Skip to main content

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

9:34 AM PT: see www.sheriff-arpaio.com

9:38 AM PT: The DOJ filed in civil court as intent would be harder to prove in a criminal setting prosecuting 18 USC 241,242.  This new complaint meets the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for a criminal prosecution.

10:46 AM PT: It didn't take long for Arpaio to get his people on this, Just Bob.

10:47 AM PT: scanned doc - http://www.scribd.com/...

11:01 AM PT: another link - http://www.gabrielle-gabby-giffords-bill.com/

11:26 AM PT: Wisdom.  A critic must maintain party loyalty or A critic should act regardless of party affiliation.  Make the argument for Howard Dean who in 2003 many progressives had a problem with.

11:59 AM PT: Professional victim?  Hmm.  This lawsuit seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief -- no money damages.  Where do you get professional from?

1:41 PM PT: Link - http://www.scribd.com/...

This was posted by Arpaio's top crony in delusional belief that police violence in retaliation for First Amendment expression is pretty darn cool.  This mentality is as close to 1930s Germany as a State can get.

Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 9:15 AM PT: Catholic hospital supportive of Arpaio attempts murder.  Federal lawsuit at,
http://www.scribd.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Keep posting, I'll keep reading! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice
  •  a couple of links for background would be helpful (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    antooo, wilderness voice

    I have been under the weather the past couple of weeks and completely out of any and all loops

  •  Thanks. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

    by rubyr on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:49:23 AM PDT

  •  Maybe you should research Scott Huminski and (0+ / 0-)

    then decide if you want to take this diary down.

    Just saying...

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:38:13 AM PDT

  •  If you wish to respond to my comments, please (0+ / 0-)

    do so in comments rather than in the body of the diary.

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:50:28 AM PDT

  •  arrest for engaging in litigation (0+ / 0-)

    You write
    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

    This is a legitimate fear.  The United States Marshals Service detained me without a criminal charge or a bail hearing for 5 months because I engaged in litigation against the City of Steamboat Springs.  An assistant US Attorney Robert Anderson showed up once and said that the government isn't a part of this, but the USMS held me anyway.  I don't have a criminal record.  I already sued DOJ and they responded that they did it on purpose because I deserved it.  I was told in federal court that I didn't have a right to an evidentiary hearing because I wasn't accused of a crime only of "civil contempt".  

    This was based on one lawsuit only. I sued the City of Steamboat Springs because their former president of the city council, a convicted felon, had me criminally prosecuted without a written statement of probable cause because I complained that he built extra buildings that violated the zoning. The buildings Kevin Bennett built in 2000 on Princeton Ave aren't listed on the Routt County assessor's website. (one is listed there as a garage but it was 2000 square feet and two stories).

     My case was assigned to former federal judge Edward "Naughty" Nottingham.  He was big into prostitutes and strippers, who were expensive. His name was listed as a customer at the Denver Players brothel and many lawyers' credit cards were found, according to the Denver Post and 9 News etc.  

    Colorado Intergovernmental RiskSharing Agency sold local government officials errors and omissions insurance with a $10K deductible to the City of Steamboat Springs.  CIRSA bought reinsurance from Sun Alliance with a $1 Million deductible.

    I sued CIRSA in state court and I served the Colorado AG. They filed that CIRSA isn't a state agency. It was not listed on the CO Secretary of State website as a corporation, partnership or non profit the last time I looked. I got their financial statements and they don't show any federal income tax paid.  I wrote to them and asked them for their nonprofit IRS filings, which are supposed to be released to anyone who asks, but they didn't write back.  The same person has been CEO of CIRSA since it was started.  The last time I looked his compensation was secret as were the names of his board of directors. He was getting his board from the city council members of local governments.  In Colorado, they can be felons and no college degree is required.  Under state of Co statute, local government risksharing pools are supposed to file annual claims handling policies but CIRSA never filed any and the State of Colorado Division of Insurance wrote to me that that was fine with them.  

    When I sued Steamboat, I was ordered to pay their attorney bills so they sent them to me.  They billed CIRSA and the City for ex parte calls to and from the court and for a 3 way long distance call with Magistrate Schlatter, the CIRSA lawyer David Brougham and the City Attorney Anthony Lettunich.  The latter bill was removed from the records of the Federal Court of Colorado.  Even though I was ordered to pay it, there aren't any copies on file anymore. All 3 copies were taken from the files of the federal courthouse.

    CIRSA insured the City of Granby CO.  When Marvin Heermyer destroyed city hall, CIRSA didn't pay, only the State of Colorado paid.

    I complained to John Gleason, Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel, the same man now described as Arizona Attorney Regulation Counsel, that I was prosecuted by Elizabeth Wittemyer without probable cause, violating Rule 4.5 Rules of Professional Conduct. I have a letter from the D.A. acknowledging there was no written statement of probable cause. I was prosecuted based on the signature of Jane Bennett only.  She was the wife of the president of the city council.  Jane Bennett signed a form for the exclusive use of police who actually witness a crime and don't have time to get a warrant.  Wittemyer is married to Chris Wittemyer a Steamboat real estate speculator.  The city approved them getting a permit for a new ski area at Stagecoach. He tried to sell vacant land in the Wall Street Journal for $20 Million advertising that it would be a new ski area. I alleged that is why Wittemyer prosecuted me, for her family financial gain.  She gave a press conference and said that I was guilty but she was dismissing the criminal charge because a trial would be too expensive.

    I think there are similar organizations to CIRSA in every state.  Suing under section 1983 is defined by the U.S. Judicial Conference as "complex litigation".  The problem is that the government crooks claim "immunity".  I pled that they broke laws on purpose as a matter of informal government policy for personal financial gain.  The magistrate ruled that they had "immunity".  

    I am publishing corruption reports on Lawless America.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site