Howard Dean, Extortion, Bribes and other problems

Vermont Justice Coalition | 3/17/05 | Scott Huminski

[scottxl]

Howard Dean, Extortion, Bribes and other problems

DNC Chair Howard Dean’s problems with the Bill of Rights, the Law and Ethics.

In 1997 Howard Dean announced his desire to appoint judges willing to subvert the Bill of Rights or in Howard Dean lingo “legal technicalities”. Two judges appointed within months of Dean infamous 1997 statement have been found guilty of civil rights violations by a federal court in Manhattan. (fn1) Dean’s top appointee and lawyer, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, was defense counsel for the corrupt government employees in this case where Sorrell has expended vast public funds to forward the goal of undermining the First Amendment in Vermont.

To get a true feeling of the judicial and law enforcement climate fostered by Dean in Vermont, it is instructional to look at his # 1 Vermont appointee and life-long friend, William Sorrell. Dean owed a great debt to the Sorrell family for mentoring his ascent in Vermont politics. Dean’s first notable gubernatorial appointment in Vermont was to install Sorrell as Secretary of Administration in 1992. In 1997, it became time to thank the Sorrell family again and Dean attempted to appoint Sorrell as the chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. As Sorrell had no judicial experience, Dean’s zeal to appoint his favorite crony was met with a legislative roadblock. Dean had a backup plan, appoint the Attorney General to the Supreme Court and then appoint Sorrell to fill the Attorney General vacancy. All was well with Vermont Cronies. (fn2)

In describing Sorrell, Dean was quite generous with his praise of his friend’s character and abilities, illustrating the nature of their relationship: “I have an enormous amount of respect for Sorrell as a human being and as a really smart lawyer.”

A subordinate of Sorrell’s issued the following prosecutorial written threat in a Vermont state court proceeding,

"The last claim involves a statement made to attorney Capriola warning that the defendant would be charged with additional crimes if he did not clam down. The statement is a reference to the defendant's continued harassment of the victim and the investigating officer in this case through the court process. The defendant has filed a civil action against the victim because of his participation in this criminal case. The State is currently reviewing a contempt charge against the defendants because of this activity. The statement was a proper warning made through the defendant's representative."

Sorrell approvingly has stood behind and defended the above threat which now has become part of a prosecutor’s toolbox in Vermont. The above threat is the epitome of the government’s coercive use of the power of criminal prosecution to influence and manipulate civil court proceedings tantamount to extortion and obstruction of justice concerning a matter before a federal court. Dean’s “really smart lawyer” and top appointee at work.

Sorrell’s conduct doesn’t stop there, his subordinates followed up the above threat with a plea agreement that specified the dismissal and non-pursuit of civil lawsuits against the prosecutors themselves. The dismissal of a lawsuit is an item of monetary value benefiting Sorrell’s underlings – or to put it bluntly this conduct is tantamount to acceptance of a bribe by state prosecutors. Dean’s “really smart lawyer” strongly approved and defended the conduct. One can’t assign full responsibility concerning this government corruption to Dean’s friend alone because two of Dean’s hand-picked anti-“legal technicality” judicial appointees presided over and approved the government misconduct.

Then there was the police shooting of Robert (“Woody”) Woodward in Brattleboro, Vermont in 2001. The massacre involved 7 shots from police revolvers fatally wounding Mr. Woodward – with some of the shots fired into his body while he was bleeding on the ground in the fetal position. Dean and Sorrell, both irrationally obsessive police advocates, put the cover-up machine into gear. Sorrell authored a biased report overlooking much of the testimony and evidence. When Dean was asked to appoint a special independent investigator he backed up his old crony and stated that Sorrell was a “really smart lawyer”. One of Dean’s so-called “legal technicalities”, the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a biased decision-maker. Something as trivial as the Constitution didn’t stop Dean from deciding not to usurp his friend’s report by refusing to appoint an independent investigator regardless of his very public conflict-of-interest with Sorrell. Pursuant to the constitution, Dean should have disqualified himself. (fn3)

Sorrell has lately kept busy in the courts fighting to keep Howard Dean’s gubernatorial records sealed. In light of the foregoing, one can only imagine what vile government conduct Sorrell and Dean are covering up in the sealed records lawsuit. Sorrell’s friendship with Dean is still costing the Vermont taxpayers thousands of litigation dollars and Dean’s “really smart lawyer” friend apparently flunked attorney ethics which prohibit Sorrell’s representation of Dean under attorney conflict-of-interest principles. (fn4)

In Sorrell’s possession is a sworn transcript and audio tape of a major U.S. corporation’s quite illegal conduct constituting extortion and other crimes. To date, the reason is unknown for Sorrell’s cover-up of the criminal enterprise set forth in the audio tape aside from the fact that any such reason would be incompatible with law enforcement. Also in this questionable category is Sorrell’s cover-up of an alcoholic beverage retailer’s activities who operated without federal or state licenses for 8 years during the Dean/Sorrell decade in Vermont despite a report from Vermont’s own liquor investigator that the illegal conduct existed. Dean’s appointee response – cover up.

