Sheriff Arpaio's top friend and advisor - Death threats, terrorism and other crimes

I Highland Justice Court 55 E Civic Center Dr., #55, Gilbert, AZ 85296 602-372-8300Are you trying to change an Injunction Against Harassment that is in effect right now? 0 Yes IKINoIf yes, please enter the case number of the Injunction Against Harassment you aretrying to modify.

WHO ARE YOU? (You will be known as the Plaintiff in this case)

Name:~D~a~n~a H_urrun__ '__s~_' _ Date of Birth:~~1964first last

The court needs your contact information, so please complete the information below. If the person you needprotection from (the defendant) does NOT know where you live, the court can hide your address so thedefendant will not see it in your Injunction Against Harassment paperwork.

Does the person you need protection from know where you live? 1&1Yes D No

WHERE DO YOU LIVE?

Street Address: 2624 SouthBahama DriveSuite/Apartment #

city

Is this your residence, or the place where the court can contact you (friend's house, shelter, etc)?\

1&1Residence DContact

Would you like the court to hide this address so the defendant will not see it in yourInjunction Against Harassment paperwork? I&IYes D No

Home phone: 480243-8184area code number

Workphone:~ _area code number

Cell phone: _area code number

Message phone: _area code number

Email: [email protected]

WHO DO YOU NEED THE COURT TO KEEPAWAY FROM YOU? (The Defendant)

Please enter the following information on the person you need to be protected from (the Defendant). Enter asmuch information as you can on the person you need protection from because that will help law enforcementprotect you better if you are granted an Injunction Against Harassment.

Name: Justin Michael Nelson----------~---------~~~~----------------------------first middle last

Street Address: 14626N. 132nd Ave.Suite/Apartment #

Surprise ,Arizona 85379-~-----C~i~----------- -~z~~~co~d~e--

Defendant Phone: 623 217 3439 Gender: 1&1Male 0 Female Race: w----------------area code numberDate of 8irth:~~/1976 This is an estimated date of birth: 0

Height_5 feet_5 inches Weight_l_50 Eyes:_xx Hair: brown

Social Security #: - - Driver'S License #: State: Exp Date: _Does the defendant use any other name? 1&1Yes 0 NoIf YES, please provide defendant's other name: Michael Nelson, J Michael NelsonIs the defendant currently a member of the military? 0 Yes 1&1NoIs the defendant currently a member of law enforcement? 0Yes 0No

8150-418.01 R: 11/9/09

WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEFENDANT?

Check each check box that applies to the relationship.

My (Plaintiffs or child(ren)'s) relationship to the Defendant is (check all that apply):

o We are married. Date of marriage: __ I I__

o We are divorced. Date divorce was granted: __ r ' __ ._' _

o We are living together now or have lived together in the past.

o Dating but not a romantic or sexual relationship.

o One of us is pregnant by the other.

D We have a child in common.

IKI None of the above.

o The defendant is either my spouse's or my: OR 0 The defendant's spouse is my spouse or my:

o Parent o Son o Stepparent o Stepson

oGrandparent o Daughter o Step grandparent o Stepdaughter

o Brother oGrandson o Stepbrother o Step grandson)o Sister o Granddaughter o Stepsister o Step granddaughter

~ Other Fonner employee of my husband o None of the above

ARE THE COURTS INVOLVED IN THIS RELATIONSHIP?Is an action for maternity, paternity, annulment, legal separation or dissolution of marriage (divorce) now pending betweenyou and the defendant? iii No 0Yes

Case Number (if known): Name of Court: _

Have either you or the defendant been charged or arrested for domestic violence OR requested an Order of Protection orInjunction Against Harassment against the other? 0No 0Yes

Give date and name of court: Date: __ ,__ , Court: UnknownList facts below:----------------------------------

8150-418.02 R: 11/9/09

WHY DO YOU NEED THIS PERSON TO STAY AWAY FROM YOU?An Injunction Against Harassment is available if the conduct of any person is "harassment" as defined by Arizona law. Theconduct can be any conduct which is harassment. Harassment is defined as a series of acts over any period of time that isdirected at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed andthe conduct in fact seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose (A.R.S. 12-1809{R)).Date:~'23 ,2011 OR 0 I think the following may happen:

Briefly describe what happened I or may happen:

DEATH THREATS AGAINST MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND VIA EMAIL. SEE ATTACHED.

Add additional acts of harassment OR acts you believe the defendant might commit:Oate:__ '__ ' OR 0 I think the following may happen:

Briefly describe what happened I or may happen:

THREATS OF VIOLENCE AND DEATH AGAINST MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND BEGINNING IN MARCH 2011

Briefly describe what happened lor may happen:

Add additional acts of harassment or acts you believe the defendant might commit:Oate:__ ,__ , OR 0 I think the following may happen:

8150-418.03 R: 11/9/09

WHAT DO YOU WANT THE COURT TO ORDER?

I ask the Court to order the Defendant not to commit an act of domestic violence against me and/or persons named later inthis request and/or against my property AND make the following Order(s) (check which Orders you want):

1iI0rder the defendant not to possess and/or purchase firearms and/or ammunition.

IRIOrder the defendant to surrender firearms and/or ammunition.

1&1 Order the defendant to participate in domestic violence counseling or other counseling.

The Defendant may only contact me: 0by phone 0 in writing 0electronicallyoAnd 1or by other means described below:

ABSOULETY NO CONTACT, ORDER THE DEFENDANT TO GET ANGER MANAGEMENT COUNSELING

WHO ELSE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM THIS DEFENDANT?

Does anyone else need to be protected from this defendant? ~Yes 0No

The following person(s) should be included within the protection of this Order for the following reasons:Include name and address if different than yours (do not include yourself). If you do not want the defendant to know thisperson's address, check the Protect address check box.

Name: SCOTT RUMINSKI 12 101 0959first last --~h--

Street Address: 2624 SOUTH BAHAMA DRIVE

Arizona 85295SUite/Apartment #

GILBERT IKI Protected Address

Relationship to you: HUSBlNnZIP Code

Name: I Ifirst last --~h--

Street Address:SUite/Apartment #

Arizona o Protected AddressCity ZIP Code

Relationship to you:

Name: __ 1__ 1_-first last date of birth

Street Address:Suite/Apartment #



Name: I Ifirst last -- ;o;;;;rth--


Arizona o Protected AddressCity ZlPCode


Name: 1 Ifirst last -~h--




8150-418.04 R: 11/9/09

WHAT PLACES SHOULD THE DEFENDANT STAY AWAY FROM?

Do you want the court to order that the defendant stay away from where you live? KJYes D No

DYes D NoDo you want the court to order that the defendant stay away from where you work?

Workplace Name;~N,.;;.;/A;..;;.... _Street Address: ---------------------------------------------------------------------

______ ---:~----- Arizona __ --:;~~--City ZipCode

Does the defendant also work there? DYes I&] No

Ii!Yes D NoDoes the defendant know where you work?

Would you like the court to hide your work address so the defendant will not see it inyour Injunction Against Harassment paperwork? D YeslKl No

Do you want the court to order that the defendant stay away from the school whereyou or your child attend? DYes I&l No

School Name: _Street Address: _

_______-=:-- Arizona ~=-=~ _City ZipCode

Would you like the court to hide the address of this school so the defendant will notsee it in your Injunction Against Harassment paperwork? DYes 1&1 No

Do you want the court to order that the defendant stay away from any additionallocations? DYes I&l No

Description:, ----------- _Street Address: _

______ ---"".-- Arizona -=--~---City ZipCode

Would you like the court to hide the address of this location so the defendant will notsee it in your Injunction Against Harassment paperwork? D Yes I&] No

DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL REQUESTS? KJ Yes D NoAdditional Requests:

DEFENDANT TAKE ANGER MANAGEMENT COURSES AND COURSES TO MODIFY HIS DESIRE TO MURDER

8150-418.05 R: 11/9/09

ATTACHMENTS

RE: JUSTIN MICHAEL NELSON

MURDER THREATS,

HARASSMENT

&

DELUSIONS

(some legal pleadings and affidavits included for context purposes)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Scott Huminski,Plaintiff,

-v-

)))))))

CIVILACTION

DOCKET NO. 2:11-cv-00896-DGCHector Heretia [sic]et al.,

Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF SCOTT HUMINSKIRE: DEATH THREATS OF JUSTIN MICHAEL NELSON

Plaintiff Scott Huminski ("Huminski") deposes and swears under penalty of perjury

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. Since receipt of death threats against myself and my wife, Dana Huminski,

on August 23, 2011, I have attempted to keep track of Justin Michael Nelson to

attempt to determine when Mr. Nelson would attempt murder. EI Mirage

municipal court has issued an injunction against harassment intending to interfere

with my attempts to keep track of Mr. Nelson for purposes of determining when he

will attempt the murders so I can inform police.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are true and correct copies of the three email

death threats issued by Mr. Nelson and another threat issued by Mr. Nelson---subsequent to the EI Mirage injunction. The EI Mirage Municipal Court has

furthered the goals ofMr. Nelson by aiding in the murder of my family.

4. Because of the pending threats of Mr. Nelson to murder myself and my wife,

neither I nor my wife will attend any court proceedings involving Mr. Nelson as the

1\\\OC - 90334/8988 - #1488134 v4

murders can easily be committed outside of the Courthouse. All court matters

related to Mr. Nelson must include a provision for police/sheriff department

protection.

Dated at Gilbert, Arizona, September 3,2011

SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED to before me this 3rd day of September, 2011

Notary expo

\\\DC - 90334/8988 - #1488134 v42

"Windows Live Hotmail Print Message

Death threats from Nelson

FIG,,1. scott huminski ([email protected])Sent: Wed 8/24/11 2:33 PM. '.' [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; manuel.tarango@usdO]:[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected];\Hector Heredia (hector.heredia@surpriseaZgov); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 201114:00:20 -0700Subject: Re: 9th Circuit Briefing schedule stayedFrom: [email protected]: s_huminski@/ive.com

lOL. Give me your best shot!!! :) And I would never come and kill you Scott .. Maybe Dana while youwatch ... But not you_

This emall is hypothetical and for educational purposes only_

To: ~~t7:.i~:.~~~~:~L:.:;)~D:~L:2-;.:~~;:~;:1::3-~~~.;!....~~.;.';'~.r;:~,f~.:·/l~~~~.~::I~)~.L~.~:;:~·~.~~~~~';_.'.:.;

:~~~~!~~~~t~:f0£~~fi~;i~i~~~1£{;?::Q9';~._s~-:~.£L~_~0~:·;-~<~_~-rtili.0.~-_C:D::?~iQ2·~p -~j~2~.~~lr;s~?~1-.~.GiL~i~(!.r~~3~';!<.~·:';

.;:~.rr~i~L'~-~::.~~~iI~;5i;'.:i.c.~~_rH~~j.Q~!._g.~.·~>,;.l~:'_f-=! ~ ~1:l~:~}.~I~C~.~,~.~.~_~.~sJ.i:;~Q~.~.:J.(.~:;.:;~:[;~:."I:;~:{::') ~i·~(?n)~l..·~_;.~~.Qi:.~:i:~:-:':~i:':~~·.;'~'S~i~2::;~r;:;~;;....~:~U·.::9~;-~?J~.tIi~~.~:::})~2:~~~:~~u..;::~~:.r.:;v;.L.5.2~~ji~2jf~.~~~~~~....~.~•.1~~r~~~{2i;Y~}.~~~ ;-(..::~:~;~::. ~:,,:;:f..0~~:-.:f~:~·:S~::.~::ij!~~~;;i9~·~~;

hHn·/1h114Rur hln 14.R truli11Wp. r.om/mal1IPrintMessaJ!es.a-rox?cnids--dt737491-81 ba-4ac I -... 8/24/2011

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 oflO

Veiled death threats from Nelson- Surprise/MeSO applaud

;::;-Ci'n scott huminski ([email protected])

S,o"-iL Wed 8/24/11 2:29 PM; ,,' [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];Hector Heredia {[email protected]); [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]

You see Scott, the only reason you aren't in intensive care, at the very least, is because you are acrazy douche bag that isn't worth the energy or political capital it would take to get rid of you. If youweren't crazy, and actually threatened my existence in the least bit, you would be dead already ...Understand?

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:42 PM, scott huminski <: ... J~C'> wrote:

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 201114:57:19 -0700Subject: Re: 9th Circuit Briefing schedule stayedFrom: L'3.i"~C..:;:F.'.2::~,:;~i~;~'::<;.:·/;:;i.,::i;.;.! ,',

To: .;....5.:.,!'n.!D.:.'~)<L.:.'(·c..:~;<"

Quick Scott, call the FBI and see if they care... How about you try the CIA or NSA, maybethey will give you the time of day - freak show ...

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:02 PM, scott huminski wrote:

fraud - law school flunk out, used car salesman failure, non-writer.someone perpetrated fraud upon me

httn:/ 1b1148w.blu148.mai1Jive.comlmaillPrintMes~es.aspx?cpids=f67a2a64- 328b-4c 76-... 8/24/2011

·.WiIldows Live Hotmail Print Message rage 1 U1J

Death threats from nelson

FiL!in: scott huininski ([email protected])ie;-,';: Wed 8/24/112:31 PMT U' [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];brandon.bro/[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];Hector Heredia ([email protected]); [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 201114:14:08 -0700Subject: Re: 9th Circuit Briefing schedule stayedFrom: [email protected]: [email protected]

At this point, Icould send someone over to wipe out you and and your robot wife - and all Iwould getfrom the cops is a citizen achievement award. You sure have made good friends with them, haven't youbud ... Once again, nobody, and Imean nobody, cares about a Single thing you have to say. rve madesure of that.

