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

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
NOTICE OF MOTIONS
MOTION FOR EYE WITNESSES
MOTION FOR EXPERT WITNESSES
MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL INTERVIEWS
MOTION FOR PETITION FOR JUSTICE
MOTION FOR A TRIAL BY JURY WITH 3 JUDGES
MOTION FOR RESPONSE DATES
_________________
Julian Heicklen
Plaintiff
Counsel Pro Se
36 Rachel Immenu #2
Jerusalem, Israel   93228
E-mail: jph13@psu.edu

______________
Date       

MOTIONS
    Plaintiff Heicklen moves for witnesses on his behalf as guaranteed by Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution in all criminal trials.  These include, but are not limited to, the following:

MOTION FOR EYE WITNESSES
MOTION FOR EXPERT WITNESSES
MOTION FOR HOSTILE WITNESSES
MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL INTERVIEWS

In addition, Plaintiff Heicklen moves for inclusion of supporting documents:

MOTION FOR PETITION FOR JUSTICE

MOTION FOR RESPONSE DATES

Also Plaintiff Heicklen demands a jury trial in conformance with Amendment VII of the U. S. Constitution.

DEMAND FOR A TRIAL BY JURY WITH 3 JUDGES

  
 This particular case is both part criminal and part civil.  It is criminal in the sense that Plaintiff Heicklen is asking for a repeal of a prison sentence and retrial from a Florida State Court via 42 U. S. C. 1983.  It is civil in the sense that Plaintiff Heicklen also is asking for damage and punitive compensation.
   
    There are a number of issues here.  Plaintiff was arrested on the Orange County Courthouse plaza sidewalk connecting the parking garage to the courthouse on August 22, 2011 for violating 2 court orders, one of which was declared unconstitutional by the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals, 300 S. Beach St., Daytona Beach, FL 32114, Call (386)947-1500.  The arrest occurred at 8:10 am when people were streaming into the courthouse along this walkway.  The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 4 of the Florida State Constitution require that no law be made to stop the freedom of speech or of the press. 

SECTION 4. Freedom of speech and press.—Every person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory is true and was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.

Yet these activities should conform to reasonable time, place and manner constraints.  In this particular case those and other issues have appeared and must be resolved.  These are:

1. Were pedestrians inconvenienced or harassed by the distributions?
2. Were jurors or people in the jury pool targeted?
3. Is the pamphlet content both erroneous and harmful to the judicial system?
4. Is the courthouse plaza a non-public forum?
5. May distributions be stopped by court order?
6. May distribution be stopped by statute?
7, Was there selective enforcement?
8. Was there knowing perjury by the trial judge (Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr.)?
9. Was there knowing perjury by the Appellate Judges (C. Alan Lawson., Kerry I. Evander, and Jay P. Cohen)?

    In order to answer these questions, it would be helpful to have testimony from witnesses and participants.  Plaintiff Heicklen wishes to call three groups of witnesses.  These are:

1. Persons who participated in various Fully Informed Jury distributions to testify about questions 1, 2, 4. and 7.
2. Persons who are legal experts on the subject of jury nullification to testify about questions 3,  4,  5, and 6.
3. Judge Perry and the 3 appellate court judges to testify about questions 8 and 9.

    There are many category 1 witnesses.  They are identified in Tables 1 and 2.  Plaintiff Heicklen will be contacting them to submit notarized statements to the court about their observations in Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) distributions in which they participated with Plaintiff Heicklen.

    There will be a handful of category 2 experts knowledgeable about jury nullification. They are listed in Table 3. Plaintiff Heicklen will request them to submit Amicus Curia briefs (Exhibit 6).
   
    Plaintiff Heicklen moves for pre-trial interviews of Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., and the three appellate court judges, who are category 3 witnesses.  This should be done in the presence of a court reporter and someone who can administer an oath.  Of course counsels for Judge Perry and the appellate court judges should be invited to participate in these interviews.
  
