UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN  DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Action, File Number llll 

Julian Heicklen
Plaintiff  

Amended Complaint:
v.
Case # 08 CV 02457
                                           
Jason Toala, Police Officer

Shield 27613
Patrol Boro Manhattan South Task Force
                
John Does 1, 2, and 3

Arresting Police Officers
Patrol Boro Manhattan South Task Force

        
Robert Kelley
New York City Police Commissioner
        
William C. Thompson, Jr.
Comptroller of New York City

    
Michael A. Cardozo
Corporation Counsel of New York City

Defendants
    
PETITION  FOR  DAMAGES  FOR  FALSE  ARREST

_____________________
Julian Heicklen, Plaintiff
Counsel, pro se
734 Rutland Avenue
Teaneck, NJ 07666
Telephone: 814-880-9308

_________________
Date

CONTENTS
Page
A. STANDINGS..................................................................................................................................................................................3

B. JURISDICTION..............................................................................................................................................................................4

C. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.......................................................................................................................................................5

D. THE ARREST................................................................................................................................................................................6

E. THE ARRAIGNMENT..................................................................................................................................................................9

F. POLICE ALLEGATIONS............................................................................................................................................................13

G. THE NON-TRIAL........................................................................................................................................................................15

H. DENIABILITY.............................................................................................................................................................................21

I. CLAIMS..........................................................................................................................................................................................22

J. CAUSES OF ACTION..................................................................................................................................................................24

K. DAMAGES...................................................................................................................................................................................28

L. REMEDIES SOUGHT..................................................................................................................................................................29

M. MOTION FOR JURY TRIAL.....................................................................................................................................................31

N. SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS....................................................................................................................................................31

O. SEPARATE  DOCUMENTS  ENCLOSED...............................................................................................................................31

P. ADDRESSES OF DEFENDANTS..............................................................................................................................................32

Q. EXHIBITS.....................................................................................................................................................................................33

        
A.  STANDINGS  

1. Plaintiff is the aggrieved party who is seeking redress.  He is acting as counsel pro se.
2. Jason Toala and John Does 1, 2, & 3 were the arresting officers for the illegal arrest (kidnapping) and theft of demonstration signs.  They are directly culpable.
3. Robert Kelley is the New York City Police Commissioner. It is unlikely that the arresting officers would have tried to stop the demonstration without orders from him or at least his consent.  Thus he probably is an accomplice in the incident.
4. William C. Thompson, Jr. is the Comptroller of New York City, and Michael A. Cardozo is the Corporation Counsel of New York City.  They represent New York City and will be responsible for paying the damages and subject to any other orders from the Court., as stated in the General Municipal Law of New York City. Chapter 24 of the Consolidated Laws, Article 4, #50-k, section 2 states:

"2. At the request of the employee and upon compliance by the employee with the  provisions of subdivision four of this section, the city shall provide for the defense of an  employee of any agency in any civil action or proceeding in any state or federal court  including actions under sections nineteen hundred eighty-one through nineteen hundred  eighty-eight of title forty-two of the United States code arising out of any alleged act or  omission which the corporation counsel finds occurred while the employee was acting  within the scope of his public employment and in the discharge of his duties and was not  in violation of any rule or regulation of his agency at the time the alleged act or omission  occurred. This duty to provide for a defense shall not arise where such civil action or proceeding is brought by or on behalf of the city or state or an agency of either."

B.  JURISDICTION

5. Jurisdiction rules are listed in FEDERAL RULES  OF  CIVIL PROCEDURE  WITH FORMS  DECEMBER 1, 2006 .
6. Rule 27. "Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal  (a) BEFORE ACTION.  (1) Petition. A person who desires to perpetuate testimony regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the  United States may file a verified petition in the United States  district court in the district of the residence of any expected  adverse party. "
7. Form 2. Allegation of Jurisdiction  (a) Jurisdiction founded on diversity of citizenship and amount.  Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New Jersey. All Defendants are government officials of New York City  (b) Jurisdiction founded on the existence of  Federal questions.  The action arises under the Constitution of the United States,  Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power... To Constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;" and Article IIl, Sections 1 and 2.
8. 12 U. S. C §1983 states in part:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action of law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,..."

9. The residence of none of the Defendants is known to Plaintiff.  However, the litigation is not directed against any of the Defendants as private citizens, but in their professional capacities.  All Defendants have offices in New York County.

10. Plaintiff has exhausted all avenues of relief in the New York Courts and with the Comptroller of the City of New York.

C. CONSTITUTIONAL  ISSUES

11. Several U. S. Constitution issues are involved.  These are:
12. U. S. Constitution, Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the right of the people peaceably to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
13.  U. S. Constitution, Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...:"
14.  U. S. Constitution, Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law;"
15.  U. S. Constitution, Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed;..."
16.  U. S. Constitution, Amendment VII: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,..."

17.  U. S. Constitution, Amendment VIII: "Excessive bail shall not be required,..."
18. U. S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
19.  U. S Constitution, Article I, Section 9..."The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety require it."

