Howard Dean's Vermont - American Government Crime
The entire story as to why I have written this blog and what actually happened in Vermont that triggered my writings and protests. Things aren't always as they appear.
http://howard-dean-crime.blogspot.com/
HOWARD DEAN DISCIPLE BUNGLES IN US SUPREME COURT
HOWARD DEAN DISCIPLE BUNGLES IN US SUPREME COURT
Howard Dean’s life-long friend, advisor, lawyer and top appointee got his chance few lawyers have – to argue before the highest court in this country and display a clumsy ineptness which completely botched the case.
In late February Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell argued in Randall v. Sorrell before the U.S. Supreme Court. Sorrell’s argument urged that Vermont needed the lowest political campaign spending limits in the United States because of rampant political corruption in Vermont.
Howard Dean commanded DNC attorneys to file a court brief supporting his friend Sorrell.
At argument, Chief Justice Roberts questioned AG Sorrell as to just how many political corruption prosecutions had he brought in Vermont in the last 9 years of Sorrell’s incumbency. Sorrell’s response -- NONE.
Vermont either has an attorney general willing to bring false and frivolous arguments into the court system or Sorrell has refused to prosecute and has covered-up all this political corruption he portrayed to the U.S. Supreme Court. At least Dean and his sidekick Sorrell have admitted to the corruption that flourished in Vermont during Dean’s tenure.
Scott Huminski
s_huminski@Hotmail.com
Reprint of an earlier supportive article below…
___________________________________________________________
CRONIES V. QUALIFICATIONS: HOWARD DEAN'S DILEMMA
Dean's desire to appoint unqualified cronies to high positions.
Twenty five years ago, in Northern Vermont, a lifelong friendship and political alliance was born. Young Howard Dean moved to Vermont and became the neighbor of passionate democrat, Esther Sorrell. Mrs. Sorrell's living room had been described as the heart of the democratic party in Vermont and Howard Dean spent many a long hour in Mrs. Sorrell's company. Mrs. Sorrell took the young political hopeful, Howard Dean, under her wing and became Dean's mentor.
Mrs. Sorrell was so taken with Howard Dean's political motivation and drive that she introduced him to her son, Billy. Both of the young men had strong political aspirations and shared goals of seeking high office. A life-long friendship and alliance was born between these two men under the guidance of Mrs. Sorrell. Howard Dean cherished Mrs. Sorrell's motherly guidance and deeply valued the friendship and support of her son, Billy. To Vermonters, Billy is better known as Attorney General William Sorrell.
In 1992, now Governor Dean showed his appreciation to William Sorrell and his family by appointing Sorrell as Secretary of Administration. In 1997 it became time again for Governor Dean to thank William Sorrell and the Sorrell family by attempting to appoint Sorrell as the Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Sorrell had absolutely no judicial experience. Dean's zeal to appoint his long-time friend to the highest judicial office in the state hit a roadblock. Noting zero experience, the judicial nominating board refused to place Dean's friend on the short list for the top judicial spot. Dean became furious. Dean rejected the first list from the judicial nominating board that failed to include Sorrell. Again citing a lack of Sorrell's qualifications, the board forwarded to Dean a second list that did not include Sorrell. Press reports noted this "tiff" between Dean and the board.
An angry Dean admitted defeat on the Sorrell Chief Justice appointment, but, he had a plan! To take care of his friend and appease the judicial nominating board at the same time. He would appoint the current Attorney General to the Chief Justice spot creating a vacancy for Vermont Attorney General. Perfect. Dean promptly vacated the Attorney General spot and filed it with his friend Sorrell. Dean got the job done of appointing Sorrell to a high position. All was well with Vermont cronies.
Now this tale is continuing while Dean run's for president and his unqualified cronies wait for their payback. Its no secret that Sorrell would be number one in line for United States Attorney General under Dean. Its also no secret that Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell has engaged in criminal federal civil rights violations. Also in his tenure as Attorney General, Sorrell has used the cover-up of: obstruction of justice, extortion, acceptance of bribes by lower Vermont Prosecutors and illegal alcohol crimes to support his allies and friends. The Department of Justice knows about the Vermont corruption, but, why would that agency lodge criminal charges against Sorrell or other Vermont officials prior to the primaries?
In the fall of last year I ran for State's Attorney in Bennington County Vermont against a 16-year incumbent who was the Democratic and Republican nominee for the office. I ran on an anti-corruption platform pledging to prosecute William Sorrell and other State prosecutors for corruption and acceptance of bribes. I spent $200 on my campaign. I was a complete political outsider. I am not even an attorney. Yet, I received 21% of the popular vote on a platform that would have put Dean's # 1 appointee behind bars. The people of this Vermont County know something about Dean's corrupt cronies that the people of this country need to know.
After living in Vermont for a decade under the Dean regime, I've seen how he works and whom he appoints. The oppressive anti-civil-rights environment created by Dean's appointments was complemented by the corruption and cronyism that epitomizes Dean's Vermont. With Dean surging in the polls, the ex-Governor is correct, it's time to look at his record in Vermont. We must also look at the records of those in his Vermont inner circle and of his appointees.
-- scott huminski
Howard Dean's Legacy Under Fire
HOWARD DEAN’S LEGACY UNDER FIREby SCOTT HUMINSKI
Friday October 24, 2003 at 07:02 AM
DEAN’S APPOINTEES DEFEND AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS CHARGES IN FEDERAL COURT………
United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit, Manhattan, Oct. 20, 2003 Huminski v. Corsones, et al, 02-6201, 02-6150, 02-6199, 03-6059
After four years of litigation, my banishment from every state courthouse in Vermont for the “crime” of calling Dean’s judicial appointees “Butchers of the Constitution” came before a three judge panel of a federal appellate court in Manhattan.
Attorney for defendant Rutland County Sheriff’s Department, Pietro Lynn, stated to the Court that if asked to advise his clients on whether to enforce Dean’s judicial appointees’ lifetime banishment against a citizen, he would advise them to not enforce the notices of the two Dean appointees as they were unconstitutional.
Attorney General William Sorrell and his Vermont Attorney General’s Office proposed to the Court that there was no right of the public to view judicial proceedings. (i.e. secret courts further government interests) Before Sorrell’s assistant could finish uttering this bold unconstitutional view he was abruptly interrupted by one of the federal judges and quizzed if he was going to seriously continue this flagrant line of unconstitutional rhetoric before the court. Sorrell’s assistant, had no response and was tongue-tied for the short remainder of the time allotted for his argument. Embarrassed after being shut-down for pushing Sorrell’s unconstitutional policies, Sorrell’s assistant, tried to leave the courthouse without even shaking the hand of opposing counsel.
Howard Dean has praised his close friend, confidant and favorite appointee, William Sorrell, as the finest lawyer and person. Perhaps Dean needs to expand his list of cronies and friends to include those persons willing to obey the Constitution instead of those bent on subverting it. He desperately attempted to appoint Sorrell as the Chief Justice to the highest court in Vermont in 1997.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/22/a_meteoric_rise_in_vermont_politics/See the 4th paragraph in this link, Sorrell and Dean are as close as family
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean062303/dean062303spt.html http://www.state.vt.us/atg/vtag.htm http://www.justiceforwoody.org/media/articles/html/casa1.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/freyneint.html http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68525.html http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/66910.html http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/8836.phpIf Dean’s presidential bid is successful, its hard to imagine that he plans to leave this dangerous man, William Sorrell, behind in Vermont.
Finally, it was time to hear what Dean’s other appointees, his judges, had to say at the hearing. After being enjoined by the federal courts for 3 years on First Amendment grounds, Dean’s judges argued that they were judges and they could not be held accountable – i.e. Judicial Immunity. Vermont continues to suffer with the injustices resulting from Dean’s appointees and the continuation of Dean’s cronies holding power in Vermont. Does the rest of the country need to suffer as well?
http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/13058.php
Howard Dean is Worse Than Allegations Against John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act
HOWARD DEAN IS WORSE THAN ASHCROFT and the PATRIOT ACTby scott huminski Thursday, Sep. 25, 2003 at 9:06 PM
Civil Rights and Liberties in Dean's Vermont
Dean recently has strongly criticized the Patriot Act and Ashcroft. Dean's record reveals that his policy in Vermont was to appoint judges that would ignore "legal technicalities" (i.e. the Bill of Rights). He publicly stated this policy in a 1997 Vermont Press Bureau interview. His record shows that he appointed anti-civil-rights judges. Dean increased prison funding 150% during his tenure in Vermont. Dean called for “a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties” post 9-11. Dean will say anything to gather votes, regardless of his record and what his true feelings are concerning an issue.
Dean’s closest friend and favorite appointee, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, is currently fighting vigorously in the federal courts to allow Vermont to close courthouses to the press and citizens for any reason without hearing, court findings, trial or Due Process in direct contravention of First Amendment requirements concerning closure of courtrooms. According to Sorrell, simply criticizing the government or reporting on court corruption can justify banishment for life from Vermont courthouses. Dean and Sorrell’s courthouse secrecy policy can be invoked with unfettered discretion by a single government employee based upon the way one looks, the way one thinks, one’s political views or any other arbitrary standard without opportunity for the banished persons to challenge the sanction consistent with Due Process. This is civil rights in Vermont after Dean finished his appointments.
Dean's covert implementation of a Vermont Patriot Act in the 1990s by simply appointing anti-Bill-of-Rights judges and placing Sorrell in the Attorney General’s office is far worse than any piece of federal legislation now in place. Unlike legislation, Dean's covert Vermont Patriot Act can not be repealed or modified and it oppresses Vermonters to this day. Whatever one’s opinion of the Patriot Act, it was at least done in public view. Dean chose to oppress the people of Vermont and subvert the Bill of Rights in secrecy behind closed doors via appointments. He now claims to be a civil liberties champion.
Dean’s criticism of Ashcroft is a sham and directly contradicts his record in Vermont. His conduct in Vermont was far worse than any allegations he directs at Ashcroft. -- Scott Huminski
Supportive links embedded below.
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/3802.phphttp://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/84950.php
Terrorizing the First Amendment
TERRORIZING the FIRST AMENDMENTby Scott Huminski Wednesday,
Oct. 27, 2004 at 2:29 PM
ALLEGED COURTHOUSE BOMBER WINS FREE SPEECH CASE
The case of Huminski v. Corsones, 2004 WL 2248175 (2d Cir., Oct. 7, 2004) concerns a judge spreading news of her fear that I had a bomb in my vehicle and that I was going to blow up her courthouse. Wow -- serious stuff. I happened to have a sign on the side of my van declaring "Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution". “Butcher” referred to a finding by Vermont courts that Judge Corsones violated my rights under the United States Constitution, the Vermont Constitution and Vermont state law. Recently, the US Court of Appeals, Manhattan, found that this judge violated my First Amendment rights to courthouse access and free expression when she banned me from the courthouse for life after I criticized her.
Careful reading of this case reveals that this judge kept this horrible “bomb” scenario secret from all five sheriffs and police personnel at the courthouse that day. Oddly, this “bomb” fear was not mentioned by Judge Nancy Corsones in litigation until she was enjoined by a federal court 2 years after the event. It then it became the centerpiece of her defense. One deputy on the scene testified that if law enforcement heard a hint of a potential bomb, they would have evacuated the facility and called in every available law enforcement person in the area. Perhaps Judge Corsones thought evacuation and investigation would be bad for business so she kept her "bomb knowledge" a secret from law enforcement.
Continued reading of Humnski v. Corsones reveals that my allegedly bomb-laden van was ignored during over 30 prior similar situations where Judge Corsones was not the brunt of my criticism. To be fair, Judge Corsones did place a phone call to an administrator at the state capital, he advised her to have the police investigate or banish me from the court. What course did she take concerning this "bomb" -- well let's not investigate (we know there is no bomb) let's banish him from the courthouse. For life. So they did and in doing so the net result was that they ordered me to move the feared "bomb" to Burger King or Walmart without police investigation. Apparently, the “bomb” was my criticism of this corrupt judge who chose to capitalize on terror hype to violate the First Amendment rights of a citizen that she clearly disliked.
Oddly, one solution proffered by a court official concerning the “Huminski problem” was to ask another judge to substitute for Judge Corsones. In light of the looming “bomb” concerns, this other judge must have been considered expendable by the court staff. The other judge had a full docket and could not fill in for Judge Corsones. So to spare Judge Nancy Corsones exposure to the embarrassing criticism (“bomb”), I was banned from the courthouse for life. Like any oppressor, their greatest fear is being held accountable by those they oppress.
See ruling, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, NYC, 10/07/04
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:81/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdfNow we have a Judge and government officials undermining constitutional rights via a corrupt use of false manufactured terror claims. When the government wants to achieve a corrupt goal they scream Terror! Bomb! and this technique has extended very effectively to the First Amendment. This reprehensible use of false terror claims to achieve illegal personal goals while capitalizing on past tragedies and deaths achieves a new low in government misconduct. Is this Judge’s conduct a violation of federal criminal statutes? Sure. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241,242 (Conspiracy Against Rights, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) Will she get criminally prosecuted for her conduct in 2002 (too late for 1999) that resulted in my re-banishment from the courthouse --- never.
The “Butcher of the Constitution” remark was true as found by the Vermont Supreme Court. Truthful criticism seems to be the most painful speech that government seeks to silence. Judge Corsones violated my constitutional rights. When I sought to publicize her disrespect for the Constitution, true to form, she patently violated more constitutional rights, the First Amendment, and to justify it she manufactured a bogus terror/bomb story. This scenario begs for the question, just who is terrorizing whom?
Freedom Forum:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=14208Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/1012humins.htmlScott Huminski
s_huminski@hotmail.com(1700 pages of depositions and court documents available to serious inquiries about this case)
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/16123.php
Howard Dean's Legacy Still Haunts Vermont
HOWARD DEAN’S LEGACY STILL HAUNTS VERMONT
By Scott Huminski 12.22.2005
Lawsuits arising out of Dean’s unconstitutional appointment policies in Vermont still costing Vermonters.
In the mid 1990’s Howard Dean adopted a policy of appointing judges willing to subvert the Bill of Rights in favor of common sense. See Governor Court Picks Stir Critics, Rutland Herald, July, 30, 1997. Keeping true to his promise Dean appointed two Judges within months of his infamous declaration; Judge Nancy Corsones and Judge Patricia Zimmerman.
These jurists engineered a plan to ban unpopular reporters and critics from Vermont courthouses for life. The State of Vermont just settled a suit against one of these banished “citizen-reporters” for $200,000. In a state with a tiny population of 500,000 this is a significant award. This figure doesn’t include the labor invested by Dean’s best friend and top appointee Attorney General William Sorrell’s six years of plundering the Vermont Attorney General’s office budget to defend and support this highly unconstitutional behavior.
The two Dean appointed judges however were dismissed from the case because of judicial immunity. The courts found only lower level non-judge employees could be held accountable.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2005/12/20/man_barred_from_courthouse_by_state_awarded_200000/http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051220/NEWS/512200367/1002It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Dean and his top appointee, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, have fought viscously to seal Dean’s gubernatorial records and the dirt that resides therein. Hard to say how long the State of Vermont will be paying for the blunders and outright illegal behavior of Howard Dean. There are more lawsuits out there arising out of the behavior of top Dean appointees. Its only a matter of time before Dean’s legacy in Vermont is revealed as one of the biggest failures in modern politics.
See also…
http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/543.phphttp://michiganimc.org/newswire/display/11986/index.php-- Scott Huminski
s_huminski@Hotmail.comhttp://www.phillyimc.org/en/2005/12/17907.shtml
Prosecute Howard Dean's Appointees/Criminals
PROSECUTE HOWARD DEAN’S APPOINTEES/CRIMINALSby Scott Huminski Saturday, Nov. 12, 2005 at 9:35 AM
Equal opportunity criminal prosecution for Howard Dean’s top appointees/cronies….
Reprinted below is an article I published in March which outlines very serious federal crimes committed by Howard Dean’s lifelong friend and Dean’s top appointee in Vermont, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
If there is this huge zeal to criminally prosecute top political figures then equal opportunity should be allotted to the Democratic Party to look into the bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice and racketeering violations of the lifelong friend and top appointee of DNC chair Howard Dean (Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell) and other Dean cronies.
Scott Huminski
s_huminski@hotmail.com-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also, Cronies v. Qualifications: Howard Deans Dilemma
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/271751.shtml-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original article is at
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/15256.phpPublished in another entry on this blog.
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/17819.php
Is Dean a Criminal Too?
IS DEAN A CRIMINAL TOO?
Dean's appointment of Vermont Attorney General Sorrell and Sorrell's criminal violation of civil rights law and bribery cover-up.
Dean is quite impressed with Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell. He appointed him Attorney General in the late 1990’s to fill a vacancy and then Sorrell was his # 1 choice for CHIEF JUSTICE of the Vermont Supreme Court. Sorrell was removed from consideration because he had no judicial experience. Good try Dean. A google search on “Howard Dean William Sorrell” speaks volumes. A vote for Dean is a vote to appoint William Sorrell to a very high federal position as Dean will take this unusually close associate with him. US Attorney General maybe?
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/freyneint.html http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68525.html http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/66910.html http://www.state.vt.us/atg/vtag.htm http://www.justiceforwoody.org/media/articles/html/casa1.htmAfter Dean’s judges had been enjoined for 2 years from interfering in my access to Vermont Courthouses, Sorrell engineered a plan to re-banish me. The banishment lasted one month before the federal court woke up and re-placed an injunction on Dean’s judicial appointees once again. Google search on “Scott Huminski First Amendment”. The story is all there from the Associated Press, the Freedom Forum, First Amendment Cyber Tribune and many others.
http://www.redressinc.org/Backin.htmlCourthouse access is a first amendment right according to US Supreme Court Precedent. See Press-Enterprise cases. Sorrell’s conduct last year constitutes criminal violation of federal civil rights law. See federal law below. They say birds of a feather flock together. Is Dean a criminal too, or just a very poor judge of character. Either way there should be concern.
By the way, Sorrell is currently busy covering-up the acceptance of a bribes by two Vermont Prosecutors, William Wright and John Lavoie. This fact stands undisputed before the United State Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC, # 03-7036. Unfortunately it’s not online, but, I will email court pleadings to any interested parties. -- Scott Huminski
UNITED STATES CODE Title 18 Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years …
Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both …
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/8836.php
Cronies v. Qualifications, Howard Dean's Dilemma
Cronies v. Qualifications, Howard Dean’s Dilemmaby scott huminski
Monday September 15, 2003 at 02:45 PM
Dean’s desire to appoint unqualified cronies to high positions.
Twenty five years ago, in Northern Vermont, a lifelong friendship and political alliance was born. Young Howard Dean moved to Vermont and became the neighbor of passionate democrat, Esther Sorrell. Mrs. Sorrell’s living room had been described as the heart of the democratic party in Vermont and Howard Dean spent many a long hour in Mrs. Sorrell’s company. Mrs. Sorrell took the young political hopeful, Howard Dean, under her wing and became Dean’s mentor.
Mrs. Sorrell was so taken with Howard Dean’s political motivation and drive that she introduced him to her son, Billy. Both of the young men had strong political aspirations and shared goals of seeking high office. A life-long friendship and alliance was born between these two men under the guidance of Mrs. Sorrell. Howard Dean cherished Mrs. Sorrell’s motherly guidance and deeply valued the friendship and support of her son, Billy. To Vermonters, Billy is better known as Attorney General William Sorrell.
In 1992, now Governor Dean showed his appreciation to William Sorrell and his family by appointing Sorrell as Secretary of Administration. In 1997 it became time again for Governor Dean to thank William Sorrell and the Sorrell family by attempting to appoint Sorrell as the Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Sorrell had absolutely no judicial experience. Dean’s zeal to appoint his long-time friend to the highest judicial office in the state hit a roadblock. Noting zero experience, the judicial nominating board refused to place Dean’s friend on the short list for the top judicial spot. Dean became furious. Dean rejected the first list from the judicial nominating board that failed to include Sorrell. Again citing a lack of Sorrell’s qualifications, the board forwarded to Dean a second list that did not include Sorrell. Press reports noted this "tiff" between Dean and the board.
An angry Dean admitted defeat on the Sorrell Chief Justice appointment, but, he had a plan! To take care of his friend and appease the judicial nominating board at the same time. He would appoint the current Attorney General to the Chief Justice spot creating a vacancy for Vermont Attorney General. Perfect. Dean promptly vacated the Attorney General spot and filed it with his friend Sorrell. Dean got the job done of appointing Sorrell to a high position. All was well with Vermont cronies.
Now this tale is continuing while Dean run’s for president and his unqualified cronies wait for their payback. Its no secret that Sorrell would be number one in line for United States Attorney General under Dean. Its also no secret that Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell has engaged in criminal federal civil rights violations. Also in his tenure as Attorney General, Sorrell has used the cover-up of: obstruction of justice, extortion, acceptance of bribes by lower Vermont Prosecutors and illegal alcohol crimes to support his allies and friends. The Department of Justice knows about the Vermont corruption, but, why would that agency lodge criminal charges against Sorrell or other Vermont officials prior to the primaries?
In the fall of last year I ran for State’s Attorney in Bennington County Vermont against a 16-year incumbent who was the Democratic and Republican nominee for the office. I ran on an anti-corruption platform pledging to prosecute William Sorrell and other State prosecutors for corruption and acceptance of bribes. I spent $200 on my campaign. I was a complete political outsider. I am not even an attorney. Yet, I received 21% of the popular vote on a platform that would have put Dean’s # 1 appointee behind bars. The people of this Vermont County know something about Dean’s corrupt cronies that the people of this country need to know.
After living in Vermont for a decade under the Dean regime, I’ve seen how he works and whom he appoints. The oppressive anti-civil-rights environment created by Dean’s appointments was complemented by the corruption and cronyism that epitomizes Dean’s Vermont. With Dean surging in the polls, the ex-Governor is correct, it’s time to look at his record in Vermont. We must also look at the records of those in his Vermont inner circle and of his appointees.
-- scott huminski
“Dean’s Police State of Vermont”
http://bureaucrash.com/blogs/dispatches/000512.shtmlEditorial:
http://toughenough.org/huminski.html"Dean's Constitutional Hang-up"
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08122003.htmlAnti-War commentary...
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
Howard Dean: Extortion, Bribes and Other Problems
Howard Dean, Extortion, Bribes and other problems
March 17, 2005, 12:20 pm
DNC Chair Howard Dean’s problems with the Bill of Rights, the Law and Ethics.
In 1997 Howard Dean announced his desire to appoint judges willing to subvert the Bill of Rights or in Howard Dean lingo “legal technicalities”. Two judges appointed within months of Dean infamous 1997 statement have been found guilty of civil rights violations by a federal court in Manhattan. (fn1) Dean’s top appointee and lawyer, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, was defense counsel for the corrupt government employees in this case where Sorrell has expended vast public funds to forward the goal of undermining the First Amendment in Vermont.
To get a true feeling of the judicial and law enforcement climate fostered by Dean in Vermont, it is instructional to look at his # 1 Vermont appointee and life-long friend, William Sorrell. Dean owed a great debt to the Sorrell family for mentoring his ascent in Vermont politics. Dean’s first notable gubernatorial appointment in Vermont was to install Sorrell as Secretary of Administration in 1992. In 1997, itbecame time to thank the Sorrell family again and Dean attempted to appoint Sorrell as the chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. As Sorrell had no judicial experience, Dean’s zeal to appoint his favorite crony was met with a legislative roadblock. Dean had a backup plan, appoint the Attorney General to the Supreme Court and then appoint Sorrell to fill the Attorney General vacancy. All was well with Vermont Cronies. (fn2)
In describing Sorrell, Dean was quite generous with his praise of his friend’s character and abilities, illustrating the nature of their relationship: “I have an enormous amount of respect for Sorrell as a human being and as a really smart lawyer.”
A subordinate of Sorrell’s issued the following prosecutorial written threat in a Vermont state court proceeding,
"The last claim involves a statement made to attorney Capriola warning that the defendant would be charged with additional crimes if he did not clam down. The statement is a reference to the defendant's continued harassment of the victim and the investigating officer in this case through the court process. The defendant has filed a civil action against the victim because of his participation in this criminal case. The State is currently reviewing a contempt charge against the defendants because of this activity. The statement was a proper warning made through the defendant's representative."
Sorrell approvingly has stood behind and defended the above threat which now has become part of a prosecutor’s toolbox in Vermont. The above threat is the epitome of the government’s coercive use of the power of criminal prosecution to influence and manipulate civil court proceedings tantamount to extortion and obstruction of justice concerning a matter before a federal court. Dean’s “really smart lawyer”and top appointee at work.
Sorrell’s conduct doesn’t stop there, his subordinates followed up the above threat with a plea agreement that specified the dismissal and non-pursuit of civil lawsuits against the prosecutors themselves. The dismissal of a lawsuit is an item of monetary value benefiting Sorrell’s underlings – or to put it bluntly this conduct is tantamount to acceptance of a bribe by state prosecutors. Dean’s “really smartlawyer” strongly approved and defended the conduct. One can’t assign full responsibility concerning this government corruption to Dean’s friend alone because two of Dean’s hand-picked anti-“legal technicality” judicial appointees presided over and approved the government misconduct.
Then there was the police shooting of Robert (“Woody”) Woodward in Brattleboro, Vermont in 2001. The massacre involved 7 shots from police revolvers fatally wounding Mr. Woodward – with some of the shots fired into his body while he was bleeding on the ground in the fetal position. Dean and Sorrell, both irrationally obsessive police advocates, put the cover-up machine into gear. Sorrell authored abiased report overlooking much of the testimony and evidence. When Dean was asked to appoint a special independent investigator he backed up his old crony and stated that Sorrell was a “really smart lawyer”. One of Dean’s so-called “legal technicalities”, the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a biased decision-maker. Something as trivial as the Constitution didn’t stop Dean from deciding not to usurp his friend’s report by refusing to appoint an independent investigator regardless ofhis very public conflict-of-interest with Sorrell. Pursuant to the constitution, Dean should have disqualified himself. (fn3)
Sorrell has lately kept busy in the courts fighting to keep Howard Dean’s gubernatorial records sealed. In light of the foregoing, one can only imagine what vile government conduct Sorrell and Dean are covering up in the sealed records lawsuit. Sorrell’s friendship with Dean is still costing the Vermont taxpayers thousands of litigation dollars and Dean’s “really smart lawyer” friend apparently flunked attorney ethics which prohibit Sorrell’s representation of Dean under attorney conflict-of-interest principles. (fn4)
In Sorrell’s possession is a sworn transcript and audio tape of a major U.S. corporation’s quite illegal conduct constituting extortion and other crimes. To date, the reason is unknown for Sorrell’s cover-up of the criminal enterprise set forth in the audio tape aside from the fact that any such reason would be incompatible with law enforcement. Also in this questionable category is Sorrell’s cover-up of an alcoholic beverage retailer’s activities who operated without federal or state licenses for 8 years during the Dean/Sorrell decade in Vermont despite a report from Vermont’s own liquor investigator that the illegal conduct existed. Dean’s appointee response – cover up.
It appears that neither Dean nor his lawyer crony have any respect for the Bill of Rights, ethical considerations or the rule of law when it doesn’t fit into their dubious agendas. Recently, Dean has labeled the members of an entire political party as “evil”. Perhaps Dean should look in the mirror and look at the condition he left Vermont in after a decade of his appointments prior to disparaging others. The man who said 95 percent of people charged with crimes are guilty anyway so why should the state spend money on providing them with lawyers should indeed criticize very carefully from his anti-constitutional corrupt glass house. (fn5)
Scott Huminski,
S_huminski@hotmail.com(fn1)
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,535358,00.htmlhttp://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/13685.phphttp://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Frank_Dean-Sorrell-Corruption.htmhttp://toughenough.org/huminski.htmlhttp://victimsoflaw.net/Scott_Huminski.htmhttp://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/543.php(fn2)
http://yconservatives.com/Guest-54c.htmlhttp://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/8836.php(fn3)
http://www.justiceforwoody.org/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277164.shtmlhttp://la.indymedia.org/print.php?id=96372(fn4)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2005/03/11/fight_over_howard_dean_papers_goes_before_vermonts_high_court/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/12/05/deans_unseemly_secrecy?mode=PF(fn5)
http://www.prisonactivist.org/pipermail/prisonact-list/1996-September/000600.htmlhttp://talkleft.com/new_archives/003199.html#003199http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003144.html#003144http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2¬Found=truehttp://www.msjsoftware.com/articles/article.asp?ID=25266
Howard Dean News, Rutland Herald 1997
Original article is at
http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/543.phpHOWARD DEAN NEWS – RUTLAND HERALD, JULY 1997by scott huminski Monday, Oct. 27, 2003 at 1:45 PM
Dean’s subversion of the Bill of Rights through judicial appointments.
July 30, 1997 article from the Rutland Herald and Montpelier Times-Argus followed by commentary provided by the editorial staff of the Rutland Herald/Times-Argus. Dean is frighteningly ignorant concerning civil/constitutional rights. Should anyone wonder why two judges (appointed within months of the below article) and Dean’s best friend, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell are fighting civil rights charges in Manhattan Federal Court currently. Two of Dean’s judicial appointees have been subject to a federal injunction for the last 3 years for first amendment violations. -- Scott Huminski
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rutland Herald, Wednesday, July 30, 1997
GOVERNOR’S COURT PICKS STIR CRITICS
By Diane Derby Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER – As Gov. Howard B. Dean was mulling his second appointment to the Vermont Supreme Court earlier this month, he made little effort to mask his distaste for some of the court’s recent decisions.
The direction of the five-member court needed to be “changed dramatically”. Dean said. He was confident that his first appointment – naming Attorney General Jeffrey Amestoy to be the new chief justice last march – was a major step in the right direction.
“I’m looking to steer the court back towards consideration of the rights of the victims”, Dean said three weeks ago in a radio interview with Bob Kinzel of the Vermont News Service. “I’m looking to make it easier to convict guilty people and not have as many technicalities interfere with justice, and I’ll appoint someone to fit that bill”.
Asked if that reflected a “get-tough-on-crime” approach, Dean responded: “I’m looking for someone who is for justice. My beef about the judicial system is that it does not emphasize truth and justice over lawyering. It emphasizes legal technicalities and rights of the defendants and all that.”
Such comments may play well with the general public, but they have sent a chill through the collective spine of lawyers – particularly defense lawyers – around the state.
Throughout his six-year tenure, Dean’s public chiding of the judiciary has led many lawyers to question the doctor-governor’s grasp of constitutional law. In their eyes, Dean views the protections contained in the Bill of Rights as mere “technicalities”.
It is a view that has been bolstered by Dean’s inflammatory remarks – including his remarks that the state’s Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed murders to go free.
“Dean is just ignorant. I don’t think he understands what judges ought to do.” Says Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor who teaches advanced courses in constitutional law. “He perceives the Supreme Court as being broken in some way and sees himself on a mission to fix it.”
“That is pure, ignorant, political demagoguery”, Mello charged, “Nonsense on stilts.”
FROM THE PROSECUTION
Tension between the executive and judicial branches of government is not new, nor is it unique to the Dean administration. But rarely has it been played out on such a public stage.
Mello and other lawyers around the state are quick to offer high praise for both Amestoy and District Judge Marilyn Skoglund, whom Dean named on Monday to fill a high court vacancy left by the retirement of justice Ernest Gibson III.
Both jurists, along with the current members of the Supreme Court, are widely regarded within the legal community as independent thinkers who will not allow political pressures to sway their interpretation of the law. (see note below, sh)
But Dean’s penchant for selecting prosecutors to fill judicial vacancies also has some defense lawyers questioning whether Vermont’s court system is becoming too “one-dimensional”.
Last week, Dean appointed Howard VanBenthuysen, a former state’s attorney and onetime police officer, to a vacant superior court judgeship. In doing so, he passed over the names of private attorneys and at least one public defender.
Skoglund served as a prosecutor in the attorney general’s office before being named a District Court judge three years ago.
The roster of District and Superior Court judges Dean has appointed over the past five years also suggests the attorney general’s office has become a fertile ground for judicial training.
Adding to the mix, Dean’s high-profile but failed effort earlier this year to appoint his administration secretary, William Sorrell, to head the high court was widely viewed as an effort to end-run the judicial nominating process. (Dean later named Sorrell to fill the attorney general’s job left vacant by Amestoy’s appointment.)
(Huminski Note: Cronies v. Qualifications, Dean’s Dilemma)
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/8836.php“I don’t think he has any regard for any process that gets in the way of what he wants to accomplish … Look at how he was trying to move the justices around like chess pieces there.”, said Leighton Detora, a Barre lawyer who said he was once a supporter of the governor, but is no longer.
“He’s a doctor, and as such, he has all the learned responses to the legal profession – that we are just out here, and lawyers jobs are to make things more complicated.”
“In his own arrogance, I think somehow he thinks he has a lock on truth and wisdom.” said Detora, who is president-elect of the Vermont Trial Lawyers Association, but stressed that he was speaking only on his own behalf.
Dean dismisses such criticism, saying that his comments about “technicalities” getting in the way of truth and justice have been misinterpreted.
But Dean is quick to point to several decisions in which he says the Vermont Supreme Court went too far, particularly cases in which the court held that the state’s constitutional protections went far beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides for.
(Huminski note: The various states have constitutions that are unique. They have various protections that many times are unique to a particular state or exceed the protections of their analogs set forth in the federal constitution. The authors of the US Constitution had no intention of limiting the rights of the inhabitants of the various states to those only set forth in the federal constitution. This is Dean ignorance at its finest.)
Dean said he believed the state’s high court had especially taken the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure too far.
“In general, I think the court in the past has been overly restrictive about what evidence could be introduced,” Dean said in a phone interview form Las Vegas, where he is attending the National Governors’ Association summer meeting.
The result, said Dean, is that a jury doesn’t always get a complete picture of “the truth” and defendants are turned free.
“For whatever reason,” he said, “the old court really was very concerned with the rights of defendants.” (Huminski note: The “rights of defendants” are defined in the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.)
Dean’s views on constitutional protections were first challenged more than four years ago, when he fired the state’s then defender general, E.M. Allen, over budgetary issues.
In a cost-cutting move, Dean sought to limit services of the public defenders office, while toughening the standards for those who qualify. But critics charged that Dean was turning a blind eye on an indigent defendants’ right to an attorney. Poor criminal defendants, Deans critics noted, were a politically unpopular group.
Allen’s successor, Defender General Robert Appel, has often found himself battling over budgetary issues with the Dean administration. Perhaps not surprisingly, Appel says he does not share the governor’s view that the Supreme Court has gone too far in weighing a defendants’ rights.
“I would say it is a fundamental difference in perspective between me and my boss,” said Appel, “I don’t think our Supreme Court, or any appellate court, lightly reverses a criminal conviction.”
Dean and his legal counsel, Janet Ancel, spent Saturday interviewing the 11 candidates who were nominated for Gibson’s job before he named Skoglund to the bench.
Much of the day was spent discussing judicial philosophy, as Dean quizzed the would-be justices on their views regarding several Vermont Supreme Court rulings.
One such case involved the court’s decision to overturn a 1993 first degree murder conviction against Robert Durenleau, who was charged with helping his lover kill her husband following an affair.
The state Supreme Court found that the circumstantial evidence presented during the trial did not support the jury’s guilty finding. In a rare move the court not only overturned the verdict, it entered an acquittal in the case, therefore preventing Durenleau from ever being retried.
“We do not readily overturn a jury’s determination, but this court cannot shrink from its duty to protect an individual’s due process right to conviction only by evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court wrote in reversing the conviction. (Huminski note: Up to this portion of the article, Dean has professed his problem with the 4th, 6th and now 5th Amendments Contained in the Bill of Rights, looking at the link below you will see his appointees have problems with the 1st Amendment as well. He’s on a roll.)
The Durenleau case was one of five murder cases that the court overturned (the other four were remanded for retrial), prompting Dean to publicly portray the court as soft on crime while charging that its justices were allowing killers to walk free.
Dean also quizzed the judicial candidates about the court’s 1982 decision to overturn the conviction of Edwin Towne after a Windsor County jury found him guilty of kidnapping and assault. In that case, the court said testimony introduced by a forensic psychiatrist amounted to hearsay and thereby violated Towne’s right to confront the witness.
Dean argued that as a result of the court’s decision, Towne’s plea bargain agreement meant a shorter sentence, and a second chance for Towne to act as a predator. Several years later, Towne was arrested and subsequently convicted in the brutal slaying of a young girl. (Huminski Comment: After the overturning of the conviction on 5th Amendment grounds, the prosecutor could have sought to re-try the individual on the same original charges carrying the same penalty. Instead, the prosecutor involved chose to offer the favorable plea agreement carrying a lighter penalty. The court decision merely followed the provisions in the Bill of Rights, a problem for Dean. Dean ignorance once-again.)
