|
Man
Who Called Judge a Legal 'Butcher' Settles Lawsuit Ending a long-running legal
battle, a former Rutland County sheriff has agreed to pay more than
$500,000 in legal fees, expenses and damages to an outspoken court
critic from Bennington, according to a final settlement in the case. http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061223/NEWS/612230336 State Will Pay Court Protester $200,000 By Alan J. Keays By Douglas Lee In these days of ever-more-frequent gag orders, closed courtrooms and sealed court files, the First Amendment sometimes seems like an ineffective weapon in the battle for access to the courts. Scott Huminski therefore deserves some credit. Armed with only the First Amendment, Huminski recently overcame security concerns, judges’’ natural inclination to support other judges and his own over-the-top speech to help clearly establish the First Amendment right of non-parties to attend civil court proceedings. In Huminski v. Corsones, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month held that the First Amendment prevented Vermont court officials from barring Huminski from their proceedings. The court also ruled that the officials violated Huminski’’s First Amendment rights when they prohibited him from expressing his views about the judicial system on court property. Especially when compared to other recent access decisions —— the order in the Michael Jackson case preventing spectators from talking in the courtroom before and during breaks in hearings, for example —— the decision in Huminski is a clear victory for the First Amendment. While the First Amendment rights of the media and the public to attend criminal and civil trials have long been established, the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed whether an individual who is the sole person being excluded from a proceeding can assert a First Amendment violation. Moreover, the only federal circuit court precedent relating to the issue —— the 10th Circuit’’s 1997 decision in United States v. McVeigh —— contains language suggesting that the First Amendment is implicated only when a trial court order denies access to the public at large. Nevertheless, the 2nd Circuit had little difficulty concluding that Huminski possessed a First Amendment right to attend court hearings. Most important in its analysis, the court said, was the fact that the First Amendment is designed to guarantee individual rights. Moreover, the 2nd Circuit noted, the public’’s right of access would be irreparably undermined if courts could selectively deny access to individuals. Finally, the court said, ""the system of public justice depends on the willingness and ability of individual persons and entities to police the system by seeking access —— through litigation if necessary —— to courtrooms and court records that have been closed."" The right of access, however, is not absolute and can be denied if the government demonstrates that the denial is necessitated by a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The 2nd Circuit therefore was required to review the elaborate factual history of the case to determine whether the court officials’’ denial of Huminski’’s access met that standard. As described by Judge Robert Sack, who wrote the 2nd Circuit’’s opinion, Huminski is ""a long- time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media."" From early 1997 through May 24, 1999, Huminski’’s focus had been the Bennington District Court in Bennington, Vt. On about 30 occasions during that period, he parked his van, which was laden with signs critical of the court, in areas adjacent to the courthouse and other public venues. Huminski encountered no opposition to his signs or to his frequent presence at the courthouse. On May 24, 1999, Huminski drove his van to the Rutland District Court in Rutland, Vt., where Judge Nancy Corsones was presiding. Huminski had been particularly critical of Corsones, who had ruled against him in a criminal matter in Bennington in 1997. In September 1998, Huminski complained about Corsones in letters to several Vermont public officials. In at least two of those letters, Huminski threatened to take the law into his own hands and to ""initiate activities that will get national media attention."" Concerned about the 1993 bombings at the World Trade Center and at the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, law enforcement officials investigated Huminski and his intentions, ultimately concluding Huminski was not likely to commit violence. Corsones, however, was not so sure. When she was told on May 24 that Huminski had parked his van in the courthouse parking lot that morning with signs calling her a ""butcher of the Constitution"" and criticizing her handling of his criminal case, Corsones expressed safety concerns to various court security personnel and refused to take the bench while Huminski was in the building. The court manager eventually issued a ""notice against trespass"" against Huminski that prohibited him from entering the courthouse in Rutland unless he had received permission to do so or was appearing as a party in a case. Because of a defect in the notice, it was reissued and expanded to cover all property under the control of the Vermont Supreme Court. On June 1, 1999, Huminski sued Corsones, the court manager, and other court security personnel, alleging that the notice against trespass violated his First Amendment rights to access the courthouse and to criticize court officials. The federal trial court dismissed a number of the claims against the officials on the grounds they were immune from suit in their personal capacities and ruled that, because factual issues existed as to the reasonableness of the notice, the notice could be enforced pending the outcome of the trial. At Huminski’’s request, the 2nd Circuit agreed to review those rulings before the trial was conducted. Though it affirmed some of the trial court’’s rulings on the immunity issues, the 2nd Circuit reversed the court’’s First Amendment holdings. The notice against trespass, the 2nd Circuit said, was not narrowly tailored and, in fact, was so broad as to be not tailored at all. Even assuming Huminski was some threat, the 2nd Circuit said, the First Amendment did not allow Rutland County forever and completely to bar him from court property. The 2nd Circuit also held that the notice against trespass violated Huminski’’s First Amendment right to free expression. Conceding that the court property was not a public forum in which all speech must be allowed, the 2nd Circuit nonetheless held that the government may not bar one speaker from an area when it does not attempt the regulate the speech of others in that forum. ""The defendants’’ singling out of Huminski for exclusion, thereby permitting all others to engage in similar activity in and around the courts,"" the 2nd Circuit said, ""suggests to us that the trespass notices are not reasonable. Such broad restrictions are generally frowned upon even in nonpublic forums."" Ironically, despite its other rulings favorable to Huminski, the 2nd Circuit held Corsones is immune from liability in the case under the judicial immunity doctrine. Huminski accordingly will not be allowed to seek money damages from her. The judges in the 2nd Circuit therefore probably shouldn’’t be surprised if Huminski’’s van is next seen in their parking lot in New York City. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=14208 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/026201p.pdf
2nd Circuit: Vermont Gadfly 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 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. The court, ruling in Huminski 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.
Frequent Critic Again Barred from Vermont Courts
MONTPELIER, Vt. —— Scott Huminski wants to run for Bennington County state's attorney, but he might have a bit of a problem if he's elected: He's barred from going to the courthouse. That's because Huminski is under a highly unusual no-trespass order that he stay away from every courthouse in the state. The order was issued after Huminski, a self-described citizen- reporter and frequent critic of the judicial system, parked his truck outside the courthouse in Rutland with signs on it criticizing a judge. Huminski challenged the order, saying he had a First Amendment right to post on his truck a sign saying "Judge (Nancy) Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution." A major Washington law firm agreed to take his case free-of-charge, and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression filed a brief supporting his appeal. A federal judge reversed the state's no-trespass order for a time, but now that judge, J. Garvan Murtha of the U.S. District Court for Vermont, has lifted his earlier order. And the state, at least for now, is free to enforce it's no-trespass order against Huminski. Huminski's lawyer, Robert Corn-Revere, is appealing Murtha's ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with the first goal being reinstatement of the bar on the state enforcing the no- trespass order. The state's top election official, Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz, advised that Huminski pursue his goals one step at a time. "Running for office does not require him to go to the courthouse," she said. "In the event that he wins, that's the next bridge to cross. At that point he would be able to go to court and make an argument to lift the ban." Huminski said he might have trouble persuading voters he's a good candidate for state's attorney if he's currently facing a ban on going to the place where that job is performed. "The ban itself is an obstacle to my election," he said. Huminski, 42, has been engaged in a one-man protest against the judicial system for the past decade. He was charged with obstruction of justice in a civil case; prosecutors later agreed to drop that charge if Huminski paid $100 in court costs. After that plea agreement was put in place, Huminski's wife sued the Bennington County state's attorney in federal court, and that office sought to reinstate the obstruction-of-justice charge, saying the federal suit violated the terms of the plea agreement. Corsones granted the motion to reinstate the charge, a decision later reversed by another judge, who said it would violate Huminski's constitutional right against facing punishment for the same crime twice —— so-called double jeopardy. But Huminski intensified his protests against the court system, parking his van outside the courthouse in Bennington with signs criticizing State's Attorney William Wright and his staff. In May 1999, he took his protest to Rutland, where Corsones was presiding in the District Court, and posted signs on his van critical of her. That prompted an order that he leave the courthouse property and follow-up orders authorized by the court administrator's office in Montpelier and the state Department of Buildings and General Services that effectively barred Huminski from court- and state-owned property across Vermont. In March 2001, Murtha granted Huminski's request for a preliminary injunction —— an order barring the state from enforcing the no-trespass orders. In issuing the orders, the state "specifically and unjustifiably retaliated against Huminski because he had exercised his constitutional right to free speech," the judge wrote. But in an order issued earlier this month, Murtha found that it was not an open-and-shut case. He denied both the state's and Huminski's lawyers' requests that the case be decided in their favor without going to trial. And he lifted the ban on enforcing the no-trespass orders. The judge found there was "a genuine factual dispute" in the case —— a dispute over whether Corsones and other officials at the Rutland court feared for their safety when Huminski parked his truck with its critical signs outside and entered the building. Huminski and Corn-Revere argue that the court and state officials' concerns about security are not genuine. They said it was nearly two years after Huminski filed suit before officials even raised security as a concern. The court and state officials named in Huminski's lawsuit —— two judges, the court clerk, the county sheriff and the Rutland city police —— cited two letters Huminski sent to the attorney general's office several months before the confrontation in May 1999. In one, Huminski angrily denounced Vermont's judicial system and said he "must take the law into my own hands and initiate activities that will get national media attention." In the other, he complained again of the state's treatment of him and wrote, "I believe my future activities will prevent the state from engaging in this behavior ever again." Huminski noted the letters said nothing to indicate his "future activities" would entail anything aside from pursuing federal court action and seeking publicity about his case, and so far, they haven't.
