In the Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

JULIAN HEICKLEN, Defendant
Appellant
Appellate Court Case # 5D113036
        v.
 Circuit Court Case # 11 CF 11399A/O
STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner
Appellee

May 21,    2012

Date       

___________________
    Julian Heicklen
    Appellant
    Counsel Pro Se

APPEAL OF APPELLANT

ABSTRACT

    Section 43.26, Part e of the Florida Statutes instructs the chief judge: “To do everything necessary to promote the prompt and efficient
administration of justice in the courts over which he or she is chief judge.”

    Informing juries that their duty is to administer justice is exactly what the statute requires and what the Appellant was instructing pedestrians, including jurors, to do.

    The rest of this brief is commentary.


CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF CITATIONS                                                                    4
JURISDICTION                                                                             6
STANDING                                                                                    6
CAUSES OF ACTION                                                                   6
COURT ORDERS                                                                         6
FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT                             16

SERVICE                                                                                     17
ARREST                                                                                      17
ARRAIGNMENT                                                                         18
PRISON ERRORS                                                                       20
THE TRIAL                                                                                 20
BOND HEARING                                                                        29
CLAIMS                                                                                      29
RELIEF SOUGHT                                                                       31
AFFIDAVIT                                                                                31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE                                                    31
PICTURES OF SUPREME COURT DEMONSTRATIONS       33



LIST OF CITATIONS
Page
Constitution references
Amendment I of the U. S. Constitution                                    6,7,9,13
 Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution                                6,7
Article V, Section 2(d) of the Florida Constitution                            13
Amendment V of the U. S. Constitution                    18, 19, 23, 28, 30
 
Article I.9 of the Florida Constitution                                             19
Article 1.10 of the Florida Constitution                                            23
U. S. Constitution, Article III, Section 227                                 24, 27
U. S. Constitution Amendment VI                                             24, 27
U. S. Constitution Amendment VIII                                                29

      
Court cases concerning jury rights
Georgia v. Brailsford 3 U.S. 1 (Dall.) (1794)                                     8                                  
Harlan F. Stone, Harvard Law Journal (1941)                                    8
Morissette v. Unite States 342 U. S. 246 (1952)                                 8
State v. Butler 153 S.E.2d 70 (n.C. 1967)                                          8
Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U. S. 246 (1968)                                        8   
U. S. v. Boardman 419 F.2d 110 (1st CIR, 1969)                               8
U. S. v. Moylan 417 F.2d 1002 (1969)                                              8
U. S. v. Dellinger 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972)                                 8
U. S. v. Dougherty 473 F.2d 1113, 1139(1972)                                 8
U. S. v. Wiley 503 F.2d 106 (8th Cir. 1974)                                     8
Washington v. Watkins 655 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. (1981)                     8
U. S. v. Trujillo 714 F.2d 102 (11th Cir. 1983)                                 8
U. S. v. Kzyske 836 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1988)                                 8

Other court cases
Adderly v. Florida 385 U. S. 39, 47-48 (1966)                                  9
Bounds v. Smith 430 U.S. 817 (1977)                                            19
U. S. v. Grace 461 U. S. 171, 177-178 (1983)                                  9
Nobles v. State, 769 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)                    15
Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F. 3d 53 (2d Cir. 2005)                   10, 11               
U. S. v. Heicklen, District Court SDNY Case #10 CR 1154 (KMW) (2012)  12

Statutes
49 U. S. C. 13k & 13l                                              
13, 14, 20, 25, 28
40 U. S. C. 1983                                                                            11
Section 43.26, Part e of the Florida Statutes                 
13,14,20, 25, 28
Section 918.12 of the Florida Statutes                                              15 

Other legal items
Administrative Order No. 20011–07–01                                            6
Administrative Order No. 2011–03                                             12,13
Orange County Corrections Dept. Inmate Handbook                         19

JURISDICTION

1. The 9th Judicial Circuit Court of FL is the Appellate Court for trials in Orange or Osceola County.

STANDING

2. Julian Heicklen, the Appellant, was the defendant in the criminal prosecution in
the 9th Judicial Circuit Court of FL for Orange and Osceola County.    He has filed an appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals    He is acting as Counsel Pro Se.