In the end, Dean insists that his mission is not to eliminate any constitutional protections, but rather to promote a more common-sense approach to the legal arena.
But others – particularly with a keen eye on constitutional protections – say Dean’s approach is both simplistic and short-sighted. As Mello sees it, the rights that Dean sees as “technicalities” are there to preserve the rights of all citizens, including citizens accused of crimes, to be free from government intrusion.
“These are not technicalities. In my view, any lawyer who said that would be speaking irresponsibly”, said Mello. “I am not a doctor, and I would not take it upon myself to tell Howard Dean how to practice medicine.”
***END***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Huminski note: Now its time to look at Dean’s judicial appointees to see if his mission to make “common-sense” more important than “legal technicalities” succeeded. I think Dr. Dean accomplished his mission in Vermont. Next mission –Dean “justice” for the United States. No thanks.
(see Howard Dean’s legacy under fire)
http://www.vermontindymedia.org/newswire/display/1732/index.php or
http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/13058.phpRegarding the Vermont Supreme Court, their decision to cover-up the acceptance of a bribe by a state prosecutor is also before a federal court in Manhattan. There is more on that judicial body as far as blatant disregard for the law and corruption. Dean has opened up a can-of-worms, time for the public to take a peak inside. Vermont is seething with corruption. (See also Judicial Watch – Watching Howard Dean, After digging up the abov article from microfilm at the Rutland Library, I can only imagine what is in Dean’s sealed records)
http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/405.php-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rutland Herald, Thursday, July 31, 1997 & Times-Argus Editorial Staff
THOSE TECHNICALITIES
Gov. Howard Dean may be right when he says that most criminal defendants are guilty of one crime or another. That supposition is no more relevant than another: That most police officers and prosecutors are honest and dependable.
Dean is famously impatient with the “technicalities” that he believes too often allow criminals to go free. But the two above suppositions suggest why the technicalities that infuriate Dean are necessary constitutional rights protecting us all.
We all know, for example, that even if most criminal defendants are guilty, some are not. We also know that even if most police are honest and competent, some are not.
The constitutional protections that Dean derides protect the innocent and the guilty from the arbitrary, illegal, biased, capricious conduct that is the occasional work of those police officers who do not fall into the category of honest and dependable. Indeed, there is no way to protect the rights of just the innocent since the system to determine innocence or guilt must operate within the rules that protect everyone.
Is anyone going to argue that the police never abuse their power. Jack Hoffman write a column in the Herald three weeks ago describing the way police had violated the rights of a suspect in a Manchester murder case back the the 1980s. Judge Ernest Gibson III, sitting in Superior Court, ruled that the police had tricked a teenager into confessing and that the confession and part of the evidence they had seized could not be used in trial.
The Supreme Court upheld Gibson’s findings.
Sometimes police get overenthusiastic, and they trammel on a suspect’s right against self-incrimination or his right to protection against unwarranted search and seizure. Those are rights that apply to everyone, even those who may eventually be found guilty of a crime.
Dean’s lack of interest in the Constitution came to the foreground as he discussed his views of the Vermont Supreme Court and what kind of person he would appoint as justice to replace Gibson, who retires today. He ended up appointing District Judge Marilyn Skoglund.
Dean has a history of appointing people with experience as prosecutors or with the attorney general’s office, where Skoglund had worked before she became a judge. Of Course, a prosecutor with integrity can be as dedicated to justice as the best defense lawyer; conscientious representation on both sides is essential for the justice system to work.
But Dean’s mistrust of the defense bar and his impatience with constitutional process are all part of his stunted view of the legal system. So is his stinginess with the public defenders office.
Dean’s appointment of Skoglund and the discussion of his views happens to have occurred during the week when William J. Brennan Jr. was buried. Brennan was the retired Supreme Court justice who has been recognized as one of the most influential justices to sit on the Supreme Court, precisely because his rulings have secured for all Americans many rights we now take for granted.
The constitution is designed to place limits on arbitrary power, which means police cannot break into homes without a warrant in search for evidence, and they cannot coerce confessions from vulnerable, frightened people. Brennan helped establish these protections, and he is revered for it.
It would be nice if the shade of William Brennan could sit down with Howard Dean and have a little discussion about the constitution.
“Howard,” he might say, “better to have a society where the occasional scoundrel goes free as a result of official misconduct than a society without laws to protect people from misconduct.”
Such laws require judges of integrity and courage to defend them. In Vermont, the late judge Frank Mahady was one of the most well-known defenders of Vermonters constitutional rights. There’s no reason even a former prosecutor or someone like Marilyn Skoglund cannot follow in the tradition of Brennan and Mahady.
***END***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huminski note: After living in Vermont over a decade, I can attest to the fact that police and prosecutors have become bold and empowered knowing that the Dean appointed judiciary will look the other way concerning their constitutional transgressions and corruption. (see also HOWARD DEAN IS WORSE THAN ASHCROFT and the PATRIOT ACT)
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/84950.phphttp://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/543.php
Howard Dean Appointees Guilty
North Carolina Independent Media Center
Original article is at
http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/13685.phpHOWARD DEAN APPOINTEES GUILTYby Scott Huminski
• Wednesday February 09, 2005 at 02:26 PM
Federal Court Finds DNC Chair Howard Dean’s Judicial Appointees Guilty
In a 1997 Vermont Press Bureau article, Howard Dean expressed his desire to appoint judges that were not so concerned about the Bill of Rights -- or in Howard Dean lingo “legal technicalities”.
Howard kept his aim true. Within two months of his proclamation, he appointed Nancy Corsones and Patricia Zimmerman to the Vermont bench.
Shortly afterward, Vermont prosecutors set their sites on a local activist. Judge Corsones chose to advance justice in Vermont by violating the activist’s rights against double jeopardy, his right to counsel and his right to due process. Later, the Vermont Supreme Court sided with the activist and threw out the bogus criminal charges.
One spring morning in Rutland Vermont, the activist appeared at Judge Corsones’ courthouse with signs on his van that detailed the Judge’s problems with the Bill of Rights. The signs correctly labeled the Judge a “Butcher of the Constitution”.
Judge Corsones’ solution – banish the activist from the courthouse – for life. In January of 2005 the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan found that judgment should issue against Judge Corsones and her colleague for violation of the First Amendment rights to free expression and to courthouse access.
Kudos to Howard Dean for truly accomplishing his proclaimed goals of subverting the Bill of Rights, or in this example, subversion of the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution via judicial appointments. Sympathy to the Democratic Party for choosing such an arrogant and ignorant leader.
Scott Huminski
s_huminski@hotmail.comhttp://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=14208http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=2375 http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/1012humins.html© 2000-2002 North Carolina Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the NC IMC.
Disclaimer Privacyhttp://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/13685.php
Judicial Watch : Watching Howard Dean
JUDICIAL WATCH: WATCHING HOWARD DEAN
scott huminski 28.09.2003 18:09
Dean's refusal to open Vermont records.
IS IT ANY SURPRISE In 1997 Dean stated in a Vermont Press Bureau interview that he desired to appoint judges that would not be concerned about "legal technicalities". Within months of this statement, Dean appointed two judges. These two jurists are now awaiting final hearing (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, NY, NY, Oct. 20, 2003) concerning federal civil rights charges.
Begrudgingly, with looming threat of federal oversight, the Vermont Supreme Court has already found one of these jurists violated Double Jeopardy.
Should anyone be shocked that a judicial watchdog group wants more information on Dr. Dean? It's not important if you define "legal technicalities" as being constitutional provisions or statutory law. Dean announced that he would appoint judges willing to defy the law or his so-called "legal technicalities". In the context Dean was speaking of, overturning a serious felony criminal conviction, the "technicality" was most definitely part of the Bill of Rights. Inquire with any defense attorney as to how easy is it to attack and overturn a criminal conviction in state or federal court. Almost impossible aside from blatant constitutional transgressions or DNA evidence. Overturning a criminal conviction on a "technicality" always involves a breech of fundamental fairness. Fundamental fairness lies at the heart of the Due Process clause.
Yes, Judicial Watch should be watching Howard Dean. Many others are silently watching Howard Dean with knowledge of what hides in his sealed records. See Judicial Watch link below and check the pdf of the letter sent to the Dean camp requiring response in 2 days under Vermont law. That was last week.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/092503_PR.shtml or
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94621,00.htmlAs Dean constantly brags of his record in Vermont, then why doesn't he want us to read about it. I, for one, am particularly interested in the year 1997. Is the record he seeks to hide so damaging that he invites a lawsuit from Judicial Watch and others who merely wish to read about his stellar record in Vermont? -- scott huminski
http://kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/696/index.phphttp://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/101084.shtml
Doctor of Deception: Howard Dean at it again
Doctor of Deception: Howard Dean at it Again
author: scott huminski
Howard Dean Lies
Simultaneously on 12/23/03, Defendant Howard Dean managed to state to that he "completely pulled ourselves out" of the Judicial Watch lawsuit where Dean is named as a defendant,
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2003/12/23/dean_seeks_distance_from_suit/and Defendant Howard Dean, through counsel, appeared and filed an answer to the Judicial Watch lawsuit calling for dismissal of the same.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031223_2227.html Huh, how does a defendant to a civil lawsuit "pull out" and wash their hands of the matter? Answer: they can't.
Deception, smoke and mirrors will not hide the plain truth that Defendant Dean filed an answer to the Judicial Watch complaint on the same day he stated that he was distancing himself from the suit. Defendant Dean's papers requested that the suit be eventually dismissed.
The fact is that defendant Howard Dean can not lawfully "pull out" of this dispute and, in fact, regardless of what lawyer filed Dean's pleadings in Vermont Superior Court on 12/23/03, the filings belong to Dean not to his counsel on the case. These papers have the same legal force and effect as if they were penned by Dean's hand. They were filed with the consent and authorization of Defendant Dean.
Dean's lawyer, William Sorrell, is prohibited from filing anything on Howard Dean's behalf that is not consented to by Dean himself pursuant to attorney ethical considerations. Dean's contradictory statements and conduct on 12/23/03 are the ultimate test of just how gullible are his supporters and how long the media will overlook his deceptive conduct.
See Also, Howard 'no comment' Dean,
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/102191.shtmlIt seems as avoidance and deception are Dean's preferred methods of handling tough issues. Under a legal analysis, Dean's concurrent "pull out" and court filing, move his rhetoric to the classification of a common lie.
The irony of Dean delegating to the Vermont Attorney General, William Sorrell, is the vast conflict-of-interest between these two cronies who have been friends and allies for the last quarter century. See Affidavit below... ...
State of Vermont Washington County, SS.
Washington Superior Court Civil Action,
Docket No. 656-12-03 WnCv
JUDICIAL WATCH, Plaintiff, V. STATE OF VERMONT, DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ, GREGORY SANFORD, HOWARD DEAN, Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF SCOTT HUMINSKI CONCERNING DISQUALIFICATION OF THE VERMONT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
NOW COMES, Scott Huminski ("Huminski"), pro se, under oath and hereby deposes and swears as follows:
1) Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct excerpt from a Boston Globe article of 9/22/2003 entitled A Meteoric Rise in Vermont Politics.
2) Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct excerpt from a transcript of Howard Dean's Burlington, Vermont speech of 6/23/2003. In Exhibit "B", Howard Dean acknowledges and thanks the Sorrell family prior to his own mother and brother.
3) Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true and correct excerpt from the Vermont government website regarding Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
4) Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a true and correct excerpt from the Brattleboro Reformer article of 1/04/03 entitled Dean Bids Adieu.
5) Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a true and correct excerpt from the George Washington University, Democracy in Action, July 7, 2002, Peter Freyne interview.
6) Attached hereto as Exhibit "F" is a true and correct excerpt from the Rutland Herald article of 7/12/03 entitled Supreme Court Process is Less Bruising in Vt..
7) Attached hereto as Exhibit "G" is a true and correct excerpt from the Rutland Herald article of 6/11/03 entitled Six on Short List to Fill Supreme Court Vacancy.
8) In September of 2002 Howard Dean agreed to review the report concerning the 2001 police shooting of Robert Woodward produced by William Sorrell's Vermont Attorney General's Office at the request of the Friends of Woody organization and Howard Dean also agreed to read a similar second report generated by the Friends of Woody contradicting the Attorney General's report.
9) In 2002, upon accepting the task of reviewing William Sorrell's office's report on the Woodward shooting, Howard Dean failed to alert Justice for Woody members that he had a very long-term and close relationship with William Sorrell and Sorrell's family.
