliisr perjured testimony at the hearing on the notion for a new trial, and petiticeer's cwn coerced, peejured testimony at such hearing (supported 'cy Dr. Weinstein's testimony, though in good faith), the appelate court erred in finding that the newly discovered evidence was concealed by petitioner; that if the element of brain damage had been Introduced as evidence at petitioner's first trial; and -had ha been acquitted as a result, later on, at the hearing on the moticn for a new trial, petitioner would not have been =aneuvered into the position where he was coerced to perjure himself, nor would he have found it necessary before the second trial to submit to medical examination (as will be seen, through intimidation) which finally dissipated the so—called newly discovered evidence completely; that had any of the foregoing not occurred, petitioner.would not new be a convicted and sentenced prisoner.

Prior to the hearing on the motion for a new trial, counsel, !ir. Caltmia, inferred that if petitioner would testify that he had not menticeed Dr. Weinsteiefs tame, the aforesaid plane crash, or the possible eeisteece of brain danage to hi= until after the trial on the merits, that there would he good grounds for's. reversal. of petitioner's conviction on appeal. Counsel did not oeenly state this, bet his inferrence was nevertheless obvious to any person of average intelligence. Ceunsel also inferred that such testimony would help block aey attempts by the goverreeet .o claim lack of diligence on the part of petitioner or counsel.

Vith, this in mind, petitioner took the stand at his hearing on_ the motion. -for a new.trials held on June 7, 1964. In short, petitioner testified t•eet he had not disclosed the "existence" of organic brain &nage or an;; thing relating thereto to counsel before his trial on the merits. Petitioner perjured hieself on this sceeeet and on other matters, including an "admission" he had shot hi=self through the chest in a suicide attempt and that he had destroyed certain Army medical records, to indicate he was and•had been miintally ill. Petitioner-alleses that such testi=oey was in every sense of the word coerced testimony and wholly untrue.

• - SEVENTEENTW SPECIFIC ALLEGATION: That petitioner did, at hii hearing on, the motion for a . new trial subsequent to conviction at the first trAil on the merits, give false and-perjured testimony; that such testimony was thee, before, and ever later known by both court—appointed counsel to he false; that petitioner gave such eerjured testimony only after coercion and the series of events already described convinced him he would not be able to obtain justice by enseerins counsel's questions truthfully in oeen court; that petitioner was unlawfully ecerced into pi {s cemeitting suer: perjury; that by counsel's aforementioned actions and tactics, they coeeucted themselves impcnperly as officers Of the court and in violation of the•cae.!oe of ateice.

'71

e&-; ■•••P• • - •

• .....:-.•:•••••

12. The notion for a new trial was denied ca June 8, 1964, and on the same date petitioner was sentenced to the maxieum penalty of ten years on each count of the indictment, both terms ordered to be served ccncurrently, in the custody of the United States Attreney General. Thereupon, petitioner signed papers electing not to begin serving his sentence pending outcome of appeal from conviction. He was remanded to the custody of the United States.11rshal and returned to the 11 Paso County Jail. On or about June 14, 1964, petitioner was taken to the hospital ward of the United States Correctional Institution, La Tema, New Mexico, by ambulance. Petitioner desires to discuss this event in sees detail if and when he is granted a hearing on this petition.

• A day or so later, while still confined at Ia Tuna, counsel (Mr. Calemia) - g

visited petitioner, and, in the presence of Er. Jack Graves, Deputy U.S. Marshal of El Paso,•adrised him ha would be transferred to St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C., if he would sign papers electing to begin serving his sentence; that if he • did so, he would not be returned to the El Paso County Jail nor would he be sent to a penitentiary or any prison until gv and unless his conviction was affirmed on appeal. Petitioner then signed the aforementioned papers. The following day counsel revisited petitioner, and, again, in the presence of Mr. Graves, stated that the arrangenents to have him transferred to St. Elizaeeth's Hospital had "fallen through," but that if petitioner would sign another set of papers electing to beein.serving his sentence pending outcome•of appeal, he would be transferred to tha U.S. Public Health Service Hospital at Fort Werth, Texas. Counsel repeated, upon query by petitioner, that if he did so, he would not be sent to a penitentiary or any prison until and unless his conviction was affirmed on appeal. Petitioner thereupon signed the aforementioned papers.

EISHTEENTH SPECIFIC ALLEGATION: That petitioner, after conviction at his first trial on tne merits, finally signed papers electing to begin serving his sentence pending outccme of appeal, only because ha had been advised by counsel that if he did so he would not be sent to a penitentiary or any prison until and unless his conviction was affirmed on appeal; that counsel gave such advice knowing it g to be misleading, ueworthe, and false; that such action by ccensel constituted a usurpaticn and encroachment on petitioner's rights under tie law existing at that tiee. On June 19, 1964, petitioner was transported by automobile to the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital, Fort Worth, Texas, a hospital and place of confinement reserved primarily for narectice-law offenders, where ha was incarcerated for thirty- three days. -e • • 0-

NINETEENTH SPECIFIC IIIE3ATION: That while confined at -the aforesaid institution, petitioner was eubjeCoted to questioning, involuntarily, about the offense -for.which he stood convicted, the defense raised at his trial, his true defense against the crime charged,. and matters relating -to his appeal from conviction then being prepared; that when petitioner refused to answer some of the questions put to him, he was subjected to duress in that he was told if he did not cooperate in answering 'all questions he would most likely be sant to a penitentiary. Cn July 22, 1964, petitioner was transported by automobile to the United States Penittntiaey, Leavenworth, Kansas, where he remained incarcerated entil February 15, 1966.

.r.

13.