Of course for Educational Purposes Only

.,~.>:;'-1};;i '!'~.:SC.;·:i?ij.;;.:=q~',y""".~'=Jsl:s.L~~d.~:i!_i..~!~'.~::_:~~i.(;.~~~:~·.\~i.~~':;'~P:;:-:· ft.,: i; ~::::.::~r~~.:.~~:!-:;~~L~~:.;2:-'~-~.~:~:~:_:;.Ti.;~.c!.:-:qi~'~.'t:»:

·;.;~1.~.~.C__'~J~!:.<~ ::~;~~,:~1~~~2~.E2.:~:~~:~:!~~_~:..:.)~~;.~r:a ...,s.~~,::;~.:~~~.r ~f~:s rn~~"::~ia r2Q ~:':,:::~,:~2i~~;]~;··:?:~·,:.!.I~.;~~~t~2L:.?:~i~2:::;t::~~X{~~;iiI~;ti}·~~~:~~:2:..0~~lCi.~"D11{~';C2;-~j.t~:lI;X;t:.~2~~.~iILil~5i?-I~-:0~·i.~~~~..;t:?.~_i~~{j~-~~;~...;·r~.iQg.~.~~~~::~Lt~~~'·~LCG.S!.Uf-P)?·.~t~:~G}~.I.~~~.~..:.~~.!.~}:;:?~').'fT~~r~.r/;~~').~:.DJ}.·~~;:~.UL~~~.L~L~~i:.:~I.!~~;::::j_t~:::~_:ir;J!._~~_S~.r6:2...l?I.~~·1~~:~2~~.~~~;_(~~q:~=~}5~_:_~;lis!.:.~;":'.\';~:~~;~'~~~~~3:.~}5~;.rt:i '?_~~!~;T~~:~~.~~;:..~,:.!.~=J'~;:~E~:~~) /; :·~._,-~~i;~2~ilp~~=~~.:.:2.~~}.'~;~2.~~Sl:_~l..t~·;

hffn·llhll A.RUT hln 14R mSll111vp.c.om/mai1fPrintMess8jles.asnx?coids=9b5ddlc2-645b-4578-... 8/24/2011

scott huminski

From:Sent:To:Subject:

J Michael Nelson [email protected]]Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:55 AMscott humin skiNotice To Remove Harassment

Mr. Ruminski,

Let this serve as 24 hour notice for you to remove any and all materials relating in anyway to me, Justin M.Nelson, from the internet or any other sources.

Failure to comply will result in immediate reporting of injunction violation resulting in arrest and criminalcharges.

Sincerely,

Justin M. Nelson

1

Hotmail - S_ [email protected] - Windows Live Page 1 of8

Windows Live" Hotmail (13) Messenger SkyDrive I MSN scott

Hotmail

Inbox (13)

New Reply Replyall Forward Delete Junk Sweep r Mark as r Move to .•.

Folders

Your resume back online, it will be added to the t..

end of your 2 emails on scribd as wellJunk (169)

Drafts (43)

Sent

Deleted (200)

POP (38)

SearchResults

J Michael NelsonTo scott huminski

1 attachment (6.9 KB) Hotmail .:

Quick views

Flagged

Photos

Office docs (5)

Shipping updates

MessengerView slide show (1) Download aszip

More than 75 agencies (local, state, federal) have your delusional 10,000 documentYou're like the "Bitch That Cried Wolf." You are simply better off silent and gone for

Put My Balls In Your Pipe And Smoke Em' Bitch!! :)

Home

Contacts

Calendar


Quick, call the FBI bitch, see if they care...


You see Scott, the only reason you aren't in intensive care, at the very least, is becaia crazy douche bag that isn't worth the energy or political capital it would take to 9you. If you weren't crazy, and actually threatened my existence in the least bit, you,dead already ... Understand?

J Michael Nelson

http://b1148w.blu148.mail.live.comimaillInboxT,ipht.as:nx?n=R??()Ll.l~~Sl Q/'"lA/'"lOll

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 1

Competency Evaluation,: .:.(, J Michael Nelson [email protected])

Co"; Sat 4/16/11 7:54 PM

, " scott huminski ([email protected])

And you better believe I'm going to be using this additional civil suit in the Highland Justice Courtagainst Ofc. Heredia and the Town of Surprise in my Title 36 petition next week. You truly are, without adoubt, delusional, and a danger to yourself and others. I'm going to file the petition, and then paradeeveryone you're filing complaints against in to court to support it. Do you even understand what it is likein the Arizona Mental Facility downtown? Watch a horror movie bud, that should give you a good idea.

If I were you, I would start packing and get my ass out of this state as quickly as I possibly could, but thatisjust me....

7/1 Qf')()ll

IN THE

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CEiveDRELY C DW'fER, CLERKMu~kCOURTOF APPEALS

AUG 1 8 2011

SCOTT HUMINSKI, Appellant,

v.