    Plaintiff Heicklen further moves that 60 days should be allowed to gather this information and serve Defendants, i. e. until about May 10, 2013.  Then the Defendants should be allowed another 60 days to respond; and Plaintiff Heicklen, another 30 days to reply to the response.

MOTION FOR EYE WITNESSES

     There were 67 distributions involving Plaintiff Heicklen at 41 federal courthouses in 14 states plus the District of Columbia.  Also there were 17 distributions at 10 county courthouses in 5 states.   Plaintiff Heicklen’s descriptions of the distributions are given at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/FIJADemonstrations.html
   
    Plaintiff Heicklen moves that individuals who distributed pamphlets with him at various locations (Table 1) become witnesses by completing a copy of the the enclosed letter (Exhibit 4) and affidavit (Exhibit 5) which has been submitted to them , and by mailing it to Appellant Heicklen to introduce as evidence. 

    Probably only a handful of the witnesses will respond.  Then counsels for the defense will have the opportunity to select which of the respondents they wish to cross-examine or submit a response or both.

    Many others have distributed FIJA pamphlets at courthouses without Plaintiff Heicklen.  Some of their experiences are given in Table 2.

MOTION FOR EXPERT WITNESSES

    In addition, Plaintiff Heicklen has requested submissions from several individual who are experts in Constitutional law, especially in regard to jury nullification.  The list of individuals is given in Table 3.

MOTION FOR HOSTILE WITNESSES

    In addition, Plaintiff Heicklen wishes to interview 4 hostile witnesses in the presence of a court reporter and person who will place them under oath.  These are Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., and the 3 judges who expressed the OPINION of the Appellate court in this case.  These judges are: Judge Kerry I. Evander, Judge Jay P. Cohen, and Judge C. Alan Lawson

MOTION FOR VIDEO EVIDENCE

    Plaintiff Heicklen wishes to introduce video and photograph evidence of the pamphlet distributions.  So far he knows of such information listed in Exhibit 7.

MOTION FOR PETITION FOR JUSTICE

    The PETITION FOR JUSTICE was sent to the Court on January 15, 2013, but was rejected by ORDER of Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 1/31/2013. (HAD) “Striking Petition for Justice.”  However the document is available at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/Petition_for_justice_1-15-13.html. It discusses legal errors and outright perjury made by the hostile witnesses. Plaintiff has asked for judicial and monetary relief there.
      
MOTION FOR A JURY TRIAL

    Plaintiff Heicklen is aware that the Court has indicated a bench trial.  However he is demanding, in accordance with the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, RULE 38. RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; DEMAND a jury trial, as is his right, based on Amendment VII of the United States Constitution which states: “ In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,...”  It does not say: “twenty dollars corrected for inflation.”  However, even if it did, the inflation rate of the U. S. dollar can be computed from the enactment date of December 15, 1791 for Amendment VII until 2011.  The U. S. official price of gold was $19.49 in 1791 and $42.22 in 2011, which has no correlation with reality.  A better index is the New York Market price which went from $16.39 to $1600 over the same time period (http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/gold/result.php).  This means that $20 in 1791 would be comparable to $1952.41 in 2011.  Plaintiff Heicklen is asking for  over $139,000, so Amendment VII still would be applicable if inflation was applicable to the Amendment.

    There is a further, and perhaps more important, reason for a jury trial. In his distributions, Plaintiff Heicklen claims that all U. S. trial judges have been guilty of perjury with intent to void the U. S. Constitution in violation of their oath of office by instructing jurors “to uphold the law as he gives it, as required by:

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS
(CRIMINAL CASES) 2010

“You must follow the law as I explain it – even if you do not agree with the law – and you must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You must not single out or disregard any of the Court's instructions on the law.”

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS
(CIVIL CASES) 2005

“I will decide all questions of law and procedure that arise during the trial, and, before you retire to the jury room at the end of the trial to deliberate upon your verdict and decide the case, I will explain to you the rules of law that you must follow and apply in making your decision.”