• TWENTIETH SPECI.FIC ALLEGATION: That while confined at the aforesaid institution, petitioner, a federal prisoner then awaiting outcome of appeal from conviction, was subjected to questicning in the prison hospital during the eonthe of July and August 1964 and Noveaber and December 1964 about theecrime for Which he stocd convicted, the defense raised at his trial, his true defense against the crime cheegel,. and matters relating to his appeal from conviction, military service and political views; that he was subjected to such queatiening involuntarily and against his will; that when petitioner refused to answer any aid all of the questions aforesaid, he was subjected to coercion, duress and cruel and unusual punishments; that on one occasion be was stripped naked and eade to lie and sleep on a tile floor for ten days, without just cause; that during such period he was purposefully exposed to view of prison homosexuals and subjected to their ridicule; that during such period he was never' • permitted to warn any part of his body or perform other neceseities of personal hye4ene; at during such period his toiletries flushed once a day and he was never provided with any toilet paper; that, during such period hp was asked every day if he was ready to talk; that during such period he was not furnished an adequate supply of water to drink; that subseauent to the aforedescrihed tan day period, he was removed frcn the prison hospital and placed in solitary confinement in Building v 63 at the penitentiary; that later, in December 1964, petitioner was asked the same questions again, and again he refused to answer them- that as a result he was forcibly administered a dangerous drug, without nedcal elaeinaticn beforehand; that such drug was adminiatered until his physical condition commanded it be stopped; that as a direct result of the administration of such drug, petitioner's life, mental health, and physical rell-teing was placed in jeopardy; that petitioner's letters to his counsel and a physician—consultant to the Walter Reed Army Institute of Researdle complaining in the afcresaid regard, were destroyed in petitioner's presence by air. Charles S. Farris, an associate warded of the penitentiary; that as a result of. the punishments referenced, and soley because of such punishments, petitioner "coOperatei' in answering sore of the questions put to him; that as a consequence of answering certain questions pertaining to his mental status, petitioner revealed evidence which was later used against him at his second trial on the merits; that by the foregoing, in part and as a whole, petitioner was compelled to be a witness against h.-lc:self at such trial-

7 Petitioner's appeal from his first conviction was filed on Novemher 2, 1964 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, New Orleans. It was heard at Houston, Texas, on tecenber 2; 1965, and, by the appelate court's opinion dated ' January 4, 1966;- -petitioner's first` conviction was reversed with instructions that a new trial be granted. e.

• • Seven grounds were raised in support of reversal by court-appointed counsel. Six of them were "Confidently fejected." The seventh ground, contending that a new

trial should have bean granted on account of crucial evidence nearly discovered (that of ' "serious organic brain damage"), was -sustained. •

The court's opinion held that such evidence "-eras unknown to the trial judge -or defense attorneys until after the trial." It held that such evidence was concealed by petitioner "as the result of a dee:teed brain and diseased mind." The cpinion also stated: "The former valiant soldier who had sustained wounds on three occasions in defense of his County had become se ccmpletely altered that he annoeneed himEelf in open court to be a Ccemmnist. He had made one serious effort to kill himself be a shot in the left chest."

• • - •

14. 1WE1'!TreTIEST S?ECIFIC ALLEGATION: That despite petitioner's continuous and repeated requests to counsel and offers to pay costs for the Same, he was never before Or after filing of the appeal, furnished or permitted to see a copy of the appeal brief submitted in his behalf; that the appelate court's opinion vividly indicates such brief was pervaded with a conglomeration of truths, half-truths and outright falsities;that they were known to be such by counsel; that petitioner's cup coerced, perjured testimony at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, and Mr. Rallis' perjured testimony at such hearing, was heavily relied upon by the appelate court in formulating its opinion; that. had other evidence crucial to petitioner's rightful defense not been withheld or suppressed at his trial or at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, it would have been rade available to the appelate court via the sentencing court's record; that had the truth been raised even after petitioner's first conviction, the apmelate court nay very well have reversed his conviction without remanding him for another trial; that by the foregoing the appelata court's reversal pf his first conviction merely paved the way for petitioner's second conviction' and ki,/ present detention.

On February 15, 1966, petitioner was r8leased from Leavenworth Penitentiary and returned to the El Paso County Jail.

On February 25, 1966, petitioner mailed a letter to the court requesting relief of court-appointed counsel and permission to act as his can counsel at all future legal proceedings, until he could make arrangements to retain qealified counsel to represent him. .He received no answer from the court.

On February 28, 1966, counsel ('Mr. Calamia) visited petitioner at the jail and stated he lee making arrangements to have petitioner ccmmitted to a_ Veterans Hospital, that if petitioner would agree to a voluntary commitment the government would dismiss the charges pending against him. Petitioner replied he would agree to this if he could receive assurance the charges would be dropped after the commitment.

' On March 1, 1966, Mr. Calamia, accompanied by a Ur. Escbbar, another El Paso Attorney, who identified himself verbally as being a representative of the Veterans Administration in El Paso, visited petitioner. The substance of this interview was that Wsie coUrael and Mr. Escobar attempted to persuade petitioner to agree to a voluntary commitment to a V.A. hospital ir. lieu of standing trial again. Petitioner advised he would subedit to no commitment 'with charges hanging cver.my head." •

On March 2, 1966, petitioner, as a precaution, wrote and nailed another letter to the court requesting reliet: of counsel and permission to act in his own behalf at any future legal pi-oceedini, until he could make pilga arrangements to retain counsel of his cram choosing. He received no answer from the court.

- On March 7, March 8, and March 14, 1906, counsel visited petitioner, attempting to persuade him to sub it to a commitment to a V.A. hospital. Mr. Calamia stated that the government would not dismiss the, charges against petitioner until after he was . ccmmitted, and petitioner refused to agree to a commitment unless he received some assurance "besides your word" that the charges A.51/ would indeed be dismissed after he did so.

On Karch 16,- 1956, petitioner wrote and nailed a rather lengthy letter to the court which pertained to his situatLon and complaints and what can best be described as a "deal" offered to him tiff the government via court-appointed counsel, and petitioner's response thereto. He received no answer from the court;

•

15.

On March 18, 1965, Mr. Jack Graves, Leputy U.S. Marshal, visited petitioner and attempted to persuade him to submit to a commitment to a V.A. hospital in lieu of standing trial. Petitioner, not receiving any valid assurance that the charges would be dismissed after such commitment, refuoed to agree to do so.

On March 28, 1966, 2r:r. Tony Enriques, reputy U.S. Marshal, attempted for over one hour to persuade petitioner to submit to a voluntary commitment to a V.A. hospital in lieu of standing trial. Petitioner, not receiving any valid assurance that the charges would be dismissed after such commitment, refused to agree to do so.

On April 4,- 1966, petitioner wrote and mailed a letter to Yr. Harry L. Hudspeth, Assistant United States Attorney at Zl Paso, advising him that counsel's further representation of him (petitioner) was without his authorization, and also mentioning that his reply to the government's proposal relayed by counsel ras contained in his letter to the court dated March 16, 1966.

The following day petitioner received answer from Mr. Hudspeth, dated also on April 4, 1966, which advised that relief of counsel was a mattar for the court to decide upon.

