Tuesday, March 01, 2016

scott huminski vermont

Huminski v. Vermont et al, USDC (M.D. FLorida) 2:13-cv-685-Ftm-29dnf, 
It was dismissed and then appealed to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. The appeals court found the dismissal premature as well as the appeal, thus, it is still pending in the USDC. 11th Circuit Docket, 13-14534, Huminski v. Vermont.

note to self:
sent public records request to marion county clerk/election board  requesting address of john taylor. hope i havent tipped my hand.


Amendment case
By
 | March 30,2006
MONTPELIER — The head of the Vermont Police Academy has been ordered to pay $50,001 for violating the free-speech rights of a former Bennington man in 1999.

A jury in U.S. District Court in Brattleboro returned the verdict against R.J. Elrick, executive director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, which operates the academy, on Tuesday. The case involved actions Elrick took as Rutland County sheriff.

Elrick must pay $50,000 in compensatory damages and $1 in punitive damages to Scott Huminski, 46, now of North Carolina. As sheriff, Elrick ordered Huminski to leave the Rutland courthouse grounds after Huminski parked there and posted a sign on his truck critical of a judge.

"Elrick's own attorney told the jury that they could only award punitive damages if Elrick was found to have acted with malice," Huminski said in an e-mail. "The jury did find that malice."

Huminski's lawyer, Robert Corn-Revere, confirmed the outcome of the case on Wednesday. Messages left at Elrick's office and at the office and home of his lawyer, Pietro Lynn, were not immediately returned.

"They (the jury) determined that punitive damages were justified because the deprivation of his First Amendment rights had been wanton, meaning reckless and with callous disregard" of Huminski's rights, said Corn-Revere, a Washington lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases.

Of the $1 dollar award for permanent damages, he said, "The jury decided to temper justice with mercy when it came to actually charging the sheriff with additional damages." He said attorney's fees in the case against Elrick were yet to be determined.

The case was triggered by an incident in 1999, when Huminski was angry about the outcome of a case he had had in the Vermont District Court in Bennington in which Judge Nancy Corsones presided.

Corsones was later assigned to Rutland. Huminski, who for a time variously described himself as a "court reporter" and "defender of justice," went to the Rutland courthouse while Corsones was presiding there, parked in its parking lot and put a sign on the side of his truck saying "Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution."

Court officials later said they ordered Huminski away from the courthouse grounds, and later barred him from all courthouses in Vermont, because they feared he might turn violent, which he didn't.

Huminski filed suit against the judges, Rutland court manager Karen Predom, Elrick and the Rutland County Sheriff's Department. The state attorney general's office settled Predom's portion of the case with Huminski last year, agreeing to pay $200,000 in damages and legal fees.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Corsones and Judge Patricia Zimmerman, who were both involved in the no-trespass orders against Huminski, violated his First Amendment rights. But it ruled the judges were not liable for damages.

Corn-Revere said the jury's task was to determine the damages to assess against Elrick. Still to be decided by Judge J. Garvan Murtha is whether to issue the court order sought by Huminski and Corn-Revere that would bar the sheriff's department from enforcing any similar no-trespass order against Huminski in the future.

While the First Amendment case was pending, Huminski was a prolific writer of e-mails and letters accusing Vermont officials including Attorney General William Sorrell and former Gov. Howard Dean of corruption.

He said of Elrick in an e-mail Wednesday, "So now we have a malicious civil rights violator training every single police officer in Vermont."

Corn-Revere said he hoped the former sheriff had learned something about the First Amendment. "Hopefully this decision will help him get better training on compliance with the Constitution. ... I think he's gotten an advance tutorial at this point."
Ending a long-running legal battle, a former Rutland County sheriff has agreed to pay more than $500,000 in legal fees, expenses and damages to an outspoken court critic from Bennington, according to a final settlement in the case.
Scott Huminski, 47, who now lives in North Carolina, prevailed earlier this year in a federal civil rights lawsuit against the former sheriff, judges, court staff, and others. Huminski sued them for barring him from a Rutland courthouse in 1999.

All told, Huminski has been awarded $708,428, including a previous $200,000 settlement from the state. Huminski said most of the money paid his lawyers' fees, although he was imprecise about how much of it he kept.
"I don't want to state exactly because it's kind of personal financial data, but it's between $100,000 and $150,000," he said.

111 Killam Court, #2C, Cary, NC 27513, (919) 481-4663 old address now in flo
s_huminski@live.com
24544 kingfish st bonita springs fla 34134







notes for kristin re possible cocounsel in mississippi case.
you wrote:
After checking with our attorneys, we will need to provide the name of the case and counsel for all parties. Local counsel will need this information for a conflict of interest check. As well, our attorneys asked that you provide a brief statement describing the actual controversy in question. These requests need some specifics; for example, is this a claim on behalf of public school children, and if so what ages? What is the specific practice in question being challenged? As well, we will need to know the name of the proposed intervener, and what the claimed interest of the intervener is in the litigation.

name of the case:

Anonymous Doe, et al v Bryant, et al.
Anonymous Doe, Anonymous Roe and Anonymous Company v. 
Phil Bryant, Governor of Missississippi, Jim Hood, AG, Delbert Hosemann, Secretary of State, in their official capacities.

Name of Counsel:
Graham Carner
Jonathan Matthew Eichelberger

Harold Edward Pizzetta III
Office of Attorney General


Issue in suit: Constitutionality of Mississippi's disclaimer statute MS Code 23-1-899: can
Mississippi put people in jail for not putting "paid for by ___" on their signs and fliers?


Proposed Intervenors:
Polaris Kyo
Xander Guerin
Kyo's interest is that he anonymously advocates for Mississippi Libertarian party candidates via the internet. He is a migrant worker from Texas current based in the Kansas City area.
Guerin is a community activist in Indianapolis. He supports progressive Democratic candidates in Mississippi and elsewhere via web pages built on the WordPress platform, and teaches workshops on how activists can use such free open source tools for community building. Using one's real name and address online would be unacceptably risky and would chill the kinds of speech he is trying to help people engage in. Among other issues, he is active in the Moral Mondays group which campaigns nationally against voter ID and other methods of voter suppression, of which the disclaimer statute is one. 

Kyo and Guerin have a legally distinct interest from the existing three plaintiffs who are already the subject of threats and investigation from Hosemann, and may be pressured into a settlement that resolves their situation but does not eliminate the danger to the public interest from Hosemann's criminalization of political speech by attempting enforcement of a void moribund statute.

Time is of the essence. One of the big factors in a motion for intervention is that it be timely filed. Here, the underlying suit was filed months ago, and they keep delaying a hearing, so there hasn't been any prejudice, but at some point my window of opportunity will close.
So I am grateful to you for writing back today.
- Robbin Stewart.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

I'm collecting some of mississippi's moribund unconstitutional election statutes.

D CAMPAIGN FINANCING
§ 23-15-1025 - Distribution of campaign materials

Universal Citation: MS Code § 23-15-1025 (2013)
If any material is distributed by a judicial candidate or his campaign committee or any other person or entity, or at the request of the candidate, his campaign committee or any other person or entity distributing the material shall state that it is distributed by the candidate or that it is being distributed with the candidate's approval. All such material shall conspicuously identify who has prepared the material and who is distributing the material. The identifying language shall state whether or not the material has been submitted to and approved by the candidate. If the candidate has not approved the material, the material shall so state. The identity of organizations or committees shall state the names of all officers of the organizations or committees. Any person, who violates the provisions of this section, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00) or by imprisonment for six (6) months or both fine and imprisonment.