Scott Huminski v. Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott – Corruption Case


Like us on Facebook
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Youtube
Follow us on Youtube
RSS
Follow by Email

by Kyle James LeeCreative Commons / The AEGIS Alliance

The AEGIS Alliance encourages the US Government and others to investigate this case. Case number 17-MM-000815 in the Lee County Clerk of Courts

(The AEGIS Alliance) – This is according to a complaint filed by Scott Huminski against LCSO Sheriff Mike Scott of Lee County Florida on October 13th of 2017. Here is a Download of all court documents obtained by The AEGIS Alliance, free of viruses.

Scott Huminski is a citizen-reporter and activist who resides in Bonita Springs, Florida. The complaint says “See Generally, Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2005)”. His writings criticize Sheriff Mike Scott, and Huminski had emailed his writings to prospective candidates for Sheriff who are LCSO employees and likely to run for office as is the custom for sheriff candidates in Florida (to be deputies prior to seeking office). The Sheriff silenced criticism of himself by requesting and obtaining a gag order concerning Huminski’s reportage to political opponents of the Sheriff. An abuse of power to wrongfully gain advantage in his political goals.

Sheriff Scott chose to silence Huminski’s criticism and to deny Huminski of all public safety services in retaliation for Huminski’s core protected political speech. Sheriff Scott applied for a court protective order which forbids “contact and communication” with the Sheriff and all employees of the LCSO. The Sheriff’s request for a protective order was granted by Judge Krier in April, 2017. See attached. Huminski can not report a crime to the only police agency with jurisdiction in Bonita Springs. This is evidenced in 911 tapes on 9/23 and 9/24 when Huminski was the victim of property crimes and assault. Withholding service is another technique of the Sheriff to retaliate against his critics for political gain.

The protective order crafted by the Sheriff is absolute and has zero exemptions to its sweeping effectiveness, silencing critic Huminski and denying him public safety services.

Huminski is a witness in matters pending before the Circuit and County courts in Fort Myers. The Sheriff’s protective order forbids Huminski’s participation in court matters as Huminski must contact and interact with security screeners that are LCSO employees and courthouse deputies stationed at the courtrooms. Sheriff Scott’s obtaining a protective order prohibiting Huminski’s participation as a witness constitutes criminal obstruction of justice, witness intimidation and witness tampering. Huminski is prohibited from attending hearings that he is a party to – also obstruction of justice. These crimes under State and Federal law are related to corrupt manipulation of the courts by the Sheriff to advance his political agenda and gain advantage in elections.

Silencing dissent to fix elections and further political ambitions is conduct typical of unethical conduct usually associated with a police state.

Sheriff Scott was served by the federal court with a Notice of Commencement of Bankruptcy on or about 4/30/2017, In Re: Scott Huminski, and his status as “pro se” in the case was noticed by the federal court.

The conduct of Sheriff Scott constitutes criminal obstruction of justice, witness intimidation and tampering in violation of State and Federal criminal codes. Specifically, the order obtained by Sheriff Scott forbade service of the Sheriff in a matter pending before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and specified by Bankruptcy Rule 9027. Sheriff Scott was listed as “pro se” in the bankruptcy proceedings. Under Rule 9027, Huminski was mandated to serve the Sheriff with federal removal papers. Because of the
Sheriff’s protective order, Huminski’s service of the Sheriff under federal court rules was criminally obstructed by the shield erected by the Sheriff set forth in his protective order. Sheriff Scott’s order makes him litigation-proof to further his political ambitions and at the same time excludes Huminski from the Lee County Courthouse regarding matters not related to the Sheriff and those related to the Sheriff.

Huminski and the 20th Circuit State’s Attorney stipulated to narrowly-tailor another order of Judge Krier that was not requested by Sheriff Scott although it did contain the same draconian terms as the Sheriff’s protective order and Chief County Judge Hon. James Adams signed that order. The identical order requested by Sheriff Scott still exists and is active per order of Sheriff Scott. See Attached.

Access to public safety for Huminski constitutes the crime of criminal contempt, a charge Huminski is facing at this time for merely reporting crime to the LCSO and Sheriff Scott. Being charged with a crime for simply reporting a crime to Sheriff Scott exemplifies the complete denial of public safety services engineered by the Sheriff.

