This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
United States District Court (Conn.)
SCOTT HUMINSKI, for himself and )
Those similarly situated, )
v. ) CIVIL ACTION
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, )
GOVERNOR SHUMLIN, ) DOCKET NO.
STATE OF VERMONT, )
ATTORNEY GEN. WILLIAM SORRELL, )
GOVERNOR MALLOY, )
CONNECTICUT ATTY. GENERAL JEPSON, )
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, )
GOVERNOR JAN BREWER, )
ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL HORNE, )
TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZONA, )
GILBERT POLICE DEPARTMENT )
DETECTIVE DEBRA HARTIN, )
GILBERT POLICE JOHN DOE #1 )
TOWN OF WILTON CONNECTICUT, )
WILTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, )
DETECTIVE PETE TREHAN, ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND
CITY OF SURPRISE, ARIZONA, )
SURPRISE POLICE DEPARTMENT, )
LT. JOHN BACON, )
LT. HAROLD BRADY, )
OFFICER HECTOR HEREDIA, )
POLICE OFFICER HECTOR HEREDIA, )
CITY OF NORWALK, CONNECTICUT, )
NORWALK POLICE DEPARTMENT, )
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, )
MA A.G. MARTHA COAKLEY, )
GOV. DEVEL PATRICK, )
TIM DORN, )
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Declaratory Action 28 USC § 2201, 42 USC § 1983, 42 USC §§ 1985(2),(3)
NOW COMES, Scott Huminski ("Huminski") and hereby complains follows:
This action constitutes a facial and as applied attack upon the harassment statutes of
Connecticut and Arizona and the common law of Vermont as violative of the First Amendment,
Due Process and that they are unconstitutionally vague and over-broad on their faces. This
action also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against law enforcement and governmental
employees that issued threats against Huminski under the color of State harassment laws and
colluded and conspired to violate Huminski’s rights, privileges and immunities secured under the
United State Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2),(3).
Numbered Section of Complaint
1) Jurisdiction is proper under federal question jurisdiction, notably the constitutionality of
State harassment statutes and threats issued under the color of State law.
2) All claims are brought jointly and severally.
3) No monetary damages or relief is sought in this lawsuit.
4) Huminski brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of the 10 million residents of
Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont concerning the patently
unconstitutional harassment laws of those States and zeal of law enforcement to use State
law to obstruct civil litigation and other protected expression.
5) All claims are brought in individual and official capacities and, as this matter constitutes
a facial challenge upon State statutes, the Governors and Attorney Generals of the various
states have been included as defendants.
6) Surprise, Arizona police officer, Hector Heredia, issued a written email threat against
Huminski under the color of AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921 stating as follows:
This is Officer H. Heredia #2019 from the Surprise Police Department. I would like to
inform you that Mr. Michael [sic] Nelson filed a harassment complaint with this
department today. Mr. Huminski I would like to set up an interview with you reference this
harassment allegation. My scheduled work days are Wednesday through Saturday 6:00
A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Please do not have any type of contact with either Michael [sic] Nelson
or Anthony Tsontakislaw until I speak with you and hear your side. You can call me at
623-222-4262 to set up an interview or leave a message when you will be able to come
during the mentioned work days and hours. Thank-you. (emphasis added)
7) The Heredia email was issued the day prior to a civil hearing in an Arizona court case
Huminski v. Nelson. Anthony Tsontakislaw[sic] was the attorney for defendant Mr.
Nelson. The civil matter was to secure a restraining order against Justin Nelson to
protect Huminski, his wife and his minor niece and nephew who Nelson admittedly
showed a sadistic interest in. Mr. Nelson issued death threats against Huminski and his
wife. Justin M. Nelson (murdered in October, 2012 related to this litigation) admitted he
was the closest friend and advisor of Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and discussed matters related
to this litigation at family breakfast with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, allegedly putting Huminski
in the crosshairs of Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office for
retaliation. Mr. Nelson indicated that he was a practicing sadist and wish to have sadistic
contact with Huminski’s minor niece and nephew in Connecticut. Nelson had made
efforts to track down Huminski’s niece and nephew in Connecticut.