    However jurors are not required to uphold the law as the judge gives it, or even to uphold the law at all.  If the jurors decide to uphold the law, it must be the law in the written statute, which in this case is Amendment I of the U. S. Constitution.  Most, if not all, judges are offended by Heicklen’s assertions. That is why this trial is being held.  Therefore no judge or group of judges can be an impartial arbiter in this case, and must not be making the decision.

    However Plaintiff Heicklen is aware and appreciative that the federal judiciary is the only branch of government that does uphold the right to free speech.  The U. S. Congress trampled on it by passing U. S. Statute 40 U. S. C. § 13k which permits banning pamphleteering on court plazas, but which the U. S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in United States v. Grace, 461 US 171 (1983). The executive branch of government trampled on the First Amendment by introducing Regulation 410 CFR §102–74.415(c) prohibiting distribution of literature on federal property without a permit.  Defendant Heicklen violated  this regulation 67 times at 41 federal courthouses in 14 states and the District of Columbia.  He was cited 14 times, but did not pay the fines nor appear at the court hearings.  Finally the U. S. attorneys had the Department of Homeland Security stop enforcing that regulation.  Instead the U. S. attorneys filed a forged grand jury indictment against Heicklen for jury tampering.  In addition they sent at least 2 undercover agents to entrap Heicklen.   It all failed.  When, after 17 months, the U. S. Attorneys could not provide anyone to testify, the U. S. District Court in Manhattan, NY, dismissed the case (Judge Kimba Wood, OPINION and ORDER, U. S. v. Julian Heicklen Case # 10 CR 1154 [KMW], 2012). 

    Finally Judge Perry used two court orders to stop the distributions.  When they did not stop, both Appellants Schmidter and Heicklen were arrested and convicted based on purged testimony by Judge Belvin Perry, Jr.  On appeal three Florida appellate court judges used the same lies and also made the ridiculous claim that courthouse plazas are not public forums.  That is why this case is in progress.  Again we are relying on the federal judiciary to uphold the First Amendment right to free speech as it has done 3 times before on this identical issue.

    Plaintiff Heicklen believes that he is filing this motion in conformance of Rule 5(d), though he is not sure that he fully understands all of that rule correctly.

MOTION FOR A TRIAL WITH 3 JUDGES

    Plaintiff Heicklen moves for a trial with 3 judges presiding.  The reason is that this trial exists because both Plaintiffs have been vigorously attacking judges, specifically U. S. District Court Judges by Heicklen, for lying twice to juries when they instruct them to uphold the law as they give it.  Therefore it is the judges, as well as the Plaintiffs, who really are on trial.

    Ironically, and much to its credit, the U. S. judiciary is the only organ of government that has upheld the Plaintiff’s right to do so. The U. S. Congress passed U. S. Statute 40 U. S. C. 6135 § 13k prohibiting the exercise of free speech at courthouses. 

“It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.“

It was the U. S. Supreme Court in United States v. Grace, 461 US 171 (1983) that declared that statute unconstitutional.  Furthermore it declared that time, place, and manner requirements could only be made by statute, thus excluding court orders from doing so.

    Subsequently, the Department of Homeland Security issued federal regulation 410 CFR §102–74.415(c) prohibiting distribution of literature on federal property without a permit issued by the federal government.  Plaintiff Heicklen deliberately violated that regulation 67 times at 41 U. S. District Courthouses.  He was arrested 14 times for doing so, but refused to pay the fines or attend the court hearings.  Ultimately the U. S. attorneys instructed the Department of Homeland Security to cease issuing the citations, because they knew that the U. S. courts would not uphold the regulation.

    Instead the U. S. Attorney in New York City forged a grand jury indictment accusing Plaintiff Heicklen of jury tampering.  Twice it sent undercover agents to entrap Heicklen.  Both efforts failed.  It became clear that the indictment was forged, because no jury foreman signed the indictment nor was even identified.  After 17 months, when the U. S. Attorney was unable to supply any witness to testify, the case was dismissed by Judge Kimba Wood of the U. S. District Court, Southern District of NewYork (Judge Kimba Wood, OPINION and ORDER, U. S. v. Julian Heicklen Case # 10 CR 1154 [KMW], 2012).