HECTOR HERETIA [sic],et al., Appellees.

~~~-ET-E.D-:-:'-:'-:':DA~:TE:':'==IdIBmEEPPLYTO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'SMOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

NOW COMES, Scott Huminski, pro se, and replies to opposition to his

F.R.A.P. 8 (a)(2)motion for injunction pending appeal of 8/112011as follows:

NOTICE OF INCORRECT CAPTION

The police officer defendant's last name is "Heredia", the "City of Suprise, AZ"

would be a more accurate caption for this case. The Court Below received several

pleadings pointing this error out.

ON APPEAL - DEFENDANTS'THREAT/ORDERIS INTACT

"Please do not have any type of contact with either Michael Nelson [sic] orAnthony Tsontakislaw [sic] until I speak with you and hear your side." (the"THREAT")(movingpaper Attachments at page(s): AI, A7, A12, AI8-19, A23,A24,A29,A56, A60)

On page 1-2 of the defendants' opposition they quote the above, leaving out the

names of material witnesses. Dubiously, Defendants opposition (page 2, para. 2)

states at no time was he ordered to "abstain from contacting Claimant or

individual.". It was a "request" according to defendants. Plain language review is

mandated according to Defendants' own pleadings. How does a lowly citizen respond

to a police order versus a police request. This defense is beyond absurd.

1

RULE 8 MOTION TO STAYIN DISTRICT COURT

The Plaintiff could have moved Below to stay an order dissolving an

injunction. Not relevant.

The Defendants could have moved Below to stay an order granting an

injunction. Not relevant.

Frivolously, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff could have moved to stay what?

The order of the district court had zero bearing on the posture of the case. Nothing

had changed per order of the District Court. Stay what? The Defendant's argument

is completely irrelevant, frivolous and not anticipated by the Rules.

PLAIN LANGUAGEREVIEW OF TRE POLICE ORDER IS PROPER

The court proceeding targeted initially for obstruction by the City of Surprise

was Ruminski v. Nelson, Mesa Municipal Court, No. 2011025225. Surprise has no

jurisdiction in Mesa, AZ. The law enforcement agencies that do have jurisdiction in

Mesa, AZ would be Mesa Police, Mesa Prosecutor's office, Maricopa County Sheriffs

Office, Maricopa County Prosecutor's office, Arizona Attorney General's Office,

Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S.

Attorney for the District of Arizona, the Justice Department and others. It would be

a multitude of agencies left to interpret the Surprise police order as applied in Mesa,

in pertinent part,

"DO NOT HAVE ANY TYPE OF CONTACT' (with Justin Nelson or his

attorney),

excluded from any jurisdiction in Mesa is the City of Surprise or any of its employees.

A plain language review by this Court is prudent in this inquiry because any

2

interpretations of the written threat by the appellees post-lawsuit are just that, post-

hoc interpretations of civil defendants (or a civil defendant [Ofc. Heredia] that had

been accused of State and Federal felonies, Obstruction of Justice, Witness

tampering, etc.), and would be unknown to agencies involved in enforcement of the

Police Order in Mesa.

SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIOAND THE MARICOPACOUNTYSHERIFF'SDEPARTMENT

Looking at one agency that does have jurisdiction to enforce the no contact

threat against Huminski in Mesa would be Sheriff JosepJ

County Sheriff's Department. On the record, undisputed

Sheriff towards Huminski as illuminated by one of the S'

email to Huminski,

WindowsLive Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 1

Breakfast with Joe

J Michael Nelson ([email protected] 4116/112:47 PMscott huminski ([email protected]) ------------I just wanted to let you know that my son and I drove out to Fountain Hillsthis morning and had a wonderful breakfast with Mr. and Mrs. Arpaio (hecalls my boy his "little red-headed detective"). Like I said, I've worked on theman's political campaign for a decade.

As you mayor may not know, despite his position, Mr. Arpaio is the mostpowerful politician of either party in Arizona. We had a long conversationabout you, what has transpired, and what I believe your next moves will be.He then began to get on the phone.

In addition to living less than a mile from the Surprise Police Department, Ialso live within a mile of an MeSO substation.

3

I have put you square in the cross-hairs of the Sheriff, MCSO as a whole, andin particular, the MCSO office that is less than a mile from my home. If youknow anything about Joe Arpaio, which I assume you do, the last thinganybody wants in this state is to be in his cross-hairs.

With that in mind, I would be very, very careful about your next "strategic"move here in the valley, and further, very, very careful about approaching myhouse which I know, and he knows, you have the address to. From the very topdown, MeSO is now aware of your existence and your activities. That in itselfwould scare the shit out of me personally, but whatever.

Remember my forest buddy. Now you are standing square in the middle of it,all alone, and I wish you all the luck in the world trying to find your way outbefore the actual civil proceedings commence upon your book publication.

Justin

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 1

Shit Buddy, Now You Are Scaring My Neighbors

J Michael Nelson ([email protected])Mon 4/181114:14AMscott huminski ([email protected]);

15 minutes ago I walked outside of my house to the only car we keep in thedriveway to make a run to the gas station for cigars. Just as I was walking out,a white Nissen Versa pulled down my street and on the curb between myhouse and my neighbors house. Out of nowhere, a jet black Expedition, alltinted out, obviously MeSO, flew up in front of the Versa, and almost made afelony stop on them. About made them piss their pants. Luckily, I was outside,saw what was going on, and waved them off (white versa on rims with NVplates, so I knew it wasn't you). Damn buddy you are a troublemaker ....

See Plaintiffs motion for injunction pending appeal (8/1/2011)(Attachments atpage (s): A32, A39), see also http://www.scribd.comldoc/603218711Sheriff-Joe-Arpaio-corruption-profiling-abuse-of-power (this excerpt cut and pasted from.scribd.com)

Huminski, suffering from PTSD, is deathly afraid of this threat from Law

Enforcement. As indicated by the second email, Justin Nelson has supervisory,

command and control powers over Sheriff employees. Whether or not Nelson has

4

been officially deputized or just derives his law enforcement powers from his

friendship with the Sheriff is unknown. The intense law enforcement animus that

has put Ruminski in the "cross-hairs" supports a plain language review of the

obstruction of justice contained in the threat, in pertinent part,

"DO NOT HAVE ANY TYPE OF CONTACT" (with Justin Nelson or his

attorney).

The intent of and animus of law enforcement is overwhelming. This Court is the

proper authority to make a determination concerning the breadth of the threat. The

completely inappropriate conduct of the Sheriff in the "Breakfast with Joe" email

should not be dispositive concerning review of the threat, however, it should form a

strong basis for a plain language analysis of the threat by this Court.

HUMINSKI'S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE IN MESA COURT

The fact that Ruminski had to request relief (a continuance) concerning the

City of Surprise police no contact order regarding Huminski v. Nelson is itself a

violation of his constitutional rights. See Plaintiff's motion for injunction pending

appeal (811/2011)(Attachments at page(s): A60-62) See also Lamont v. Postmaster

General, 381 U.S. 301, 305 (1965) (requiring citizen to request permission to exercise

rights violates the First Amendment). Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New

York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), "[i]t is offensive - not only to the

values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society -

that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the

government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do

so.".

5

The police threat interpretation dicta allegedly communicated with Ruminski

via telephone calls has absolutely no bearing on the written police order that stands

to this day.

Scott Ruminski, pr se2624 S. Bahama DriveGilbert, AZ 85295(480)243-8184

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 17th day of August 2011, copies of the foregoing motionwere sent by United States mail, postage prepaid, to:

William Doyle1313 E. Osborn Rd. #220Phoenix, AZ 85014

6

IN THE

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit•.0

c e \~~~'$.t~.., SCOTI HUMINSKI, Appellant,~ e. 'i o.t)~~ ~~,~o~oou~'f. •.•\)~e> ~<o\ " ~ ~ V.

~\Jv ~~

~ ~ FfECTORHERETIA [sic],et al., Appellees.~\~,~'\)~~~t)~

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEALREQUEST FOR HEARING

No. 11-16765

NOW COMES, Scott Huminski, pro se, and pursuant F.R.A.P. 8 (2)moves that

an injunction be granted, after hearing, pending appeal enjoining the enforcement of

the police order made by Appellees to Huminski that he,

"Please do not have any type of contact with either Michael Nelson [sic] orAnthony Tsontakislaw [sic] until I speak with you and hear your side." (the"THREAT")(Attachments at page(s): AI, A7, A12, A18-19, A23, A24, A29, A56,A60)

Huminski moved for preliminary injunction based on the plain language of the.. /

THREAT that is unconstitutionally overbroad under both the First Amendment and...: )

. ) Due Process. Huminski moves under the newly established right of individual.J

members of the public to have access to courthouses. Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d

53 (2nd Cir. 2005)... )

. !

"Weconclude that Ruminski had an individual First Amendment right of access tocourt proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other officialconnection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled toaccess, but one that could be overcome if court officials reasonably decided that hemight pose a threat to persons, property, or proceedings and if the restrictions on hisaccess were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. Weconclude, however, thatthis individual right was not well-settled at the time of theevents at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualifiedimmunity with respect thereto." id. at para. 20

I--1

The Supreme Court has not addressed whether the First Amendment's right of

access extends to civil trials or other aspects of civil cases. See, e.g., Huminski v.

Corsones, 386 F.3d 116, 145 n.30 (2d Cir. 2004). Ruminski also seeks injunctive

relief pursuant to other First Amendment and Due Process considerations set forth

below. When the chilling THREAT was issued, a civil case Huminski v. Justin

Michael Nelson ("Nelson")was pending in a Mesa, Arizona Municipal Court forcing

~ Huminski to absent himself from those proceedings and the THREAT also forced the

omission of Nelson as a Defendant in the instant matter. (Attachments at page(s):

A29, A56, A59-61) This case clearly far surpasses the magnitude in the

constitutional deprivations in Corsones as Huminski was a party to the litigation

targeted by the THREAT. As in Huminski v. Corsones, the THREAT does not expire,

it is perpetual and the only mechanism to void the lifetime THREAT is this litigation.

The defendants have repeatedly refused to withdraw the THREAT. Huminski had to

file a pleading in Mesa Court, Huminski v. Nelson, asking for a continuance in light

of the THREAT,Huminski has never received a ruling on his motion for continuance.

(Attachments at page(s): A59-62)

FACTS

J

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment limited to the conduct

of the Defendants for several hours on April 13, 2011 which illustrate the claims of

the plaintiff and lack of any serious defense (Attachments at page(s): A14-17 )The

responses filed by the defendants' to partial summary judgment are also dispositive

of injunctive relief.

.•..

2

Summary Judgment Fact 1

Plaintiff's fact 1:

Defendant Heredia stated in an email on April 13, 2011 to Huminski..

"Please do not have any type of contact with either Michael Nelson [sic] orAnthony Tsontakislaw [sic] until I speak with you and hear your side."

See AFFIDAVIT OF SCOTT HUMINSKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FORPRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, dated May 17, 2011 ("AFFl") at para. 2.

Defendants' Fact 1:

Throughout this litigation, Defendants have asserted that no order was issuedby Defendants, including Officer Heredia. (See, Defendants' Response to TROand Preliminary Injunction).

[Defendants do not dispute fact, they make a legal argument and rely on facts

(disputed) occurring after the time period forming the basis for summary judgment.

Also defendants' "fact" is not supported by affidavit as require by the Rules.]

~ SUIIuntuy Judgment Fact 2

Plaintiffs fact 2:

Anthony Tsontakislaw [sic] (AKA Anthony Tsontakis) was Justin Nelson'sattorney on April 13, 2011. (AFFI at para. 5) See also TffiRD AFFIDAVIT OFPLAINTIFF SCOTT RUMINSKI IN SUPPORT OF TRO AND PRELIMINARYINJUCTION, dated June 1, 2011 ("AFF3") at para. 2; and SECONDAFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF SCOTT HUMINSKI IN SUPPORT OF TRO ANDPRELIMINARY INJUCTION, dated May 31, 2011 ("AFF2") at Exhibit "A"pages 14, 15, 20.

Defendants' Fact 2:

i.....,,:On April 13, 2011, a non-party individual ("Claimant") spoke in person withCity of Surprise Officer Hector Heredia ("Officer Heredia") regarding alleged

3

harassment committed by Plaintiff. (See, Affidavit of Officer Heredia atExhibit 1).

[Defendants' fact 2 is completely irrelevant to plaintiff's fact 2 in violation of the

rules.]

Summary Judgment Fact 3

Plaintiffs fact 3:

On April 13, 2011, Huminski was a plaintiff in Huminski v. Justin Nelson,Mesa Municipal Court, No. 2011025225. (AFF1 at paras. 6, 7) Huminskiinformed Surprise of the existence of the civil litigation via emails sent onApril 13, 2011 to Heredia prior to a phone call with Heredia on April 13, 2011.(AFF1at para. 5)

-'--..

Defendants' Fact 3:

After the April 13, 2011 meeting with Claimant, Officer Heredia sent theEmail informing Mr. Huminski that Claimant filed a harassment complaintand stated, "[pjlease do not have any type of contact with either [Claimant] or[his attorney] until I speak with you and hear your side." (See, Email atExhibit 2).

[Defendants' fact 3 partially confirms Plaintiffs Fact 1,4 and is completely irrelevant

to Plaintiffs fact 3 in violation of the Rules. Defendants have admitted Plaintiff's

Fact 3.]

Summary Judgment Fact 4.. ~

Plaintiffs fact 4:

~.

On April 13, 2011 Defendant Heredia spoke to one(l) "Claimant", JustinNelson, concerning Scott Huminski. See Defendants' Response to Plaintiff'sMotion For Preliminary Injunction And Emergency Motion For TemporaryRestraining Order, May 27,2011 at page 2 ("Onthe Morning ofApril 13, 2011,a non-party individual ("Claimant") spoke in person with City of SurpriseofficerHector Heredia ..."). The no contact order set forth above in paragraph

• J

4

one contained not only the name of the Justin Nelson, but also included thename of Nelson's Attorney, Anthony Tsontakis. (AFF1 at paras. 3,15)

Defendants' Fact 4:

After receiving a voicemail from Plaintiff, Officer Heredia conversed with Mr.Ruminski on April 13, 2011 at 3:29p.m. (See, Exhibit 1).

[Defendants' fact 4 is completely irrelevant to plaintiffs fact 4 and Defendants' fact 4

is outside the period of summary judgment, as such it is irrelevant.]

~'.

Defendants' Facts 5-7: All concern matters after the time period specified in the~:

summary judgment and are thus irrelevant. They are part of a concoctedpost hoc

defense. Further defendants' "fact" are purportedly a plain language interpretation

of the THREAT,a determination of law and fact that will be made before a Court not

police officials. These plain language police interpretations of the THREAT were all

made post-filing of this lawsuit.

The Local Rules concerning Defendants' opposition of summaryjudgment completely and deliberately ignored by the defendants are attachedhereto. ")(Attachments at page(s):A78-BO)

On April 13, 2011, Huminski sent emails to Surprise/Officer Heredia

containing the followingtext:

"Has Nelson told you he's been arrested for harassing me and he's facinganother charge for harassment resulting from his emaillast night and he's doat a harassment hearing in Mesa tomorrow."

"If you are a cop, are you representing that tsontakislaw is not preparing alawsuit against me whereby I have the right under due process and the firstamendment to conduct an investigation of that matter."

./

5

"If you are a police officer check out the lanuage[sic] of whom your dealingwith, he's due in court tomorrow for this."

"Tsontakislaw is Nelson's firm that he has hired to sue me. We are in pre-litigation phase now, i am pro se. Your threat to me concerning contactingopposing counsel constitutes obstruction of justice. Withdraw your threat by 5pm today. The litigation is set forth in the paperwork you now have."

"Youare breaking the law. Demand for this to stop immediately."

"sir, I have offered to meet you after you read the evidence i suppied[sic). Youhave refused to review the evidence. A grave error for law enforcement. II

"I will have a motion to dismiss based on police misconduct in the mail withinminutes of receiving any formal paperwork from you. Your refusal to reviewevidence is evidence of police misconduct. Again let's meet, you need to reviewthe evidence first. I'm not going to made a 2 hour drive simply to read to youwhat you have in your possession.

