Civil Action, File Number llll

Julian Heicklen

Case # 08 CV 02457 (JGK)

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

Raymond Kelly
New York City Police Commissioner


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



1. The arraignment occurred on April 18, 2007, in the Criminal Court of Manhattan.
2. 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.
3. About 15 other arrestees were arraigned before Plaintiff. All of them, except for one man, pleaded guilty.
4. 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.
5. Plaintiff still does not understand why this information was any of the magistrate's business.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Plaintiff then was advised by the magistrate that before he pleaded, the prosecuting assistant district attorney had a plea bargain.
9. The prosecuting assistant district attorney offered to settle for time served (22 hours), if Plaintiff would plead guilty.
10. Plaintiff replied: "If I was willing to accept that, I would not have bothered to be arrested in the first place."
11. The magistrate asked:" Are you pleading not guilty?" She then warned (threatened) Plaintiff that, if so, he could go to prison.
12. 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.
13. After the stunned Court recovered, neither the prosecuting assistant district attorney nor the magistrate objected to the plea or the demand for indictment by a Grand Jury. The magistrate 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.
14. 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.
15. Plaintiff was handed the unsigned arraignment form with the police charges and released after 22 hours of confinement.
16. Plaintiff was not committed at arraignment nor at any other time.
17. Plaintiff has not been indicted nor informed that any Grand Jury has been convened.
18. 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.
19. It is not clear to Plaintiff why the prosecuting assistant district 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.
20. 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 District Attorney's office is an accessory to the crimes of kidnapping and theft. Both the District Attorney and the prosecuting assistant district attorney should be dismissed from their positions and disbarred.
21. Plaintiff has filed a complaint against the John Doe assistant district attorney and against District Attorney Robert Morgenthau in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Complaint: #09 Civ. 1442 [HB]).


22. 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.]
23. 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 these or other motions.
24. 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).
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Plaintiff frequently visits Manhattan and makes it a point to talk with police officers. None has ever mentioned the warrant.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Plaintiff continued his demonstration for about another hour, but the police did not appear.
36. On subsequent appearances, Plaintiff has engaged the police and the outside NY times security guard in conversation. No action by the police.
37. The Criminal Court of Manhattan is trying to protect the police officers in their criminal activity, and thus is an accessory to their crimes.
38. Plaintiff filed a motion to quash the bench arrest warrant (Reproduced Record, Tab I, Exhibit T, p. 72). The Court did not respond.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Plaintiff has received no written documents from the New York County District Attorney's office or the Criminal Court of Manhattan, except for the unsigned arraignment documents.


42. Some provisions of New York State Criminal Code CPL 30 are attached as an Exhibit.
43. CPL 30 #30.30 Speedy trial; time limitations 1.b states:

"ninety days of the commencement of a criminal action wherein a defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and none of which is a felony."

44. This condition has not been met as more than 27 months have passed since the accusation, and a trial has not commenced.
45. Plaintiff has been denied a speedy criminal trial (within 90 days of accusation) as required by CPL 30 #30.30 (1.b).
46. Plaintiff has not received an appearance ticket notifying him of his right to receive a supporting deposition, as required by CPL 30 #150.10 (2).
47. CPL 30 #150.60 permits the Court to only issue a warrant of arrest if the accused does not appear at the time the appearance ticket is returnable
48. Since no appearance ticket was issued, the warrant of arrest is illegal, and makes the Criminal Court of Manhattan an accessory to the crime of the police.
49. Plaintiff has sued the John Doe Judge who issued the warrant; Honorable Eileen Koretz, Supervising Judge, Criminal Court of Manhattan; and Serena Springle, Borough Chief Clerk, Criminal Court of Manhattan. [U. S. District Court of the Southern District of New York (Complaint: #09 Civ. 1442 [HB])].
50. CPL 30 #160.10 (1.b) requires that fingerprints be obtained from a person accused of a misdemeanor. No fingerprints were obtained.
51. CPL 30 #30.10 (2.c) states that the prosecution of a misdemeanor must be commenced within two years.
52. Since more than 27 months have passed since the alleged misdemeanors were committed, the time limit set by the statute of limitations has passed,
53. In summary 4 violations of CPL 30 have been identified. There can be no criminal prosecution of Plaintiff.
54. Furthermore #2007NY029913 that Mr. McCann received from the District Attorney's office is the number on the unexecuted arraignment form. There is no case number for a criminal case, because no criminal case exists.


This certifies under penalty of perjury that a copy of THE NON-CRIMINAL TRIAL has been sent by legal certified U. S. mail to each of the following on August 7, 2009:

Pro Se Office
Room 230
U. S. District Court
Southern District of New York
U. S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Tel: 212 805 0136

Judge John G. Koeltl
U. S. District Court S.D.N.Y.
U. S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Max McCann
Assistant Corporation Counsel
The City of New York
Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Julian Heicklen, Plaintiff
Counsel Pro Se
734 Rutland Avenue
Teaneck, NJ 07666
814 880 9308