• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Howard Dean's Police State of Vermont
 

Howard Dean's Police State of Vermont

on

  • 1,728 views

This book details the shocking views and conduct of former presidential candidate and DNC chairman Howard Dean with regard to the U.S. Constitution and law. Dean's unlawful viewpoints transformed ...

This book details the shocking views and conduct of former presidential candidate and DNC chairman Howard Dean with regard to the U.S. Constitution and law. Dean's unlawful viewpoints transformed Vermont into a modern police state with judges, law enforcement and prosecutors acting contrary to the Bill of Rights. The judicial misconduct reaches all the way up to US Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,728
Views on SlideShare
1,728
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Howard Dean's Police State of Vermont Howard Dean's Police State of Vermont Document Transcript

    • <Book Preview><br />This book details the shocking views and conduct of former presidential candidate and DNC chairman Howard Dean with regard to the U.S. Constitution and law. Judicial misconduct revealed in this book reaches up to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.<br />Howard Deans Police State of Vermont<br />By: Scott Huminski and Constantine DeMarco<br />Chapter 1 – The State of Vermont<br />Working Draft<br /><excerpt- most of the chapter is general history of Vermont><br />A dark and secretive underworld took place in Vermont in the 1930’s that remains a source of public humiliation to this day. In 1925, Henry F. Perkins, professor of zoology at the University of Vermont, organized the Eugenics Survey of Vermont as an adjunct to his Heredity course. Its mission was threefold: eugenics research, public education on their findings, and support for social legislation that would reduce the apparent growing population of Vermont's "social problem groups" or “flatlanders.”<br />For the first three years, the Eugenics Survey's research consisted of gathering evidence from social case records, town officials, and various "informants" of "bad heredity" in over sixty Vermont families to support campaigns for negative eugenics measures such as sexual sterilization, expansion of colonies for the feebleminded, and mandatory use of mental testing in social work with dependent families, in public schools, and in the criminal justice system. In 1927 Professor Perkins briefed the state legislature using the findings of these studies in a campaign to enact a sterilization law which he stated was, "a Law for human betterment by voluntary sterilization."<br />In 1932 the Eugenics Survey embarked on a new project of ethnic study in Burlington. Directed by Elin Anderson, Instructor of Eugenics and Assistant Director of the Eugenics Survey, the four-year study offered an alternative view of eugenics to the one Professor Perkins had advocated for the past decade. Through the voices of her interviewees, sociological analysis, and her own observations, Anderson revealed instead that race consciousness and the social forces that secured the Yankee Protestant stronghold on the institutions of the city comprised many of the true roots of the social problems.<br />While the Eugenics Survey operated as an official adjunct to the Zoology Department at the University of Vermont, it was privately funded and staffed by a succession of professional social workers who conducted the investigations, compiled reports, and promoted the findings among Vermont's social agencies. Professor Perkins depended upon the cooperation and support of an impressive roster of civic leaders, private charities, government officials, and professors in relevant fields, who endorsed the enterprise through their official roles. While Perkins' advisors frequently tempered his zeal for hereditary causes of social problems, they nevertheless supported state programs for identification, registration, and social control of dependent, delinquent, and deficient families. The Eugenics Survey also derived support from governors, state legislators, judges, and town officials throughout the state.<br />Eugenics in Vermont did not begin with the Eugenics Survey, nor did it disappear after the Survey closed in 1936. This enterprise, however, with the support and endorsement of social reformers, government agencies and private philanthropies, acted as the official agency of the American eugenics movement in Vermont. The Eugenics Survey closed in 1936 at the completion of Shirley Farr's ten year agreement to fund the enterprise. Eugenics education continued at the University of Vermont and other colleges and high schools in the state. Vermont's eugenic solutions -- in the form of identification, registration, intervention in families with problem or backward children, and sterilization of those deemed unfit to conceive future Vermonters -- continued under the supervision of the Department of Public Welfare for some time after 1936. Vermont eugenics provides the first hint that 50 years later Vermonters would support a leader that would adopt another policy of 1930’s axis powers, the Police State.<br />Today, the term “flatlander” is used as a negative slander towards non-native Vermonters and visitors. In its basic concept, the term implies a person who visits the state or lives here, and brings negative qualities from their home, influencing the minds of native Vermonters. It is a person who is unfamiliar with traditional Vermont ways, and unfortunately for the flatlander, if they assimilate to Vermont culture and reside here for 50 years, they can never rid themselves of this label.<br />Howard Deans Police State of Vermont<br />Chapter 2 – Howard Brush Dean III<br />Working Draft<br />Howard Brush Dean III was born the oldest of four boys on November 17, 1948 to Howard Brush Dean, Jr. and Andree Belden Maitland in East Hampton, New York. Howard's mother was an art appraiser and can trace her family roots back to Richard Maitland, born in Scotland circa 1234. Like his father and grandfather before him, Howard Dean, Jr. was a substantially wealthy and successful investment banker working for the stock brokerage Dean Witter until later retiring as a top executive.<br />Young Howard lived a life of wealth and privilege. In the mid-1950s the Deans built a lavish East Hampton home on Hook Pond. The Village of East Hampton, located in Suffolk County, New York, is quaint with a small town character. There are majestic old elms, green expanses, English windmills, and the famous Hook Pond on which the Dean home was built. The Village of East Hampton was voted “America’s Most Beautiful Village,” by National Geographic and the homes in East Hampton remain among the most exclusive addresses in America. <br />The Republican Dean family belonged to the conservative super-exclusive Maidstone Golf Club in East Hampton, which at the time did now allow minority or Jewish Members. Set against the Atlantic Ocean, the Maidstone is one of the oldest and most exclusive golf clubs in the United States. Today the Maidstone has been ranked as one of the top courses in the world by Golf Magazine’s panel of experts.<br />Spending much of his early youth in East Hampton, Howard and his three younger brothers Charlie, Jim, and Bill spent a great deal of time outdoors. They were known to often ride their bikes in the rural countryside and build elaborate underground forts. Howard’s rural upbringings are sometimes credited with later helping him connect to the voters of the rural state of Vermont, despite the fact that he did not come from the everyday rural American family.<br />In addition to the large home in East Hampton, the Deans also owned a luxurious three-bedroom Apartment in New York City on the Upper East Side of Park Avenue where Howard continues to stay on occasion to this day. Because Howard’s father worked in New York City, the boys were shuffled back and forth from the primary house in East Hampton and the Park Avenue apartment, but they attended school at the exclusive Browning School in Manhattan. Considered one of the top private schools in New York City, young Howard found his educational foundation anything but ordinary. The Browning Mission Statement reads,<br />"Founded in 1888 as a college preparatory school for boys, The Browning School continues its commitment to the goals of John A. Browning: the pursuit of academic excellence and a lifelong love of learning, the belief in the dignity of the individual, the development of personal integrity and responsibility to the broader community. The Browning boy develops amid these values: the Browning alumnus is a good citizen, sensitive to the needs of others, respectful of divergent yet informed opinions. He is, in the best sense of the word, a gentleman."<br />One notable alumnus from the Browning School is John D. Rockefeller Jr., who attended the school in 1893 and recalled Mr. Browning as a remarkable teacher who,<br />“Inspired interest in learning and helped me to study and to concentrate – and I owe a great deal to him, more than to any other teacher I ever had.” <br />Later, John D. ancestor Winthrop Paul Rockefeller also graduated from the Browning School in 1966. Winthrop was the heir to the Rockefeller oil fortune and Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas when he died on July 16, 2006 from myeloproliferative disease, a blood disorder related to leukemia.<br />But the young Howard is not on the distinguished list of Browning School alumni. At the age of 13, just in time for high school, it was decided by his parents that he was not getting enough exposure to the outside while at Browning. Subsequently, Howard was sent off to the prestigious St. George’s boarding school in Middletown, RI. St. George's, considered an upscale boarding school, was founded in 1896 with an Episcopal heritage, but with an independence that welcomed all faiths. The school's main building, a large castle like structure, sits on 125 seaside acres near Newport, RI. The school even provides a 69-foot Marine research sloop named Geronimo for use by the students. St. George's is an elite institution and provided a prestigious high school experience for Howard Dean III. In 2010, a single year of tuition and boarding came to a staggering $43,000. But Howard was not finished yet.<br />After winning an English Speaking Union scholarship, Howard Dean III spent one of his high school years at one of Britain's most prestigious preparatory boarding academies, the Felsted School. Despite its prestige it is actually a British public school located in the village of Felsted near Great Dunmow in northwest Essex. In Tatler’s 2010 Schools Guide, they state “this long-established country public school has been educating and refining the sons of local well-to-do farmers for almost 450 years.”<br />After high school Howard Dean III attended Yale University, which has a storied history of America's ruling families, secret societies, and conspiracies. Though Dean has never admitted it, there is some speculation that he belonged to the ultra-secret society known as Skull and Bones. Prior to President Barack Obama's election in 2008, the United States had three presidents in a row that are Yale alumni. George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were all a Yale graduate, with both Bush’s being members of the Skull and Bones society. In his autobiography, George W. Bush simply says, “my senior year I joined Skull and Bones, a secret society. So secret I can't say anything more.” In addition to possible connections with Skull and Bones, Dean was also a member of the Zeta Psi fraternity and graduated with a bachelor of arts in political science in 1971.<br />Although he was a college graduate, Howard Dean eventually became eligible to be drafted into the military for deployment in Vietnam. Despite the fact he had no previous medical complaints which prevented him from physical activities; Dean applied for and received a deferment from military service for an unfused vertebra. In an appearance on Meet the Press, Dean admitted to Tim Russert that, “I was really in no hurry to join the military.” Instead, Howard tried his hand at the family trade on Wall Street with a brief career as a stock broker before deciding on a career in medicine. <br />After graduating from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Howard’s brother Charlie left on what Howard would describe as a “trip abroad.” The reality of Charlie’s departure for Southeast Asia was much more complicated than that. As believed by his parents and other siblings, as well as being evidenced by his eventual “POW-MIA” status, Charlie was working for the CIA. While his brother Charlie was more than likely in Laos as a covert CIA black-operative, Howard was enjoying his deferment and completing pre-medicine classes at Columbia University from the comfort of his parent’s home.<br />In his mid-2003 autobiography Winning Back America, Howard Dean himself writes about the death of his brother Charlie.<br /> “My brother and I were close when growing up. We were only sixteen months apart, and consequently, we fought a lot. We played sports together, along with the other kids, but there was a good deal of rivalry between us.<br />     He went to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as a political science major. Charlie did well at UNC and was involved in the student government. I always believed that he would have gone to law school and ended up in politics. After college, Charlie set off on a trip abroad.<br />On the first leg of his trip, Charlie sailed to Japan as a passenger on a freighter. He stayed for a few weeks and then took another freighter to Australia. He lived for nine months with a friend on a ranch by the Pascoe River, north of Cairns on the northern tip of Queensland, clearing land. He then went to Indonesia and on to the Southeast Asian country of Laos to visit a friend of our father's who worked for USAID.<br />Laos in 1974 was incredibly dangerous; in neighboring Vietnam, Saigon had not yet fallen and the war was raging. U.S. forces bombed the daylights out of Laos because the Ho Chi Minh Trail, which was the supply line from North Vietnam to South Vietnam, went directly through the country. Additionally, Laos was in the middle of its own three-way war between pro-Western, neutralist, and pro-Communist factions. The Communist Pathet Lao guerrillas had been fighting with the Viet Minh in the area since the 1950s; they eventually prevailed and took power in 1975.<br />     This was the situation while Charlie was visiting. He wrote me a letter about what it was like to sit outside his bungalow at night, listening to the thump of distant artillery and the muffled explosions as the shells hit the ground. There was speculation that Charlie was in Laos because he was working for the CIA and I think my parents believed that to be the case. Personally, I don't think he was employed by the U.S. government in any capacity, but we'll probably never know the answer to that question.<br />.<br />     By October 1974, I had moved back in with my parents and was studying for medical school. Charlie had been away from the country for some time; we hadn't heard from him in three months and we were very worried. We'd been writing his friend in Nepal to see if Charlie had shown up. He hadn't.