Remember the crimes you are commiting;

Obstruction of Justice concerning a civil matterConspiracy to aid in the evasion ofAZ/federal taxes"

"I. stop lying to me2. followthe advise of your professional conduct man3. stop obstructing justice4. stop aiding and abetting tax evasion"(Attachments at page(s): A57)

After the reciept of the above email text detailing the illegal and potentially." ."~ . criminal nature of the THREAT on April 13, 2011, SurpriselHeredia authored a

second email communication on April 14, 2011 prior to the hearing scheduled in

Ruminski v. Nelson, Mesa Municipal Court,

"Mr. Ruminski0_.·

" .... "I have asked you to come in and talk to me about the harassment allegationfiled by Mr. Nelson. I reason for me asking you to come in is for positiveidentification purposes, e-mails are not acceptable as identification. ThereforeI hope to see you soon and you have until this Saturday afternoon (04116111)to show, otherwise the report will be written with Mr. Nelson's statement(only) and the evidence he has turned over to me will also be submitted. The

6

report and evidence will then be turned over to the City Attorneys Office forreview and charging. If you have any further questions, please contact mySupervisor, Sgt. Steve Reppert or you can e-mail him [email protected]."(Attachments at page(s): A58-59)

Surprise took a combative, angry, pro-Justin Nelson and retaliatory position

---- . threatening not to properly investigate. After receiving multiple emails from

Huminski concerning the hearing of 411412011, Surprise made no mention of the

obstruction of that matter and stated no intent to withdraw the THREAT. Just the

opposite. Hostility.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The test for preliminary injunction in the Ninth Circuit includes three factors:

(1) plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the balance of

irreparable harm favors plaintiff; and (3) whether the public interest favors issuance

of the injunction. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 F.3d 658, 677

'-. . (9th Cir. 2008). The first two parts of this standard are judged on a "sliding scale"; a

,;:.. plaintiff must "demonstrate either a combination of probable success on the merits-; -t.:

and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the

balance of hardships tips in its favor." Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. Alexander,

222 F.3d 562, 565 (9th Cir. 2000).

The United State Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he loss of First

Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes

irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Further, courts have

recognized a significant public interest in upholding First Amendment principles.

Sammartano v. First Judicial Court, 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002). The life-long

7

THREATcontains zero tailoring and is vastly overbroad and targets all contact with

Nelson even Huminski's duty to report income of Nelson by issuing an IRS 1099 for

2010 and 2011 as well as courthouse contact and any other issues that might arise.

It creates a "first-amendment-free zone" spoken of in Huminski v. Corsones around

Nelson and inclusion of Nelson's attorney makes Nelson lawsuit-proof. The THREAT

has had an immediate cbj)]jng effect upon Huminski's litigation and courthouse

access. Ripplinger v. Collins, 868 F.2d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 1989) (permitting a/"'" :

preenforcement challenge to a statute because of its immediate "chilling effect on

..~.

protected speech").

The THREAT in pertinent part, "DO NOT HAVEANT TYPE OF CONTACT"

contains zero attempt to narrowly-tailor and is indefinite in duration. It is

unconstitutionally overbroad on it's face, as applied and constitutes a prior restraint.

The THREAT of 4113/2011 targeted a civil hearing scheduled the next day, a plan

conceivedby the civil defendant Nelson and pitched to the Surprise Police who went.:.f

along with the plan. Surprise Police even added Nelson's civil attorney to the

THREAT to make obstruction of the civil court proceeding more complete. A prior

restraint on speech bears a " 'heavy presumption' " against its constitutionality. See

Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130 (1992) (quoting Bantam

Books. Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963)). As the Supreme Court explained in

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S.

150 (2002), "[i]t is offensive - not only to the values protected by the First

Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society - that in the context of everyday

8

public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to

her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.".--+ ":

The Second Circuit has described Ruminski as being a "citizen reporter" and

"legitimate gadfly"--"a quintessential example of what Justice White once referred to

as the "lonely pamphleteer" ". Ruminski has had his gadfly and reportorial activities

quashed, amazingly in a civil case where he was a party by abuse of police power.

Due Process Implications

The Due Process considerations are rudimentary. Interference with a litigants

appearance at Court violates substantive and procedural Due Process and constitutes

an unconstitutional summary punishment.

There can be no doubt that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment confers both procedural and substantive rights. See Foucha v.

Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80, 118 L. Ed. 2d 437, 112 S. Ct. 1780 (1992); United States

v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 107 S. Ct. 2095 (1987); Daniels v.

Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662, 106 S. Ct. 662 (1986).

In Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. at 377, 91 S. Ct. at 785 (1971), the

Supreme Court states, "Due process requires, at a minimum, that absent a

-countervailing state interest of overriding significance, persons forced to settle their

claims of right and duty through the judicial process must be given a meaningful

opportunity to be heard." Ruminski was forced to not include Nelson as a Defendant

in this case because of the THREAT and Ruminski was forced not to attend the civil

hearing on April 14, 2011 because of government threats of retaliation.

9

"To perform its high function in the best way, 'Justice must satisfy the

appearance of Justice.'" In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 99 L. Ed. 942, 75 S. Ct.

623 (1955);Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 825, 89 L. Ed. 2d 823,106 S.

Ct. 1580 (1986).

The Supreme Court has found that the appearance of Justice is as important

as the reality of Justice, or at least important enough that its absence violates due

process. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 41 L. Ed. 2d 897,94 S. Ct. 2697 (1974).

A substantive due process violation occurs when government conduct violates

"fundamental fairness" and is "shockingto the universal sense of Justice." Kinsella v.

United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 246, 4 L. Ed. 2d 268 , 80 S. Ct. 297.~

(1960) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord United States v.

Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32, 36 L. Ed. 2d 366, 93 S. Ct. 1637 (1973).The facts and

circumstances of this case constitute a substantive due process violation as spoken of

- in Singleton.',' .~

Huminski v. Corsones. 396 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2005): .....

Huminski includes relevant paragraphs from his 2nd Circuit case below, the..

----

one question in controversy would be this Court's recognition of the right of

individual access to courthouses that was established in the Corsones case. The 2nd

Circuit's reasoning was well-founded and this Court should adopt the precedent. In

addition to the precedent-setting First Amendment individual right of access,

Huminski also asserts all other First Amendment rights that were vindicated in

Huminski v. Corsones as well as their State Constitutional analogs in Art. 2 Sect. 6.

In Corsones, notably, Ruminski moved for summary judgment whereby the facts

10

were construed in a light most favorable towards the defendants and still prevailed.

Ruminski v. Corsones, 386 F.3d 116, 155 (2d Cir. 2004) (finding particular restriction

on speech in non-public forum unreasonable). The THREAT is hopelessly overbroad.

Applicable Excerpts From Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2005)

Ruminski v. Corsones,Attachments at page A87, para. 20

"Weconclude that Ruminski had an individual First Amendment right of access tocourt proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other officialconnection -with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled toaccess, but one that could be overcome if court officials reasonably decided that hemight pose a threat to persons, property, or proceedings and if the restrictions on hisaccess were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. Weconclude, however, that this individual right was not well-settled at the time of theevents at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualifiedimmunity with respect thereto."

Ruminski v. Corsones,Attachments at page A87,para. 21

" .:

"Wealso conclude that although the Rutland courthouses and grounds are nonpublicforums, singling Ruminski out for a prohibition against his ability to express himselfon any subject in those locations violated his First Amendment right to expresshimself." [including expression in litigation]

~.

, .i

Ruminski v. Corsones, Attachments at page A87, para. 166

"The Individual's Right of Access to the Courts. Both the Supreme Court and thisCourt have with some frequency articulated principles regarding the FirstAmendment right of access to court proceedings and papers. But, remarkably, theparties do not point us to, nor have we ourselves found, a Supreme Court or SecondCircuit opinion that has discussed this right in the context of the exclusion of anidentified individual member of the public or press, rather than the barring of thepublic or the press at large, from court proceedings to which that individual is not aparty. Cf. Beerman, 18 F.3d at 152 (concluding,in the context of a suit claiming thata single individual was denied access to criminal proceedings in violation of the FirstAmendment, that the individual was not denied access, and therefore having no needto determine whether the right of access covered the exclusion of an individual). Wehave no doubt, nonetheless, that an identified non-party such as Ruminski who is

11

denied access to court has and can assert a presumed right of access even if he or sheis the only person excluded."

Ruminski v. Corsones, Attachments-at page A87, para. 169

~.

"Aperson singled out for exclusion from the courtroom, who is thereby barred fromfirst-hand knowledge of what is happening there, moreover, is placed at anextraordinary disadvantage in his or her attempt to compete in the "marketplace ofideas" about the conduct of judges and the judicial system. Cf. Anderson v. Cryovac,Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 9 (1st Cir.1986) (holding that a district court's order protectingdiscoverymaterials from public disclosure with a limited exception for the producersof a particular television program violates other press outlets' First Amendmentrights because "[a] court may not selectively exclude news media from access toinformation otherwise made available for public dissemination"); Am. BroadcastingCosov. Cuomo, 570 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir.1977) (holding, in a case involving theexclusion of a single television news network from live coverage of New York Citypost-mayoral Democratic Party primary runoff activities at the candidates'headquarters, that "once there is a public function, public comment, andparticipation by some of the media, the First Amendment requires equal access to allof the media or the rights of the First Amendment would no longer be tenable");Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129-30 (D.C.Cir.1977) (stating in the context of achallenge to the issuance of White House press passes as arbitrary or content-basedin violation of the First Amendment, that "[n]ot only newsmen and the publicationsfor which they write, but also the public at large have an interest protected by thefirst amendment in assuring that restrictions on newsgathering be no more arduousthan necessary, and that individual newsmen not be arbitrarily excluded fromsources of information")."

~.

Ruminski v. Corsones, Attachments at page A87, para. 172. I

"Ruminski, we therefore conclude, had and has a presumed right of access to thestate courthouses in Rutland."

Ruminski v. Corsones, Attachments at page A87, para. 184

"We need not, however, determine the precise boundaries of constitutionallyappropriate official behavior here. For there is, in addition to the requirements thatthe reasons for exclusion be constitutionally appropriate and that there be findings atleast in some circumstances, a requirement that restrictions on court access be"narrowly tailored" to meet the reasons for closure. GlobeNewspaper Co., 457 U.S. at606-07, 102 S.Ct. 2613."

12

~"'.

-'- .

..-...:

'.. ,

.:,

...~-

;


"The Notices Against Trespass bar Ruminski from the state courthouses of Rutlandand their grounds indefinitely and virtually completely. As far as we can tell, with atmost an exception for litigation to which Huminski is a party [set forth in the firstnotice against trespass], he cannot ever attend any criminal or civil proceedingsthere. Because the exclusion effected by the trespass notices was plainly overbroad inlight of its duration, geographical scope, and scope of proceedings covered, weconclude that the exclusion was not "tailored" to the threat and is thereforeunconstitutional. Cf. Gannett Co., 443 U.S. at 393, 99 S.Ct. 2898 (concluding that atrial closure did not violate the First Amendment in part because denial of accesswas merely temporary and the public could therefore subsequently attend trial);Bowden v. Keane, 237 F.3d 125, 129-30 (2d Cir.2001) ("Whether a closure is deemedbroad or narrow [in the context of the Sixth Amendment] depends on a number offactors, including its duration; whether the public can learn (through transcripts, forexample) what transpired while the trial was closed; whether the evidence presentedduring the courtroom closure was essential, or whether it was merely cumulative orancillary; and whether selected members of the public were barred from thecourtroom, or whether all spectators were precluded from observing the proceedings."(citations omitted»."


"Ruminski complains of the restrictions that the Notices Against Trespass place onhis ability to express himselfin and about the Rutland courthouse. We think that thedistrict court properly denied the motions of Corsones, Zimmerman, and Predomseeking summary judgment on this claim on the ground of qualified immunity. Wealso think that the district court incorrectly granted Elrick's motion for summaryjudgment on this claim on the ground of qualified immunity. Moreover, wedetermine, after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the defendants, thatthe district court erred in deciding that the trespass notices constituted a reasonablerestriction on Ruminski's expressive activity. We therefore conclude that the districtcourt erred in denying Ruminski's motion for summary judgment in this regard."

Ruminski v. Corsones,Attachments at page A87, para. 210-214

"The Notices Against Trespass in effect prohibit indefinitely any and all expressiveactivity in which Ruminski might want to engage in and around Rutland statecourthouses. These notices are thus pervasive enough to be viewed as creating a"First-Amendment-Free Zone"for Ruminski alone in and around the Rutland courts.The defendants' singling out of Ruminski for exclusion, thereby permitting all othersto engage in similar activity in and around the courts, suggests to us that thetrespass notices are not reasonable. Such broad restrictions are generally frownedupon even in nonpublic forums. Ct. Bd. of Airport Comm'rs v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.,

13

482 U.S. 569, 575, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987) ("Wethink it obvious that ...a ban [on First Amendment activities at an airport] cannot be justified even if [theairport] were a nonpublic forum because no conceivable governmental interest wouldjustify such an absolute prohibition of speech.").

Because, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the defendants, weconclude that the trespass notices were unreasonable, we need not and do not reachthe question of their viewpoint neutrality. Whether or not the notices were viewpointneutral, they constituted an unreasonable restriction on Ruminski's expressiveactivity in a nonpublic forum.

Our review thus suggests to us that the defendants violated Huminski's FirstAmendment right of free expression by issuing the trespass notices. The defendantsare not entitled to qualified immunity with regard to this claim because this rightwas clearly established at the time that the defendants issued the trespass notices.Nor are they entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that "it was 'objectivelyreasonable' for [them] to believe that [their] actions were lawful at the time of thechallenged act[s]," Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416, 420 (2d Cir.1995) (citations andinternal quotation marks omitted), in light of the preceding discussion.

.J