    In 2012, President Obama signed HR 347 making a felony of  free speech in the presence of U. S. Secret Service agents.  This law is particularly destructive, because these agents are not in uniform, so cannot be identified.  As far as Plaintiff Heicklen knows, this law has not been challenged.

    Also in 2012, 4 Florida judges (Belvin Perry, Jr., C. Alan Lawson., Kerry I. Evander, and Jay P. Cohen) in two Florida state courts deliberately and knowingly committed perjury by claiming that the decisions in Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F. 3d 53 - 2004 and United States v. Grace, 461 US 171 (1983) were the opposite of what they actually are.  All the judges had been notified previously by Plaintiff Heicklen of the correct decisions.

    All of this history places a great burden on this court to come to an impartial and just decision. That is why Plaintiff Heicklen is demanding a jury trial and requesting three judges to preside.  These precautions will minimize the court’s possibility of rendering a biased decision.  Furthermore an unanimous jury decision and an unanimous 3-judge ruling will carry more authority against the decision rendered by every other branch of government, and are less likely to lead to inadvertent error.

MOTION FOR RESPONSE DATES

    Plaintiff Heicklen moves for the following schedule:

Initial comments from opposing counsels: March 1, 2013
Reply to opposing counsels, if necessary: March 15, 2013
Submission to the court: March 21, 2013
Response by expert witnesses: May 1, 2013
Affidavits from witnesses to FIJA distributions: May 15, 2013
Response from Defense Counsels: June 15, 2013
Reply by Plaintiff to Response from Defense Counsel, July1, 2013
Order from the court: August 15, 2013
Interviews of hostile witnesses: October 1, 2013

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

______________
Date       

AFFIDAVIT AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    Plaintiff Heicklen certifies under penalty of perjury, that PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTIONS and MOTIONS are not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.  The sole purpose is to obtain supporting information, so that Plaintiff can prepare a compelling argument..

    Defendant further certifies that Plaintiff Heicklen’s NOTICE OF MOTIONS and MOTIONS were sent on February 3, 2013, to the following:

James Moses: jmoses@fisherlawfirm.com
John Edward Fisher: fisher@fisherlawfirm.com
Adam Sudbury: Adam.Sudbury@SudburyLaw.net
Mark Schmidter: mschmidter@gmail.com


______________________
Julian Heicklen
Plaintiff
Counsel Pro Se
36 Rachel Immenu, #2
Jerusalem, Israel 93228
jph13@psu.edu

_____________________
Date       

EXHIBITS

1. Table 1: Identified participants in Plaintiff Heicklen’s FIJA Distributions____15
2. Table 2: FIJA distributions by others without Plaintiff Heicklen____________19
3. Table 3: Requested Expert Witnesses_________________________________24
4. Letter to witnesses in Table 1 at Heicklen FIJA distributions______________26
5. Affidavit form for witnesses named in Table 1 at Heicklen FIJA distributions_27
6. Instructions to Expert Witnesses____________________________________29
7. Potential videos at Heicklen FIJA distributions_________________________30
 8. Information and request letter to opposing counsels_____________________31

