J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California October 14, 2022
Ban From
Courthouse Lifted
Although we aren't the first to post this article, we do so now, a week late due to our email overload. Our congratulations to Scott Huminski, one of our JAILers, who was fortunate enough to reach a court that has respect for the First Amendment-- a rare find today! Yes, we do acknowledge that there are still some honest judges out there, as this ruling shows. Even honest judges should welcome J.A.I.L. for the sake of constitutional integrity of the system. -Barbie-
2nd Circuit: Vermont gadfly
wrongly barred from courthouse
By The Associated
Press
10.08.04
MONTPELIER, Vt. - In a decision that breaks new ground
in declaring a First Amendment right for an individual to visit a courthouse, a
federal appeals court ruled yesterday that Vermont officials violated the
Constitution when they barred a gadfly from the courthouse in
Rutland.
Scott Huminski, then of Bennington, parked his van outside the
building that houses the Vermont District Court in Rutland on May 24, 1997, the
van plastered with signs harshly criticizing Judge Nancy Corsones, one of the
judges presiding that day. One of the signs called her a "butcher of
the
Constitution."
Corsones and other officials had earlier received
letters of outrage from
Huminski about her handling of a criminal case he had
in Bennington County when she was presiding there.
"As it is the policy
of the State of Vermont to encourage and allow crimes
to be committed against
myself and my wife without fear of prosecution I
must take the law into my
own hands and initiate activities that will get
national media attention,"
Huminski wrote in one letter. "When the smoke
clears, the nation will wonder
what went wrong in Vermont."
Worried that Huminski might be planning
violence, Corsones conferred with other courthouse officials, and another judge
issued a no-trespass order against Huminski barring him from courthouses and
their grounds throughout the state. That triggered the more-than-seven-year
legal battle that produced yesterday's decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals in New York City.
The court, ruling in Huminski
<http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:81/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf> v. Corsones, reinstated a lower
court's injunction that ordered the Vermont court officials to lift the
no-trespass order, saying the order violated Huminski's First Amendment rights
to free
expression.
It found that Huminski had never acted out in the
courts before, and it
raised the suspicion that Huminski's exclusion from
court property was less for security concerns than because the judges and court
officials didn't want to hear what he had to say.
"There are facts on the
record that might raise the concern that Huminski
was, at least in part,
being punished for his political protests, or being
prevented from continuing
them," by his exclusion from court property, the court said.
The appeals
court said Rutland County Sheriff R.J. Elrick, Corsones and the judge who issued
the no-trespass order, M. Patricia Zimmerman, were immune from paying damages.
The court reasoned that judges need to be able to protect themselves from
unhappy defendants.
"A judge cannot be expected regularly and
dispassionately to make decisions adverse to overtly hostile parties if
subsequent actions to protect herself, her staff, and those in her courthouse
from such hostility may result in the rigors of defending against - and even the
possibility of losing - lengthy and costly litigation," the three-member circuit
court panel said.
But it said they were not immune from a court
injunction ordering them to
lift the no-trespass order against
Huminski.
Many of the court-access cases in the past have involved
members of the
press complaining that they were improperly barred from
courtrooms. But the appeals court said that even if he were not working for an
established media outlet, Huminski had the same right of access as a
citizen.
"We make no distinction in our analysis between those who can
legitimately assert that they are entitled to protection under the First
Amendment's press clause and those who cannot," the court said.
Robert
Corn-Revere, a Washington lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases and
who has handled Huminski's case, said yesterday's decision "points out that all
the previous decisions really relate to members of the press and to the right of
the people on trial to have the public present."
A ruling that an
individual has a First Amendment right to enter the
courthouse merely out of
curiosity or because he wants to monitor the
activities of a judge he
believes is unjust is "a new statement of law in
that regard," Corn-Revere
said.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who
is
striking at the
root."
-- Henry David Thoreau <><