MONTPELIER, Vt. —— Scott Huminski wants to run for Bennington County state's attorney, but he might have a bit of a problem if he's elected: He's barred from going to the courthouse. That's because Huminski is under a highly unusual no-trespass order that he stay away from every courthouse in the state. The order was issued after Huminski, a self-described citizen- reporter and frequent critic of the judicial system, parked his truck outside the courthouse in Rutland with signs on it criticizing a judge. Huminski challenged the order, saying he had a First Amendment right to post on his truck a sign saying "Judge (Nancy) Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution." A major Washington law firm agreed to take his case free-of-charge, and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression filed a brief supporting his appeal. A federal judge reversed the state's no-trespass order for a time, but now that judge, J. Garvan Murtha of the U.S. District Court for Vermont, has lifted his earlier order. And the state, at least for now, is free to enforce it's no-trespass order against Huminski. Huminski's lawyer, Robert Corn-Revere, is appealing Murtha's ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with the first goal being reinstatement of the bar on the state enforcing the no- trespass order. The state's top election official, Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz, advised that Huminski pursue his goals one step at a time. "Running for office does not require him to go to the courthouse," she said. "In the event that he wins, that's the next bridge to cross. At that point he would be able to go to court and make an argument to lift the ban." Huminski said he might have trouble persuading voters he's a good candidate for state's attorney if he's currently facing a ban on going to the place where that job is performed. "The ban itself is an obstacle to my election," he said. Huminski, 42, has been engaged in a one-man protest against the judicial system for the past decade. He was charged with obstruction of justice in a civil case; prosecutors later agreed to drop that charge if Huminski paid $100 in court costs. After that plea agreement was put in place, Huminski's wife sued the Bennington County state's attorney in federal court, and that office sought to reinstate the obstruction-of-justice charge, saying the federal suit violated the terms of the plea agreement. Corsones granted the motion to reinstate the charge, a decision later reversed by another judge, who said it would violate Huminski's constitutional right against facing punishment for the same crime twice —— so-called double jeopardy. But Huminski intensified his protests against the court system, parking his van outside the courthouse in Bennington with signs criticizing State's Attorney William Wright and his staff. In May 1999, he took his protest to Rutland, where Corsones was presiding in the District Court, and posted signs on his van critical of her. That prompted an order that he leave the courthouse property and follow-up orders authorized by the court administrator's office in Montpelier and the state Department of Buildings and General Services that effectively barred Huminski from court- and state-owned property across Vermont. In March 2001, Murtha granted Huminski's request for a preliminary injunction —— an order barring the state from enforcing the no-trespass orders. In issuing the orders, the state "specifically and unjustifiably retaliated against Huminski because he had exercised his constitutional right to free speech," the judge wrote. But in an order issued earlier this month, Murtha found that it was not an open-and-shut case. He denied both the state's and Huminski's lawyers' requests that the case be decided in their favor without going to trial. And he lifted the ban on enforcing the no-trespass orders. The judge found there was "a genuine factual dispute" in the case —— a dispute over whether Corsones and other officials at the Rutland court feared for their safety when Huminski parked his truck with its critical signs outside and entered the building. Huminski and Corn-Revere argue that the court and state officials' concerns about security are not genuine. They said it was nearly two years after Huminski filed suit before officials even raised security as a concern. The court and state officials named in Huminski's lawsuit —— two judges, the court clerk, the county sheriff and the Rutland city police —— cited two letters Huminski sent to the attorney general's office several months before the confrontation in May 1999. In one, Huminski angrily denounced Vermont's judicial system and said he "must take the law into my own hands and initiate activities that will get national media attention." In the other, he complained again of the state's treatment of him and wrote, "I believe my future activities will prevent the state from engaging in this behavior ever again." Huminski noted the letters said nothing to indicate his "future activities" would entail anything aside from pursuing federal court action and seeking publicity about his case, and so far, they haven't.
