734 Rutland Avenue
Teaneck, NJ 07666
May 17, 2011
Chief Judge Belvin Perry
Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida
425 N. Orange Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
Re: Administrative Order NO. 2011–07
Dear Judge Perry:
On May 4, 2011, You issued Administrative Order NO.
2011–07 restricting free speech at or near the courthouse to a
designated “Free Speech Zone.” The “Free Speech
Zone” which you designated has very little pedestrian
traffic. In effect you have designated an almost no “Free
To support your decision to limit free speech to a
restricted area, you relied on some previous court decisions, primarily
Huminski v. Corsones, 396, F. 3d 53 (2d Cir. 2005). I am very
familiar with this court case and have studied it extensively. It
was an enormous error in judgment by the U. S. circuit court, which
overruled the decision of the U. S. district court judge.
However, even that decision does not apply to your
action. In Huminski v. Corsones, Scott Huminski was ordered by
Judge Nancy Corsones to move his vehicle from the court parking lot,
because of information on that vehicle. He refused, so Judge
Corsones removed him and the vehicle from the court property.
Huminski sued Judge Corsones for violating his First
Amendment right to free expression. The district court agreed
with Huminski. The circuit court agreed that Huminski had the
First Amendment right to do as he did. I quote from Circuit Court
Judge Sack’s opinion for the court:
“We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment
right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to
and had no other official connection with them. The right created a
presumption that he was entitled to access, but one that could be
overcome if court officials reasonably decided that he might pose a
threat to persons, property, or proceedings and if the restrictions on
his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the
exclusion. We conclude, however, that this individual right was not
well-settled at the time of the events at issue here and that the
defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect
On appeal, the circuit court reversed on the basis
that Judge Corsones was acting in her official capacity, and therefore
was immune from prosecution. The reversal had nothing to do with
free speech rights. The reversal was a travesty, because judges
only have immunity if the aggrieved party had recourse to appeal (42 U.
S. C. 1983). Since Judge Corsones enforced her order on the same
day it was made, Huminski had no opportunity for appeal.
The district court judge made the correct
decision. The circuit court decision is disgusting. In any
event, the decision had nothing to do with free speech rights. It
was improperly based on judicial immunity.
Even if the Corsones v. Huminski decision were based
on restrictions of free speech at or near a courthouse, it would not be
valid. The courts do not have the authority to amend the U. S.
Constitution, even though judges like you pretend that they do.
The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution made
all of the United States a free speech zone. I will be returning
to your courthouse in June, 2011, to defy your order.
Yours in freedom and justice.
CC: Tyranny Fighters E-mail list and everyone else that I can reach.