It appears that neither Dean nor his lawyer crony have any respect for the Bill of Rights, ethical considerations or the rule of law when it doesn’t fit into their dubious agendas. Recently, Dean has labeled the members of an entire political party as “evil”. Perhaps Dean should look in the mirror and look at the condition he left Vermont in after a decade of his appointments prior to disparaging others. The man who said 95 percent of people charged with crimes are guilty anyway so why should the state spend money on providing them with lawyers should indeed criticize very carefully from his anti-constitutional corrupt glass house. (fn5)

Scott Huminski

111-2c Killam Court

Cary, NC 27513

S_huminski@hotmail.com

(fn1)

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,535358,00.html

http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/13685.php

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Frank_Dean-Sorrell-Corruption.htm

http://toughenough.org/huminski.html

http://victimsoflaw.net/Scott_Huminski.htm

http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/543.php

(fn2)

http://yconservatives.com/Guest-54c.html

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/8836.php

(fn3)

http://www.justiceforwoody.org/

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277164.shtml

http://la.indymedia.org/print.php?id=96372

(fn4)

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2005/03/11/fight_over_howard_dean_papers_goes_before_vermonts_high_court/

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/12/05/deans_unseemly_secrecy?mode=PF

(fn5)

http://www.prisonactivist.org/pipermail/prisonact-list/1996-September/000600.html

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003199.html#003199

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003144.html#003144

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2&notFound=true

[scottxl]

Some food for thought. Anyone interested should take note of this information as it tends to disappear with time.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Yaa...aaah!" As fun is he is, and as much havok as he's causing the Clintonista, you are right to mention this nonetheless.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Mention"? That doesn't even begin to do you justice! Good going, man!

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"...a statement made to attorney Capriola warning that the defendant would be charged with additional crimes if he did not calm down. The statement is a reference to the defendant's continued harassment of the victim and the investigating officer in this case through the court process. The defendant has filed a civil action against the victim because of his participation in this criminal case. The State is currently reviewing a contempt charge against the defendants because of this activity. The statement was a proper warning made through the defendant's representative."

Unless I'm reading this wrong an Assistant DA informed a perp's lawyer that his client would face additional charges unless he quit harassing his victim and the investigating officer, his or her boss (Sorrell) backed them up, and now this tactic

has become part of a prosecutor’s toolbox in Vermont.

That is: he or she was "tough on crime", and his boss, and the courts, agreed.

[scottxl]

Civil litigation is an activity protected by the first amendment and the state can not threaten you with criminal charges for engaging in such behavior.

Threatening criminal prosecution for a citizen engaging in a protected activity is criminal in itself. Redress of grievances and petitioning the government has been the foundation of this country for over 200 years. What country are you from?

[scottxl]

Mr. Thomas, Perhaps one that dares to state that a person in the government violated their rights in civil court papers needs to be punished. As court papers are written, perhaps the severing of a hand. If the forbidden words are spoken, perhaps the loss of the tongue. You really should get together with the former president of Iraq. Your "law and order" views seem quite compatible.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

There’s no Constitutional right to file frivolous civil suits, and if you persist in doing so the courts will often eventually make the process expensive and unpleasant. If they believe the suit is an attempt to harass a complainant or a witness in a criminal case, they will likely do so sooner rather than later.

As best I can understand the facts from the account above the DA’s office stated that it believed that frivolous suit(s) were being filed for such a purpose, that it was already considering contempt charges, and that it would likely bring them if the attempt continued. (“The defendant has filed a civil action against the victim because of his participation in this criminal case. The State is currently reviewing a contempt charge against the defendants because of this activity.”)

Note that there is no indication that the DA either offered or threatened to increase or reduced the charges in any other related matter, only that there was reason to believe that frivolous filings had been made, and that if additional such suits were filed, they would likley seek contempt charges.

Had they done so (it’s not clear if they did to not) it was up to the court to decide if the charges had merit, and up to the courts to sanction the DA’s office if they believed there have been abuse of prosecutorial power.

If you disagree with this IMO your argument is with the courts, not with me.

[scottxl]

Mr. Thomas,
A non-howard dean appointed judge eventually found that the State's attempt to influence civil proceedings was a First Amendment violation and illegal under the state constitution. Manipulation and interferance with a legal proceeding (frivolous or not) is a crime and it undermines the legal system.

Every court action whether brought by the state or brought by a citizen could be viewed as "harassing" (to bother or persistently annoy).

I, you or, yes, the government can not use a threat of adverse consequences to coerce someone from participating in a court proceeding. Just as one can not threaten to break someone's leg if they chose to testify in court. Regardless if the underlying matter was frivolous, harassing or not. Such conduct is extortion and obstruction of justice. In fact the Court found that it was illegal in Vermont for a full time prosecutor to engage in private civil litigation pursuant to state statute.

Does the government ever bring frivolous and wrongful charges? If so, in your Howard Dean world it would be okay for the government to arrest and file criminal contempt charges against the wronged individual if he sued.

True enough in Howard Dean's world, Cuba, China the former Iraq, one who dared to file a lawsuit against the government would be arrested and thrown in jail. Filing papers in court is not a crime in this country. In fact it is one of the few mechanisms available to correct government misconduct. Thus Howard Dean's desire to quash such expression. I must congradulate you, you speak with the conviction and constitutional logic of a true Deaniac.

[dirtboy]

Anyone interested should take note of this information as it tends to disappear with time.

Especially when it's posted with a bogus link.

If you want to be believed here, don't pull a stunt like that, for starters.

[dirtboy]

In Sorrell’s possession is a sworn transcript and audio tape of a major U.S. corporation’s quite illegal conduct constituting extortion and other crimes. To date, the reason is unknown for Sorrell’s cover-up of the criminal enterprise set forth in the audio tape aside from the fact that any such reason would be incompatible with law enforcement.

As someone who has been falsely accused of something once in my life, I would certainly hope a prosecutor would want more correlation of a charge before acting - maybe, perhaps, some actual physical or forensic evidence, perhaps?

These charges are pretty lame, IMO - and I'm no admirer of Howard Dean, other than for the good he's done the GOP.

[dirtboy]

I, you or, yes, the government can not use a threat of adverse consequences to coerce someone from participating in a court proceeding.

Yes, they can, if the person is using the court system as a broader pattern of harassment, which is, last I checked, against the law.

[dirtboy]

A non-howard dean appointed judge eventually found that the State's attempt to influence civil proceedings was a First Amendment violation

Link, please.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

I, you or, yes, the government can not use a threat of adverse consequences to coerce someone from participating in a court proceeding.

Not only can the government do this, but it can sanction lawyers who participate in such efforts - the practical position of the occasional individual who persists in believing they have an unlimited right to file frivolous lawsuits is similar to someone who believes they have the right not to pay taxes on their income: if they are sufficiently persistent, they can eventually argue their case all the way to the slammer.

As for this case, some cites would be helpful in determining what actually happened.

Finally, let me add that I'm anything but reflexive "law-and-order" type, I believe that in US we are to too quick to criminalize behaviors and too ready to apply draconian sanctions. And I recognize that there is widespread misconduct by prosecutors throughout the system, for example in my state (IL) we have discovered over that last decade that around a dozen innocent men were on death row - and the actual killers unidentified - because police and prosecutors could not resist the temptation to "frame the guilty". Arranging the judicial murder of an innocent man or woman is about as serious as such "misconduct" gets, yet in not one of these cases were any of individuals involved seriously sanctioned.

But this does not change the fact that filing frivolous civil suits is an abuse of the system as well - as anyone who's ever been on the wrong end of a meritless SLAP suit or found themselves frivolously sued, over and over, by someone against whom they have obtained a restraining order will attest

[scottxl]

What criminal statute, state or federal, lists litigation as a crime when the government doesn't like the litigation. Link to the statute please. I'm afraid you won't find one.

A frivolous lawsuit is handled by sanctions/contempt in the civil court proceeding -- not by outside threats from a government prosecutor practicing in another court. A prosecutor can not attempt to manipulate civil proceedings from the criminal court he practices in.

I can email the ruling finding the prosecutor dead wrong to anyone with a genuine interest.

My email is s_huminski@hotmail.com request a copy....

[scottxl]

List the statute that allows the government criminal prosecutors to threaten civil litigants.

Email me if you want a copy of the ruling, there is no link.

[dirtboy]

Email me if you want a copy of the ruling, there is no link.

Why don't you just post the salient points here? I don't email people I don't know.

[scottxl]

I await the criminal statute that allows a prosecutor to charge and prosecute a person for the crime of engaging in civil litigation. I've dealt with Deaniacs before, this is quite typical.

I listed the points earlier as to the illegal nature of this Dean sponsored conduct. You requested more information, now you don't want information and you have failed to supply me with a link to the statute you rely upon.

[scottxl]

I'll give you a head start as far as statutes the Vermont Criminal Statutes are title 13 VSA

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/chapters.cfm?Title=13

and the federal criminal statutes are title 18 of the United States Code.

I await your citation to the crime of engaging in civil litigation statute.

[dirtboy]

You requested more information, now you don't want information

I don't email people I don't know. You can post it here.

As to the statutes, there are broad statutes about prohibitions against defendents harassing victims. That harassment can take verbal form, written form, and can also include use of the courts. There are plenty of broad statutes that cover harassment.

Later. You seem like someone who is wrapped a bit too tight to bother further discussion with.

[scottxl]

OK Dirtboy,

You can't cite a statute.

Give me the citation to one criminal court case from any jurisdiction in this country where the criminal conduct forming the basis of the prosecution was the act of engaging in civil litigation. Try findlaw to get a case or whatever legal search engine you prefer. You won't find one case.