CAUSE OF ACTION

3. Appellant claims that his right to free press was denied by Judge Perry. Appellant’s right to a free press is guaranteed by Amendment I of the U. S. Constitution and Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution.

4. Appellant has filed a complaint with the Judicial Qualifications Commission in Tallahassee, Florida.

COURT ORDERS

5. Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for the Orange and Osceola Counties, Florida, issued two orders to prevent the dissemination of information outside the courthouse.

6. Administrative Order No. 20011–07–01 prohibited public speech on any courthouse grounds except in designated free speech zones.    The designated zones covered areas where there is no pedestrian traffic.

7. Administrative Order No. 2011–03 prohibits expressive conduct toward summoned jurors of Orange and Osceola Counties anywhere in the world. Since it is not known if passing pedestrians are jurors, this prohibits any expressive conduct to everyone.

8. Both Orders are violations of Amendment Appellant of the U. S. Constitution and Article I, Section 4 of the Florida State Constitution, both of which prohibit abridgment of speech.

9. Amendment I to the U. S. Constitution states:


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

10. Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution states:

“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.”

11. The Appellant was telling the truth. See:
Georgia v. Brailsford 3 U.S. 1 (Dall.) (1794)
Harlan F. Stone, Harvard Law Journal (1941)
Morissette v. Unite States 342 U. S. 246 (1952)
State v. Butler 153 S.E.2d 70 (n.C. 1967)
Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U. S. 246 (1968)

U. S. v. Boardman 419 F.2d 110 (1st CIR, 1969)
U. S. v. Moylan 417 F.2d 1002 (1969)
U. S. v. Dellinger 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972)
U. S. v. Dougherty 473 F.2d 1113, 1139(1972)
U. S. v. Wiley 503 F.2d 106 (8th Cir. 1974)
Washington v. Watkins 655 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. (1981)
 U. S. v. Trujillo 714 F.2d 102 (11th Cir. 1983)).

12. The most comprehensive and current discussion of jury nullification is given by T. Regnier, Santa Clara Law Review, 51 pp. 775–852 (2011).

13. It is the judges that lie to jurors.

A. Administrative Order No. 2011–07–01

14. Page 1 lists the duties of the judge. The Appellant agrees with the statements on that page.    He was trying to support them by correcting the lies that the judges were telling juries.

15. In the first paragraph on page 2, Judge Perry maintains that people “do not have a constitutional right to do so whenever and however they please.”    On the contrary, Amendment I of the U. S. Constitution and Article 1.4 of the Florida Constitution do not place any restrictions on free speech.

16. Judge Perry’s argument is based on a court decision by U. S. v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 177–178 (1983) quoting Adderly v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39, 47–48 (1966).

17. That decision states:

    “Title 40 U.S.C. 13k prohibits the "display [of] any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement" in the United States Supreme Court building or on its grounds, which are defined to include the public sidewalks constituting the outer boundaries of the grounds.”

    “We thus perceive insufficient justification for 13k's prohibition of carrying signs, banners, or devices on the public sidewalks surrounding the building. We hold that under the First Amendment the section is unconstitutional as applied to those sidewalks. Of course, this is not to say that those sidewalks, like other sidewalks, are not subject to reasonable [461 U.S. 171, 184] time, place, and manner
restrictions, either by statute or by regulations issued pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 13l.”

“Section 13k, as applied to the public sidewalks surrounding the Court building, is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Pp. 175-184.”

18. According to the decision, the time place, and manner restrictions must be made by statute or by regulations issued pursuant to 40 U. S. C. 13l, not by court order.

19. To further justify his position that courthouses and their surroundings grounds have not been used for expressive activities, Judge Perry refers to Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F. 3d 53 (2d Cir. 2005). However the court upheld Huminski’s right to expressive activities, but ruled in favor of Corsones, because she had judicial immunity.

20. In Huminski v. Corsones, Scott Huminski was ordered by Judge Nancy Corsones to move his vehicle from the court parking lot, because of information on that vehicle. He refused, so Judge Corsones removed him and the vehicle from the court property.

21. Huminski sued Judge Corsones for violating his First Amendment right to free expression. The district court agreed with Huminski. The circuit court agreed that Huminski had the First Amendment right to do as he did. Appellant quotes from Circuit Court Judge Sack’s opinion for the court:

“We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access, but one that could be overcome if court officials reasonably decided that he might pose a threat to persons, property, or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. We conclude, however, that this individual right was not well-settled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.”

