Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Howard Dean's Vermont - American Government Crime

*** This post is a draft published in case the author is incarcerated by Vermont officials, to leave a record of just what goes on in Dean's Vermont***

See also, http://howarddeandirt.blogspot.com/

Synopsis: Vermont Government officials resort to perjury, extortion, obstruction of justice, first amendment violations, double jeopardy violations and due process violations to gain the incarceration (unsuccessful) of a political target, all done under the watchful eye of appointees of Howard Dean consistent with Dean’s public policies.


American Government Crime: Howard Dean’s Vermont

In 1997 I owned 2 commercial/residential buildings in Bennington, Vermont and ran a business called the Bennington Mail Shoppe. I had been quite critical of local government misconduct and corruption. Apparently, such dissent is not tolerated well in small backwoods Vermont towns as I was soon to find out.

A friend of a lawyer that worked closely with the local prosecutor’s office and various police officers notified me that is was the intent of law enforcement to run me out of town as I had been outspoken concerning corruption in local government. At the time, I was having trouble with a tenant who refused to abide by the terms of his lease and I began a self-help eviction of this tenant which ended up in Court. The self-help eviction was ill-advised and I would not pursue the same course in the future if I had a dead-beat tenant.

Cops and Prosecutors

Well, apparently the prosecutor, State’s Attorney Wright and his closest cop friend saw an opportunity to get me by using the landlord/tenant dispute and by abusing the power of criminal prosecution to shut me up. This is a small Vermont town and State’s Attorney Wright was Officer Haverkoch’s best man several years earlier at the officer’s wedding. The State’s Attorney’s wife was an official at the local parole and probation office. A sort of all in the family approach to law enforcement and criminal justice.

Earlier in his career Officer Haverkoch was headed for firing from the police force with several publicized disciplinary matters on his record including sleeping and shopping on the job. To save his position as a police officer Haverkoch chose to strategically begin a friendship with the highest law enforcement official in county, the State’s Attorney. Subsequent to establishing his friendship with State’s Attorney Wright, a state judge 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 was clear that police perjury was the reason for dismissal of the case. “Patrolmen’s lies threatened justice”, Bennington Banner, December 5, 1986. See article below.

Haverkoch hailed from New Jersey. His appearance and disposition resemble that of the police officer on the Simpson’s television show with one exception, he had an evil streak a mile wide and he was clever enough to know that he had to make powerful alliances to keep his job and to ensure that he would not end up in jail for his negligence and crimes against the system.

State’s Attorney Wright had an interesting background of being very publicly and intensely pro-police as revealed in the Bennington Banner article “Police Advocate Runs for State’s Attorney”, Bennington Banner, October 17, 1986. Apparently no one wanted this low-paid prosecutor’s job so Wright assumed the position without opposition and later used his influence to get Haverkoch off the hook for perjury. See “State’s Attorney Candidate Called Frighteningly Ignorant”, Bennington Banner, Oct. 31, 1986, an editorial published by Judges, Ex-prosecutors, public defenders, state legislators whereby the entire local bar railed against this prosecutor and his views on justice,

“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,’ who ‘tags along’ after the police, ‘who on some occasions carries a pistol in a black valise,’ who has ‘a rope noose hanging from the window sill’ in his office and who rails against some (unnamed) prosecutors who are soft on crime and hate cops. The article gave a chilling portrait of a person frighteningly ignorant of the balancing role of the very powerful office he will apparently assume by default.

In our legal system the public prosecutor is held to a higher standard of ‘us against them’. He or she should have more maturity and common sense than to tag along with police packing a pistol and playing cops and robbers with visions of hangman’s nooses dancing in his head. The prosecutor assisting at the scene of a search might find himself called as a witness and his office disqualified from trying the case. The responsibilities of police and prosecutor differ significantly.

Cannon 7-13 of the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility which has the force of law provides:

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: (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; (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 (3) in our system of criminal justice the accused is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts. With respect to evidence and witnesses, the prosecutor has responsibilities different from those of a lawyer in private practice: The prosecutor should make timely disclosure to the defense of available evidence, known to him, that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce 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 of our civil liberties. The founders of our country through bitter experience took seriously the threat of unchecked state power to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” They established some ground rules between the citizen and the state, the most famous of which are the Bill of Rights.

