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
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Scott Huminski Physically Removed From Maricopa County Attorney's Office

Scott Huminski Physically Removed From Maricopa County Attorney's Office

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,148|Likes:
Scott Huminski was recently physically removed from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for his loony behavior, and now comes his BS affidavit and demand for $175,000... ALL ABOUT THE MONEY WITH THIS GUY!! BEWARE
Scott Huminski was recently physically removed from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for his loony behavior, and now comes his BS affidavit and demand for $175,000... ALL ABOUT THE MONEY WITH THIS GUY!! BEWARE

More info:

Published by: jmichaelnelsonwrites on Dec 31, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

09/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
The assault upon Scott Huminski by agents of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for the "crime" of delivering federal court papers to 301 Jefferson Street, 8th floor, onDecember 9, 2011 along with the interception and confiscation of federal court papersthat contained a message critical of the County Attorney, Sheriff Arpaio and othersconstitutes federal civil rights crimes.
 
The affidavit filed in U.S. District Court (PHX) is below along with a notice of claimagainst Sheriff Arpaio from August 2011. (formatting not intact)
 
The conduct of the County Attorney's Office on December 9, 2011 constitutes violationof:
 
18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights)
 
18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Right Under Color of Law)Both statutes are were criminally violated with regard to Huminski's First Amendmentand Due Process rights.
 
The assault upon Huminski and the interception and censorship of communicationprotected under the First Amendment by law enforcement officials employed by theCounty Attorney's Office is criminal violation of the aforementioned criminal civil rightsstatutes. The fact the the federal court papers were critical of government officialsplaces the speech contained within the papers in the heightened category of "Core First Amendment Speech" (speech critical of government). As the conduct of the lawenforcement was initiated to obstruct, retaliate against, deprive and chill Huminski'slitigation in United States District Court, such conduct also implicates the deprivation of Huminski's Due Process and First Amendment rights concerning his seeking redress inFederal Court. Speech contained in court papers is "Protected Expression" andretaliation by government is forbidden.
 
The interference and obstruction of litigation pending before the United States Courts bythe County Attorney and his agents/employees constitutes the following crimes (withdefinitions):
Title 18 U.S.C. § 2.Principals.(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands,induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes anact to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against theUnited States, is punishable as a principal.
 
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3. Accessory after the fact.
 
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives,relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or  punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
 
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
OBSTRUCTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND COMMITTEES
 
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs,or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States
... shall befined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
 
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant.(a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another  person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent toretaliate against any person for (1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding,or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in anofficial proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission oa Federal offense ..."
 *** end statutes ***
The recent DOJ statements concerning ethnic cleansing in Arizona are just onesymptom concerning a bigger problem, Maricopa County's utter disdain for the rights,liberties, immunities and freedoms secured under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. -- scott huminski
 *** begin attachments ***
Scott Huminski, pro se
 
2624 S. Bahama Drive
 
Gilbert, AZ 85295
 
s_huminski@live.com
 
(480) 243-8184
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF ARIZONA
 
Scott Huminski, )
 
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION
 
)-V- ) CASE NO.
 
)Maricopa, County of, et al., ) 2:2011-cv-02352
 
 
)
 
Defendants. )
 
AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF SCOTT HUMINSKI
 
RE: VIOLENCE AND ARREST THREATS FOR DELIVERY OF COURT PAPERS
 
Plaintiff Scott Huminski ("Huminski") deposes and swears as follows:1.
 
I
make this Affidavit based on my personal knowledge as the plaintiff in this suit.
I
 am over the age of eighteen and under no legal disability.2.
 
This affidavit describes the experiences and activities of Scott Huminski on Friday,December 9, 2011 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (approximately).3.
 
The first stop made by Scott Huminski was at the Office of Hon. Jeff Flake, U.S.Congressman at his office in Mesa. Huminski was checking on the status of his letter toCongress which is attached to the Amended Complaint filed in this matter (2:2011-cv-02352)as Exhibit "A". Huminski handed the congressional staffers a copy of the letter so they couldreference the matter.
I
was informed that the letter and correspondence from RepresentativeFlake was forwarded to Governor Jan Brewer and that
I
would receive a status letter in thenear future.
I
spoke with Kelly Hedman, Director of Constituent Services, and others. At notime did anyone at the congressman's office throw papers in my face, claim that
I
wascommitting a crime or assault me.4.
 
My next stop was at the Arizona Commission for Judicial Conduct whereby
I
 delivered some paperwork concerning an investigation being conducted by that agency.
I
 dropped off the paperwork, it was stamped received and
I
began to leave. While
I
wasleaving a staff attorney popped out from their office and asked me a few questions related tothe investigation. At no time did anyone at the Commission's office throw papers in my face,claim that
I
was committing a crime or assault me.5.
 
Since April of this year 
I
have filed dozens of legal papers at the U.S. District Court(Phoenix), hand served papers to government agencies and law firms, all without incidentfrom court employees or government attorneys or their employees.6.
 
Over the past 20 years,
I
have litigated in state and federal courts in New York,Connecticut, Vermont, Delaware, California and North Carolina at no point in deliveringpapers to any court, law firm, government agency or individuals did
I
have court papersthrown in my face, threatened with arrest or assaulted related to the delivery/service of courtpapers and pleadings.
I
have personally filed documents and conducted oral argument at the

Activity (4)

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

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)//-->