BENNINGTON, Vt. —— A federal judge has suspended orders barring a Vermont man from state court property, saying two state judges retaliated against him because he exercised his constitutional right to free speech. Scott Humisnski 41, of Bennington, was slapped with no-trespassing orders in May 1999 after criticizing Rutland County District Judge Nancy Corsones. Judge J. Garvan Murtha of the U.S. District Court for Vermont issued a preliminary injunction on Feb. 27 barring law enforcement personnel from acting on the no-trespass orders, which were issued against Huminski by Corsones and state Judge Patricia Zimmerman. A self-described citizen-reporter, Huminski was ejected from the Rutland County District Courthouse in May 1999 after displaying posters critical of Corsones on the side of his van. One sign read "Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution" and listed five ways Huminski thought Corsones had violated the Constitution. Shortly after parking in the courthouse lot, Huminski was approached by sheriff's deputies, who ordered him to remove the placards. But Huminski refused, citing his free-expression rights. He then entered the courthouse to take notes on the proceedings for a report he planned to write. However, he was soon escorted out of the courtroom by law enforcement officials and served with two notices of trespass, signed by Corsones. Later that month, Huminski was served with a notice of trespass signed by Zimmerman. Murtha wrote that by issuing the no-trespass orders, the judges "specifically and unjustifiably retaliated against Huminski because he had exercised his constitutional right to free speech." The officials' and judges' decision to give Huminski notices of trespass and to eject him from the courthouse was based on their displeasure with his posted opinions, Murtha wrote in the opinion. Referring to the Supreme Court's 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Murtha said that because "constitutional protection does not turn upon the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered" and because erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate, they "must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space they need …… to survive." Huminski's gripe with Corsones began with a long-running battle between Huminski and the Bennington County state's attorney's office and other law enforcement and court personnel. That office had issued obstruction-of-justice charges against Huminski in another case, and Huminski had sued the state's attorney in federal court. In 1997, Huminski was charged with two counts of obstruction of justice in Bennington County District Court. The charges stemmed from a landlord-tenant dispute Huminski had with a tenant in a Bennington building. A plea bargain was reached under which the prosecutors agreed to drop the charges in exchange for Huminski paying $100 in court costs and agreeing to drop his federal lawsuit against them. Huminski's wife later filed suit against the prosecutors in federal court, and the state's attorney's office said this amounted to a violation of the plea agreement by Huminski. The prosecutors moved to reinstate the charges. Judge Corsones ruled that the charges could be reinstated. That's when Huminski's criticisms of Corsones began. Another district judge, Paul Hudson, later reversed that ruling, saying that bringing the charges against Huminski again would amount to unconstitutional double jeopardy. The state appealed, and the Vermont Supreme Court eventually ruled in Huminski's favor, agreeing with Hudson that bringing the charges again would be double jeopardy. After Huminski posted the signs criticizing Corsones and the no-trespass orders were issued, national First Amendment advocacy groups went into an uproar, and the biggest law firm in Washington, D.C., Hogan and Hartson, agreed to represent Huminski at no cost. Hogan and Hartson partner Robert Corn-Revere said he felt it was important to take the case because Huminski was a "victim of an abuse of the legal system that deprived him of his First Amendment rights." "If not challenged, the kind of restrictions that were imposed on Huminski, a lone demonstrator, could also be imposed on members of the press who criticize judges," he said. "The legal principles at stake are very important." Corn-Revere added that Murtha's ruling reinforced the principle that "local governmental officials cannot brush aside the First Amendment whenever they find it to be inconvenient." Huminski said on March 2 that he was gratified by the federal court's order. "The ability to accept and take criticism is an important characteristic for a judicial officer," he said. "When they can't take criticism it shows a demeanor that is not appropriate for the bench, I believe." Huminski says he plans to continue his "reportorial and publishing activities." "I believe it's important to inform the public concerning the corruption in the courts and the criminal justice system to help effectuate change," he said. Huminski told the Rutland Herald that he would resume putting posters on his van describing Corsones' "vastly unconstitutional behavior." "She won't like it, and we'll see what she does this time," he said. Rutland lawyer Peter Hall, whose firm represents Corsones and Zimmerman, said he would file a motion in U.S. District Court next week asking Murtha to reconsider the preliminary injunction and quickly hold a final hearing on the matter. Hall said he intended to
submit affidavits "that lay out in significant detail that there
