734 Rutland Avenue
Teaneck, NJ 07666
814–880–9308
jph13@psu.edu

May 17, 2011

Chief Judge Belvin Perry
Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida
425 N. Orange Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801

Re: Administrative Order NO. 2011–07

Dear Judge Perry:

    On May 4, 2011, You issued Administrative Order NO. 2011–07 restricting free speech at or near the courthouse to a designated “Free Speech Zone.”  The “Free Speech Zone” which you designated has very little pedestrian traffic.  In effect you have designated an almost no “Free Speech Zone.”

    To support your decision to limit free speech to a restricted area, you relied on some previous court decisions, primarily Huminski v. Corsones, 396, F. 3d 53 (2d Cir. 2005).  I am very familiar with this court case and have studied it extensively.  It was an enormous error in judgment by the U. S. circuit court, which overruled the decision of the U. S. district court judge.

    However, even that decision does not apply to your action.  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.

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

    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.

    Even if the Corsones v. Huminski 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 you pretend that they do.

    The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution made all of the United States a free speech zone.  I will be returning to your courthouse in June, 2011, to defy your order.

    Yours in freedom and justice.

Sincerely yours,


Julian Heicklen
Organizer
Tyranny Fighters

CC: Tyranny Fighters E-mail list and everyone else that I can reach.