<br />     One day, around ten o'clock in the morning, the phone rang in the apartment. The voice on the other end of the line said, "Is this Mr. Howard Dean?"<br />     I said, "Yes."<br />     It was someone from the State Department. He said, "We have information that shows that Mr. Charles Dean, your son, is a captive of the Pathet Lao." I told him he'd better call my father, which he did. <br />We were all shocked that Charlie had been captured, and we began trying everything we could to secure his release. The CIA and the U.S. military provided us with tremendous amounts of information about Charlie, and for that reason, I will always have immense respect for them. Charlie was classified as a POW-MIA, although we don't know why. It's a good thing he was, because it allowed the U.S. military to do all that they have done for our family over the last twenty-five years.<br />In the beginning, we were getting streams of information coming out of Pathet Lao-held territory from people who could freely cross between the zones. We knew where Charlie was, we knew what kind of condition he was in, and we knew what his daily routine was like. We found out that Charlie had indeed been taken by the Pathet Lao. <br />In December 1974, my father went to Laos and tried to meet with Communist officials to persuade them to set Charlie free. He was worried about the meager diet that prisoners were fed and about the risks of diseases like dysentery and malaria. My father left a package of medicine and clothing for Charlie and Neal with Pathet Lao officials, but we've never known if it reached them. In the meantime, we discovered later, Charlie was insisting he be taken to the caves at Sam Neua, in the northern part of the country, where the Pathet Lao had its headquarters. We assume he figured he wasn't able to get anyone locally to make a decision about letting him go.<br />     In February 1975, my mother went to Laos. My father hadn't made much progress on his trip in December, so she was hoping for any news at all. By that time, we had no idea what had happened to Charlie. My mother met one of the Pathet Lao ministers. She said he had looked sideways at her; he wouldn't look her in the eye. She concluded then that Charlie had already been killed. We received notification in May that she was probably right.<br />     Later, we were able to piece together details of what must have happened. Around December 14, 1974, Charlie and Neal were put in a truck and driven away. Witnesses saw the two young men being loaded onto the truck. The next day, the vehicle came back empty, with only the handcuffs that Neal and Charlie had been held with lying in the truck. We assume that Charlie and Neal were executed on or about December 14, 1974.<br />     When I first found out Charlie was probably dead, I was about to take an organic chemistry test. I couldn't think of anything else I could do, so I left the apartment, got on the bus, and went to Columbia to take the exam. I was in a complete daze, and got a 50 on the test. Charlie's capture and death were the most traumatic events of my life. They have eaten at me ever since. <br />After completing his pre-medical studies, Howard attended Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University where he received his medical degree in 1978. Although not the posh and prestige of Yale University, when the medical school opened its doors to its first class in 1955, The New York Times was already noting that “the new medical school’s distinguished and talented faculty assured the institution a place in the ranks of the great medical schools in the world.” Today The Albert Einstein College of Medicine is considered one of the nation’s premier institutions for medical education, basic research and clinical investigation.<br />After graduation, Howard began a medical residency at the University of Vermont, and in 1981 he married fellow doctor Judith Steinberg whom he met in medical school. Howard and Judith settled down in Shelburne, VT where they began a family medical practice with Judith still using her maiden name. The practice and their family began to flourish as the Deans had two children, now grown, Paul and Anne. Howard continued to practice medicine until 1991 when his ten year part-time political career became unexpectedly full-time.<br />Howard Dean’s political aspirations and desire for power date back as early as the late-1970’s, even before he married Judith and started his medical practice. Dean spearheaded a grassroots campaign called Citizens’ Waterfront Group, to stop a condominium development on Lake Champlain, instead favoring the construction of a bicycle trail. The effort succeeded, and Dean credits this as the launching point to his political career.<br />“My first involvement in Vermont politics was strictly local: I helped start up the Citizens’ Waterfront Group with Rick Sharp, an attorney, and Tom Hudspeth, an environmental professor at the University of Vermont. There was an abandoned railway line that ran along the waterfront in Burlington. A plan existed to develop part of the land, but we wanted public access to the water, which was to be secured with a nine-mile bike path along the shore of Lake Champlain.<br />It was a grassroots effort: A few hundred members in our group applied pressure to two successive mayoral administrations. In the end, we won. The bike path was built, and the waterfront is now one of Burlington’s treasures. A jazz festival is held there every year, and eighty thousand people come to watch fireworks on July 4. Through the Citizens’ Waterfront Group, I got to know people in local politics. It’s one of the most important projects I’ve ever been involved in.”<br />That same year, Howard Dean read an article about the Jimmy Carter re-election campaign and saw an opportunity to expound on his newfound political alliances by getting involved and enhancing his own name. A young Howard Dean introduced himself to his neighbor, far-left Democratic Vermont State Senator, Esther Sorrell. Mrs. Sorrell was so taken with Howard Dean's political motivation and drive that she took Howard under her wing and became his mentor. A lifelong friendship and political alliance was born.<br />“After I read the story about the Carter campaign, I went to Esther Sorrell’s house to introduce myself. Though she was thirty years older than I, we became good friends. Esther, her sister Peggy, and their friend Maureen McNamara used to meet every Friday and watch Vermont This Week, the local equivalent of Washington Week. I’d join the three of them. We’d eat the cookies they baked, watch the show, and talk politics. I received a thorough education in Vermont politics in the process.”<br />Esther Hartigan-Sorrell was born on April 24, 1920 in Burlington Vermont and remained a local for her entire life. She attended Cathedral High School and Trinity College, where she graduated magna cum laude in 1942. That summer, on June 20, she married Thomas W. Sorrell, with whom she had five children. Among these children was Billy, whom Howard had formed a close friendship with. Both of the young men had strong political aspirations and shared goals of seeking political office. A life-long alliance was born between the two under the guidance of Mrs. Sorrell, and Howard would later repay the Sorrells for Mrs. Sorrell’s motherly direction and political guidance, as well as the friendship and support of her son, Billy.<br />Esther was always active in politics and was nicknamed “Mother of the Democratic Party.” In the beginning, she spent her time stuffing envelopes and working on mailings, but her influence grew quickly. She worked tirelessly to get others elected, and the base of many Democratic political campaigns was at her kitchen table. In 1972, Esther tried her own hand in politics and ran for the Vermont State Senate where she served five terms from 1973 to 1983.<br />During her time in the Vermont Senate, Esther Sorrell was known to harbor far-left, radical Democratic ideology. In 1976 Esther Sorrell heavily supported Jimmy Carter in his 1976 presidential campaign, and carried his banner at the Democratic National Convention, while also serving as his Vermont campaign coordinator. Four years later the young Howard Dean, still in residency at Columbia University, could think of no one better within his new political acquaintances to align himself with on the Carter campaign than Esther Sorrell. At the beginning, Howard admits that his second year of medical residency prevented him from the level of involvement that he would have liked. Yet, he still found a lot of time to work with Esther licking envelopes and making phone calls for Jimmy Carter.<br />After all of Howard's hard work, Esther Sorrell invited him to run for one of Vermont's representatives at the National Convention. Initially, Howard lacked self-confidence and came up with a number of reasons why he would not be elected as a delegate. He had only been in the state for two years, was still finishing his medical residency at Columbia University, and had political experience of only the grass roots condominium project which put him on the political map, and his working with Esther Sorrell for Jimmy Carter.<br />“Peggy and Esther opened their Rolodexes, and I made a couple hundred phone calls. I would say that Peg Hartigan or Esther Sorrell had asked me to call and would you kindly support me for national delegate? I came in third after the lieutenant governor and after Esther herself. Being elected a national delegate helped me get started in Vermont. I owe a tremendous debt to Esther and Peggy as a result. I could never have done anything around the state without them. They knew everybody and introduced me to all of them. I think they also helped mold my politics.”<br />Howard Dean went to the 1980 convention in New York City, where Ted Kennedy was pitted against Jimmy Carter. Dean was casting his vote with the Carter people, but it turned out they were all 30 years older than he was. At night he found himself out with the Kennedy people who were all his own age and subsequently became friends with both sides.<br />The dual friendship was noted, and when Howard returned from the convention, Mark Kaplan, the state chair, called Howard into his office and asked him to be the chair of Chittenden County, the largest county in the state. Kaplan explained to Dean that the incumbent was very ill and had to step down. Since Dean was apparently the only person who could get along with both the Carter people and the Kennedy people, comprising the two factions in the County, he needed Howard to accept the position. So he did. But it was not long before Howard’s aspirations for power saw him needing more, and two years in the position as chair of Chittenden County offered him a tremendous launching pad in which to spring his 1982 run for the Vermont House of Representatives.<br />“As chair of the largest county, I started to get some notice. My job was to try to get Democrats elected to the state senate. After I had been doing that for two years, I decided to run for the state legislature. Someone who represented my district had decided to run for the senate, so I ran for the house seat she was vacating. There was a very strong Progressive Party in the ward and no Republican Party whatsoever. So, interestingly, I ended up running against a candidate to my left in my first election. I won the election. It was 1982, and I had secured my first elective office.”<br />Howard Dean served a successful two year term as a member of the Vermont House and was re-elected for the position in 1984, where he served as assistant minority leader from 1985 through 1986. In what had already become a far-left state, Vermont was left with little choices as Dean faced no Republican challengers, and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders from a further left-wing Democratic faction than what Dean belonged to.<br />After two terms as a Vermont House member, Howard Dean saw an opportunity to put himself in line for the most powerful job in the state. In 1986, instead of running for an additional term in the Vermont House of Representatives, Howard Dean ran for and won the position as Lieutenant Governor of the state of Vermont under Democratic Governor Richard A. Snelling. Both of these positions had been of a part-time nature so Howard was able to continue his medical practice with Judith. Five years later the inevitable happened, and Howard Dean would finally get what he wanted. The state of Vermont would never be the same.<br />Howard Deans Police State of Vermont<br />Chapter 3 – Deans Vermont Police State<br />Working Draft<br />On August 14, 1991, Vermont Lieutenant Governor Howard Dean was working at his medical practice. He was the only doctor working that day, as practice partner and wife Judy was getting ready to take the kids on vacation to her parent’s house. At approximately 8 o'clock in the morning, Dr. Dean was conducting a physical examination when a call came in that would change his life, and the lives of all Vermonters for years to come. Dr. Dean would later remark that it was unusual to get interrupted during an exam, and understood when the nurse told him that the Governor’s office was on the line that the call would be of utmost importance.<br />The phone call to Dean was from Bruce Post, one of Governor Snelling’s staffers. He informed Dean that Governor Richard A. Snelling had died of sudden cardiac arrest. Howard Dean knew what that meant. He would now be the Governor, or at least, acting Governor of the state of Vermont. A power platform he had long sought to hold.<br />After getting off the phone, Dr. Dean returned to the examination room and completed the physical on the patient he had excused himself from. He knew at that moment his political career was moving from part-time to full-time and it would probably be some period of time until that patient would be able to get another appointment at his office. After finishing up, Howard Dean spent the next three hours making telephone calls from his doctor's office in Shelburne, before the media arrived at his practice, and the Vermont State Police showed up to retrieve him.<br />Judy was forced to delay the trip to her parent’s house with the children and came in to see the rest of Dr. Dean's morning patients. At around 11:30 AM, Dean returned to his house and explained to his children that he was now going to be Governor and what that meant. Eventually, Howard got dressed up, and he and his family got in the car with his state police escort in route to The Pavilion in Vermont’s capital city of Montpelier.<br />The office of the Governor of Vermont is located in The Pavilion at 109 State Street in Montpelier. The building houses the working offices of the Governor, a reception room, press briefing room, and living apartments for the Governor. The term “The Fifth Floor” is sometimes used in reference to the Governors administration as it refers to the Governors offices being located on the fifth floor of The Pavilion (although they no longer are). In addition to the Governors offices, the Vermont Attorney General and the Vermont State Treasurer house their offices in The Pavilion, along with the Agency of Administration and the Vermont Historical Society.