8) Mr. Nelson was a law enforcement insider in Arizona and a close friend and advisor of
Sheriff Arpaio, Officer Heredia engaged in the threat against civil litigation in solidarity
with Sheriff Arpaio and to protect the Sheriff’s close friend, Justin Nelson, a law
enforcement insider. Noteworthy is the issue that Mr. Nelson’s attorney, Anthony
Tsontakis, is legislative counsel for the Arizona legislature and also a strong supporter
and friend of Sheriff Arpaio. Upon information and belief, Officer Heredia issued the
threat prohibiting litigation with Mr. Tsontakis to support a politically well-connected
legislative counsel Anthony Tsontakis and a close friend and advisor of Sheriff Arpaio.
9) Surprise, Arizona police officer, Hector Heredia, stated the following in police taped
telephone conversations with Huminski (emphasis added),
OFFICER HEREDIA: OK. I can only ask you not to contact these two people, ok?
Whether you do or not is entirely up to you –
MR. HUMINSKI: And that’s a crime.
OFFICER HEREDIA: Yes. And if you do continue, you may be –
you may be looking into a harassment charge being filed against
you, and it could go criminal.
MR. HUMINSKI: Well, guess what? Guess what? You might be
looking to obstruct some justice –
OFFICER HEREDIA: OK.
MR. HUMINSKI: Hello?
OFFICER HERETIA: Hello, is this Mr. Huminski?
MR. HUMINSKI: Oh, yes, it is. Is this the guy who threatened me?
OFFICER HERETIA: This is Officer Heretia from the Surprise Police Department.
MR. HUMINSKI: Right –
OFFICER HERETIA; Okay –
MR. HUMINSKI: You understand you’re engaging in obstruction of justice –
OFFICER HERETIA: Well, sir –
10) The U.S. District Court (Arizona), Huminski v. Surprise, 2:2011-cv-00896 , in its final
order, dated 5/29/2012, acknowledged that the statute involving the Surprise police
threats was AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921 and stated as follows:
“Mr. Huminski asserts in his motion for partial summary judgment that A.R.S.
§ 13-2921 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. This statute concerns harassment,
and apparently is the statute under which Mr. Huminski might have been charged with
harassing Nelson and his attorney.”
“In his final motion for partial summary judgment, Mr. Huminski again makes
various arguments regarding A.R.S. § 13-2921. Doc. 125.”
11) Surprise officials John Bacon and Harold Brady assisted Heredia in his obstruction of
justice and related torts and participated in the authoring of Court filings that attempted to
ensure the lifetime threats against Huminski’s protected expression survive court
scrutiny. Huminski still has claims against the estate of Justin M. Nelson, Anthony
Tsontakis, Debra Riffel and Trevor Nelson that are being obstructed by Surprise’s
perpetual threat against civil litigation.
12) Gilbert, Arizona police detective, Debra Hartin, in a written email issued under the color
of AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921 and C.G.S. § 53a-183 obstructed probate/estate litigation and
other torts to be filed in the U.S.D.C. (Arizona and now Florida) against Police Officer
Bruce Hume of the Norwalk, Connecticut police when she stated as follows,
“Detective Pete Trahan with Wilton Conn. Police Department has requested we inform
you to stop contacting your brother Bruce. If you do not stop contacting Bruce you will be
13) Concerning her threat against litigation to be brought in the federal courts, Detective
“I am not involved in your father’s estate and did not take on fiduciary responsibility by
passing on a directive from another agency. That is called an agency assist which police
departments do for one another.”
14) Det. Hartin knew of the estate and other court matters and proceeded to issue threats to
obstruct justice concerning matters to be filed in the United States District Court. The
mere fact that another police agency requested that Detective Hartin to obstruct matters to
be filed in the United States Courts does not add legitimacy to the obstruction to aid a
fellow police officer with financial/court matters by obstructing justice. The interstate
law enforcement conspiracy against the rights of Huminski is an aggravating factor
concerning the illegal conduct of police. Huminski is waiting to bring claims against
Bruce Hume of the Norwalk, Connecticut Police in the United States District Court
(Florida) for estate issues, destruction of property torts and destruction/conversion of
physical Court records and litigation work product and on-going constitutional torts. This
planned litigation is currently obstructed via police threats of arrest under color of law
and the plain language of the Arizona and Connecticut harassment statutes.
15) Detective Trehan, of the Wilton Police, confirmed in a telephone call that Huminski’s
arrest would be pursuant to C.G.S. § 53a-183 if he had any contact with Hume of the
Norwalk police department and Detective Trahan confirmed that there was
communication and conspiracy between the Wilton, Norwalk and Gilbert police related
to the silencing of Huminski with threats of arrest. Trehan was at the hub of the
forbidden conspiracy against rights and deprivation under the color of law, 18 U.S.C. §§
16) Tim Dorn supervised and approved the obstruction of justice set forth in this complaint
for Gilbert, Arizona.