D.  THE  ARREST
    
20. On April 17, 2007, at approximately noon, 25 rabbis and about 50-100 other demonstrators gathered in front of the Isaiah Gate across from the United Nations building in Manhattan to protest the visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

21.  The rabbis were wearing religious garments.  A few of them gave short speeches.  All 25 of them then sat on the steps closest to the street and blocked pedestrian traffic.
22. The other demonstrators were carrying signs, blowing rams€™ horns, and using electronic audio equipment.  The police did not object to any of this.
23.  The police told the rabbis that they would have to move or be arrested.  The rabbis refused to move.
24. The police asked the other demonstrators to move back, so as not to interfere with the arrests.  This was a reasonable request, and the demonstrators proceeded to move back.  However, the police kept moving the demonstrators further and further back until they were 35 feet behind the nearest rabbi.
25. The Isaiah wall is curved, so that the demonstrators were moved so far back that they could no longer be seen from the street.  It was apparent to Plaintiff that the intent of the police was to disband the demonstration.
26. Plaintiff alone moved only 13 feet behind the closest rabbi and was visible from the street.  He stood next to the guard rail, which was 8 feet from the Isaiah wall, holding two signs, both of which read: "STOP HATING JEWS". He was silent and made no hand or foot gestures.  There was no interference with pedestrian traffic.  The police raised no objection.
27.  After all of the rabbis were arrested, there was no one in front of Plaintiff for at least 40 feet or behind him for at least 22 feet.  He was standing alone next to the chain railing 8 feet from the Isaiah wall.  The police approached him and asked him to move back with the other demonstrators, 22 feet behind him.  Plaintiff refused saying that he was not bothering anyone.  The police repeated that Plaintiff must move back to the other demonstrators or be arrested.  Plaintiff insisted that he had the right to be there, and that an arrest could result in a law suit.
28. The police then put Plaintiff under arrest and reached for him.  Plaintiff went limp.  The police did not catch him, and he fell to the ground , lay still, and made no sound.
29. A woman approached Plaintiff, introduced herself as a nurse, and asked if he was alright.  Plaintiff did not answer at first.  She pleaded with the police that Plaintiff was an old man, and that they should not arrest him.  After some pleading, the police agreed on the condition that Plaintiff would leave the location and join the other demonstrators.  Plaintiff sat up, assured the woman that he was OK, and stood up.
30. Plaintiff told the police that he would not leave, that he had a permit to be there.  Plaintiff read to the police officers the First Amendment from a pocket U. S. Constitution.
31. The police said that Plaintiff would be arrested.  Plaintiff asked for what reason, and was told for refusing to obey the order of a law enforcement officer.  No mention was made of disorderly conduct or any of the specific items of disorderly conduct (NY Penal Code §240.20).
32.  Plaintiff went limp and fell to the ground.  From then until in his cell at police headquarters for some time, Plaintiff did not move a muscle or utter any sound.
33. When on the ground, the police lifted and dragged Plaintiff to the police wagon, carried him into the wagon, and placed him into a holding cell at police headquarters.  Plaintiff did not move a muscle or utter any sound until approached by medics from the fire department.
34. As far as Plaintiff could tell, no-one except the police officers were anywhere in his vicinity at the time of the confrontation and arrest.  Plaintiff was unaware that anyone else was arrested together with him.
35.  An improper arrest often is called euphemistically a false arrest by law enforcement personnel.  False means it did not occur.  This was no false arrest.  It was real.  Plaintiff spent 22 hours in confinement.
36. On April 19, 2007, Plaintiff went to Property Control at Police Headquarters Security to reclaim his property.  Sergeant Rufulo and Police officer Privleau returned his cell phone, but claimed that they did not have his demonstration signs or any record of them.
37.  This arrest might be called an illegal arrest.  To the Plaintiff, an illegal arrest would mean that the police officers thought that they were acting legally, but were mistaken.  No such doubt existed here, since Plaintiff read to the officers the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.  The officers knew that they were breaking the law, but did not care.  
38. Thus this act of confinement was a kidnapping, plain and simple.  It was accompanied by theft, since Plaintiff€™s signs were confiscated and not returned.
39. Furthermore the police were involved in reckless endangerment when they ordered Plaintiff to move into a crowd with signs, rams' horns, and electronic equipment.
40. Also the police were ordering Plaintiff to participate in a crime, since the other demonstrators were blocking pedestrian traffic.

