734 rutland Avenue
Teaneck, NJ 07666

November 1, 2010

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

Re: Removal of Judge Richard J. Holwell, Case #10 Civ. 02239 (RJH) (JLC)

Dear Judge Preska:

    I have distributed American Jury Institute pamphlets in front of the U. S. District Courthouse for the Southern District of New York at noon on 12 different dates.  I have been arrested 10 times, robbed once by the federal police, and ignored once.  On seven occasions I was taken to hospitals (Saint Vincent Catholic Hospital once, Bellevue Medical Center three times, and New York Downtown Hospital three times) for what is euphemistically called “extraordinary rendition.”

    For these reasons, I am the Plaintiff in Case #10 Civ. 02239 (RJH) (JLC), in which Judge Richard J. Holwell is the presiding judge.  The Defendants are: Department of Homeland Security, New York City Fire Department, Saint Vincent Catholic Hospital, Bellevue Medical Center, New York Downtown Hospital, U. S. Central Violations Bureau, and some of their employees.  I am requesting that Judge Holwell be removed from this case and replaced by a judge who will provide a fair and impartial trial.  The reasons for this request are the following:

 1. No guarantee of a jury trial
    Plaintiff’s complaint was submitted to the Pro Se  Office on January 27, 2010.  Service of Defendants, except for the John Doe Defendants, was done on May 20 and 21, 2010.  “Additional Incidents” to the complaint was submitted on September 8, 2010.  In the original complaint is a motion for a jury trial, which is my right under Amendment VII of the U. S. Constitution.  Judge Holwell has not acted on that motion.  Apparently he has some reluctance to comply.

2. No judgment against Bellevue Medical Center
    Summons were served on all but the John Doe Defendants on May 20 and 21, 2010.  No response was received from Bellevue Medial Center or any of its employees.  On July 27, 2010, I wrote the following to Judge Holwell:

    “According to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant must respond to the plaintiff within 21 days or ‘judgment by default WILL (not may) be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.’  The U. S. District Court S. D. N. Y. claims to follow this rule.  A copy of its statement of policy is enclosed.  It is now over 2 months and Plaintiff has received no correspondence from Bellevue Hospital or any of its employees.”

    “Enclosed is a motion for enforcement.  Plaintiff demands that it be executed in conformance with Federal Rule 12 of Civil Procedure.  Thank you for your expected cooperation.”

Judge Holwell has not issued an ORDER, nor has any other action been taken on this motion.

 3. Stay for St. Vincent Catholic Hospital
    On July 29, 2010, Saint Vincent Catholic Hospital requested a stay in proceedings, because it had declared bankruptcy and was in bankruptcy court at the time. I replied in a letter of August 2, 2010, to Judge James Cott, who was assisting Judge Holwell with this case, as follows:

    “However, I do not have any claims on St. Vincent’s Catholic Hospital at this time.  I see three issues here:

    One possible outcome of the current lawsuit is that the Court order St. Vincent’s Catholic Hospital to stop acting as a law enforcement agent in cooperation with law enforcement officials.  Health care and law enforcement should be separate occupations. Such a decision is not a present claim on the hospital and is not covered by the stay.

    This civil suit will drag on forever as is the custom of this court.  I filed a complaint in January, 2008, which still has not completed the discovery phase.  Apparently this court does not understand that justice delayed is justice denied.  If this trial results in a monetary award, it will be long after the bankruptcy stay has expired.

    If the bankruptcy claim puts a stay on all debts, then a person could steal or borrow $1 million on Tuesday and declare bankruptcy on Wednesday.  The legal battle will go on for years, so that when the stay is lifted, the $1 million will have been spent and no longer exist.  In such a situation the law is ridiculous.  The court should nullify the law and ignore the stay.

    I request that you deny Ms. Totten’s claim and keep St.Vincent’s Catholic Hospital and its employees as Defendants.  Thank you for your consideration.”

    On August 18, 2010, Judge Holwell granted that stay for Saint Vincent Catholic Hospital.  This seems to me to be a ridiculous decision, even if it is in accord with the law.  On October 8, 2010, I asked him to rescind the stay, but received no response to this request.

 4. Immunity to prosecution of New York City Fire Department
    In a letter of August 23, 2010, the New York City Corporation Counsel, representing the New York City Fire Department, claimed that the Fire Department has immunity, because it is a department of New York City, and cannot be sued.  Why any entity should be immune from prosecution for any illegal actions is not clear to me.  I agreed to add the City of New York, Michael Bloomberg Mayor, as a Defendant.  Nothing has been heard since from Judge Holwell concerning this matter nor from the NY City Corporation Counsel.

5. No response to motion to recover property
    On May 25, 2010, I was arrested by the Department of Homeland Security Police on a warrant for my arrest in connection with my criminal trial in NY City Criminal Court. I, and most of my property, was transferred to the NY City Police, since this was not a federal matter.  This property included my carry (“tote”) bag, pants, sweater, sneakers, one sock, car keys, cell phone, cough drops, two Metro cards, two pens, facial tissues, U. S. Constitution, bus schedule, citation, pill box with teeth cleaners, clip board, JURY INFO sign, and pamphlets.

    I was held for 2 weeks in Riker’s Island prison before receiving a hearing in front of a magistrate on June 8, 2010.  At the hearing, the criminal case against me was dismissed in the interest of justice.  However the NY City Police will not return my property.  I have asked the Criminal Court of Manhattan, the U. S. Attorney for the Department of Homeland Security, and submitted motion papers to Judge Holwell on September 30, 2010, to return the property not needed as evidence.  

