AFFIDAVIT OF JULIAN HEICKLEN
FEBRUARY 21, 2011


    I, Julian Heicklen, an adult individual, being competent to testify and having first hand knowledge of the facts herein, declares under penalty of perjury that:

    I have a right and a duty to respond to Judge Belvin Perry’s unlawful administrative order NO.2011-03. Judge Belvin Perry, I refuse your offer to contract, in your administrative order NO. 2011-03, because you failed to meet the following demands:

    that you provide factual evidence, not legal opinions, to support the conclusions set fourth in your administrative order NO.2011-03, that informing the Jury of its duty to perform its lawful authority under the constitution, US vs. Dougherty 473F 2nd1113, 1139(1972) to judge the law as well as the facts, is unlawfully influencing the administration of justice, as you presume it to be, in violation of Article V section 2(d) of the Florida Constitution and section 43.26 of the Florida Statues;

    that you provide factual evidence, not legal opinions, to support the conclusions set fourth in your administrative order NO.2011-03, that informing the Jury of its duty to perform its lawful authority under the Constitution, US vs. Dougherty 473F 2nd 1113, 1139(1972) to judge the law as well as the facts, will inhibit, damage, curtail, detrimentally impose upon your responsibility for administrative supervision of the courts within the circuit and to create and maintain an organization capable of effecting the efficient, prompt, and proper administration of justice for the citizens of this State, the chief judge is required to exercise direction, see Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.215(b)(2), (b)(3);

    that you provide factual evidence, not legal opinions, to support the conclusions set fourth in your administrative order NO.2011-03, that informing the jury of its duty to perform its lawful authority, under the constitution, US vs. Daugherty 473F 2nd 1113, 1139(1972) to judge the law as well as the facts, is in violation of section 918.12, Florida Statutes;

    that you provide factual evidence, not legal opinions, to support the conclusions set fourth in your administrative order NO.2011-03, that informing the Jury of its duty to perform its lawful authority, under the constitution, US vs. Daugherty 473F 2nd 1113, 1139(1972) to judge the law as well as the facts, sustains your opinion, that members of the jury who were in possession of FIJA leaflets severely impacted the courts ability to conduct efficient prompt and proper administration of justice in NOBLES VS STATE 769 So. 2d 1063 Fla. 1st DCA 2000;

    that you provide factual evidence, not legal opinions, to support the conclusions set fourth in your administrative order NO.2011-03, that informing the jury of its duty to perform its lawful authority under the constitution , US vs. Daugherty 473F 2nd1113, 1139(1972) to judge the law as well as the facts, interfere with the states compelling interests of the State in the protection of the jury system and that jurors are to take into consideration the compelling interest of the State in the protection of the Jury system, when they render a verdict.

    that you provide evidence, not legal opinions, to support the conclusions set fourth in your administrative order NO.2011-03, that informing the Jury of its duty to perform its lawful authority under the constitution , US vs. Daugherty 473F 2nd 1113, 1139(1972) to judge the law as well as the facts, interfere with the Courts inherent authority to take supervisory and administrative actions necessary to implement its judicial functions.

Furthermore:
    The conclusion set fourth in your Administrative Order NO. 2011-03 dated January 31, 2011, bring into question your legal judgment, and your authority, to properly and fairly administer justice, derived from the people, and limited to the enumeration of the Florida Constitution, as set fourth in article 1 section 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, and United States Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights as set fourth in 1st 4th 5th 6th 7th and 9th Amendments. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

    I demand that you provide evidence of your oath of office. 28 USCS 453.

    I demand that you uphold your oath to the constitution to protect the people. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616

    I demand that you uphold your oath to the constitution and not convert a constitutional right into a crime. Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489.

    I demand that you provide a copy of the lawful valid contract that you presume to have, that I have entered into with you, in order for you to have a valid legal basis upon which to hold me in civil contempt, when I inform the jury of its constitutional duty, on March 11th, 2011, with signs, verbally, or through leaflets distributed, in the courthouse complex. Tacit and/or implied agreements are unenforceable without silence and consent, and otherwise unlawful. U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977)

    I demand that you provide factual evidence regarding where, when, and how jurisdiction over me was acquired without a valid contract.

    I demand that you bring foreword a damaged party, with a verified complaint, stating that informing the jury of its constitutional duty to judge not only the law as well as the facts has harmed them in some way.

    I demand that you provide factual evidence that the courthouse complex does not belong to the people of Orange and Osceola Counties.

    I demand that you provide factual evidence on how far “constructive contempt” extends beyond the courtroom, and where, when and how these powers were attained.

    I demand that you provide factual evidence that your judicial powers extend beyond the limited powers granted to you by the people, threw their consent, and limited to the enumeration of the Florida Constitution and United States Constitution, that allows you to issue orders and decree’s, that are contrary to those documents, higher court rulings and case law.

    I demand that you provide factual evidence of the authority you have to order your opinions as fact with no proof of claim, threaten the people with violence of arrest and incarceration, and why I should not present this abuse of power to the county and state grand jury, seeking an indictment against you and everyone involved in enforcing your order.

    I demand that you provide factual evidence that a non response to this conditional acceptance would relieve the ability of respondent to render compliance. Warner v. Superior Court (1954) 126 Cal. App. 2d 821, 824.

    I demand that you provide factual evidence to show your constructive contempt in order NO. 2011-03 meets all of requirements of a lawful order, which requires an affidavit of fact and not your opinion. C.C.P. § 1211

    I demand that you provide factual evidence that would not consider your constructive contempt, in administrative order NO. 2011-03 to be ambiguous, without responding to all the above demands. .Little v. Superior Court (1968) 260 Cal. App. 2d 311, 318
 
 
NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE, NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT

    You have ten (10) days from the date of your receipt of this Conditional Acceptance to respond on a point-by-point basis, via sworn affidavit, under your full commercial liability, signing under penalty of perjury that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Mere declarations are an insufficient response, as declarations permit lying by omission and hearsay, which no honorable draft may contain. If an extension of time is needed to properly respond to this conditional acceptance, on a point by point basis, it is demanded that you please request such and extension in writing. Failure to respond to this conditional acceptance will be deemed to constitute your complete agreement with the facts stated in this Affidavit and a presumed inability on your part to prove your claim, thereby nullifying your Administrative Order NO. 2011-03 dated January 31, 2011

Date: __________________ Signed: _______________________________
Julian Heicklen
734 Rutland Avenue
Teaneck, NJ

Notary Signature:

_______________________________________
 

Notice:
Use of a Notary on this document does not constitute an adhesion, nor does it alter my status in any manner. The purpose of the notary is verification and identification only and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.

Acknowledgment:
State of : New Jersey
County of: Bergen

On this, the _____ day of _________________, 2010, before me, a notary public, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Julian Heicklen, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that s/he executed the same for the purposes therein contained.