were a number of valid reasons and concerns based on which the
no-trespass order was properly issued." He declined to elaborate on
what those reasons and concerns were. Journalist
Barred from Vermont Courts Files Federal Appeal
An amateur reporter barred from Vermont courts for criticizing a state judge is asking a federal appeals court to reinstate his First Amendment lawsuit against a city and several local officials. Scott Huminski filed his appeal earlier this month with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to overturn a federal judge's dismissal of the suit. Last May, Huminski sued the state, the city of Rutland and several state, city and county officials, alleging that they violated his First and 14th Amendment rights by barring him from state court grounds after he refused to remove signs criticizing a state judge from his van. Last October, U.S. District Judge J.G. Murtha granted motions filed by the city and county defendants to dismiss the charges, concluding that Huminski had "failed to demonstrate a clearly established federal right which the defendants violated." But Robert Corn-Revere, Huminski's attorney for the appeal, says the First Amendment issues in the case are obvious. "The real heart of the issue is whether local government officials can unilaterally silence speech and exert arbitrary power over their citizens," said the Washington, D.C., attorney. Pietro Lynn, the attorney representing the sheriff's departments in Rutland and Bennington counties and their employees, says he's confident his clients "will prevail on appeal." "We think [Huminski's] legal arguments will be unavailing," he said. Lynn refused to discuss the specifics of the case, saying he thought it would be inappropriate to do so at this time. The attorney representing the city defendants did not return calls for this story. Because Murtha dismissed Huminski's claims based on motions filed by the county and city defendants, the state defendants are not involved in the appeal. The state defendants did file a motion to dismiss Huminski's complaint in November, but that motion has been stayed pending the outcome of Huminski's appeal. Huminski's lawsuit centered on an incident that occurred last May at the Rutland County District Courthouse. A self-described citizen-reporter, Huminski regularly attended court proceedings, collected information and later published his findings on signs posted on the outside of his home and on his van. On May 24, 1999, he attached to his van signs criticizing Rutland County District Court Judge Nancy Corsones and drove to the courthouse. One sign read "Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution" and listed five ways Huminski thought Corsones had violated the Constitution. Shortly after parking in the public parking lot, Huminski was approached by two Rutland County sheriff's officials who ordered him to remove the signs or move his van off state court property. Huminski refused, saying the signs represented constitutionally protected speech, and entered the courthouse. Approximately two hours later while waiting in the corridor of the courthouse, Huminski was approached by a Rutland city police officer and representatives from the county sheriff's department. They served him with two notices of trespass issued by Corsones, the court clerk and the local sheriff. One notice ordered him not to enter properties controlled by the Rutland District Court, and the other ordered him not to enter Corsones' residential property. Huminski filed a motion to vacate these notices, but the Rutland District Court denied his request in June, saying the notices had already been withdrawn. But according to Huminski's appeal, the notices were never officially cancelled. A broader notice of trespass was issued on May 27 by Rutland District Court Judge M. Patricia Zimmerman, banning Huminski from "all lands and property under the control of the Supreme Court and the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services, including the Rutland District Court, parking areas, and lands." The Bennington County sheriff served this notice at Huminski's home in Bennington. Corn-Revere interprets this trespass notice as including all state courts. If he violates the notice, Huminski could be imprisoned for up to three months and/or fined up to $500. He says the constant threat of punishment has prevented him from attending or reporting on any court proceedings. "I haven't stepped foot in the Rutland courthouse" since the incident, he said. "All the players in this action are still there, and they would probably arrest me immediately if they saw me." Huminski's appeal asks the court "to vindicate his rights to speak on matters of public concern, to attend public judicial proceedings, and thereafter to report on them without fear of arrest or other punishment." The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has filed a brief in support of Huminski's appeal. The Silencing of a Courtroom Critic By Paul McMasters Scott Huminski is what you might call a "citizen-reporter." Until a year ago, he was a constant and careful observer of court proceedings in Rutland, Vt., passing on to the public his thoughts about judges and their rulings. Huminski also is something of a "citizen-lawyer," from time to time filing his own legal pleadings with the courts. Perhaps it was inevitable that these two avocations eventually would put Scott Huminski at the center of a legal issue of constitutional consequence. Thanks to a few judges who don't suffer