    The U. S. Attorney is unwilling to do this because the property is in the possession of NY City Police.  However I maintain that it is the duty of the Department of Homeland Security to obtain the release of my property, since it is the  Homeland Security Police who stole it from me and transferred it to the NY City Police.

6. No response to identify John Doe Defendants except by U. S. Attorney
    In a letter of September 8, 2010 to Judge James Cott, who was assisting Judge Holwell with this case, I pointed out that in the enclosed addition to my complaint are included three motions:

“Motion to delay service of the new Defendants until all the John Doe Defendants are identified, so that an updated complaint can be submitted with all the Defendants added at once.”

“I am notifying Defense counsels, through copies of this correspondence, to provide the identities of all John Doe Defendants.  They should be given 30 days from the receipt of this correspondence to comply.  If I do not have the identity of all the John Doe Defendants within 30 days, I shall submit motion papers for compliance.”

“I am notifying Defense counsels, through copies of this correspondence, to return my seized property within 15 days.  If this property is not returned within 15 days, I shall submit motion papers for compliance.”

    Enclosed in my letter of July 27, 2010 to Judge Holwell were motion papers to find judgment against Bellevue Hospital for failure to reply to service on May 20 and 21, 2010.  It is now over three months since service and there has been no reply from Bellevue Hospital or any of its employees.  Therefore I am asking you or Judge Holwell to respond to that motion by return mail.  According to Court rules, you have no option but to issue judgment against those Defendants.”

    The U. S. Attorney was very cooperative.  He gave me the names of the federal John Doe Defendants and the addresses where they could be served.  The other attorneys ignored this request.  Judge Holwell has failed to take any action.

7. N. Y. Downtown Hospital submitted hearsay testimony which judge accepts
    On October 8, 2010, I responded to a request mailed on September 22, 2010, from Alexandra Fridel, an attorney apparently representing NY Downtown Hospital, who requested that NY Downtown Hospital be removed as a Defendant, because it is an independent actor.  However Ms. Fridel has not made an appearance in the case, so the brief requires no answer.  Moreover the brief was incomplete in three ways:
 It only addresses one of my incidents at New York Downtown Hospital.  I was brought there on three occasions.  The other two events must be addressed.

     Of the 5 people whose affidavits are included, only one witnessed the event.  The other 4 provide hearsay evidence, which is interesting and useful, but it is hearsay and not admissible.  I will need the identities of all the people who attended to me and their sworn statements.
The hospitals and federal police are in collusion. The hospitals are not independent actors.  At the present time, I do not know of other arrested individuals who have been taken to New York Downtown Hospital.  However from the police conversations at my arrests, it is clear that this is routine procedure.  I am investigating the possibility of other arrestees who have been brought to hospitals.

8. I am treated differently than the other attorneys
    On October 4, 2010, I responded to Judge Holwell, that I could not respond in the usual time of 30 days, because of my travel schedule and the large number and length of the laws and court cases cited.  On October 11, 2010, I notified the judge that in order to respond properly to the brief, I would need to have affidavits from the hospital personnel who actually attended to me.  Since the Hospital will not provide that information, I will need an extension of time until that information is provided.    

    On October 20, 2010, Judge Holwell dismissed my request for an extension of time, but gave NY Downtown Hospital until November 29, 2010, to file a motion to dismiss my complaint with respect to additional incidents.  It has until November 29, 2010 to do so, and I have until December 29, 2010 to reply.  No mention was made of granting my motion to obtain the affidavits from the hospital personnel who actually attended to me.

    I had written to Judge Holwell that I could not reply by that date, because I needed statements from the John Doe Defendants who examined me in the hospital.  First I needed the identities of these people, so I could get their testimony.  Even though one of the New York Downtown Hospital attorneys and the New York City Corporation Counsel had previously been granted extensions of time; and the U.S. Attorney had been granted two extensions of time, Judge Holwell denied my request for an extension.

    Furthermore, I was somewhat shocked that Judge Holwell would consider such a request from the NY Downtown Hospital Attorneys.  They were asking the judge to decide a matter of fact, not of law.  I have not challenged the law against independent actors.  I claim that the hospitals are not independent actors, but are in collusion with the police.  It is the responsibility of the jury, not a judge, to decide matters of fact.

9. Plaintiff ordered not to correspond with Judge Holwell
    In the same ORDER of October 20, 2010, Judge Holwell has ordered me not to contact him in the future, but only to contact the District Court through the Pro Se Clerk.  The defense attorneys are allowed to contact Judge Holwell directly.

    I have released this letter to the public.  I think that it should know what transpires in a federal court.  Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Julian Heicklen
Counsel Pro Se

CC: Judge Richard J. Holwell, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York, U. S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007

    Pro Se Clerk, Room 230, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York, U. S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007

    Louis A. Pellegrino, Assistant U. S. Attorney, 86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10007, 212–637–2689

    Lesley Berson, Assistant Corporation Counsel, The City of New York, Law Department, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007, 202–788–0408

    Elizabeth O’Brien Totten, Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271, 212–980–9600

    Robert Drucker, Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, 220 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017, 212–916–0955

    Alexandra Fridel, Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, 220 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017, 212–916–0976