Not only did the police violate
my First Amendment rights, but they were involved in reckless
endangerment when they ordered me to move into a crowd with signs, rams’
horns, and electronic equipment. Also the police were ordering me to participate in a
crime, since the other demonstrators were blocking pedestrian traffic.
the other standing demonstrators were arrested
3. Police Allegations
In the arrest report,
the police allege that:
intentionally attempted to prevent a police officer and peace officer from
effecting an authorized arrest of himself and another
There was no other person arrested with me.
intentionally prevented and attempted to prevent a public servant from
performing an official function by intimidation, physical force and
interference and by means of an independently unlawful act;”
I did not attempt to do anything at all. There was no intimidation,
physical force, or interference. There was no independent unlawful act.
intent to cause
public inconvenience, annoyance and
recklessly creating a risk thereof,”
I did not do any of these things. But the police did.
“obstructing vehicular and
There were no pedestrians in my vicinity, and certainly no vehicles.
“and the defendant, with
intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and
recklessly creating a risk thereof,
congregated in a
public place with other persons”
I was not congregating. I was standing alone. That was the bone of
contention. The police ordered me to congregate, but I refused.
“and refused to comply
with a lawful order of the police to disperse.”
I could not disperse. I was standing alone.
to refusing to comply with an order of the police, because it was
unlawful. The other allegations were never made at the time of arrest,
though I asked for the reasons for arrest. They were manufactured
later. All of them are untrue.
occurred on April 18, 2007, in the Criminal Court of Manhattan.
the arraignment magistrate nor the prosecuting assistant district
attorney were identified to me or to any of the other arrestees in
keeping with the procedures of a court of inquisition.
other arrestees were arraigned before me. All of them, except for one
man, pleaded guilty.
exceptional arrestee pleaded not guilty several times, even though the
Court would not accept this plea and kept asking him to reconsider.
Finally one of the court stenographers yelled: “Plead guilty. You
know that you are guilty.” At this point the arrestee’s
court-appointed counsel pleaded guilty for the arrestee. So much for
the presumption of innocence.
arrestee was a 19-year old black woman. She was eating dinner at a
restaurant when she was arrested and strip searched. Cocaine was found
in her brassiere. It did not occur to anyone to inquire if the police
had a search warrant. Apparently the quaint custom of search warrants
is discarded ancient English law.
advised by the magistrate that before I pleaded, the prosecuting assistant district attorney had
a plea bargain. The prosecuting assistant district attorney offered to
settle for time served (22 hours), if I would plead guilty. I replied:
“If I was willing to accept that, I would not have bothered to be
arrested in the first place.”
magistrate asked: “Are you pleading not guilty?” She then
warned (threatened) me that, if so, I could go to prison. I
acknowledged that I was aware that a prison sentence was possible. I
then pleaded not guilty, demanded indictment by a Grand Jury, and asked
for a jury trial.
After the stunned
Court recovered, the magistrate did not object to the plea or the demand for indictment by
a Grand Jury. She had no idea of what the charges were, since she had
to ask the prosecuting assistant district attorney if I was entitled to
a jury trial. The answer was affirmative.
I was told that I must report for a court hearing on June 20, 2007, and
submit all informations before May 17, 2007. I asked the purpose of the
hearing, but my question was ignored. No written ORDER was issued to
appear for the hearing date of June 20, 2007. I was handed the unsigned
arraignment form with the police charges and released after 22 hours of
I was not
committed at arraignment nor at any other time. I have not been
indicted nor informed that any Grand Jury has been convened.
days later, I was contacted by an attorney at The Legal Aid Society and informed that the
prosecuting assistant district attorney was willing to drop the charges and dismiss the
case, if I would agree to not get arrested in the next 6 months and not
sue the police. I declined.