17) The aforementioned threats from police and prosecutors have not been withdrawn,
rescinded or narrowly-tailored despite numerous requests to the defendants over 17 years
and in 2014.
18) Aggravating the constitutional deprivations foisted upon Huminski is the scheme
concocted between the City of Surprise, Arizona, Surprise officials, Surprise employees
and the attorney for the City of Surprise whereby they conspired on or about 5/29/2012
and made the following fraudulent and deliberately misleading statements in their filings
in the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
“ … A.R.S. § 13-2921 had nothing to do with the District Court matter.”
“A.R.S. § 13-2921 has nothing to do with the underlying case and this appeal. The
underlying action was based on the email, not A.R.S. § 13-2921. At no time was A.R.S.
§ 13-2921 reference or mentioned”
19) This deception filed in the Ninth Circuit, apparently worked with regard to the Ninth
Circuit panel. A new cause of action has arisen based upon the fraud used by the City of
Surprise in their quest to ensure the Constitutional deprivations foisted upon Huminski
remain permanent via fraud, deception and misrepresentation. The lies in the 9
by the City of Surprise were concocted between Surprise employees and their attorney to
see to it that Huminski’s rights were permanently violated.
20) The use of deception, fraud and trickery by the City of Surprise concerning its
misrepresentations to the Ninth Circuit to make permanent the constitutional deprivations
is revealed in shocking detail in the following excerpt from Huminski’s Ninth Circuit
Motion for Rehearing En Banc, 8/23/2013, in sharp contrast to the above fraudulent
Court statements made in the Ninth Circuit by the City of Surprise defendants,
“Motions for summary judgment attacking AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921 and for preliminary
injunctions were filed in the District Court prior to disposition along with a host of other
papers centering the claims of this action around AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921.
Attached hereto as exhibits see:
Paper 112 - Motion to Join the State of AZ grounded upon an attack upon a State Statute
Paper 113 - Motion for partial summary judgment – direct facial attack upon AZ Rev. Stat.
Paper 114 – Statement of undisputed fact RE: summary judgement (Paper 113)
Paper 117 – Motion for partial summary judgment requesting declaration regarding AZ
Rev. Stat. § 13-2921
Paper 120 – Plaintiff’s responsive statement of fact discussing AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921
and discussing the issue that the police threats constituted a police order.
Paper 121 – Motion for finding that Arizona waived it’s right to respond to facial attack
upon AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921
Paper 122 – Motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of AZ Rev. Stat. §
Paper 123 – Motion to reconsider denial of injunction against enforcement of AZ Rev.
Stat. § 13-2921
Paper 125 – Motion for partial summary judgment concerning AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921 is
*** Plaintiff ends his review of the record at Paper 125 despite numerous more papers
filed regarding the constitutionality of AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921… the point has been made
that this case became heavily centered on the constitutionally infirm statute ***”
21) Overcoming the deception, fraud and misrepresentation used by the City of Surprise and
law enforcement in their filings in the U.S. Ninth Circuit is a difficult task for a fully
disabled pro se litigant such as Huminski when government adversaries conspire to
employ such fraudulent techniques. The government violations have risen to fraud upon
the federal Courts to accomplish obstruction of matters filed or to be filed in the United
States Courts. The ethical rules governing the honesty and professional conduct
concerning the City of Surprise were maliciously ignored when it came to undermining
the constitutional rights of Huminski.
22) To place the material herein threats from police in context, one need only look to the
conduct of the State of Vermont defendants and their threats issued against civil litigation
in the following quote,
"The last claim involves a statement made to attorney Capriola warning that the
defendant would be charged with additional crimes if he did not clam down. The
statement is a reference to the defendant's continued harassment of the victim
and the investigating officer in this case through the court process. The defendant
has filed a civil action against the victim because of his participation in this
criminal case. The State is currently reviewing a contempt charge against the
defendant because of this activity. The statement was a proper warning made
through the defendant's representative." (John Lavoie, State's Response to Motion
to Dismiss #4)
23) The obsession of law enforcement to obstruct civil litigation that it finds annoying,
costly, burdensome, harassing, distasteful, alarming, harassing, unpleasant and irritating
is epitomized by the above threat from Vermont prosecutor John Lavoie and his superior
State’s Attorney William Wright. The Vermont threat was issued to protect the closest
friend of the State’s Attorney, Officer Henry Haverkoch, the “investigating officer”, from
civil litigation. The State’s Attorney was the best man at the wedding of Officer
Haverkoch, so his duty to his friend trumped his duty to the law and the threat was issued
to protect a close friend and spare a friend from the costs, burden and trauma of civil
litigation. This is an extreme abuse of police power. Subsequent to the above threat from
the State of Vermont, Huminski was prosecuted for two felonies lodged in retaliation for
civil litigation and endured years of criminal proceedings until the Vermont Supreme
Court threw out the charges as unconstitutional and expunged the entire matter.
