Progress Report: 2011-01-12

Hi Tyranny Fighters:

1. OUR TIME HAS ARRIVED!

On January 11, 2011, I was notified by summons that I have been criminally charged with jury tampering. The moment of truth has arrived. My response to the court is given at the end of this E-mail. The dance begins. Finally we will have the opportunity to inform the jury in the U. S. District Court: Southern District of New York that the judges have routinely lied to it.

This trial could be the defining trial of the decade. We must not blow it. I will represent myself as counsel pro se. However, I am asking all the attorneys and others knowledgable in the law on the Tyranny Fighters mailing list receiving this E-mail to join as co-counsels. Particularly, I hope that the American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association and the American Civil Liberties Union join me to provide advice, guidance and strategy.

I maintain the role as lead counsel, because I can and will say and do things that could disbar any attorney.

In addition, I request that all of you that write for news outlets, have radio shows, and/or blogs will publicize this trial to the hilt. I intend to provide a blow by blow flow of trial information. Be sure to send your material to major news outlets. The rest of you can write letters-to-the editor of your local newspapers and magazines with trial information as it becomes available.

I want this to be the ultimate public trial.

2. LWRN Radio Broadcasts at www.lwrn.net

December 18, 2010

James Cox, FIJA Coordinator for southern Florida tolded the upcoming TSA more about the FIJA outreach in southern Florida

James Babb discussed the TSA Body Scanner Protest at U. S. Airports, December 23, 2010

December 25, 2010

Michael Benoit: LP candidate for US Congress in California’s 52nd District, 2010, discussed the U. S. income tax laws.

January 1, 2011

John Kurtz discussed his CopBlock adventures. I gave a year-end review of activities.

January 8, 2011

Julian discussed the recent anti-TSA outreach with Jim Babb, Nick Hankoff and Scott Olver.

January 15, 2011

John Kotmair will discuss the income tax.

Please visit www.lwrn.net to learn more about Liberty Works Radio Network’s plan for spreading the message of limited government and individual liberty all across the country, and then help us by becoming a member of the LWRN Fellowship.

3. Future Activities

a. James Cox is traveling around Florida organizing and stimulating freedom groups (see letter below).

b. James Cox and I are planning on spreading the message all around the country, if we can raise the money to support us (see letter below).

4. The Non-Trials

A new book by Julian Heicklen discusses his arrest at the Isaiah Wall in Manhattan, NY, in 2007 and the subsequent legal activity. It has been completed and sent to the publisher. It should be available for purchase next week at bookstores. I am planning on a book tour for 2011 and am available for book sales and/or speeches at any conventions. Let me know if your organization is interested.

5. Suggested Books

Michael Badnarik gives a course about the U. S. Constitution using his book “Good to be King.”

Mike Benoit has written a book entitled “Sham and Shame of the Federal Income Tax.” You can purchase it directly from him for five dollars. He will send you a pdf free.

6. Warning

You should know that the Federal Protective Service, and possibly the FBI, is intercepting my E-mails. Another violation of our civil liberties. Be prudent if you write to me. However a U. S. court recently has ruled that If the government wants to see your emails stored by an Internet service provider, they first will have to get a warrant. See:

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/US_Court_Rules_Warrants_Needed_to_Spy_on_Emails_101216

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE

THE PRICE OF JUSTICE IS ETERNAL PUBLICITY

Yours in freedom—Julian

734 Rutland Avenue

Teaneck, NJ 07666

814–880–9308

January 13, 2011

Pro Se Clerk

Room 230

U. S. District Court

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street

New York, NY 10007

Re: United States v. Julian Heicklen, Cr. 1154

Dear Clerk:

On January 11, 2011, at 1:25 pm, I was served with a summons by Officer Martinez and 2 other unidentified Federal Protection Service Officers to appear for a hearing on January 24, 2011, at 10:00 am in Courtroom 15B. This is less than the 20 days usually allowed by this Court. Furthermore a summons should be served by federal marshals, not law enforcement officers. Additionally there are other problems:

1. Was I indicted by a Grand Jury? If not the indictment is not valid. See U. S. Constitution, Amendment V and J. Heicklen “The Non-Trials,” Ch. IV (2011); just published.

2. If I was indicted, I was not informed of any hearing, and thus was denied the opportunity to testify before the Grand Jury. That makes any indictment invalid, as I am entitled to present my information to the Grand Jury as given by FRCrP Rules 7 and 58(b)(1):

Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information

(a) When Used. (1) Felony. An offense (other than criminal contempt) must

be prosecuted by an indictment if it is punishable: (A) by death; or (B)by imprisonment for more than one year.

(2) Misdemeanor. An offense punishable by imprisonment for one year or less may be prosecuted in accordance with Rule

58(b)(1).

