|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights |
|
HOWARD DEANâ€(TM)S LEGACY UNDER FIRE |
Current rating: 0 |
by scott huminski
Email: s_huminski (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified!) |
24 Oct 2003
|
|
DEANâ€(TM)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
By Scott Huminski
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.php
If 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?
|
|
Tar Baby Huminski Say Nuthin' |
by informative repost
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Oct 2003
Modified: 06:13:13 PM |
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 |