- On April 7, 1966, three months after the appelate court's reversal of petitioner's conviction, a hearing was held in which the court again ordered petitioner committed to the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners for a period of psychiatric observatiOn to determine his mental competency to stand trial. At this hearing petitioner brought up the subject of his three letters to the court requesting relief of appointed counsel. When the presiding judge stated he had not received petitioner's letters dated February 25, 1966 and March 2, 1966, petitioner produced carbon copies of these letters and gave them to the court. Petitioner stated that his sister was in the process of making arrangements for him to be represented by qualified counsel, retained at her yo expense; that she had already talked to an attorney concerning such representation.

Thereupon, the judge, the Honorable Dorwin Suttle, instructed that any attorneys retained- by petitioner- or his sister would have to act under the supervision of court—appointed counsel.

It was after these instructions that the court ordered petitioner's . afprementicned commitment. Both counsel were present. When asked by the court if he had any comment to make,,Mr. Calacia replied that under the circumstances he had no comment to make. 713... Rallis also.itated he had no comment to make. The Assistant U.S. Attorney, either Lir. Jaime Boyd or Mr. Harry L. Hudspeth, also stated he had no comment to make when queried by the court. Petitioner then aske3 the court if he could say something in his own behalf. The judge replied, “This court doesn't want to hear anything you have to say, Mr. Nagell,“ or words similar and to that effect. Thereupon, petitioner became angry and stated, "This is a mockery of justice,TM at which time the court ordered the Deputy MS. Marshal to escort petitioner from the courtroom. e., AFWoL 3 /7,:&., •

TX2ITY—SECOND SPF,171-C ALLEGATTON: That petitioner was not allowed to be ' present during a closed hearing,at which natters bearing on his defense, case and custody were discussed by the eforenarned judge, the Assistant United States Attorneys, and court—appointed counsel; that in the light of the ciroi=stances alleged thus far, petitioner should have been permitted ettendeneeal; such hearing; that at the hearing rllich was held in open court;"peiti.C?:er WE.!-, denied the .to.speak in his own behalf, notwithstanding counsel's refusal to speak for him; that

- 16, the foregoing was a usurpation of petiticner's right # to question and protest action which would continue his deteaticn and bar him from a speedy trial, in that petitioner was not earlier, then, or ever later found to be mentally incompetent or incapable of acting or assisting in his cen defense; that the foregoing constitute! an abolition of petitioner's right to seek relief fr.= the very court rhich resconeibility of protecting that right; that the court's cceeitment, on ite aey-- •other motion, was effected in the 10X face of then recent dceueentary evidence furnished the court be competent medical authority that petitioner was mentally competent to stand trial; that by all of the fcregoing, and by evidence which will be produced at any hearing on this petition, yetiticeer's safeguards under the law were flagrantly abused and he was, as a result, denied a speedy trial.

TWENTY-THIRD SPECIFIC ALL-IG:.TIC::: That the court's instructions issued on April 7, 1966, ordering that any attorney retained ty petitioner or his sister would have to act under the supervision of court-sepeinted counsel, was telawful; that such instructions had the ulticate effect of preventing petitioner and his relatives from finding qualifiedeaseetieee-counsel who would accept his case under those-conditions; the% the attorney originally contemelated for retention by petitioner through his relatives W2.3 and is a lawyer'in good standing with the State Bar of Texas, admitted to practice law before the federal bench of the sentencing court; that retaining of such counsel would have been at the expense of petitiener's relatives; that the court's instructions denied petitioner the right to effective legal representation then and ever later, at his second trial en the merits, en aeeeel therefrom, and continuing to the present time.

On April 9, 1966, the date petitioner was to be transported to the U. S. Bedical Center for Federal Prisoners, he barricaded himself in his jail call - and refused to come out. He threatened to kill himself if anyone attempted to 1,17/x force their way in. . •

On April 18, 1966, petitioner cogs out of his cell at the instance cf tr, Jesse Dobb4, Chief United States Marshal for the Western District of Teeee. Patitioe.r alleges certain promises ware made to him by tr. Dobbs, in the name of the ledee of the sentencing court, which were not kept.

On April 19, 1966, t±. Dobbs, in the presents of Deputy U.S. .Marshal Jim Johnsen, stated-substantially thee-fence-in to petitioner: That he had just finished talking to Judge Suttle, who.he said was a longtime friend of his, and the ledge hai told him to tall petitioner the if he would cooperate with the doctors at Springfiell, and subnit to all of the' examinations they requested cf hie, and that if it was determined by them tha2t- petitioner was not mentally Compateet at the time of the - alleged offense, either he would not be oughtto trial, or, if the evidence dictated he should stand trial, he would not be convicted. tr. Dobbs inferred that the judge -would direct a verdict of acquittal under these circumstances. He added that if. petitioner was found to be mentally competent at the time of the alleged c"e-.e, and if he Was convicted, that petitioner would not he sent to prison, be =a, as , Kr. Dobbs expressed it, "ha doesn't feel you belong in prison." 1:r. robb3 bletently inferred petitioner woeld be placed on probation if convicted. ; .0n the same day, April 19, 1966, counsel (Mr. Calemia) visited eetitice:r and requested that petitioner cooperate "fully" with the naafi X01 authorities at Springfield. .Petitioner then remarked to counsel that there was a danger of "yoer • newly discovered evidence welshing into thin air" if er3r.iraticn at

to dfscics4 the' cdstence of brain dansas. 7narauptn, cc=ser stated wrong fcr petitioner to be claced in a 31nt where thepeerneent could "search cee evidence," but thst there'vess noChing he could do abeet it.

17.

-On April 22, 1955, petitions_ entered the U. S. Medical.Center foe Federal Prisoners for the'seccna tine, where he remained eantil July 9, 1955, "Initialay, petitioner refused to undergo, any examinations requested of him by the nedical authorities at Springfield. In a letter to counsel, Mr. Calamie, he mentioned the" tests and eeeeinations the doctors wanted him to take. He referenced the element of organic brain damage, and that any findings in regard thereto would automatically be furnished the United - States Attorney (theaprcsecution). Petitioner wrcte that - this would constitute a search by the government of eeidence raided by the deems:. He indicated, for reasons well kncan to counsel, ttat he did not feel he could safely take the tests under these ccnditicns. The igg emphasis and explanation eetiticner put on this would only add to what mast neceesarlay be a length supporting eaeoranaum. Petitioner also informed the Chief Psychiatrist at the Medical Center of his reasons for not :ranting to submit to the examinations, and that he knew they would reveal negligible, if any, brain damage. .