58 (b) Pretrial Procedure. (1) Charging Document. The trial of a misdemeanor may proceed on an indictment, information, or complaint. The trial of a petty offense may also proceed on a citation or violation notice.

3. The arraignment was not done in open court in the presence of the defendant, in conflict with FRCrP Rule 10.

Rule 10. Arraignment

(a) In General. An arraignment must be conducted in open court and must consist of:

(1) ensuring that the defendant has a copy of the indictment or information;

(2) reading the indictment or information to the defendant or stating to the defendant the substance of the charge; and then

(3) asking the defendant to plead to the indictment or information.

4. In addition to those technicalities, the summons does not include any deposition from the accuser, so that I do not know the specific incident that is involved. The summons states that there is only one charge, but gives no particulars, including a date, time, location of the incident, names & dates of jurors tampered, & how tampered. This is a violation of FRCrP Rule 3.

Rule 3. The Complaint

The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer.

5. It also is a violation of the U. S. Constitution, Amendment VI, which requires that the accused “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” It also violates FRCrP Rules 43 and 44.

Rule 43. Defendant’s Presence

(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at: the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea; and

Rule 44.

(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the re- turn of the verdict; and (3) sentencing

6. Since I am being charged with a criminal offense, I am entitled to a jury trial as required by the U. S. Constitution, Amendment VI. I will need such a commitment in writing from the trial judge before proceding further.

7. Before I appear for a hearing, I must be notified of what will transpire at the hearing, so I can prepare appropriately to respond and defend myself, as required by Rule 4.

Rule 4. Arrest Warrant or Summons on a Complaint

(b)Form.

(1) Warrant. A warrant must:

(A) contain the defendant’s name or, if it is unknown, a name or description by which the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty;

(B) describe the offense charged in the complaint;

(C) command that the defendant be arrested and brought without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge or,

if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer; and

(D) be signed by a judge.

(2) Summons. A summons must be in the same form as a warrant except that it must require the defendant to appear before a magistrate judge at a stated time and place.Finally Judge Wood threatened me against using my legal right in another case #08 CV 02457, and she recused herself upon my request. She cannot conduct an impartial trial and must be recused from this case.

8. Finally Judge Wood threatened me against using my legal right in another case #08 CV 02457, and she recused herself upon my request. She cannot conduct an impartial trial and must be recused from this case.

I thank the Court for the opportunity to discuss jury nullification in front of a jury in this court. I look forward to the experience.

Sincerely yours,

Julian Heicklen

Defendant

Counsel Pro Se

CC: Rebecca Mermelstein, Assistant U. S. Attorney, S. D. N. Y., U. S. Courthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, NY 10601

Leave a comment ?

17 Comments.

  1. Julian:

    I have to say (with no joy, I assure you) that I remain concerned that you have not retained legal counsel for this matter.

    The reason is that the law has become a confusing morass of idiocy of which the average person will run afoul. The law, once designed to bring justice, has become a minefield. Without retaining an attorney (a person with a map of the field), an individual can and will be blown up.

    Despite my support for you, I fear that the lack of legal counsel will only return a guilty verdict as well as a contempt of court charge, simply because you will be naturally ignorant of the law and its procedures.

    Again, I say this with no joy, but simply from having some experience having to go to court. In the instances where it was necessary, had I not had an attorney to represent me, I’d've botched things up beyond repair.

    It’s unfortunately no longer enough to be in the right in America’s legal system. You must also navigate the processes and procedures, as well as take care to not make things worse through ignorance.

    I fear an ultimate guilty verdict if you have no experienced attorney representing you.

    All the best,

    Bill Stone

  2. Julian:

    Please be advised that having a brief discussion regarding this hearing with Matt D. Harris on Facebook, it appears that your court date is for a pre-trial hearing.

    The purpose of this hearing is not to try your case, but for the prosecutor to present the evidence for your charge. This will be followed at a later time by an arraignment, at which you will enter a plea and a date for trial will be set.

    Please be advised that it is only during the trial that your case should be argued. Doing so at the pre-trial hearing or arraignment will be pointless and probably result in a contempt of court charge.

    I would assume that at the hearing, you will have a limited opportunity to rebut the prosecutor’s evidence for charging you. You should be prepared for failure at this point, since the legal system is actively hostile to jury nullification and the judge will almost certainly find grounds for the charge.

    Please take care not to incur a contempt of court charge at the hearing by arguing anything other than a rebuttal of the evidence presented by the prosecutor.

    Keep in mind that I’m not an attorney and that this advice is based solely on a conversation with Matt Harris regarding this case. I would continue to urge you to retain legal counsel so as to be aware of legal procedure, case law, legal precedence, and a myriad other matters that impact this case.