10) Howard Dean chose to endorse William Sorrell's report concerning the Woodward shooting for the reason stated in Exhibit "E" that Dean had respect "for the attorney general as a human being and as a really smart lawyer. He is not somebody who has ever been afraid of prosecuting the police when it was necessary to do so, so that's why I do have confidence in the attorney general."
11) Upon information and belief, in the Woodward matter, Howard Dean's duty to support and promote his long-term friend William Sorrell (see above paras. 1-7) conflicted with; (1) his duty to the people of Vermont, (2) his duty to his oath of office, and (3) his duty to further the cause of justice and fair play as set forth in both the Vermont and federal constitutions.
12) Upon information and belief, William Sorrell and his Vermont Attorney General's Office will return the favor(s) from Howard Dean set forth above in the instant litigation conflicting with his duty to; (1) The people of Vermont, (2) the Vermont and Federal Constitutions, and (3) State and Federal law.
13) Upon information and belief, William Sorrell's duty to Howard Dean conflicts with and exceeds his duties to the people of Vermont and the State of Vermont.
14) This affidavit will be followed by the appropriate moving paper after an appearance for the defendants has been filed with the Court.
Dated at Cary, North Carolina this 19th day of December, 2003. _________________________
Scott Huminski, pro se
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED to before me this 19th day of December, 2003 __________________________________ Notary Public Exp. ______
Exhibit "A"
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/22/a_meteoric_rise_in_vermont_politics/Boston Globe
A meteoric rise in Vermont politics Younger sibling's death may have been catalyst
By Sarah Schweitzer and Tatsha Robertson,
Globe Staff, 9/22/2003 (excerpt)
It seems clear that Dean was always intrigued on some level by politics. He was an elected prefect at St. George's and in 1977, shortly before entering medical school, Dean scouted office space for Ed Koch's first New York City mayoral run, though neither Koch nor his campaign workers remember him. Yet he could never fully immerse himself. Something, it seems, held him back -- until he left New York. Midway through his second year of residency in Vermont, shortly after Judy joined him in the same program, Dean plunged in, starting with a phone call to Jimmy Carter's local organizer and a neighbor, Esther Sorrell. Sorrell was the doyenne of Democratic politics in Burlington, credited with helping to revive the Democratic Party in Vermont after more than a century of Republican governorships. Sorrell, who died in 1990, was a state senator with a vast array of supporters, many drawn from the ethnic base of onetime mill workers. Dean's connection with Sorrell was magnetic. She was taken with the smart young doctor who stuffed envelopes for her political causes and, upon occasion, attended Catholic Mass with her. "It was just like having another son," said Lorraine Graham, a Sorrell friend. Dean was awed by Sorrell's political instincts and connections. Soon Dean was leaving Judy on her own Friday nights to spend them at Sorrell's salon, camped in her living room in the turreted corner of her modest home. There, Dean and Sorrell, and a handful of party stalwarts, ate cherry pie and watched "Washington Week in Review" and "Vermont This Week," the women offering critiques and sharing war stories while Dean listened. "He was a sponge for that stuff," said Bill Sorrell, Esther's son, whom Dean would later appoint state attorney general after failing in an effort to have him named to the state Supreme Court.
Exhibit "B"
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean062303/dean062303spt.html George
Washington University Online Transcript,
"The Great American Restoration"
Gov. Howard Dean Burlington, VT
June 23, 2003
TRANSCRIPT -- TRANSCRIPT - TRANSCRIPT
Thank you! You are unbelievable. Thank you. Thank you. You are unbelievable. Five thousand people here and they had to shut--the fire marshall shut the place down; there's people behind us. I appreciate your sticking with us; I know the sound system doesn't go that far back. Thank you so very, very much. I really appreciate it. Let me thank Peter Clavell, who's been a great friend, a parent and a great mayor for many, many years. I think it's 14. Let me thank Jim Jeffords. I am so proud of Jim Jeffords' courage. The courage to stand up for what's right in America and put his principles before party. And let me thank the senior Senator from this incredible state, Patrick J. Leahy, who has stood up, who has stood up for civil rights before it was fashionable and stopped right wing judges from being appointed to the Supreme Court. Patrick Leahy, thank you so very, very much. And I want to thank Gray. Isn't he unbelievable? Gray, your generation is fueling this campaign to take back this country so that your generation will inherit an America that we were taught to believe in. It is great to be home. It's where Judy and I got our start as parents and doctors. It's here in Burlington that our children Anne [phon.] and Paul were born. Just up the street is where I first met Esther Sorrell, my mentor, who gave me so much guidance and without whom I would not be standing here today. And I wonder, somewhere in this audience, is her granddaughter McKenzie [phon.] Sorrell and her daughter McKaila [phon.] Sorrell Wallace. Are they here anyplace? Alright. Thank you so very, very much. And it's from here that I drove to Montepelier in August of 1991 to become the governor of this proud and remarkable state. I thank Judy, my children, my family for their unconditional love and support: my father and my brother Charlie for their inspiration and eternal presence in my life, my mother and brothers Jim and Bill, who sustain me to this day. (click on the above link for the remainder of this piece)
Exhibit "C"
http://www.atg.state.vt.us/display.php?smod=70Attorney General William H. Sorrell A native and resident of Burlington, Vermont, Attorney General William H. Sorrell graduated from the University of Notre Dame (AB, magna cum laude, 1970) and Cornell Law School (JD, 1974). Bill served as Chittenden County Deputy State's Attorney from 1975-1977; Chittenden County State's Attorney, 1977-78 and 1989-1992; engaged in private law practice at McNeil, Murray & Sorrell, 1978-1989; and served as Vermont's Secretary of Administration, 1992-1997. As State's Attorney, he personally successfully prosecuted several significant matters, including the first case allowing the admissibility of DNA evidence in a Vermont State Court and a ten-year-old homicide in which the victim's body had never been found. Governor Howard Dean appointed General Sorrell to fill the unexpired term of now Vermont Chief Justice Jeffrey Amestoy, commencing May 1, 1997. He has enjoyed strong voter support in standing for election in November 1998, 2000 and 2002. His current term of office will expire in January 2005.
Exhibit "D"
http://www.justiceforwoody.org/media/articles/html/casa1.htmBrattleboro Reformer
Dean bids adieu
By KATHRYN CASA Reformer Staff
Saturday, January 04, 2003 (excerpt)
This community continues to be divided over the Dec. 2, 2002, police shooting of Robert Woodward. William Sorrell exonerated police in that incident. But at least two different analyses have found fault with the Sorrell report. As governor you resisted calls to intervene. Do you continue to stand by the attorney general's findings? I've read one of the analyses of the report and I thought it was very good, it was by the friends of Woody ... It is impossible for me, as someone who wasn't there, to know what went on in the church. I have a long association with the attorney general and I have an enormous amount of respect for the attorney general as a human being and as a really smart lawyer. He is not somebody who has ever been afraid of prosecuting the police when it was necessary to do so, so that's why I do have confidence in the attorney general.
Exhibit "E"
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/freyneint.htmlGeorge Washington University,
Democracy in Action,
July 7, 2002 (excerpt)
Peter Freyne Interview
FREYNE: He was a co-chairman of that group with a fellow named Rick Sharp, who's a lawyer, who's still around but pretty much beneath the radar since. Rick ran for the State Senate eventually in the '80s and got creamed. But Howard went and became chairman of the [Democratic] county committee, which he did.
QUESTION: When did that happen?
FREYNE: That would have been around 1980... It's the party job. Perfunctory thing. You run a meeting. There's not a whole lot of activity on it. You get together at election time... They're always looking to find someone for those jobs--who wants to do it? But then I guess he went to the Democratic Convention, became a delegate, the whole story about him and Esther Sorrell...has already been written up. Billy Sorrell's now the Attorney General; Howard tried to appoint him Supreme Court Chief Justice but it didn't fly. Sorrell didn't get through the committee. They had set up a mechanism for judicial review of some kind and Sorrell didn't make the cut.
Exhibit "F"
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68525.htmlRutland Herald Supreme Court process is less bruising in Vt.
July 12, 2003
By DAVID MACE Vermont Press Bureau (excerpt)
That doesn't mean there aren't tiffs. Douglas recently rejected the board's list of candidates and asked for more, joining Richard Snelling and Dean in doing so. In 1997, Dean hoped to tap his administration secretary, William Sorrell, for the chief justice slot but couldn't convince the board that Sorrell's lack of experience as a judge didn't disqualify him. Dean ultimately chose Republican Attorney General Jeffrey Amestoy, and Sorrell became attorney general, a post he's held ever since.
Exhibit "G"
http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/66910.htmlRutland Herald Six on short list to fill court vacancy
June 11, 2003
By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau (excerpt)
The nominating board is made up of six lawmakers - three from the House and three from the Senate - three lawyers elected by the Vermont Bar Association and two lay people appointed by the governor. Its function is to screen interested candidates and send a list of finalists to the governor to choose from. A governor can only appoint someone to the bench from that list. A governor can reject the finalists and ask the board to submit a new list. That's what former Gov. Howard Dean did the last time a vacancy came open on the high court. Dean, a Democrat, had wanted to appoint William Sorrell to the bench. Sorrell, who is now the state attorney general, was Dean's administration secretary. But the board did not include Sorrell's name on any of its lists. Finally, after a public and controversial back-and-forth between Dean and the board, Dean appointed Amestoy, who was the Republican attorney general at the time.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 19th day of December 2003, copies of the foregoing affidavit were sent by United States mail, postage prepaid, to: Vermont Attorney General's Office 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq. Gravel and Shea 76 St. Paul Street, 7th Floor P. O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369
___________________________
Scott Huminski
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277164.shtml
Howard "no comment" Dean
Howard ' no comment' Deanby scott huminski
Thursday, Dec. 04, 2003 at 12:01 PM
Conflict of Interest infected Dean’s Vermont Record concerning police shooting. Dean refuses multiple press requests for comment.
On two consecutive days, Dean’s campaign refused to respond to press requests from Connecticut and Vermont newspapers about his corrupt behavior concerning his conflict of interest with William Sorrell, Vermont Attorney General, related to a police shooting and how that conflict tainted his decision relating to the appointment of a special prosecutor. No comment. Couldn’t be reached. Wouldn’t return calls. See articles below.
Two years ago, Dean was petitioned by grieving friends of a slain Vermont man (Justice for Woody) to appoint a special prosecutor/investigator to look into the police shooting. The group strongly objected to the results of an investigation conducted by William Sorrell, Vermont Attorney General. Dean accepted the request to look at the matter and take appropriate action if he deemed it appropriate.
When Dean accepted the report from the Justice for Woody people he failed to disclose to the group that he had an enormous conflict of interest with William Sorrell and he would never undermine his friend’s report on the shooting. To do so would usurp his friends authority and put into question Sorrell’s abilities and judgment.
See, Cronies v. Qualifications, Howard Dean’s Dilemma
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/100936.shtmlIn many State’s Dean’s conduct would be criminal under conflict of interest statutes. Not so in Dean’s Vermont. Maybe his failure to disqualify himself from evaluating his Crony’s report may not be criminal, but, it was a breach of moral and ethical standards that would apply to any profession. It’s not necessary to debate the facts of the police shooting or to even review the reports available on the issue to make a finding of corruption against Dean for failing to recuse from the matter because of a vast conflict with the Vermont Attorney General’s Office.
Dean left Vermont in a hopeless state of corruption. Conflict of interest and even acceptance of bribes by government officials are part of doing business for Vermont government officials. Why doesn’t Dean wish to address the conflict of interest charges leveled at him in the below articles? Similarly, why did Dean try to seal his records for 20 years. There’s much more to look at in Vermont. We can start with Dean’s #1 appointee and favorite crony, Vermont Attorney General, William Sorrell.
--------------------------------------------
Friends of shooting victim say Howard Dean failed him
By ADAM BOWLES
Norwich Bulletin, 12/02/03
Two years after a Norwich Free Academy graduate was fatally shot by police while inside a Vermont church, Robert Woodward's friends claim that presidential candidate Howard Dean mishandled the case.
Woodward's supporters are upset that Dean, governor of Vermont at the time of the shooting, did not appoint an independent investigation into the shooting.
Dean, instead, said he was comfortable with a report by the state attorney general that cleared the police of any wrongdoing, the supporters say.
Members of the "Justice for Woody" group say Dean and Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell are lifelong friends and that Sorrell's family helped launch Dean's political career.