E.  THE  ARRAIGNMENT

41. The arraignment occurred on April 18, 2007, in the Criminal Court of Manhattan.
42.  Neither the arraignment magistrate nor the prosecuting assistant district attorney were identified to the Plaintiff (Defendant in the criminal trial) or to any of the other arrestees in keeping with the procedures of a court of inquisition.
43. About 15 other arrestees were arraigned before Plaintiff.  All of them, except for one man, pleaded guilty.
44. The exceptional arrestee pleaded not guilty several times, even though the Court would not accept this plea and kept asking him to reconsider.  Finally one of the court stenographers yelled: "Plead guilty.  You know that you are guilty."  At this point the arrestee's court-appointed counsel pleaded guilty for the arrestee.  So much for the presumption of innocence.
45. Another arrestee was a 19-year old black woman.  She was eating dinner at a restaurant when she was arrested and strip searched.  Cocaine was found in her brassiere.  It did not occur to anyone to inquire if the police had a search warrant.  Apparently the quaint custom of search warrants is discarded  ancient English law.
46. When Plaintiff's turn occurred, the magistrate first asked if he had attended school and, if so, what was his highest degree.  Plaintiff, who at the time was 75 years old, responded that he had not attended school recently, but that his highest degree was a Ph. D. in chemistry, and that he was a professor of chemistry.
47.  Plaintiff still does not understand why this information was any of the magistrate's business.
 48. Plaintiff was then asked if he had legal counsel. Plaintiff replied that he would be acting as counsel pro se.  He said that he had tried about 40 cases, but none in New York state.  He said that he was unaware of New York laws or court procedures and that he could use an advisory counsel.

49.  At that point the Court appointed Edward McCarthy, Supervising Attorney, Criminal Defense Division, The Legal Aid Society, 100 Centre Street, Room 511, New York, NY 10013 (Telephone: 212-571-5930) as temporary advisory counsel.  Coincidentally, the Court had already positioned Mr. McCarthy at Plaintiff's side in the dock.

50. Plaintiff then was advised by the magistrate that before he pleaded, the prosecuting assistant district attorney had a plea bargain.
51. The prosecuting assistant district attorney offered to settle for time served (22 hours), if Plaintiff would plead guilty.
52. Plaintiff replied: "If I was willing to accept that, I would not have bothered to be arrested in the first place."
53. The magistrate asked: "Are you pleading not guilty?"  She then warned (threatened) Plaintiff that, if so, he could go to prison.
54.  Plaintiff acknowledged that he was aware that a prison sentence was possible.  He then pleaded not guilty, demanded indictment by a Grand Jury, and asked for a jury trial.
55. After the stunned Court recovered, the magistrate did not object to the plea or the demand for indictment by a Grand Jury.  She had no idea of what the charges were, since she had to ask the prosecuting assistant district attorney if Plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial.  The answer was affirmative.
56. Plaintiff was told that he must report for a court hearing on June 20, 2007, and submit all informations before May 17, 2007.  Plaintiff asked the purpose of the hearing, but his question was ignored.  No written ORDER was issued to appear for the hearing date of June 20, 2007.
57. Plaintiff  was handed the unsigned arraignment form with the police charges and released after 22 hours of confinement.
58.  Plaintiff was not committed at arraignment nor at any other time.
59.  Plaintiff has not been indicted nor informed that any Grand Jury has been convened.
60. A few days later, Plaintiff was contacted by Simone Levine, an attorney at The Legal Aid Society, and informed that the prosecuting assistant district attorney was willing to drop the charges and dismiss the case, if Plaintiff would agree to not get arrested in the next 6 months and not sue the police.  Plaintiff declined.
61. It is not clear to Plaintiff why the prosecuting assistant Distort Attorney did not contact Plaintiff directly.  It seems to Plaintiff that it is improper for the District Attorney's office to be conducting negotiations with anyone but the Plaintiff.
62. The function of the district attorney is to prosecute crime, not to protect it.  He should be prosecuting the police, not protecting them.  By protecting them, the prosecuting assistant district attorney is an accessory to the crimes of kidnapping and theft.  He should be dismissed from his position and disbarred.

F.  POLICE  ALLEGATIONS

63. In the arrest report (Exhibit 1), the police allege that:

"...the defendant intentionally attempted to prevent a police officer and peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself and another person; the defendant intentionally prevented and attempted to prevent a public servant from performing an official function by intimidation, physical force and interference and by means of an independently unlawful act; the defendant, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and recklessly creating a risk thereof, obstructing vehicular and pedestrian traffic; and the defendant, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and recklessly creating a risk thereof, congregated in a public place with other persons and refused to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse."