We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dissolving the preliminaryinjunction as to all defendants other than Corsones and Zimmerman, whom we havefound to be immune currently from injunctive relief under 42 D.S.C. § 1983.Huminski has demonstrated both a likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunctionis not granted, Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd; of Educ. of New York. 331 F.3d 342,349-50 (2d Cir.2003) (discussing the presumption of irreparable injury in FirstAmendment cases), and a likelihood of success on the merits of his action, see NewKayak Pool Corp. v. R & P Pools. Inc., 246 F.3d 183, 185 (2d Cir.2001). We thereforereinstate the preliminary injunction as to all defendants other than Corsones andZimmerman subject to the district court's reconsideration with regard to eventsoccurring subsequent to its decision in Huminski III. "

.J

WHEREFORE, The chill to Ruminski's First Amendment (and Due Process) rights is

an irreparable injury that cannot be vindicated by post-deprivation review, thus, the

Court should enjoin enforcement of the THREATpending appeal. Appellant requests

oral argument on this Motion to help compensate for his PTSD disability documented

in Appellant's Motion for Enlargement filed herewith.

14

Dated at Gilbert, Arizona this 1st day of August, 2011.

Scott Huminski, pro se2624 S. Bahama DriveGilbert, AZ 85295(480) 243-8184

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 1st day of August 2011, copies of the foregoing motionwere sent by United States mail, postage prepaid, to:

,-:..

'.'

William Doyle1313 E. Osborn Rd. #220Phoenix, AZ 85014

, "~

,f

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CODISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Scott Huminski, )- Plaintiff, )

)-v- )

)Hector Heretia [sic]et al., )

Defendants. )

:;0-: :

CIVIL ACTION

~fDjr-1IECIiY&9 -=- fX1I1f

MAY a 1 ZOft.~.! -

am(~'.rAinwm~t DJSTRIQ1'Of "r0NA.

~ . . ~p~

DOCKET NO. 2:11-cv-00896-DGC

SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF SCOTT RUMINSKIIN SUPPORT OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUCTION

Plaintiff Scott Huminski ("Hum.inski")deposes and swears as follows:

1. I make this Affidavit based on my personal knowledge as the plaintiff inthis suit. I am over the age of eighteen and under no legal disability.

:..;......"

.~.

2. In all verbal telephone conversations on or aSurprise Police officials I demanded that Surpinarrowly tailor their threat against my civil Iitig.

"Please do not have any type ofcontact with e[sic]or Anthony Tsontakislaw [sic]until I speyour side." (OfficerHeredia 4/13/2011 email)(i

6e(f~ "I1-101 01-Thy~~t>

*c.bVSI 0 Vl5'

On April 13, 2011 and at all times afterward,withdraw, rescind or narrowly tailor the THR:Huminski via telephone or email. In the CI

Heredia, his tone was angry, impatient and indless about the allegations concerning his condrwith other Surprise. Police employees post APl ;; ~ ~ -r; /10 IV;1<7!l<;r:jinterpretations of the THREAT that were all / /received a legal analysis or legal interpretation oItIle THlD!iA~01;ne:r--ularr-my own layman's plain language analysis.

3.

The persistent refusal of Defendant to withdraw, rescind or narrowlytailor the THREAThas prevented the inclusion in this lawsuit of JustinNelson even service ofhis attorney is forbidden as both are included in theTHREAT.

4.

1

..- 6.

-

-. 7.

5. Upon information and belief: Surprise has taken on the duty to protectJustin Nelson from civil litigation because of his powerful connections,contacts and in:tluence with law enforcement and legal communities.Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (22 pages) are true and correct copies ofemails from Justin Nelsonwhich detail the power and influence he wieldsin the State of Arizona. In this a:ffi.davitand in the attachments to thepreliminary injunction affidavit dated April 17, 2011, Nelson describesinfluence and control of; (1) up to 70 attorneys in the area, (2) 3/4 ofpresiding judges in Arizona, (3) Sheriff Joe Arpaio and, (4) various otherlaw enforcement officials. Nelson even asserts he had control andsupervision authority over a Sheriff's Department vehicle and thepersonnel inside. Nelson describes the justice system in Arizona as "wildwest" and worse than a "policestate" .

Given the proclaimed extreme power and influence Nelson has over thejudiciary, law enforcement and legal community, Huminski. is nowcontemplating a Motion requesting a change of venue to a United StatesDistrict Court in California.

Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the NoticeAgainst Trespass that began the conflict in Huminski v. Corsones, 396F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2005)

8. In 2010 Justi~ Nelson had full source information and litigation files forHuminslri's forthcoming book "Howard Dean's Police State of Vermont,Sotomayor and Government Crime" (www.HowardDeanVermont.com).The book is largely based upon Humjnw v. Corsones. Huminski. has astrong penchant to obey police orders and Nelson had all informationindicating Huminski's strong feelings towards obeying police orders in2010.

9. Accordingto telephone conversations with Detective Vance of the SurpriseP.D. my appearance at the Surprise Police Station was not required asstated by OfficerHeredia. Detective Vance also told me that harassmentallegations were submitted by him to prosecutors concerning myself andJustin Nelson, but, he did not ask, request, suggest or order no contact toany party regarding another party.

10. On April 13, 2011 I received an email· from Officer Heredia. After Ireceived the email I sent approximately five(5)emails to Heredia. Manyhours after the April 13, 2011 email from Officer Heredia, I spoke toHeredia on the telephone for the first and only time. Heredia was hostileand did not mention anything about the scopeof the THREAT.

\\\OC -90334lIl968 -#1468134 v42

~- .. ,

11. Upon information and belief Surprise law enforcement has failed to alertFederal and State authorities concerning the tax evasion (State andFederal) of Justin Nelson which is their ethical duty. Pursuant to theTHREAT. I have not been able to contact Nelson to issue him 1099 formsfor 2010 and 2011. In an email to Gilbert Police and set forth in Exhibit"Anpages 18-19 Nelson provides notification to police of a business entity"J. Micheal Nelson Media. Ll.C", According to the Arizona CorporationCommission on 4/13/2011 there existed no such LLC in Arizona and nosuch LLC was authorized to do business in Arizona in 2010 or 2011.

Dated at Gilbert, Arizona, May 31,2011.

r- .

Scott Rumjnski

SWORNAND SUBSCRIBED to before me this 31st day of May, 2011.

I» 0FFICfAL SEALBRIAN P. lETTING

IID1MY PU8UO •••• of AdIOIIIIIARJCOIIA 00lIN1Y., •••. __ -. 14, 2Oj2

expo

3\\\DC - 90334/8988 -1#1<188134 ""

Shit Buddy, Now You Are Scaring My Neighbors.From; I Michael Nelson [email protected])Sent Moo 4/18/114;14 AMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

15 minutes ago I walked outside of my house to the only car we keep in the driveway to make a run tothe gas station for cigars. Just as I was walking out. a white Nissan Versa pulled down my street and onthe curb between my house and my neighbors house. OUt at nowhere, a jet blade Expedition, all tintedout, obviously MeSO, flew up in front of the Versa, and almost made a felony stop on them. About madethem piss their pants..Luckily, I was outside, saw what was going on. and waved them off (white versa onrims with NY plates, so I Icnew it wasn't you). Damn buddy you are a troubfemaker •._

-. ·7

@~-.-t!t.1t\ ,I.,

htto:11b1l48w.blu148.maH.Hve.comImaiJlPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=eb2c8a4f"()993-11eO-... 51291201 .

Windows Live Hotmcil ?r.nt Message Pii~eI of1

Law Schoolfrom: J MIchael Nelson [email protected])Sent Sun 4/17/114:16 PMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

And don't bother trying to get on the inside with some legal tactic against my school either. In additionto the one here in AZ,they own 30 or so private law schools across the country with the parent companyin Chicago, IL Untouchable buddy.

@)rl31.

. J

htto:/lb1148w.blu148.mail.live.com/mailIPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=8543078a·692f-lleO-... 5/29/2011

Pag6lofl

SecretFrom: J Midlaal Nelson [email protected])Sent: Sun 4/17111 3:56 PMTo: scotthuminski ([email protected])

What you have been missing in all of this is the conditions in which I attended law school. I did not go toASU with 20yr tenured ProfessolS. I went to the private law school here in the valley. At the time, theywere in their first year of existence and building their reputation and prestige, along with accrecfJtation.As a result, instead of hiring permanent professors. they spent ridiculous amounts of money and hired allof the most prestigious judges and legal minds in the state to act as "Travemng Ad'JUnct Professors." Soin my three years of law school, I have gotten to know at least 3/4 of the current presiding judges in theState that passed through the-halls of my school as adjunct professors.

And by the way. 1didn't drop out I did graduate. in fact 3rd in my class with a 3.96GPA.I was on the lawreview. 'ed our Moot Court team to a National Championship against Harvard, and was voted "bestfuture litigator" by my peers. I just didn't do my pro bono work or take the bar.l never went to lawschool to practice /aw. I was a published writer before that. Ijust wanted the JD to make my writingworth more money.

There, gave you a little insight into the forest, but believe me, that isjust the tip of the iceberg. Again, nothreat from me, but just a warning that I would give to anyone. Tread carefully in the Arizona legalSystem.

'''.L.:;

o j~J no+-bV C1 d IJ' 01 ,tL L (XlA/

50~VC))

o e lv 5 1'0 VI o. \

@httn:IIbI 148w.blu148.mail.live.comlmaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=b977a39b-692c-11 eO-... 5129/2011

Windows Live Hotmail Print Mt1ssage rUB\~1 01 1

Making Me Popular

From: J Mlcltael Nelson (imichaelnelsonwrites@)gmail.com)Sent Sun 4/17/113:39 PMTo: scotthuminski ([email protected]:om)

Wow buddy, you are making me a popular cat here in Arizona. From the feds. to the State, County, andnumerous city POI and their City Attorney's offices have been blowing up my phone wanting to get theirhands on the portable hard-drive that contains the files from you. Fust I thought about letting it go tothe highest bidder, but rve decided just to give it to aDof them and let them transfer to their computers.Now you've tied up my schedule for the next two days with meetings to bring this damn file dump allover the vaHey. Should be charging you for ga5-

On the plus side, what started out to be a shiny delusional book that would have never sold, now hasthe potential to be a bestseller once Arizona finishes with you; sold and featured of course, atscotthuminsfci.com. (Unless someone purchases it first).

By the way, I see that Judge Daniel Dodge (Adjunct Professor Dodge - 2l - Civil Procedure n) is thepresiding judge in your suit in Highland justice court against the City of Surprise. If I don't have a chanceto talk to him before you get into court, tell him hello for me._

Justin

@hftn~/1h1148w.blu148.mail.live.comImaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=5f63Sa19-692a-11eO-... 512912011

Windows Live HotmailPrint M~ssag(; £luge lot 1

Competency Evaluation

From: J MIcIaaeI Ne&on ([email protected])Sent sat 4/16/11 7:54 PMTo: scott huminsld ([email protected])

And you better believe fm going to be using this additional civil suit in the Highland Justice Courtagainst Ofe. Heredia and the Town of SUrprise in my Title 36 petition next week. You truly are, without adoubt, delusionaJ, and a danger to yourself and others. rm going to file the petition, and then paradeeveryone you're filing complaints against in to court to support it Do you even understand what it is like;n the Arizona Mental Facility downtown? Watch a horror movie bud, that should give you a good idea.

If I were you, I would start packing and get my ass out of this state as quickly as I possibly could, but thatisjust ITle-

Dtll/JjOi~Dt.}

tV evet 110ft t:« elT~(cqt

@@

lotm·11h114R~hln 14R.maiJ.Jive.comImaiJlPrintMessaf,tes.aspx?cpids--da07f5ea-6884-11eO-... 512912011

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message

Money

From: J Michael Nelson (jm~'[email protected])Sent Sat 4/16/11 6:46 PMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

Ijust hope you're around long enough for the boole to come out so I can sue you. rm almost beginningto feel sorry for you now at this point because you have no idea what you are getting yourself intoattacking Arizona law Enforcement~.. WOW!!!

.. i

®!JJhffn·/lhl 14Rw.hlu t 48.mail.live.comImaillPrintMessae;es.8SJ)x?CJ)ids=6394b7f7-687b-11 eO-... 5129/2011

ofl

Civil Complaint Against Surprise

From: J MIdraef N8IJoft [email protected])Sent: sat 4/16/11 6:42 PMTo: scott huminsld ([email protected])

Scott,

Just got a calf·about your 4/14 civl1flUngin the Highland Justice Court against Ofe. Heredia, Town ofSurprise, and two other individuals. You are really gtrtting dumb buddy. Like I keep teRing you, this is notBennington. VT.People that do this kind of shit against law enforcement here in AZhave a tendency tofind themselves disappearing in the desert .

Just trying to tell you, like1have for months, this is the wrong place for this kind of shit. like I said, if youthought Vermont was a police state, you haven't seen anything yet You are digging yourself a hole hereyou will never get out oL ..

Good luck to you, especiatly now._

Justin~.,

(j)@

htta>:llb1148w.blu148.mail.live.comlmaillPrintMessages.8Spx?cpids=c72d7473-687a-lleO-... 5129/2011

Wmdows Live Hotmad Print }.t1g~t; Page 1 of1

Breakfast with JoeFrom: J MidIHI Nelson ([email protected])Sent: Sat 4/16/112:47 PMTo: scott huminsld ([email protected])

I just wanted to let you know that my son and I drove out to Fountain Hills this morning and had awondertul breakfast with Mr. and Mrs. Arpaio (he calls my boy his "little red-headed detective). Like Isaid, rve worked on the man's political campaign for a decade.

As you mayor may not know, despite his position, Mr. Arpaio is the most powerful politician of eitherparty in Arizona. We had a long conversation about you, what has transpired, and what 1believe yournext moves will be. He then began to get on the phone.

In addition to living less than a mile from the Surprise Police Department, Ialso live within a mile of anMeSO substation.

Ihave put you square in the cross-hairs of the Sheriff, MCSO as a whole. and in particular, the MeSOoffice that is less than a mile from my home. If you know anything about Joe-Arpaio, which I assume youdo, the last thing anybody wants in this state is to be in his cross-hairs.

With that in mind, Iwould be very, very careful about your-next "strategic" move here in the valley, andfurther, very, very careful about approaching my house which I know, and he knows, you have theaddress to. From the very top down, MCSO is now aware of your existence and your activities. That initself would scare the shit out of me personally, but whatever.

Remember my forest buddy. Now you are standing square in the middle of it, all alone, and I wish you alltoe luck In the world trying to find your way out before the actual civil proceedings commence uponyour book publication.

--'----Justin

.~:

- ~

~httD:l1b1l48w.blul48.mail.live.comlmaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids-ef3b2709-6859-11eO-... 5/29/2011

Windows LIve Hotmail Print lVlessag~ Page; 1 ofl

Never a' Response

From:J MIcItMI tMkon [email protected])Sent: Sat 4/16/112:59 AMTo: scott huminskl ([email protected])

Mr. Huminski,

I have never expected a response from you throughout these days since you now t,ave figured outyou're in some deep shit. The reality is,you don't need to. You have (on four documented occasions)threatened my wife and family while I'm gone next month. That takes the -harassment" you have beendofng to me and Anthony, which is a class 1 Misdemeanor, and has escalated it. In Arizona, it is called"Threatening and Intimidation" under the assault statute, which Is in fact a felony in this state. That iswhat you are going to be charged with.

~ ",

~"'

So you no longer need to respond at all.The damage has already been done. You have already, on fouroccasions, made threatening comments that pertain to next month which can no longer be retracted orexplained away. AllI suggest to you is make sure you leave everything in your car that you don't wantpacked into a plastic evidence bag when they take you into custody tomorrow in Surprise .... Rememberthe result of your last "interview request" in Bennington. Keep that in mind as you drive across the valleytowards SurpriSe Police ,Department tomorrow. If there is any positive to this. I live so close to theSurprise police department, you may be able to waive to me on my balcony from your cell.

~' Ironic. isn't it.._

,...--..:

0)~

http://b1148w.bluI48.maiI.Iive.comImailIPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=035fc93a-67f7-11eO-9... 512912011

Windows Live HotrrJall.l'-'rmt Message .rage 1 or 1

Officer Pillar ComplaintFrom:J MIchael Nelson [email protected])Sent: Fri4/15/1110:18 PMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

/-" ", Scott

Just received a call from a commander at the Gilbert PD.They are now in contact with the Surprise PO,Maricopa County Attorney's Office, and the Mesa court. which is cool. He wanted me to email him acopy of your bribery allegation that you sent to the Gilbert Mayor. yoU see. Officer Pillar's supervisorsinstructed him to art us both off, which he cld I couldn't even send him an email (came bade rejected).You, on the other hand, took this ase one-sided deal, but the reality was they didn't want to hear fromme either. They know your letter is absolutely ridiculous, not only because municipal offICer'sdon'tinvestigate tax matters. but also because you acwse an officer of accepting a bnbe in which all of hissupervisors know is a completely fraudulent aUegation

