734 Rutland Avenue
Teaneck, NJ 07666
814–880–9308

April 27, 2011
Judge Kimba Wood
S. District Court of Inquisition
Southern District of New York
S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Re: U. S. v. Julian Heicklen: Criminal Case # 10 Crim 1154

Dear Judge Wood:

    At the hearing of February 25, 2011, Defendant’s recollection is that the Government was given 30 days to provide discovery and submit a bill of particulars.  Defendant was given 30 days to respond.  After that there would be a hearing.  Some date for the hearing may have been given, but Defendant does not remember any such date.  No written schedule from either Judge Wood or the Pro Se Clerk has been received by Defendant.

    The government has provided 4 video discs of discovery, the last of which was sent on March 29, 2011, and received by Defendant on April 1, 2011.  No bill of particulars has been received by the Defendant. The discovery submitted by the Government consists of videos taken by associates of the Defendant at the fully informed jury distributions outside the courthouse. They are exactly what Defendant would introduce as discovery, so there is no need for him to do so.

    The government slightly exceeded the 30 day period of submission.  Defendant is submitting his response in a timely manner, so that both the Court and the Government should receive it by May 2, 2011 (May 1, 2011 is a Sunday).

    Defendant believes that his submission will terminate the trial.  However, if it does not, he will need written notification of court and submission dates.  Unless these are in writing, they are useless. Defendant is 79 years old and cannot remember the reason he walks into a room, much less verbal notices of court or due dates.  He has received four video discs from the prosecution as discovery, but nothing else.  These discs are videos made by his photographers at the pamphlet distributions.  No videos made by police are included. No witnesses have been identified.  No conversations with jurors have been identified.  No correspondence between a juror and Defendant have been identified.

    All the videos were taken outside the courthouse.  There is no picture of Defendant in the building or before a jury.  It is clear that the U. S. Attorney lied to a Grand Jury.  Furthermore, Defendant was not notified of the Grand Jury hearing, so he had no opportunity to appear, as is his right.

    Enclosed is Defendant’s MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND MOTION FOR PROPERTY RETURN with Exhibits.  Motion papers are included.

    Defendant expects that you will nullify the charges and dismiss the case.  It is also expected that you will take disciplinary action against U. S. Attorney Preet Bharara and Assistant U. S. Attorney Rebecca Mermelstein for lying to a Grand Jury and malicious prosecution.

    Defendant also requests that all of his property confiscated by the federal and NY City police be returned immediately.  A list of the property seized is given in the MEMORANDUM OF LAW.

    Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely Yours,


Julian Heicklen
Defendant
Counsel Pro Se

Encl: Motion papers for withdrawal of charges, dismissal of the case in the interest of justice, and return of confiscated property.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND MOTION FOR PROPERTY RETURN with Exhibits.

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

    Sabrina Shroff, Standby Counsel, Federal Defender, 52 Duane Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10007

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    United States
    Plaintiff
Criminal Case # 10 Crim 1154

    against
NOTICE OF MOTION
    Julian Heicklen
    Defendant



PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affirmation of Julian Heicklen, Defendant, affirmed on April 27, 2011, and upon the exhibits attached thereto,  AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE; AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; Letter of April 27, 2011, to Judge Wood; and MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND MOTION FOR PROPERTY RETURN and the pleadings herein, Defendant moves this Court, before Kimba Wood, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York for an order to dismiss this case, for an order to the U. S. Government to return Defendant’s property listed in his MEMORANDUM OF LAW, and to discipline U. S. Attorney Preet Bharara and Assistant U. S. Attorney Rebecca Mermelstein for lying to a Grand Jury and malicious prosecution.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated:______________                        Signature____________
Address:                                     Julian Heicklen, Defendant
734 Rutland Avenue
Teaneck, NJ 07666
Telephone Number: 814–880–0938
FAX Number: 201–530–1241
E-mail: jph13@psu.edu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

United States
    Plaintiff
Criminal Case # 10 Crim 1154
     against
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
Julian Heicklen
   Defendant

I, Julian Heicklen, affirm under penalty of perjury that:

I, Julian Heicklen, am the Defendant in the above entitled action, and respectfully move this Court before Kimba Wood, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York to withdraw charge of jury tampering, to dismiss this case, issue order to the U. S. Government to return property seized by police officers on May 25, 2010, at the U. S. District Courthouse in New York, NY, and listed in the accompanying MEMORANDUM OF LAW.

Furthermore Defendant requests Judge Wood to discipline U. S. Attorney Preet Bharara and Assistant U. S. Attorney Rebecca Mermelstein for lying to a Grand Jury and malicious prosecution.

The reason why Defendant is entitled to the relief that he seeks is that the U. S. Attorney lied to a Grand Jury, engaged in malicious prosecution, named no statute indicating that Defendant’s actions violated any law, named no juror who claims to have been tampered, nor has any visual or recorded evidence of jury tampering.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and pleas, as well as such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.

Dated:______________                        Signature_______________
Address:                                     Julian Heicklen, Defendant
734 Rutland Avenue                                                        Counsel Pro Se
Teaneck, NJ 07666
Telephone Number: 814–880–0938

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


United States
    Plaintiff
Criminal Case # 10 Crim 1154
     against
AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE
Julian Heicklen
   Defendant
   



I, Julian Heicklen, affirm under penalty of perjury that I have served a copy of the attached NOTICE OF MOTION; AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; Letter of April 27, 2011, to Judge Wood; and MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND MOTION FOR PROPERTY RETURN herein to Assistant U. S. Attorney Rebecca Mermelstein by certified U. S. mail on April 27, 2011.

Dated:______________                        Signature_______________
Address:                                     Julian Heicklen, Defendant
734 Rutland Avenue                            Counsel Pro Se
Teaneck, NJ 07666
Telephone Number: 814–880–0938
FAX Number: 201–530–1241
E-mail: jph13@psu.edu