"We feel that (Dean) purposely did not want to cross his friend, his political crony of several decades who probably has aspirations to be part of a Dean presidential cabinet," said Keith Carlson, a member of Justice for Woody. "We may not be the ones to prove it. But the public has the right to know."
Members of the group are marking the anniversary of Woodward's death with a silent march today in downtown Brattleboro.
Dean's press office said Monday that the leading Democratic presidential candidate would not comment for this story. His spokesman did not return phone calls to the press office Monday.
FULL STORY:
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/stories/20031202/localnews/746805.html *** END
*** See also, Brattleboro Reformer, 12/03/03 “Calls to Dean's national campaign office were not returned Tuesday.”
http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~1805664,00.html-------------------------------------------------
This corruption is also mentioned at below link along with Sorrell's cover-up of bribery and violation of criminal federal civil rights law. Dean sure chooses interesting cronies.
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/3802.phpIf there is any question as to the ties between these two unsavory politicians......
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/22/a_meteoric_rise_in_vermont_politics/See the 4th paragraph in this link, Sorrell and Dean are as close as family,
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean062303/dean062303spt.html http://www.atg.state.vt.us/display.php?smod=70 http://www.justiceforwoody.org/media/articles/html/casa1.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/freyneint.html http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68525.html http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/66910.html http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/8836.php Commentary and compilation by
Scott Huminski
s_huminski@hotmail.com© 2000-2003 Los Angeles Indpendent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Indpendent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4
Disclaimer Privacyhttp://la.indymedia.org/print.php?id=96372
Defendant Dean: Tell the Truth
Defendant Dean: Tell the truthby scott huminski
Monday January 26, 2004 at 03:41 PM
In the Iowa Presidential Debate of 1/04/04, Howard Dean stated concerning the Vermont gubernatorial records lawsuit that,
"What we have done is we have stepped aside. We have turned everything over to the attorney general of the state of Vermont. And the attorney general of the state of Vermont will go to court, and a judge will look over every document in our records. And they are free to release whatever they'd like, and that's fine with me."
On 12/08/03, Dean made the same statement to the press. Sandwiched in between these two public statements, on 12/23/03 in Washington County Superior Court, Dean demands that the Court, "dismiss the complaint and deny all relief requested by the plaintiffs". Dean's public statements and his court filings can't both be true.
Unfortunately, for the man who appointed the vast majority of the Vermont judiciary, a defendant in a civil lawsuit can not "step aside". One would expect that the man who appointed judges for over a decade in Vermont and who now wishes to appoint federal judges could grasp this fundamental legal concept. Smoke, mirrors and deception. Defendant Dean, is this the candor we can expect from you, your campaign and your appointees such as Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell?
http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/letters_to_editor/story/9099e0d6e
Our Government Needs Good Citizens -- Thom Hartmann
note: this article was available for years on Thom Hartmann’s web site. Since I’ve been linking to it for several months now, its been removed. As of this writing his home page still has a synopsis and a link that does not work. An excellent analysis of Howard Dean’s justice. Thanks Thom Hartmann. – Scott Huminski
OUR GOVERNMENT NEEDS GOOD CITIZENS
By Thom Hartmann
For men tied fast to the absolute, bled of their differences, drained of their dreams by authoritarian leeches until nothing but pulp is left, become a massive sick Thing whose sheer weight is used ruthlessly by ambitious men. Here is the real enemy of the people: our own selves dehumanized into "the masses." And where is David who can slay this giant? – Lillian Smith (1897-1966), U.S. Author, The Journey, Prologue (1954)
In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider "common sense more important than legal technicalities" and "quickly convict guilty criminals."
It’s probably a testimonial to the good job public education has done in Vermont that there wasn’t a public uprising against him ( although the Montpelier letters-to-the-editor section was filled with invective for several weeks). Certainly this is a statement that would not have been acceptable to the people who made Vermont the second independent Caucasian-run nation in North America (after Texas). The founding fathers of Vermont, which dropped its independent-nation status to become the USA’s 14th state in 1779, knew all too well the dangers of a government unconstrained by the "technicalities" of the law. They’d seen it when the British forced them to house their soldiers, shot or hung them for speaking out against the King, and allowed them to engage in commerce or own property only if they gave a portion of their wealth to England. They realized that the government has most of the guns and all of the power, and that it’s only "legal technicalities" which keep any government at bay. They fought and many of them died to put those "technicalities" into place. When politicians like Dean call for "swift and certain conviction of the guilty" (which actually means "swift and certain conviction of the accused, since a person is only guilty when they’ve been convicted … at least as of the date of this writing) in the courts of the state "regardless of technicalities," I imagine our founding fathers roll over in their graves.
The average American, however, nods his head and says, "Yeah, get them criminals off the streets. Convict ‘em quick and lock ‘em up for good!" The average American rarely considers that he or she may be the next "criminal" facing the accusing finger of the government.
Howard Dean's Constitutional Hang-up
Howard Dean's Constitutional Hang-Up
Dean Would Rather Execute an Innocent Man,
Than Let a Guilty One Walk Free
by Josh Frank
Dissident Voice
August 16, 2003
As Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean openly claimed that the legal system unfairly benefited criminal defendants over prosecutors. He even took measures to cut federal grant money aimed at helping mentally disabled defendants--as well as appointing state judges who were willing to undermine the Bill of Rights. In a 1997 interview with the Vermont News Bureau, Howard Dean admitted his desire to expedite the judicial process by using such justices to "quickly convict guilty criminals." He wanted individuals that would deem "common sense more important than legal technicalities." Constitutional protections (legal technicalities) apparently undermine Dean's yearning for speedy trials.
Perhaps he was looking to make Vermont more like George Bush's Texas, where defense lawyers are renowned for lacking the resources necessary to provide their clients a fair representation.
Several of Dean's judicial appointments are now awaiting hearings before the United States Second Circuit Court in New York City. The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression (
www.tjcenter.org) and two other law firms have filed briefs against these justices. They are being accused of violating a number of federal rights including; the First Amendment, Right to Counsel, Double Jeopardy, and Due Process.
Regarding one case where citizen reporter Scott Huminski was barred from Vermont courts, a DC lawyer stated in an interview with Eugenia Harris from the First Amendment Center that, "the real heart of the issue is whether local government officials can unilaterally silence speech and exert arbitrary power over their citizens." Seems Howard Dean stuck by his word and appointed judges that care little about real "justice." And he thinks he's qualified to appoint justices at the federal level?
These are not the only examples of Howard Dean's intentions to subdue the Bill of Rights. Shortly after the September 11th attacks Dean was quoted in the Rutland Herald claiming that the United States needs a "re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties."
Later when asked if he thought the Bill of Rights needed to be altered he said, "I think it is unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far I think our freedom is what they find so threatening, our freedom and the power that I think results from that freedom."
So according to Dean since terrorists are after our sought after freedoms, we might consider scathing back certain liberties in order to decrease the threat of future strikes. John Ashcroft must be pleased.
There is more. On Meet the Press last June, when asked about his support for the death penalty by Tim Russert, Dean replied,
"So I just-life without parole, which we have which I actually got passed when I was lieutenant governor- the problem with life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial."
A "technicality" to Dean must be synonymous with "Constitutional hang-up." In the case Dean presented to Russert, a man walked free, but should have been put to death instead of challenging his unconstitutional conviction. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen commented on Dean's statement saying that, "I have never heard a politician admit that he would countenance the death of an innocent person in order to ensure that the guilty die."
Dean's attempts to weaken the Bill of Rights began in the 1990s with his appointments of justices now awaiting hearings in New York for egregious infringements on civil liberties. He then took it a step further after September 11th and indicated the "re-evaluation" of constitutional rights was in order. And now, as Dean steams ahead in his bid for the White House, he's claiming on national television that he would rather have an innocent convict die than have them released on a "technicality."
If elected will Dean attempt to make the United State's a country in which citizens have access to neither a fair trial, nor adequate counsel? A country where constitutional rights are viewed as "technicalities," worthy of death?
Time to start asking some serious questions.
Josh Frank is a journalist living in New York City. His work appears frequently in Impact Press and online at
Counterpunch. He can be reached at
frank_joshua@hotmail.com.* Thanks to Scott Huminski for research support.
Other Recent Articles by Josh Frank
*
Candidate Dean: A True Regressive*
Dennis Kucinich: Democrat in the Fray*
Greens Looking for a Winning Strategy*
Disrobing DubyaHOME
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Frank_Dean-Death-Penalty.htm.ivanC10508582773137{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}
FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com
Dean's Corruption in the Green Mountain State
Dean's Corruption in the Green Mountain State
by Josh Frank
Dissident Voice
September 18, 2003
William Sorrell met Howard Dean twenty-five years ago, when Sorrell's mother introduced the two during a neighborhood gathering. Grandma Sorrell was a Democratic Party loyalist, and an activist to boot. At the time, her son William was a rookie state attorney, and Howard a young doctor with political aspirations. They connected immediately. Both had hopes of climbing among Vermont's elite, where they could flaunt their power freely.
In 1983, shortly after the two met, Dean was voted into the Vermont House of Representatives, where he served for 3 consecutive years. By 1986 he became the state's Lieutenant Governor, and in 1991 took over Vermont's top job when acting Gov. Richard Snelling died unexpectedly.
It wasn’t long before Sorrell started benefiting from Dean’s unexpected job promotion. A year after stumbling into the Governor's mansion, Dean made Sorrell Vermont's Secretary of Administration. Three years later Dean was back at it, selling his man again. This time for the Chief Justice position of Vermont's Supreme Court.
Unfortunately for Dean, his strategy backfired, and Sorrell's name was scratched from consideration due to his lack of judicial experience. But that didn't stop the Governor from appointing Sorrell to be Vermont's Attorney General - which happened in 1997 when Dean bumped his buddy into the uncontested slot.
They’d finally made it big. Dean as Governor, and Sorrell as Vermont's chief law enforcer. However, with power often comes greed, and ulterior motives plagued both their professional paths.
It seems these two cronies had a mutual disdain for the judicial process from the start. In the same year Sorrell was appointed Attorney General, Dean was quoted in a Vermont Press Bureau interview as saying that he believed quick convictions were just, and that legal technicalities should be overlooked during the prosecution of criminal and civil cases. He even said he was willing to appoint people to high positions who interpreted the Bill of Rights the same as he -- with a knack for overlooking the Bill’s particulars.
For the last two years, Sorrell has embraced Dean’s ludicrous interpretation of our hallowed Bill of Rights - defending the concept that the state has the right to banish a citizen in perpetuity, simply because they have exercised their first amendment right to criticize the government. With no trial or conviction necessary for banishment.
And currently awaiting hearing before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, is the undisputed fact that two Vermont Prosecutors, William Wright and John LaVoie, exchanged a favorable criminal plea for the dismissal of a civil suit that was filed against themselves. In layman's terms, LaVoie and Wright accepted a bribe in order to rush through their own case. Quite a pecuniary predicament these two County Prosecutors got themselves in.
To this day, Attorney General Sorrell has the authority to prosecute LaVoie and Wright, but refuses to do so. His office has no comment on the issue.
And Howard Dean claims to know nothing of the incident.
Sorrell’s breakneck justice doesn’t stop there. On December 2nd 2001, environmental activist Robert "Woody" Woodward was brutally gunned down by police officers in Brattleboro, Vermont while attempting to seek sanctuary in a Unitarian church. Witnesses say that Woodward was only at risk to himself, never threatening any of the parishioners. He rushed in claiming the FBI wanted him dead. Moments later three police officials stormed the church. According to official reports, one officer immediately opened fire on Woodward. Another officer then discharged his weapon into the air.
The helpless Woodward fell to the ground, curled in the fetal position - and then was shot four more times. In total, 7 bullets riddled his defenseless body. Woodward suffocated in a pool of his own blood.
Only one day following the incident, Brattleboro PD issued their report, claiming the officers involved had done nothing wrong. It maintained their use of force was justified, and their conduct professional.
Two investigative wings, one local and the other state, followed the Woodward case for several months - with state jurisdiction taking over in late 2002. Attorney General Sorrell, head of the state investigation, time and again has stonewalled the Woodward family (
www.justiceforwoody.org) attorneys; denying their lawyers access to documentation, and petitioning a federal court to ensure crucial evidence stayed in state hands.