- Shortly thereafter, petitioner received a letter from counsel which stated that if he did not coocerate with the doctors and take all of the e: nations they requested of him, the court could issue an order that he remain there until hi did.

Thereupon, petitioner agreed to undergo all examinations requested of him by the medical authorities, including an EEO test, Skull X-Rays, and a series of psychological tests.

TaraTf-POMTif SPECIFIC eLLECIATIM That petitioner cooperated in taking a series of psychological tests and an eleetrcencephalographic (iFel) test and Skull X-Rays out of fear that the court would order him to reeaia at the U. S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners until he did; that such fear was based on the contents of the aforesaid letter received frcm counsel; that counsel's letter vat patentiv intimidating and coercive; tha'st as the result of sutmitting to the aforesaid series of psychological tests and the EE3 test, no evidence of train daease wee eliscoeerai; that such finding was included in a report of psychiatric easaination, a copy of ahach was furnished the United States Attorney prosecuting petitioner's case; that such Singing was used as evidence by the prosecution against petitioner at f',-f .his second trial on the merits; that such evidence as instrumental in dissipating the sc-celled "newly discovered evidence" raised by the defense as aef/XXX a crucial issue at the _second .trial-on the merits; that the diseication of such evidence was- a decisive factor in procuring the conviction of petitioner at said trial; that by the foregoing, in part and as a whole, petitioner "Pas comeelled to be a witness against him-self at his second trial on the nerits.

On or-about July 9, 1966,epetitioner deearted the U. S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. He ryas-returned to- El Paso via a -circuitous route, and with s:ee delay. While enroute, and cn a stopover at the 3eear County Jail, San Antonfog, :me, he -eras attacked, struck in the head, and injured without provocation or just cause by Ur. R. F. Caballero, a uniformed deputy sheriff of the aexar County Sheriffs aeearemalt, on duty in the jail. The attack took place on July 11, 1966, and was witnessed by a number of persons not herein identified; later, his injuries were mean-ed. by a number of pereons not herein identified. Petitioner, after the assault end battery, . aforesaid, was then taken to a roam out of view of witnesses and threatened and assaulted and manhandled by M.S. True?, a deputy sheriff of the ame County Sheriffs DePertaent, _then wearing tielliem clothes. Petitioner n'?e thereaftee, en ' the same data, placed in solitary cenfinenent. Ea was refused aeaical ekeainatiea or treatment. Later, the same day, he was ..sited by Aetine Caaef aeeeea aa‘aereaca eee, arshal Jack araves rho ordered retitiener be reamoved to the asilre hczeita" ea:" after petitioner ccnplained of the swelling on his forehead and told hie eaat ha

..1

•

.21744.->ca..:.2.,..1 • ;41.-c.c.. L.

IA; „ea %

.z-•£r

..zr.:,-cz • ---

„

.24.-e--• 4-41,

/.-4...rif..,.... -.A:4122 ......--0-a -.4,1 ....?...,e-.T.,' ...-7-7s.nyrt- ...-21..... ..--07.....1-.L.,-, A4 =.1... 1-4:el.-., ..5.:>4.-..1,.. .44 -.1•-z.....-,..-.

1 .-43 .1.4' 17. -72..... _.--1.::A..;,:- . 44:-' • ..g.....4... .....--.4.-/..,t ■/../.4C ....Z.....-..-.1.-,..4:-...4.,:_. -1,-- ...,.- .,...,.›. ,,,iwzi_

'-'...4 t-4-4. ii. t /9Z:‘• .7-2'.4-7-4.1.3f /i; 174'6 ..4.:-. -44.i.- -4. ..--,... .--.4.- „.,,,,,,,Lleri

A.,_.), „3":6-

r. 1.•

CC 'ne' ye. / /ie.c 3xi efl—y • L.L,Lref,,....

rrtr.,

4,5 E. hf;;•••••....1A-1 7...rit:44-n_

11-4,-r. tz. /-J,;->-

,

•

/4, If I 71

/I)

_er-7 •

. 40.5-

A7, I. . 5.7. A:7;1

.2t-4 . ...,01.0-2 „Ott:2' _Al; 4ALZU.L.... •••••/-

■■•■.• Z•

Z. efel.,,d• • f

•

11 •

.4,41

.."4:;444-•-•C` ftr.;),C

_ • /v-e-r :;:ur-Z3 „4.

_4*Acd.; rd • •

. .

..,{4--1,11 •

• _ _

, 4".••=

• 17.-1 1-••-7-•;e 4 :t:......4,2 Tr- -

- _

.1 la- . ,-4,1

_z:

74-- 74..1

4.77 -se--.1 .1 ,74.4" 444:-/ fo „re??

:745

ir . 41eh,r1 /A. ;,52..1.,„ a 7-772_ .

j-etirl-,C"

41-..-•156 j- -7, -0— J

• .6Z,,;(,,, „h.:, •

.4,6f

C .

A .7' AZ,.

- -V; 41'6 4 it:j, /kg, 24A, r:

7./144 •

/..r..4 .

5.:2

771). le-y_....• ,,,

4

"••••,.. Voi. ‘-;1-7 12,- • ,rs

1;2 -1(.4! r ? • -LI: • 4,7

". -17747 771.1.7." A- 7.„--7

,-"•••••"1":"4,4

4 •-•.4-4,4!.-- 7 7 4424," /1,

7- .7-2,1, A- "T'/ 7Zr 77" f 9 psi "r41'

__Tr• r••••1"' r•Y. "12.- •-• • •' • •

'r —;•27," 77-127 -215Z4

-.1.271-1 w

- -1"'Pr.Z" -f-,"

.■"1,0 `We .^÷1 er-r:T-rt..1" ejx.t.

;1:r t'2227- (2-417-- r* 21' 1-1-- -

"

••• •-.-1-421.

'crr"/ . 7"7"- .C33 4-127;2Ja:-fir ..2-2- r41-77

• tne. 9.4/ erler'wp

7?"..*ifr- „ye-, p, • 77 •• 2-ra•- - 2 • • •

r

/3' 7.$ / :Fr

• .;22-4,4- .7.,-„yr

; Jt,

••••

me. 7 -;.r-s.7,-$1, rnei-

- •

„ 7W-'r'77 /1Z'

T0 •

7.7;27112'

1,4^,/ '1104 771411"±

- Y •

:73 17-ir

crl--"Pvc," - j,s 77,.■04

7.--2.T4-2-2 r

Pd -tiy '776/

•

- rpr, r- ry- ..'""32-./1:2

.

„ '"j14/„ '7"-- I

1 / /• I t • Y"

-if • A- 157774 •

•7-1-",7-....:7 • <7--

33 --.--

_27.•

iv. • "

_ _ ;

•

.

,

„

S , On.".•C --/a- -4 Z:a .2741. a .

,tam.

taretat ,

,

..r.4-r „AL. mac. w

7/. .).:64eii e . 4 i f-a.se..L4-z-;

.224- _->ert_...Z.".; b7.

..terwtit../

-74r.-1.4_,- r- 4.er _4_ .,a _set. z

/

z- - ,

. ...AL, "'to

• 7", 17-', • >" 7,7r,

•

•••:,a - •-• 4-• • 1•••••14-' -2-72-• r4-7A-

-•."'"L'r-r-...t.,..2•- '7:72.4".- •4"* -1-12"""4- -9(-r (E) rr

7-1-.9(4" -7,-..L.,77-s• ?77.77,. 1( 7.7?"-.7

ea-

A- (.9

.

r ,?3 _2,- -I„,r7a,,a,, 47_,2 "1";f:t" 750".""(1,1

.--2,2-•• C." :,

2:'77'.4 s ti7s,-.

1,12.1-ntri „2-74: ; kr/ 14-L."' Er ill -

4V' •

v - 7.1..721-0.-• s ;;,.. 7

-71".."

re2;‹ fr.

.);•V - 4r-- - 4-47 72;

-72•- ; 2-11,2•••

-.•••,,g-o7-1, • .rxr r7:•/ Z217'

" ,

— 96/ ; -2-'11;2.7 . .

6,9 ".r2—xt.

- 2 yet, „...4„:„. 14,

...44.4..e.-544. .2"Za-..#4■,e

r.

(Zs) "oeyeA,7ce

. "

e-L r

.j. "*"...4 4.71- 4...II „CS

- (2.0)

4.44d "jt.-7/711- ;4;4

cr zz,. "- •

t — /

)

7 ; 17 • P7.41

rzr-P-A6-4— _z•-•,--",-"."'-s-t —err.

7 ".ray (6} r--- 64.1 r( ' 142 070' real•sl

4.. „3„, 4-7

4-- —,•••. 4.7 -•••.,--e• •772 -- • ri"." -2.1.1/7;* - • :re -" -11/ rryr..14441.. -er p-e-reAv

÷1( _77//,17 fr:7 /2 -'777

7.;

• • • • (7,-.177,- 7/e: ■-re

7,7•••• -11" 77"-71°' (z) "(.-0„,7 „pr-r-i • ,

7 9 hi 74 7;2

-?•('".1 .72%. "r- /6- 7,` crtnpir2,../7.- rr. ri-or-P" (-2 (r) r

716.. . -- _ - ---- ..<", : ,...-e),-,-4,-- 7*..... 747 -,......4..441." .1..S' 27: ,--,--,-..,... ----- -7.zirt4 'A z: 1r-el •

, .'

—'7 -1.7'="7". --'''''' ''''."'"'".- - -7.---""-- ''-7--".2*/1". r —272:73. -r_z.--.V -711: •—• -4-:.7---ry ,...".• ::,..„7 ----,/ -- • -4-77 -,......... .,.2. ". 4,-...1.4,...," ..-11. ' .....,..1....e kr-i,. ---1",,.../.73 • ...)- yiy.4.--- --F-7------2.• --:- ... .........-. ...r. , -,7„......,• 71::, Z.7:,.../",..„.:_;.... __,,...;4,,,,.....„,..i....„7..z.,.. .14.?,,,A.I. ,..,,,I.,yi, ....,. ...r.....,..4 .,27:4,.. 2.2,..■ . .

•

if .......: ..:.• • ,..-1..... .1..-.-...Iff.:.4.7-- a- 7,-,.. r)--u•-• -77."-- 4-4.. 4:-./.&,-77,- "..-0'," 1-rw-L72."/ 41,-,t" A -,---.4”---4 ----,A--- -1.LZ- - -,//-r-...47 -....r......,

,rrv-trio.--

..,-- --„- =,, - -,."., .7.,-,-, : et 1," .1--4..74-12,

— 1- ---

<..- ..,,-..c.-- --.-.-.--,-" -771.2",y2-'

..i-.........—,........1., . • • • , -..

. _ __ • . .

:---;—.7-- r•-...-71--- ....:r 4:1.7..-,..4.,,,, -,...7,--. A ......„„,.._;,.->„ .:;:i..:....,/-4...;... .7.2,..„.....i.,;;;- .7.7.-7,4,• .,,,-,-...a-.....-44

7e

Am,

• — • -

ffi

:7 "1

•••••,-•-z-,..%-. "

ii•-••••••-r" ry-••• •

?at?.

1.0;/,'"

47- .27 ---,roe

r,,AL •

• :2;•••• -

• • ".--Pyr•-1--;>•' • 4-.0 77"

-42 r-P- r2-7-,•-• • *40 • --7.-4

; •

`.7•73.1 7 "e"--"fl, ,'••••47' x,.11. rar a. .-

-

1.•••

•

_

-3• -7^r s3'"'

• 1 ".4.2"L

.7.73/ • •-•-/ ,?7•,1•• • 4e. r:n* "12"-`2:e

zrsp,

_V7:I elf err-rr

•

rul• :

77,7, ry-

727, •

•-r-2-!"--;•-•" "

-22•• „re., f2-......-...m4(77"-

l•- - • 77-2"

rr-2" I:— rr7"1"" - 07,4 4.4-r-zZ' ,d(r

•

y• IC* 7--/v,' rr,----P" 7 r • /

_ . .4--

--""r 7"4".- -Y/

-7-77-22 ••••••,"0-- ---ra-fry*

61' 3/

rye", •

• 11,-. _z-ftnery

-

-27 '-‘2"-<';›,"'"'"•"?' ti

"1.-1:1,r‘ ••"?-1,41

•

73 7"."

• _2•.”

,• •arr

4:4 -

141 17. e •

•7'4••••"-". 4 r- r" 774- r-r-- --/ 7. ^re' • •:rer.■-• —raLaNse 4-72, 7.7-7.Al

• e

uy :2 - • Ty-7

2r ^71,, 2-0.r ss; ..-•-• 15-r, -0:-0

- r -"Pr • -^.^7-1.7,714.0.-,,,re S 7/ 17.2"" Wrr••• 4.A r"

d

Of

7.7*"4,.v"

'Ar-

:•

r

e".