Huminski or any reasonable person would seek to attack the statutes or threats issued
under those statutes by police prior to exposing themselves to terrifying criminal charging
and years of criminal litigation as was the case in Vermont v. Huminski.
24) In Vermont’s argument to prosecute Huminski, the government claimed that litigation
continued in the United States District Court by Huminski’s wife was a veiled
continuation of litigation by Huminski himself justifying retaliation with charging and
prosecution of two felonies. The Vermont Supreme Court disagreed with the
government’s retaliatory abusive theory to prosecute Huminski in stating,
Vermont v. Huminski, 2001-330 (“After defendant's wife filed an amended complaint in
federal court, however, the State moved to vacate the plea and reinstate the obstruction
Huminski v. Lavoie, 99-330, (“The [lower] court rejected the State's argument that plaintiff
had violated the plea agreement when his wife refiled in federal court, noting that plaintiff's
wife was not bound by the agreement between plaintiff and the State. Moreover, the court
ruled that the State was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the federal constitution
from pursuing the two original charges for obstruction of justice. The State appealed this
ruling, which we affirmed in State v. Huminski, No. 99-445 (Vt. Dec. 13, 2000) (mem.).
Vermont v. Huminski, 99-445, (“Moreover, Defendant’s wife was not a party to the plea
agreement, and thus, there is no breach of the agreement based on her refiling [civil
litigation] in federal court.”)
25) As the high Vermont Court held, Vermont prosecutors were so obsessed with controlling
and obstructing federal litigation against themselves and their friends that they prosecuted
Huminski in retaliation for his wife’s continuation of a civil suit in the United States
District Court (Vermont). An unthinkable abuse of police power to interfere with,
manipulate and obstruct civil litigation. Compounding the corruption of law enforcement
is the fact that the prosecutors themselves were defendants in the federal lawsuit that was
dismissed as part of a plea agreement. With the prosecutors to benefit from a direct
pecuniary advantage concerning the proposed plea agreement specifying dismissal of a
federal lawsuit against the prosecutors, they failed to recuse concerning the plea
agreement and the matter was essentially converted into the acceptance of a bribe
(lawsuit dismissal) by prosecutors and for themselves and on behalf of their police
friends. The two prosecutors involved in this matter had over 50 years of combined
experience, Huminski does not expect the police and municipal officials in involved in
this matter to behave more legally than the criminal prosecutors in Vermont v. Huminski.
26) The government retaliatory criminal prosecution in Vermont v. Huminski for the “crime”
of civil litigation against the best friend of the State’s Attorney was accompanied by the
summary punishment of “conditions of release” imposed upon Humiski while the
unconstitutional criminal charges were pending against him for 3 years. Huminski
endured years of Court ordered stunted and limited constitutional rights as a result of
Vermont’s bad faith retaliation with criminal charges against unpopular litigation in the
United States District Court (Vermont). In the case at Bar, Huminski seeks to enjoin the
government prior to a vindictive retaliatory criminal prosecution based upon his
experience with law enforcement obsessed with manipulating and obstructing litigation
before the United States Courts, which, in Vermont, was endorsed by Attorney General
William Sorrell who has repeatedly refused to withdraw or rescind the threat from
Vermont for the last 17 years. Similarly, Arizona and Connecticut law enforcement
refuses to withdraw all police threats related to this matter and they will remain in effect
for the remainder of Huminski’s life.
27) The extreme obsession of Vermont law enforcement to manipulate, interfere with and
obstruct litigation before the United States Courts speaks volumes concerning the
willingness of law enforcement in this county, now Massachusetts, Arizona and
Connecticut law enforcement, to abuse their powers to obstruct the federal courts in
matters where law enforcement benefits from obstruction of proceedings in the federal
courts. No coincidence that Massachusetts, Arizona and Connecticut have jumped onto
the obstruction of justice bandwagon. This is a nationwide epidemic.