64. Plaintiff admits to refusing to comply with an order of the police, because it was unlawful.  The other allegations were never made to Plaintiff at the time of arrest, even though Plaintiff asked for the reasons for arrest.  They were manufactured later.  All of them are untrue.
65. At the bottom of the form signed by Deponent Jason Toala, there is a statement that reads: "False statements made herein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law."  Thus Deponent Toala will be guilty of perjury, if he repeats these statements under oath,  along with the other crimes of kidnapping and theft.
66.  Let us consider these allegations individually:
67. Plaintiff never attempted to prevent an authorized arrest of himself and another person.  There was no other person placed under arrest or even in the vicinity at the time of arrest.  Plaintiff was standing still and holding two signs when he was placed under arrest.  After he was placed under arrest he went limp and fell to the ground, because the police officers failed to catch him.
68. There was no intimidation, physical force and interference after the arrest, because Plaintiff was lying on the ground completely silent and motionless.  He was carried and dragged to the patrol wagon.  He did not resist handcuffing, which was readily effected.
69. The Plaintiff did not cause public inconvenience, annoyance and alarm.  At the time of the arrest, he was standing still and alone displaying two signs, but uttering no sounds or making any facial, arm, or leg motions.  In any case, actions after the arrest is made cannot be a cause for arrest.
70. He was next to the guard rail, 8 feet from the wall, 22 feet in front of the other demonstrators, and at least 40 feet from the street.  He could not have been obstructing either vehicular or pedestrian traffic.  Pedestrians were passing by him routinely near the wall 8 feet away.
71. Plaintiff was not congregating with other people.  In fact that was the bone of contention.  The police ordered him to congregate with the others, but Plaintiff refused because the order was a violation of his constitutional right to peaceful protest, would have recklessly endangered the Plaintiff, and would have made him a participant in a crime (blocking pedestrian traffic).
72. Plaintiff was not ordered to disperse.  In fact it would have been impossible to do so, since he was standing alone.  He was ordered to congregate.

G.  THE  NON-TRIAL
    
73. Plaintiff was assigned orally a court hearing date for June 20, 2007, in the Criminal Court of Manhattan.  He agreed to appear at the hearing. [See "Reproduced Record of New York State Supreme Court, New York County-Civil Branch Re: Manhattan Criminal Court Case Docket #2007-NY029913 People of New York against Julian Heicklen"  (Hereafter referred to as "Reproduced Record") Tab I, Exhibit J, p. 36.]

74. Plaintiff filed several motions (Reproduced Record, Tab I, Exhibits G-T, pp. 28-100), including a motion for a Grand Jury hearing (Exhibits K and L, pp. 39 and 42), a  motion for a jury trial (Exhibit M, p. 50), a motion for a habeas corpus hearing (Exhibit O, p. 57) , and a motion for an explanation of the purpose of the court date (Exhibit J, p. 36).  The Court did not respond to any of the motions.
75. Plaintiff notified the Court by certified mail on June  11, 2007, that he would not appear at the hearing of June 20, 2007 (Reproduced Record, Tab I, Exhibit D, p. 21).
76. On June 20, 2007, Plaintiff was informed by a telephone call from Kenny Fay from the Clerk of Court that the Court issued a bench warrant for his arrest, because he did not appear for the court date.
77. About a week later, Plaintiff received a telephone call from Police Detective John Anasa, Shield #4740 (Telephone 516-635-9013) informing him of the bench warrant and asking him to come to a police station to clear the warrant.  Plaintiff did not comply.
78. Plaintiff has never received nor seen a written document or the name of the issuing judge, if there even is one, indicating that an arrest warrant was issued.
79. It is apparent from the following that there is no intent to enforce the arrest warrant.  Its function solely is to harass Plaintiff and make it difficult to obtain compensation from the police.
80. As far as Plaintiff knows, extradition papers have not been filed with the state of New Jersey.  Plaintiff has never been contacted by the New Jersey police or sheriffs.
81. Plaintiff frequently visits Manhattan and makes it a point to talk with police officers.  None has ever mentioned the warrant.
82. Plaintiff has filed papers in person twice in the New York State Supreme Court New York County-Civil Branch and appeared twice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York-Appellate Division: First Department.  His identity was known to the clerks, but the subject of the warrant was never broached.
83. On his second visit to the Supreme Court New York County-Civil Branch, Plaintiff informed the Clerk that he was pursuing a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) because there was a bench warrant for his arrest.  Plaintiff was advised by the Clerk to drop the RJI and stay out of New York State.  No attempt was made to effect an arrest.
84. Plaintiff has demonstrated several times in front of the New York Times buildings displaying signs reading: "STOP  HATING  JEWS" and "N Y TIMES HATES JEWS."  He also distributes literature criticizing the NY Times.
85. On the first occasion at the New York Times, a security guard ordered Plaintiff to move away from the wall.  Plaintiff ignored the guard, who then called the police in Plaintiff's presence.
86. Plaintiff continued his demonstration for about another hour, but the police did not appear.
87. On subsequent appearances, Plaintiff has engaged the police and the outside NY times security guard in conversation.  No action by the police.
88. The Criminal Court of Manhattan is trying to protect the police officers in their criminal activity, and thus is an accessory to their crimes.
89.  Plaintiff filed a motion to quash the bench arrest warrant (Reproduced Record, Tab I, Exhibit T, p. 72).  The Court did not respond.
90. On June 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal and a filing fee of $210.00 with the Criminal Court of Manhattan.  By  two (2) telephone calls from the Clerk's office, Plaintiff was notified that all appeals must be filed with the Supreme Court.  In the first call, Plaintiff was told that the the $210.00 would be returned by mail.  In the second call, he was notified that the $210.00 would only be returned when he appeared in court.
91. Plaintiff filed a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County-Civil Branch on July 10, 2007, (Reproduced Record, Tab I) moving for dismissal of the case and quashing the bench warrant on the grounds that he was being denied a fair and speedy trial. Fifteen (15) separate reasons were given in support of these contentions  (Reproduced Record, Tab I, Exhibit A, p. 1-10).  
92. The Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County-Civil Branch said that he would examine the RJI to see if it was proper.  Plaintiff was asked to return the next day, but was unable to return until July 17, 2007.  
93. Plaintiff returned on July 17, 2007.  He then personally delivered the RJI to the secretary of Judge Edward Lehner, Room 252, Supreme Court of the State of New York. New York County-Civil Branch at 11:45 am.  Plaintiff was informed by the secretary that Judge Lehner was at a funeral and would not return until 2:15 pm.  Plaintiff left the RJI with the secretary and left for lunch.
94. Plaintiff returned to Room 252 at 2:00 pm.  The room was locked.  It was opened at 2:15 pm, and Plaintiff was notified by a court officer that the judge had just returned.  
95. A number of people, including Plaintiff, were admitted to the court room, where Judge Lehner presided over another case commencing at 2:30 pm.
96. At about 3:00 pm a court order was given to Plaintiff by a court officer (Exhibit 2 and Supreme Court ORDER-TAB II of Reproduced Record).
97. Obviously Judge Lehner had failed to read the 100-page RJI , but denied the RJI on July 17, 2007, on the grounds that "...as petitioner has set forth no basis for the relief sought." (Exhibit 2 and Reproduced Record Tab II).  
98. Plaintiff filed a PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County-Civil Branch where the fifteen (15) reasons were repeated (Reproduced Record Tab III).  The petition was forwarded by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York  County-Civil Branch to the Supreme Court of the State of New York-Appellate Division: First Department, which returned it to the Plaintiff.  
99. A NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed with the the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County County-Civil Branch on August 11, 2007 (Reproduced Record, Tab IV).
100. Plaintiff tried to file a LEAVE TO APPEAL OF REFUSAL OF THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION (RJI) to the Supreme Court of the State of New York-Appellate Division: First Department on August 16, 2007, but it was rejected because it was necessary to file a motion for leave to appeal first.
101. Plaintiff filed a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL with the Supreme Court of the State of New York-Appellate Division: First Department on August 27, 2007, along with the filing fee of $45.00.  A response date of September 26, 2007, and time of 10:00 am was requested.  
102. Plaintiff appeared at the Court on September 26, 2007, at 9:45 am, but was informed by the Clerk's office that he was not permitted to attend the hearing, and that he would be notified by mail of the Court's decision in 2-4 weeks.  Plaintiff left a self-addressed envelope for the reply.  No reply was received by November 13, 2007.
103. On November 27, 2007, the Supreme Court of the State of NY, Appellate Division: First Department denied Plaintiff's application pursuant to CPLR 5704(a) (Exhibit 3).  
104. CPLR 5704(a) states:

    "§5704. Review of ex parte orders. (a) By appellate division. The appellate division or a justice thereof may vacate or modify any order granted without  notice to the adverse party by any court or a judge thereof from which an appeal would lie to such appellate division;  and the appellate division may grant any order or provisional remedy applied for  without notice to the adverse party and refused by any court or a judge thereof from which an appeal would lie to such appellate division."

105. To the Plaintiff, CPLR 5704(a) means that the appellate division: "may vacate or modify any order granted without notice to the adverse party..."
106.  Therefore the appellate division denied hearing the motion for no valid reason.
107. Plaintiff has not filed an appeal with the State of New York Court of Appeals, because two lower courts have denied relief for invalid reasons.
108. Furthermore CPLR 5611 states, in part:

"If the appellate division disposes of all the issues in the action  its  order  shall  be  considered  a  final one, and a subsequent appeal may be taken only from that order and not from any judgment or order entered pursuant to it."

109. There is no reason to believe that the State of New York Court of Appeals will behave any differently than the other New York State courts.
110.  Plaintiff has submitted four (4) separate claims with the Comptroller of the City of New York.  These are:

2007PI018759 & 2007PD018761: Claim against NY City police, mailed June 27, 2006
2007PI023947: Claim against Criminal Court of Manhattan, mailed August 22, 2007
2007PI027148: Claim against NY State Supreme Court, New York County-Civil Branch, mailed September 20, 2007
2007LW032284: Claim against Supreme Court of the State of NY- Appellate Division, 1st Department, mailed November 13, 2007.

111. The Comptroller's office assigned identification numbers to the complaints, but has made no decisions regarding the first three.  It closed the case against the Supreme Court of the State of NY- Appellate Division: 1st Department on December 12, 2007, because it claims that it is not a city agency.

