10-02-12 Huminski v Rutland Police Department et al (1:99-cv-160)at the US District Court, Vermont: False Memo and Order- served with no NEF at all-s

8/9/2019 10-02-12 Huminski v Rutland Police Department et al (1:99-cv-160)at the US District Court, Vermont: False Memo and Order- served with no NEF at all-s

1/11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONTScot t Huminski

Pla in t i f f ,v.

Rutland C ity P oliceDepartment , Rutland CountyShe r i f f ' s Department , Townof Rutland, Unnamed Memberso f the Rutland CountyShe r i f f ' s Department ,Unnamed Rutland Pol iceO ffic er , S ta te o f Vermont,Nancy Corsones, KarenPredom, Vermont Sta tePol ice , Unnamed VermontSta te Pol ice Off icer ,Rutland Dis t r i c t Court ,

Fi le No. 1:99-CV-160

Digitally signed by

Joseph Zernik

DN: cn=Joseph

Zernik, o, ou,

email=jz12345@e

arthlink.net, c=US

Date: 2010.05.12

15:25:54 +03'00'


2/11

i s t h e re fo re void . Huminski has a l so f i l ed a motion fo rrecusa l and a motion to vaca te a Se t t l ement Agreement en te redi n t o with one of the defendants in 2005.

Also pending befo re the Cour t i s a motion from a t h i r dpar ty , Joseph Zernik , compla in ing about the Cour t ' s use ofe l ec t ron i c no t i ces . For the reasons s e t fo r th below,H minsk i ' s and Zern ik ' s motions a re DENIED.

Fac tua l BackgroundHuminski i n i t i a t e d t h i s case in 1999, a l l eg ing F i r s t

Amendment v io l a t i ons by var ious s t a t e ac to r s , i nc lud ing twos t a t e cou r t judges . The judges were subsequent ly dismissed


3/11

f i l i n g by a Deputy S t a t e s Attorney on September 30, 1997.(Paper 326-2) . The f i l i n g was made i n Huminski 's c r i m i n a l

c a s e , and was i n response t o a motion t o d i s m i s s . The passagei n q u e s t i o n s t a t e s :

The l a s t c l a i m involves a s t a t e m e n t made t o[Huminski 's] a t t o r n e y Capriola warning t h a t thedefendant would be ch arg ed w ith a d d i t i o n a l crimes ifhe d i d not calm down. The s t a t e m e n t i s a r e f e r e n c et o the d e f e n d a n t ' s cont inued har as sment o f thev i c t i m and t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r i n t h i s caseth rough t h e c o u r t p r o c e s s . The defendant has f i l e da c i v i l a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e v i c t i m because of h i sp a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s c ri m i n a l c a s e . The S t a t e i sc u r r e n t l y reviewing a contempt charge a g a i n s t t h ed ef enda nt b ec au se o f t h i s a c t i v i t y . The sta tementwas a p r o p e r warning made th rough d e f e n d a n t ' sr e p r e s e n t a t i v e .


4/11

[W]hat we're contemplat ing i s t h a t Mr. Huminski wi l ldismiss ce r ta in c i v i l ac t ions t h a t he has pendingaga ins t the v ic tim in t h i s case .[F ] i r s t of a l l , th e suggest ion for t h i s did not comefrom th e State , it came from me. I f it had comefrom the State , I th ink it would have d i f f e r en te th i ca l ob l iga t ions . What I have t r i ed to do i sre turn th e s i tua t ion to a l eve l -p l ay ing f i e ld and al eve l of d iss ipa t ing energ ies r a the r thanconcent ra t ing them.And so the spec i f i c agreement would be my c l i en twould fo r thwi th move to dismiss t h r ee l awsu i t swithout p r e j u d i c e . [T]he contempla teds i t u a t i on i s t h a t if the Sta t e were to break i t sagreement and br ing a charge in the fu ture fo ranything t h a t they know now to him, he couldre ins t a t e h is c i v i l su i t s . I f he re ins t a t e s th ec i v i l su i t s without - the Sta t e then i s f ree to comeback to cour t and br ing any charges it fee l s areappropr ia te .


5/11

60(b) (4) . A judgment i s void "only if the cour t t h a t renderedit lacked j u r i sd ic t ion of th e sub jec t mat ter , o r of thepa r t i e s , o r if it ac ted in a manner i ncons i s t en t with dueprocess of law. u Grace v. Bank Leumi Trus t Co. of New York,443 F.3d 180 ,193 (2d Cir . 2006) ( in t e rna l quota t ion marks andc i t a t i on s omi t ted) ; see also Kalb v. Feuers te in , 308 U.S. 433,438 (1939) (a judgment i s void only if it i s to ta l ly beyond acour t ' s power to render) ; United Sta t e s v . B erenguer, 821 F.2d19, 22 (1s t Ci r . 1987) ( the concept o f void judgments i snarrowly construed) .