28) After the aforementioned threats against litigation from Arizona and Connecticut,
Huminski’s experiences in Vermont taught him exactly what he was dealing with and he
appropriately chose to file this litigation and not serve the individual defendants until
they were restrained by a Court order preventing a retaliatory criminal prosecution akin
to Vermont v. Huminski.
29) Huminski will serve the governmental entities that are defendants in this matter prior to
securing a temporary restraining order because it is impossible to harass (e.g. serve
process) a non-human entity, thus, the aforementioned police threats and statutes do not
apply to governmental entities.
30) The theme behind the obstruction of justice regarding Officer Haverkoch, Justin M.
Nelson and Hume is police assisting other police in pecuniary gain and protecting police
brethren (and insiders like Nelson) from costly and unpleasant civil litigation. This is the
height of police corruption for profit and to minimize costs and liability of fellow police
brethren. The well-known good ol’ boy police fraternity at work.
31) As set forth in writing by the State of Vermont, availing one’s self to redress in the
courts, “the court process”, constitutes per se harassment worthy of retaliation with years
of criminal prosecution. This is Vermont common law concerning criminal harassment
and it is the illegal basis for the conduct of the Arizona and Connecticut defendants.
32) Gilbert Police John Doe #1 is the police officer who arrested Huminski in May 2012 for
the crime of civil litigation veiled as a DUI arrest that has yet to be prosecuted. Upon
release from incarceration Huminski took blood, urine and neurological tests that proved
the false nature of the arrest and incarceration. The arrest was retaliatory and pursuant to
harassment under the Arizona statute. The only reason for the arrest was retaliation for
Huminski’s protected speech and was, indeed an arrest under the Arizona harassment
statute. This arrest happened 3 days before the attempted murder, forced drugging,
forced irradiation and torture of Huminski orchestrated by the Gilbert Police currently
being reviewed in the Eleventh Circuit. The Town of Gilbert gave information and
directions to persons that attempted the murder of Huminski and tortured Huminski.
33) The Gilbert police, town of Gilbert and Tim Dorn, police chief, knew that Huminski was
fully disabled with bi-lateral hip replacements and bilateral AVN of the knees which
made it impossible for Huminski to pass a field sobriety test. The test was the excuse
used by Gilbert for the arrest of Huminski.
34) When Huminski was pulled over by John Doe #1, the officer did not approach
Huminski’s vehicle, he remained at a distance of 15 to 20 feet and ordered Huminski out
of his vehicle and it was clear his posture indicated that he was prepared to pull out his
gun and use deadly force against his target, Huminski. This was not a routine traffic stop.
Huminski informed the officer of his disability and the knowledge of the Gilbert police
and the Town of Gilbert of his disabilities. The office indicated that he did not care and
forced Huminski to engage in a field sobriety test that he couldn’t physically pass.
35) Gilbert Police personnel refused to give polygraph examinations to the persons involved
in the attempted murder and torture of Huminski and refused Huminski’s offer to take a
polygraph concerning his attempted murder and torture. Huminski will submit to such a
polygraph to this day.
36) On or about three days after Gilbert was unable to use deadly force against Huminski at
the purported DUI arrest, Gilbert supplied information and instructions to the individuals
that attempted to murder Huminski that proximately caused the murder attempt and
torture. Gilbert was unable to gun down Huminski at the site of the DUI arrest because it
was in a video monitored Walmart parking lot.
37) Huminski saw documents supplied by Gilbert to the persons that attempted to murder
Huminski and the papers indicated that deadly force and violence was required to deal
with Huminski. After the papers were delivered by Gilbert to Huminski’s attackers, he
was assaulted from behind and thrust head first into the base of a metal table splitting his
head open and the only behavior he exhibited prior to the attempted murder was passive
and peaceful as has been his deportment since childhood. All of the attempted murder of
Huminski was before video cameras and the blood soaked Huminski made it into the
waiting room of the Medical Center to be sure that the results of the attempted murder
were caught on video. All video data of the attempted murder and torture were destroyed
by the medical center. The waiting room was quite full and those in the waiting room
were able to view Huminski’s non-violent and peaceful deportment even after he was
covered with blood from the attempted murder. Huminski was lured back into the
treatment area and peacefully complied, as witnessed by the entire waiting room and then
the torture began with waterboarding/simulated drowning, forced drugging, forced
nudity, forced irradiation and a plethora of related violence as per the instructions and
information supplied by the Town of Gilbert.