H. DENIABILITY

112. Most of the state officials refuse to sign any documents, so that they can retain deniability.  Specific examples follow:
113. The identities of the prosecuting Assistant District Attorney and the trial Judge have not been divulged.  Neither of them has submitted copies of any documents to Plaintiff, including the alleged bench arrest warrant.
114. On Judge Lehner's ORDER from the New York State Supreme Court, New York County-Civil Branch, some chicken scratching appears over the word "signature," but the Judge's printed name is nowhere near the chicken scratching and is barely legible.
105. The ORDER of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: First Department is not signed by any judge, but by the Clerk of Court.  The Clerk is not empowered to issue Court orders, so the judges can deny responsibility for the ORDER.
106. Most of the correspondence from the Comptroller's office is unsigned, so that they are worthless legal documents.
107. The failure to sign documents is the behavior of people who know that they are doing wrong.

I. CLAIMS

108. Plaintiff was arrested illegally on April 17, 2007.  The police officers were made aware that the arrest was illegal.  Therefore the event was kidnapping.
109. Two (2) picket signs owned and held by Plaintiff were confiscated by the police and never returned to Plaintiff.  This is an act of theft.
110. Plaintiff was arraigned on April 18, 2007, but was not committed then nor at any other time.
111. As far as Plaintiff knows, no Grand Jury has been impaneled to decide if an indictment is warranted.
112. The failure of the Court to identify the arraignment magistrate, the prosecuting Assistant District Attorney, and the trial Judge; and to give no reason for the court date of June 20, 2007, is not appropriate in a court of law.  It is reminiscent of a court of inquisition.
113. Plaintiff has been denied his constitutional right to a habeas corpus  hearing.
114. It is over one year since Plaintiff was arrested.  He has not been committed nor indicted. Plaintiff has been denied his constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.
115. The bench arrest warrant, if it exists,  is not justified, since the Plaintiff has neither been committed nor indicted.  The only evidence for the existence of a bench arrest warrant is hearsay.
116.  The failure of the Court to enforce the bench arrest warrant indicates that there is no intent to bring Plaintiff to trial, but only to harass Plaintiff and make it difficult for him to obtain a redress of grievances in other courts and with the Comptroller of the City of New York.
107. The failure of the aptly-named Criminal Court of Manhattan to refund the $210 it mistakenly received from the Plaintiff, unless the Plaintiff appears in court, is using the money as bail.
108. No judge has issued an order for bail money.  Thus keeping the $210 is an act of theft.
109. Justice Edward Lehner of the New York State Supreme Court, New York County-Civil Branch did not read the RJI in spite of the fact that Plaintiff paid a fee of $95 specifically for that purpose.
110. Justice Lehner denied the RJI because "........as petitioner has set forth no basis for the relief sought.", in spite of the fact that 15 causes of action were given.  The ORDER of Justice Lehner (Exhibit 2) is not consistent with the facts.
111. Because the ORDER from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appeals Division: First Department, is based on a misinterpretation of CPLR 5704(a), Plaintiff has been denied his constitutional right to redress in the courts of the State of New York, as given in:

a. New York State Constitution, Article I, Section 1.  "No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his or her peers,..." and

b. New York State Constitution, Article I, Section 1 §11. "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. "

c. A denial of equal protection under the law as required by Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution.