The Sheriff’s desire to undermine federal Bankruptcy law with knowledge of a matter pending where he was listed as pro se constitutes clear intent to obstruct federal law and federal court proceedings. A State Sheriff can not endeavor to undermine laws and court rules enacted by the United States congress. This is not only abuse of power, in the context of Huminski’s Bankrupcty case, it is criminal. Huminski also filed 2 motions for orders to show cause against the Sheriff in bankruptcy court whereby service upon Sheriff Scott was obstructed by his protective orders.

The threats of arrest/prosecution embodied in the Sheriff’s protective order obstructs and prevents Huminski from meaningful participation in cases he has pending in Circuit Court and County Court in Lee County. This interference, intimidation, tampering and obstruction by Sheriff Scott is criminal.

The abuse of the power of his office to make himself litigation-proof is an item of great pecuniary value. Leverage of his position to influence the courts to enter rulings of great monetary value to the Sheriff is an abuse of power. Denial of public safety services to Huminski in retaliation for criticism is similarly corrupt.

Then, according to emails sent to Attorney Neymotin from Scott Huminski:

Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 11:04 AM
Hi Atty Neymotin,

Your office is responsible for handling this criminal appeal/petition. This is a criminal contempt case assigned to Z. Miller of your office. This appeal arises directly out of the criminal matter assigned to your office. I must also inform you that I am receiving ineffective assistance of counsel in the underlying criminal matter. The criminal case was pending in the Circuit Court for several months and then was “transferred” to County Court.

Please assign an attorney who knows the below law to my case and assign your appellate people to the appeal. See 2DCA docket below. The criminal case is frivolous and the order involved that I allegedly violated are patently unconstitutional and mandate surrender of constitutional rights — exceptions to the Collateral Bar Rule, that your office has ignored.

THERE IS NO STATUTE, COURT RULE OR FL AUTHORITY THAT PROVIDES FOR A TRANSFER BETWEEN CIRCUIT AND COUNTY COURTS. YOUR OFFICE’S FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THIS FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IS WASTING THE TIME OF ALL AND CONSTITUTES CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND wastes judicial resources.

Please recuse off this case if you do not have the staff expertise to handle the issues. Mr. Miller refuses to file motions I have requested based upon the above and other issues. — scott huminski

Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 11:11 AM
Hi Atty Neymotin,

Atty Miller lied to me after the hearing on his motion to recuse. He stated that your office would participate in the pending petition in the 2DCA, 2D17-4740. Lying undermines the attorney/client relationship. — scott huminski

December 20, 2017 11:20 AM
Hi Atty Neymotin,

Your office has performed zero work on the criminal matter and refuses anything and everything I have requested in support of my defense. Assign a different attorney or recuse your off the case. You are still responsible for the 2DCA matter.

Neglect of a legal matter entrusted to your office is an ethical violation. — scott huminski

Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 12:54 PM
Hi Atty Neymotin,

Your office has advised me to violate the Orders of Judge Krier. The protective order entered by Judge Krier prevents any contact with the Sheriff or his staff. As such, it is criminal contempt for me to interact with court security screeners and bailiffs at the lee court.

Advising me to violate the orders of the Circuit Court is unethical. With that in mind, what is your office’s advice for the hearing tomorrow concerning my attendance?

Do i not attend and risk a bench warrant or attend and risk a contempt charge? — scott huminski

Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 1:54 PM

The Sheriff obstructed service in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (a unit of U.S. District Court), obstructed service in the 2DCA 2D17-4740, obstructed my attendance at a hearing in 17-CA-421 and is engaging in ongoing obstruction in 17-MM-815.

The sheriff procured a protective order for him and his staff that prohibits contact or communication. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. As such I am banished from the Lee Court complex in violation of Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2005). This and other issued are exhaustively documented in the below papers filed in the 2DCA.

by Kyle James LeeCreative Commons / The AEGIS Alliance

Like us on Facebook
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Youtube
Follow us on Youtube
RSS
Follow by Email
The following two tabs change content below.
Kyle James Lee is the Majority Partnership holder of AEGIS Alliance, The. He studied in college for Media Arts & Game Development. Talents include Writer, Graphic Design, Web Design, Owner/Operator of FB.ME/AEGISAlliance , and Video Editing.

One comment

Leave us a comment!