function of the district attorney is to prosecute crime, not to protect
should be prosecuting the police, not protecting them. By protecting
them, the prosecuting assistant district attorney is an accessory to
C. CRIMINAL COURT OF MANHATTAN
Informations and Motions Submitted
I filed several
informations and motions with the Criminal Court of Manhattan. These
a. Motion for return of signs or
On May 21, 2007, I
notified the Court that I had submitted 10 informations with 13
Motions, and that I needed replies to the Motions by June 8, 2007, so
could prepare for the Court date of June 20, 2007. I moved that the
Court reply to my Motions before June 8, 2007.
b. Notification that I would act as Counsel Pro Se
c. Moved for nature of court appearance of 6/20/07
d. Moved that Court convene a Grand Jury
e. Pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial
f. Informed the court that the police allegations were false and asked
to interview all
g. Requested a habeas corpus
h. Submitted a list of questions regarding voir dire
i. moved that the court provide answers to these questions
j. Moved that the jury pool be sequestered during voir dire.
11, 2007, I notified the Court that I would not appear at the hearing
of June 20, 2007, because the Court did not respond to any of my
requests, and without the information requested, I would not have time
for a Court appearance. I also filed an Interlocutory Appeal.
2. Actions by the Criminal Court
On June 20, 2007, I
was informed by a telephone call from the office of the Clerk of Court that a bench
warrant was issued for my arrest, because I did not appear for the
26, 2007, I filed a motion to quash the bench arrest warrant. In the
information provided, I included the information that I had not been
committed at arraignment, or indicted by a Grand Jury. I mentioned that
I had filed a notice of appeal with the filing fee of $210 to the
Criminal Court of Manhattan. I pointed out that the trial court has no
standing to proceed with the trial for four separate and independent
reasons. These are:
1. Defendant has not been served
with a valid arraignment commitment.
2. Defendant has not
been indicted by a Grand Jury.
3. Defendant has not had a Habeas Corpus hearing.
4. Defendant has filed an interlocutory appeal.
D. CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE
I filed a civil complaint against the police.
The initial phase of a
trial is discovery. Mr. Max McCann, Assistant Corporation Counsel for
the City of New York, was the defense attorney. He wanted my
social security number and the criminal case docket number of the
criminal case against me. I refused to provide my social security
number because it was none of his business, and it was illegal for him
to request it. I did not supply the criminal case number, because there
was no criminal case.
22, 2009, I replied to a letter from Judge Koeltl, the presiding trial
judge, as follows: I have received your Court ORDER of June 16, 2009,
to appear for conference on June 26, 2009. I also have received a copy
of the letter of June 12, 2009, from Max McCann addressed to you.
“There is an inaccuracy in
Mr. McCann’s letter. He states that Plaintiff 'has not provided
the undersigned with the executed consent and authorization for the
release of records.' In fact I responded twice with carte blanche permission to contact
all of the New York State Courts involved in the issue at hand. Copies
of these were submitted to the U. S. District Court, Southern District
of New York. The Pro Se Clerk
of Court returned them to me on April 14, 2009, with the statement that
'discovery requests cannot be accepted by the Court.' Perhaps you are
unaware of this rule, since you sent me an ORDER of May 12, 2009, to provide information which I do
not have, and which I believe does not exist.”
“Both you and Mr. McCann
have all of my correspondence with all of the New York State courts. It
was enclosed with the submission of my REVISED COMPLAINT of April 29,
2008. Mr. McCann cleverly convinced you to order me to provide
nonexistent information. Since I could not do so, he requested in his
letter of June 12, 2009, that you dismiss this case.”
The judge called a
conference on July 17, 2009. In that hearing, the Defendants complaint was
dropped, but they asked for postponement until the criminal case was
resolved. I informed the judge that there was no criminal case. The
judge ordered both parties to submit written briefs on this point.
In my brief, I pointed
out that there never was a criminal trial, is not now a criminal trial,
not will there ever be on. My arguments were.
2. Why There will be no Criminal
Some provisions of New
York State Criminal Code CPL 30 are attached as an Exhibit.
CPL 30 §30.30 Speedy trial;
time limitations 1.b states: “ninety days of the commencement of
a criminal action wherein a defendant is accused of one or more
offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a
sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and none of which is
a felony.” This condition has not been met as more than 27 months
have passed since the accusation, and a trial has not commenced.