22. On appeal, the circuit court reversed on the basis that Judge Corsones was acting in her official capacity, and therefore was immune from prosecution.    The reversal had nothing to do with free speech rights.

23. The reversal was a travesty, because judges only have immunity if the aggrievedpartyhadrecoursetoappeal(42U.S.C.1983). Since Judge Corsones enforced her order on the same day it was made, Huminski had no opportunity for appeal.


24. The district court judge made the correct decision. The circuit court decision is disgusting. In any event, the decision had nothing to do with free speech rights. It was improperly based on judicial immunity.


25. Even if the Corsones v. HuminskAppellant decision were based on restrictions of free speech at or near a courthouse, it would not be valid. The courts do not have the authority to amend the U. S. Constitution, even though judges like Judge Perry pretend that they do.

26. The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution made all of the United States a free speech zone.


27. Finally a very recent U. S. District Court decision involving Appellant Heicklen [U. S. v. Julian Heicklen, U. S. District Court for the Southern District of NY, Case #10 CR 1154 (KMW) (2012)] concluded that all court grounds outside the courthouse building are free speech zones.


28. Judge Perry admits that he is violating the right to free speech in point 1 on page 3 of Administrative Order 2011–07–01.

29. Judge Perry further states on page 2, paragraph 3 that: “...designation of free speech zones on the courthouse complex grounds is a regulation of government property enacted to avoid disruption to one of the core tenants of American free society–reliable, trustworthy system of justice,...” That is a complete lie. The purpose of the free speech zone is to keep the jury uninformed, so that it will not deliver justice, but will uphold unjust and non-existent laws.

30. Furthermore Judge Perry never claimed that the material in the distributed pamphlets was false.    He is willing to allow it to be distributed in the free speech zones, where no one will obtain it. He just objects to the jury making a decision of which he may disapprove.    It defeats the whole purpose of jury trials.

31. In the next paragraph, Judge Perry claims that it is the “Court’s inherent
authority to take supervisory and administration actions,” in direct conflict with the two higher court decisions discussed above.

 32. On page 3 and 4, Judge Perry repealed Amendment I of the U. S. Constitution
and Article I.4 of the Florida Constitution everywhere near the Orange County Courthouse. The laws of the land do not grant him this authority.

B. Administrative Order No 2011–03

33. In the first paragraph of the Administrative Order, Judge Perry claims that: “Article V, Section 2(d) of the Florida Constitution and section 43.26, Florida Statutes, the chief judge of each judicial circuit is charged with the authority and the power to do everything necessary to
promote the prompt and efficient administration of justice...”

34. That is exactly what the Appellant was telling the jury to do: to promote
justice. Judge Perry is trying to prevent the juries from delivering justice by upholding unjust laws.

35. Article V, Section 2(d) of the Florida Constitution reads:


“2(d)!A chief judge in each circuit shall be chosen from among the circuit judges as provided by supreme court rule. The chief judge shall be responsible for the administrative supervision of the circuit courts
and county courts in his circuit.”

36. This section does not give the Chief Judge the authority to prevent anyone from promoting justice.

37. The only part of Section 43.26 of the Florida Statutes that mentionspromoting justice is Section e, which reads:

“To do everything necessary to promote the prompt and efficient administration of justice in the courts over which he or she is chief judge”

38. Informing juries that their duty is to administer justice is exactly what the statute requires and what the Appellant was asking pedestrians, including jurors, to do.

39. The second paragraph on page 1 of the Administrative Order deals with administrative supervision of the court.    Defendent never mentioned or questioned supervision to anyone.

40. The third paragraph on page 1 deals with safe and orderly use of court facilities. The Appellant never mentioned nor involved himself with use of court facilities.

41. In the fourth paragraph on page 1 The Administrative Order suggests that dissemination of leaflets might be in violation of Section 918.12 of the Florida Statutes. Section 918.12 reads:

“918.12    Tampering with jurors.—Any person who influences the judgment or decision of any grand or petit juror on any matter, question, cause, or proceeding which may be pending, or which may by law be brought, before him or her as such juror, with intent to obstruct the administration of justice, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”

42. Appellant never discussed any matter that would come before a juror.    Of the 8 juror witnesses, none even implied that such
occurred, or that they even mentioned to Appellant on which case they were serving.