    You must take care with this. If you’re found guilty, it will have the overall effect of establishing further legal precedence AGAINST jury nullification. That legal precedence will then be used by future judges when other issues regarding jury nullification anywhere in the United States.

    Again, I urge you to retain an attorney so as not to be destroyed by the system before you even go to trial.

    All the best,

    Bill Stone

  3. Julian:

    More info, again based on a conversation with Matt (a paralegal):

    At a pre-trial hearing, your best course of action is to simply and ONLY raise a motion to dismiss on the grounds of not enough evidence. This will almost certainly be denied, but Matt says it can’t hurt. If the judge is on the fence, there may be an opportunity for discussion — but probably not.

    What you should NOT do in a pre-trial hearing is … well, anything else. Sit there, listen politely to the prosecutor, raise the motion, let it fail, and then wait for the arraignment. Don’t try to argue with anyone about anything: it will only piss off the judge because it would be a waste of his/her time at this point in the process. Piss the judge off too much, and he/she may hold you in contempt.

    Again, I’m not an attorney, just someone relaying a paralegal’s perspective. I urge you to retain counsel to guide you through the process.

    All the best,

    Bill Stone

  4. Please note that I am not a paralegal; I am an advocate with education in a related field. Anything I say should not be taken as legal advice. Further, the facts provided herein and to me via facebook are extremely thin, and thus any advice is based solely upon this context and not upon firm factual grounds. Due to this, anything I say can be taken with no more than a grain of salt.

    That said, there are a few things which jumped out at me for various reasons.

    Asking that a judge be recused prior to even coming before said judge is not a good faith act, and will potentially lead to bad will in the court room.

    Given that the defendant was served with a summons and not arrested, it seems unlikely that the charges in this case are particularly serious. In such cases, it is not unknown for a judge to dismiss charges which were based on, in the opinion of the judge, overzealous actions by law enforcement agents.

    Bill, an arraignment would always come before a pre-trial hearing. In the case of very minor infractions, however, the entire procedure may be a single proceding. If you’ve ever had, for example, a court date for a moving violation, you will be familiar with what I am referring to here.

    I understand that some activists may go pro se in order to present a case which an attorney would not be willing to present on the grounds that it would not be in the defendant’s best interests to do so. This is fair, but the activist defendant in such a case should be very clear on what the penalties they face are, and be willing to potentially be subject to the maximum penalty when they make such a choice.

    Quoting law in a filing makes you look silly, every judge and attorney has access to such things, so using a reference is much more efficiency. Some clerk somewhere has to read this. Clerks can be your best friends in terms of getting good information in some circumstances, so keeping them on your good side is sometimes just as valuable as keeping the judge on your good side!

    If 20 days is the norm, you can probably get a continuance if you really need it. I don’t see why you’d need one, though.

    That’s just some of what I noticed while skimming this topic. My advice is to retain counsel with experience in that court, and to listen to them before making any decisions as far as how to procede. This does not mean you are abandoning the possibility of an activist defense, it just means that you will go into the situation… “fully informed.” :)

  5. one word “precedent” please become fully informed to the legal consequences of setting precedent.

  6. I would have liked to have seen Julian first put a copy of the document he was served, which would have allowed everyone to see the *exact* wording/phrasing, before he composed a response to the Clerk of the Court, which I fear has already been mailed.

    Such publication first would have allowed commenters – with or without legal familiarity/background – to probably be even more helpful than William Stone III and mdh have attempted to be, IMO. I do hope that Julian will give serious consideration to the wide viewed longterm effect his letter and planned approach is likely to have on the efforts to make jury nullification understood and utilized.

  7. A good point, Kitty. If there are no legal reasons why Julian should withhold publication I would encourage him to do so.

  8. Julian Heicklen: Nutty Professor | People v. State - pingback on 2011/01/17 at 2:13 am
  9. could you please tell me what exactly happened, what you were doing that they responded to by charging you with jury tampering? just curious. I can do more to promote your case, but everyone keeps asking what the specific circumstances, and I don’t know. eveyrone loves a story, and I don’t want to make one up. please provide? thanks and good luck!
    ps if you don’t to post it online, or email it, feel free to call me (503) 312-5534

  10. Julian, I completely support you in this endeavor and will be conducting a similar exercise of my 1st Amendment right to freely express whatever I please and to share information with whomever I wish. I read your information and your brief and it was well done although more bolstering could have taken place. Please proceed in propria personam. Meaning the flesh lives and the blood flows,you are not a person/corporate legal fiction,rather a natural person, a living entity/child of God. I hope you have an affidavit of truth on file declaring your personal and political status as the Sovereign spoken of in Yick Wo v. Hopkins US 118.356,370 and that you are the beneficiary of the trust and that you are Naming the judge the trustee. The trust is the Preamble to the Constitution and he is bound by his oath of office,and you should tell him that you accept his oath of office,(provided he has one on file dated the day he took office otherwise he has been acting as an imposter) for his cull commercial value/liability, that he is bound to his duty,which is to protect your individual rights and liberties from tresspass and erosion by encroachment by the prosecution/executive branch.This is the sole function of all government period! The following should be of some help to sway opinion and get the attention and respect you deserve:” A statute does not trump the Constitution.”
    People v. Ortiz ( 1995) 32 Cal. APP.4 TH At
    P.292, Fn 2

    Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society
    (1996) 45 Cal. App 4th 163

    ” An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.”
    Brookfield Const. co. v. Stweart , 284 F. supp. 94

    ” An officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in the consequence
    of a breach of any of the duties connected with his/her office…
    The liablity for ANY nonfeasance,misfeasance,and for malfeasance in office is his/her individual,
    not official capacity.”
    70 Am Jur 2d. Sec. 50 VII civil liability
    This is any sworn office holder not just a cop. It covers all 4 branches of government. Yes 4. The 4th is the sovereign people’s grandjury. I am providing you with a man who runs the site http://www.countygrandjury.org his name is William Duff and I will provide his email by his leave it is as follows: wdd@williamduff.com he is a very valuable source of information. In addition to this I want to provide you with a web site that is very useful. It is http://www.freedom-school.com . My email is philsndy@gmail.com please contact me if I can be of assistance.
    Respectfully in truth and liberty,

    Phillip Sandy, Patriot, Oath Keeper 3%er, One of the People of the Preamble and the Sovereign spoken of in Yick Wo v. Hopkins US 118.356,370
    “I reserve the right to govern myself.”
    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

  11. I noticed a few comments on precedent, the stare decisis is usually adhered to so it is wise to rely on SCOTUS and Constitutional Law. See the following citations:YOUR HONOR:

    I’m Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, here before this honorable court.

    I am an unenfranchised common law freeman. I live at the common law.

    (Counselor at Law addon: “I’m not a participant in any tautine schemes,

    of limited liability on a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest

    requiring me to participate in these illegal corporate ponzi schemes.” )

    I’m just your average “Joe”…., Joe Blow from Kokomo, down on the street.

    and I live, work, and travel at the common law. ” )

    (Counselor at Law / Right to Work addon: ” A workman is worthy of his

    hire, and I have a Right to Work and Contract MY Labor and MY skill

    and MY Time of Life as I see FIT. Not as some 3rd party arbitrary

    and coprecious BAR Association sees fit.” )

    I am standing as my own “a-counsel”. I have appointed myself as my own

    attorney and I am ready to procede in my administrative and procedural matters.

    At this time , your honor, may it please the court, I motion for dismissal with

    predjudice, for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted.

    (when the Judge asks “why”… give your arguements, as follows…)

    U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2: (The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):

    “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”

    (If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.)United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973):

    Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent

    1. It must be proven that you are the party.

    2. It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.

    3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.

    Willfulness – “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”

    I submit your Honor, I couldn’t have done an evil task, because I was totally following the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. I would submit that Prosecution Counsel’s burden is to prove I did willfully and knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law, namely, to get the license. And I would submit that, and specificly proclude that, he cannot perform his task.

    Byars v. United States 273USR 28 (1927):

    “Constitutional provisions, where the security of a person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any stealth encroachment therein.

    16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:

    “Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”

    And I Am That Beneficiary !!!

    WHEREFORE your Honor, I pray before this Honorable Court for your Just and Lawful relief. I ask that you dismiss this case with predjudice, for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted, and I pray the court for my just relief for having to defend this badly frivilous and spurious case. I have a proposed order, which outlines my costs, in my brief, your Honor, may it please the court.

    (now sit down, shut up and be humble ! )

    Respectfully in truth and liberty,

    Phillip Sandy

  12. Julian,here is a response from Bill Thornton,one of the nation’s foremost Constitutional Law Scholars in response to your situation that I advised him of:

    Bill Thornton to me, DrLaura, dylan, Ryan, Downsizer, Michelle, Melissa, Mathias, management, wdd, beverly, Eric, Eugene, Terry, TJ, tony, sam, stephaniesandy., No, elizabeth, andrius, KaBoom, Chris, CHAD
    show details 1:40 AM (4 hours ago)

    BODY OF TEXT:
    This is a settled issue. There have been identical past cases in which the Supreme Court said that passing out non-specific information was not jury tampering. Just do the research. The cases are there.

    Also, he should do a counterclaim against his accusers and the court. The counterclaim should be in a court of record (which is not just a court that keeps a record, but outranks the Supreme Court). If you wish to email Bill his email is thus: x@1215.org his website is http://www.1215.org a wealth of useful info.
    Please make use of this man’s generosity,as it is rare that he offers personal commentary…

Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>