criticism gladly, Huminski is effectively silenced as a courthouse commentator and banned for life from all the courthouses and surrounding grounds in Vermont. These affronts to Huminski's constitutional rights and First Amendment jurisprudence appear so flagrant to two Washington, D.C., lawyers that they have taken on his case free of charge. As a citizen journalist, Scott Huminski chose a unique medium for communicating his opinions to the public: 45- by 54-inch placards put up at his home or on the side of his van parked in the courthouse parking lot. That was until the Rutland County District Court decided to come down on him hard. Last May 24, Huminski parked in the courthouse parking lot, got out and taped three placards to his van. The headline on one of them read, "Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution." Beneath that banner he listed five reasons he believed decisions handed down by Rutland District Court Judge Nancy Corsones were unconstitutional. The other two signs contained further observations about court proceedings. Huminski was approached immediately by deputies and courthouse staff and told to remove the placards from the van or move the van off government property. Huminski explained that the information on the placards was protected expression under both the state and federal constitutions, an argument bolstered by the fact that the parking lot was rife with bumper stickers, vanity license plates and other signs bearing viewpoints of one sort or another. Huminski then proceeded peacefully and politely to his "beat" in the courthouse. A couple of hours later, a police officer and representatives of the sheriff's department escorted Huminski to a courthouse conference room and served him with two notices of trespass signed by Judge Corsones, the court clerk and the local sheriffs. One barred him from district court property. The other, strangely, barred him from the residential property of Judge Corsones. There was more to come. Three days later, a far broader notice of trespass was issued under the signature of a different judge. That notice barred Huminski from every courthouse and surrounding grounds in the entire state of Vermont, apparently for the rest of his life. It is hard to say exactly what provoked this extreme action by the Rutland judges. Huminski had not engaged in any disruptive behavior. He had not threatened anyone. He had not engaged in picketing. He had not uttered any obscene or vulgar language or "fighting words." He had not interfered in any way with the administration of justice. All he had done was criticize public officials, a revered tradition in our democracy and fully protected by the First Amendment. Acting on his own behalf, Huminski went to court to challenge the judges' orders but his efforts were rebuffed by a federal court judge. Local media and civil liberties organizations apparently didn't take much notice of Huminski's case. Finally, after a search on the Internet, Huminski found and contacted constitutional lawyer Ronald K.L. Collins in the nation's capital. Collins in turn contacted First Amendment attorney Robert Corn-Revere at Hogan & Hartson in Washington, D.C. Corn-Revere took the case, and, with the help of Collins and a couple of associates at Hogan & Hartson, filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, on March 9. Attorneys at the Thomas Jefferson Center for Freedom of Expression in Richmond, Va., filed an amicus brief on his behalf. "I find the government's actions simply astonishing," Corn-Revere said. "I can think of no judicial authority to support it." "Like many such cases," he continued, "the facts themselves may arise from a seemingly insignificant local situation, but they go to the heart of fundamental First Amendment principles. This case is about the right to criticize public officials, the right to speak in the vicinity of the courthouse, and the right to attend judicial proceedings —— all of which were thwarted by the arbitrary use of local power to silence speech. Government can be at its most oppressive at the local level if it is unchecked or unchallenged." Collins is equally astonished. "It's a sad commentary on our First Amendment freedoms when a case like this has to be litigated all the way to a federal court. This is not a complex case. This is a simple free-speech case where a citizen's First Amendment rights are abridged for no reason beyond his saying what he had every right to say." If the judges who ordered or condoned Huminski's banishment from their sight thought they were protecting the dignity and authority of the legal system, they failed miserably. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black no doubt had this sort of judicial hubris in mind when he wrote in a 1941 decision involving criticism of a judge: "The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. ... An enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt, much more than it would enhance respect." Hopefully, all this and the legal briefs filed on Scott Huminski's behalf will nudge the Vermont judges into regaining their First Amendment footing. The free-speech and free-press rights of a citizen-reporter must be restored. But there is more at stake in this case than even Scott Huminski's rights. As attorney Collins put it: "If a citizen critic can't speak without fear of arbitrary government action being directed against him, then the very idea of constitutional democracy is a farce." Paul McMasters may be contacted at pmcmasters@freedomforum.org.
|
|
A Feast
|