-- . )

Now they are pissed. They are going to slap on an additional 13-2907.01 charge against you for falseallegations, in addition to the other false evidence you provided them. Bribery of a cop who WOUldn'ttalk to me?? Really bro??

Don't say Ididn't warn you, Itold you numerous times this was not Bennington, VT.This is the wild-west.And if you thought Vermont acted like a police state, you haven't seen anything yet Bythe time we evenget to civilcourt, you're going to have a criminal record 7 pages long, count on it. They're all talking nowand know what you're up to, which doesn't work here in Arizona.

Iunderstand you have sent like 50 emails today harassing Ofc. Heredia. Ialso understand you will be onmy side of town tomorrow. Once Dana bails you out. let me know and maybe we can fit in lunch..... NOT!

"--. ,

Ot 1 U5 rOV\q IC he ~)L

G (}rbtift P. Or~ Pi~S eeL; 1{/(

" ",'

htfn~JIh1148w.hlu148.maiLlive.comlmaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=efl)860bd-67cf-l1eO-8... 512912011

011

YahooFrom: J MIchael Nelson ([email protected])Sent Fri4/15/111:54 PMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

Mr. Huminsici,

Iwanted to thank you for some of your conduct that has resulted in a great benefit to me. Yahoo(actually Associated Content), has finished vetting you and just called me. In light of what theydiscovered along with your threats pertaining to my family while I am out of state on contract for them,they consider you a serious sec:urit¥ threat to my family.

Originally, I was going to be flying back and forth via commercial airline in coach each weekend. Nowthey have decided to put one of Yahoo's jet's at my disposal instead. So now I get to fly back and forth,at my discretion, on a private Gulfstream, and be home and see my family much more than I originallyanticipated._ All because of you .._

~ .. :Oon't know what to say__ Thank You_..

-'., Justin

• '.1

rJD f\/~U <t-~::s ~ i"-

~ll.tS't-

Re-pcA(j 0 i"I ,-;- •

~{;A5(/ AJk 0<1; J rt~

---~ @.- . -~\

(A.YU··~~)·~

httn·/lhll.:1Rw hln 14R.mail.1ive.comlmaillPrintMessap;es.aspx?cpids=66865902-6789-11eO-... 5/29/2011

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Psge 1 or 1

Final NoteFrom: J Michael Nelson ([email protected])Sent Fri4/15/114:51 AMTo: scott huminsid ([email protected])

~.'.

As I am no longer prohibited from contacting you, the emails I have sent you now amount to nothing,and considering the language contained therein. will never be considered as threatening, and is notintended to be. rm simply responding to a weeks worth of insulting and inaccurate emails from you thatnow rm entitled to respond to.

;..-

You don't need to bother printing these out (with your supposed printer problems -- LOll and filingthem in some delusional petition. I already have printed all of these out and will be providing by handdelivery to Ofc. Heredia of the Surprise Police Department immediately tomorrow moming before I filethe civil injunction (same complex) to protect myself from additional harassment allegations on yourpart. Furthennore, these emails Wll' in fact be introduced into court against you since much of mylanguage is in regams to your incessant insults via previous emails after repeated no contact requests bynumerous agencies.

Good luck to you buddy.

Justin

hffn·/1h1148w.bIu148.maiUive.comlmaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=8c02dd7d-673d-l1eO- .•.

Windows Live Hotmaill Print Message Pllg~1or 1

Officer PillarFrom: J Michael Nelson (jmichaeineisonwrites@gmaiLcom)Sent Fri4/15/114:30 AMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

. By the way, I filed a complaint against Officer Pillar because he stopped talking to me Dice he aid to you.I've never even met this guy. I ended up in a screaming match with him that culminating in me going

.through his Sgt, to LT,To Commander who is now my contact. Pillar rejected myemaitsand stonewalled me for days, just like you.

Your delusional ass filed a complaint against the only ally you had in this entire situation. He was theonly one taking your side and trying to avoid me. Iactually filed a complaint against him before you did,which culminated in my contact with the Commander who is now incharge of the case.

I have since filed a commendation on behalf of Officer Pillar, his Sgt, his LT.and his Commander for theirprofessionat conduct and accurate jurisdictional information.

Don't understand you bro. Pillar was all you had going for you. He took your side and hated me to thepoint that I escalated to his supervisors. Then you're ass got aazy enough to file a bribery complaint

~ -: against the cop who was doing evetything he could to ignore me. He's not ignoring me now, soI appreciate the stupidity on your part for alienating yourself from the only agency that was, until thismorning, taking you seriously.'_ ... :

Nice strategic play legal expert ...

....•.•...•

~hffn'llhl t 4Rw.hlu 148.maiLlive.comlmaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=8c366198-673a-l1eO-... 512912011

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Pugelofl

Tax Evasion

From: J Michael Nelson ([email protected])Sent: Fri4/15/11 4:20 AMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

Mr. Huminski,

What was truly hilarious was in your complaint to the Mayor of GObert that Officer Pillar wasinvestigating me for tax evasion. You do understand fight that tax evasion or any other related tax issuesare not within the juri~iction of Municipal Authorities. No ci1;ycop EVERinvestigates tax evasion inArizona.

~ ..l

If you would like to file an Arizona State Complaint That needs to be forwarded to the Arizona TaxCourtIf you would like to file a federal tax complaint Than needs to be forwarded to the IRS local office.

Eitherway, not in this lifetime. or the next, is your harassing delusional ass ever going to get your handson my SSN. Not a chance bucko...! Absolutely none, no matter who you file complaints with. Hell, I'm awriter, I can answer frivolous complaints all day and bill my hourly rate for an eventual Motion to assesscourt fees against you far into the future. Just keep going buddy, every time you make a move I feelmy wallet getting fatter. And instead of intimidating Tsontalds. now all you've done is seriously piss himoff, along with.about 70 other Arizona practicing attorneys that graduated with us. He's not backingdown. Pm not backing down. Everything that comes out of your mouthjust escalates the matter further.In fact he ;s no longer interested in a $2000 contract dispute. Currentty he is in the process of trackingdown your trusts NC.etc...) and assets to see what the best strategy is to dean you out. Don't you worryabout my "little lawsuit .•We'fliet the statute of limitations work my filing procedures out.

Again, good talking to you, sure to see you in numerous court appearances next week if you have themoxy to show up and face me this time. Also, please get Dana's ass on the ironing board so you don'tend up showing up like an indigent. degenerate, homeless peJSOn again like you did on the7th. Disrespectful to court. Big deal here in Arimna. They hate that shit. Buy yourself a tie, but a cheapone. Don't spend my money!

Justin M. Nelson/'

. ,

j

@@

httn:/1h1148w.blu148.maiLlive.comlmaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=446a7d4b-6739-11eO-... 5129/2011

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of2

Mesa Municipal Court----DISMISSED

From: J Michael Nelson [email protected])

Sent: Thu 4/14/1110:41 PMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

Mr. Huminski,

....-..,:i

I wanted to take the time to thank you for not showing up today in court The judge threw yourpleadings in the trash and dismissed the case, and ruled in my favor, so I am no longer forbidden fromany contact. Motion on Ofc Heredia was a joice by the way, do you understand "MunicipalJurisdiction.· Didn't think so. Mesa court has nothing to do with Surprise Police Officers you big smartlaw guy.

On the other hand, there is stiD a pencfmg complaint against you with Surprise Court. that is in theprocess of now being escalated as a result of todays Mesa ruling. They are in receipt of the three emailsyou sent to Atty. Tsontakis after Ofc. Heredia notified you of no contact, so I have been assured that youwill now in fact be charged under the Harassment statutes that I requested •

Again, I have a pending complaint against you FORBIDDING CONTACTFROMYOU IN ANY WAY, andnow that I won today in Mesa, an Injunction Preventing Harassment is being med with a request for anexpedited ruling against you over here on the west side tomorrow morning.

So consider this an emaildefeats you have comingattempt to communicatemore the better. Keep fir

--- -~"""••r I~qalloss, and the many legalDt respond to this email orIf! minutes of us, so the

~""

By the way, what has notown on business was aand is exactly why you;formally charged. Becalinvolved, as well as theespecially in light of ththese agencies are nov

and family while Iam out ofarassmenf' here in Arizona,ad that out when you are;he valley are getting,family in my absence,ieneral William Sorrell, which

"-"

"~ At the end of the day I ; told you I do not getintimidated, and I me; eant that too. Arizona laws donot originate and evo JW did Do you know that "Arizona is ONLY sum lie competence" to request anemergency hearing fOraInnvOIlIO--r-- :y. No family members, nofriends, just a single concerned citizen. Yo~on-'"7 __' emails, especially consideringthe ones regarding my wife, your complaints against Officer PRlar.your complaints against OfficerHeredia. and so on and so forth.. have forced me to prepare this Petition which will be filed in theMaricopa County SUperior Court within the next number of days. rll even give you a hint. it's in A.R.S.Title 36, and we are the only state or jurisdiction that permits it

' • .f

• j

I look forward to all of our future legal dealings, and any further emails you wish to send me thatcontinue your pattern of harassment that has now been seen through by everybody you tried to involV.k\

I'm sure I'll see you in court next week unless you don't show up again. which would be great. ~

es/AY6'1.."-.IJl..l1 AQ..-u hln tAR fl1ml1ivp. ••.omlmail/PrintMe8S8f!es.asox?cpids=cb07ed85-6709-11eO-... 512 1

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message

Hope the party you referenced to Mr. Tsontakis was nice, but don't spend all of my money please!!

Justin M. Nelson

~ ..

@tJftit\

httn:11b1l48w.blu148.mail.live.comlmaiIlPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=cb07ed85-6709-11eO-... 512912011"-J

Windows Live Hotmall Print Message ?ag~1or 1

Maricopa County SheriffFrom: J Michaef Nelson ([email protected])Sent: Fri4/15/1110:37 PMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

I wouldn't spend too much time trying to get inside MeSO since everyone elseinow knows you are theREALharasser. rYe worked on Joe's campaign for the last ten years; so don't bchher wasting your paperor brain power. ;

Justin

.--" .

<BJ~

hffnoIIh114Rw.hlu 148.mail.live.comimaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=6cad8c94-67d2-11eO-... 5129/2011

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of2

TAX NOTIFICATION ON BEHALF OF J. MICHAEL NELSON MEDIA,LLC

From: J Michael Nelson [email protected])Sent Tue 4/12/11 2:31 AMTo: scott huminski ([email protected]); Ryan PiHar ([email protected])

r-

~.Mr. Huminski,

ThIs c:orrespondence is Intended only to satisfy your repeated requests fur tax fling fnfonnationfrom an attorney I have retained in •• unrelated matter. Therefore. as the corporate officer of J.Michael Nelson MedIa. I wIDinitiate this c:ommuniadIon to ~ your request. but I'm also ~utybound to notify you tItat I am also falwanling this CXIIIWSpCII1CIe to OffIcer Ryan PIllar to avoidany dlsaepanc:ies In the Intent and language of the content contained herein.

1). Mr. Nelson was not an employee of Mr. Huminski, or any associated corporate entity in hispossession. Therefore, tax law makes Mr. Huminski's J1!quest for a Social Security Number for thepurposes of 'W4" an immaterial and deniable request

/"- "

-..

2). Mr. Nelson was not a subcontractor of Mr. Huminski, or any associated corporate entity in hispossession. The' ... . . . .. - \lumber for the purposes of 1099filing is also an i

3). Mr. HuminskNelson is a corpHuminski is in f.mandated by 181

-'-.

Tax Law under (final delivery ofNelson Media, lthis point, the ccMr. Nelson in 2C2010 tax year .

./

No 5()~~lLC

fAG; of ~/Jd/1l

l

An Arizona corporation of which Mr.If for business tax purposes. Mr.s, however that will only take place as

'it from a contract is the year in whichi's $4000 payments to J. Michaelontinued into the tax year 2011. At:h. In other words. any money paide as gross income in 2011, not in theDe \ U 5 ill h I>j

J. Michael Nelsol de in the 2011 tax year.Subsequently, a! U.C will provide it's tax ElN numberto Mr. Huminski I to represent the total amount paidunder the terms-onne contract tsupporteo oylnvojces and receipts); giving Mr. Huminski ample time toproperly file his taxes in 2011 under the correct interpretation of the code.

For the aforementioned reasons, Mr. Huminski's request for Mr. Nelson's Social Security Number for W4purposes is hereby denied. Additionally, Mr. Huminski's request for Mr. Nelson's Social Security Numberfor the purposes of 1099 filing is also hereby denied. And finally. any immediate request for the pendingEIN number of J. Michael Nelson Media, LtC is also denied. This EINwill be provided to Mr. Huminskiunder tax code for proper filing under the terms of income resulting from an ongoing contractculminating in the 2011 tax year.

~

r

Mr. Nelson intends this as noIification only on behalf of his corporation. This amaH Is in no way anattempt to communicate personally or harass Mr. Huminski on the part of Mr. Nelson endamounts to an offtcial notification through J.Michael Nelson MedIa, u.c. and J. MIchael Nelson as

---@

5129/~hftn~/1h114Rw.h1u 148.mai1.live.comImail/PrintMes.sasres.8SDX?CDids=852224c3-64ce-11 eO-•..

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 2 Of 2.

the corporate officer. for repeatH requests on behalf of Mr. Huminsld for Mr. Nelsons SodalSecurity Number.

I further reafflnn IIIJ request that Mr. HuminsId not respond to this amaD. attempt no furthercontact with J. MIchael Nelson M•••• LLC,Justin M. NeIsaG. or Attorney Anthony Tsontakisregarding •••••• matters. Afty questions can be forwarded to a local IRS offfce far a properdetermination of J. Michael Nelson MedIa, LLCtax filing proceduntS.

Sincerely,

J. Michaet Nelson, President/OfficerJ. Michael Nelson Media, llC

cc Mr. Scott Huminskicc Officer Ryan Pillar, Gilbert Police Department

'j

~ ,

". -t

}If/''\{~VJ,f lc; ~d11-e z

Do 4 / (-;J, / ~(J tl 4- Z c..OYfPt'CI..,1 (~rJ

CoIfo1 m~5')(0 VI h a, J A'~ v-eeod#lf'fk~J LL-t -to,/el+hf,r ~JD 8Y

Mll

,j

,.. )

Pag~I ofl

(No Subject)

From: J Michael Nelson ([email protected])Sent: Sun 3/27/11 3:39 PMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

Talked to Gilbert police and they laughed at you_. There isn't even an active investigation. They closed it.

Your brother is well-out of his jurisdiction here in Arizona, so I could give a shit less what the dirtbagtries to accomplish. Cop or not, he's almost certainly as big of a loony toon and scum bag as you are, aswell as his children that your family has polluted the rest of the world with. So go tuck yourself on thatline. I will bring whoever I see fit into this civil litigation.

Finally, your bar complaints are not even f.wolous, they are mentally disturbed.

I am going to continue to come after you civilly, with my attorney, and do everything within my legal- I power to ruin your name, reputation, and book. Is that clear enough for you dumb shit!l

Stop calling and harassing me anclmy legal counsel Anthony Tsontalcis. We are both filing criminalinjunctions of harassment against you on Monday that have already been prepared. lucky for us, you arenowhere near as smart as you think you are.

looking forward to the rest of this,

Justin

~.

Delvs'/iJu\CljG;) 6-e(rVrOseCVlOYH-<I1S i ~'t tJe (5 6vt

Cc(5 E-.~

http://bI148w.blul48.mailJive.comlmaiJlPrintMessages.aspx1cpids=dfa3d2aa-58a9-11eO- ..•

~

~512912011

--' .

...,,-.... -;

~-..

<!. ,",.~.

WindOW%i Live HotmWlPrint Message t'cg'~lot 1

You're Right

From: J Michael tWson [email protected])Sent: Thu 3/24/11 5:33 PMTo: scott huminski ([email protected])

Youare correct in saying that this is over a measly $2000. But like I said, I believe revenge is a dish bestserved colci.I will spend $50,000+ just to prove my point, make you look stupid, prevent your book fromever being published, and get the last word in the saga of the -HuminslciProblem. If Count on it!

----

@httDzIIb1148w.blu148.mail.Iive.comlmaillPrintMeBS2U{es.8Sl)x?cpids=601153dc-565e-lleO-... 5129/2011

Windows Live Hobnail Print Message Page I ofl

(No Subject)

From:J Michael Nelson ([email protected])Sent Thu 3/24/11 5:41 PMTo: scott huminslci ([email protected])

The book is nothing to me, neither was the meager compensation. For me, it is about my reputation andbrand. Your plagarism (through publication on the internet). with the intent to willfullydefame a sittingmember of U.S. Supreme Court, plagiarizing without reference material, and especially using my name ina viewable publication in an unauthorized fashion, is where the real problems are going to lie when thisbitch gets into to court.