In summary 4
violations of CPL 30 have been identified. There can be no criminal
prosecution of Plaintiff. The defense never submitted a
brief, so the matter was dropped.
has been denied a speedy criminal trial (within 90 days of accusation)
as required by CPL 30 §30.30 (1.b).
has not received an appearance ticket notifying him of his right to
receive a supporting deposition, as required by CPL 30 §150.10 (2).
§150.60 permits the Court to only issue a warrant of arrest if the
accused does not appear at the time the appearance ticket is returnable
Since no appearance ticket was issued, the warrant of arrest is
illegal, and makes the Criminal Court of Manhattan an accessory to the
crime of the police.
§160.10 (1.b) requires that fingerprints be obtained from a person
accused of a misdemeanor. No fingerprints were obtained.
§30.10 (2.c) states that the prosecution of a misdemeanor must be
commenced within two years. Since three years have passed since the
alleged misdemeanors were committed, the time limit set by the statute
of limitations has passed.
3. Video of the demonstration
Instead the Defendants submitted
a video tape of the arrest, which they claimed showed irrefutable
evidence that I refused to comply with a lawful order of the police.
Since I was at the event, I realized immediately that the video
tampered. Part of the sound track was missing where the picture was
present. Later I proved the tampering by matching time reports of the
At the end of the video, the
police announced that time as 1:05 pm. The police deposition stated the time of
my arrest as 12:51 pm. Since I was the last person arrested, and nobody
had been arrested at the time given in the deposition, it was apparent
that the video had been tampered. The video was rendered useless as
4. Misuse of court rules
The rules with which
the Court did not comply are summarized as:
a. FRCP 4(a)(1)(E) not
enforced-reply time after service.
b. Court does not
enforce discovery rule FRCP 26(a)(1)(A) on Defendants.
c. Court continues to
give unwarranted extensions of time to Defendants to answer complaint.
d. Court does not
accept submissions of Plaintiff based on “Rule 5.1(a) discovery
materials cannot be accepted for filing with the Court” It used
this rule to return Motion requests, information about jury procedures,
interrogatories, and release forms. Meanwhile Judge Koeltl is issuing
ORDERS to Plaintiff to deliver discovery materials which either do not
exist or which have already been delivered to Defendants.
e. Defendants did not
follow the format required by Local Civil Rule 56.1(a) with impunity
when they submitted their MEMORANDUM OF LAW for dismissal based on the
DVD video evidence.
E. COMPLAINT MEMORANDUM
1. Summary of Criminal
Defendants of the following:
a. belated entry of Defendant
Judgment by default
must be entered against Defendant Toala.
b. harassment of Plaintiff
c. illegally requesting Plaintiff’s social security number
d. entrapment of Judge Koeltl into being a coconspirator to obstruct justice
e. refusal to respond to interrogatories
f. providing misinformation about facts (euphemism for lying)
g. submitting tampered evidence
h. making ridiculous claims
i. stalling to delay proceedings
j. obstruction of justice
Find Attorney McCann in contempt of court, have him arrested, and incarcerated until discovery
requested in Plaintiff’s Interrogatories is delivered.
In addition, find Attorney Cardozo in contempt of court and order him to provide discovery material
requested by Plaintiff before September, 15, 2009.
If discovery material is not delivered before September 15, 2009, Judge Koeltl should award requested
damages to Plaintiff by September 18, 2009. No extensions of the
September 15, 2009, submission date should be allowed.
If the trial is to continue, the Clerk of Court should provide a
proceedings to trial by September 22, 2009, in which the trial must be
completed by January 31, 2010. This calendar must include dates for the
a. Revised Complaint returned to
Plaintiff for service of summons to new list of defendants. Plaintiff
will submit revised complaint to the Court on October 1, 2009.
b. Response to request
by Plaintiff to the Clerk of Court for the jury selection information
c. List of jury pool
names and other pertinent information
d. Jury selection
e. Procedure for voir dire
f. Service of subpoenas
g. Individual interviews of all defendants and other witnesses
h. Possible dates for the jury trial
Plaintiff moves that Judge Koeltl find Attorney McCann in contempt of court, have him
arrested, and incarcerated until discovery requested in
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories is delivered.
moves that Judge Koeltl, in addition, find Attorney Cardozo in contempt and to provide
discovery material requested by Plaintiff before September, 15, 2009.
moves that, if discovery material is not delivered before September 15, 2009, Judge Koeltl should
award requested damages to Plaintiff by September 18, 2009.
