Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Temporary restraining order motion - obstruction of entry of judgment

Temporary restraining order motion - obstruction of entry of judgment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16|Likes:
Published by Sheriff_Joe_Arpaio
federal judge gone wild.....
federal judge gone wild.....

More info:

Published by: Sheriff_Joe_Arpaio on Mar 22, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

05/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 In The
United States District Court (Fort Myers)
S
COTT
H
UMINSKI
, for himself and ) Those similarly situated, ) CIVIL ACTION P
LAINTIFF
 ) v. ) DOCKET NO. H
ON
.
 
J
OHN
E.
 
S
TEELE
, E
T
A
L
.,
 
) 2:13-
CV
-692-F
TM
-29
DNF
 D
EFENDANTS
. )
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST NAMED DEFENDANTS RE:OBSTRUCTION OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
 NOW COMES, Scott Huminski (“Huminski”), and
moves for himself and others similarly situated for an order to restrain the judicial and clerk defendants from conduct and conspiracies concocted to prevent the lawful entry of judgments in civil cases. The defendants engaged in conduct and conspired to prevent the ministerial entry of judgment in collateral case Huminski v. Vermont, et al., 2:13-CV-685-FTM-29DNF, to successfully obstruct the appeal of that matter. Entry of judgment is a ministerial act which formally serves to record the outcome of litigation, it should not be obstructed by a U.S. District Court. Finality is an essential component of litigation. Huminski v. Vermont was notoriously and unconstitutionally dismissed 6 days after filing. Subsequent to the premature dismissal and closure of the case, defendants have chosen to obfuscate, confuse and blur the status of that litigation by refusing to allow the ministerial act of entry of judgment. This conduct is  prejudicial to the administration of justice and has burdened the 11
th
 Circuit with an appeal that was sabotaged by this Court
s illegal refusal to allow entry of judgment. The short-circuiting and derailing of the appellate process by illegal conduct and conspiracies to prevent lawful entry of judgment in Huminski v. Vermont is conduct that is in contempt of the United States Eleventh Circuit and has harmed and prejudiced that tribunal as well as the plaintiff. It is diabolically prejudicial to the interests of justice. This matter and Huminski v. Vermont are is a state of procedural chaos as the record shows that Huminski v. Vermont is dismissed and closed, however, the 11
th
 Circuit found that Huminski v. Vermont is somehow pending in this matter preventing appellate jurisdiction. This chaotic result reveals the wisdom in the First Amendment and Due Process which were flushed down the toilet when this Court
 sua sponte
 dismissed Huminski v. Vermont without notice contrary to the excellent
 
 example set by Judge Gold in this matter prior to transfer. See also Huminski v. Lavoie, Vt. Supr. Ct. 99-330 (2001)(condemning sua sponte dispositive acts of a court without notice to  parties). Concerning the premature non-noticed sua sponte dismissal that started this cascade of vastly illegal and unconstitutional judicial conduct; People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 118 at 124:
A judicial decision made without giving a party an opportunity to present argument or evidence is support of his contention "is lacking in all the attributes of a judicial determination."
 (Spector v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 839, 843.) In Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 389, the necessity of due notice and an opportunity of being heard is described as among the "immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government which no member of the Union may disregard." And Mr. Justice Field, in an earlier case, Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350, 368-369, said that the rule that no one shall be  personally bound until he has had his day in court was as old as the law, and it meant that he must be cited to appear and afforded an opportunity to be heard. "Judgment without such citation and opportunity wants all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and oppression, and never can be upheld where justice is justly administered." . It appears that the Eleventh Circuit had such rudimentary principles in mind when it described the
 sua sponte
 dismissal and closure of Huminski v. Vermont as
 purported
. Indeed, Huminski had no prior notice of the
 sua sponte
 dismissal nor a chance to be heard. See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 at 68 (1932). Similarly disturbing is the litigation now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, In Re: Scott Huminski, 13-8324 (conference on 3/21/2014), further litigation spawned from the illegal and unconstitutional conduct of this Court prejudicing the highest Court in this nation with rudimentary constitutional issues
 – 
 notice and opportunity to be heard. This Court must endeavor to embrace and support the Bill of Rights after navigating to a foreign shore in this case where that founding document is non-existent and shunned. Dated at Bonita Springs, Florida this 22
nd
 day of March, 2014.  __________________________________
Scott Huminski, pro se

You're Reading a Free Preview

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