see
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08122003.html 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.thomhartmann.com/government.shtmlhttp://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htmA link to a story regarding the courthouse banishment case.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=5354or…
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=trueand, noting the "anti-due-process" Dean message,
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODYSee 1994 Yale Law School commencement discussing the danger of our leaders dismissing the "provisions of the Bill of Rights as mere technicalities.".
http://www.schr.org/reports/docs/Yale%2094.pdf Scott Huminski
Cary, NC
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.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102%257E8860%257E1089066,00.html http://www.state.vt.us/atg/vtag.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.benningtonbanner.com/Stories/0,1413,104~8678~831060,00.html Courthouse 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.
Another Dean item….
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html 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, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
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; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death