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 than Mr. Wright seems to realize.”
See State’s Attorney Candidate Called Frighteningly Ignorant, Bennington Banner, Oct. 31, 1986

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 (thankfully) which was his first career choice, Wright chose to become a prosecutor with his first short-lived position being in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Things didn’t work out at that job 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 personnel throughout his 20 year career, except one. That one exception being the landlord/tenant case, Vermont v. Huminski. Notably the United States Constitution prohibits a biased quasi-judicial decision-maker (i.e. a prosecutor). The Supreme Court has stated that not only is a biased decision-maker constitutionally unacceptable but "our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness."

Prosecute Huminski

There was that landlord/tenant dispute pending in civil court that law enforcement needed to convert into a criminal case against me to make good on their desire to run me out of town. As it turns out a friend of the deadbeat tenant had been running an illegal winery in town for years and the prosecutor, Wright and cop, Haverkoch began to visualize their plan. First Haverkoch needed to commit perjury in a police affidavit by swearing that the winery owner was listed on a witness list in state civil court. No problem, a little perjury goes with any good police work in backwoods Vermont. Then the prosecutor threatened charges against the winery owner and to shut him down unless he testified that I made a phone call of a threatening nature to him. The deal was made.

In the midst of the civil suit I filed bankruptcy in federal court. The winery owner was listed as a witness in federal bankruptcy court, but, there was no witness list filed in state court. It wasn’t even clear just as to what the winery owner might testify to in federal bankruptcy court. Haverkoch obtained a statement, as agreed, from the winery owner and then Haverkoch perjured himself in a police affidavit and stated that the winery owner was listed as a witness in STATE Court. This phantom state court witness list was essential to keep the case in Bennington County were the local boys could take care of the job of running me out of town. The witness list that did exist was filed in federal court located in another county in Vermont beyond the jurisdiction of Wright or Haverkoch. The police perjury was necessary to keep this a local family matter.

So I was charged with obstruction of justice based upon the perjury of a police officer and the false statement of a winery owner willing to lie to stay out of trouble.

The Arrest

I got a message on my answering machine from the Bennington Police stating that they had some questions and could I come down to the police station. I was guilty of nothing so without hesitation I went to the police department and I was told I was under arrest. They called Haverkoch to come down and handle the booking. Everything was fairly routine until Haverkoch had to call the court clerk and get a bail amount. Bails of $1000-$2000 are fairly common in this county for crimes of violence, even assault on a police officer.

Haverkoch didn’t like what the clerk was telling him for bail for this invented non-crime Haverkoch was pursuing. After arguing with the clerk for 10 minutes he got her up to $5000 with a story that I was going to flee the country and that I had no ties to the community regardless of the fact that I owned two commercial/residential buildings, had several businesses going and that I had living in Bennignton for over 6 years.

It was a Friday, meaning that if I didn’t come up with bail, I would spend the weekend in jail, Haverkoch’s dream. Sure a business person like me would be bound to have a couple of thousand dollars around for deposits from businesses, but Haverkoch believed the $5000 amount was just too high for me to be able to produce. I told my wife to go home and get $5000 out of the business safe. Haverkoch was livid. His face turned red and he began throwing papers around the police station. My wife returned and we paid $5000 in cash for bail. Haverkoch took my file and exclaimed “I wish I had $5000 hanging around” and slammed my file to the ground.

I hired an attorney and appeared at arraignment the following Monday. 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 pointing landing on my file. He then had a whispering talk with the prosecutor. The prosecutor informed my attorney that Haverkoch wanted me held without bail. My attorney loudly proclaimed that he wanted to put Haverkoch on the stand and prove what a “fool and liar” he was. Accordingly, the prosecutor told my attorney to calm down and I was released on my own recognizance. Even the prosecutor feared putting this perjuring cop on the witness stand.

It’s noteworthy that Haverkoch appeared at the arraignment at all, bail is usually reserved as the realm of a prosecutor. Throughout the three years of the non-appellate portion of my case Haverkoch attended even the most mundane and procedural hearings which is unheard of – he should have been on the job instead of following his obsession with me. When he was on medical leave, he was so obsessed with the matter that he had his wife drive him to a hearing an hour away and at this point he was losing his vision due to an illness and was not on the police payroll.

I naively thought that the frivolous and baseless criminal matter would somehow clear up as I had no experience with court matters. After seeing that the frivolous matter lodged against me was serious and was not going to resolve as I naively originally thought, I began a campaign using the civil courts as a means of revealing the illegal and unconstitutional government tactics that had been foisted upon me.