43. The last paragraph on page 1 states:

“...a Ninth Circuit Court judge recently found a jury panel had been tampered with per section 918.12, Florida statutes, and Nobles v. State, 769 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), as members of a the jury were in possession of leaflets containing information attempting to influence the jury.”

44. That could not have been the Appellant, because he never distributed literature in front of the Orange County Courthouse before 2008. Furthermore no juror claimed that to be the case at Appellant’s trial or in a deposition.

45. The first paragraph that starts WHEREAS on page 2, says that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of the jury system. That is exactly what Appellant was doing: protecting the State’s compelling interest to see that justice is done.

46. The rest of the Administrative Order tells how Judge Perry is going to hinder that compelling interest by keeping jurors ignorant of their duty to see that justice is done.

FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

http://ablelegalforms.com/canons/judicialcode.html


47. “All judges and judicial officers have taken an oath of office to ‘support and defend’ state and federal constitutions.    Specifically, a judge must not deny anyone of their rights to due process of law, access to the courts, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and many other rights set out in our state and federal constitutions.    Other government authorities may deprive you of your rights, rightly or wrongly, but only a judge can deny you of your rights.    The JQC will consider such violations if addressed in your complaint.”

48. Appellant claims that his right to free press was denied by Judge Perry. Appellant has filed a complaint with the Judicial Qualifications Commission in Tallahassee, Florida.

SERVICE

49. On August 18, 2011, while Appellant Heicklen was distributing fully informed jury information at the Orange County, FL courthouse, he was served by two deputy sheriffs with two court orders.    The service was performed in a non- free speech zone, which is a violation of the orders being served.    The deputies were not arrested nor otherwise punished for violating the orders, thus showing unequal and malicious enforcement of the orders.

ARREST

Monday, August 22, 2011

50. Appellant arrived at the Orange County Courthouse, 405 N. Orange Road at 7:30 am. It was a cool and sunny day.

51. Appellant was met by the Fox News broadcasting van. A reporter had a video camera and tripod. He photographed and interviewed me for about 10 minutes, and then left.    His video was displayed on Fox News on Friday, August 26, in
the evening news.

52. Appellant distributed about 40 pamphlets entitled “Your Jury Rights: True or
False” as well as his flyer.

 53. The sheriff deputies arrived at 8:10 am and placed him under arrest. Appellant
fell to the ground and remained silent.

54. Appellant was put into a wheel chair and wheeled into the courthouse, where
Appellant was kept in confinement until Appellant was brought into court to face Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., who had issued the two court orders which Appellant had violated.

55. Appellant’s property consisting of a tote bag with pamphlets, flyers, a JURY INFO sign, a clipboard, and his baseball cap with the upside down American flag were confiscated, and have not been returned as of May 21, 2012.

ARRAIGNMENT

56. At 10:00 am On Monday, August 22, 2011, Appellant was brought into the Orange County Courtroom presided by Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., who had issued the court orders.

57. Appellant exercised his Amendment V right to remain silent. Judge Perry pled not guilty on his behalf, appointed Appellant as his own counsel, but did not set bail. Appellant was remanded to the Orange County Jail until September 1, 2011, at 1:30 pm, when he would stand trial.

58. The purpose of an arraignment is to either dismiss the case or to define the charge, set bail and trial date, and provide a deposition for the arrest. Bail was not set, and Appellant was kept as a prisoner for 22 days until a bail hearing.

59. Within a few hours, Appellant received the deposition from the judge along with witness testimony. Within another few hours this material was confiscated by prison guards and not returned for 22 days.

60. This was a violation of Appellant’s right to have legal reading matter as guaranteed by the Orange County Corrections Department Inmate Handbook and U. S. Supreme Court decision of Bounds v. Smith 430 U.S. 817 (1977):
“The fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.”

61. Appellant went to trial without having any of this information.

62. He was assigned to the medical facility for the duration of his stay. As a result, Appellant was denied access to the law library in violation of Florida law and the Orange County Corrections Department Inmate handbook, even though he made several requests to have access.

63. He went to trial without having any of this information.

64. He made several requests to have a jury trial, as guaranteed by Amendment V of the U. S. Constitution and Article I.9 of the Florida Constitution for all criminal trials.    Since he was charged with criminal contempt, he was entitled to a jury trial. but his requests were ignored.