Here, Huminski does not claim t h a t the Court lacked


6/11

case , Huminski has f a i l ed to car ry h is burden under Rule60(b) (4) . The motion fo r Rule 60 (b) (4) r e l i e f (Paper 326) i st he re fo re DENIED.I I . Motion For Recusal

Huminski has also asked the Cour t to recuse i t s e l f ,claiming t h a t i t s ru l ings have "ac t ive ly endorsed" and" ignored" the t h r ea t of prosecu t ion by the Deputy Sta t e ' sAttorney in 1997. He a l so a l l eges tha t , in a recent ru l ing ,the Cour t c i t ed only pa r t o f the Deputy Sta t e ' s Attorney ' sf i l i ng , thereby "downplay[ing] the se rious nature of th ewri t t en t h r e a t . " ( P a p e r 341 a t 1) . The por t ion c i ted


7/11

United Sta te s , 473 F.3d 493, 495-96 (2d Cir . 2007). As ar e su l t , " [ j ] ud i c i a l ru l ings a lone almost never cons t i t u t e ava l id bas i s fo r a bias or pa r t i a l i t y motion." Liteky, 510u.S. a t 555.

Huminski contends t h a t th e Court has d ec lin ed toacknowledge the th rea t s made by prosecu to rs , as a l legedlydemonstrated in a recen t ru l ing denying him Rule 60(b) (4)r e l i e f . See Hum in ski v. Town of Bennington, Fi l e No. 1:98-CV-17 (Paper 191) . He argues , in conclusory fashion, t ha t theCour t ' s ru l ing shows e i t he r a con f l i c t , a "cogni t ived i sab i l i t y " or a "charac te r d iso rder . " (Paper 341 a t 2 ) .


8/11

n e g o t i a t i o n s , d i s c u s s i o n s and a l l o t h e r a c t s a n c i l l a r y o rc o l l a t e r a l t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . u (Paper 342 a t 1 ) . Again, hec i t e s t h e f i l i n g s by t h e Deputy S t a t e ' s Attorney i n 1997, andcla ims t h a t a l l s e t t l e m e n t s and o t h e r " a c t s U a r i s i n g out oft h i s case have been " su b j e c t t o the above t h r e a t . U rd . a t 12. "Any s e tt le m e n t d i s c u s s i o n s or s e t t l e m e n t agreements wereundertaken with t h e above t h r e a t a g a i n s t Huminski pendings u b j e c t i n g him t o a r r e s t f o r engaging i n s e t t l e m e n td i s c u s s i o n s or agreements which are a c t s [ s i c ] p a r t of t h i sl i t i g a t i o n and a c t s f u r t h e r i n g t h i s l i t i g a t i o n t h e r e f o r eforbidden by the S t a t e t h r e a t and S t a te p o l i c y . u rd . a t 2.

When


9/11

t h i s case . S e e , ~ , Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Both the p l a i n t i f fand the defendants oppose the app l ica t ion . The app l ica t ion(Paper 344) i s therefo re DENIED.v. Motion To Consol ida te

Ruminski has moved to conso l ida te t h i s case w ith theabove-mentioned Ruminski v. Town of Bennington. Theunder lying fac t s and ques t ions of law in the two cases a red i s t i nc t . The only commona li ty be tween the two i s t h a tRuminski i s the p l a i n t i f f , and t ha t he i s asking fo r r e l i e ffrom judgment on s imi l a r grounds in both cases .

Consol ida t ion i s a mat ter of cour t di sc re t ion . In reOlsten Corp. Sec. Li t i g . , 3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 292 (E.D.N.Y.


10/11

ConclusionFor the reasons s e t fo r th above, Huminski 's motion to

conso l ida te (Paper 325), motion fo r F i r s t Amendment Rule60 (b) (4) r e l i e f (Paper 326), motion fo r r ecusa l (Paper 341),and motion to vacate "Set tl emen ts , Nego ti at ion s, Discuss ionsand A ll O ther A cts Anc i l l a r i or Col la t e ra l to t h i s Li t iga t ion"(Paper 342) are DENIED. Huminski 's motion fo r l imi teddi scovery (Paper 350) i s DENIED as moot. Joseph Zern ik ' s expar te f i l i ng (Paper 344) i s DENIED, and defendant Rut landCounty ' s motion fo r ex te ns io n of t ime (Paper 332) i s GRANTEDnunc pro tunc .


11/11

O F F IC E O F T H E C L E R KITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

P.O. B O X 9 4 SB U R L IN G T O N , V E R M O N T 0 5 4 0 2 0 9 4 5

O FFIC IAL BUSINESS

Joseph Zernik1853 Foothill Blvd.La Verne, CA 91750

045J83072257 WC)$1.22QII0 enc. 0Ql 02/12/2010 ll .c

enMailed From05702 ::::>

Documents

10-02-12 Huminski v Rutland Police Department et al (1:99-cv-160)at the US District Court, Vermont: False Memo and Order- served with no NEF at all-s