Bribery and the FBI Polygraph

Bennington had a battle on its hands. There was an attorney in town, Gerard Altieri. He specialized criminal defense. He made a habit of constantly hanging around the prosecutor’s office and was quite friendly with Haverkoch. On a whim I telephoned him and asked if he had any suggestions to end the government attack upon me. He suggested, “contribute $500 from you and $500 from your corporation to Prosecutor’s Wright’s re-election campaign and the charges would go away.” I learned that Altieri had been campaign manager for the State’s Attorney in the prior election, so I took the offer seriously and called the FBI.
FBI agent Bill McCormick and state investigators, Randy Moran & Steve Merchant, met me at a State Police Headquarters and administered a polygraph. I passed with flying colors. They had me wear a wire and make direct contact with Altieri. At this point over a month passed since Altieri’s offer and I was filing papers in Court harmful and damaging to Wright and Haverkoch. When I finally made contact with Altieri apparently the offer was off the table. Either the offer was a legitimate solicitation of a bribe or a ploy to charge me with bribery, because the charges they did have against me were baseless. Dirty pool whatever way you look at it.

Extortion and Obstruction of Justice

Haverkoch and Wright became furious to the point of issuing a written threat against me and filing it in the criminal court because of the lawsuits I filed against them. The threat specifically warned that I would be charged with more crimes if I didn’t stop suing Haverkoch, Wright and others,

"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." (State's [Vermont’s] Response to Motion to Dismiss #4)

These great criminal minds didn’t put together the fact that they were themselves engaging in the very crime they had accused me of. Yes, threatening someone with adverse consequences in retaliation for them simply going to court is a state and federal crime. Extortion or obstruction of justice, it doesn’t matter what you call it, it shouldn’t be in a prosecutor’s tool kit. The civil cases that were obstructed by Wright’s threat were pending in federal as well as state court elevating the crimes to federal felonies targeting the United States justice system.

Not only was the prosecution’s conduct a serious crime, it violates attorney ethical cannons,

EC 7-21 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.
At this point in the case a motion to dismiss was filed citing that the Court involved was a federal court in another county. With that motion pending, Wright contacted federal authorities and asked them to take over the case if it was dismissed from state court (as it should have been). The U.S. Attorney’s response was that they couldn’t be bothered with the petty matter which was very obviously brought for political reasons and in bad faith. The motion was denied, so the prosecution was safe for the time-being.

A Prosecutor’s Acceptance of a Bribe

After the case floundered about for a year I hired a new attorney and he suggested that we enter into a “collateral and plea agreement” with the State of Vermont to drop all civil matters in exchange for reducing the charge against me to a $100 fine misdemeanor. Because of my innocence, I highly objected but gave in to my attorney’s common sense solution. What would come next surprised everyone. Certainly, the prosecutor would have to recuse concerning an agreement that benefited himself personally. Wrong.

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 filed politically motivated bogus criminal charges and when they realized I was going to super-aggressively attack the charges in any and every venue they backed off in a big way. At this point they likely had accepted that it was patently obvious that their case stunk and that the perjury supporting the charges was too entirely transparent. The police perjury was indisputable.

State’s Attorney Wright thought that the suggestion of getting himself and his closest friend, Haverkoch, off the hook in civil case would be fantastic. This was such a great idea and personal benefit to the prosecutor and his friend that he wanted to be sure the deal went through, thus he failed to disqualify in a matter where the conflict of interest couldn’t be more pronounced. Settlement of civil/criminal cases in this manner has found to be not per se invalid by the United States Supreme Court in Newton v. Rumery, however, the Rumery case didn’t involve a settlement that personally benefited the prosecutor himself and his best friend. Wright’s previous threats had made it very clear that he was obsessed with my 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 government prosecutor.

The change of plea hearing was undertaken, presided over by one of Howard Dean’s recent appointees, Judge Nancy Corsones. Dean placed Corsones on the Vermont bench pursuant to his policy of appointing judges that would consider common sense before the Bill of Rights as he proudly proclaimed in a 1997 interview with the Vermont Press Bureau. “Governor’s Court Picks Stir Critics”, Rutland Herald, July 30, 1997. Corsones noted the ethical problems with the plea, but, being a blindly pro-government pro-police Dean appointee she blessed the plea agreement and embraced the acceptance of a bribe by a government prosecutor that was plainly before her as well as bold extortion and obstruction of justice embodied in the plea/collateral agreement.

Dean’s history on criminal justice

Dean’s now infamous 1997 interview revealing his plan to subvert the Bill of Rights through judicial appointments was met with harsh criticism,

“Gov. Howard Dean may be right when he says that most criminal defendants are guilty of one crime or another. That supposition is no more relevant than another: That most police officers and prosecutors are honest and dependable.

