IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
ORLANDO DIVISION

RE:

MARK E. SCHMIDTER and JULIAN HEICKLEN,
Plaintiff(s)

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
Defendant

CASE #: 6:12-CV-1102-ORL-31-KRS

Heicklen and Schmidter v. State of Florida
Appellate Case # 5D113036
changed to 6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS

Re: Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of FL,
 in and for Orange and Osceola Counties
Case # 48–2011–CF–8856–O

NOTICE OF MOTIONS
MOTION that Administrative Order 2011–03 be declared unconstitutional
MOTION that Mark Schmidter be released from custody immediately


_________________
Julian Heicklen
Plaintiff
Counsel Pro Se
36 Rachel Immenu #2
Jerusalem, Israel   93228
E-mail: jph13@psu.edu

______________
Date        
    MEMORANDUM OF LAW

1. On March 28, 2013, NOTICE of Motion to Declare Unconstitutional Administrative Order 2011-03 by Julian P. Heicklen (RDO) (Document #44) was filed with the court.
2. All that is required to act on this Motion is to read the decision in United States v. Grace, 461 US 171 (1983) and see if that decision declared U. S. Statute 40 U. S. C. § 13k unconstitutional.  If so, then Administrative Order 2011–03 is unconstitutional, and this case draws to a close.  More importantly, Mark Schmidter will be released from custody where he is serving an illegal sentence of 145 days.
3. Any judge, or anyone else, could make this decision and write an Order within 24 hours.  However this Court has ignored the Motion, thus keeping Mark Schmidter in illegal custody.
4. On the other hand, Counsel for the Defense, John Fisher submitted a lengthy multifaceted request to file an amended response (Documents # 49 and 51).  It was filed on April 16, 2013, and accepted by Judge Roy B. Dalton on April 17, 2013, before a response was received, or could have been received, since Plaintiff Heicklen did not see the submitted document until April 18, 2013.  
5. Plaintiff Heicklen filed a Response to “[49] Motion and [51] Amended Answer and “MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief,” specifically to deny [51] “Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses.”
6. In his Response [52], Plaintiff Heicklen refuted every pertinent argument presented by Defense Counsel Fisher.  
7. Yet the Court has not withdrawn its acceptance, nor even replied to Plaintiff’s objections.
8. Also included in Plaintiff Heicklen’s Response were MOTIONS for Ethical Sanctions.
9. Meanwhile this Court is keeping an innocent man in prison.  Is this your idea of justice?  Have you no decency?

    MOTIONS

10. Plaintiff Heicklen moves again that Administrative Order 2011–03 be declared unconstitutional to conform with the U. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Grace.
11. Plaintiff Heicklen further moves that Mark Schmidter be released from custody immediately.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    Plaintiff Heicklen certifies that the accompanying Memorandum of Law  and Notice of Motions dated May 8, 2013, was sent by E-mail to the following on May 8, 2013.

John Edwin Fisher jfisher@fisherlawfirm.com, msheets@fisherlawfirm.com

Jamie Billotte Moses jmoses@fisherlawfirm.com, choward@fisherlawfirm.com

Adam Harold Sudbury (Terminated) adam@sudburylaw.net, inbox@sudburylaw.net


Yours in disgust,


Julian Heicklen
Counsel Pro Se



NOTICES

NOTICE 44: NOTICE of filing on March 28, 2013 of “Motion to Declare Unconstitutional Administrative Order 2011-03” by Julian P. Heicklen (RDO) (Document 44)

NOTICES 49 and 51: NOTICE of filing  Fisher’s submissions [49] Motion and [51] Amended Answer and Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

NOTICE 52: NOTICE of filing on May 2, 2013 ”Response to documents 49 and 51” by Julian P. Heicklen (RDO) (Document #52)