<br />In the 1980’s, prior to Howard Dean becoming Governor, a modern addition in the form of a contemporary glass and steel wing was added to the northwest side of the building, directly north of the state library and Vermont Supreme Court. The offices of the Governor were moved to this wing, providing the Governor and staff dramatic views of the State House dome to the northwest. Despite no longer having regular staff on the old fifth floor, a ceremonial office is still provided here for the Governor which is used daily during the legislative session of the General Assembly, but rarely otherwise. <br />As acting Governor, there was no legal requirement that Dean actually be sworn in to the office. But Dean decided that he should have a swearing-in ceremony anyways. He claimed it would be symbolically important for the people of the state to see the formal transition of power, but the reality is probably closer to Howard wanting to feel the power himself; the dragon he had been chasing for so long. On the evening of August 14, 1991, Dr. Howard Brush Dean III stood in the Governor’s office with his wife and children, and took the oath of office as the 79th Governor of Vermont from the Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. Two years later, Dean would utilize his chameleon like political strategy to be officially elected as the Governor of Vermont where he would go on to serve six terms in all from Snelling’s death on August 14, 1991 until January 9, 2003.<br />The Governor of Vermont is the chief executive of the state. The Governor is elected biennially in even numbered years by direct voting for a term of two years, instead of every four as in most states. However, there is no limit on the number of terms a Governor in Vermont can serve. There is a separately elected Lieutenant Governor of Vermont, who assumes the powers of the Governor in case there is a vacancy in the office or the Governor is no longer able to serve, such as the case with Howard Dean who ascended to the governorship through the vacancy left by the death of Governor Snelling.<br />The Constitution of Vermont is what gives the Governor his powers over the state, and conversely, limits them. Something often ignored by Governor Dean. The Constitution of Vermont details the powers of the Governor as follows:<br />To commission or appoint officers.<br />To fill all vacancies in office until the office can be filled in the manner directed by state Constitution or by state law.<br />To correspond with other states.<br />To “transact business with officers of government, civil, and military.”<br />To “prepare such a business as may appear necessary, to lay before the General Assembly.”<br />To grant pardons and remit fines, except for cases of treason, in which the Governor may only grant reprieves until the end of the next session of the General Assembly, and for cases of impeachment, in which the Governor cannot grant either reprieves or pardons.<br />To “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and “expedite the execution of such measures as may be resolved upon by the General Assembly.”<br />To “drop on the treasury for such sums as may be appropriated by the General Assembly.”<br />To “lay embargoes, or prohibit the exportation of any commodity” for up to 30 days during a recess of the General Assembly.<br />To “grant such licenses as shall be directed by law.”<br />To call special sessions of the General Assembly when necessary.<br />To be the “Captain-General and Commander-in-Chief” of the “forces of the State” (Vermont State Guard and Vermont National Guard), although the Governor cannot “command in person, in time of war, or insurrection, unless by the advice and consent of the Senate, and no longer than they shall approve thereof.”<br />Upon becoming governor of Vermont in 1991 after Snelling’s sudden death, Dean made a sharp turn to the right and pursued that course while publicly professing himself as a neo-liberal throughout his political career. In his 11 years as governor, Dean would shift rightward on one position after another, all the while claiming to be a concerned progressive looking out for the needy and less-fortunate. Time and again Governor Dean would disappoint the heavily left-wing Vermont constituency that thought they were getting someone who would govern from the liberal end of the political spectrum.<br />Though he has been dubbed a “raging liberal” by admirers and critics alike, Howard Dean governed Vermont strictly within the framework of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council. Many people on the Vermont left see Dean as a politically motivated master of posturing. “The notion that he is a liberal is ludicrous to those of us who worked with him in Vermont,” said Terrill Bouricius, a former state representative. They wonder how Howard Dean ever got a progressive label in the first place. His rhetoric is simplistic, passionate, but ultimately toothless. The far left saw this as just continued rhetoric proclaiming that Dean really meant that he was willing to disregard environmental safeguards and worker rights, as long as the wheels of economic capital keep spinning. <br />Still today in Vermont, most are not sure what to make of Howard Dean. Was he a liberal, or was he the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing? As his fascist record indicates, the reality is likely much worse, but like most politicians he said what he needed to say in order to get what he wanted. Howard Dean wanted the progressive vote, he wanted to be governor; he wanted to be king. So his conformist stances blatantly covered up his true ideology in hopes that supporters would follow him blindly. And they did. Vermonter illusions in Dean as a lesser-evil to the Republicans only served to mute the necessary struggles that were needed to fight against his fascist policies. <br />Dean inherited a massive deficit in the state budget, and is sometimes credited with saving the economy in Vermont which led to his re-elections. This is actually something of a misnomer. To try and satisfy the progressive base, Dean would originally admit that he would only continue to implement the economic programs started by Snelling because he was the elected official. Only later when Vermont actually did balance their budget under the Snelling tutelage, Governor Dean saw the opportunity to take credit for the economic success as his own.<br />“The important part of the speech said that we were going to move forward with Governor Snelling’s economic recovery plan. I understood that Dick Snelling had been elected governor and not me, and it was up to me to continue to clean up the state’s fiscal mess. The first piece of business would be improving the state’s economic outlook.”<br />Governor Dean refused to raise taxes on wealthy Vermonters and rendered the tax system more regressive, and some say more fascist than previously. Dean declared in his first State of the State address that it would be his mission to balance the state budget with some “tough cuts.” Even though Vermont has no law requiring a balanced budget, Dean promised, “the pain for Vermonters will be real,” and he meant it. Dean also slashed millions of dollars from all sorts of social programs, including prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, heating assistance for poor Vermonters, and housing assistance funds. <br />Throughout the 1990s, Dean’s cuts in state aid to education ($6 million), retirement funds for teachers and state employees ($7 million), health care ($4 million), welfare programs earmarked for the aged, blind, and disabled ($2 million), Medicaid benefits ($1.2 million) and more, amounted to roughly $30 million. Dean claimed that the cuts were necessary because the state had no money and was burdened by a $60 million deficit. But during the same period, Dean found $7 million for a low-interest loan program for businesses, $30 million for a new prison in Springfield, VT, and he cut the income tax by 8 percent (equivalent to $30 million). State investments in prisons increased by nearly 150 percent while investments in state colleges increased by only 7 percent. The liberal Vermont legislature balked at this because they didn’t feel comfortable “cutting taxes in a way that benefits the wealthiest taxpayers.” Most of the Democrats in the legislature rebelled against Dean over the tax cutting and budget revisions, and he ended up depending on Republican votes to pass most of his proposals. <br />Politically, Dean was sometimes a liberal, sometimes a fiscal conservative, and often times a fascist. Dean baited and smeared even those in his own party who would criticize him for his policies. When assailed by Democrats for jettisoning his support for single-payer health care, Dean responded, <br />“The progressive-wing (of the Democratic party) needs to take a look at what works and to discard ideas that in many cases have been discarded by history, including the history of what happened in Eastern Europe.”<br />Dean went above and beyond “fiscal conservatism” when it came to welfare reform. He proudly boasted that Vermont was the first state to implement a workfare program, which included mandatory work requirements for welfare recipients. Dean complained at the time that people on welfare, “don’t have any self-esteem. If they did they’d be working.” After the first three years of Governor Dean’s treatment, demand for food stamps and emergency food aid in the state reached record levels.<br />On two separate occasions, once in 1993 and again in 1995, hundreds of welfare recipients, elderly, impoverished, disabled, and progressive Vermonters poured in to the capital from all over the state to protest Dean’s cuts. The Rutland Herald described how one protestor, Henrietta Jordan of the Vermont Center for Independent Living, said, “It would be much fairer to raise taxes on people with expensive homes and cars, children in private school, and a housekeeper at home, than to cut programs that helped the 66,000 Vermonters living with disabilities.” Dean was unimpressed and responded callously, “this seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here.”<br />Howard Dean’s fascist ideology for the state of Vermont was not limited to his fiscal practices. Dean continues to often boast about the universal health care that he implemented in the state, but this claim is simply bogus. Vermont doesn't actually have universal healthcare. It may be true that almost all children under the age of 18 are covered, but U.S. Census Bureau figures continue to show that 12% of Vermonters remain uninsured, only slightly better than the 15% national average.<br />For those Vermonters who are insured under Dean’s plan, their access is extremely limited. Dean’s plan requires families to pay monthly premiums for government-subsidized health care, but because services are provided through private insurers, premiums have increased by 400 percent over the past ten years while care has been steadily deteriorating. Dean has also cut basic services from the health plan such as X-rays, dental services, physical therapy, psychological care, and cheap prescription drugs. As Dean explained to the Rutland Herald in 1991, one of the main assets of his health care plan is that, “it definitely keeps people out of the emergency room.”<br />When it came to women’s rights and the rights of gays, Howard Dean’s record remained consistently rigid.<br />Dean had always positioned himself as a friend of the women’s rights movement because of his support for abortion. But Dean’s “fascist conservatism” often got in the way of his “social liberalism.” When cutting the budget in the mid-1990s, Dean’s axe managed to find itself aimed at battered women’s services, and his welfare reform forced single mothers into mandatory jobs regardless of children’s ages. And while it is true that Dean signed a civil union bill into law for homosexual rights, it is not something he can rightfully take credit for.<br />During his re-election campaign in 1998, Dean refused to talk about the issue of civil unions publicly, avoiding it by claiming to be waiting for a state Supreme Court decision. In 1999, the state Supreme Court of Vermont unanimously ruled that gay couples were due the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexuals, and ordered the legislature to pass a law codifying the right. When the legislature began to formulate a bill, Dean made it clear that he would not sign anything permitting gay marriage as an equivalent to heterosexual marriage. The compromise was the eventual civil union legislation, which Dean signed privately and away from the cameras while allegedly walking around the state capital telling people he was only doing it because the Vermont Supreme Court made him.<br />When it came to education, Howard Dean was no champion of sweeping praise either. When he was making his initial budget cuts, financial aid for higher education was one of the first items to be gone. While Vermont’s school system is funded relatively equitably through a general fund set up under the Act 60 legislation, this, like the civil unions, has little to do with Dean’s efforts. It too was born of a Supreme Court ruling that had virtually no previous support from Howard Dean.<br />The most disturbing of all of Howard Dean's policies while governor of Vermont, and the clearest indication that Howard Dean was a fascist with police state ideology, are his records on civil liberties and his blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States. Dean’s record and stances on Constitutional civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, and the justice system are nothing less than frightening. Dean made it clear early in his tenure that he thought alleged criminals were cut too much slack. Dean's attempts to weaken the Bill of Rights began early in the 1990s and his police state ideology was a fundamental aspect of his political agenda, bringing him to say that our Constitution,<br />“requires a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kinds of freedom of movement people have, and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street. I think that's a debate that we will have.”<br />Dean's comments might be attributed to misguided momentary emotion, but his views on certain constitutional and criminal justice principles have for years been at odds with the legal community. Throughout his six-year tenure, Dean’s public chiding of the judiciary has led many lawyers to question the doctor-governor’s grasp of constitutional law. In their eyes, Dean views the protections contained in the Bill of Rights as mere “technicalities”. Dean dismisses such criticism, saying that his comments about “technicalities” getting in the way of truth and justice have been misinterpreted. <br />“Dean is just ignorant. I don’t think he understands what judges ought to do,” said Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor who teaches advanced courses in constitutional law. “He perceives the Supreme Court as being broken in some way and sees himself on a mission to fix it, and he has the wrong reactions when it comes to people's legal rights.” As Mello continued, Howard Dean’s ideological view of the law is just, “terribly irresponsible. Whenever law is involved, he's been dreadful. He just doesn't get the Constitution or what lawyers do or what the courts are for. That is pure, ignorant, political demagoguery,” As Mello sees it, the rights that Dean sees as “technicalities” are there to preserve the rights of all citizens, including citizens accused of crimes, to be free from government intrusion. “These are not technicalities. In my view, any lawyer who said that would be speaking irresponsibly. “I am not a doctor, and I would not take it upon myself to tell Howard Dean how to practice medicine,” Mello concluded.