You better hit the legal books buddy. Going to be hard for you to keep up with a baker's dozen oflawyers working on how to get around you .

. i

.....J

@®'

btto:J1b1l48w.blu148.mailJive.comimaillPrintMes~es.8SllX?cpids=722418b9-565f-l1eO-... 512912011

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURDISTRICT OF ARIZONA

FILE9 _WS6!S_ AECEIVe,,--- eoJ'V-

MAY I ••2D11Scott Huminski,Plaintif(

-V-

Hector Heretia [sic]et al.,Defendants.

)))))))

CMLACTIONCLERK U S DtsTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONABY P DEPUTY

DOCKET NO. 2:11-cv-00896-

AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF SCOTT HUMINSKIIN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION

Plaintiff Scott Huminski ("Huminskilt) deposes and swears as follows:

1. I make this Affidavit based on my personallmowledge as the plaintiff in thissuit. I am over the age of eighteen and under no legal disability. I file thisaffidavit prior to filing for preliminary injunction to put facts on record infear of and prior to retaliation by law enforcement and wrongfulimprisonment.

2.~

:-

~

?-'3.

On or about April 13, 2011 Justin Michael Nelson ("Nelson") contactedSurprise police to complain about alleged harassment from Ruminski ..Officer Heredia ("Heredia") was the investigating officer. According toDetective Vance of the Surprise P.D. in a telephone conversation withHuminski, Nelson admitted to police that he was filing his complaint to gainadvantage in civilmatters.

On April 13, 2011 Heredia initiated a sequence of emails with Huminski, thefirst email Heredia stated:

"Please do not have any type of contact with either Michael Nelson [sic] orAnthony Tsontakislaw [sic] until I speak with you and hear your side. It

4. Huminski. never disobeys a police order unless a Court of appropriatejurisdiction declares the order unconstitutional. If a police officer said toHuminski please stay behind the yellow crime scene tape. Ruminski wouldobeyjust as he obeyedHeredia's order.

;-

5. Shortly after receiving the Heredia no contact order set forth in Paragraph 3,on Apri113. 2011 Huminski replied to Heredia's emails with multiple emailsthat contained the followinglanguage (arrest is the term Gilbert P.D. used):

1\\\DC• 9033W968 - fl488134 Y4

"Has Nelson told you he's been arrested for harassing me and he's facinganother charge for harassment resulting from his emai' 'ast night and he'sdo at a harassment hearing in M$S8 tomorrow. It

"If you are a cop, are you representing that tsontakislaw is not preparing alawsuit against me whereby Ihave the right under du~ process and thefirst amendment to conduct an investigation of that matter."

"If you are a police officer check out the lanuage[sic] of whom your dealingwith, he's due in court tomorrow for this."

''Tsontakislaw is Nelson's firm that he has hired to sue me. We are in pre-litigation phase now, iam pro se. Your threatto me concerning contactingopposing counsel constitutes obstruction of justice. Withdraw your threatby 5 pm today. The litigation is setforth in the paperwork you now have."

"You are breaking the law. Demand for this to stop immediately."

"sir, Ihave offered to meet you after you read the evidence isuppied[sic].You have refused to review the evidence. A grave error for lawenforcement."

"I will have a motion to dismiss based on police misconduct in the mailwithin minutes of receiving any formal paperwork from you. Your refusalto review evidence is evidence of police misconduct. Again lefs meet, youneed to review the evidence first. I'm not going to made a 2 hour drivesimply to read to you what you have in your possession.

Remember the crimes you are commiting;

Obstruction of Justice concerning a civil matter

Conspiracy to aid in the evasion of AZlfederal taxes"

"1. stop lying to me

6.

2.·follow the advise of your professional conduct man

3. stop obstructing justice

4. stop aiding and abetting tax evasion"

After the email volleyon April 13, 2011, Huminski telephoned Heredia laterin the afternoon on the 13th and Heredia admitted he received and read theemails. Huminski stressed to Heredia that he was engaging in criminalconduct by obstructing and interfering with civil matters especially thematter to be heard the next day. Heredia also had claimed to have read theattachments in the telephone conversation, but, he admitted later in the

2\\\DC - 9Il334I898II-lJ1488134 u4

conversation that he didn't read everything attached. Heredia's behavior onthe phone became hostile and impatient.

-::,

As Huminski informed Heredia, via his emails and telephone conversation onApril IS, 2011, the civil hearing in Huminski v. Justin Michael Nelson wasset for hearing on the April 14. 2011 at Mesa Municipal Court.

8. As an attachment to the emails Scott Huminski. sent to Officer Heredia was acollection of emails printed out on my printer (no color ink, some truncation)and scanned to a .pdf file of emails from Justin Michael Nelson, J.D. toHuminski, Attached hereto as Exhibit itA"is a true and correct copy of theNelson emails that were forwarded to Officer Heredia on April 13, 2011 viaemail from Huminski.

7.

9. Exhibit "A"page 7 contains the followingstatement from Nelson:

"Have a civil case being prepared for you already buddy."

Nelson expands and explains the nature of the civil litigation that isimminent in the 14 pages of Exhibit "A".

10. On April 13, 2011, the Surprise police had in their possession documents thatset forth two sets of civil litigation; (1) one pending in Mesa Municipal Courtand set forth for hearing on April 14, 2011, and (2) the litigation set forth inExhibit ItA" and in the previous paragraph.

11. Via telephone conversation with the Harold Brady, police legal advisor forSurprise, it became clear that the Surprise City Attorney's office wassourcing legal information solely from Nelson and was working/consultingwith Nelson in legal matters intended to harm and injure Huminski.According to federal court proceedings Huminski had been a party topreviously on the east coast, a federal judge ruled that violation/deprivationof Huminski's First Amendment rights implicated presumed irreparableinjury supporting preliminary injunctive relief,

12. On April 14, 2011, Huminski, just a few hours before the hearing at MesaMunicipal Court, received the first responsive email from Heredia stating:

"Mr. Huminski

I have asked you to mme in and talk to me about the harassment allegation filed byMr. Nelson. I reason for me asking you to come in is for positive identification purposes,e-mails are not aa:eptable as identification. Therefore I hope In see you soon and youhave until t.nis Saturdayafternoon (04/16/11) In show, otherwise the report will bewritten with Mr. Nelson's statement (onty) and the evidence he has turned over to mewill also be submitted. The report and evidence will then be turned over to the CityAttorneys Office for review and charging. If you have any further questions, please

3\\\DC • 90334/89B8 - #1488134 v4

mntad: my Supervisor, Sgt. Steve Reppert oryou can e-mail him [email protected]. R

13. Heredia authored the statement from the previous paragraph with a largequantity of evidence supplied to him by Huminski via emails. Heredia'sstatement that he would forward the matter without all evidence troubledRuminski Ruminski quickly replied back to Heredia via email on April 14,2011:

"I can Make it saturday.!m"

14. Ruminski was unable to attend the civil hearing in Mesa Municipal Court onApril 14, 2011 because of police order from Heredia. In the alternative,Ruminski asked the Mesa Court for a continuance to allow the Court to ruleon the no contact order from Heredia and allow his contact with Nelson in acourt hearing. Previously, Ruminski bad run into the same situation is acivil matter in Vermont civil Superior Court and had alerted the Court to athreat against courthouse access. The Vermont Court properly entered aruling/order allowing Huminski's courthouse access. As of this date, no suchsimilar ruling has been issued by an Arizona Court and Heredia's no contactorder is the only official statement and controlling "law" concerning thethreat. This litigation ensued.

15. On April 14, 2011, after filing a civil suit in Highland Justice Court againstSurprise and many of its officials, Ruminski sent Heredia, the SurpriseMayor and other Surprise officialsan email that reads as follows:

"From: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]

Subject: Surprise Police Sued for Incompetance and civil rights violationsDate: Thu, 14 Apr 201119:05:54-0400

~. Chief get this lazy slacker civil rights violator off the streets and we can settlethis for almost nothing. He needs to be fired. Surprise doesn't need any morepublicity which i happen to have a knack at.

-. --"4

\\\DC . 90334i8988. 1111488134 v4

MESA MUNICIPAL COURT, MARICOPA COUNTY

STATE OF ARIZONA

Scott Huminski. )

Plaintiff, )

HARASSMENT

v.)

}

)

Justin Michael Nelson DOCKET NO. 2011025225

Defendant

}

)

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

MOTION TO HOLD OFFICER HECTOR HEREDIA IN CRIMINALCONTEMPT

..~.'

NOW COMES, Scott Huminski, Plaintiff and notifies the Courtthat Defendant has been arrested by the Gilbert PO Case #001000004915 forhis conduct related to this matter. Plaintiff had rested his case based uponincorrect infonnation from officer Pillar of the Gilbert Police. I will haveDefendants police report by the time of hearing today and would haveattended if not for the police orders of Officer Heredia.

Officer Hector Heredia ("Heredia") of the Surprise PO hasissued a threat against Plaintiff to not attend the hearing Of 4/1412011. Plaintiffhas accepted the practice of obeying police orders even though they mayseem overly broad. Risking arrest for not obeying a police officer is not anoption to the Plaintiff. Officer Heredia has also threatened me to not contactDefendanfs attorney in Nelson v. Huminski (a civil case that is in pre-filingphase) This Nelson v. Huminski litigation is well defined by Nelson himself inthe sole affidavit filed in this case. I argued with Officer Heredia that he wasengaging in patently criminal behavior of obstuction of justice /witness

5\\IOC· 90334/8988 -#1488134 V4

tampering for approximately 30 minute to which the general gist of theconversation was get lost.

I have filed a criminal complaint with the Gilbert PO againstOfficer Heredia for obstruction of justice related to his behavior to harass,intimidate or threaten because of my participation in civil court proceedings.The elements of A.R.S. 13-541(A)(A) cI. 2 have previously been delineated asfollows: "(1) the wilful resisting, delaying. coercing or obstructing, (2) of apublic officer, (3) in the discharge of his duty." State v. Tinghitella, 108 Ariz. 1,4,491 P.2d 834, 837 (1972); State v. Fimbres, 20 Ariz. App. 65, 66, 510 P.2d64,65 (1973). The judge and clerks job duties are being violated and delayedby Heredia. Justice delayed is justice denied.

The elements of A.R.S. 13-2804. Tampering with a witness are;

A. A person commits tampering with a witness if such person knowinglyinduces a witness in any official proceeding or a person he believes may becalled as a witness to:

1. Unlawfully withhold any testimony; or

2. Testify falsely; or

3. Absent himself from any official proceeding to which he has been legallysummoned.

~. : The elements A.R.S. 13-2802. Influencing a witness are;

A. A person commits influencing a witness if such person threatens a witnessor offers, confers or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness in any officialproceeding or a person he believes may be called as a witness with intent to:

1. Influence the testimony of that person; or

2. Induce that person to avoid legal process summoning him to testify; or

3. Induce that person to absent himself from any official proceeding to whichhe has been legally summoned.

13-2810. Interfering with judicial proceedings; classification

The elements of A.R.S. 13-2802A person commits interferingwith judicial proceedings if such person knowingly:

6\\\DC - 9033418988 - ~488134 v4

1. Engages in disorderly, disrespectful or insolent behavior during the sessionof a court which directly tends to interrupt its proceedings or impairs therespect due to its authority; or

2. Disobeys or resists the lawful order, process or other mandate of a court; or

3. Refuses to be sworn or affirmed as a witness in any court proceeding; or

4. Publishes a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court proceeding; or

5. Refuses to serve as a juror unless exempted by law; or

6. Fails inexcusably to attend a trial at which he has been chosen to serve asa juror.

~..

Attached to this pleading are the police order by Heredia, mywritten response to him indicating his manipulation of two civil matters iscriminal along with a request for timely reply. I had an approximate 30 minuteconversation with Heredia's sergeant, who was very polite, took notes, but, didnot reverse or define the threats. I was on speakerphone so I believe theytaped the conversation or had witnesses present.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a continuance as he will face arrest if heattends court while the lawful police orders of Heredia are in place. I am not alawyer, so the legal expert would be Heredia in this matter. Additionally Irequest a bench order for the arrest of Heredia for violation of one or more ofthe above crimes and a order from the court prohibiting the Surprise Policefrom manipulating and threatening this or other civil matters I have filed or tobe filed by Nelson. Obviously, pursuant to the police order now controlling thiscase, I win be unable to serve the defendant The conduct of Heredia evenviolates his "so-called" victims rights by preventing service of this paper upondefendant.

Date: April 14, 20118y: _

Scott Huminski"

16. On the April 16, 2011 deadline set by Heredia, Huminski made call(s) toHeredia and other members of the Surprise Police. Huminski was advisedby colleagues of Heredia that no meeting would take place on the 16th. OnApril 16, 2011, Ruminski also emailed Heredia concerning the meeting

7\NlC • 90334IB988 - #1488134 \'4

mentioned in Heredia's no contact threat of the April 13, 2011 so Herediacould "hear" my side of the case and remove -the no contact order, the emailread;

"From: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]: RE: InterviewDate: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:38:04-0400

---: :

Please supply me with the phone # of who wishes to interview me so we canmake arrangements. Again attached are the emails of Mr. Nelson, probhibitedby lawful orders of Gilbert PO. Gilbert PO has impouned 12 emails andforwarded them to the prosecutor. Unfortunately for you, the policemisconduct (witness tampering, obstruction of justice, tampering with awitness,influencing a witness, interfering with judicial proceedings) will negateany proceedings originating from your corrupt office.

The word file has email attachments sent to heredia demanding he withdrawthreats against civil litigation. His voicemail message hours before the hearingshowed his full intent to violate the above-listed crimes and civil torts. - scotthuminski"

~ ..

Dated at Gilbert, Arizona, May 17, 2011

SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED to before me this 17th day of May, 2011

expo

"

0FFICIAl8EAl.MELINDA KlNGMIXAY

; IdHARY PU8l.tC - SIIIa of AIIIoII. MARICOM COUNTYIIr CoM. 14. 28118

\\\DC • 9033418988 • ;t1488134 ¥4

~I

Wmdows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 ofl

-1.

COLLECTION OF PAYMENT

~I

: ". . J MIchae1 •••••••• (imicbaelnelsonwrigmailc.mn).; Too 3/24/111:58 PM

scott huminslci ([email protected])

Scott,

Sometime within the next couple of days. I have somebody stopping by your place to pick up the moneyyou owe. IR!ally suggest. for your sake, that you have S2000 in hand and availab1e for immediaterelease. My collector tends to not be such a nice gUy when people start fucldng with him.

V ~\\~J)"'IC~

..,------- -,

,.~ ..

-----

l~avIff) flA-c,,,, r\ itl ct:+~lI~S

_ J

£06'1+. i.?

&(bfr Lfil'H!..

httn'/lhl1 ~w.hlu 148.mail.live.coinl~essages.aspx?cpids=4bl64088-5640-11e()..... 312412011

I rt!3)

Windows Live Hotmail Print Mes:sage PageI of~

.-1

CLARIFICATION

..~

-J Michael Nelson [email protected])Thu 3/24/111:59 PMscott huminski ([email protected])

You do understand that information is pJagansm only upon publication. and only when not properlydtec:l At this point. my writing is just that. not published, but now that you are publishing it on the web.under your name, without reference documentation, you are the one in fact committing ptagiarism.

like I have told you. Nothing is plagiarized. 1just withheld the reference documentation from you so it isuseless untUyou pay. You can argue your stupidity over and over, but I think at this point fa Jet the realattorney's determine the extent of ridiculous claims.

Furthermore. Barwould care less. since it has nothing to do with the book publishing. You can argue thisstupid point all day. AliI have to do is slap my reference page to the end and there is no plagarismmoron. I went to college forthis.. You spent two days in your usual haIf-coma attempting to findsomething to give yourself an advantage.. But I worked you from the start. have aDmy necessarydocumentation. emails, payments. and cormspondence. At the end of the day. you be tucked buddy!!

Again. as the proud new owner of -_I I am giving you first right of refusal to purchasefur. now $25.000. I suggest you buy it buddy. Really.I am only getting started.

Pay me my money Scott. or I wi" drag your Iong-haired ass into