Dean is famously impatient with the “technicalities” that he believes too often allow criminals to go free. But the two above suppositions suggest why the technicalities that infuriate Dean are necessary constitutional rights protecting us all.

We all know, for example, that even if most criminal defendants are guilty, some are not. We also know that even if most police are honest and competent, some are not.

The constitutional protections that Dean derides protect the innocent and the guilty from the arbitrary, illegal, biased, capricious conduct that is the occasional work of those police officers who do not fall into the category of honest and dependable. Indeed, there is no way to protect the rights of just the innocent since the system to determine innocence or guilt must operate within the rules that protect everyone.”

From Those Technicalities, Rutland Herald, staff editorial, July 31, 1997.


“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” and “quickly convict guilty criminals.”

It’s probably a testimonial to the good job public education has done in Vermont that there wasn’t a public uprising against him (although the Montpelier letters-to-the-editor section was filled with invective for several weeks). 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 USA’s 14th state in 1779, knew all too well the dangers of a government unconstrained by the “technicalities” of the law. They’d 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’s only “legal technicalities” which keep any government at bay. They fought and many of them died to put those “technicalities” into place. 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 only guilty when they’ve been convicted … at least as of the date of this writing) in the courts of the state “regardless of technicalities,” I imagine our founding fathers roll over 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.”
From Our Government Needs Good Citizens, web commentary, Thom Hartmann.

To get a grasp on the criminal justice system in 1990s Vermont that propagated and encouraged government misconduct one only needs to review Howard Dean’s law and order views. He was the man that appointed judges in Vermont throughout his more than a decade rule and he appointed the top lawyer and top law enforcement official in the state, the Vermont Attorney General, William Sorrell.

In opposition to funding public defenders in Vermont Dean stated that “95% of criminal defendants are guilty anyway”. In 1999 Dean advocated refusing federal grant money to assist mentally disabled defendants. On Meet the Press in 2003, Dean advocated the Death penalty over life imprisonment to avoid the possibility of a convict asserting constitutional or factual problems with their convictions. In Dean’s perfect world, the hundreds of accused who have been freed by DNA or for other reasons in this country after conviction should have been put to death before they had a chance to successfully challenge their conviction.

As Bob Kinzel of Vermont Public Radio put it:

"It's likely that Howard Dean's tenure in office will also have a long term effect on the state's criminal justice system. In his first years as Governor, Dean was often critical of judges who Dean thought did not hand down tough enough sentences. Over the last 10 years, Dean has appointed more judges than any previous governor and Dean describes his appointees as "law and order" judges. Dean's judicial philosophy appears to be having a significant impact - during his tenure as governor the average sentence handed down in Vermont has doubled - a situation that has led to an overcrowding of the state's prison system."

In the rural and sparsely populated State of Vermont, much of the crime and resulting incarceration arises from nuisance offenses that urban prosecutors would likely not be bothered with. My experience has been that the criminal justice system in Vermont was also used for incarcerating political prisoners. Dean even admits that Vermont has one of the lowest serious crime rates in the country. So who are these people incarcerated under Dean’s tenure by Dean’s judicial appointees. Petty offenders and political prisoners? See Dean’s Law and Order Views, TIME magazine online, Viveca Novak, October 30, 2003.

In Vermont during Dean’s 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received huge budget increases dwarfing increases enjoyed by Vermont public defenders offices. That meant prosecutors were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond.

As aptly noted by the Rutland Herald in an editorial of August 16, 2001 critical of Dean’s justice policies,

“Public defenders handle most of the criminal defense work in the state. It is a thankless task in some ways. But one of the important differences between democracies and police states is a fair justice system. Without it, police round up people and throw them in jail as a matter of routine. Law becomes, not a guarantor of justice, but a method of intimidation.”
Intimidation is putting it mildly, the goal of prosecutors pursuing frivolous political objectives in a system loaded with Dean appointees is the total destruction of the target’s life including wholesale attempts to destroy the target’s family, ability to make a living, will to fight, self-confidence, will to succeed at anything, and to make the person homeless. Dean’s people succeeded with most of these goals in my case.

The Retaliation

After the plea/collateral agreement took place in Vermont v. Huminski, I reluctantly discontinued my federal litigation against Wright and Haverkoch, however, my wife did not and the prosecutors and police became enraged. They decided to invent a new procedure in American justice whereby after a plea agreement, sentencing ($100 fine) and service of the sentence a disgruntled prosecutor can start all over. You might think double jeopardy. Think again, we had a Howard Dean appointee presiding over this dispute.

