portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

alternative media | government | police / legal

Howard Dean as scapegoat for a 9/11 tragedy.

Full title for this article --

"Howard Dean as scapegoat for a 9/11 related tragedy of a police shooting/killing."
Scott Huminski is a man with a mission -- a vendetta against Howard Dean to somehow exorcise the demons that circle around the 9/11 mythology. To be sure, Huminski seeks to find more than the one tragedy of a police shooting/killing in a small town in Vermont two months after September 11, 2001, but a look at the other stories he has dredged up clearly show that Huminski must really be consumed by hatred of Howard Dean over an event that Dean had no control over whatsoever. Sometimes a political figure serves as a lightning rod for negative energy in the dimension of media reality, just as the victim in the police shooting/killing served as such a lightning rod in the most intimate dimensions of physical reality.

I can't see that there was anything that Howard Dean as governor of Vermont could have done to prevent the tragedy or to somehow cure it, once it had occurred. Perhaps, Howard Dean should have said something. I don't know. But do we really want politicians to feel obliged to become involved in every high-profile tragedy? Or in any such personal tragedy? (Yes, I am thinking of the current mania surrounding Terry Schiavo.)

Anyway there's a story going around and around and around on various IMC's from Tampa to Hawaii, and in many blogs, that is presented, if you look at it, as a huge story -- comparable to 9/11 itself in complexity and import -- based upon a lengthy list of URL's that accompany it and endless details sketched out in confusing disarray about completely unrelated matters. (Unless, of course, you are predisposed to relate everything in a kind of "Seven Degrees of Howard Dean" exercise.) See, article posted today as "Howard Dean, Extortion, Bribes and other problems"
(author: Scott Huminski) --

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/314117.shtml

Clearly someone, perhaps only Scott Huminski -- although possibly some others with a more overtly political agenda and the financial incentives that can go with such -- want us to think:

"Wow, this is really well researched. Must be something to it! So, Howard Dean is the man behind all the injustice in this country!"

I have just spent two hours checking out ALL the URL's and researching into this thesis found tacked up on the door of Indymedia, as Martin Luther once presented his charges against the Pope on the door of a cathedral in Germany.

In reality, the story isn't particularly well-researched and it is presented in such a way as to maximize confusion in the minds of any interested readers. Check it out for yourselves, if you doubt what I am saying -- the links lead back to each other in circles, ultimately amounting to 4 actual news items. The whole brouhaha leads time and again to one "Scott Huminski" and articles that Huminski is posting repetitively around the iNet (beginning at FreeRepublic.com but continuing in circles around various blogs and IMC's) Huminski identifies himself as, or associates himself with, "Vermont Justice Coalition," or "Friends of Woody" or "Judicial Watch, Inc."

All of Huninsky's charges are based on four court cases and can be presented coherently, as follows:


CASE A. (Huminski as "Vermont Justice Coalition"). From article posted by Huminski at FreeRepublic.com, the case is unnamed but involves some unnamed criminal defendant who has filed a civil action in U.S. District Court against the victim alleged in the criminal case because of the alleged victim's participation in the criminal case.

Based on this case ("CASE A"), Huminski posted, 3/17/2005, an article at FreeRepublic.com titled "Howard Dean, Extortion, Bribes and other problems" -- but what is the basis for the charges of extortion and bribes? Here are Huminski's accusations:

1) Under the heading of "other problems," I suppose, Huminski accuses Dean of poor judgment in nominating William Sorrell for Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court, based upon the fact that "Sorrell had no judicial experience" -- that is, Sorrell had never been a judge. The word "judicial," however has two meanings relevant in the context of Huminski's statements: first, "of, pertaining to, or proper to courts of law" and, second, "pertaining or appropriate to the office of a judge." Thus, a reader might suppose that Sorrell had no legal experience. But portland.indymedia in 2003 gave this info on Sorrell:

"A native and resident of Burlington, Vermont, Attorney General William H. Sorrell graduated from the University of Notre Dame (AB, magna cum laude, 1970) and Cornell Law School (JD, 1974). Bill served as Chittenden County Deputy State's Attorney from 1975-1977; Chittenden County State's Attorney, 1977-78 and 1989-1992; engaged in private law practice at McNeil, Murray & Sorrell, 1978-1989; and served as Vermont's Secretary of Administration, 1992-1997. As State's Attorney, he personally successfully prosecuted several significant matters, including the first case allowing the admissibility of DNA evidence in a Vermont State Court and a ten-year-old homicide in which the victim's body had never been found."

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

2) THE CHARGE OF EXTORTION is based upon that a "subordinate of Sorrell's" (some attorney working as a prosecutor in the Vermont Attorney General's office) made a statement to a defendant's attorney that the defendant would be "charged with additional crimes if he did not clam [sic - "calm"?] down." According to the prosecutor, that statement was "a reference to the defendant's continued harassment of the victim and the investigating officer in this case through the court process." Additionally, the prosecutor said that the "State [Vermont] is currently reviewing a contempt charge against the defendants because of this activity."

Because the defendant involved "has filed a civil action against the victim because of his participation in this criminal case" -- Huminski states that the statement was "tantamount to extortion . . . concerning a matter before a federal court [the civil action between the defendant and the victim]."

