Arizona & Arpaio in Federal Court

[scottban]

Heredia is a Surprise AZ cop. The Fed. Judge on the case is a Bush appointee and seeks to bury this case. Note the Nelson mentioned below is a top advisor/crony of Arpaio. See www.sheriff-arpaio.com. Outrageously, civil litigation (protected speech) is a crime in AZ under the plain language of the harassment statute. The below motion deals with the use of the statute to protect Arpaio cronies from litigation and legal process. Original formatting not intact below.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Scott Huminski, )
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION
)
-V- )
) DOCKET NO. 2:11-cv-00896-DGC
Hector Heredia, et al., )
Defendants. )

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RE: ENFORCEMENT OF ARIZONA Rev Stat § 13-2921,
MOTION TO JOIN PARTIES

NOW COMES, plaintiff Scott Huminski and pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 65(a) moves for preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of AZ Rev Stat § 13-2921 as the plain language of the statute unconstitutionally criminalizes civil litigation in violation of the First Amendment and Due Process. The statute criminalizes speech that "alarms, annoys or harasses". All of these traits are unavoidable consequences of litigation and legal process. Criminalizing litigation violates the free speech and due process provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff concurrently moves to join the following parties pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 19(a) to afford complete injunctive relief:
Lynn Arouh, Prosecutor, Town of Gilbert, Arizona,
Gary Verburg, City Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona,
Debbie Spinner, City Attorney, Mesa, Arizona,
Michael Bailey, City Attorney, City of Surprise, Arizona,
Arizona, State of,
Tom Horne, Arizona Attorney General,
William Montgomery, Maricopa (Arizona) County Attorney.
This suit arose out of the Surprise Police email sent pursuant to AZ Rev Stat § 13-2921 to Plaintiff the day prior to a civil hearing in Mesa Municipal Court thereby manipulating, tampering with and obstructing the civil case Huminski v. Nelson, forcing Scott Huminski to absent himself from that hearing to avoid criminal liability and arrest,
"Please do not have any type of contact with either Michael Nelson [sic] or ... ".

Both the statute and the police email are unconstitutionally vague and vastly over broad. Their enforcement must be enjoined. The City of Phoenix Police refused to investigate an assault in support of and compliance with AZ Rev Stat § 13-2921 concerning the delivery of legal papers at the County Attorney's Office in collateral federal litigation.
Dated at Gilbert, Arizona this 7th day of February, 2012.


_________________________
Scott Huminski, pro per

A copy of the foregoing was served upon William Doyle, 1313 E. Osborn Rd. #220, Phoenix, AZ 85014, on February 7, 2012, by hand-delivery or First Class Mail, prepaid. Copies were also forwarded to the proposed joined parties.


____________________
Scott Huminski

[OffWithTheirHeads]

1. not being a lawyer and all, perhaps you could explain this

in terms a teabagger could understand? I think I know what it says but I wouldn't put money on it.

[scottban]

3. Legalease

Its just a motion to prevent any law enforcement in the state of AZ from using the Harassment statute as a criminal charge until it is re-written to comply with the First Amendment. If granted the motion would put law enforcement in contempt of court if they continue to enforce the AZ harassment statute.

Harassment charges are currently used to protect cronies of Arpaio from litigation. Here's another motion that requests the court declare the statute unconstitutional. Sort of the same idea.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Scott Huminski, )
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION
)
-V- )
) DOCKET NO. 2:11-cv-00896-DGC
Hector Heredia et al., )
Defendants. )

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: DECLARATORY RELIEF

NOW COMES, Scott Huminski ("Huminski&quot and pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 65, 57, 28 U.S.C. § 2801 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 moves for partial summary judgment as to declaratory relief stating that:
• The plain language of AZ Rev Stat § 13-2921 is facially unconstitutional as it criminalizes civil litigation in violation of the free speech and due process clauses to the United States Constitution, Amendment One and Amendment Fourteen.

• Alternatively, declaring that litigation, legal process, service, attending court hearings, filing court pleadings, conducting investigations concerning litigation and engaging in other litigation related activities are "lawful demonstration, assembly or picketing" as set forth in the sole exception to AZ Rev Stat § 13-2921.

Such a declaration would determine Plaintiff's ability to sue Justin Nelson, which has now been forbidden/chilled/obstructed with threats of arrest and prosecution from a police email issued pursuant to AZ Rev Stat § 13-2921.
Partial summary judgments motions for declaratory relief are routine in the federal courts and are part of the pleading schedule set forth by the Court. See Generally, Walnut Properties Inc. v. City of Whittier, 861 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir. 11/09/1988); Hensley v. Northwest Permanente P.C. Retirement Plan & Trust, 258 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 08/02/2001); United States v. Triple A Machine Shop Inc., 857 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 09/14/1988); Blackfeet Indian Tribe v. Montana Power Co., 838 F.2d 1055 (9th Cir. 01/28/1988); Kilroy v. Ruckelshaus, 738 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 07/31/1984).
Dated at Gilbert, Arizona this 10th day of February, 2012.


___________________________________
Scott Huminski

A copy of the foregoing was served upon William Doyle, 1313 E. Osborn Rd. #220, Phoenix, AZ 85014, on February 10, 2012, by hand-delivery or First Class Mail, prepaid. A courtesy copy was sent to the AZ Attorney General.

____________________
Scott Huminski

[scottban]

5. Sotomayor

However, when the Second Circuit issued its decision - written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor - the Court amazingly applied the wrong standard of review, as follows:

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is here by AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment granting summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff argues on appeal that his federal and state constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws were violated because of various conflicts of interest in the prosecutor's office. For the reasons stated by the District Court in its Ruling on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment of November 27, 2002, we hold that none of these challenges rise to the level of reversible error.

We have considered all of plaintiff's claims on appeal and found them to be without merit. We here by AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. [bold added]

Aside from violating bedrock Second Circuit case law on the standard of review for motions for summary judgment, Justice Sotomayor also violated bedrock law on the standard in every federal circuit in the entire country. For example:

First Circuit:
Wright v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. Group Benefits Plan, 402 F.3d 67, 73-74 (1st Cir. 2005).

Second Circuit:
Huminski v. Corsones , 396 F.3d 53, 69 (2d Cir. 2005).

Third Circuit:
Levy v. Sterling Holding Co., LLC, 544 F.3d 493, 501 (3d Cir. 2008)

Fourth Circuit:
M & M Medical Supplies & Serv., Inc. v. Pleasant Valley Hospital, Inc., 981 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).

Fifth Circuit:
Langhoff Props., LLC v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 519 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2008).

Sixth Circuit:
Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1997).

Seventh Circuit:
Am. Postal Workers Union, Milwaukee Local v. Runyon, 185 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir. 1999)

Eigth Circuit:
Anderson v. Larson, 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir. 2003).

Ninth Circuit:
Blanken-horn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir. 2007).

Tenth Circuit:
Beardsley v. Farmland Co-Op, Inc., 530 F.3d 1309, 1313 (10th Cir. 2008)

Eleventh Circuit:
Chambless v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 481 F.3d 1345, 1349 (11th Cir. 2007).

D. C. Circuit:
Sample v. Bureau of Prisons, 466 F.3d 1086, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2006);

Federal Circuit:
Eisai Co. v. Dr. Reddy's Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)


Clearly Justice Sotomayor got it wrong in a big way. So wrong, not one federal appeals court in the United States would acted in a manner so frighteningly ignorant of basic appellate law. Only Sotomayor.

[msanthrope]

36. Sotomayor did not write that 'opinion.'

She sat on a 3 judge panel that thought so little of your claims they had a clerk sign a dismissal of your appeal. You, however, have chosen to blame the Latina female on the panel---not the men.

And I'm supposed to think you are serious about Joe Arpaio?

[Ptah]

2. Do you still believe that Sonia Sotomayor should not be on the US Supreme Court?

[scottban]

4. sotomayor

Yes, She has poor understanding of appellate law. The standard of review for motions for summary judgment is "de novo" she incorrectly stated "reversible error". The legal "standard of review" is the very first and most important issue an appellate judge needs to understand. Sotomayor failed at this. Every federal circuit in the U.S. uses the "de novo" standard. Sotomayor's knowledge of the law is deficient.

[Ptah]

8. I agree, her position on the court is permanent.

I was curious about your reasoning.

Like OffWithTheirHeads, I am not a lawyer, so I am struggling to understand
your legalese.

If I understand correctly, you are saying her ruling in that case was very different
than precedence would indicate.

[msanthrope]

11. Is your attorney still practising law?

Because after reading a few of the pleadings in your case, it is readily apparent to me that the person who wrote them has little experience in federal appellate work.

One can understand why your panel didn't bother to give you an opinion.

Interestingly, you don't blame the 2 other judges, only Sotomayor.

Why is that?

And what were the terms of your felony plea deal?

[scottban]

14. Fascist thinking

It's logic like yours that would declare Martin Luther King a miscreant law-breaker because of his many arrests, the FBI investigations and time in jails. You belong on Free Republic with that type of thinking.

Howard Dean everyone charged with a crime was guilty and cut the public defenders budget and refused to accept federal funding for defense of low iq defendants. Read the book!

There was no plea deal and no criminal matter as decided by the Vermont Supreme Court in 2007-223. Read and familiarize yourself with a topic before making wild comments.

[msanthrope]

15. So you aren't an attorney, then?

Forgive me, but your pleadings reference your plea deal repeatedly.

MLK? Is that who you compare yourself to?

[scottban]

16. Attack the messenger

I am an activst, so was MLK. Government attacks upon such people is part of the job.

The plea deal does not exist pursuant to ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court.
http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/d-upeo/eo07-223.pdf
Reading will assist you.

Just come out an say you support arpaio instead of this attack the messenger bull. What law firm were you associated with in 2000-2003. I suspect it might be elementary school.

Over the last 20 years I have worked with a number of lawyers and represented myself in mostly civil rights cases, especially First Amendment law.

[msanthrope]

19. Howard Dean and Sonia Sotomayor are part of the conspiracy

to attack you??

Okay.

I am sure your current legal filings will be as productive as your prior ones.

[scottban]

23. What are your legal credentials?

I have 20 years in state and federal courts and secured the First amendment individual right to courthouse access for the first time in U.S. law, huminski v. corsones.

[scottban]

25. Is that what the www.howarddeanvermont.com states or can't you read.

[scottban]

26. Are you a conspiracy nut -- nothing of the kind is in the book

Read. If you have read the book, then you must be a conspiracy nut. Everything is not a conspiracy.

[scottban]

6. Been there

I briefed a case and argued before Sotomayor, so my knowledge is first hand. It is pretty much a moot issue of whether she should be on the court at this point. She's there until she retires. Nothing to really debate.

[msanthrope]

7. What case did you argue before Sotomayor?

Welcome to DU!

[scottban]

9. Case 2d cir.

SCOTT HUMINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF BENNINGTON, VERMONT, RICHARD GUATHIER, STUART HURD, BENNINGTON, (2nd Cir. 2004)

Federal Circuits
Docket Number: 03-7036

[msanthrope]

10. But you aren't the attorney. Tell us about the felony you pled to.

You seem to have it out for Howard Dean and Justice Sotomayor.

Are you an attorney?

[scottban]

12. Read the book

Read the book,

http://www.howarddeanvermont.com/

Very complicated.

Here is the final VT SUpreme Court opinion on a bogus misdemeanor.

http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/d-upeo/eo07-223.pdf

Horward Dean vowed to appoint judges that would overlook the Bill of Rights. A big mistake.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Democrats/message/5144

A progressive perspective on Dean.
http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/DVNS_Howard-Dean.htm

Dean isn't really relevant anymore, my book is historical. Sotomayor is in for life, not really an issue.

Seems like you wish to argue conduct and issues that occurred 10 years ago and not the relevant issues with Arpaio and Arizona.

[scottban]

13. old news

Read the book, it you want hypertechnical legal answers
www.howarddeanvermont.com

You have not read the pleading as I am the author on every one.

What is the correct standard of review for summary judgment, cite a case.

[msanthrope]

17. You authored the pleadings but didn't sign them?

Are you an attorney???

I am not understanding your vitriol at Howard Dean....

[scottban]

21. Just assert your support for Arpaio and get it over with

For vitriol, read the book, www.howarddeanvermont.com. Dean is a non-issue in today's scene. I don't care about him, I'm now addressing problems in AZ - Arpaio.
I don't sign word files.

[msanthrope]

22. Any DUer can google my user name

and 'Arpaio'.

Your filings seem disjointed and opportunistic.

Do you have an actual client, other than yourself?

[scottban]

18. Tell us about your support for Sheriff Arpaio

Arpaio is the only issue I work on now. Why this misguided feeble attack the messenger stuff, just argue your support for Arpaio.

[msanthrope]

20. Why not google my username on this site?

Frankly, your filings seem more opportunistic than helpful.

[scottban]

24. Arpaio's crony threatened to kill my wife.

Opportunistic?? You are truly a twisted individual to support murder threats from arpaio's henchmen. A death threat against my wife is opportunistic for me. You are sick.

[msanthrope]

32. I'm guessing you found my anti-Arpaio threads.

I find your claims in VT and AZ to be quite puzzling. Were you seeking compensatory damages in both states???

[scottban]

27. OK Legal Expert

Cite the case law supporting review of summary judgment is "reversible error" (sotomayor's mindless position) or "de novo". I have supplied case law supporting sotomayor's legal ignorance in every federal circuit in the U.S.. Now its your turn. Put up or shut up.

[scottban]

28. Debunk the below case law and save Sotomayor, legal expert

However, when the Second Circuit issued its decision - written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor - the Court amazingly applied the wrong standard of review, as follows:

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is here by AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment granting summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff argues on appeal that his federal and state constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws were violated because of various conflicts of interest in the prosecutor's office. For the reasons stated by the District Court in its Ruling on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment of November 27, 2002, we hold that none of these challenges rise to the level of reversible error.

We have considered all of plaintiff's claims on appeal and found them to be without merit. We here by AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Aside from violating bedrock Second Circuit case law on the standard of review for motions for summary judgment, Justice Sotomayor also violated bedrock law on the standard in every federal circuit in the entire country. For example:

First Circuit:
Wright v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. Group Benefits Plan, 402 F.3d 67, 73-74 (1st Cir. 2005).

Second Circuit:
Huminski v. Corsones , 396 F.3d 53, 69 (2d Cir. 2005).

Third Circuit:
Levy v. Sterling Holding Co., LLC, 544 F.3d 493, 501 (3d Cir. 2008)

Fourth Circuit:
M & M Medical Supplies & Serv., Inc. v. Pleasant Valley Hospital, Inc., 981 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).

Fifth Circuit:
Langhoff Props., LLC v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 519 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2008).

Sixth Circuit:
Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1997).

Seventh Circuit:
Am. Postal Workers Union, Milwaukee Local v. Runyon, 185 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir. 1999)

Eigth Circuit:
Anderson v. Larson, 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir. 2003).

Ninth Circuit:
Blanken-horn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir. 2007).

Tenth Circuit:
Beardsley v. Farmland Co-Op, Inc., 530 F.3d 1309, 1313 (10th Cir. 2008)

Eleventh Circuit:
Chambless v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 481 F.3d 1345, 1349 (11th Cir. 2007).

D. C. Circuit:
Sample v. Bureau of Prisons, 466 F.3d 1086, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2006);

Federal Circuit:
Eisai Co. v. Dr. Reddy's Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)


Clearly Justice Sotomayor got it wrong in a big way. So wrong, not one federal appeals court in the United States would acted in a manner so frighteningly ignorant of basic appellate law. Only Sotomayor.

[msanthrope]

35. That's not how it works. 4 federal judges have shot you

down. You've cited cases you say support your position, but you've failed, utterly, to cite a single passage from any of those cases that supports your claim that you were entitled to 'de novo' review.

Orly Taitz can list cases, too. What she can't do is cite points of law from those cases and argue persuasively why her case is like them. And neither can you, seemingly, which is why you got bounced out of the 2nd.

You've also failed, utterly, to provide any proof that Sotomayor authored the 'opinion' you say she did. She sat on a panel with 2 other judges, and none of them thought your claim merited more than a clerk's signature.

Now, you've come to this website, and flogged your book, and made rather interesting statements regarding Justice Sotomayor and Howard Dean.

Did you think for a second the female attorneys on this site would tolerate such slander against Sonia Sotomayor?

[Ptah]

29. I would like to know if you enjoy

cactus?



Do you live in Arizona?

[scottban]

30. Cactus are fine

I'm in Gilbert, AZ. A year after we moved here a crony of sheriff Joe began an all out attack on my family including defrauding thousands of dollars, aggravated harassment, death threats against my wife and more. Really like cactus, don't like pro-arpaio stooges like this person on DU that makes all sorts of baseless claims to support arpaio.

[Ptah]

31. I have not encountered anyone on DU that supports Arpaio.

A link would immensely improve your credibility.

Until then,

[Ptah]

34. None of those links are to anyone on DU supporting Arpaio.

Are you sleeping and posting?

[Ptah]

37. I want you to be banned from here.

Transparency, 3.0

[cyberswede]

38. This poster is no longer with us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=255378&sub=trans

[uppityperson]

39. scottban is banned