7-••••41^'"

-17 ••-• _27

2,77; 74.„.../.• 12. ir•v•-rr,

P7-07- :r"---/44P72- 2 'Yrr

•7;

/g 2,4.17 TrAcTee • -r•-•-•. ̀' ' ?-1 •

2,72- •-•7.-p4y-o• • .-J•T•ps--

"7-7 Z-P.3.re 4. —.3.- 77.-- -ry,-- 7.z-•

• "777' • o • • .

?..; • 212-- •-mpp.- .732-• 4.r-a nil .4

7-77 .124,

-Trt. .7'" 7--.^ 777 • ••••• 1,•;•"' )!•-■^S -

_ 77 .,•-•••

?•••••.7-1.-- ^ .-A-7.•*•■1 ",•,-Z.••••,^1:17^.••••...V4 4- —

•

-1-7" 7.7--

- - •T 77.4 7-f

•

• • .."-M

.475? • T±L, "l 1.1.77 .17 ";..y ,77,44.744,1:".... • 17,4 .2

41, ̂?-,1,13 • - 4. •

-„ • 1.••••••.,

.•

"

• •••"-^ ray,' S'.4-.71•••Tore: t.— 1-• "

..•=22 • ' 72-tr• efr.:2 r 17.4Y

;•,/••••'

ifj 2-7.7 .7,11•.:72.nee

7/ I -7771.k. id:P1=7 41-146:11-1-1.

4 e:r. .

',I....,"

•-•,- • 4e. 4' ••••••••••••••••••••••' .4•12,

• '

—7-77

"--17 • ,r.2.7;,•• 7.72zrp-- •--.."1-^••••V.7• ar.

•• *

r.v.,

- Ya..-1•••1, f:27..9..." • 1.;•-•

---,•••7•11

7.5!

"2'77.fr •

--rxr .,.~.p •

.4"-"-` -' r4- 1/r* -X?' r--14-1%

,-1-7--=-r-1: r

-y4y.r ; 77/ r!....% :// -c • , ---. :-. ,:. "'..,,,-.4-r~"- --7..„2-, -K.."' . 'r A' .. . .

7-r.1' 7-̀-'-''F'' el'i l''''"-12...1?1/..r. 4 -'1.-u- A- —.02 77 ,7-- -P-42-- --- --1-12-.-1---:-; -7 4-- /-...Y - 7: ''''''. "---"' /CZ'

▪ _ r,. --rye -

1.2e' (g7/ 47--r'PAZ-" i~YY

41,-/ ra. -72= - 4 A- -

;727 n•- 72. '7X ..2"/: •

••••••-; Tr"

• /if --7"..-p,? =70, z

-1-.21.•••.-",7-7a-"-• •••••'470. fe::-:/ /Tyr -

-7.724 ,rx.r.

r

f. 47/ -)Y1-• --a- --1-7/ r.-;'7114.

- -z r .7 :71: 7,2.7

"'1- rr

-A —I-- ir67 ; ly gar 1,455 7 7P 1.-2/.'711/_il K.! Riff -1.4?&Afj.

• 2- g

- _ -R, -77" _ - f` • - . •

• / •:jc "417 • •

7•••'••••• Jig • iz p- 7.•••,••- 7

- • .244' •-•-3•••• .„1, -0 .1. 4.- . • • :7-•' :2T r4°•• -• Y7T j -7'f1r

••••• re s--

. /

-77,":"-r--2.., X-

•

ra.Arel$•-•

, --„,..--, 7,-,- re- ,,,,,,...-../ , -....,.,_., ,....-..---,......,,...7,..2-,..,,.., /... ,..___.,....„,- 1:-,,,L,.,-- r,,..- _

• •

- 41r- 74."11̀. 4121 ; 7 fILV:5' -6 71r v" -

,-V •

era• 4.72. r .••••,), r

-7.7 - -42. 7. 4-- •

-

7-.)-2- ;

iv- -Q. - 7,--

• r• ••••-•?' 7":"Zr•ry,"- ":"Tne-12-"fr

r'"214-' e' 2' ••-; - Y irgy_ '

L

. • -

er••••• w.'10

L., •

27. rs4-1.,

"4":"..•7'1.,e- 17.7”..&7"1-'7u"'"-ree',.2-4'.'"- 2'Kr

Py •7, 7.7,74-4/'

,r-Prrraf 2'72 • r r"Olr

'3:-71;"

""P"'"/"44's'...2'V^.•*- r7-":

_n:r• - 7...• • A. 44

07 "7 •72 - P.-

/•••••••7' -y "4".r:71 nr .

•-‘2. r•z /••• -tex-f 72,7/

-77 6.1 .r,r• 172.- re,-24- re. 'YAP--•

- 4,.(arv•-• •-•.• 4%717y - • /15 ',ant," f....//5

.-"jX"P--"'?V*4 21:"/".. : a fr-9,7 710- -.7 id? ,07J Wf_

477•5•4•74+-1..., •Lray.4■--3,."■-1,71•Ie -••••-41-94.-rre Zr

--rxr "30.- '1-24er

_272, f

nya.-

pw-- -72, -71-19r-

r 4.2 7--T* -

. _ .

72/272,4-- if fr- .-rmer7- re:r-nrzI

•

r - war ;••,

• ,

„- _115. • 70,.2,170. • 4•24,-.7.,:ar”.• 7•,,,,2•• -7-72'74 ern-/

' tr1zer-7-0-r•ro- rz,r-P1-fro r-, -r.--• - 2 _27 gx-'" 77,7,

17r r 2-7-77"--so-

_7-2r4 -7,y2- g7rIe.4.,_,.1.'•

" -eri 'et '7"1".. rr"-"A".4".. C-7-1,"1-ryr:

X -r-730-77"./"-

- =4-

P4'rr7-rsi,..- Tr" 722.—o-w"

• .172' 77.1, 4,. TT"'

42,1r- -' "•

7.---r?"1""•rirr'17.2-- -rrraP-i'

;Zr . 72'71-fr';.?"' "'.v21-3-4

-

7-.7 --•-•...07/. v7,14.2-3-e: reerls-'

• - • •••"I7 let

? so-r-nte J7 re.7/ 157,777,v - ise_L Ai/

TT.

-rt .1.2"

,

? -

.13 7r1"-

'74/4. r7 -o-a-2.. 07"-7.--7,-;41-TY.

.2n. 1.77,-„v

K.:!"•••ra: t-rnr. ••10.4.•. -7

rrm r;21-6-75.

• ......-01.-v•-•••• ••.•yr.

??';'4"7' r

•

- 7,00-1..,-07,,

•

• •"*". •

K34 7r.., 7 •Vsif..1,-.2 ...71-7,7. „r."72'

r •

'

sh-

•••- r!'" .prztroX '49; •-j..• rr.

rr-e, -,..:42,042.1,-"--0-9tr. ri.,/r.

•

- -r• ;-y''

• 0".t.7,6""

• r,,,.„-.2r 2.yr

- 7r

••7„...,,72-.;// • ;7;1_, • :7/-7; /.- , a

---P-2,7"...-e-r• •

- • nA-S, 12.5

. s7-. • • 7 -r•r-:-_-c--•.•

• •

• 4-ea,4".•••""

-7;74

t. 2,72-

•-; • ••••••••, -••••• 77^"•••11,̀ ..v."--":•-• '..77•7174.4- _

.2.0"" (••••• 77 as4,-"•••-tf7.-2r:44

77-"/ 4fr2 4;4—

117,- • •

Lr '17 H

.. . •,1•,-, 7 ei dir ..-112-1) •-•alp

dir

r- 777.41.- -

•

. zayi ; !

•••:1•st.V.:•:-/ re-'r

. 7 '- • • .

• r..1.44- r-ru,s17.2 • ,...-••••714,-

..-777reele.1-y2" 2-72- .(2.-rdyvp

-Tee L1j c:4-7J' •

• • .

•

•••

-nu ire "T-P-r---.17., refoir•-sw . A

-....,..-.---- —_, ..,- - - ..„- • • ''..- -- --. 2-• • - -.• -----e ;- r -.--,-,.-1-7-4/ • •7•321-7,!...el f., 2"-","7,- ''...4"7". "'..-E,"- -•''-'7•.:"" • •

r 4 -7 6 1 :.5 .4' . ' - .' f'-'Y r,. - -, • - - - ._...,r...• „...-...,,, n,--' 7.4, .. 7.„ 7,e", -,......, , ...2--,--n,-.-0:1,;-7 (..,,--r'.,_'r/l--/•! .-..2r- r ':,-/-”i".: •"■•••."Yr . I -. te • - 7/ - - 7,...:2..1-.r -r-. ,-........„„ ,, 7,-, v..--..;,: -L./ - ;..,-.--. 7,--..p...r./ . yr 7 ...:7,2, .. - ....•-`4,,y, 7.77. 7.4.1-.07" '.

--.7.,-:- 7,-, -:-.,....,7 -.tz er, - „,-„,-„,„/ ---77 ,%', .- - ?....,,-- '7,...,44

, -, ---_-_,- „v.272= ,4„,..,„,„„,...- •,...1,..inv7, ,,,...,:„....437, 3, yt _..,..f.,,.,.,-,:ir s.-2.71,02-, ..- ..4 -,- --. ....

I' •

/- 7 2:- :1, -19,/-(72. ...zy° 1•:2 -.-77` -3 .--2-.0.2,..”-.. --k .no-t-7.-3,4 1 .7.76/ ‘,Pf_it:. -1.,•,--wni- •f/ -....-

-77 .....3,--,-.7•••-- -.2-1---. ..; 2-.0-•.,... --;70-- --7-.•-,m,i,......,,-•• 7-•■• Ow 5( '7:1' 4- r-,..-- .z...--......,-„,„?..- e

'a,..-.•1-1.-tr-',...-..f-'•,'•r..72:-.7- • r•••:+2--,, 7--417---,/v-p-v-- -7---,-,i-.....”.". -•• 7,7-7, --- --r..-0.-4, -IV • or ../.__, _-_,..

- 2.... >e,2-- .1172,4y, 7,...- 7/7 -2.2./.- .....,,-- 7- - •".7.7 -2.2-• --?-.../----7-.2-_,,? re..-f -2....tie-• 2.r.,- mi...,..,......--,-- .--. • mrr..rroe. - •,,. ...

,_-....r.,‘". 7,-......4.--,,,?;k -.--s-- 2-.4.4.." 17-- -r.--_,L,- 1/? 7 -r '1.'42- -1-'..- '??..."›. - --.....7--/- „.....,,___•.?„,...„,....- 7_,,.......,„:„.- --r-t• ,...”-• •

2 -te, ,7.,t -If& 47 Irv' • -r-.4--- ,..,..„7. - ...„7-,....„0,..„..? .7, --,•,... e-4--. -,..-e.r.,•;., ..,-._..• :.-.7..;r-er 1'7-.2. -..2-• -.-....v.."2--/ r -4-2-,--"-•-f-i-ffil• • 9

. . ".-..-/-. -2 -17:--- -7;2.2.--1.-e-,•-•%. -.7.- _27(1. -,-.,, --,7---' ' 7?-1:---744--t--in'n .- r ----,a,- --,--. /..-- -

..).....i,- r -..,--- ..7,-r-1-2.-1 5,1 .24.-.-,,,...r.7 27-,74414.21" ......-- ;4...Ley 1.." -44/ .1...,:-...., •7-- . ..-,y- i 1- . . - — •.r.

It- ..--7--- rx.•••--- 7-7- ---.--,--/?-7f ';71::' ----?-v-e 7"-'-' .....r."-:.2."-"I'...1.1••"".'•-444..'"1- . 47"7"--'"--- '',..... -

/

• r' 7 'r' ??...e- ?', - - -77- - .2,2-. " -----'-- .7;2-- t":"T- -?r0-- -7-'/.2-""-- 7'.:7-7 --?-1"--2 42"- . i • -,-"--.. fr.; -?.?•'-j".••21 -1"7-•*" •V--- •••77.••••-',---f,1/ „3",/,.-.Y. Z 'Pr.17 ,--,-7----..', - - '•??.."-2-.7(7- 1-7-,-;--y,.. .3 .-77-:-..:-..7 -$7.•-t

• . .

( ,-/ 1,77 "1-pef.,-,-,7..."71 •-:7-,...,..7-J,1 -a- ...7.;e- -77-_7-..-.4...:-...- -7 ir. -,....,.,„,..„-zs. 7.- -.- • - -- --

•

oe: pr" :77, --i-e,77:;1 • r

• ?-12-1-2 re-- a, 7-7-5,-/-1- f •

/5/77 74-P-s- 4N-99* If • e f • ■Nr

re-y*7Y--

7- •-!--",-Iy Pr/ - -•

/7,rJ14 "7"7-. 7,70--TTP77". 1-

' ; "

OZ-4•••••-s,

• ' I ■4 4"1";2 yyyy

ef..r

•

3

•••-•4•• •".2`-'<1!-‘,41 ,...Z•Za•L yeteM,--

• •

.'1 „Vs.. .,••••p•‘:1176.

..c7-1•••• •••,:fico-I •"

ea.z

f-eitt-co.-•••-•• je••-ela.d - f. ...r•••••••A!- /VC-

-2-45".e•'••• .

•r<^-, f-,Ifif

. ...44 6-0,-.:.4.- .-e+,, ..",&-z•-4 - -2X-r .il fa ri:••-0-v .4.-e-•••-LL ...et-71....‘,047. ... a •:.„...,-.--3,--• - - .7 .."---., e•77 .....

„t.- ,tr.v..:.4.11. 74lte... -.ie

•,. _ 70 e••• 4,•C. .49 ..,.....

ao.da.i.t yeAL Z7.;":...iad /0141.4.4....

1.!..r.....1.-....-4.4..4_,..,,,.....:.

e•••• . .../-_,:cz,.... .1,4-71-:..7

I" an.4;... .....4.. 14...:7

....L. ..C.41.. / i:„. IV ..,../......AZZ ‘. fi

,17a. 6: j; .2.,;,,,4„..",- ef„e,-,. /.,.

:„..........L......7, ...2.2., /..„....„ .....„...

.1 e .• • a: ILVZ.

..,......,......

a':::.

....e.„.....45 •-i-u-.....€ ...••••••-r-ati (.-1--y.• :.‘e.r...c-- ;/' ..A.-sdr-Z- -•■••14.4.- ....27 ....0•17 ....4--fe..1,ze.,,--7.-).4 ...6.. • • .4.,•••-•'..-._____

....jwym3.‘t , •,...eL.,. ...~.....4.;....c.,,,, ...„•■•,;..e..r.;5„4.1,..v...3j-d ,44-.4.44-.. ...../..C.-.- .4...L. fo..1...-s-...3 _...4-...4_:,/_, . j'...:...-

..?-...)( ..:•-•••••e ...1...a / • .e... - ...ey! ,•::-,•.•••••art.•.••-•••r .,,,,,E- .....7.-L.,....8..: Ei...4--....... /„...,.17,-_-:__ •,_ .....„;,....„ , ..:...__

•.•

• vzr4CU :

•

.},r■ •

—y-0-07-zr sn•-17,- r —30 7--

-77y (rj,

" 9.41 ̂""'"

Z'r.r"

J7.4/ p 4.,"*.• • 7.7 • • • • • 7

r-".`fr",••1" Vvr" -

4,- --"r:"/ +sry7'1/ 1 .. .1,7.2 1.L. A/ •

: • Tv..c "7", •

r ?pr./4;4 42...7,77.„4-; /77.7

-rfdr.'4-/745- '7-4

44%271°.-

ir4v-

;.(1,37, 7-2,-7,-,4 -97 -72.- Ay

1.6.7

71"7" 7 Tr-

• r:14 72- r yi ,vg,p- 2-72-- x•-••1.77,

4.w fr„..71,0_r„4.

‘777.1,7:7Fr 47-7 '74/ I -

4- 7-7"" 7 ;

'7; P:'7';'7:21../ (;'7 71.7 ?7j%

fr

"77'74,

•■•+-0-JL" --1•-rar

r?-/- Tn. rk,‘

/..41.172 -2"V77 ; f''1.-6 -P71::77 71V "21. 3(1.5 ALY11-1 •.;

1r h /

.4...z.- / ..: ..... fr.- ,,...v_..,-,..,---,.....,.- er,:7,..,,,,....;,.. w.........._,..7z, ,:2-- r,-..4,7-rt,/ --1-7'17-r,-' -1r...7.042'" -7-3-0-1,51

f -̀.7..)-,7".-4-C.4-:-- .:;., -742' / f /-7,:r ,r)-L...1-' 4-- ??...:7- -7.-0,,-- ,-.-- .,-.1.--04 ,4 p 6 / i, 4 ^.-9

fl." /

...1,,..? ,,-.: 7,-- ?..-/;_2,,...• .....p. .7...7,- ."--r-,o-fif rP12/ 4...- 4".-,,, ,,,-,-...-3.•-• 4- .,,......"7 —,— ......- .-„,„,-• ....,r- F: ;.---y-,,,,,,-- -7777,-//, .-,-,.2- r..,, 7 ---...• --7-7-• .--.-...2214 7-,-.:14....-,,i, 2.-...• ,.-. ,-,---,,,,e--

77- --:-: -4----/7,- ...rxr.:;.---- r.--,0" -,-72-11-s•--;7:71.-4-,--- •-r.47-- ' mrr.-,,,.- - 4-..-+T I/

.--.......1::, .1......1777....,.... ,•:•-■•-•.77.5.....:,,,, -›.-17.-1.e..fp.e■ ,1-.1q..4.:' 4- .,t.",-,,,,,,e- ....VTZS.. oi .S.' 77.141.1.1,- .2.........7.,,,, 1.

n.p.e • ..,1-7.7.,--;--- -.1.,-- 47-.-7.,...,..,..,- r--d-- jr,-/...-..,----r-r ---. 1,7/ •--,,....7-r-rd ....y.s,r-p"' 2%,...- ,,•-••• rymererve

•E — 5'.15/ -71". 4-r- ":"7".

Yr."' 77-- ,10-A yro-r./ err-ens,'

T'7"*:e. 'It ^71--

-..72.`• • (-117.2.• • -74-•0•"^ k-

_ • .

•

'rra Frnrri .1-=.'717.2=°3 Arr omS 477•De7tO is S`-'Fad 'z17,nst rzolaN

I112:6.-fig.-.,Z-157gra/Z ,

t f r-,t;

71-"A) . ( '21-7;0/ •

a . .

NVOP1S OF. S

,„-

.-172"" 177' 2-1-na-,'7' re0-2,0" 'ro r „

---,- 72: 2772, -7-",./71 /7_2,1,77

• .

4'77. 4, L-71 )17/ 1".7 QZ.1 V !Jae

S5

,71,7 vx1(7-31

?sry4

•

• ,4411--rd 1-r wt? os

- /77112 b 172,77

7.04-

13,->evE y_gweg •

•

•