112. Claims for damages to the Comptroller of the City of New York have been ignored.

J. CAUSES  OF  ACTION

113. Plaintiff was arrested illegally (actually kidnapped) on April 17, 2007.  His two signs were confiscated by the police and never returned; an act of theft.
114. The police allegations, except for refusing an order, were all false and will constitute perjury, if repeated under oath.
114.  The prosecuting assistant district attorney and the courts are aiding and abetting the crimes of the police.  Thus they are accessories to the crimes.
115. The arraignment proceedings and subsequent ignoring of motions by the Plaintiff by the Court were intended to deny justice to the Plaintiff.
116. The bench arrest warrant, if it was issued at all, was intended to intimidate Plaintiff and make it difficult for him to pursue redress.
117. On July 10, 2007, Petitioner filed a Request for Judicial Intervention Index Number 07103459 (Julian Heicklen against Criminal Court of Manhattan).
118. On July 17, 2007, Justice of the Supreme Court Lehner: "ordered that this application for an order to show cause is denied as petitioner has set forth no basis for the relief sought."
119. On the contrary, Petitioner has set forth in the Exhibits accompanying the RJI many bases for the relief sought.  Specifically, these are:
110. Item 24 of Exhibit A states: "Police confiscated Petitioner's property and have failed to return it. The Petitioner moved that the Court order the police to return the property or provide compensation (Exhibit G).  That motion has been ignored."
120. Item 25 of Exhibit A states: "At arraignment, Petitioner was not informed of the names of the arraignment magistrate or the prosecuting Assistant District Attorney.  Petitioner filed a motion to obtain the name of the arraignment magistrate (Exhibit H), but it was ignored by the Court."
121. Item 26 of Exhibit A states: "At arraignment, Petitioner was not informed of the case Docket Number."
122. Item 27 of Exhibit A states: "The arraignment commitment form was not signed by a judge or anyone else (Exhibit B).  It is not a valid document."
123. Item 28 of Exhibit A states: "The arraignment magistrate had not even looked at the arraignment commitment document.  This became apparent when the Petitioner asked for a jury trial.  The arraignment magistrate had to ask the Assistant District Attorney what the charges were against Petitioner to see if he qualified for a jury trial."
124. Item 29 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner informed the Court that he would serve as counsel pro se (Exhibit I).  Neither the Court nor the District Attorney has notified Petitioner of the names of the officiating judge or the prosecuting Assistant District Attorney."
125. Item 30 of Exhibit A states: €˜The failure of the Court to inform Petitioner of the identity of any of the officials involved in his case is not the way a court of law should operate.  It is the modus operandi of a court of inquisition.  It shows disdain for the accused, thus precluding the possibility of an impartial trial."
126. Item 31 of Exhibit A states: "A court date was set for June 20, 2007.  Petitioner cleared his calendar and notified the Court that he would be available all day, if necessary (Exhibit  J)."
127. Item 32 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner moved that the Court inform him of the nature of the court appearance, what information must be submitted, and what actions may occur (Exhibit J).  There was no response to the motion. Apparently, the Court felt it proper for the accused to be uninformed, so that he could not defend himself adequately."
128. Item 67 of Exhibit A states: "As a result of the non-response, Petitioner notified the Court that he would not appear at the court date of June 20, 2007 (Exhibit D)."
129. Item 34 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner requested a Grand Jury hearing at the arraignment.  He also so moved that the Court order the District Attorney to convene a Grand Jury to examine the evidence and decide if an indictment was warranted (Exhibit K). That request and motion were ignored."
130. Item 35 of Exhibit A states: "There is a widespread misconception in the trial courts that a Grand Jury indictment is not required for misdemeanor offenses.  This is not true, as shown in my BRIEF FOR CONVENING A GRAND JURY (Exhibit  L)."
131. Item 36 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner requested at the arraignment that the Court grant a jury trial and so moved in petition to the Court (Exhibit M).  The arraigning magistrate granted the jury trial, but the Court gave no response and ignored the motion."
132. Item 37 of Exhibit A states: "In his petition on TESTIMONY (Exhibit N), Petitioner moved that the Court order the District Attorney to provide names and contact information for all witnesses, arresting officers, the lady who identified herself as a nurse and interceded on behalf of Petitioner, and any other persons who may testify at Petitioner's trial.  No response.  Motions ignored."
133. Item 38 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner moved that the Court order all persons who will testify at any proceedings regarding the case be sequestered during all proceedings (Exhibit N).  No response.  Motion ignored."
134. Item 39 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner filed a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and asked to drop all charges (Exhibit O).  No response.  Motion ignored."
135. Item 40 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner moved that there be no preliminary hearing (Exhibit P). No response.  Motion ignored."
136. Item 41 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner filed a request concerning the trial jury (Exhibit Q).  He moved that the Court provide information about jury selection and that the jury pool be sequestered during jury selection. No response.  Motions ignored."
137. Item 42 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner requested a reply date to his motions of June 8, 2007, so that he could prepare for the court date of June 20, 2007 (Exhibit R). No response.  Motion ignored."
138. Item 43 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner moved that the Court provide him with a copy of the arraignment transcript of April 18, 2007 (Exhibit S).  No response.  Motion ignored."
139. Item 44 of Exhibit A states: "The INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF JUNE 11, 2007 (Exhibit C) sent to the trial court was ignored and disregarded."
140. Item 45 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner was notified on June 20, 2007, that a bench arrest warrant was issued, because petitioner did not appear at the court appearance scheduled for that day."
141. Item 46 of Exhibit A states: "Petitioner has filed MOTION TO QUASH BENCH ARREST WARRANT (Exhibit  T). No response.  Motion ignored."

K. DAMAGES

142. Plaintiff was held in police custody for 22 hours on April 17-18, 2007, with attendant anxiety and shame.
143. Police confiscated two (2) picket signs on April 17, 2007, whose replacement cost was $96.30.
144. Plaintiff was neither committed nor indicted.  Yet a bench arrest warrant ostensibly was issued when he did not appear for an unexplained court hearing on June 20, 2007.  Plaintiff has been a fugitive from justice since June 20, 2007, with  attendant anxiety, shame, and bitterness.  He has had many sleepless nights.
145. Plaintiff has been denied Grand Jury and habeas corpus hearings, leading to attendant anxiety and frustration.
146. The courts have ignored Plaintiff's efforts to defend himself, thus leading to anxiety, frustration, and bitterness.
147. The Criminal Court of Manhattan has withheld $210.00 of Plaintiff's money.  This is an act of theft.
148. Plaintiff has lost filing fees of $305.00 to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County-Civil Branch, $45.00 to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appeals Division: First District, and $350.00 to the U. S. District Court for the Southern district of New York.
149. Plaintiff has spent a significant amount of time and money since April 17, 2007, learning New York State laws and the procedures of the various courts, preparing court documents, and traveling back and forth to New York courthouses.
150. Plaintiff has incurred expenses of printing, copying, and mailing court documents and Claims to the Comptroller of the City of New York.
151. There is no reason to believe that the State of New York Court of Appeals will behave any differently than the other New York State courts.