. scott bumInsIci ([email protected])Thu 3/24/1110".38 [email protected]

Selling writing that has been plagiarized is mud. Wonder what the AZ bar thinks of suchconduct? With you being of an age where you seek work and possibly employmentFraud and plagiarism will not help your career if they pop up on a googIe search. Google onmy name. Iknow how to promote on the internet.

-- J MIchael Nelson (jmichaelnelsonwrites@gmailcom)Wed 3/2311111:39 PMscott huminski (s_huminslci@live,.com)

Scott

I wanted to darify the last email. What I am offering you is to sit downand wort this problem outwithout legalese and considerations. and without: involvement of attomey's before it becomes too tate.At the end, that is undoubtedly the best result for both parties. And if Jationality prevails in your thoughtProcess. there is no dispute 10 the logic. Once again, catl me at 623--217-3439. A personal conversationbetween us will remain unJeCorded. and confidential (you have my word under my legal fidudary duties).aO($ without legal interference..

Maybe it's time we both act like men, including me, who can settle our own dispute; what really amountsto a misunderstanding of communication and a minor dispute in the scope of content After anotherN-3t1lrl1MaI;.mtlmPnt nrnhAhlv~thinn WP rAn nvP!Tnmp withnut lPttinn \MMlflt<; ilnrl illtinp ••·rlpt"lnp

~I

Wmdows Live Ho1mail Print Message Page 2 of2

I..it for us. Really, haven't you had enough of rrtigation talk, especially when that is subject of the book tobegin with.

I am officially proposing that we take one more opportunity to remedy the situation without any futurelegal, and legal expense invotvement The worst thing that can happen is we end up exactty where we arenow. where we both stand to lose much more by letting lawyers make these decisions for us.

Please cafl me at 623-217-3439 but please make sure it is by like 3:00 tomorrow, so if we worlc somethingout 1can spend the next Ihr 1/2 cancelling my meeting. Seriously. Call me. rm not going to bite. Myprimary goal is to get this resotved, finished. published, and on a book sellers list without theinvolvement of attorneys and litigation court time, despite my harsh demands that are part of law schooltraining and have been beaten into me. (LiJce an involuntary defense mechanism).

Failure to respond is irresponsible at 1his point, and just p1ain chikflSh. so I really hope we can get beyond'that an come to an agneement before actions $pin out of control It is best for both parties, and from abusiness sense. You of all people should know that.

J. Michael Nelson

~.

,.

htfn=11h1148w.blul48.maiI.1ive.oomlmaWPrintMessages.aspx?q»ds=1337ff64-0fda-2ad4-6... 312412011

<@

~I

_I

Wmdows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of}

~I

_I

NOTIACATION OF ADomONAL BREACHOF CONTRAG~I

_I .J MkhMI tWson (jmichaelnelsonwrilesOgmaitcom)Mon 3!21/ll12.'03 PMscott huminski ([email protected])

~I

Scott Huminslci,

As a result of youdailure to communicate regarding the contfact cispute. I have been prevented frommy willing specific perfonnance underthe tenns of the contract Consequently. this is notification thatyou have committed an additional breach under the terms of the contract

For the foregoing reasons, this prqect is now complete.

"The doctrine of "substantial perfonnance" saves a party who has largely fulfiUed hisobligations under a contract from. suffi:ring nugor loss merely ~ he bas UDintentionallyfallen short in some particularwbich does not affect the essence of the contract. There has to bea limit to the quibbles of the dissatisfi~ customer or the courts would be swamped with trialsover precise shades of paint and tiny imperfections in services. A party am unintentionally fallshort of perfectio~ but ifhe has substant:iaJly performed his duties UDder the contract, he canstill sue the other party for pa.yment.~

As a result of my "substantial performance,," under 1be terms of the contract, I am including aninvoice in the amount ofS2000~ payable immediately and upon receipt of this notification.

This simply is not just going to go away now Scott. I have always been a:firm believer thatrevenge is a dish best served cold. Since. you're not man enough to deal with your breach andfix your own mistakes, which is comical because your so quieJc to hold everyone elseaccoun1able for theirs; you better find yourself a good lawyer,. one I'm not :friends with. I willsee to it, within the scope of the Jaw. that your book never gets into the public view withoutyour performance tmde- +I- ••""wd-r<tM

\i n {(/\ e.v CVl <) e..-

This is one last opportt e you hear from mewill be through a proce r---

1 \eML

~

'\Oe{l/.j / D Vl S

httn~/1h1148w.blul48.mail.1ive.comImaiJIPrlntMessages.aspx?cpids=dlal1e42-S3d4-11eO-... 312412011«:

~I

Wmdows Live Hotmail Print Message Page t ofl

_I

INTENTION TO PUBUSH

~I

J MidIHI Nelson (jmichaeIneIsonwrites@gmaitcom)Mon 3/21/116:47 PMscott huminski ([email protected]}

Scott Huminsici.

Consider this notice of my intent to publish information regarding your case. you personally, andprofessionally, in line with the accurate documentation I am now in possession of and the intellectualproperty which J continue to own. And this ain't going to be the story you wanted to tell buclc:o.~.

'.~,

J.Michael

--.:. "

,<. -l'

y.

/-httn·llhl148w.blul48.mail.Jive.comImaUlPrintMessages.aspx.?cpids=23039c25-S4Od~ lleO-... 3f24/2011

@J-

Wmdows Live Hotmail Print Message Page lof3_I

._i

_I FINAL INVOICE FOR PROJECT 374 COMPLETED UNDERSUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE -_I

,-1

-'

J Michael Nelson [email protected])Mon 3/21/11 7:01 PMscott huminski ([email protected])

9 attachments

PROOF Of ACCEPTANCE

In adcfftion to meticulous contractual doaJrnentation, you have also show your intent to accept each ofthe mitestones through payments via check; cash. and paypal. Furthermore,. I have no less 7S emails fromdetailing your acceptance and rejection of certain parts of the content. along with your sent baderevisions that you personafly did. approwd. and returned to me for final com!ction.

ANYQUESTlONS- call a Jawyer.

-.. J Michael Nelson ([email protected])Mon 3/21/11 6;43 PMscott huminsld ([email protected])

.• :.1

"-

l.

L

1..~.In..l1 A~ 1-.1•• l.jl m~i11i-.comImai1JPrintMessiq[es.aspx?cpi~1337606c-e6bc-2950-... 312412011

~

Wmdow& Live Ro1mail Print Message Page2of3

_IThat is just funny as fuck buddy!! You really are dumber than you ~ which l1hought was impossible.You haYe approved all milestones up to this date. by Yirtue of your acceptanCer payment. and a fluny ofsnails it1ustrcding your •• eptance. There is no pIagiaIislii. besides what you demanded. requested, andultimately accepted as final product Good Luck With That One :)

Havea cMI case being prepared for you already buddy. I heard you were at home and answered yourmagic jack line a while ago when my friend called to confinn the number_

_I

~I-

Also, want to confirm some other infonnation of yours so I have the proper people to contact whennecessary. Let me know ifrro forgetting anyone.

•~ ,SCott Huminski SSN# 045-40-4327Dana E.(Barry) Huminski SSNI 048-66-03482624 S. Bahama Dr.Gilbert. AZ 8529S

Mother. Eleanor BIotney-Huminski (Deceased)Father: Theodore Huminski (Oeceased)Brother: Bruce Hume -~- f51ft e C; __ ~Sister-in-law: Eileen Cahill '- e!l t;8Jtif INephew: Christopher Hume INiece; Jufumna Hume

(T

Once again. you have naIired the ~ 21 Invoke. You have 10 days to •••• payment in full. orthings are going to gat....., ugIy• ...tfyfast... Once again. this is not ~

---'- scott humInsId ([email protected])Mon 3J2l1ll6:16 [email protected]

.X \1VO{vt9V7e fl. r6-t-

10 ~d /3 ,7ec..vo/)/

Ch(fdv~n

In additionglance at the00.00Jdyour-

J M"1Chael Nelson

Please note I have confirmed overthere are huge eIl'OIS and omissiorsupportive materials I supplied toeffi::ctive immediately. Y(JU fiIiJeIrefusal to read the supportive ma1

Scott Humjnski

J MIchael Nelson (jmichaeIBMon 312l/lll2:13 PMscott huminski (s_huminsfci@1attachment

----Scott Huminski;

Final Invoke. Payment due upon receipt. Make payment within 10 days to avoid further collections

htfn·JJhll d.Rwhln 1d.ltmmUive..comlmailJPrinessaRes.aspx?cPids=1337606c-e6bc-29S()..... 312412011

@

Wtndows Live HotmaJl Print MessagePage30f3

/_1

.Iproceedings.

J. Michael ~Ison

I~

bttn:l1b1148w.blul48.mail.live.comImaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=1337606c-e6bc-29SO-_. 312412011

~

_____I

_I WIndows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1ofl

CONDO #

.,. J MIchael Nelson (inlichaeIneIsonwJiiJ.com)Mon 3/21/11 7:21 PMscott huminsld ([email protected])

I.~--

Scott.

It would really be helpful if you went ahead and gave me the condo number to effect process of service.That will save me. and ultimately you. the cost of having an investigator camp-out outside your address,and save you the ~ feeling of knowing you're ~ watched.

Justin

bttn'/lhl t4Jtw.htu 148.mailJive.c:omImailIPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=f068fea8-5411- t 1eO-9.__ 312412011

. @:'~. l:t- I V

/"""'1

~I

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page J of!

JUST TRYING TO Her ELP YOU OUT

I..

J MIcbeeI Nelson (jmichaeInelsonwrites@gmailcom).- Wed 3/23/11 9"37 PM

scott huminsfci ([email protected])

You know, this type of stuff is never fun for me, unless it's someone else's problem I remedying. I havegiven you every opportunity to caD me with a proposition of any kind to remedy the current breaches- Iwould personally prefer to see all of this go MaY. induding the legalese. and finish this goddamn bookthat I have put the last 6 months of my life into. You on the other hand. post breach, have made noattempts to remedy. up to and including your Saturday posting for a ghostwriter on CraigsftSt Tucson,that for some reason you appanmtly think I would not find (don't care really, post it in Phoenix,youwoo't get a shred of quality out ofTuc::son).l know you are smart enough to know that this is not goingto bode well for' any arguments you maIee.

At the end of the day. this could get ugly and expensive for one or both of us, which isreally unnecessary.However, the further I continue to move down the legal track. the harder it becomesto remedy without legal ruling and instruction.

~:

-- ...

You spent 8years screwing up your dreams fighting a monster in Vennont.. But the monster here is muchlarger, making that look like a precursor. That's not a threat. but it's a reality between east coast andwest coast law. The law worIcs different here, and multiple incoherent motions and briefs Will just get youthrown in the dink for contempt in wasting the courts time. This is the wild-wild-west. As an adversary,but also from a guy who recog~ the dream you hold most dear. rm now about to start crashingdown around you. That is never what iwanted. continue to have regrets about how this went down hillso rapidly so close to the end. and truly' hope this thing doesn't wind up in a long fought court battfemaking everyone I know rich.while we get poor and your stofy never gets out how you want it to.

Opportunity for both to be reasonable and avoid adcfttionallegaf involvement. Call me.

J. Michael Nelson

T0yec.+s

ly"s v \t5 -t-6. 1\e."-

)l1t<2.5Y"17of JAz-(Cults

-'

~.-Windows Live Rotman Print Message Page 1 ofl

J.SCOTTHUMINSKlCOM

_I J Mk:haeI Nelson ([email protected])Wed 3/23/1110:45 PMscott hLiminski (s_huminski@/ive.com)

Scott,

..Almost forgot. I am the proud new owner of the web domain • Since the nameof this domain purd\ase coinddentally·coincides with you legal name. under ICANN law, 1am offeringyou first right of refusal to purchase said domain. Prk¥ to my own website design. or in the alternative,selling the domain to an interested third party.

lam offering· -:-. '.:..:. .. -. for sale in the amount 01$20.000. however I am open to limitednegotiation.

Please contact J. Michael Nelson. domain owner. at 623-211-3439 to make daim to the domain by wayof monetary offer. Failure to respond within 3 days constitutes a forfeit of daim, legal rights, and futurelegal claim or recourse for content available on

J. Michael Nelson

Lhfm/lhl148w.bIul48.mailJiw.com/uJaiIIPrint?cpids=c655d6e4-S5cO-1leO-... 3t2412011rB'

L

W'mdows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1on

INVITATION

r,/

J MIchael Nelson OmichaeJneJsonwrites@gmailcom}Wed 3/23/118:53 PMscott huminski ([email protected])

Scott,.

Consider this a friendly notification and opportunity to remedy the multiple breaches of contract law,and violations of IP law that you are currently compncit in.

!

.. Tomorrow. I am going to be meeting with five private ~ friends of mine, plus one MaricopaCounty Deputy Prosecutor. my former Contracts professor who used to do contract negotiations withplayers agents for the.Arlmna Carotnals (until she married a coach). my former Constitutional Lawprofessor and Justice on the Arizona Supreme Court. and a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge. Canyou guess what ifs about? Yup. that's right ---- YOU! Well. and maybe a rtttfe happy hour reunion...

To show you how confident I am that I am going to run you through a ringer tighter than Vermont orany other'non-wild west state like Arizona could ever conceive at consid« this my invitation for you tojoin us. ~ long as you bring your dleckbook. This is informal. meaning this can go away tomorrowbefore it becomes to late. We are meeting at Postino's at 40th St/ cameIbadc at 4:30_ rll even buy yourfirst round. but dn!SS appropriately. No wife-beateB or dir1y T-shirts with ratty hair and food on yourface like usual.

Keep in mind though. these people won't be worlcing for free. at least not where you're concerned, somake sure you have more than the $2000. that you currently owe me available in your account. As oftomorrow. with legal fees, that number will begin going up at a rate like the national debt. Please RSVP ifyou plan "toattend. If you show up unannounced without prior notification. I wiNbe forced to consider itan attempt to staUt and harass. while potentially tJying to intimidate adversarial counsel. incluamgcertain above mentioned attendees that are fully protected under Arizona Lawas State Officials. LawEnforcement 0fficiaJs. and Public FIgUreS.

RSVPvia email by l2:OOpm (Noon). March 24, 2011.

J. Michael Nelsont hl t-C-.+9 - De (V5'f 0 tI).)

p~)C~P+I'oV\6 ~ GtI'f4 v1 J

5 t: J f~~vvrpv ytCt Vi( e~ {JtJ0e/

·Cordially,

----------

•••••• /1h•• 4"- ••••• "" _1_.r.nmInwllPrimM~1ea524l18-55b1-1IeO-_. 3I24J201@

~i

~I

Wmdows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 ofl

-' INTENT TO NOTIFY ALL PARTIES IN PUBUCA nON

~I

o • ° J MIchael tWsan (jmicbaeIneIson@gmailcom)Mon 3!2l/ll 9-.26PMscott huminski ([email protected])

Scott Huminsld.

.I It is my pleasure to notify you that I have begun tracking down each and evel)' person mentionedanywhele throughout the COUfSeof this book. I have also begun to initiate contact with all them. fromHoward Dean himself, to Corsones, Zimmerman, Bride. w~ Sorrell. etc_ They wiDall be receiving acopy of what has been written of the book. along with an update ofwhat you have been up to here inArizona. Count on me being in contact with each one personally by the end of the week. I can be prettypersuasive.

Moreover, 1 have also put a call into United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Sotomayor's law deri<,who is in my Jegal fraternity (Phi Alpha OeItal to notify them otyour Willful intention to defame JusticeSotomayor through the language in the book. through your email demands. and through other meansthat have currently been published, ie.- -Scott X Huminski: Banned From Courthouses For Life BySotomayor. • available onUne at

You wanted some attention, now you're going to get!

Cheers,J. Michael Nelson

~.

0/-0",

h«n-/ih11_.ht1l148.mai~I_S423_lleO- ... 312412011~

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 ofl

(No Subject)~. J Michael Nelson [email protected]}Thu 3124!U 1:43 PMscott huminski ([email protected])

Forget the $2000. Hell. forget the $10.000. Podcet change. This is all principle. directly resulting from theWIlY you spoke to me. And this suit is going to irwolve a whole lot more than $2000. You also put thecanot out for"a bonus which you effectiIIeIy prevented from mmpIeIion (l want that too), fm also filingan injunction against you to prohibit publication of my intellectual propety. and. I have already servedyou notice to remove aU content off the web. which you have not done yet. and I will subsequently bemaking a daim for willful plagiarism and copyright infringement for publ"JShingunauthQrized contentowned my me. You're going to need more than $2.000. trust me.

•~

.-.r-

Forget the money, exacting reYenge against people that fuck me ewer is my life. That's why I went to lawschool dummy.

scott huminsId ([email protected]>Thu 3/24fll 7:16 AMjmichaelnelsorMrites@gmaitcom

for $2000, time for someone 10get a life.

\\[ J"XCilTit11

Whr .~~

Tv L-O{-wJ Michael Nelson (jmichaelnelsonwr~mail.com)

:";~' Wed 3!231l111:08 PMscott huminski ([email protected])

;.-.

You do understand 1have more legal professionals working on thislegal professionals put together in BenningtOn. 1don't know if you jif you are just caught up in your pride and ego. Maybe we bath arelose, and rm just a sadistic fuck. J am a master of dealing with othene - -.- . - nagine y«

:; /]l ::,~e::1.~rec;:;n==e::~;fu;----Ill) I iSion so we can get this book into marketwi1 Ie messy for both either way. .

SA J.'l S--}; L

\\F~1 X II~

Sheriff Arpaio's top friend and advisor - Death threats, terrorism and other crimes

Documents

Transcript of Sheriff Arpaio's top friend and advisor - Death threats, terrorism and other crimes