When asked if Dean would ever appoint an independent investigator to look into the law enforcement’s misconduct regarding Sorrell and the Woodward shooting, Sue Allen, Dean’s ex-spokesperson had this to say for Dean. “The Governor has been reluctant to do that (appoint special investigators) in the past, and has a great deal of faith in the Attorney General. He read the report and was comfortable with the findings.”
It is official corruption at its zenith. A Governor who won’t sell out his friend of over 20 years. And an Attorney General whose interpretation of justice includes a murder cover up, and bribery.
If nominated by the Democratic Party, and successful at unseating Bush, it is a certainty that the venal Attorney General of Vermont will be chosen for a high post in a Dean Administration. Perhaps even Attorney General of the United States.
“I have a long association with Sorrell,” Dean once said, “and I have an enormous amount of respect for Sorrell as a human being and as a really smart lawyer.”
What does this have to say for Dean’s own intelligence and morality? Not much.
Josh Frank is a journalist living in New York City. His work appears frequently in Impact Press and online at
Counterpunch. He can be reached at
frank_joshua@hotmail.com.
Other Recent Articles by Josh Frank
*
Howard Dean's Constitutional Hang-Up: Dean Would Rather Execute an Innocent Man, Than Let a Guilty One Walk Free*
Candidate Dean: A True Regressive*
Dennis Kucinich: Democrat in the Fray*
Greens Looking for a Winning Strategy*
Disrobing Dubyahttp://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Frank_Dean-Sorrell-Corruption.htm
Howard Dean's Anti-Constitution Message
Howard Dean’s Anti-Constitution Messageby scott huminski
Thursday November 06, 2003 at 08:56 AM
Dean's Disdain for the Bill of Rights
Another in this series of articles where Dean attacks judges that dare to follow the law and the Bill of Rights in a State where he pledged that it was his ‘mission’ to appoint judges that would ignore legal technicalities, the Bill of Rights. Dean’s shoot from the ‘lip’ style is noted below. It’s important to note that these spontaneous verbal gems depict Dean’s true feelings on an issue and foretell his future conduct. His damage-control statements belie his true beliefs.
At the end of Freyne’s below article he poses the question of whether William Sorrell (the next US Attorney General if Dean elected, Dean’s favorite appointee) would follow the same legal policies enunciated by Dean. Without a doubt, yes. See,
Cronies v. Qualifications, Dean’s Dilemma & Is Howard Dean a Criminal Too?
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/9/prweb80286.htmhttp://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/8011.phpHoward Dean Worse than Ashcroft and the Patriot Act
http://wmass.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1642/index.phpThe Freyne article is followed by the recent TIME flip-flop article on Dean’s law and order policies. – Scott Huminski
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seven Days 8/7/96 Burlington, Vermont
* * * * HO-HO AND THE 'HOODS'
By Peter Freyne
Ask Governor Howard Dean a question and more often than not, you'll get a Howard Dean answer. There are times he'll actually say, "I'd rather not comment on that" or "That's the first I've heard of that," but hit the right button and the guy with the 68- percent approval rating and certain re-election staring him in the face will shoot from the lip with blazing accuracy.
Such was the case recently when the subject of State Auditor Ed Flanagan was waved in front of Dean like a red cape in front of a big, bad bull. And The Lip showed itself again the other day when the Gov was asked if he had any thoughts on the decision by Chittenden County States Attorney Scot Kline to drop charges against the Free Mumia protesters arrested during last summer's NGA spectacular. Judge Dean Pineles ruled on June 12, over the prosecutor's objection, that the defendants could present a "necessity defense" -- in a tradition made famous over a decade ago by the Winooski 44 who invaded U.S. Sen. Robert Stafford's Winooski office and refused to leave.
Six protesters were arrested outside the Sheraton last summer for playing "catch us if you can" as they streaked for the hotel's front door in a long-shot attempt to reach Gov. Ridge of Pennsylvania and persuade him to commute the death sentence of cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. They didn't have a chance and were quickly tackled by an all-star team of cops from local communities as well as state troopers. They were charged with unlawful trespass.
Howard Dean could have let this one slide. He could have said, "I really don't want to comment on that. It was the prosecutor's call." But he didn't. Ho-Ho couldn't resist. Firmly mounted on the state's largest bully pulpit, Howard Brush Dean opened up with both barrels. His first shot was aimed squarely at the judge.
"The error was by the judge not the prosecutor," replied Ho-Ho. "The decision to allow the necessity defense to be used was a mistake." Brilliant legal mind, our governor, eh?
"I thought it was very disappointing and unfortunate," said The Lip, "that Judge Pineles made the decision he did about the use of the necessity defense in a case where there was significant damage done to public property such as the Ethan Allen Homestead and $25,000 of police overtime. I don't regard those as trivial. I was very disappointed."
It's certainly comforting to know just where the guy who appoints judges to the Vermont bench stands on matters of law. This only embellishes Ho-Ho's law and order reputation. Remember he's the guy who once said 95 percent of people charged with crimes are guilty anyway so why should the state spend money on providing them with lawyers?
"These guys defaced the Ethan Allen Homestead," continued Field Marshall Howard Von Dean. "These guys are a bunch of hoods running around our streets. I don't think this has anything to do with the necessity offense --imported hoods I might add. People who spray paint and deface public property are hoodlums not protesters with some higher purpose. I have no patience for that."
Never mind that no one has ever been charged with a crime for spray painting "Free Mumia" on the walls of the Ethan Allen Homestead where the governors gathered for breakfast. Can't let the facts get in your way.
Judge Pineles told Inside Track that he "respects the Governor's opinion," but noted his ruling allowing the necessity defense was "legally sound." Pineles carefully applied the four-pronged standard established in case law by the Vermont Supreme Court. He followed the law, not the whims of the state's most successful politician. The prosecution appealed to the high court but the Supremes refused to hear it. They let Pineles' ruling stand for one reason and one reason only -- it was the right decision.
You've got to wonder if Ho-Ho's King George III views on the law reflect at all the views of his right hand man -- Administration Secretary Bill Sorrell, our Supreme Court justice in waiting. Blaming the judge for going by the book might make Ho-Ho feel good, but one would expect a little more class from one so well bred.
http://www.prisonactivist.org/pipermail/prisonact-list/1996-September/000600.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Huminski Comment - This judge merely ruled that the defendants could assert a specific defense to the charges when it came before trial. In response, the prosecutor dropped the charges when he knew he would be facing a strong defense in a very public trial. The prosecutor realized that this case would not be the usual railroad job that Vermont prosecutors have become accustomed to under Dean regime appointed judges. Dean, a fan of prosecutors, blames the judge because a prosecutor realized his case was too weak to overcome a valid defense. Dr. Dean what other legal defenses should we eliminate to satisfy your zeal to convict at all costs? Dean was born to wealthy nobility, but unfortunately, in the wrong era. Historically, rulers like Dean could have been the law unto themselves. It must be very frustrating to Dean that he wasn’t in power several hundred years ago where he could have really called the shots unconstrained by the technicalities of the law. Use of the trespass statute as a tool to silence dissent has become commonplace in Dean’s tenure in Vermont and that practice is currently before the federal courts as an unconstitutionally over-broad restriction on First Amendment rights. This federal ruling is expected within the next several weeks and it will hopefully be the start of the un-doing of what Dean did to justice and the Bill of Rights in Vermont.
Vermont Public Radio, Bob Kinzel:
“It's likely that Howard Dean's tenure in office will also have a long term effect on the state's criminal justice system. In his first years as Governor, Dean was often critical of judges who Dean thought did not hand down tough enough sentences. Over the last 10 years, Dean has appointed more judges than any previous governor and Dean describes his appointees as "law and order" judges. Dean's judicial philosophy appears to be having a significant impact - during his tenure as governor the average sentence handed down in Vermont has doubled - a situation that has led to an overcrowding of the state's prison system.” (Huminski note, In the rural and sparsely poulated State of Vermont, much of the crime and resulting incarceration arises from offenses that urban prosecutors would pass on.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean's Law and Order Views [already reprinted in a different entry]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A detailed look at Dean’s ‘justice’ policies from a 1997 Vermont Press Bureau piece at the below link.
http://nolaimc.stopcafta.org/news/2003/10/543.phpadd your comments© 2000-2005 Pittsburgh Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not endorsed by the Pittsburgh Independent Media Center.
Disclaimer Privacyhttp://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/10200.php
TALKLEFT: More on Howard Dean and Criminal Defendants
Monday :: July 21, 2003
More on Howard Dean and Criminal Defendants
We wrote last week about a Vermont newspaper editorial critical of Howard Dean's view of indigent defense and criminal defendants while he was Governor of Vermont. We were hoping he would address this on his blog and debunk the charge. We haven't seen any response. But we did receive this from a lawyer whose integrity we trust and who was a former public defender in Vermont.
I was a public defender in Vermont during part of Dean's tenure. He was openly hostile to the defense function. He once addressed a meeting of defense attorneys by stating that "my job is to make your job as difficult as possible." He is a man of his word, at least on this campaign promise. He did not want to fund public defense.
To his credit he appointed Robert Appel to the post of Defender General (Public Defender in charge of the state system.) Then he refused to reappoint Appel apparently because Robert was most effective on the shoestring budget he was given.
Dean, despite his present self proclaimed environmental advocate status, was fairly hostile to environmental concerns while Governor. Dean repeatedly appointed pro business, non environmentally sensitive people to the Environmental Board. In Dean's logic, any business that would provide a half dozen minimal wage jobs could do what they wanted to the environment. When I returned to New Jersey, I could observe that the only real difference between N.J. and VT environmentally (at least under Dean) was that VT had 7.5 million less residents.
Of course in a battle between Dean and Bush ....
When I asked this attorney if I could print his comments, he agreed, but asked to be referred to simply as a "former Vermont public defender." We are honoring his request. In his reply, he added,
Inasmuch as I fear Bush more than I distrust Dean, I would still probably vote for Dean if it came to a showdown. By the way, [one of my clients was accused] of arson murder. When my statewide boss said he didn't have the money for experts, I moved to dismiss arguing that it matters little which arm of the state was denying my client due process and effective assistance. The trial court ordered the experts, my boss appealed. The VT supremes ordered my boss to give me what I needed and to essentially rob peter to pay paul with his budget. My client was acquitted after an hour and one half of deliberation.
We are not trying to diss Dr. Dean. If he gets the nomination, he'll be our new best friend and we'll actively seek his election. But indigent defense is an issue near and dear to us, and we'd like to know if he thinks the criticism leveled at him is unfair, or if he thinks it was fair at the time but he's had a change of heart, or if it was fair then and remains fair today.
Posted Monday :: July 21, 2003
Talkleft: Howard Dean and Criminal Defendants
Monday :: July 14, 2003
Howard Dean and Criminal Defendants
Uh-oh, someone emailed us this editorial from the Rutland Herald
, published on August 16, 2001, while Howard Dean was still Governor. Before commenting, we'd like to hear Dr. Dean's response. We reprint it in it's entirety:
For the Defense
Dean chose not to reappoint Appel for a third four-year term as defender general, the state official who heads the state?s public defender program. In appointing Valerio, of Proctor, the new defender general, Dean had kind words for Appel. But Appel had clashed with Dean on numerous occasions in his efforts to secure for his office the resources necessary to fulfill his duties conscientiously.
Just two years ago Dean tried to prevent Appel from accepting a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities. For Dean to block a government agency from receiving federal money was unusual in itself. But Dean?s openly expressed bias against criminal defendants provided a partial explanation.
Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state?s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general?s office. That meant the state?s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond.
The problem with giving a disproportionate share of state resources to prosecution and enforcement is that it throws the justice system out of kilter. A just result occurs in court only when the prosecution and defense both are ably represented. Thus, Appel felt compelled two years ago to notify the court that the Rutland public defender?s office would take no new cases unless the defendant was in jail. The Rutland office was so short of staff that case backlogs threatened to overwhelm the public defenders.
Vermont is not Texas, where the public defender?s program is notorious for signing up incompetent, inebriated, or sleep-deprived lawyers for indigent clients. But lawyers who are short of resources cannot serve their clients well. Thus, Appel found himself in a bind five years ago when the court ordered him to provide expert testimony on behalf of Ruth Lizotte, a Rutland woman who was charged with murder by arson.