L. REMEDIES  SOUGHT

152. Plaintiff moves that the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York drop the charges against Plaintiff and dismiss the case.  This can be done by a permanent restraining order on the Criminal Court of Manhattan.
153. Plaintiff moves that the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York quash the alleged bench arrest warrant against Plaintiff.
154. Plaintiff moves that he be compensated for all court associated costs and out-of-pocket expenses listed above.
155. Plaintiff moves that he be compensated for time spent learning New York and federal law and court procedures and in preparing court documents.
156. Plaintiff moves that he be compensated for anxiety, shame, bitterness, and sleepless nights resulting from the arrest of April 17, 2007, and the bench arrest warrant of June 20, 2007.
157. Plaintiff moves that he be compensated for the the failure of the courts to provide a fair and speedy trial.
158. Plaintiff moves that the Court impose punitive monetary damages on the New York City Police in sufficient amount such that the police and courts will obey the law, stop harassing harmless people, and display common courtesies to litigants; and that the Comptroller of the City of New York will consider seriously and expedite claims submitted.
159. Specifically, Plaintiff requests the following:
a. Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for actual damages.
b. One million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for punitive damages.
c. Termination of employment of the Defendants by the New York City Police.
d. An order from the Court forbidding the employment of the Defendants for life in law enforcement in any capacity.

M. MOTION  FOR JURY  TRIAL

160. Plaintiff moves for a jury trial as guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution, Amendment VII, which states, in part: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,..."

N. SERVICE  OF  DEFENDANTS

161. Plaintiff moves that the Court grant permission to serve each listed Defendant by certified U. S. mail.  Each Defendant will be sent appropriately completed copies of the three (3) forms Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.

O.  SEPARATE  DOCUMENTS  ENCLOSED

162. Enclosed are copies of documents submitted by certified mail to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: First Department on August 27, 2007.  These are:


a. Motion to Grant Leave to Appeal of Julian Heicklen against New York State Supreme Court New York County-Civil Branch
b. Leave to Appeal of Refusal of the Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI)
c. Reproduced Record of New York State Supreme Court New York County-Civil Division  re: Manhattan Criminal Court Case Docket #2007-NY029913, People of New York against Julian Heicklen

163. The Contents of the three (3) documents listed in Item 162 above are given in Exhibit 7. It was submitted to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division along with the three (3) documents .

164. Corrections to the three (3) documents listed in Item 106 above are given in Exhibit 8.
165. Also enclosed are copies of Claims submitted by certified mail to the Comptroller of the City of New York.  This document has been updated from the one submitted with the original complaint. The claims are:

a. Claim #2007PI018759 & #2007PD018761 against NY City Police, mailed June 27, 2007 & August 18, 2007
b. Claim #2007PI023947 against Criminal Court of Manhattan, mailed August 22, 2007 & September 18, 2007
c. Claim #2007PI027148 against NY State Supreme Court , New York County-Civil Branch, mailed September 20, 2007
d. Claim #2007LW032284 against Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division-1st Department, mailed November 13, 2007 166. Enclosed is previous correspondence with the United States District Court for the Southern  District of New York.

167. Enclosed is the originally submitted complaint.
168. Enclosed is the ORDER of Judge Wood of March 11, 2008.

 P. ADDRESSES  OF  DEFENDANTS


Jason Toala, Police Officer Shield 27613, Patrol Boro Manhattan South Task Force, 2524 W. 42nd St., New York, NY 10036 (212 760-8301)

John Does 1, 2, and 3, Arresting Police Officers, Patrol Boro Manhattan South Task Force, 524 W. 42nd St., New York, NY 10036 (212 760-8301)

Robert Kelley, New York City Police Commissioner, Police Headquarters, 1 Police Plaza, New York, NY 10038  (646-610-5000)

William C. Thompson, Jr., Comptroller, Comptroller's Office of New York City, 1 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007-2341 (212-669-4736)

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 (212-788-0303)

Q. EXHIBITS

1. Arraignment Papers
2. ORDER of Justice Edward Lehner
3. ORDER of Supreme Court of the State of New York-Appellate Division: First Department
4. Form 1A. Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons
5. Form 1B. Waiver of Service of Summons
6. Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Costs of Services of Summons
7. Contents of Documents Submitted to the Supreme Court of the State of New York-Appellate Division: First Department
8. Corrections to Documents Submitted to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: First Department