38) The aforementioned set forth statutes and police conduct and conspiracies under the color
of state statutes that obstructed multiple cases Huminski would file or has filed in the
U.S. District Courts and Huminski seeks a declaration of the same and a permanent
injunction against the statutes and against the municipal and government defendants that
chose to issue threats under the color of the State harassment statutes of Connecticut,
Arizona and common law Vermont harassment.
39) The aforementioned conduct of the law enforcement defendants constitutes bold
conspiracies against rights, violation of rights under color of law and obstruction of
justice violative of the First Amendment and Due Process and actionable here under 42
USC § 1983, 42 USC §§ 1985(2),(3).
40) The City of Surprise and their attorneys lied to the U.S. 9
Circuit Court of Appeals by
stating that the Arizona harassment statute was never mentioned in the District Court
proceedings in spite of the mention of the statute in the Court’s final order disposing of
the case and the abundance of filings on the record making clear that a facial attack upon
the statute was a primary goal of the case. Huminski seeks a declaration that this conduct
is indeed an abuse of process, fraud upon the court, harassment and a frivolous and
vexatious abuse and fraud upon the federal courts.
41) Prior to the murder of Justin M. Nelson, Arizona mental health authorities ordered the
Surprise police to pick up Nelson for an involuntary evaluation and the Surprise police
outright refused to execute the pick-up for several days and then according to Nelson
himself only made halfhearted pseudo attempts. Huminski spoke to medical authorities
who told him that Surprise officials initially simply refused to execute the pick up
without reason for many days. Upon information and belief, Nelson would not be dead
today if Surprise properly executed the lawful mental health pick up order from State
authorities. Upon information and belief the pick up refusal was a favor to law
enforcement insider, Justin M. Nelson who the Surprise police were cooperating with
concerning Huminski v. Surprise, U.S.D.C. (Az).
42) All named defendants acted with a reckless disregard and callous indifference for the
rights and safety of Huminski and they acted with a nefariously evil design, evil motive
43) The aforementioned depicts a practice, policy, procedure and custom adopted by the
municipalities and their employees to obstruct the federal courts and deprive Huminski of
his constitutional rights.
44) Huminski notes that the threat against litigation by Surprise was issued the day before a
hearing, Huminski v. Nelson, and included a no contact order concerning Justin Nelson’s
attorney Anthony Tsontakis, thus, the target and intent of the threat (TARGET = Civil
Litigation and INTENT = obstruction of civil litigation) was crystal clear to Huminski.
45) This matter is of a very troubling nature because 5 months after the attempted murder and
torture of the plaintiff, the primary witness in Huminski v. Surprise, Justin M. Nelson was
murdered at the age of 36 in October of 2012. The funeral suspiciously didn’t occur until
May of 2013. In addition to crimes against the Courts in the form of Obstruction of
Justice by law enforcement and other related federal and state crimes, there has been a
murder and an attempted murder related to this litigation.
46) After the aforementioned tortious conduct foisted upon Huminski by the defendants
located in Arizona or Connecticut, Huminski resided in Arizona and Florida and the
defendants refuse to withdraw the threats issued under the color of state law, and, as is
the case with the Vermont threats, all aforementioned threats from law enforcement are
perpetual and will chill Huminski’s protected expression for the remainder of his life.
47) The conduct of the defendants material herein constitutes violation of Huminski’s First
Amendment and Due Process rights, obstruction of justice, conspiracy against
Huminski’s rights, chilling and violation of Huminski’s rights under the color of State
laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, destruction of
evidence, spoliation of evidence, civil rights violations under 42 USC 1983, 1985(b),
1985(c), assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, malicious
prosecution, fraud, tortious interference, conspiracy, negligent duty of care, breach of
duty, unauthorized activity causing injury, injurious falsehood and negligent
misrepresentation. Huminski seeks no damages related to these torts, only declaratory
and injunctive relief to stop the conduct.
48) The aforementioned conduct constitutes negligent training, negligent supervision,
negligent hiring and negligent retiring concerning all the persons/entities for which
Huminski seeks no damages related to these torts, only declaratory and injunctive relief
to stop the conduct.
49) Service of this matter upon the individual defendants will per se constitute the State
crimes of harassment, thus, Huminski will only serve the governmental entities and seek
a protective injunction to serve the individuals to avoid arrest and criminal prosecution
for the crimes of harassment. It is Huminski’s belief that the State harassment crimes
only apply to human beings and not governmental entities. Thus, he only risks arrest
when he serves named individuals.
50) Attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B” are briefs filed in the Supreme Court concerning
the unconstitutionality (vagueness and overbreadth) of laws that use the subjective word
“annoy” as a basis for criminal liability. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104
(1972), Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971). The harassment laws of
Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont common law are proscribed under the
51) Huminski has made dozens of requests to the various law enforcement defendants to
withdraw the threats against Huminski’s protected expression in the U.S courts and
elsewhere and the defendants refused in 2014 and earlier.
52) All law enforcement defendants engage in the business of law enforcement throughout
the United States and internationally and have engaged in the interstate business of law
enforcement pursuant to the extradition clause to the United States Constitution. Modern
law enforcement is an interstate and international activity.
53) Norwalk and Wilton transmitted threats against Huminski’s protected expression into the
State of Arizona and those threats are likewise active against Huminski in Florida and
54) The defendants have transmitted information concerning Huminski into Florida
prejudicing his credit rating, ability to gain volunteer employment and raising his rates to
obtain car insurance and obtain credit in Florida. The false and malicious additions to
Huminski’s RAP sheet by the defendants is an interstate activity. The false and
retaliatory DUI arrest by the Gilbert police is especially prejudicial to Huminski’s
existence in Florida.
55) A custom, policy and procedure exists in law enforcement agencies throughout the
United States and especially in Arizona, Connecticut and Vermont whereby police use
threats of arrest to protect themselves, fellow police officers and police insiders from the
burden of civil litigation and to silence other speech and expression they, or other
members of the police fraternity, might find annoying .
56) As each new day begins with Huminski’s expression and redress of grievances chilled by
State laws and perpetual police threats under the color of those laws, a new claim,
constitutional tort and cause of action is born concerning that aforementioned conduct
including the police threats of arrest.
57) In July of 2014, Huminski was threatened with prosecution under Massachusetts cyber
stalking law, M.G.L. c. 265, s. 43, by Randy of the Justice 4 Vinnie website.
58) M.G.L. c. 265, s. 43 is similarly unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and specifically
targets core political speech. Huminski’s criticism of prosecutor John T. Lavoie is the
speech that is being targeted by the threats from the Justice 4 Vinnie web site, and, those
at Justice 4 Vinnie personally know John T. Lavoie and have adopted Lavoie’s conduct
of issuing threats against core protected political speech under the color of State laws.
59) All aforementioned police threats are active against Huminski currently and his residence
is in Florida. All law enforcement officials issuing threats against Huminski have refused
to withdraw said threats after dozens of requests by Huminski.
60) The laws of the various States at issue in this matter are applicable to communications
and speech on the internet originating in any of the United States when that internet
content is read by residents of the defendant States, as such, these State harassment laws
are universally applicable and enforceable throughout the entire country, and potentially,
the world. Chilling of internet expression caused by these laws is global in nature.
61) Huminski is fully disabled on Social Security with PTSD, Manic Depression, adjustment
disorder, anxiety disorder, confusion, cognitive imparement, hypertension and early onset
Alzheimer’s and these disabilities are proximate results of the aforementioned terror and
torts foisted upon Huminski by the various police agencies involved in this matter for the
last 3 decades. Much of this document was cut and pasted from Huminski’s earlier
papers and court filings.
62) Huminski resided in Connecticut for 31 years and regularly visits Connecticut. The
aforementioned police threats and State laws are active against Huminski during his visits
to Connecticut and chill his Connecticut expression.
A declaration that the Harassment laws of Arizona and Connecticut are unconstitutionally
vague and over-broad on their faces and/or as applied to Huminski via perpetual police
A declaration that the Gilbert, Norwalk and Wilton police conspired to violate the rights
of Huminski under the color of State laws.
A declaration that the Surprise police obstructed justice in the state case Huminski v.
Nelson and said obstruction of justice violated Huminski’s First Amendment and Due
A preliminary and permanent injunction against the harassment statutes of Arizona and
Connecticut and common law harassment of Vermont as these laws are
unconstitutionally vague/overbroad and violate the right to redress of grievances and
other rights related to litigation under the First Amendment and Due Process.