PRISON ERRORS

65. In prison Appellant’s legal matter was confiscated in intake on the first dayAppellant was denied access to the law library during his whole stay of 22 days in the jail.

66. Appellant could not prepare an adequate defense.

THE TRIAL

67. The trial occurred on September 1, 2011, at 1:30 pm.

68Appellant Heicklen acted as his own counsel.

69. Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., who issued the complaint, officiated and acted as the prosecutor.

70. This brief was written on October 12, 2011, 42 days after the trial.    No transcript has been received. Thus this description of the trial is written from memory.

71. Chief Judge Perry acted in three capacities: 1) as the accusing litigant, 2) as
the trial judge, and 3) as the prosecutor.

Evidence

72. The flyer distributed by Appellant agrees with and supports Florida Statute Section 43.26, Part e.
20
73. Judges violate the law twice when they tell the jury to uphold the law as he gives it:

a) Jurors must deliver justice, not uphold the law.

 b) Jurors must consider the law, not as the judge gives it, but as it is
written by the legislature.    Jurors must see written copies of the laws involved.

Deputy Sheriff testimony

74. The testimony of the deputy sheriffs was correct except for two errors:

a. Appellant is not a member of the Fully Informed Jury Association.


b. Neither the distributed pamphlet nor the enclosed flyer mention the word “nullify.”


Witness testimony

3 who testified

75. Sumanbha Nayee: Juror badge 158: He did not say that Appellant approached him or asked if he was a juror. He inferred he walked toward Appellant. There was no indication that he was a juror.

76. Michele Crites, Juror badge 460: She admitted that she approached Appellant. There was no indication that she was a juror.

77. Adem Hakan Ozoglu, Juror badge 28: He approached Appellant. There was
no indication that he was a juror.

5 who did not testify:

written statements only

78. Kim Schaefer: She admits she walked by Appellant.    She claimed that Appellant asked her if she was a juror.    Appellant denies this.   She did not appear at the trial, so Appellant could not identify her or cross-examine her. There is no indication on the report sheet that she even was a juror. No badge number is given. She admits that there was no further comment.

79. Lester Bruce Hicks: No indication that he was a juror or that Appellant approached him. He admits that no words were passed.

80. Caroline Krohne: No badge number given. She admits that she approached Appellant. She admits that there was no conversation.


81. Helen R. Killen No badge number. No indication that she was a juror. No indication that Appellant approached her.    She claimed that Appellant asked if she was on a jury.    Appellant denies the claim, but of course could not challenge it in court.

82. Michael Rezmer: No badge number. He admits he approached Appellant and grabbed the flyer out of his hand. He admits that Appellant said nothing.

83. None of jurors had a visible badge or displayed a juror sign.

84. Only one woman mentioned that she was a juror after she took a pamphlet.

85.There were no claims that Appellant approached anyone.

86. Two non-jurors claim that Appellant asked if they were on a jury. Appellant denies the claims, but could not challenge them because they did not appear in court. In any event, it is irrelevant, because neither of the claimants was on a jury.


87. None of people claimed that Appellant approached them. Five said or inferred that they approached Appellant. None said that there was any conversation. Five were not jurors and did not testify.    However this proves that Appellant did not single out jurors or learn of the trials of those that were.

88. Eight individuals, of whom 3 were jurors, filed written statements. None of them reported that they were approached by Appellant. Eight individuals, of whom 3 were jurors, filed written statements. None of them reported that they were approached by Appellant. On the contrary, 5 of them admitted or inferred that they approached Appellant.

89. Only one stated that Appellant asked her if she was a juror.

90. Of the 8 witnesses, only 3 jurors appeared in court. Thus Appellant was denied the opportunity to confront 5 of the 8 witnesses, in violation of the U. S. Constitution Amendment V and Florida Constitution Article I.10.

91. The witness who claimed that she was asked if she was a juror did not appear in court. Thus Appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-exam her. Appellant claims her testimony is false.  

92. At the distribution, one woman took a pamphlet and then told Appellant that she was a juror. Perhaps that was the juror who did not testify, but claimed that Appellant asked her if she was a juror.    We shall never know, because that
woman was not present for cross examination.