Judge Cosones was presiding over the case and she had been appointed by Dean within months of his 1997 declaration to appoint judges willing to subvert the constitution. Judge Corsones let loose with both barrels. She granted the State’s motion to vacate plea. Violating double jeopardy. Subverting a binding plea agreement in violation of Due Process. Retaliating against civil litigation with criminal charges in violation of the first amendment. And granting my attorney’s pending motion to withdraw leaving me without defense counsel. I was without counsel facing the full power of the government alone for a total of 6 months in full violation of the 6th amendment. Such a motion negating a plea is only allowed to be filed by a defendant in American jurisprudence and such a motion is to be filed prior to sentencing and, obviously, prior to service of sentence as I already paid their $100 fine.

This situation is equivalent to an incarcerated individual serving their entire sentence and as they walked out of the jailhouse door they are met by a prosecutor stating, that in hindsight, he was not happy with the sentence and he wished to start the prosecution all over again. This is the absurdity that was nurtured in Howard Dean’s Vermont. Not only did prosecutors have a genuine belief that they could get away with such an illegal stunt (as they did for a while), it was well known that Howard Dean judicial appointees were likely to go along with it too.

Now I was facing convict at all costs prosecutors who were clearly acting in violation of the Bill of Rights and statutory law without an attorney guaranteed me under the constitution. These prosecutors were supported by an anti-constitution Howard Dean judicial appointee, Judge Corsones. I filed a pro se motion for interlocutory appeal. It was surprisingly granted (by another judge) but found to be improvidently granted by the Vermont Supreme Court without reason or explanation. Six months wasted with a felony charge hanging over my head with no attorney.

Convict at all Costs

I proceeded to file my pro se motion(s) to dismiss grounded upon double jeopardy, due process and other reasons. Many observers would think one who dares to stand up to the vast prosecutorial power of the state must be a little crazy. With my motion to dismiss in hand, the state promptly filed its motion for competency exam. The granting of this motion immediately incarcerates a person at a state hospital, no jury, no trial, on a whim. This motion, traditionally filed by the defense, is always vehemently opposed by prosecutors. I guess the government was looking out for me. If there was a real crime committed like a multiple murder the state would be arguing exhaustively that even a zombie criminal defendant was competent. This motion too, like a motion to set aside a plea agreement is almost exclusively a defense motion usually reserved for very serious cases. The prosecutor’s case was based upon police perjury, ‘victim’ perjury, overwhelming constitutional problems and now facing a very relevant motion to dismiss. Incarceration under a bogus competency claim was perhaps their last chance to get me. Well, my motion to dismiss was eventually granted, so, as it turns out, this competency issue was the last desperate attempt by the government to get its pound of flesh, an incarceration, by any means.

Because of a conflict that occurred when judges were rotated, the case was transferred to Windham County Vermont where a Judge Hudson promptly denied the government’s motion for immediate incarceration for a competency exam. I moved to have my lawyer restored pursuant to the constitution. Hudson put my attorney back on the case and in a hearing, the judge exploded at the corrupt prosecutors for their bad faith conduct and granted my pro se motion to dismiss in a lengthy opinion based upon double jeopardy and other grounds.

After such a lambasting and a definitive loss in the trial court, the completely obsessed government appealed the dismissal of the case to the Vermont Supreme Court likely chanting an illogical convict at all cost mantra. For the record, the duty of a prosecutor wielding the vast power of the state is to “seek justice” not to ruthlessly attempt to win at all costs like a spoiled child playing a board game. There is no winner in the criminal justice system as either someone is victimized by a crime or an innocent person is confined in a cage or both. In such a scenario, there is no place for an obsessed, bloodthirsty and power crazed prosecutor representing the sovereign, but pursuing a personal agenda.

After being overturned by Judge Hudson, Judge Corsones verbally harassed judge Hudson at a bar association gathering for overturning her completely absurd decision. Hudson bore the brunt of Corsones’ hostility for his misdeed of obeying and enforcing the constitution.

On appeal, the government lost in the Vermont Supreme Court and was too entirely embarrassed to return to the county court to collect its $100 fine which judge Corsones previously returned to me. The state even neglected to return to the county courthouse to assure the court record showed a misdemeanor conviction. The government just didn’t want to play the game any more as it wasn’t enjoyable. The 100 dollars was not the pound of flesh that the government sought. On the lighter side they did succeed in forcing me into bankruptcy, I lost my businesses, my home and all means to continue to make a living. I now live in North Carolina.