Now, even if we go along with the Huminski's theory that the statement was "tantamount" to extortion, it involved Howard Dean ONLY by way of a prosecutor working for the State (Vermont) where the AG had been nominated by Dean.

3) THE CHARGE OF BRIBERY is based on a "plea agreement that specified the dismissal and non-pursuit of civil lawsuits" which Huminski interprets as "an item of monetary value benefiting Sorrell's underlings" and, therefore, "tantamount to acceptance of a bribe by state prosecutors."

Seems to me that if anyone cared much about Huminski's allegations, since extortion and bribery are felonies, Huminski (and PIMC) could be sued for libel. However, no Democratic politician, especially Howard Dean, would want to do that to any IMC. So, IMHO, Huminski is hiding under the skirts of his Indymedia mama to provide cover as he distributes his diatribes over the iNet.

(To prove libel all you have to do is show that a newspaper of other publishing entity stated that someone committed a felony when that someone has never been convicted of the felony! Of course, Huminski leaves himself plenty of wiggle-room by way of carefully remembering to use the word "tantamount" and, also, the alleged felonies ARE NEVER EVEN ALLEGED OF HOWARD DEAN AT ALL. They are alleged of people that Huminski himself identifies as "Sorrell's underlings." Dean, of course, as a prominent public figure, cannot bring a libel charge for treatment that would warrant such a charge if made against any ordinary "non-public" individual.)


CASE B. (Huminski vs. "145 boxes of documents", brought by Huminski with "Judicial Watch, Inc.") This case is fully identified as "JUDICIAL WATCH, SCOTT HUMINSKI, Plaintiffs, V. STATE OF VERMONT, DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ, GREGORY SANFORD, HOWARD DEAN, Defendants." It appears that on January 5, 2004, when Dean was in a race with Kerry and others for the presidential nomination, Huminski filed in Washington County Superior Court (Vermont) to force Dean to release 145 boxes containing hundreds of thousands of government documents. That information is based on what Huminski has posted, and repetitively continues to post, at www.blogforamerica.com and elsewhere. Huminski posted a comment at esoterically.net on January 16, 2004, saying "I won remand on that case." That presumably refers to that the case was decided for Huminski such that Dean would have to release the 145 boxes of papers. However, that decision by the Superior Court has been appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court by the Vermont AG. The case is now not only on the docket of the VSC, but is even being featured this month as a kind of show trial to take place at Vermont's only law school in the "Annual Vermont Law School Event." With lots of googling, I cannot find anything beyond that the case is now in the docket at the "Event."

IF ANYONE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS CASE HAS TO DO WITH EXTORTION AND BRIBERY, PLEASE LET ME KNOW ! ! ! The best I can figure is that Huminski is desperately hoping to find some kind of evidence to support his allegations -- because, so far, he has no evidence whatsoever to accuse Dean of extortion or bribery or any other behavior that could be considered criminal.


CASE C. (Involving Dean appointees as judges in Vermont and courthouse access.) The primary source of information on this case, as far as publicly accessible information on google, is Huminski himself. Here's what Huminski has said, as of February 14, 2005, when he posted an article at FreeRepublic.com --

From "Federal Court Finds DNC Chair Howard Dean's Judicial Appointees Guilty" by Scott Huminski

<<[In 1997] Howard Dean appointed Nancy Corsones and Patricia Zimmerman to the Vermont bench. Shortly afterward, Vermont prosecutors set their sites on a local "activist," [filing against the "activist" before Judge Corsones.] Later, the Vermont Supreme Court sided with the "activist" and threw out the bogus criminal charges.

<<[Background -- ] One spring morning in Rutland Vermont, the "activist" appeared at Judge Corsones' courthouse with signs on his van [alleging that Judge Corsones was a] "Butcher of the Constitution". Judge Corsones became angry and apparently [according to Huminski] attempted to banish the "activist" from the courthouse - for life!

<<"In January of 2005 the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan found that judgment should issue against Judge Corsones and her colleague for violation of the First Amendment rights to free expression and to courthouse access.">>

DEAN ISN'T A DEFENDANT AND ISN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THIS CASE AT ALL ! ! It happens that the Governor of Vermont makes nominations of judges to the Vermont bench -- and it happened that when Dean was Governor of Vermont, his nominees included two women. Those two women are Nancy Corsones and Patricia Zimmerman, against whom the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan has decided "judgment should issue." I don't know for sure if that is "tantamount" to being found "guilty" of any crimes, but I very much doubt it. More likely, the Second Circuit simply decided in favor of courthouse access, based upon the First Amendment.