Appel noted that the public defender didn?t have the money to pay for expert witnesses. Thus, the burden is on the legislative and executive branches to make sure the judiciary has the resources it needs. And the judiciary includes the system as a whole ? police, prosecution, defense, and courtroom personnel. Making the case for adequate funding of the criminal defense system will be one of the principal jobs of the new defender general. Valerio, an experienced criminal defense lawyer and the incoming president of the Vermont Bar Association, will owe his appointment as defender general to Dean. But he will owe it to the people of Vermont to push Dean to include in his budget adequate resources so the state?s public defenders can do their jobs.
Public defenders handle most of the criminal defense work in the state. It is a thankless task in some ways. But one of the important differences between democracies and police states is a fair justice system. Without it, police round up people and throw them in jail as a matter of routine. Law becomes, not a guarantor of justice, but a method of intimidation.
Appel has served the state well by seeking to counter the biases of the governor. Let?s hope Valerio is willing to do the same.
[comments now closed]
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003144.html
TIME: Dean's Law and Order Views
Dean's Law and Order Views
The representative of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," is on some constitutional issues at odds with many in his party's base
By VIVECA NOVAK
Thursday, Oct. 30, 2003
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has rarely missed a chance — in debates and smaller forums, as well as
on his website — to hammer the Bush administration's handling of civil liberties since the 2001 terrorist attacks. He's even taken other Democrats to task: "Too many in my party voted for the Patriot Act," he said last June in a not-so-veiled jab at some of his opponents in the presidential race. "They believed that it was more important to show bipartisan support for President Bush during a moment of crisis than to stand up for the basic values of our constitution."
But on Sept. 12, 2001, Dean had quite a different reaction. He told the Vermont press corps he believed the terrorist hijackings would "require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street…I think that's a debate that we will have."
Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman, notes that Dean's comments came in the frenetic immediate aftermath of the attacks. "We shouldn't lose our focus on how the Bush administration has cynically used 9/11 to erode American civil liberties," Carson said. "Gov. Dean is and has been for his entire career a strong proponent of civil liberties for everyone." Dean's comments might be attributed to the emotion of the moment. But his views on certain constitutional and criminal justice principles have for years been at odds with those of many who form the base of the party — who are in the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" that Dean says he represents.
At the time of Dean's post-9/11 comments, Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor, called them "terribly irresponsible." In an interview this week, he gave a broader critique of Dean's approach to legal issues. "Whenever law is involved, he's been dreadful," Mello said. "He just doesn't get the Constitution or what lawyers do or what the courts are for." The exception, he added: Some "surprisingly good" Vermont Supreme Court appointments.
Dean made it clear early in his tenure that he thought alleged criminals were cut too much slack. "My view is that the justice system is not fair," Dean said in 1991 during his first week as governor. "It bends over backwards to help defendants and is totally unfair to victims and to society as a whole." Robert Appel, former head of the state's public defender system, said he had constant clashes with Dean over funding for the service. According to Appel, Dean said on at least one public occasion that the state should spend less money providing the accused with legal representation, saying that "95% of criminal defendants are guilty anyway." (Carson says the comment was meant as a joke, but Appel counters that even if it was, "the underlying message was pretty clear.")
Which may be one reason why Dean, in 1999, wanted to refuse a $150,000 federal grant to the public defender's office for aiding mentally disabled defendants. "That was unusual, to say the least," says Appel. The state legislature overrode Dean's opposition. Dean spokesman Carson responded that Dean didn't want to create a program that the state couldn't afford to fund if federal money disappeared in the future. But he did not disavow Dean's anti-defendant bent. "This is a governor who was tough on crime and is a big believer in victims' rights," Carson says.
Dean's shifting views on the death penalty have raised questions about whether he has gone from being an outspoken opponent to a sometime supporter as a matter of political expediency. He says he began to change his mind in the late 1990s, partly as a result of the case of Polly Klaas, the California girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered. He attempted an explanation of his support for capital punishment, even while agreeing that in some cases "the wrong guy" might be executed, on NBC's Meet the Press earlier this year. Saying he thought the death penalty was preferable in some instances to a sentence of life without parole, Dean noted that in some instances criminals who are locked up for life might be freed on a legal "technicality" only to commit more horrible crimes. "That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime," he said.
Dean, whose support for the death penalty is limited to cases involving murdered children or police officers, or mass murder, has since refined his position. On his website, he says that as president he would order his Attorney General to evaluate the federal death penalty and take steps to ensure its fair application; support the Innocence Protection Act, a pending bill that would help defendants secure experienced lawyers and access to DNA testing; and set up a Presidential Commission on the Administration of Capital Punishment to recommend reforms to prevent wrongful convictions.
Appel is willing to give Dean the benefit of the doubt. "My hope is he has grown over time, and I think he has," he said. But the former governor's explanations don't satisfy some of his critics. "He has the wrong reactions when it comes to people's legal rights," said law professor Mello, adding, "I wish so much I could support him."
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,535358,00.html
Howard Dean's Police State of Vermont
Gov. Dean's Police State of Vermontby scott huminski
Saturday July 26, 2003 at 11:40 PM
Dean's subversion of the bill of rights
In a 1997 Vt News Bureau interview, Dean admitted his desire to appoint judges willing to subvert the bill of rights. Now the fallout from Dean's appointments are before the US 2nd Circuit at Foley Square, NYC in two outrageous cases. Docket #s 03-7036, 02-6150, 02-6199, 02-6201 One case is being prosecuted by Washington, DC first amendment attorney Robert Corn-Revere against two of Dean's judges for their banishment of a Vermont "citizen-reporter" for life from all state courthouses because he criticized one of Dean's judicial appointees.
The other case features Dean's judges violating Double Jeopardy, First Amendment, State law and the State constitution. See Docket No. 99-445 (Vt. Dec. 13, 2000), aff’g, Docket No. 167-1-99 WmCr (Windham D. Ct. Aug. 30, 1999) Both cases have been briefed before the Manhattan Court awaiting oral argument. Also filing a brief in federal court against Dean's appointees is the Thomas Jefferson Center For The Protection of Freedom of Expression.
Below are links regarding Dean's voicing his problem with the Bill of Rights. He constantly complains about "legal technicalities" (i.e. the Bill of Rights) as he did in the June 22 meet the press interview.
http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htmA link to a story regarding the courthouse banishment case.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13300A commentary on Dean's subversion of the public defender system.
http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003681.html#003681Dean's statement on "re-evaluation" of our "civil liberties".
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.htmlCriminal sentences doubled during Dean's tenure as a result of his appointments. I wonder how many of those serving these inflated sentences were also subjugated to constitutional deprivations at the hands of Dean's Judicial appointees leading to their convictions? How many of those serving inflated sentences were prejudiced by Deans' subversion of the public defender system mandated by the 6th amendment?
In the Meet the Press interview with Dean while discussing the death penalty he stated, "So I just—life without parole, which we have which I actually got passed when I was lieutenant governor— the problem with life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn’t come back and go through the second trial. "
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1Now, according to Dean, the Bill of Rights (ie. legal technicalities) has "nothing to do with justice". In the above quote, is he saying that if someone was unconstitutionally convicted it is better that the government kill them before they can point out the constitutional problems with their conviction? A further commentary on Dean's death penalty stand.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2¬Found=trueScott Huminski
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/6359/index.php
Federal Court raps vermont judges for violating protester's free-speech rights
Federal court raps Vermont judges for violating protester's free-speech rights
By freedomforum.org staff,The Associated Press
03.05.01
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 Huminski, 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.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13300&printerfriendly=1
When Courts Subvert Law To Banish A Critic
Commentary on First Amendment Issues
Originally published April 16, 2000
WHEN COURTS SUBVERT LAW TO BANISH A CRITIC
By CHARLES LEVENDOSKY
Casper Star-Tribune
In Vermont, a number of state judges and one federal judge don't think citizens have the right to attend criminal or civil trials -- at least not those citizens who criticize judges or the decisions they make. Citizen-reporter Scott Huminski has been summarily barred from Vermont courts for his criticisms.
His case is a lesson in how those in power, even when they know they are wrong can subvert constitutional guarantees of liberty.
Although Huminski transports antiques for a living, for the past three years he has been on a crusade watching how his state courts operate. He attends state court proceedings and then publicizes what he considers misconduct with posters placed in the windows of his Bennington home and in the windows of his van. He also distributes information about the proceedings to attorneys and government officials.
One of Huminski's posters contained the headline, "Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution" and beneath it, Huminski listed five reasons why he made that claim. One of the reasons, Huminski charged was that Rutland District Court Judge Nancy Corsones "strips defendants of the right to defense counsel."
That poster resulted in him being banished 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."
Judge M. Patricia Zimmerman of the Rutland District Court signed this sweeping trespass notice on May 27, 1999. The Bennington County Sheriff's Department served Huminski with the notice.
Clearly, Huminski is a gadfly, troubling the plodding steer of state. He may be bothersome, but he isn't a criminal. He has done nothing illegal. He has only exercised his rights as a U.S. citizen.
Zimmerman's trespass order is the third one issued against Huminski, but it is the broadest. The first trespass notice, issued only days earlier, prohibited Huminski from entering the Rutland District Court or its parking lot. The second trespass order barred him from entering Corsones' property.
If Huminski were to even park his van in the parking lot of a Vermont court, he could be arrested immediately.
The trespass notices were filed for one reason only -- Huminski criticized a state judge and her decisions.
Law enforcement officials make no claim that Huminski was disruptive, a public nuisance, or interfered with the administration of justice. He was quiet and attentive while in the courtroom and the courthouse. He neither picketed the courthouse, nor engaged in vulgar or obscene expression while there. He simply posted his opinions.
The trespass orders have worked. They have kept a citizen-reporter from engaging in public debate about his state courts. Huminski has not been close to a Vermont court for nearly a year. His reporting has been silenced.
Instead, Huminski filed a lawsuit in a federal district court against Rutland and Bennington law enforcement officials claiming they have violated the Vermont Constitution and his First Amendment rights to attend and report on court proceedings. He acted as his own attorney. And lost.
On Oct. 20, 1999, U.S. District Court Judge J.G. Murtha, apparently blinded by Huminski's harsh criticism of a judge, dismissed his claims. Murtha concluded that Huminski had "failed to demonstrate a clearly established federal right which the defendants violated." Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time and again that the people have a right to criticize government officials.
In his decision, Murtha quoted a U.S. Supreme Court case having to do with picketing near a courthouse -- a very narrow decision that has nothing at all to do the facts of Huminski's case. No one asserted that Huminski had picketed the Rutland District Court. He hadn't.
The Vermont Constitution, in Article 13 of its Declaration of Rights, states: "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments, concerning the transactions of government, and therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained." How clear can it be? Courtroom proceedings are "transactions of government." And "the people have a right ... of writing and publishing their sentiments" concerning those transactions.
Now, Huminski has Robert Corn-Revere, an experienced and well-respected First Amendment attorney from Washington, D.C., handling his case. They have filed an appeal with the U.S. Second Court of Appeals.
According to Corn-Revere, he hopes that his client gets "a clear statement from the Second Circuit that local governmental officials don't have the ability to simply exclude people from the courthouses in the state of Vermont.
"More specifically, we would hope to get a ruling that eliminates the ability to simply use mechanisms like trespass law to silence critics of local judges. In short, what we're looking for is a clear declaration from the Second Circuit involving the fundamental First Amendment rights that are at stake in this case in the situation we're presented with here."
These Vermont law enforcement officials and judges have the astounding gall to seriously think that they can bar a citizen from the state courts for all time because that citizen criticized a judge. They make no bones about it.
In the briefs filed with the court of appeals, the attorneys for the sheriff's department, city law enforcement and city officials baldly state they have such a right.
And they note in their briefs that Huminski "has never attempted to enter courthouse property since service of the (trespass) notice, and thus has neither been denied access nor suffered any criminal sanction." The briefs assert, "Huminski has suffered no actual harm."
The series of events involving Huminski might be worse than a collusion of arrogance on the part of those in power to silence a critic.
Widespread ignorance of the foundation of liberty upon which this nation is built -- especially on the part of judges and law enforcement officials could eventually bring our nation crumbling down -- as if an earthquake had fractured the structural basis of our constitutional values. An earthquake of ignorance.
Arrogance or ignorance? That isn't much of a choice. Either way, Huminski has been unfairly and illegally persecuted by the power structure in Vermont. The harm he has suffered, all of us share. The outcome of this case affects us all.
(Charles Levendosky is the editorial page editor of the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune. His commentary has won numerous national First Amendment awards and is now distributed by the New York Times wire service.)
Copyright Casper Star-TribuneApril 16, 2000
http://fact.trib.com/1st.lev.huminskitrespass.html
