Dishonorable Judge Wood:
This letter is in response to the letter of April 4, 2012, from U.
S. Attorney Mermelstein. By this letter, I am informing you that
neither Sabrina Shroff, Steven M. Statsinger, nor any other federal
public defender is still representing me. They have been discharged as
JURY SELECTION IMPROPRIETIES
I (Defendant Heicklen) presumably was indicted by a grand jury on an
unspecified date. According to the indictment, it was filed with the
Court on November 10, 2010. In my letter of February 13,
2012, I requested that a new master jury list for preparing the jury
pool be prepared by the Clerk of Court prior to March 7,
2012. The current list of registered voters is not
valid for three reasons:
1. Voters are not representative
of all the people in the jurisdiction. Specifically, felons are
excluded from voting. This violates Statute 18 U.S.C. § 243 for
jury selection, which requires that no person be disqualified for
2. It also violates Statute 28 U. S. C. § 1861, “...
all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on
grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United
3. The master list should contain the names and addresses of all
persons 18 years or older living in New York County. Such a list can be
obtained from the U. S. Postal Service.
INDICTMENT IS VOID
If their was a grand jury indictment it is void for several
a) Master jury list was unlawful
b) Defendant was not notified of the hearing, so could not defend
c) no tampered juror was named nor testified,
d) no jury that Defendant appeared before was identified,
e) no trial that was affected by Defendant’s actions was
identified. (my letter to Judge Wood, November 29, 2011)
If their was a grand jury hearing, Assistant U. S. Attorney Mermelstein
lied to the grand jury. However there was no grand jury hearing. Ms.
Mermelstein was requested to supply names of tampered jurors and grand
jurors, which she did not do, because there are none.
I was not notified, so I could not attend. The
U. S. Attorney has been unable to provide names of either grand jurors
or tampered jurors. Is it really credible to believe that a grand jury
would indict a person who was not present or represented, and there
were no tampered people to testify?
Furthermore, the indicted documents submitted to the court
were forged. The original document sent to me by the U. S. Attorney is
enclosed. No date is given for the grand jury hearing. Instead it
states: “Date Filed: Nov 10 2010.” It is
not signed by either the Foreperson, whose name is not given, nor by U.
S. Attorney Preet Bharara.
Also enclosed is the official document recorded by the court. The
filing date is given by the court as Nov 18, 2010. This date is also
given more clearly at the top of both pages, but it does not appear
when reproduced. The omitted part reads: ”Case
1:10-cr-01154-KMW Document 1 Filed 11/18/10 Page (1 or 2 ) of 2.”
The name of the foreperson is not given on either page. However there
is an unintelligible pen scratching in the signature space. In
addition the Court stamp blots out the filing date of Nov 10 2010 given
on the originally submitted document.
In your letter of March 11, 2012, you confirm that the
filing date was November 18, 2010, not Nov 10 2010.
How stupid do you think that I am? The indictment is an out
and out forgery by the U. S. Attorney, and not a very good one. The
Clerk of Court is an accessory to the fact. It is amazing to me that
you are sufficiently corrupted to proceed with this case when you know
that I never was indicted by a grand jury.
ADDITIONAL CRIMES OF THE U. S. ATTORNEY
Title 18 U.S.C. § 241: Conspiracy against rights states:
“If two or more persons
conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so
exercised the same;
or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise
or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if
death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or
if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an
attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for
any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
Title 18 U.S.C. §242: Deprivation of rights under cover
of law states:
“Whoever, under color of any
law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any
person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to
I request that both U. S. Attorney Bharara and Assistant U. S.
Attorney Mermelstein be found guilty of violating the above two
statutes and of perjury with the intent to obstruct justice. She and
her supervisor, U. S. Attorney Preet Bharara, should be sent to prison
for an extended period.
pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or
by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment
of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or
fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under
this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both,
or may be sentenced to death.”
The U. S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial
in ALL criminal cases in both Article III §2 and Amendment VI
(emphasis added by Defendant). The U. S. Constitution does not discuss,
or even mention, the duties and rights of the jury. Therefore those
duties and rights are defined by the states. There is NO FEDERAL
Constitutional grant of power to government to determine the law in
jury criminal cases. Thus, as the federal government is a limited
government, there is NO FEDERAL Preemption.
In New York, where the incidents are alleged to have
occurred and where Defendant is a citizen by virtue of birth, the New
York Constitution, Article I states:
§1. “No member of this state shall be
disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured
to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment
of his or her peers.”
§2. “Trial by jury in all cases in which it has
heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain
§ 8 “Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish
his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse
of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the
liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or
indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury;
and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous
is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends,
the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to
determine the law and the fact.” (Amended by vote of the people
November 6, 2001. Emphasis of last phrase by the Defendant.)
The United States Attorney’s reply memorandum of law admits on
page 9 that a Court may try to prevent improper nullification, thus
admitting that when nullification is within the province of the jury as
trier of fact, the Court has no power and the United States no interest
or authority in seeking otherwise (United States v. Washington, 705
F.2d 489,494(D. C. Cir. 1983) deeming nullification to be in essence a
decision by the jury, ultra vires...
On page 50 (actually page 47 in Defendant’s copy) of
the Response Memorandum, the U. S. Attorney admits a jury has a "power"
of nullification. However she claims that the jury must not be so
informed. That means that she wants to deny justice and
convict me, if I tell the truth. Funny, I did not think that a
non-government employee could commit a crime by telling the truth.
To justify her position, the case described by Ms.
Mermelstein was about an attempt to break the law and induce a minor to
commit the criminal activity of prostitution [U. S. v. Gagliardi, U. S.
2nd Circuit, Docket #06–4541–cr (2007)]. I am not inducing
any individual to do anything. I am attempting to educate people how to
uphold the law as given in the NY Constitution Article I §8 and
recognized by the U. S. Attorney in her reply Memorandum of Law.
The U. S. Attorney claims that the plaza in front of the
District Court is not a public forum, even though its main usage is a
public sidewalk connecting Pearl and Centre Streets. This disagrees
with the Supreme Court decision: "[O]ne is not to have the exercise of
his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea
that it may be exercised in some other place." Schneider v. State, 308
U. S. 147, 163 (1939).
A more detailed and current opinion was given in U. S. v. Grace,
461 U. S. 171 (1983) which states in the opinion of the court as given
by Justice Byron White:
“Traditional public forum
property occupies a special position in terms of First Amendment
protection and will not lose its historically recognized character for
the reason that it abuts government property that has been dedicated to
a use other than as a forum for public expression. Nor may the
government transform the character of the property by the expedient of
including it within the statutory definition of what might be
considered a nonpublic forum parcel of property. The public sidewalks
forming the perimeter of the Supreme Court grounds, in our view, are
public forums and should be treated as such for First Amendment
purposes.” (p. 180)
“We thus perceive insufficient justification for
§ 13k's prohibition of carrying signs, banners, or devices on the
public sidewalks surrounding the building. We hold that under the First
Amendment the section is unconstitutional as applied to those
sidewalks.” (p. 184)
A concurring opinion given by
Justice Thurgood Marshall:
“Visitors to this Court do not lose their First
Amendment rights at the edge of the sidewalks any more than "students
or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District, 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969).”
“I see no reason why the premises of this Court should
be exempt from this basic principle. It would be ironic indeed if an
exception to the Constitution were to be recognized for the very
institution that has the chief responsibility for protecting
constitutional rights. I would apply to the premises of this Court the
same principle that this Court has applied to other public
“Viewed in this light, 40 U. S. C. § 13k is
plainly unconstitutional on its face. The statute is not a reasonable
regulation of time, place, and manner, cf., e. g., Kovacs v. Cooper,
336 U. S. 77, 87-89 (1949); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569,
575-576 (1941), for it applies at all times, covers the entire
premises, and, as interpreted by the Court, proscribes even
the handing out of a leaflet and, presumably, the wearing of a campaign
button as well..” (p. 186)”
“I would therefore hold the prohibition
unconstitutional on its face. We have repeatedly recognized that a
statute which sweeps within its ambit a broad range of expression
protected by the First Amendment should be struck down on its face.
"The existence of such a statute . . . results in a continuous and
pervasive restraint on all freedom of discussion that might reasonably
be regarded as within its purview." Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88,
97-98 (1940) (footnote omitted).
As JUSTICE BRENNAN stated in his opinion for the Court in NAACP v.
Button, 371 U. S. 415, 433 (1963), First Amendment freedoms "are
delicate and vulnerable," and "[t]he threat of sanctions may deter
their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of
sanctions." I would not leave visitors to this Court subject to the
continuing threat of imprisonment if they dare to exercise their
First Amendment rights once inside the sidewalks. (p.188)”
“I see no reason why the
premises of this Court should be exempt from this basic principle. It
would be ironic indeed if an exception to the Constitution were to be
recognized for the very institution that has the chief responsibility
for protecting constitutional rights. I would apply to the premises of
this Court the same principle that this Court has applied to other
public places. (p.188)”
“Viewed in this light, 40 U. S. C. § 13k is plainly
unconstitutional on its face. The statute is not a reasonable
regulation. (p. 188)”
In addition, I am enclosing two exhibits of pictures which appeared
recently on the front pages of the New York Times. These
pictures show very large and extended public demonstrations on the
plaza in front of the U. S. Supreme Court. Apparently the Supreme Court
considers its plaza to be a public forum. In my
appearances in front of the courthouse, I was all alone most of the
So far you have made the following grievous errors in
presiding at this trial.
a. If there was in fact a
grand jury hearing, it was illegal for at least 2 rasons. The jurors
were seated from an illegal master list, and I was not notified, so
could not be in attendance. However there was no grand jury hearing.
Both Preet Bharara and Rebecca Mermelsteing have violated Title 18 U.
S. C. §241: Conspiracy against rights and § 242: Deprivation
of rights under cover of law. Yet you refuse to dismiss this case.
b. You denied a jury trial at the hearing of February 19,
2011 and have ignored further requests.
c. It has been over 18 months since indictment and no
decision has been made to even start this trial. This is a
violation of Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution which requires
that: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial,...” You have violated 18 USC
§ 3161 - TIME LIMITS AND EXCLUSION, Section (c), which states:
“In any case in which a plea
of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an
information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall
commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public)
of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has
appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is
pending, whichever date last occurs. If a defendant consents in writing
to be tried before a magistrate judge on a complaint, the trial shall
commence within seventy days from the date of such consent.”
d. You have failed to answer the motions submitted by stand-by
counsels for the defense. On August 24, 2011, Stand-by Counsels Sabrina
Shroff and Steven M. Statsinger filed the following motions on behalf
1. dismissal of
2. directing the government to file a bill of
3. granting a jury trial
4. granting such other other and further relief
as the Court deems just and proper
Also this was a second request by stand-by counsels for a
bill of particulars.
e. Defendant submitted the motion papers of December 19, 2011
Defendant’s motion for a
jury trial is enclosed.
Defendant’s motion for witnesses is enclosed.
Defendant’s motion for pre-trial interviews is enclosed.
Defendant’s motion for
response dates is enclosed.
There has been no response from the
Court. This was the second request by Defendant for a jury
trial. The first was an oral request at the hearing of February 25,
2011, which was denied. A third request was made by
Defendant on January 30, 2012:
“Defendant DEMANDS trial by
jury in this cause by an impartial jury pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 12 (b)(2) and as guaranteed by Article III Sec. 2
and Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution in all criminal
f. You failed to answer motions submitted by me on December 19,
2011 or Stand-by Counsels Shroff and Steven Statsinger submitted on
August 24, 2011.
g. In your order of March 19, 2012, you requested arguments
from the U. S. Attorney on “What constitutes an ‘issue or
mater’ pending before a juror?” and
“Does the Indictment allege that Heicklen attempted to
influence a juror through a written communication in relation to an
‘issue or matter’ pending before that juror?” In her
eesponse of april 4, 2012, Ms. Mermelstein failed to address those
h.Your requests was ignored and unanswered, because there
are no such jurors. There is no bill of particulars. You take no action
against the U. S. Attorney for failing to address these issues.
i. You failed to recuse yourself as requested by me at the
hearing of February 25, 2011.
j. You and your colleagues all lie twice when you instruct juries
to uphold the law as you give it to them. There are two lies:
1. the jury is not required to
uphold the law. Its duty is to see that justice is done.
2. Furthermore, if the jury decides to uphold the law, it must be
the written law in the statute, not your often incorrect version of it.
If the jury does not receive the written statute, it must acquit
because of reasonable doubt.
In letter of February 13, 2012, I demanded a reply to my
motions and demanded names and addresses by March 1, 2012. Demand
ignored by you and not fulfilled by the U. S. Specifically I made the
The hearing on the motions be held prior to February 25,
2012. I expect these motions to be approved, since the prosecution
has not presented any argument to the contrary.
The names and addresses of people that I intend to
interview, as stated in the MOTIONS that I submitted on December 19,
2011, be provided to me by March 1, 2012, so that the defense can issue
A list of dates in April, 2012 suitable for the interviews
in the courthouse in the presence of a court reporter and a person who
can and will place the interviewees under oath.
“I will consider failure to meet any of these
timelines as dismissal of the charges and closure of the case.”
PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIARY
The purpose of the courts is to deliver justice, not to uphold the law
and send people to prison. If the latter were the purpose,
there would be no need for courts as is now the case, because of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012, which gives the
President the authority to arrest any person and confine him or her
indefinitely without charges or a trial.
You and your colleagues do not understand the purpose of
courts. The purpose is to keep people out of prison, not to
send them there. No judicial system is necessary to do that now that
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 has become law
with the near unanimous consent of Congress.
You and the U. S. Attorneys should be convicted of perjury
with the attempt to obstruct justice, removed from your jobs, and sent
to prison for sedition or executed for treason. In any event, you will
have the punishment of having to live with yourselves for the rest of
I inform over 900 Tyranny Fighters including many lawyers,
give numerous speeches to political and legal groups, and inform
numerous press outlets about what goes on in your court. This is not
enhancing your or the judicial system’s reputation.
I have dismissed this case, because there is no legal nor
moral basis for its existence. You and your colleagues have destroyed
my country. Do not contact me again.
Yours in disgust and hatred,
Organizer Tyranny Fighters
Encl: Original Indictment from U. S. Attorney
Indictment from Clerk of Court
ORDER of 3/19/12 from Judge Kimba Wood
Two pictures from the New York Times showing that court plazas are
Defendant affirms that copies of this letter have been sent
by certified U. S. mail on April 17, 2012 to:
Chief Judge Loretta Preska, U. S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York, 10007
Pro Se Clerk, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007
Assistant U. S. Attorney, Rebecca Mermelstein, S. D. N. Y., U. S.
Courthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, NY 10601
U S. Federal Public Defender Sabrina Shroff, Federal Defenders of
New York, Inc., Southern District, 52 Duane Street–10th Floor,
New York, NY 10007
U S. Federal Public Defender Steven M. Statsinger , Federal
Defenders of New York, Inc., Southern District, 52 Duane
Street–10th Floor, New York, NY 10007
U. S. Attorney Preet Bharara, Southern District of New York, One
Andrews Plaza, New York, NY 10007
Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Department of Justice, 950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001
Also E-mail copies have been sent to: