Here it is as filed in AZ fed. court...
Scott Huminski
2624 S. Bahama Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85295
(480) 243-8184
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America, )
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION
)
-V- )
) No.
Maricopa County, et al., )
Defendants. )
MOTION TO INTERVENE as PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR and
VERIFIED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
NOW COMES, Scott Huminski ("Huminski"), and pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 24(a), 24(b) moves to intervene in the above-captioned case and complains, swears and deposes, under oath, as follows:
1. The above-captioned case involves subject matter that the named Defendants have engaged in a long pattern of Constitutional Rights violations against various persons in Maricopa County, Arizona. Specifically relevant to this intervention are the claims of First Amendment retaliation as set Forth in the Complaint.
2. Huminski has been a resident of Maricopa County for over two years.
3. Huminski has been subjected to Constitutional Rights violations foisted upon him by the named Defendants, specifically First Amendment retaliation.
4. Huminski has been declared a citizen-reporter and "legitimate gadfly" by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2005).
5. Huminski has received threats of retaliation by means of arrest and criminal prosecution from the Defendants for his reporting crimes to the Defendants.
6. The reporting of crime to a law enforcement agency is speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The speech (crime reports) concerned a person who is self-described as having control and supervision powers with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. The complaints of criminal conduct were/are critical of a judicial and law enforcement insider, Justin M. Nelson, heightening the speech to core First Amendment status. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of an email from Justin Nelson describing his relationship with Sheriff Arpaio.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibits "B" and Exhibit "C" are true and correct copies of emails sent to Huminski by the Defendants threatening retaliatory arrest and prosecution via the County Attorney in response to Huminski's crime reporting to law enforcement.
8. Subsequent to receipt of Exhibits "B" and "C", County Attorney personnel assaulted Huminski in retaliation for his delivery of court papers containing speech critical of the government. Surprise, Arizona has threatened to arrest Huminski if he engages in litigation against the self-admitted top friend and crony of Sheriff Arpaio, Justin Michael Nelson. Gilbert, Arizona has threatened to arrest Huminski if he engages in litigation against Bruce Hume of the Norwalk, Connecticut Police Department.
9. First Amendment retaliation has been adopted as a custom, practice, policy and procedure under the color of law by the Defendants and at several other law enforcement entities in Maricopa County including the Gilbert Police and Surprise Police whereby these agencies and Defendants use the threat of arrest and prosecution as a retaliation to First Amendment expression proximately causing the chilling of expression. The retaliatory conduct is county-wide and has been adopted by multiple police entities.
10. The Defendants have threatened retaliation through use of the Arizona Harassment Statute 13 A.R.S. § 2921. The statute is constitutionally infirm as it criminalizes speech protected under the First Amendment. The statute has been used as a law enforcement tool of oppression.
11. This action is brought under the First Amendment and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Bivens action) analogous to the 42 U.S.C. § 14141 claim set forth in the Complaint. Huminski asserts the Complaint with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
COUNT ONE
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
12. Plaintiff asserts the preceding paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
13. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the aforementioned conduct constitutes First Amendment retaliation under the color of law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
14. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Arizona harassment statute, 13 A.R.S. § 2921, is unconstitutionally vague, over broad and violates the First Amendment.
15. Plaintiff seeks an injunction against Defendants prohibiting First Amendment retaliation and enjoining the enforcement of the Arizona harassment statute 13 A.R.S. § 2921.
Dated at Gilbert, Arizona, May 10, 2012
__________
Scott Huminski
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED to before me this 10th day of May, 2012
_______________
Notary exp.
A copy of the foregoing was served upon all parties of record by hand-delivery or First Class Mail, prepaid.
_______
Scott Huminski
Read More