<br />Howard Dean thinks that the justice system is flawed, but not for the reasons most reasonable politicians on both sides share. Howard’s view is different. He says it does not work because, “it bends over backwards to help defendants and is totally unfair to victims.” In 1994, Dean stated, <br />“I am one of those people who believe that 95 percent of the time that police arrest somebody they are guilty. The criminal justice system should deal more rapidly with people who are arrested, and convicted criminals should only be given one chance before being incarcerated for life.” <br />Dean has also said that it is acceptable for police to lie to the public during the course of their investigations. Asked if that reflected a “get-tough-on-crime” approach, Dean responded, <br />“I’m looking for someone who is for justice. My beef about the judicial system is that it does not emphasize truth and justice over lawyering. It emphasizes legal technicalities and rights of the defendants and all that.” <br />According to a public defender in Vermont during part of Dean's tenure, Dean was openly hostile to the defense function. He once addressed a meeting of defense attorneys by stating that, “my job is to make your job as difficult as possible.” He is a man of his word. He did not want to fund public defense.<br />“One of my clients was accused of arson murder. When my statewide boss said he didn't have the money for experts, I moved to dismiss arguing that it matters little which arm of the state was denying my client due process and effective assistance. The trial court ordered the experts and my boss appealed. The Vermont Supreme Court ordered my boss to give me what I needed and to essentially rob Peter to pay Paul with his budget. My client was acquitted after an hour and one half of deliberation.”<br />Dean made no secrets of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. During the 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office. That meant the state’s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond. And in keeping with this fascist position about the legal system being unfairly weighted in favor of defendants, during his tenure he made major cuts to the Vermont Legal Aid budget and even refused to accept a $150,000 federal grant offered by then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to the Vermont public defender's office to assist defendants who have mental disabilities. The state legislature actually had to override the Governor’s opposition to ultimately accept and claim the grant.<br />In 1997, Dean changed his stance on the death penalty and declared that he now favored capital punishment. His reasoning was that, <br />“Until life without parole means life without parole, the public is not safe without a death penalty. Until we have a judicial system that can adequately protect us, the only thing that will is the death penalty.” <br />Dean's shifting views on the death penalty have raised questions about whether he has gone from being an outspoken opponent to a sometime supporter as a matter of political expediency. He says he began to change his mind in the late 1990s, partly due to the California kidnapping, rape, and murder of Polly Klaas. <br />He attempted an explanation of his support for capital punishment on NBC's Meet the Press, agreeing that in some cases “the wrong guy” might be executed. <br />“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.” <br />Dean noted that in some instances criminals who are locked up for life might be freed on a legal “technicality” only to commit more horrible crimes. “That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime,” he said. <br />A “technicality” to Dean must be synonymous with “Constitutional hang-up.” In the case Dean presented to Russert, a man walked free, but should have been put to death instead of challenging his unconstitutional conviction. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen commented on Dean's statement saying that, “I have never heard a politician admit that he would countenance the death of an innocent person in order to ensure that the guilty die.”<br />In 1999, the Vermont Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report concerning racial harassment in Vermont public schools in which it described widespread acts of racist violence, including instances of a 13-year-old African-American boy being “beaten with a baseball bat,” and parents testifying that, in Vermont (one of the nation’s most Caucasian), “racism is not a problem or an issue; it’s a way of life.” <br />The report ruled that racial harassment appears pervasive in and around the state’s public schools. The elimination of this harassment is not a priority among school administrators, school boards, elected officials and state agencies charged with civil rights enforcement. In some instances, administrators and government leaders have denied the existence of the problem and do not acknowledge the need for improvements in overall race relations within the state. Ultimately, Dean didn’t follow through with any of the recommendations advised in the report, and instead offered the ridiculous solution in his next State of the State speech that Vermonters simply need to listen to each other more. By the time Dean left office in 2000, Vermont had experienced its fastest rising rate of youth incarceration, and according to the Drug Enforcement Agency, the imprisonment of women had increased by over 140 percent.<br />Dean also had a penchant for favoring judges who had little respect for the technicalities of civil liberties. Dean said he believed the state’s high court had especially taken the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure too far.<br />“In general, I think the court in the past has been overly restrictive about what evidence could be introduced. The result,” said Dean, “is that a jury doesn’t always get a complete picture of the truth and defendants are turned free. “For whatever reason,” he said, “the old court really was very concerned with the rights of defendants,” <br />as defined under the Constitution which he swore to uphold as Governor of a state. <br />In a 1997 interview with the Vermont News Bureau, Howard Dean admitted his desire to expedite the judicial process by using such justices to “quickly convict guilty criminals.” He announced that he hoped to appoint judges that would deem,<br />“common sense more important than legal technicalities. I’m looking to steer the court back towards consideration of the rights of the victims. I’m looking to make it easier to convict guilty people and not have as many technicalities interfere with justice, and I’ll appoint someone to fit that bill.” <br />Howard Dean kept this promise and remained intricately involved with all judicial appointments, doing much of the questioning himself. Many days were spent discussing judicial philosophy, as Dean quizzed the would-be justices on their views regarding several Vermont Supreme Court rulings.  <br />One such case involved the court’s decision to overturn a 1993 first degree murder conviction against Robert Durenleau who was charged with helping his lover kill her husband following an affair. The state Supreme Court found that the circumstantial evidence presented during the trial did not support the jury’s guilty finding. In a rare move the court not only overturned the verdict, it entered an acquittal in the case, therefore preventing Durenleau from ever being retried. “We do not readily overturn a jury’s determination, but this court cannot shrink from its duty to protect an individual’s due process right to conviction only by evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court wrote in reversing the conviction. <br />The Durenleau case was one of five murder cases that the court overturned (the other four were remanded for retrial), prompting Dean to publicly portray the court as soft on crime while charging that its justices were allowing killers to walk free. Dean also quizzed the judicial candidates about the court’s 1982 decision to overturn the conviction of Edwin Towne after a Windsor County jury found him guilty of kidnapping and assault. In that case, the court said testimony introduced by a forensic psychiatrist amounted to hearsay and thereby violated Towne’s right to confront the witness. Dean argued that as a result of the court’s decision, Towne’s plea bargain agreement meant a shorter sentence, and a second chance for Towne to act as a predator. In the end, Dean insists that his mission is not to eliminate any constitutional protections, but rather to promote a more common-sense approach to the legal arena. <br />Progressive talk radio host Thom Hartmann sums up Dean’s views nicely in his article “Our Government Needs Good Citizens”<br />“It is probably a testimonial to the good job of public indoctrination in Vermont that there was not a public uprising against him. Certainly this is a statement that would not have been acceptable to the people who made Vermont the second independent Caucasian-run nation in North America (after Texas). The founding fathers of Vermont, which dropped its independent-nation status to become the nation’s 14th state in 1779, knew all too well the dangers of a government unconstrained by the “technicalities” of the law. They had seen it when the British forced them to house their soldiers, shot or hung them for speaking out against the King, and allowed them to engage in commerce or own property only if they gave a portion of their wealth to England. They realized that the government has most of the guns and all of the power, and that it is only “legal technicalities” which keep any government at bay. They fought and many of them died to put those “technicalities” into place.<br />When politicians like Dean call for “swift and certain conviction of the guilty,” which actually means swift and certain conviction of the accused, since a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty regardless of technicalities, the founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves. The average American, however, nods his head and says, “Yeah, get them criminals off the streets. Convict ‘em quick and lock ‘em up for good!” The average American rarely considers that he or she may be the next “criminal” facing the accusing finger of the government.” <br />A similar themed article authored by Viveca Novak in TIME.com, Howard Dean’s Law and Order Views, "The representative of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," is on some constitutional issues at odds with many in his party's base", carries forward with Dean’s anti-constitution mindset. <br />Howard Deans Police State of Vermont<br />Chapter 4 – Appointments and Cronyism<br />Working Draft<br />To get a true feeling of the judicial and law enforcement police state climate fostered by Dean in Vermont, it is important to look at the judicial appointments he made to fulfill his desire to expedite the judicial process by using such justices to “quickly convict guilty criminals.”<br />Howard Dean systematically handpicked judicial appointments of judges at all levels that would subvert the Constitution and legislate from the bench. His most important and notable appointment was to repay Esther Sorrell and her son Billy for the life-long political guidance and alliance. Dean owed a great debt to the Sorrell family for mentoring his ascent in Vermont politics. <br />In July of 1997, Vermont Governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider “common sense more important than legal technicalities.” He then attempted to appoint Sorrell as the Chief Justice. Dean’s zeal to appoint his long-time friend to the highest judicial office in the state hit a roadblock. Unfortunately, Sorrell had absolutely no judicial experience, and noting this disqualifying factor, the Judicial Nominating Board refused to place William Sorrell on the short list for the top judicial spot. Dean became furious. He rejected the first list from the board that failed to include Sorrell. In describing Sorrell, Dean was quite generous with his praise of his friend’s character and abilities stating that, “I have an enormous amount of respect for Sorrell as a human being and as a really smart lawyer.” Dean insisted that Sorrell be added to the list. But again citing a lack of Sorrell’s qualifications, the board forwarded to Dean a second list that did not include Sorrell’s name. <br />An angry Dean admitted defeat on the Sorrell Chief Justice appointment, but he had a secondary plan that was almost as good. To take care of his friend and appease the Judicial Nominating Board, he appointed then Attorney General Jeffrey Amestoy to the Chief Justice spot creating a vacancy for Vermont Attorney General. Dean then promptly filled the Attorney General position with William Sorrell, succeeding in getting Sorrell appointed to a high position that could aid him in his police state ideology.<br />William H Sorrell was born on March 9, 1947 to Esther and Thomas Sorrell in Burlington Vermont. Billy, as he was known at the time, grew up in a family that was rife in politics through his mother, Vermont State Representative Esther Sorrell. William attended the University of Notre Dame, and graduated magna cum laude in 1970. William then moved on to Cornell Law School where he earned his Juris Doctorate in 1974.<br />After law school, William took a job as a Chittenden County Deputy State's Attorney from 1975 until 1977, and then became Chittenden County State's Attorney from 1977 until 1978. From there William moved into to private practice as a partner in McNeil, Murray, & Sorrell from 1978 until 1989. 1980 is when William would meet a young and politically ambitious Howard Dean through his mother Esther Sorrell. These two men together would rise through the ranks of Vermont politics, and ultimately form a bond that would create the police state controlled by Dean, and enforced by Sorrell.<br />As Howard Dean was making his way to the top through elected office, William Sorrell spent his career relying on appointments for his advancement through the power ranks. Knowing that Howard would soon be in a position of great power, William Sorrell left private practice and returned to the public sector as a State's attorney from 1989 until 1992 when his friendship and families guidance to Howard Dean's political foundation and career would see its first repayment.<br />In August 1991, Governor Snelling’s sudden and unexpected death occurred, and Lieutenant Governor Howard Dean was sworn into the office of the Vermont’s Governorship on the same day. In 1992, in what would be Howard Dean's first gubernatorial appointment, William H. Sorrell was appointed as Vermont's Secretary of Administration. Then, after five years in that position, Dean would attempt to ascend Sorrell to highest appointed position in the land with the 1997 Chief Justice appointment fiasco. Since his ascent to Attorney General, William Sorrell has been able to chameleonize his true political ideology, and like his partner in crime in the Governor’s office, enjoyed strong voter support by winning re-election six times, and is still Vermont Attorney General today.<br />Sorrell played a crucial role in assisting Dean with his obsessive direct control over all levels of judicial appointment to complete the hierarchical foundation for Dean’s police state governance. Within two months of Dean’s infamous statement of his desire to subvert the Bill of Rights and appoint judges not interested in “legal technicalities,” that would “quickly convict guilty criminals,” two of Vermont’s most corrupt judges would be appointed to the bench who would ultimately be found guilty of civil rights violations by a federal court in Manhattan at the conclusion of the case that is the subject of this book.<br />The first of these is Judge Nancy Corsones. She was appointed in 1997 by Howard Dean, and served on the bench in Bennington County Court until being transferred to the bench in the Rutland County Courthouse. Despite being adjudicated a Civil Rights violator, Judge Corsones still presides over criminal, civil, and family matters in the Superior Court of Addison County in Vermont. The Second is Judge M. Patricia Zimmerman, formerly of Rutland County, and currently presiding over criminal, and family cases in the Superior Court of Windsor County, Vermont.<br />With all the pawns in place at judicial and appointed levels, there are indisputable indications that Vermont Law under William Sorrell, at the beckoning of Howard Dean, led to drastic miscarriages of justice. One example is Robert (“Woody”) Woodward, who was massacred in Brattleboro, VT in 2001 by local law enforcement officers. It 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.<br />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, is supposed to prohibit a biased decision-maker. But something as trivial as the Constitution did not stop Dean from deciding not to usurp his friends report by refusing to appoint an independent investigator regardless of the very obvious conflict of interest with Sorrell. <br />Pursuant to the Constitution, Dean should have disqualified Sorrell and appointed the independent investigator, but Dean knew what would be found would in no way help promote the police state ideology Dean had in place. As Dean’s crony and life-long friend, Sorrell has given Dean a Vermont state with an Attorney General willing to bring false and frivolous arguments into the court system, and has covered up the political corruption portrayed to the U.S. Supreme Court while refusing the idea of any political prosecutions. In return, Dean gave Sorrell virtually unchecked power to fulfill the collective agenda.<br />In Sorrell’s possession is a sworn transcript and audio tape of a major America corporation’s illegal conduct constituting extortion and possibly a host of 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 legal and judicial philosophy under Dean. Also in this questionable category is Sorrell’s cover-up of an alcoholic beverage retailer’s activities that operated without federal or state licenses for 8 years during the time Dean was Governor, and despite a report from Vermont’s own liquor investigator that the illegal conduct existed, William Sorrell’s response was to immediately cover it up and make it go away.<br />The tales of judicial and governmental corruption amongst Dean, Sorrell, and his cronies are rampant, and continued straight through Dean’s presidential Run in 2004 and on into his DNC Chairmanship. Prior to the presidential run, Sorrell remained busy in court fighting on Dean’s behalf to keep his gubernatorial records sealed. In light of the fact that Attorney General Sorrell fought against the interests of the people without regard to his sworn duty to them, one can only imagine what vile governmental conduct Sorrell and Dean are covering up in the records. Sorrell’s friendship with Dean cost the Vermont taxpayers thousands of litigation dollars despite various prohibitions for Sorrell’s representation of Dean under attorney conflict of interest ethical principles. Clearly neither Dean nor his crony Sorrell has any respect for the Bill of Rights, ethical considerations, or the rule of law when it doesn’t fit into their dubious agendas.<br />This saga began when Judicial Watch, a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics, and the law, sought and was repeatedly denied access to Dean’s gubernatorial records. At the time, then Governor Dean cited his presidential aspirations as the basis for denying the public access to the records, reportedly telling Vermont Public Radio, “well---there are future political considerations. We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor.” In an unprecedented move to seek blanket executive privilege, Governor Dean, the Vermont Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz, and Vermont’s State Archivist negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding hoping to supersede the State’s Public Access Laws and shield the records from public scrutiny for 10 years.<br />A memorandum on August 21, 2002 to David Rocchio, Governor’s Counsel, from Gregory Sanford, Vermont State Archivist, illustrates the beginnings of the conspiracy to seal Deans Records. It also has the tone that Gregory Sanford initially had foundering support for the dubious agenda. In the memo Sanford says, <br />“You asked me to further develop the idea that executive privilege closures might not be bound by a date certain, but rather reflect the Governor’s status (i.e., being President, presidential candidate) at the time the records would normally be open under a memorandum of understanding. What we discussed was the possibility of adding to the memorandum of agreement: ‘In the event Governor Dean is President or a presidential candidate at the time the agreed executive privilege closure ends, the closed records will remain closed for an additional ____ years.’ Having proposed that approach in our initial brainstorming session, I do not support it. In the same spirit of freely exchanging ideas, let me explain why.<br />The reality is that gubernatorial records are part of our collective institutional (state government) records and thus are important to government continuity across administrations. If Dean Administration records are inaccessible, if the intent of policies cannot be documented, subsequent administrations might have an easier path imposing their own interpretations of Governor Dean’s initiatives and eliminating them.”<br />Ultimately, Dean’s “advisors” and William Sorrel were able to get State Archivist Greg Sanford back on board, and the agenda for evading the release of Dean’s record was laid out in black and white. After a flurry of meetings to address the best language, on September 18, 2002, a memorandum from Gregory Sanford to Secretary of State Markowitz and other Dean cronies established that the State Archives would accept a ten year closure. In it Sanford states,<br />“We have no bargaining chips under Killington v. Lash. The governor gets to say what is executive privilege and there is no requirement that the records ever become open. Ten years is better than twenty four, and we should take what we can get. If we insist on ten years, the Governor could simply deposit the records with no opening date; deposit fewer records (there is no records management oversight; even if there was it would be provided by a gubernatorial appointee); or invoke other reasons for closure that are open ended (lawyer/client privilege, the exemptions in 1 V.S.A. 317, etc).”<br />After the roadblocks to the records had been put firmly into place by Dean, Sanford, and Markowitz, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on December 3, 2003, seeking media wide access to some 450,000 of Howard Dean’s gubernatorial records, naming all three individuals as defendants, as well as the State of Vermont. But the day that the answer to the action was due in Washington County Superior Court in Vermont, a defiant Democratic presidential candidate Dean responded by saying, “We decided to take the campaign completely out of this, whatever Sorrell wants to do, he can do.” In repayment for a lifetime of friendship and political acquiescence, Sorrell took up Dean’s cause in addition to representing the State of Vermont.<br />On February 13, 2004, the Vermont Superior Court ruled against Dean and the State of Vermont. Sorrell appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court who agreed to hear the case and held oral arguments on March 14, 2005 during their annual Vermont Law School session in South Royalton, VT. On November 4, 2005, the Vermont Supreme Court, including Dean’s appointees, reversed the decision of the Superior Court allowing Dean to keep his gubernatorial records sealed.<br />There is a substantial body of law regarding representation of two clients whose interests may be adverse to one another such as they were in this case. William Sorrell acted as legal representation for both Howard Dean and the State of Vermont in the suit, whose interests were clearly adverse. Rule 1.7(a) of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules for Professional Responsibility covers conflicts of interest.<br />“A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:<br />(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or<br />(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.”<br />Accompanying the ABA Model Rules is the ABA Model Code, which sets forth the Ethical Considerations (EC) that could create a conflict of interest, and the Disciplinary Rules (DR) that requires an attorney to decline representation in the event that they simultaneously represent more than one party with likely adverse interests. EC 5-15 of the Code concerns the potential for differing interests of multiple clients being represented by one attorney.<br />“If a lawyer is requested to undertake or to continue representation of multiple clients having potentially differing interests, he must weigh carefully the possibility that his judgment may be impaired or his loyalty divided if he accepts or continues the employment. He should resolve all doubts against the propriety of the representation. A lawyer should never represent in litigation multiple clients with differing interest; and there are few situations in which he would be justified in representing in litigation multiple clients with potentially differing interests. If a lawyer accepted such employment and the interests did become actually differing, he would have to withdraw from employment with likelihood of resulting hardship on the clients; and for this reason it is preferable that he refuse the employment initially.”<br />Accompanying EC 5-15, is DR 5-105 (A) of the Code which requires a lawyer to, <br />“decline proffered employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment on behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the acceptance of the proffered employment, or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests.”<br />The Vermont Bar (VBA) issued an opinion supporting DR 5-105 for applicability in Vermont. The Vermont Bar Associations Advisory Ethics Opinion 92-15 takes language directly from DR 5-105, <br />“a lawyer may not represent a client whose interests are adverse to those of another current client. This applies even if the two representations are unrelated. Multiple representations for matters in litigation are allowed only in limited instances where each client consents after full disclosure and there is a clear showing that either client’s respective interests will not be adversely affected by the representation of the other client.”<br />In addition to the direct conflict of interest by William Sorrell in violation of the American Bar Association’s ethical standards, the State of Vermont has its own set of ethical standards. As a lawyer and Attorney General of a State, William Sorrell was duty bound to the rules set forth in both. The Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7 deals with conflict of interest matters and follows the language of the ABA Model Rule 1.7 (a) very closely.<br /> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:<br />(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or<br />(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.<br />(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:<br />(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;<br />(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;<br />(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and<br />(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.<br />Resolution of a conflict of interest problem under this rule requires the lawyer to: 1) clearly identify the client or clients; 2) determine whether a conflict of interest exists; 3) decide whether the representation may be undertaken despite the existence of a conflict, (i.e., whether the conflict is consentable); and 4) if so, consult with the clients affected under paragraph (a) and obtain their informed consent, confirmed in writing. <br />In the Judicial Watch case, Attorney General William Sorrell acted on behalf of Howard Dean and the State of Vermont who clearly had adverse interests. As originally pointed out by Archivist Sanford in his initial memorandum to Dean’s aid, it was in the best interest of the people of Vermont that the records not be allowed to remain sealed, the exact argument Judicial Watch was making. Despite this conflict with his Vermont constituency, and no informed consent provided in writing by any party, William Sorrell continued throughout the duration of the case to represent the adverse interests of the people, and those of Howard Dean, whose political career hung in the balance of the outcome.  Clearly Sorrell chose the duty owed to friendship over his duty owed to the people of Vermont.<br />To summarize Vermont’s police state tactics that Governor Dean was able to put in place, one need only look at the argument of Vermont Attorney General Sorrell in Randall v. Sorrell before the United States Supreme Court. Sorrell’s argument urged that Vermont needed the lowest political campaign spending limits in the United States because of rampant political corruption in Vermont. As DNC Chair at the time, Howard Dean commanded DNC attorneys to file a court brief supporting his friend Sorrell. At argument, Chief Justice Roberts questioned Attorney General Sorrell as to just how many political corruption prosecutions he had brought in Vermont in the previous 9 years. Sorrell’s response -- NONE.<br />Howard Deans Police State of Vermont<br />By: Scott Huminski<br />Chapter 5 – Scott Huminski the Gadfly Activist<br />Working Draft<br />Scott Alan Huminski was born in Bridgeport, CT in 1959 to Theodore and Eleanor Huminski. Scott grew up in Stratford, CT and was known to be a precocious, intelligent, and athletic boy. He enjoyed most outdoor activities, was part of the boy scouts, and a member of his high school swim team. Scott graduated from Bunnell High School in Stratford, CT in the top 10% of his class in 1977. After high school, Scott attended Sacred Heart University where he graduated with a BS in computer science with a math minor in 1981.