A preliminary and permanent injunction against the aforementioned threats from police
A declaration that two or more of the defendants “conspire[d] to injure, oppress, threaten,
or intimidate any person [Huminski] in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by
the Constitution or laws of the United States”. 18 U.S.C. § 241. This federal crime is
also a constitutional tort actionable under Title 42, thus, this declaration is proper in this
A declaration that the defendants “under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects[ed] any person [Huminski] in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States”. 18
U.S.C. § 242. This federal crime is also a constitutional tort actionable under Title 42,
thus, this declaration is proper in this civil setting.
A declaration that the City of Surprise engaged in fraud upon the U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of appeals by representing that the Arizona harassment statute was never
mentioned in the District Court.
A declaration that the arrest of Huminski by Gilbert was illegal retaliation for Huminski’s
speech in the courts and elsewhere or that Huminski’s was arrested solely based upon his
failure to pass a field sobriety test with two hip replacements and avascular necrosis of
the knees which Gilbert had ample notice of prior to the arrest. If through discovery the
latter is found to be true, Huminski seeks a declaration that an arrest based upon a
disability violates his fourteenth amendment rights of equal protection and enforcement
of the laws and violates the ADA. Driving with a joint disability is not a crime.
A declaration that the arrest of Huminski by Gilbert should be expunged because no
legitimate probable cause existed to arrest Huminski, and the Town of Gilbert has
refused to prosecute Huminski, however, the fear of extradition to Arizona haunts and
terrorizes Huminski as his only crime was that he was that he engaged in core protected
speech and had a joint disease, a disability, not a crime.
A declaration that information supplied by Gilbert to the organization and individuals that
attempted to murder Huminski and tortured him proximately caused the torture and
attempted murder of Huminski.
A declaration that Vermont prosecutors participation in a plea agreement that specified a
dismissal of a federal lawsuit against the prosecutors themselves is equivalent to
acceptance of a bribe by law enforcement officials.
A declaration that this lawsuit constitutes core political speech critical of government and
and that the harassment laws of Vermont, Arizona and Connecticut and police threats
under the color of those laws have obstructed service of this matter and chilled
Huminski’s expression, as Huminski must seek a protective injunction to serve the
individual persons that are defendants in this suit to avoid arrest and criminal prosecution.
A declaration that the aforementioned harassment laws and police threats under the color
of those laws have obstructed Huminski’s filed or to be filed litigation in U.S. District
Court for the past 17 years.
A declaration that the aforementioned harassment laws are properly evaluated by on-
point authority of Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) and Coates v. City
of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971) and that the harassment laws under facial attack in
this matter are unconstitutional under Grayned and Coates.
A declaration that civil litigation is a protected activity under the Constitution.
A declaration that civil litigation is per se harassment consistent with the statements of
Vermont prosecutor John T. Lavoie (see Lavoie’s threat above), however, the
Constitution proscribes retaliation with arrest and criminal prosecution for engaging in
A declaration that civil litigation per se “annoys” defendants to civil litigation.
A declaration that this lawsuit contains core protected political speech and that the
obstruction of the service of this matter regarding the individual defendants via the
aforementioned police threats and State laws violates Huminski’s aforementioned rights
and that the service of this matter is proscribed under the aformementioned State criminal
A declaration that serving civil process per se violates the plain language of the Arizona
and Connecticut criminal harassment statutes (e.g. it “annoys”, it is “annoying”, it will
“annoy”) and the Vermont common law as articulated by prosecutor John T. Lavoie
(“…the defendant's [Huminski’s] continued harassment of the victim and the
investigating officer in this case through the court process.”, quote of John T. Lavoie in
court filing on behalf of the State of Vermont).
A declaration that communications from police and law enforcement officials specifying
or requesting that a citizen have no First Amendment contact with another person,
without exception in perpetuity violate the First Amendment and in the context of civil
litigation also violate Due Process.
Count Twenty One
A declaration that the harassment laws of Arizona, Connecticut and Vermont must have
an exception for constitutionally protected expression (including participating in civil
litigation and service of civil litigation), akin to the 35 other States, the Disctrict of
Columbia and Guam who have already properly included such a provision in their
harassment and/or similar stalking statutes to comply with the constitution.
Count Twenty Two
A declaration that Massachusetts law, M.G.L. c. 265, s. 43, is unconstitutionally vague
and overbroad on its face and as applied to Huminski’s speech critical of government
prosecutor John T. Lavoie and that it improperly targets and chills core political speech
critical of the government, specifically, Huminski’s criticism of prosecutor John T.
Dated at Bonita Springs, Florida this 8
day of August, 2014.
Scott Huminski, pro se
24544 Kingfish St.
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?