CASE D. (Involving Robert "Woody" Woodward, victim of police shooting.) This case is a tragic story of a police killing of a man at a West Brattleboro Church about three years ago. This is a real case, well covered by various sources available through google. The best source, as far as I can see, is an article carried as commentary in the Vermont Guardian, on March 24 of this year, by a close friend of Woodward, Stephen Monroe Tomczak. The only law suit or case involved was a wrongful death civil suit filed by Woody's parents. That case was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Vermont, J. Garvin Murtha, (who, of course, was neither appointed nor nominated by Howard Dean).

 http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/WoodwardSociety.shtml

Tomczak's article is mostly about the "climate of fear" that followed upon the 9/11 events and passage of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, all of which is criticized and condemned by Tomczak. Tomczak mentions "then-Governor Howard Dean" as taking no action in the case, although exactly what action a governor could have taken is unclear. (State governors are not able to bring charges or even disciplinary action against local police, nor is any governor empowered to intervene in the preparation of an incident report by a state AG.)

Here is what Tomczak states:

"[F]ear is what led to Woody's death -- Woody's fear, the parishioners' fear of an unfamiliar person in their midst and the heightened fear of "terrorism" following the 9/11 attacks two months earlier ... This climate of fear, which had reached almost absurd levels at the time, caused people to view others with suspicion, distrust, and, indeed, dread."

Thanks 24.Mar.2005 18:41

Shaker

Reading that post this morning had me very wary of its content, though its tone was unmistakable. Thanks.

Mr. IBM 24.Mar.2005 20:22

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

Dean does not need this Huminski to ruin his rep. Dean did that himself while being Gov. by being IBM's butt boy in Vermont by allowing IBM to dump tons of carcinogens into Burlington's ground water causing a huge cancer cluster there.

Being distracted by Huminski takes you away from the real dirt on Dean. Dean's a corporate stooge who led the peace vote to accepting the war crime, the illegal occupation of Iraq.

Real journalism on Dean reveals the real Dean not the snow job we got in the presidential primary.


Good points 25.Mar.2005 02:54

Progressive Democrat

For sure, we didn't get anything like journalism from corporate media during the 2004 primary or during the election. Or afterward -- about the vote tampering and fraud in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and elsewhere.

I don't know about Howard Dean. I don't think that he's the worst or the devil, but I see that he is a politician into compromise and working with all the powers that be. I voted for Kucinich in the primary. Now it seems like I might have done best to vote for Nader in the general election. It doesn't seem to matter, considering that the corporate machinery owns the vote counting machinery.

I am trying to fight the corporatist take-over on the vote count issues and related registration rigging. I see Howard Dean as possibly useful if he (and the DNC) can get their act together so as to get seriously behind the fact that the Ohio case isn't just Cobb and Badnarik -- it's officially (since December 17, 2004) Cobb and Badnarik AND Kerry and Edwards. That means we are united, but I wish more Democrats would think that way.

Corrupt Howard Dean 04.Apr.2005 13:06

Scott Huminski

Howard Dean, Extortion, Bribes and other problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Huminski
111-2c Killam Court
Cary, NC 27513
 S_huminski@hotmail.com

(fn1)
 http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,535358,00.html
 http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/13685.php
 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Frank_Dean-Sorrell-Corruption.htm
 http://toughenough.org/huminski.html
 http://victimsoflaw.net/Scott_Huminski.htm
 http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/543.php
(fn2)
 http://yconservatives.com/Guest-54c.html
 http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/8836.php
(fn3)
 http://www.justiceforwoody.org/
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277164.shtml
 http://la.indymedia.org/print.php?id=96372
(fn4)
 link to www.boston.com
 link to www.boston.com
(fn5)
 http://www.prisonactivist.org/pipermail/prisonact-list/1996-September/000600.html
 http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003199.html#003199
 http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003144.html#003144
 link to www.washingtonpost.com

Dean Appointees Guilty 04.Apr.2005 13:30

scott huminski

 http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=1894



HOWARD DEAN APPOINTEES GUILTY



Federal Court Finds DNC Chair Howard Dean's Judicial Appointees Guilty



In a 1997 Vermont Press Bureau article, Howard Dean expressed his desire to appoint judges that were not so concerned about the Bill of Rights -- or in Howard Dean lingo "legal technicalities".



Howard kept his aim true. Within two months of his proclamation, he appointed Nancy Corsones and Patricia Zimmerman to the Vermont bench.



Shortly afterward, Vermont prosecutors set their sites on a local activist. Judge Corsones chose to advance justice in Vermont by violating the activist's rights against double jeopardy, his right to counsel and his right to due process. Later, the Vermont Supreme Court sided with the activist and threw out the bogus criminal charges.



One spring morning in Rutland Vermont, the activist appeared at Judge Corsones' courthouse with signs on his van that detailed the Judge's problems with the Bill of Rights. The signs correctly labeled the Judge a "Butcher of the Constitution".



Judge Corsones' solution - banish the activist from the courthouse - for life.



In January of 2005 the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan found that judgment should issue against Judge Corsones and her colleague for violation of the First Amendment rights to free expression and to courthouse access.



Kudos to Howard Dean for truly accomplishing his proclaimed goals of subverting the Bill of Rights, or in this example, subversion of the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution via judicial appointments. Sympathy to the Democratic Party for choosing such an arrogant and ignorant leader.



Scott Huminski

 s_huminski@hotmail.com



 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=14208



 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=2375



 http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/1012humins.html



The court found that Declaratory relief should issue against Dean's judges for violation of the constitution even though they are not liable for damages. This conduct is also a federal crime.