4. Qualified Immunity
Defendants raised the
issue of qualified immunity for police officers. They are immune from
prosecution if they had reasonable cause to make an arrest. However U.
S. Supreme Court decisions state that if they knew, or should have
known, that they were violating the law, then they do not have immunity.
5. Dismissal of the case
February 17, 2010, Judge Koeltl dismissed the case without trial for
a. Irrefutable evidence from the
video that the arrest was proper.
b. The police have
immunity from prosecution.
F. COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL
On November 9, 2009, I submitted my last letter to Judge Koeltl. I made
my third request for him to recuse himself. At the time, I had no
response from him. I submitted a complaint of Judicial Misconduct to
the U. S. Court of Appeals: 2nd Circuit on December 24, 2009, in which Judge Koeltl is charged with:
a. obstruction of justice.
Remedies sought are:
b. failure to apply Court rules impartially.
c. delaying proceedings for no justifiable reasons.
d. ordering Plaintiff to supply information that does not exist.
e. Conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. Ch. 13 #241 and #242
a. Recusal of Judge Koeltl from
trying this case.
b. Appointment of
another Judge to continue the trial.
G. HOMELAND SECURITY INCIDENTS
1. FIJA Demonstrations
After I filed my civil
complaint against the NY City police, the court sent a list of
procedures it would follow. One of those procedures is to instruct the
it can only judge the facts. It must uphold the law as the judge gives
it to them. This is in violation of historic decisions by juries and
with several U. S. Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, I distributed
FIJA flyers, as well as a flyer of my own, to correct this error on
six successive Mondays (jury selection day) in October and November,
Each time I was arrested. My sign and pamphlets were confiscated. On
four occasions, I was cited for violation of regulation 41 CFR
Subsection C #102–74.415(c) for distributing literature. Also on
one occasions, I was charged with the misdemeanor of forcefully
resisting arrest. When arrested, I go limp and
fall to the ground. and refuse to make any sound or move a muscle.
On four of the occasions, an ambulance was called, and I was sent three
times to psychiatric units of two hospitals and once to an emergency
unit of a third hospital. On two occasions, my flyers and sign were
confiscated, but I was not taken away.
At three of these
events, photographers were present and took videos. One of the
Photographers, Antonio Musumeci, was arrested for taking photographs in violation of 41
CFR Subsection C §102–74.420. The Civil Liberties Union of
New York is defending him on the citation and intends to file a civil
complaint on his behalf.
2. Judicial Action by the Court
Both Musumeci and I
received notices from U. S. Central Violations Bureau to appear for
hearings in front of the U. S. District Magistrate on January 19, 2010. I wrote to the U. S.
district magistrate pointing out that the regulations did not apply to
us, but only to federal employees (41 CFR #102–71.25), that I
would not appear, and that unless he dismissed the charges
within 10 days, he would be
sued. I heard nothing from the Magistrate.
Musumeci appeared at the hearing of January 19, 2010 with counsel from
the NY Civil Liberties Union. However neither the arresting officer not
I appeared. The hearing was postponed for a month. The charges should
have been dismissed because the arresting officer did not appear. If he
had appeared, but Musumeci and I did not judgment would have been
rendered against us.
On the second date scheduled for the hearing, the arresting officer did
not appear again. the district magistrate dismissed the charges.
3. Complaints filed by Heicklen
I have filed a civil
complaint against Department of Homeland Security, the NY City fire
Department, three hospitals, U. S. Central Violations Bureau, the U. S.
district magistrate, and 42 of their employees. Soon I intend to file
criminal complaints as well. The charges are: