734 Rutland Avenue
Teaneck, NJ 07666

August 15, 2011

President Barak Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Re: Removal from office of Attorney General Eric Holder, U. S. Attorney Preet Bharara, and Assistant U. S. Attorney Rebecca Mermelstein

Dear President Obama:
    I am requesting that you remove U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder,  U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY Breet Bharara, and Assistant U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY Rebecca Mermelstein from public office.  They have colluded and engaged in criminal action on November 16, 2010 when they submitted known false statements to a Grand Jury and on June 21, 2011, when they enlisted an undercover agent to engage in entrapment.

    I wrote to Attorney General Holder on February 22, 2011, (copy enclosed) requesting that he remove Breet Bharara and Rebecca Mermelstein from office for the crime that they committed by submitting false information to a Grand Jury.  Attorney General Holder forwarded the letter to Mark J. Kapplehoff, Section Chief, Criminal Section, who informed me that his office had no jurisdiction to handle the matter at issue (copy enclosed).  Attorney General Holder must have, or should have, known that office was not the appropriate place to send the letter.  This was a deliberate attempt on his part to see that my request was ignored.

A.Timeline of Pertinent Events
    I distribute fully informed jury information at courthouses around the country.  This information informs the public that juries have the right, and even the duty, to nullify the law when appropriate.  I also point out that the judge is lying if he instructs the jury that it must uphold the law as he gives it to them.  Federal rules of court require judges to tell this lie.

    I have distributed this literature 57 times at 34 federal courthouses and 15 times at 7 county courthouses.  I do not discuss individual cases in progress.  I was indicted for jury tampering on November 16, 2010.  In the indictment (copy enclosed) it was stated that I:

“attempted to influence the actions and decision of a grand and petit juror or a court of the United States, to wit, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, upon an issue pending before such juror, and before a jury of which he was a member, and pertaining to his duties, by writing and sending to him a written communication in relation to such issue or matter...”

In fact, neither juror nor case were identified in the Grand Jury indictment of November 16, 2010, since there is no such juror or case.  In fact I have never been before a jury in a federal court.  Ms. Mermelstein committed perjury when she informed the Grand Jury that a juror had been tampered (U. S. Crime of Perjury: 18. U. S. C. § 1623; copy enclosed).

    Furthermore, I was not notified of the Grand Jury hearing, so that I could not testify before the Grand Jury, as is my right.  Grand Jury hearings are secret, so as not to damage the accused if he is not indicted.  Their purpose is not to deny the accused the right to testify in his own behalf.  Thus the U. S. Attorney’s office is guilty of tampering with a Grand Jury.

    On June 21, 2011, I was distributing fully informed jury information in front of the U. S. District Courthouse in White Plains, NY.  A disc of a conversation with a U. S. undercover agent, as identified in a letter from Rebecca Mermelstein (copy enclosed), indicates that the agent falsely identified himself as being a juror on a court case. An employee of the prosecuting attorney’s office cannot sit on a jury, because Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution requires an impartial jury.  If, in fact, he was sitting on a jury, he and the U. S. Attorney would be guilty of jury tampering.

    The U. S. Attorney’s office is guilty of the crimes of entrapment, perjury, and tampering with a Grand Jury.  Both Breet Bharara and Rebecca Mermelstein should not only be dismissed, but tried and punished, if found guilty, for the crimes that they have committed.

B. Dscussion with the undercover agent
    During the discussion with the undercover agent, he claimed that he was on a jury.  I proceeded with a discussion of jury nullification in general.  The recording indicates that I made the statements:

“ I do not know what your case is.  Do not tell me. I do not want to know. I will not discuss it.  I could get caught for jury tampering. In fact they are trying to get me for jury tampering.  I am not telling you what to do.  In your case maybe the law should be upheld.”

Of course there was no discussion of his case, because there was no case to discuss.  I gave my standard 20 minute speech about jury nullification, which I have given in public talks at least 9 times.  Everything that I said was true.  The problem is that the judges and federal attorneys are ignorant of the law.

    Furthermore, this could not have been the evidence told to the Grand Jury, since it occurred 7 months after the indictment and was submitted almost 4 months after the deadline for the prosecution to submit discovery.  It is not relevant to the jury tampering criminal case. It cannot even be used for evidence in this case, because it occurred after the case was filed and discovery was terminated.

C. Validity of Jury Nullification
    Several of the founding fathers and subsequent judges have strongly supported jury nullification, as indicated on the enclosed information sheet. According to Tom Stahl: “Jury nullification is explicitly authorized in the constitutions of 24 states.  The constitutions of Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to ‘judge’ or ‘determine’ the law in ‘all criminal cases.’” (http://www.fija.org/docs/ JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf).