<br />After completion of college, Scott became a software engineer and spent the next ten years until 1991 as a consultant for various military and defense contractors including IBM, Sikorsky Aircraft, and Hamilton Standard. Scott worked on computer control systems software for jet engines and tank engines, as well as working on semi-conductors, and various other equipment controlling software systems. In 1982 Scott met the love of his life Dana Huminski, an office administrator, and they were married in 1987.<br />Scott’s work saw the two of them moving on a number of occasions around Southwestern Connecticut, but in 1990 Scott and Dana began acting on their dream of settling in Vermont and becoming business and property owners. In mid-1990, Scott bought a run-down commercial building shell in Bennington, VT. He spent the next year renovating the building for the Bennington Mail Shoppe which he planned to open on the first floor and a residence for him and Dana above it. In 1991, the Huminski’s left their respective careers and moved to Bennington where they poured their life savings into opening the Bennington Mail Shoppe, and completing the building’s renovations.<br />By the end of 1994, things had begun to pay off for Scott and the Bennington Mail Shoppe was outgrowing the commercial storefront of his building. In 1995, Scott purchased a larger office-retail building, renovated it, and moved the Bennington Mail Shoppe to the larger location. Scott and Dana continued to reside in the upstairs of the smaller building, and rented the downstairs commercial location to a private university. Scott began renovations on the 2nd floor of his new building and rented it out as office space to two lawyers and an accountant. Scott had made it. He had created the American dream for himself and his wife. But one year later in 1996, everything would change for Scott as the police state cronyism implemented by Howard Dean in Vermont would catch up with him and turn his American dream into an American nightmare.<br />It began when Scott had been granted a Federal Community Development loan for additional renovations to the blighted 2nd larger building he owned in Bennington. Congress passed the Housing and Community Development Act in 1974 which broke down the barriers where under separate categorical programs, the Federal Government made the decisions about every community development project undertaken by cities. The Housing and Community Development Act merged seven categorical programs into a block of flexible community development funds distributed each year by a formula that considered population and measures of distress including poverty, age of housing, housing overcrowding, and growth lag. Grantees determined what activities they funded as long as certain requirements where met under 42 USC §5305.<br />Scott used the Community Development loan to continue renovating the larger building which contained the Bennington Mail Shoppe, the lawyers, and the accountant, and used his own capital to make renovations to the original building which housed the university and his residence. In 1996, Helen Whyte of the Bennington Community Development Department began to accuse Scott that he was misappropriating the loan dollars by using them for personal purposes and not on renovations. The accusations were baseless and without any merit, and after jumping through numerous hoops and providing proof through expense documentation, Scott was able to prove that Ms. Whyte’s accusations were unfounded. <br />Shortly thereafter, Scott was visited by a Congressional aide to US Representative Bernie Sanders (D-VT) who was checking in on how the Federal Community Development funds were being used. During this occasion, Scott complained to the aide about the fraudulent and unfounded allegations made against him. This resulted in an interview for Scott with the Bennington newspaper, the Bennington Banner, in which he illustrated the incompetence of the Vermont Community Development Department by showing that the department was wasting their resources on investigating perfectly innocent Vermont citizens, while friends and crony’s who were defaulting on the loans and clearly misappropriating funds went uninvestigated.<br />Approximately two months after Scott’s interview with the newspaper and the article that followed, he began to have problems with one of his tenants. Accountant Duane Greenawalt was a wealthy and connected man in Bennington. His lawyer was a former Deputy State’s Attorney and good friend of Bennington police officer Henry Haverkoch. Despite his wealth, each month he began paying rent to Scott later and later in violation of the lease agreement. Within a few months the rent payments from Duane Greenawalt came to a stop altogether, and at the same time the default occurred, the Bennington Mail Shoppe began losing customers that were known friends of Duane Greenawalt, his lawyer, and police officer Henry Haverkoch.<br />Michael Ryan was the Winery owner in Bennington and a good customer of the Bennington Mail Shoppe. He was also a friend and client of Duane Greenawalt. As the rent from Greenawalt stopped coming in, Michael Ryan simultaneously discontinued his patronage at the mail store like many others in what became a concerted effort to run Scott out of town. He began to hear whispers and see people pointing. The flatlander had been targeted for banishment. But despite all of the setbacks that seemed to be occurring, Scott Huminski pushed forward with his dream and restarted the renovations to the larger building with his remaining community development funds. As this was happening, Scott got word that Michael Ryan was shipping alcohol to minors across state lines via telephone ordering from his winery, and filed a state complaint.<br />Shortly thereafter, Duane Greenawalt filed suit alleging a self-help eviction against Scott, citing the renovations were a purposeful disruption to his business operations. A self-help eviction, which is not legal in Vermont, can involve numerous direct or indirect tactics to get someone off the property and out of a lease agreement. These can include changing of locks, moving out of belongings, shutting off of utilities, verbal threats, ignoring repair requests, or as Duane Greenawalt alleged, the interference with the use of the properties amenities and negative effect on business operations. Subsequently, Scott filed a counter-suit against Greenawalt for unpaid back-rent, fees, and associated court costs. Ultimately, the state kicked Greenawalt out of the building due to the fact that the renovations were not yet complete and the building code would not allow for occupancy. But Greenawalt’s lawsuit remained pending against Scott, and due to an inability to afford legal representation, he was forced into filing for bankruptcy protection. Consequently, the civil matter was destined to be discharged in federal bankruptcy court where Scott was able to act as a pro se (without council) petitioner. <br />Greenawalt's attorney filed an objection to discharge of the lawsuit in bankruptcy court which listed Michael Ryan and some individuals unknown to Scott as witnesses. Initially, Scott had no idea what Michael Ryan was going to testify to, as he was just one of many names on this Bankruptcy Court witness list. As part of the investigation that Scott was conducting in the case, he contacted Michael Ryan, and during the course of the conversation asked him what he had to say for himself regarding Scott’s bankruptcy. Mr. Ryan’s response was that he heard Scott was trying to get him sent to prison (Marble Valley Regional Correctional Facility - Rutland, VT) for selling liquor to minors across state lines. Scott’s belief became a confirmed reality. Bennington cronyism and the “good-old boy” network now had it in for him, and this was a dangerous place to be. Out of frustration, Scott responded to Michael Ryan that he heard the food was good up there in the prison, and hung up.<br />Officer Haverkoch used the opportunity presented by Ryan’s illicit liquor sales, and the misguided perception of Scott’s “harassment and threats” regarding the food in prison comment as a way to use them both. Under threat of arrest and criminal prosecution for the illicit liquor sales from Haverkoch and State’s Attorney William Wright, Michael Ryan not only agreed to flat-out perjure himself regarding the civil suit between Mr. Greenawalt and Mr. Huminski, he also agreed to testify that Scott was harassing and threatening him so Haverkoch had cause to file a criminal complaint against him in what had quickly evolved into a small town Vermont conspiracy. Haverkoch charged Scott with obstruction of justice for supposedly harassing a witness in a civil case. In Haverkoch’s probable cause affidavit for charging Scott, he states,<br />I believe the Defendant to be Guilty of obstruction of justice based on the following facts:<br />
      • This affiant (Haverkoch) checked about case# S0087-BcC of the Bennington County Superior Court. The case is Dwayne Greenawalt v Scott Huminski & Eastern Equipment Services Corp. The case was filed on 03/11/1996. The witness list is the same as the one transferred to US Bankruptcy Court in Rutland, VT.
      • The case was stayed in Bennington County Superior Court when Huminski filed in the US Bankruptcy Court on 04/12/96
      • Michael Ryan was listed as a witness for Greenawalt in both the cases.
      • Affiant (Haverkoch) took a written statement from the victim Michael Ryan that on 01/12/1997 at about 1:10PM he received a telephone call from the defendant about being on a witness list for an upcoming civil trial in Superior Court, in Bennington County, State of Vermont.
      • Defendant told Ryan that he had evidence that Ryan was sending wine to under age individuals and that he had the shipping papers. The defendant also told Ryan that he would be going to trial.
      • Ryan is fearful that the defendant will harm him if he testifies in the upcoming trial.
      Haverkoch based his entire claim of obstruction of justice based on the fact that Scott Huminski contacted and harassed a witness that would be testifying against him in a civil case in Bennington County. However, that was simply not true. The witness list was exclusive to the bankruptcy case in the United States District court located in Rutland, and had never been a part of the civil matter. Haverkoch knew this, but without claiming to find the witness list in the civil case file he would have no grounds for the criminal charges. Henry Haverkoch orchestrated a case, and then perjured himself in a sworn affidavit to trump up criminal charges where none clearly existed. Duane Greenawalt’s attorney, Jonathan Cohen, refused to even discuss the Superior Court matter in a taped conversation on 11/03/1997, citing the existence of an automatic stay in the civil case which prohibited any discovery, including the generation of witness lists. In an affidavit, Mr. Cohen flatly denied that a witness list ever existed in the civil case which Haverkoch consistently referred to in his affidavits.<br />Henry Haverkoch hailed from New Jersey. His appearance and disposition resembled that of a cop on a network primetime cartoon, but he had a ubiquitous evil side. Earlier in his career, Officer Haverkoch was headed for firing from the police force and possible jail time for several publicized disciplinary matters. In a December 5, 1986 Bennington Banner article entitled, Judge: Patrolman’s Lies Threatened Justice, writer Cole G. Libby illustrates Haverkoch’s tainted record.<br />Judge Robert Grussing said Thursday that two Bennington police officers threatened the justice system by telling lies on the witness stand.<br />In an Oct. 31 ruling acquitting a North Bennington man of assaulting a police officer, the Vermont District Court judge said the two officers broke the defendants rib, bruised his leg, and then lied about it under oath.<br />"I came off the bench with the feeling that the officers lied to me," Grussing said in a telephone interview Thursday. "[Lying] interferes with the way the judicial system should work. If people are not going to tell the truth then the system is not going to work."<br />Fernald said Thursday he is considering a lawsuit against the town of Bennington to follow up Grussing's ruling.<br />"I've spent $2000 playing this game," he said adding that the money went to lawyers' fees and he hopes to get some back.<br />Grussing's decision sparked an internal investigation by the Bennington Police Department. Under attack are Patrolmen Henry Haverkoch and Frederick Gilbar, who arrested Fernald for driving under the influence after a one-mile chase through North Bennington.<br />The court transcripts which were released Thursday, give a clear picture of the officers' and fernald's versions of the events while illuminating Grussing's reason for not believing the officers' testimony. <br />In his decision, Grussing said he did not believe Haverkoch's testimony saying he sat in his cruiser after the chase while Gilbar subdued Fernald. <br />The transcript shows that Haverkoch pulled his cruiser around the right side of Fernald's truck to the front. After reaching that point Haverkoch testified that he went around the rear of the truck and reached Fernald after Gilbar had him on the ground. <br />Fernald, however, testified that as he stepped out of the truck he faced Gilbar who was approaching from the rear of the truck, Fernald said that at the same time he had his hair pulled from behind. <br />Grussing asked Fernald" "You said that you saw Officer Gilbar?" <br />"Yes, I was facing him, and he was coming from the back of the truck." he answered. <br />Grussing: "So he was not the one who pulled your hair?" <br />Fernald: "No, he was not. Someone grabbed me from [behind] which would have been the front side of the truck."<br />Grussing said he didn't know how the case should be handled after his decision and said it wasn't in his domain as a judge to carry the case further. Wright has questioned why Grussing didn't refer the case to the attorney general. <br />Twenty days after Grussing filed his decision, Wright brought the case to the attention of the attorney general. Wright had disassociated himself from the case because of his close relation to the officer in question. <br />Wright was Haverkoch's best man in his October 1984 wedding and went with many officers and friends on a group vacation to Bermuda in early October. Haverkoch was also present. <br />Town Manager Kevin Ryan said he "hopes" the police department investigation will be complete in a week but said he might not make the findings public. <br />Explaining that he wants to either exonerate or prosecute the officers, Ryan said he will share the department's findings with the attorney general. <br />"I suspect if we decide anything at all we will touch base with [assistant attorney general David] Suntag because we don't want to jeopardize his investigation down the road." <br />Ryan said punishment may range from a written reprimand to firing if it turns out either officer committed perjury.<br />According to a source in the police department, it was the second time in two months that Haverkoch had been the focus of an investigation. The source said Haverkoch received a written reprimand on Nov. 7 after a fellow officer found him asleep on a Route 7 pull-off north of town Oct 19.<br />To save his position as a police officer Henry Haverkoch, who died in 2000, strategically positioned himself alongside the highest law enforcement officials in the state, including his closest friend, William Sorrell’s crony, State’s Attorney William Wright. Despite his official recusal from the case, it is almost certain that the friendship between the two saved Haverkoch’s career. Judge Grussing ultimately found that Haverkoch made false statements under oath in a criminal matter and dismissed the criminal case because of police misconduct. Although the word perjury wasn’t used by the judge, it is clear that police perjury was the reason for dismissal of the case. But Haverkoch’s career dodged a bullet thanks to Wright.<br />State’s Attorney William Wright had an interesting background himself. According to reports from his High School alumni, Wright was the shunned class tattle-tale who would raise his hand and disclose to the teacher who was chewing gum or breaking some other petty rule. Unable to physically qualify for the FBI, Wright chose to become a prosecutor with his first short-lived position being in Fort Lauderdale, FL. However, things failed to work out there, so Wright came home to the low pay of a Vermont prosecutor. Prosecutor Wright went on “guys only” vacations with local police officers, and in admission of his intense conflict of interest with any person who carried a badge, he disqualified himself from every criminal matter involving an accusation against law enforcement.<br />When William Wright ran uncontested and won the State’s Attorney position, he was featured in the October 17, 1986 Bennington Banner in a critical article entitled, Police Advocate Runs for State’s Attorney. The Banner article revealed an overzealous, pro-police prosecutor who had similar police state ideology to his bosses William Sorrell and Howard Dean. An op-ed representing the opinions of numerous members of the Vermont Bar Association, including judges, state’s attorneys, legislators, public defenders, and high-profile lawyers responded to the Banner article by writing,<br />The public is indebted to the Banner for its revealing Oct. 17 article on William D. Wright’s candidacy for State’s Attorney. Your reporter painted a man who sees his job as a contest between good and evil, cops versus robbers, and us against them. A man who tags along after the police, on some occasions carrying a pistol in a black valise, and who has a rope noose hanging from his office window sill.<br />The article gave a chilling portrait of a person frighteningly ignorant of the delicate balancing act of the very powerful office he will apparently assume by default. In our legal system the public prosecutor is held to a higher standard. Cannon 7-13 of the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility states:<br />The responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict. This special duty exists because:<br />(1) the prosecutor represents the sovereign and therefore should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of governmental powers such as in the selection of cases to prosecute; <br />(2) during trial the prosecutor is not only an advocate but he also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all; and<br />(3) in our system of criminal justice the accused is afforded the benefit of all reasonable doubt.<br />With respect to evidence and witnesses, the prosecutor has responsibilities different from those of a lawyer in private practice. The prosecutor has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, and act accordingly by dismissal, reduction of offense degree, or reduction the punishment. Further, a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he believes it will damage the prosecutor’s case or aid the accused. In our system, a mature, responsible, and dispassionate prosecutor is the first line of defense for our civil liberties. The founders of our country, through bitter experience, took seriously the threat of unchecked state power. They established some ground rules between the citizens and the state, the most famous of which are the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution.<br />Let us all fervently hope that the solemn responsibilities of this high office impart some measure of humility and wisdom to our sole candidate. The world of criminal prosecution is seldom a simple contest between good and evil. A prosecutor’s job is, above all, “to seek justice,” which is a far more complex responsibility.<br />The following Friday after speaking to Mr. Ryan, Scott received a message on his answering machine from the Bennington Police stating that they had some questions for him and he needed to come down to the police station. Not connecting the phone call to any kind of criminal offense, without hesitation Scott left for the police department to find out what was going on. However, as soon as he arrived, there were no questions to be asked. He was immediately informed that he was being charged with obstruction of justice for harassing a witness and placed under arrest. Officer Henry Haverkoch was contacted and informed that Scott had been taken into custody, and he immediately reported to the station off-duty to personally handle Mr. Huminski’s booking process. Despite Haverkoch’s presence, jail booking went routinely until Officer Haverkoch placed a call to the Bennington Court Clerk to be given a bail amount for Scott.<br />13 V.S.A. § 3015 is the Vermont statue detailing the criminal offense of obstruction of justice. It reads,<br />whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, intimidates or impedes any witness, grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court or agency, in a contested case, of the state of Vermont, or causes bodily injury to such person or intentionally damages the property of such person on account of such person's attendance at, deliberation at, or performance of his or her official duties in connection with a matter already heard, presently being heard or to be heard before any court or agency, in a contested case, of the state of Vermont, or corruptly or by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication, obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice, shall be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than $5,000.00, or both.<br />In the scope of Vermont criminal offenses, obstruction of justice is a rather minor crime, especially considering the facts of the comment made in the phone call to Mr. Ryan which contained no threats, and no violence. The general rule in these circumstances would have been to issue Scott a criminal citation and release him on his own recognizance for a future court appearance. The excessive bail provision of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is considered a fundamental right. Its purpose is to create fair bail standards for those charged but presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Supreme Court has defined excessive bail to be, <br />“an amount of bail ordered and/or posted by an accused defendant which is much more than necessary or usual to assure he/she will make court appearances, particularly in relation to minor crimes.” <br />In the Vermont court system, bail amounts of $1000-$2000 are fairly common in crimes of violence, assaults on police officers, and even sexual deviant crimes which Vermont is nationally infamous for having a problem with.<br />What the Bennington Court Clerk told Haverkoch is unknown, but it is clear that he did not like it. After 10 long minutes of verbal argument with the clerk, Scott’s bail was set at the excessive amount of $5000 as a result of Haverkoch’s completely baseless accusations that Scott planned on fleeing the country and had no ties to the community, despite the fact he had lived in Bennington for six years where he owned a business and two commercial buildings. It was a Friday evening, meaning that if Scott was unable to come up with $5000 cash, he would have been forced to spend the entire weekend in jail before seeing a judge on Monday morning. This was Henry Haverkoch’s intention as a personal payback for the thorn Scott remained in his side. When Scott called his wife and told her to take $5000 out of the personal safe to post his bail immediately at the police station, Officer Haverkoch’s face became intensely red, and was visibly upset and throwing papers around the room. It was evident that Haverkoch was intent on locking Scott up for the weekend out of personal spite, and was clearly taken aback when Scott was able to quickly produce the $5000 bail money. Within minutes, Dana Huminski walked to the police station from their home a block away and posted the bail. Before he left, Officer Haverkoch again illustrated his disapproval by slamming Scott’s file to the ground and exclaiming, “I wish I had $5000 lying around, must be nice.”<br />The following Monday, Scott hired an attorney and appeared at his scheduled arraignment time in court. The 300 pound Haverkoch waddled from the back of the room and went straight to the prosecutor’s desk, looked at the many files and swung his arm up in the air with his finger coming down on the file of Scott Huminski. He then had a whispering talk with the prosecutor, who then informed Scott’s attorney that Officer Haverkoch wanted Scott remanded and held without bail. Scott’s attorney loudly proclaimed that he wanted to put Haverkoch on the stand and prove what a “fool and liar” he was, but expectedly, the prosecutor told his attorney he was going to move to have Scott released on his own recognizance, which he was. Even the prosecutor feared putting a known perjuring and non-credible law enforcement officer on the witness stand.<br />Officer Henry Haverkoch’s obsession with Scott Huminski persisted. In addition to his unusual appearance at the arraignment, throughout the three years of the non-appellate portion of Scott’s case, Haverkoch attended even the most mundane and procedural of the court hearings. When he was on medical leave, he even went so far with his obsession to have his wife drive him to a status hearing more than an hour away without pay, blind, and failing in health from brain tumors.<br />Scott Huminski had had about enough of the “good-old boy” cronyism trying to ruin him financially, ruin his reputation, and banish him from the community. Scott went from being a happy-go-lucky Bennington business owning citizen, to outspoken “gadfly” activist and litigious civil complainant. Scott filed a civil complaint in Vermont state court citing numerous arguments and examples of miscarriages of justice, perjury, prosecutorial misconduct, and conflict of interest, against the Town of Bennington, Bennington Police Department, Officer Henry Haverkoch, State’s Attorney William Wright, and Wright’s assistant, Deputy State’s Attorney John Lavoie.<br />As a result of the negligence in supervision, hiring, firing, and retaining by the Town of Bennington and the Bennington Police, coupled with Wright’s refusal to recuse, Scott Huminski was forced to endure an arrest and a four-year long criminal prosecution and appeal; every aspect of which was tainted by the blatant conflict of interest in full violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Vermont and United States Constitutions. The events were infected by conflict of interest, impropriety, prejudice, bias, and a denial of the principle of due process. The corrupt good-old boy system of criminal justice implemented against Scott Huminski was grossly unconstitutional and violated his rights, as well as the rights of thousands of other criminal defendants over a 13 year period during Vermont’s police state justice under Howard Dean.<br />The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The Supreme Court of Minnesota held, "it is improper for prosecutors to participate in cases which involve personal friends or relatives, and the Idaho Supreme Court held in, State v. Bell, 84 Idaho 153, 370 P.2d 508 (1962), that “it is improper for a police department to employ an officer who will create a conflict of interest on every case that he is assigned to because of a conflict with the county prosecutor’s office.” Yet none of this court authority held any relevance in a Vermont justice system that assumed the accused were guilty, and took pride in overlooking constitutionally protected rights, what Howard Dean referred to as “legal technicalities.” Haverkoch’s status as a complaining witness and investigator in Scott’s criminal case while being the best friend of the State’s Attorney is forbidden by due process and is a definitive example of government corruption. <br />A criminal defendant also has a right to a disinterested prosecutor. In the aforementioned article, Judge: Patrolman’s Lies Threatened Justice; it clearly details that State’s Attorney Wright had recused himself from the case because of his close personal relationship to Officer Haverkoch. But despite the close relationship and Wright’s prior recusals in cases involving Haverkoch, he failed to recuse himself in this particular case involving Scott Huminski. Wright was put in the awkward position of reviewing his closest friend’s sworn affidavits to determine their veracity concerning Scott’s case. Had Wright admitted anything contained in the affidavits to be false or contradictory, he would have been in the untenable position of calling his close friend a liar.<br />"A prosecuting attorney's obligation is to secure a fair and impartial trial for the public and for the defendant. His obligation to the defendant in this regard is as great as is his obligation to the public. The district attorney is vital to the administration of Justice and to the vindication of constitutional rights. In view of his great responsibilities, a district attorney may not compromise his impartiality." Commonwealth v. Tabor, 376 Mass. 819-820 (1978).<br />In Tumey v Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, (1927), the Supreme Court held,<br />"Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a Judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the state and the accused denies the latter due process of law. It certainly violates the 14th Amendment and deprives a defendant in a criminal case of due process of law to subject his liberty or property to the judgment of a court, the Judge of which has a direct, personal, substantial, and pecuniary interest in reaching a Conclusion against him in his case." <br />The same theory is true of the conflict in Mr. Huminski’s case which violates a defendant's due process rights to subject his life, as well as his liberty and property, to the acts of a prosecutor who is not neutral or fair because of a particular police officers involvement. The Supreme Court held in Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974), that, “the appearance of Justice is as important as the reality of Justice, or at least important enough that its absence violates due process.” The relationship between Henry Haverkoch and William Wright clearly emphasized that officials in Vermont were more interested in fulfilling their police state agenda than the authority set forth by the United States Supreme Court which stood in their way.<br />Haverkoch’s participation in the criminal prosecution of Huminski and 13 years of other criminal cases deprived 13 years of criminal defendants a prosecutor whose duty was "to seek justice." ABA Model Code Ethical Consideration EC 7-13 says simply that, "a prosecutor should avoid the appearance or reality of a conflict of interest with respect to official duties." The American Bar Association Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function § 1.2, provides that, "a conflict of interest may arise when, for example, . . . a business partner or associate or a relative has any interest in a criminal case, either as a complaining witness, a party or as counsel." And the U.S. Supreme Court held in Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238 (1980), that a "scheme injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision and in some contexts raise serious constitutional questions." Haverkoch’s employment as a police officer created in Wright and the State’s Attorney’s Office, a direct conflict between the duties of the office and those owed to his friends. The impropriety in this case is obvious, overwhelming, extreme, rises to a constitutional magnitude, and epitomizes the law enforcement corruption fostered under Howard Dean and William Sorrell. The town of Bennington and the state of Vermont failed to act in a responsible, reasonable, and prudent manner by failing to address the Haverkoch-Wright conflict and take appropriate actions to circumvent it.<br />From the infancy of the criminal investigation and case against Scott Huminski, and despite no knowledge of one another prior to this case, Officer Haverkoch held a deep animosity and hostility towards him consistent with a personal vendetta. Henry Haverkoch’s statements to Huminski’s defense attorney Charles Capriola that, “Huminski screwed everyone else and that he would screw you [Attorney Capriola] too”, reveals bad faith and clear animus on the part of Officer Haverkoch and the Town of Bennington officials whom he worked for. Haverkoch purposefully interfered with Scott’s bail, and ultimately committed blatant perjury regarding the origin of the witness list containing Michael Ryan’s name which led to the frivolous criminal charges against Scott. <br />One only need read the account of Haverkoch throwing Steven P. Mac Jarrett to the ground, holding his handgun to the head of Mac Jarrett and threatening to kill him if he didn’t leave town to understand Haverkoch’s belief that he was above the law in reliance on his relationship with the State’s Attorney, and could decide who lived in Bennington and who was forced to leave. In a sworn affidavit before the United States District Court, Steven Mac Jarrett details his long history of law enforcement abuse at the hands of Henry Haverkoch.<br />In mid 1987 I was arrested for petty larceny. I was 18 years old at the time. Within a four week period following the petty larceny arrest, I was pulled over for defective equipment repeatedly and ticketed by the Bennington Police. The fines for defective equipment amounted to approximately $400. Officer Henry Haverkoch stopped me and accused me of trying to run his wife off the road. Haverkoch was lying. During the stop, Haverkoch asked my girl friend Glenda Halton, to come with him to his car where he advised her that I was “bad news” and she would be better off to stay away from me. Later in the stop, Haverkoch asked me to come to his cruiser and asked me how much I built up in fines on my car. He told me the fines wouldn't stop until I left town.<br />After the threat from Haverkoch, I moved to New York for two years until the summer of 1989 when I moved back to Bennington to be with my girlfriend, Stacey Shartrand. Stacey Shartrand's mother and Haverkoch were close friends. Shortly after moving back to Bennington in 1989, I ran into Haverkoch and he demanded to see the bottom of my sneakers. After he checked them he stated that he heard I was with Stacey Shartrand and he warned me to stay away from her. I ran into Haverkoch several times subsequent to the instance mentioned in the previous paragraph over the next 3 months and each time he demanded that he be allowed to inspect the soles of my sneakers. On each occasion Haverkoch stated to me that, "I got my eye on you and I'm gonna get you."<br />Haverkoch's threats worsened and became more ominous, therefore I was forced to, once again, leave town and I moved to Wilmington, Vermont. After two weeks living in Wilmington the Bennington Police came to my residence with a search warrant looking for 2 guns stolen from stores in Bennington and accusing me of the theft. The warrant and accusations were based upon lies generated by the Bennington Police. Two days after the search Stacey Shartrand told me she couldn't see me anymore because of Haverkoch. <br />Several days later I went to see Stacey Shartrand to retrieve some items of mine that I had left with her. She wasn't home. While I was walking out of the trailer park where Stacey lived, Haverkoch and another officer (Bennington Officer #1) pulled into the park at high speed and jumped out of the cruiser with guns drawn and ordered me to lie on the ground. Haverkoch stated that I was under arrest for criminal trespassing. I stated that I needed to retrieve my belongings and he replied, “I told you to stay away from here, didn't I! You can't take a hint can you?” Haverkoch took me to the Bennington Police station and charged me with the crime of criminal trespass. Haverkoch then called Mrs. Shartrand and informed her that I had been arrested and that I said Stacey had some of my belongings Mrs. Shartrand told Haverkoch that she had the items in her car and she promptly brought them to the police station. Haverkoch then warned me to “Stay away from Stacey; this is your last warning.”<br />I went to court to answer to the trespass allegations and upon speaking with a representative of the State's Attorney’s Office I was told that I should not have been arrested and the charges were dropped. At no time was I ever served a notice against trespass or similarly warned as required by 13 V.S.A. §3705. The arrest was purely harassment grounded upon the animosity and personal vendetta harbored by Haverkoch. Within the same time period I began seeing Stacey Shartrand again and she told me that her mother couldn't find out or she would tell Haverkoch and he would retaliate against me for seeing her. <br />A few days after my aforementioned court appearance, I was again stopped by Haverkoch and another police officer (Bennington Officer #2) while I was walking home up Main Street at approximately 2:00am. I was handcuffed and placed in the cruiser and driven out of town to a place called the desert off of Burgess Road. I feared being beaten or killed by Haverkoch. At the Desert, Haverkoch pulled me out of the cruiser and threw me to the ground. Haverkoch began kicking me and as I tried to stand he would continue to kick me to the ground. Haverkoch then stood over me, pulled out his handgun, and pointed it at my head, telling me that if he shot me and put a knife next to me no one would ever ask any questions. He then said “I don't ever want to see you again. If I do it will be the last time.” He then rolled me over, put his knee in my back and took off the handcuffs, drove off and left me there.<br />To this day, I have not been able to return to the Bennington area because I fear retaliation by the Bennington Police Department. I have family in Bennington and I was born in Bennington. But I fear that the Bennington Police will make good on the threats of Haverkoch. Haverkoch was a corrupt, power-crazed and evil police officer and his conduct was at all times aided and assisted by other members of the Bennington Police Department. I have a real fear of physical harm, false arrest, or some other damage being inflicted upon me. <br />In this case, because of Huminski’s age, education, status, and profile, Haverkoch used perjury instead of a gun.<br />Bennington had a battle on its hands. There was a criminal defense attorney in town that made a habit of constantly hanging around the prosecutor’s office and was quite friendly with Haverkoch. On a hunch, Scott called this attorney and asked if he had any suggestions to end the government attack upon him. The lawyer suggested that Scott contribute $500 in his own name, and an additional $500 in his business name to State’s Attorney William Wright’s re-election campaign and the charges would go away. Scott soon found out that this lawyer had previously been campaign manager for State’s Attorney Wright in the prior election, so Scott took the bribery attempt seriously and contacted the FBI. <br />FBI agent Bill McCormick and state investigators Randy Moran and Steve Merchant met Scott at a State Police office and administered a polygraph. He passed with flying colors. Subsequently, they had him wear a wire and make direct contact with this attorney. However by this time, over a month had transpired since the offer was made and Scott had since filed numerous Court documents damaging to Wright and Haverkoch. As a result, the lawyer informed him that the offer was no longer on the table. Furthermore, the audio from the FBI wire ended up poor and virtually inaudible. The FBI could do nothing. Either the offer began as a legitimate bribery solicitation which was rescinded, or a ploy to involve Scott in criminal activity to trap him into new charges. Bad deal either way.<br />By this time, Haverkoch, Wright, and Wright’s assistant, Deputy State’s Attorney John Lavoie, had become furious to the point of issuing a threat against Scott and filing it in the criminal court due to the lawsuits Scott had filed against them. The threat specifically warned that Scott would be charged with more crimes if he failed to stop suing Haverkoch, Wright, and others. Consequently, Scott filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case against him citing the instances of police perjury by Haverkoch and prosecutorial misconduct on the part of State’s Attorney William Wright, as well as the threat of criminal prosecution for acting within his Constitutional rights. The State of Vermont’s response to the motion read in part,<br />"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 defendant because of this activity. The statement was a proper warning made through the defendant's representative.”<br />These great crony minds failed to see the fact that they themselves were engaging in the very same crimes of obstruction of justice for which they were accusing Scott Huminski. Threatening someone with adverse consequences in retaliation for exercising the Constitutional right of access to the courts is a federal crime under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and prosecutable under 18 USC 241,242,245. But not only did the prosecutions actions represent criminal conduct and a violation of Scott’s civil liberties, it also violated American Bar Association Model Code EC 7-21 which reads,<br />“The civil adjudicative process is primarily designed for the settlement of disputes between parties, while the criminal process is designed for the protection of society as a whole. Threatening to use, or using the criminal process to coerce adjustment of private civil claims or controversies is a subversion of that process. Further, the person against whom the criminal process is so misused may be deterred from asserting his legal rights and thus the usefulness of the civil process in settling private disputes is impaired. As in all cases of abuse of judicial process, the improper use of criminal process tends to diminish public confidence in our legal system. <br />The defense motion to dismiss the criminal charges was ultimately denied by the state court, and not surprisingly in a State which habitually dismisses personal civil liberties, the judge failed in her duty to recognize the police perjury on the part of Henry Haverkoch. But most egregiously, when the judge read the extortionate threat against Scott’s civil litigation, she gave the criminal conduct a passive blessing by failing to address the crimes on the part of William Wright and John Lavoie. And while the motion was still pending, Lavoie contacted federal authorities and asked them to take over the case if it was dismissed (as it should have been). But the U.S. Attorney’s response was that they could not be bothered with the petty matters, and implied that the charges were brought for political reasons and in bad faith.<br />After the case continued to founder in the system for an additional year, Scott hired a new attorney who suggested that Scott heed to the extortionate threat from Vermont and offer to comply with the State’s obsession to end Scott’s civil litigation. The lawyer proposed that Scott agree to drop all pending civil matters in exchange for a reduction in charges to a petty offense with $100 fine and no jail time. Scott highly objected to any kind of deal involving a guilty plea as there simply was no evidence of an actual crime, but in the face of possible criminal charges for pursuing civil litigation, Scott succumbed and agreed with his lawyer. The willingness of Wright to accept a $100 fine instead of 10 years in prison, a $10,000 fine, and a felony conviction, reveals just how important this criminal case was to law enforcement. They had fabricated politically motivated criminal charges, and the perjury supporting the charges was entirely transparent.<br />Upon realizing that Scott would aggressively face them down in every possible venue, they needed to find a way out. State’s Attorney Wright utilized the plea deal as a way of getting himself and his crony Haverkoch off the hook in the civil cases to save their reputations. It was such a great idea and personal benefit to the prosecutor and his friend that he wanted to be sure the deal went through, and in doing so, failed to disqualify himself in a matter where a conflict of interest could not be more pronounced due to the personal gains of avoiding civil litigation as a result of the plea. Wright and Lavoie’s previous threats had made it very clear that they were obsessed with Scott’s civil litigation and his decision to stay on the case in spite of his conflict turned his conduct into acceptance of a bribe by a Vermont State’s Attorney. <br />Throughout this period, William Sorrell, Vermont’s top law enforcement official was the civil defense attorney for Wright and Lavoie in the lawsuit Scott filed and fully supported and defended their conduct regardless of its criminal nature. Sorrell especially embraced the threat against Scott’s civil litigation as a good lawyering. Attorney General Sorrell seemed very keen to ignore his duties to protect and defend the State and Federal Constitutions. He also had little desire to enforce Vermont criminal law, he chose instead to aid in the violation of the criminal codes of Vermont.<br />