93. Thus Appellant was denied the opportunity to confront 5 of the 8 witnesses, in violation of the U. S. and Florida Constitutions.

94. Of the 8 witnesses, only 3 jurors appeared in court. Thus Appellant was denied
the opportunity to confront 5 or the 8 witnesses, in violation of the U. S. Constitution Amendment VI and Florida Constitution Article I.10.

95. The witness who claimed that she was asked if she was a juror did not appear in court. Thus Appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-exam her.
Appellant claims her testimony is false.

96. At the distribution, one woman took a pamphlet and then told Appellant that she was a juror. Perhaps that was the juror who did not testify, but claimed that Appellant asked her if she was a juror.    We shall never know, because that woman was not present for cross examination.

Prosecution testimony

97. Acting as prosecutor, Judge Perry claimed that Appellant approached known jurors and handed them jury information literature that hindered the enforcement of the court’s duties.

98. His statement was false on three counts:

a. Appellant did not approach anyone. He stood still. Pedestrians approached or avoided him as they chose.

b. Appellant did not know who was or was not a juror.

c. The literature did not hinder the court’s legally required duty to see that justice was done, as required by Florida Statute Section 43.26, Part e.

d. On the contrary, the literature informed the jury that the judges were violating the above law by informing them that they must uphold the law as he gives it to them.

99. Written testimony was given by the two arresting officers. Appellant accepted
their testimony with minor corrections.

Defense

100. Appellant gave three arguments in his defense:

Argument 1: Content

101. Presuming that everything in the distributed pamphlets was false did not disqualify Appellant from distributing those lies.


102. The New York Times prints lies every day; that is why it has a daily corrections page.    No action is taken against the New York Times by the government, because of First Amendment right of free press. Appellant has the same right.


103. Furthermore Judge Perry’s Order does not prevent distribution of the pamphlets in designated free speech zones.


104. Thus the content of the pamphlet is not in dispute.


Argument 2: Time and Place

105. Appellant informed that court that he distributed pamphlets 64 times at 38 federal district courts.

106. Appellant was arrested a total of 13 times at 3 of those courthouses for violating U. S. Regulation 41 C.F.R. § 102–74.415(c) against distributing literature on federal property. His photographer was arrested once for violating U. S. Regulation 41 C.F.R. § 102–74.420 against photographing on federal property.


107. The U. S. Attorneys dismissed all the arrest charges.

108. Furthermore the U. S. Attorney’s Office has notified all federal district courts
that the arrests must stop, and they have.

109. Appellantt also has distributed the pamphlets 16 times at 8 county

courthouses.    He has only been arrested on August 22, 2011, at the Orange
County Courthouse.

110. Furthermore, others have distributed such pamphlets at every county

courthouse in NH; once a month, in Montgomery County, PA; at least twice in
Summit, NJ; and periodically in Fort Worth, TX without incident.

111. Massive demonstrations with signs occur on the steps and plaza in front of the U. S. Supreme Court without interference by law enforcement (See pictures at

end of this document).

112. The Orlando arrests of Mark Schmidter and Appellant are contrary to practices at all other courthouses in the U. S. Thus the time and place are not causes for the arrest.

Argument 3: Unequal Enforcment

113. Appellant mentioned that there might be some special reason for the arrests in Orlando that is not known to him.


114. Even if that were so, the enforcement is selective.

115. Appellant pointed out that he was served by the deputy sheriffs in a non-free
speech zone, but they were not arrested.

116. Also pamphlets are returned sometimes to Appellant or circulated among other pedestrians by each other in non-free speech zones without being arrested, or even warned.

117. Appellant also has seen pedestrians exchange business cards in the forbidden speech zones, but are not even warned by guards that they are violating the court orders.

118. In addition to the three preceding arguments, Appellant was denied a jury trial in violation of U. S. Constitution Article III, Section 2 and Amendment VI; and the Florida Constitution Article I.4.

119. Appellant could not prepare for his trial, because he was denied access to the arraignment disposition, the arraignment record, and the jail law library.

120. Appellant was denied due process by the judge.

121. Appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine 5 of the 8 witnesses who testified.

122. Judge lied about Appellant interfering with the administration of justice for informing the public of its duty to see that justice is done (Florida Statute Section 43.26, Part e).

123. Appellant was not given the opportunity to provide witnesses on his behalf, a violation of Amendment V of the U. S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution Article I.10.

124. Appellant was imprisoned without bail before the trial to prevent him from preparing an adequate defense, even though Judge Perry appointed Appellant to be his own counsel.


125. Appellant was improperly treated because he exercised his Amendment V right to remain silent.


126. Judge Perry made statements that he knew to be false, when he said that Appellant singled out jurors, approached pedestrian, and interfered with the dispensation of justice.


127. Appellant is at a disadvantage in preparing this brief, because he has not been given a transcript of the trial.


128. Judge Perry took punitive action against Appellant because he acted as his own counsel.    He continually advised Appellant to hire an attorney to represent
him. The inference was clear that if he did not, he would be given no consideration.

129. At the trial, Appellant was sentenced to 145 days in prison.    A bail hearing

was set for September 12, 2011. Until then Appellant was returned to jail.

BOND HEARING

130. The bond Hearing was delayed 22 days from the arraignment date.

131. This was done to start the punishment by keeping Appellant in custody even before the mock trial.

132. Excessive bail of $12,000.00 was set in violation of Amendment VIII of the U. S. Constitution.    Previously Mark Schmidter was arrested for the same reason. His bail was set at $2500.00.


133. Appellant’s wife, daughter, Adam Sudbury, and Mark Schmidter posted the bail. Appellant was released from jail at 10:00 pm on the evening of September 12, 2011.


CLAIMS

134. Appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to free speech and free press.


135. Judge Perry made false statements in his court orders, as discussed above.

136. Judge Perry made false statements at the trial, as discussed above.

137. Appellant supported Florida Statute Section 43.26, Section e to do justice and was punished for it. Florida judges violate this statute when they inform juries that they must uphold the law.

138. Appellant did not approach anyone during his distribution of pamphlets.

139. Appellant did not target jurors, He did not know who was a juror, except for one woman who notified him after she accepted the pamphlet.

140. Excessive bail was set and only until after 22 days imprisonment.

141. There was no jury trial in violation of both the U. S. and Florida
Constitutions.

142. Appellant was improperly charged.

143. Appellant was punished for using his U. S. Constitution Amendment V right to silence.

144. The trial was not impartial, since the Judge was also a litigant and prosecutor.

145. Appellant was deprived of his right to use the Orange County jail law library.

146. Appellant was deprived of arraignment papers prior to trial.

147. The sentence of 145 days imprisonment is excessive.

148. Appellant was denied cross examination of 5 witnesses who did not appear in court.

149. Appellant was denied due process.

150. The prosecution was malicious: Only one order was split into 2 parts to turn a civil complaint into a criminal complaint.

151. Appellant was a victim of selective enforcement at the Orange County Courthouse.

152. No other U. S. or state courthouse has a similar regulation in force against distributing information.

RELIEF SOUGHT

153. Petitioner requests that the conviction be overturned.

154. Petitioner requests the return of his property seized by the deputy sheriffs
during the arrest.

155. Petitioner requests recovery of $1200 that he paid the bail bondsman plus
interest.

156. Petitioner requests recovery $5,000.00 plus interest in legal expenses.

157. Petitioner requests $22,000.00 for the 22 days he spent in jail.

158. Petitioner requests $100,000.00 from the State of Florida for punitive damages.

AFFIDAVIT
    Appellant Julian Heicklen affirms, under penalty of perjury, that all factual statements in this appeal are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Appellant Julian Heicklen affirms that copies of this APPEAL have been
sent by certified U. S. mail to the following on May 21, 2012:

Florida State Attorney General Pam bond, Office of Attorney General, State of Florida, The Capitol PL-01, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Telephone 850-414-3300

Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., 9th Judicial Circuit Court of FL for Orange County, 425 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone 407–836–2008

Clerk of Court, 9th Judicial Circuit Court of FL for Orange County, 425 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801, Telephone 407–836–2050

Clerk of Court, The Fifth District Court of Appeal, 300 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, Telephone: (386) 255-8600 • FAX (386) 947-1562 (Original plus 3 copies)

Mark Schmidter, 3609 Shader Road, Orlando, FL 32808, Telephone 407– 616–1501
_____________________
 Julian Heicklen
Appellant
Counsel Pro Se