United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
,v. Docket No. 12-16395C
NOW COMES, Scott Huminski ("Huminski"), and replies to the adversarialbrief as follows notwithstanding Huminski
pending motion to appoint counsel:1.
The Police communication and threat a day prior to civil hearingviolated Huminski
First Amendment and Due Process rights toattend the hearing and litigate free of the fear of arrest andprosecution under 13 A.R.S. § 2921. Timing of the police threat a dayprior to a civil hearing is critical to evaluate the intent of police
toprotect a very close friend and top advisor of Sheriff Arpaio, JustinNelson, from civil matters. The Police communication put Huminskion notice that his civil litigation runs afoul of 13 A.R.S. § 2921.2.
Huminski knew his civil litigation was a state crime. 13 A.R.S. § 2921is a
prior restraint upon redress of grievances
Arizona law enforcement has the duty to enforce State law which Arizona police clearly believe is constitutional. The official/police belief that 13 A.R.S. § 2921 is constitutional without a statutory exceptionfor constitutionally protected activity is misguided.4.
” does not convert a police order to a casual police
suggestion for voluntary compliance (e.g.
Please clear the sidewalk.
Case: 12-16395 10/13/2012 ID: 8359443 DktEntry: 32 Page: 1 of 3