by Julian Heicklen

Presented at the Freedom Law Conference, 2012

Heicklen Jury Tampering Trial
    Starting on October 19, 2009, Julian Heicklen distributed fully informed jury literature on the plaza in front of the U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. The literature informed passersby, including jurors, that they were not obligated to uphold the law.  The obligation of a jury was to see that justice was done.

    Heicklen appeared 14 times at the courthouse over a span of 22 months. Heicklen was arrested on 11 occasions. On 7 of these occasions, he was cited for violation of U. S. Regulation 41 CFR Sec 102–74.415(c) prohibiting distributing of literature on federal property. He failed to pay any of the $100 fines or appear at court hearings. The U. S. Attorney dismissed all the cases. Instead, he was charged with the misdemeanor crime of jury tampering in a grand jury hearing of November 10, 2010.

    Heicklen was not notified of the grand jury hearing, so he
could not attend. The Assistant U. S. Attorney, Rebecca Mermelstein lied to the grand jury by claiming that Heicklen had tampered with a specific unnamed juror and discussed jury nullification in front of a jury. Thus the indictment was invalid.

    However the trial proceeded. At a hearing in which Heicklen asked for a jury trial in conformance with Article III, Section 2, and Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution, the Court denied this right.

    Subsequently, On November 29, 2011, Heicklen moved for a jury trial, the names and addresses of the grand jurors, the tampered jury, and the tampered juror, so that he could interview them in the presence of a court reporter and a person who could and would deliver an oath in accordance with court rules. His motions have been ignored.

    Subsequently Heicklen demanded a jury trial. The requesthas been ignored by the Judge. The copy sent to the Pro Se clerk was returned with the notice that the Court would not accept correspondence from him.

    Three times that a court hearing was scheduled, the judge granted delays. She does not write a notice to Heicklen. He receives a copy of the U. S. Attorney’s request with a stamp of a new date and the judges signature. No certificate of service is included as required by court rules. There is no way for Heicklen to know if the communication is authentic.

    The defense has requested a bill of particulars on 3 occasions. The U. S. Attorney is obligated to submit one, but just ignores the request. He has failed to identify any witness that will testify.

    The Constitution of the State of NY requires the jury to
judge the law as well as the fact as given in Article I § 8: “… and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.” The U. S. Attorney has stated in writing that this indeed is the law.

    She states on page 6 of her Memorandum of Law in
    Opposition to Defendant’s Motions:

“Thus while the courts in this Circuit have acknowledged the jury’s ability to nullify, courts have also uniformly held that jury nullification is improper because it ‘is, by definition, a violation of a juror’s oath to apply the law as instructed by the court’.”

    Of course when a juror takes that oath, the assumption is that the judge will tell the truth. No one is obligated to follow an illegal order. If the judge ordered the jurors to take off all of their clothes because that is the law in his court, should the jurors comply? Furthermore the jurors also took an oath to uphold the Constitution, which would take precedence in any event.

    Heicklen has distributed this literature in 64 appearances at 40 federal district courts. At three of these court he was arrested for distribution of literature in violation of U. S. Regulation 41 CFR Sec 102–74.415(c) prohibiting distributing of literature on federal property.  He refused to pay any the fines or appear at the hearings.

    All three of the courts have dismissed the charges, because they
are unconstitutional violations of Amendment I. By failing to enforce the regulation, 40 federal courts have agreed that federal courtyards are public forums that permit freedom of speech.

    It is now almost 16 months since the grand jury indictment,
and absolutely nothing has happened in this case. The pre-trial procedures have not even begun. Thus Heicklen has been denied a speedy trial in conflict with Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution.

Dismissal of Indictment
    It is obvious that the court will not bring this case to trial, but just wait for Heicklen (who will be 80 years old on March 9, 2012) to die. The Court is in the uncomfortable position of being unable to dismiss the case outright, because it will be an admission of criminal activity by every judge in the country for lying to jurors by instructing them to uphold the law as he gives it. Every judge in the country is guilty of perjury with the intent of jury tampering.

    Furthermore there is no way that Heicklen could get an impartial trial, as required by Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution, in any court in the country, because all of the judges in the country have a vested interest in the outcome.


Since jury nullification is now acknowledged by the U. S. Attorney to be legal and can be discussed on courthouse property outside the courthouse (a public forum), the trial of Julian Heicklen for jury tampering has dragged to a close. The instructions that federal judges give in the U. S. District Courts in the 2nd Circuit include the statement:

    “Regardless of any opinion that you may have as to what the law may be or ought to be, it is your sworn duty to follow the law as I give it to you.”

    The judge is lying twice. The jurors are not obligated to
uphold the law at all if they decide that justice will not be done.  Furthermore, if the law is upheld, it must be that written in the statute, not the judge’s rendition of it. Because I have exposed all federal judges as liars, my case cannot be tried, because there would be no impartial judge. In fact they should all be on trial for perjury to subvert justice.

Amnesty for Prisoners
    No prisoner in the United States has had an impartial legal trial. If they did not have a jury trial, then Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution requirement for a jury trial was denied to them. If they had a jury trial, the judge tampered the jury by misinforming it of its duty.

    Thus in all criminal cases in this
country, the defendants were denied a legal fair trial. All of them should be given amnesty and released from prison immediately.

People’s Tribunal
    Heicklen proposes that citizen tribunals should be established to try each of the judges in the United States and punish them for jury tampering, if found guilty. No judge or attorney should be permitted to sit on this tribunal, because all of them have a conflict of interest. They all are guilty, either by direct participation or by condoning criminal behavior of the courts, of which they are officers.