|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights |
|
JUDICIAL WATCH €" WATCHING HOWARD DEAN |
Current rating: 0 |
by scott huminski
(No verified email address) |
28 Sep 2003
|
|
Dean's refusal to open his Vermont records. |
JUDICIAL WATCH – WATCHING HOWARD DEAN
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
more info……
http://kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/696/index.php
|
|
Why Is This Man Screaming? |
by Robert Porter
rporter (nospam) newtonbigelow.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
29 Sep 2003
Modified: 09:29:22 AM |
A quick googling of Scott Huminski turns up all sorts of information, including the fact that he's been tussling with the Vermont court system for many years. Apparently he keeps losing his cases, which may explain why he's so excited about Dean's judicial appointments.
This decision by the vermont Supreme Court seems typical of the kinds of legal antics Huminsky regularly indulges in:
ENTRY ORDER
SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-330
JANUARY TERM, 2002
State of Vermont
v.
Scott Huminski
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
} APPEALED FROM:
District Court of Vermont,
Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
DOCKET NO. 167-1-99 Wmcr
Trial Judge: Paul F. Hudson
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Defendant appeals from a district court order denying a motion to expunge his criminal record relating to a prosecution for obstruction of justice. Defendant contends the court erred in: (1) denying the motion; and (2) failing to address certain collateral motions. We affirm.
This is the third appeal in this matter to reach the Court. The background is set forth at length in State v. Huminski, No. 99-445 (Dec. 13, 2000) (unpublished mem.), and may be briefly summarized. Defendant was charged with two counts of obstruction of justice, arising out of allegations that he had created false evidence and threatened a potential witness in a landlord-tenant dispute. Defendant entered into a plea agreement in which the State dismissed the charge on Count 1, and defendant pled no contest to an amended charge of disorderly conduct on count 2. He was fined $100 with a surcharge. In a collateral agreement, defendant also agreed to dismiss several civil actions he had filed in superior and federal court in connection with the landlord-tenant dispute. After defendant's wife filed an amended complaint in federal court, however, the State moved to vacate the plea and reinstate the obstruction charges.
Although the court (Judge Corsones) initially granted the State's motion, it later (Judge Hudson, presiding) denied the motion and dismissed the obstruction charges. This Court affirmed, concluding that double jeopardy had attached to bar reinstatement of the charges. See id. slip op. at 4. We also remanded to the district court to address defendant's motion to expunge the criminal record based on his claim that the State had acted in bad faith in bringing the charges.
In the meantime, in response to the State's reinstatement of the obstruction charges, defendant filed a superior court action against the State, the prosecutors, and police officers involved in the case, alleging that they had conspired to concoct false charges and ruin him financially. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign and prosecutorial immunity. Defendant appealed, and we reversed, concluding that the court had dismissed the complaint on grounds not raised in the State's motion. Huminski v. Lavoie,12 Vt. L.W. 281, 282-83 (2001) (mem.).
Following our remand in State v. Huminksi, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to expunge and issued a written decision denying the motion. The court noted that although it has the inherent power to expunge a criminal record, "this power is a narrow one and its exercise should be reserved for the unusual or extreme case." State v. Motchnik, 149 Vt. 113, 113 (1987). With respect to defendant's claims that the obstruction charges were unfounded and the result of improper collusion between the police and prosecutors, the court noted that probable cause for the obstruction charges had been found by a competent trial judge, and no evidence supported the claim of bad faith. Nor was there any basis to expunge the record of conviction of disorderly conduct. In balancing the need for the arrest record "against the harm to the person arrested," id. at 114, the court also observed that defendant had not shown any financial or personal loss or liability as a result of the record. Accordingly, the court concluded that defendant had not demonstrated any unusual or extreme circumstances requiring expungement.
Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court failed to address his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and bad faith, and overlooked the evidence supporting his claims. The record discloses, however, that the court did address these contentions. Furthermore, defendant adduced no credible evidence at the hearing showing that the prosecution was brought in bad faith or that the police and prosecutors engaged in other misconduct. Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the court's conclusion that defendant failed to demonstrate extreme or unusual circumstances warranting expungement.
Defendant also contends the court erred in ruling, in response to defendant's motion requesting the status of certain other pro se motions, that no other viable pending motions were properly before it. Defendant offers no argument to support the claim of error. Furthermore, we note that our remand was limited to the issue of expungement, which was the only issue properly before the court.
Affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
_______________________________________
Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice
_______________________________________
James L. Morse, Associate Justice
_______________________________________
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice
|
|
Re: JUDICIAL WATCH |
by scott huminski
s_huminski (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Oct 2003
|
The decision you cite involves the Vermont Supreme Court cover-up of acceptance of a bribe by a state prosecutor. That case is before federal court in Manhattan.
Citation of a Vermont Court case is absurd when Dean admitted that he would appoint judges willing to subvert the constitution in a 1997 Rutland Herald interview....
http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=35373&group=webcast |
