Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Right wing Fed. Judge violates law to aid Sheriff Arpaio

Right wing Fed. Judge violates law to aid Sheriff Arpaio

Ratings: (0)|Views: 43,430|Likes:
Published by Sheriff_Joe_Arpaio
Right wing federal judge jumps through hoops breaking the law to aid Arpaio cronies.
Right wing federal judge jumps through hoops breaking the law to aid Arpaio cronies.

More info:

Published by: Sheriff_Joe_Arpaio on Oct 21, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Scott HuminskiP.O. Box 10224Naples, FL 34101(202) 471-0409
Scott Huminski,)Plaintiff,)CIVIL ACTION)-V-))No. 2:12-cv-01437-FJMMercy Gilbert Medical Center.,)et al.)Defendants.)
NOW COMES, Scott Huminski ("Huminski"), and moves for judicialrecusal as follows: Judicial ethical cannons and attorney ethical cannons mandate theaffirmative duty to report attorney violations of the rules of professionalresponsibility to ethical authorities
.Adversary counsel’s bold fervent assertion that federal question jurisdiction cases also require complete diversity of the parties is an argumentunsupported in any jurisdiction. In a review of appellate case law, this bizarrebad faith contention, has not be proffered by any attorney in modernAmerican jurisprudence. After put on notice of the frivolity and vexing natureof this garbage court filing, defendants filed more papers in Court supportingthe patently vexatious theory of law.RULE 3.1 Meritorious Claims And Contentions (2012)A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvertan issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so thatis not frivolous, which includes a
good faith
argument for anextension, modification or reversal of existing law.
A lawyer for
\\\DC - 90334/8988 - #1488134 v4
the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in aproceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless sodefend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case beestablished. (emphasis added)Instead of this Court obeying the affirmative ethical duty to reportattorney ethics violations, the Court chose to applaud the unethical conductand declare vexatious litigation consistent with the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure. This judicial conduct is an affront to the adversarial system andthe legal/judicial professions. This Court’s conduct encourages attorneymisconduct and patently violates judicial and attorney ethical guidelines. Theaforementioned, evidences an appearance of judicial impropriety so great asto confirm a
 per se
animus or conflict of interest. There is no other logicalconclusion. A first year law student would not consider the argument thatdiversity is required in federal question cases to be ethical, neither should thisCourt.In addition to the support of vexatious litigation, this Court hasacted as advocate for the defendants by arguing law for the defendants inmotion practice before they have had a chance to reply and the Courtsimultaneously has ruled on these motions with sua sponte arguments withoutallowing the Plaintiff an opportunity to respond. Too much order in this Courtas the defendants have been eliminated from this litigation and have beenreplaced by the Court. Even the Vermont Supreme Court has opined againstsuch judicial advocacy and activism in Huminski v. Lavoie, see attachedopinion. This decision of the Vermont Supreme Court condemning judicialactivism and advocacy from the bench is consistent with federal law. When a
\\\DC - 90334/8988 - #1488134 v4
decision-maker advocates for a party the fundamental fairness required bysubstantive and procedural Due Process is destroyed and the appearance andreality of justice is sacrificed in the process. In this instance the motionpleading cycle set forth in the Rules has been completely eviscerated by judicial advocacy for the defendants. With the Court filing for the Defendantsand simultaneously ruling both Plaintiff and Defendants are deprived of responding and replying pursuant to the Rules. The Plaintiff is indigent and cannot afford to serve any moreparties in this case and has chosen to proceed against the two defendants whohave appeared in this case for the time being. Plaintiff has been obstructedfrom serving the John and Jane Does by orders from the Court prohibitingdiscovery of their identities. It is the Plaintiff’s choice concerning how toprosecute this case, however, the Court has chosen to block and obstruct thiscase to aid the defendants’ evasion of federal and state law enforcementconcerning the crimes at the core of this matter. This case has beenpermanently obstructed by orders of this Court specifically issued to obstructdiscovery in this matter. The main reason for discovery is to forward theproducts to State and Federal law enforcement for investigation of theattempted murder and other crimes. The Court’s conduct, protecting thedefendants from discovery, criminal investigation, criminal liability and civillitigation, has obstructed federal and state criminal investigations into thecrimes set forth in the pleadings. The Court’s willingness to aid criminals inthe evasion of law enforcement and criminal liability is a
 per se
indicator of 
\\\DC - 90334/8988 - #1488134 v4

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->