|Posted by Wlasiuk1969@gmail.com on August 8, 2014 at 1:45 PM|
This is a response letter to the third dept in regards to the not so nice letter that Mr. Kruman wrote to the third dept about Peter, David Beers and his lead advocate Randi Case. Mr Kruman explains how much time he spent on this case, which is all lies so Peter had to do a follow up letter defending himself yet again about an attorney who could have cared less about his case and the fact that he has spent 12 years in jail for something he did not do!
Peter M. Wlasiuk 03B0130
Attica Correctional Facility
PO Box 149
Attica, NY 14011
Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Third Judicial Department
PO Box 7288, Capitol Station
Albany, New York 12224-0288
July 23, 2014
RE: People v. Wlasiuk, Appellate Case No. 105548
Reassignment of counsel
Dear Mr. Mayberger,
I am in receipt of Mr. Kruman's letter in which he has conceded to my motion for reassignment of counsel. However, the manner in which he has chosen to articulate himself in the form of this letter has left me of the opinion that I am compelled to further address this matter.
Upon review of the very first paragraph, I am beside myself with the guile of Mr. Kruman and by way of this letter, respectfully request that a future review of his assertions be made, as well as a formal complaint be placed against him.
The mere fact that Mr. Kruman chose to respond to such a sensitive matter by, before first addressing the crux of the matter, felt more of an urgency to insert billable hours into the context, is only indicative of the caliber and thought process of Mr. Kruman. What is further indicative of Mr. Kruman's caliber is, his exaggerated falsehoods now placed before this court once more.
Mr. Kruman has asserted to this court that he has had “7.3 hours of personal or telephone contact with Mr. Wlasiuk,” this is far from the truth. The genesis and necessity to bring forth such a motion stems squarely from the fact that, after over 15 months of representation, Mr. Kruman's involvement regarding this appeal has been nominal. “7.3 hours” of “personal or telephone” contact working on my appeal would have been phenomenal and quite possibly productive, hence alleviating the capability and necessity to bring forth such a motion.
Although Ms. Case, upon being informed of Mr. Kruman's claim of involvement with her consisted of 2.45 hours, met this assertion with denial, I anticipate that an argument of her being an advocate (friend), or interested party would be made in attempt to diminish the validity of her protest however, upon advising investigator Dave Beers of the assertion of 3.45 hours contact had with him, Mr. Beers himself found this assertion to be exaggerated, stating that his involvement of contact with Mr. Kruman regarding my case was more in the neighborhood of an hour and found it particularly odd that Mr. Kruman, within a 15 month span hadn't reached out for him more, and or met with him as Mr. Kruman expressed he would do.
In fact, it had been over a year since Mr. Kruman had spoken with investigator Beers when out of the blue, Investigator Beers received an e-mail from Mr. Kruman stating that he was sending me a letter disclosing the significant list of issues he claimed to have found, intended to meet with me for a personal review, and desired to view the crash site with him. Investigator Beers found the e-mail to be perculiar, but nonetheless welcomed it. However, unbeknownst to Investigator Beers at the time was that, this e-mail was sent only as a result of and directly on the heels of my June 11, 2014, letter to the third department. However, in response to this e-mail, Investigator Beers sent a reply e-mail asking specific questions, Mr. Kruman ignored the e-mail and never responded. As of this juncture, I have never received any such letter from Mr. Kruman and it is my belief that no such letter existed as I believe the whole e-mail thing was a ploy to counter the effects of my allegations to the third department.
In reviewing the motion papers placed before this court in their entirety, as well as my letter of June 11, 2014, I cannot locate any claim made by me that Mr. Kruman is in “Cahoots with Mr. McBride.” On Page 2 of formal motion grounds and reasons for relief were very specific, I never made any specific claim that Mr. Kruman was “in cahoots with Mr. McBride” and have to question if that was a subconscious admission on Mr. Kruman's behalf.
Mr. Kruman speaks of current contact with me consisting of discussions of having to defend himself against aforementioned allegations made by me and rarely the issues in the transcripts that he has uncovered. For Mr. Kruman to make such statements is once again indicative, and quite frankly, substantiates my allegations towards him. Mr. Kruman appears to be of the belief that he does not have to take heed to any question, concern, or allegation had he done so, he would have realized that the crux of my concerns and allegations are that, there was no current contact and hadn't been for quite some months. As to discussing the issues he had uncovered, what are they? The last actual contact had between Mr. Kruman and myself was several months before the motion was brought forth, and at a point where he himself stated that he wasn't even half way through the transcripts, even though he had been in possession of for over seven months. After 10 months of possession of the transcripts, Ms. Case was able to ascertain from Mr. Kruman that he was at the approximate half way mark, yet only 1 month after commencing this motion can make claim that he has read the entire transcripts and is having current conversations with me?
Although it would appear that the end justifies the means, Mr. Kruman's choice to construct a letter that suggests any type of surprise or bewilderment as to my allegations, opinion, or need to bring forth such a motion is just disingenuous. Had Mr. Kruman made any attempt to address and or rectify any of my allegations before it became too late, I am of the opinion that, the necessity for any of this would have been frivolous. But, to remain mute in regards to my requests and allegations, spoke with the most volume.
As for anything being “painfully obvious”, what pain has Mr. Kruman had to endure? A resounding none. The only thing that is painfully obvious is that, 15 months of my life have been wasted by an attorney who cannot blame anyone but himself. So as for terms used such as, incompetent, sabotaging appeals, and hidden agendas, until Mr. Kruman can legitimately explain away why it was his choice to handle my appeal in the manner he did, as far as I am concerned, these interpretations ring the truest.
I apologize to the court for having to burden them with this but as this court should be aware, I was once represented in these matters by another attorney with a hidden agenda by the name of Fredrick J. Neroni, who has since been disbarred decided and entered July 7, 2011 case # D-31-11. It has always been my contention that Mr. Neroni's hidden agenda and actions were a major contributing factor that allowed this wrongful conviction to occur. By the time I was able to bring it to this courts attention, the court was unable, or unwilling to take heed to it. So I am sorry that I felt compelled to bring all of this to the court's attention but, to ignore Mr. Kruman's attempt to shift blame and portray me in an inaccurate light was something that just wouldn't sit well with me. As this court should be aware, I have had several appeals before it and have never had any problems with the previous counsels. Hopefully the assignment of Michael J. Hutter is granted and forthcoming, allowing me to put these lost 15 months behind me and commence a more proper and expedient appeal. If possible, could I please ask for a response and or acknowledgement of this missive.
Peter M. Wlasiuk
cc: Randolf Kruman
Michael J. Hutter