Howard Dean Dirt

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.html

As 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.php



http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/101084.shtml

posted by scott huminski @ 10:29 AM