    Other organs of government also can nullify the laws. The legislature can always repeal laws.    The executive has the prerogative of dismissing cases it wishes not to prosecute, as happened with me after 14 separate offenses.  Judges can dismiss cases in the interest of justice, which also has happened to me.    When police officers stop a person for an offense, they have the option of giving citations or warnings.      If they give warnings, they have nullified the law, as they have done with me on more than one occasion.

    Juries have the same right and duty. That is why we have juries: to protect the people from the tyranny of government officials like judges.  Jury nullification has a long and glorious history in the United States.  It is the mechanism by which we obtained freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom for fugitive slaves, the end of alcohol prohibition, the end of a number of obscenity laws, the end of the crimes of inter-racial and homosexual sex.  Currently some juries are refusing to convict drug possession crimes.

    An extensive discussion of the legal history of jury nullification is given in Chapter V of my book entitled “The Non-Trials,” Ishi press, New York & Tokyo, 2011, and the references given therein. Additional information can be obtained from the American Jury Institute, P. O. Box 5570, Helena, MT 59604–5570.

D. Timeline of the criminal case against Heicklen
    A Grand Jury indictment was filed on November 16, 2010 (copy enclosed).

    The first court hearing was on February 25, 2011 with Judge Kimba Wood presiding.  I am acting as my own counsel. Sabrina Shroff of the Federal Defenders Office is my stand-by counsel.  I pointed out the inconsistencies listed above and moved for dismissal of the case.  Motion denied.  Judge Wood denied my motion for a jury trial, thus violating her oath to uphold the U. S. Constitution. She should be impeached and tried for either sedition or treason.

Judge Wood set the following schedule:

Prosecution to submit its arguments and discovery by March 31, 2011.
Defense response and discovery by April 30, 2011.
Prosecution reply by May 15, 2011.  

    The first two dates were met.  Defense submitted argument for dismissal, but no evidence, because the evidence submitted by the prosecution was video recordings of the various events taken by Defendant’s photographers.  However the prosecution reply, which consisted only of the disc, was not sent until July 28, 2011.

E. Request
    The U. S. Attorney General is running a criminal mob in the Southern District of New York.  I urge you to dismiss him and his mobster accomplices.  I will be happy to come to Washington to discuss any of these matters further with you or your staff.

    Thank you for your consideration.

Yours in freedom and justice,

Julian Heicklen
Tyranny Fighters

Letter of August 15, 2011, to Judge Kimba Wood
Grand jury indictment of November 16, 2010
Letter of July 28, 2011 from U. S. Assistant Attorney Rebecca Mermelstein
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1623.
False declarations before grand jury or court
List of previous statements of judges re jury nullification
Letter of February 22, 2011, to Attorney General Eric Holder
Letter of July 12, 2011, from Georgiana Yeomans
Information of April 27, 2011, sent to Judge Kimba Wood

Courtesy Copies to
Vice President Joseph Biden, The White House, West Wing, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20500

Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001

U. S. Attorney Breet Bharara, Southern District of New York, One Andrews Plaza, New York, NY 10007

Assistant U. S. Attorney Rebecca Mermelstein, Southern District of New York, U. S. Courthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, NY 10601

Chief Justice John Roberts, Supreme Court of the United States,  One First Street N.E., Washington, DC 20543

Speaker John Boehner, United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.

Congressman Lamar Smith, Chair, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 2409 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

Senator Charles Schumer, 322 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, 478 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, 324 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 (202)–224–3224

Senator Robert Menendez, 528 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 (202)–224–4744

Congressman Steve Rothman, U. S. House of Representatives Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

Chief Judge Preska, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York, U. S. Courthouse, 500 Pearls Street, New York, NY 10007

Judge Kimba Wood, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York, U. S. Courthouse, 500 Pearls Street, New York, NY 10007

Sabrina Shroff, Federal Defender’s Office, 52 Duane Street #10, New York, NY 10007–1291

News Editor, The New York Times, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018

Ben Weiser, The New York Times, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018

News Editor, NY Post, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-8790

Co-Anchors Elizabeth Vargas and Chris Cuomo, 20/20, ABC Television, 77 W 66th St # 13, NY 10023
Bill Owens, Executive Editor, 60 Minutes, CBS Television Network 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York

Tyranny Fighters via E-mail without enclosures


“The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judges...” U. S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court, 1941.

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.”    Oliver Wendell Holmes, U. S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902.

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796; Signer of the unanimous Declaration.

“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”    John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court, 1789.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court
(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.
(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
each declaration was material to the point in question, and
each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.
(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.