|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights |
|
Howard 'no Comment' Dean |
Current rating: 0 |
by scott huminski
(No verified email address) |
04 Dec 2003
|
|
Conflict of Interest infected Deanâ€(TM)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.shtml
In 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. When quizzed by a journalist last month about official bribery cover-up in Vermont, Sorrell responded, like Dean, with no comment. 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.php
If 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 (at) hotmail.com
|
|
Tar Baby Huminski Say Nuthin' |
by informative repost
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Dec 2003
|
Seems our anti-Dean sue-happy gadfly Scott (after all we are on a first name since Mr. Huminski greats me in his email that way) is a little bit upset.
After my line by line refutation (http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z11423456)
of Josh Frank's highly flawed "news" article "reporting" on Dean's "Constitutional Hang-Up," and my posting links to several of the indymedia sites where he was railing against Vermont (a.k.a. Dean's "Police State" - http://nc.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/5707_comment.php) I received an email (http://makeashorterlink.com/?G52421456) from this busy little litigant intimating he might sue me if he had the time. Actually he suggests that "A law suit against a crazed Dean fanatic might cause quite a stir."
Beyond giving me a good laugh at how misguided our Mr. Huminski is, the only actual point directly addressing anything I have posted is this part:
"Aside from the other inaccuracies in your last "frisking" you claimed that I was banished from Vermon courthouse for my obstruction of justice. That statement constitutes defamation in the written form -- libel."
First... I have never used the term "frisking" in reference to anything anyone posts on the web. The only time I talk about "frisking" anyone is when playing "bad girls in prison" in the bedroom with my significant other! (wink)
Matt at the Dean Defense Force however (among others) uses the term "fisking" when refuting erroneous stories, though I myself never use even that term. He actually did use that term (fisking) in his edited post (http://deandefense.org/archives/000744.html#more) from this blog.
Second, and more directly to the "point" Huminski tries to raise, I do see how it can be read that I implied that he was barred from court for the obstruction of justice charges directly.
My original statement; "He simply could not do so on court grounds, after being barred from court for obstruction of justice charges, which were upheld three times by both state and federal courts." might give the impression that Mr. Huminski was barred because of the obstruction of justice charges stemming from his thrice lost tenant-landlord civil case (http://makeashorterlink.com/?V33415456). He was barred from the courts in another dispute, which grew out of his decade plus battle with the courts stemming from that original proceeding.
He was charged with obstruction of justice in the civil case, but prosecutors agreed to drop that charge if Huminski paid $100 in court costs. Huminski agreed. After that plea agreement was put in place, Huminski's wife sued the Bennington County state's attorney in federal court, and that office sought to reinstate the obstruction-of-justice charge, saying the federal suit violated the terms of the plea agreement. Judge Nancy Corsones granted the motion to reinstate the charge
Mr. Huminski then protested against the court system, parking his van outside the courthouse in Bennington with signs criticizing State's Attorney William Wright and his staff.
In May 1999, he then took his protesting to Rutland, where Corsones was presiding in the District Court, and posted signs on his van critical of her. Several month before however, Huminski sent several angry letters to the state attorney general's office.
In one, Huminski angrily denounced Vermont's judicial system and said he "must take the law into my own hands and initiate activities that will get national media attention."
In the other, he complained again of the state's treatment of him and wrote, "I believe my future activities will prevent the state from engaging in this behavior ever again."
When several months later he parked his van on court property with signs on it saying "Judge (Nancy) Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution." it prompted an order that he remove the signs or leave the courthouse property. He refused, which in and of itself is a violation of the law. He was then removed from the court property after refusing to obey the court officers. This then led to follow-up orders authorized by the court administrator's office in Montpelier and the state Department of Buildings and General Services being issued that effectively barred Huminski from Vermont courts.
The orders barring him from Vermont courts are on appeal, and Mr. Huminski's request for a preliminary injunction against the ban, which was previously granted, was revoked.
Finally, my original statement is not defamation, nor is it libel. Mr. Huminski's comical opinion that they are, and that he "probably "won't waste his time" bringing a libel suit "filed in U.S District Court filed in the United States District Court (North Carolina) under diversity jurisdiction" immediately caused my mind to leap to the notion of blurting out and replying with that Bush phrase so near and dear to my heart... "Bring 'em on!".
However, given how foolish it was for Bush to say such taunts to foreign terrorists... it should perhaps give me pause. We certainly don't want either situations to turn into a quagmire now do we?
Now I certainly have no truck against anyone for being concerned about civil rights, including free-speech in public spaces (oh the irony that Mr. Huminski wishes to anoint himself poster-boy for free speech, yet threatens me with defamation and libel litigation). Especially when it is their own right to speak out which is being curbed by the state. That said however, I think Mr. Huminski's behavior is the very definition of gadfly (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gadfly) and certainly raises questions in my mind as to how many hundreds of thousands of dollars in man-hours and public resources have been wasted with his misguided litigious behavior.
Sorry, Scott... you will have to wait for some other fool to punch your tar baby (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/remus/anatar.html) for you.
# posted by Mitchell @ 12:15 AM
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
http://gore4dean.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_gore4dean_archive.html
|