TABLE 1: LIST OF IDENTIFIED DISTRIBUTION PARTICIPANTS
NAME DATE LOCATION
Allen, James 04/2910 Philadelphia, PA
Allen, James 05/14/10 Philadelphia, PA
Allen, James 06/14/10 Manhattan. NY
Allen, James 07/30/10 Philadelphia, PA
Alvarado, James 05/08/12 Orlando, FL
Babb, James 04/2910 Philadelphia, PA
Babb, James 05/14/10 Philadelphia, PA
Babb, James 05/10/10 Trenton, NJ
Babb, James 05/11/10 Allentown, PA
Babb, James 05/14/10 Philadelphia, PA
Babb, James 06/14/10 Manhattan, NY
Beeman, Ebert 07/27/11 Erie, PA
Boggia, Tom
09/01/10 Allentown, PA
Burton, John 04/15/11 Los Angeles, CA
Carangi, Nick 07/30/10 07/30/10
Continellii, Bernard
10/27/10 Albany, NY
Continellii, Bernard 10/28/10 Albany, NY
Cox, James 12/0610 Orlando, FL
Cox, James 12/07/10 Tampa, FL
Cox, James 12/08/10 Miami, FL
Cox, James 12/09/10 Fort Lauderdale, FL
Cox, James 12/10/10 West Palm Beach. FL
Cox, James 05/05/11 Orlando, FL
Dively, Barry 05/13/10 Harrisburg, PA
Donnelly, George 04/08/10 Philadelphia, PA
Donnelly, George 05/10/10 Trenton, NJ
Donnelly, George 05/11/10 Allentown, PA
Emery, Bob 07/30/10 07/30/10
Eyre, Peter 08/04/10 Manhattan, NY
Faust, William 04/2910 Philadelphia, PA
Feldheim, Harold & Susan 06/22/10 Hartford, CT
Freeman, Drew 05/12/10 Pittsburgh, PA
Fusco, Rebecca 02/24/11 Newark, NJ
Gomez, Christina 12/0610 Orlando, FL
Gomez, Christina 08/18/11 Orlando, FL
Jasaikoff, Lou 08/02/11 Scranton, PA
Khan, Riaz 05/08/12 Orlando, FL
Kupferman, Joel 11/09/09 Manhattan, NY
Kurtz, John 12/0610 Orlando, FL
Kurtz, John 06/05/11 Orlando, FL
Lockwood, Barbara 07/27/11 Erie, PA
Marinelli, Thomas 04/29/10 Philadelphia, PA
McCulligh, Emberle 05/05/11 Orlando, FL
McDonald, Tony 07/18/11 San Jose, CA
McDonald, Tony 07/21/11 San Jose, CA
McMillan, Bill 10/27/10 Albany, NY
McMillan, Bill 10/28/10 Albany, NY
McNicholl, Joseph 05/06/11 Manhattan, NY
Miller, Carlos 12/08/10 Miami, FL
Molloy, Michael 04/08/10 Philadelphia, PA
Molloy, Michael 04/2910 Philadelphia, PA
Molloy, Michael 09/01/10 Allentown, PA
Montgomery, Scott 05/08/12 Orlando, FL
Mueller, Adam 08/04/10 Manhattan, NY
Musumeci, Antonio 11/09/09 Manhattan, NY
Musumeci, Antonio 08/04/10 Manhattan, NY
Musumeci, Antonio 04/23/12 Manhattan, NY
Ochonicki, Adam 04/08/10 Philadelphia, PA
Olver, Scott 12/0610 Orlando, FL
Russell, Jeff 10/27/10 Albany, NY
Russell, Jeff 10/28/10 Albany, NY
Salguero, Fernando 07/30/10 Philadelphia, PA
Salvi, Michael 04/2910 Philadelphia, PA
Salvi, Michael 05/14/10 Philadelphia, PA
Schmidter, Mark 05/05/12 Orlando, FL
Schmidter, Mark 05/08/12 Orlando, FL
Schwartz, Richard 04/08/10
Philadelphia, PA
Schwartz, Richard 04/29/10 Philadelphia, PA
Sheldon, Donald 05/10/12 Fort Lauderdale, FL
Sullivan, Dan 05/12/10 Pittsburgh, PA
Szteliga, Derek 07/30/10 Philadelphia, PA
Tilsner, Kevin 07/30/10 Philadelphia, PA
Ward, Donna 04/2910 Philadelphia, PA
Wolfe, Darren 06/14/10 Manhattan. NY
Wolfe, Darren 07/29/10 Allentown, PA
Wolfe, Darren 07/30/10 Philadelphia, PA
Wolfe, Darren 09/01/10 Allentown, PA
Weiss, Devin 07/30/10 Philadelphia, PA