Government Crime OK

So far I’ve described acceptance of a bribe by a state prosecutor, extortion and obstruction of justice against federal court proceedings by state prosecutors. How about the Vermont Attorney general? Didn’t the Howard Dean appointed lifelong friend of Howard Dean charge these government criminals? Not a chance. The Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, consistent with Howard Dean’s appointment policies did not only ignore and look the other way as to these crimes; he also acted as defense counsel in my civil action against the state prosecutors and defended their acceptance of a bribe and other crimes. These prosecutors have, to this day, engaged in on-going obstruction of justice against the federal court system. Dean’s #1 Appointee and life-long friend, the Vermont Attorney General has supported them from the get go.

Law enforcement personnel in 1990s Vermont and into the new millennium have acted pursuant to an “anything goes” mentality knowing full well that Howard Dean’s judicial appointments and Dean’s closest friend and top appointee the Vermont Attorney General, William Sorrell, would support and defend the criminal and boldly unconstitutional behavior of the law enforcement community. The conduct of State’s Attorney Wright embodying outright federal crime against the United States court system can not be explained by anything other than the knowledge that Dean, through his appointments, created a system that would embrace the government corruption and crime detailed in Vermont v. Huminski.

The first amendment

For over a year prior to the dismissal of the criminal case by Judge Hudson, in addition to engaging in civil litigation to right the wrongs, I engaged in a publication campaign whereby I would post huge signs on the buildings I owned and drive my 1989 Dodge 15 passenger High-top window van to the local courthouse and criticize the local prosecutor.

Looking for a change of venue and topic in May of 1999 I decided to move my publication campaign to Rutland Vermont, to the courthouse now presided over by judge Nancy Corsones and with judge Corsones’ absurd, illegal and unconstitutional ruling being the centerpiece of my display. The largest sign was entitled “Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution”.

Unlike the prosecutors I had been criticizing in Bennington County who at least tolerated the strongly pointed criticism parked in their office and courthouse parking lot. Judge Corsones reacted caustically and refused to take the bench while I or my van was at the courthouse. This was her home town and her colleagues were all walking by the van on their way into the courthouse and reading her absurd opinion. She engineered a plan to issue a “notice against trespass” to me for the courthouse property. This is the same document that a Vermont farmer would issue to a pesky neighbor. Violation of a trespass notice results in immediate arrest for trespassing.

Police and sheriffs did issue the trespass notice to me and I left bewildered by the happenings not wishing to spend the night in jail knowing all to well that the government almost always wins and if they don’t the process is likely to make your life so miserable that the win still can be placed in their column.

I filed suit in federal court within days alleging the lifetime banishment violated the first amendment and a host of other rights. With the assistance of a pro bono lawyer I received an injunction against the various state officials behind the banishment. Judge Corsones now subject to a federal injunction had a plan. In 2001, two years after the courthouse banishment and 3 years after her crazed ruling in my criminal case she would accuse me of being a courthouse bomber. Yeah, in this climate what better story could a judge invent to get off the hook?

Judge Corsones kept this horrible “bomb” scenario secret from all five sheriffs and police personnel at the courthouse that day in May of 1999. Oddly, this “bomb” fear was not mentioned by Judge Nancy Corsones in litigation until she was enjoined by a federal court 2 years after the event. It then it became the centerpiece of her defense. One deputy on the scene testified that if law enforcement heard a hint of a potential bomb, they would have evacuated the facility and called in every available law enforcement person in the area. Perhaps Judge Corsones thought evacuation and investigation would be bad for business so she kept her "bomb knowledge" a secret from law enforcement.

My allegedly bomb-laden van was ignored during over 30 prior similar situations where Judge Corsones was not the brunt of my criticism. To be fair, Judge Corsones did place a phone call to an administrator at the state capital, he advised her to have the police investigate or banish me from the court. What course did she take concerning this "bomb" -- well let's not investigate (we know there is no bomb) let's banish him from the courthouse. For life. So they did and in doing so the net result was that they ordered me to move the feared "bomb" to Burger King or Walmart without police investigation. Apparently, the “bomb” was my criticism of this corrupt judge who chose to capitalize on terror hype to violate the First Amendment rights of a citizen that she clearly disliked.

Oddly, one solution proffered by a court official concerning the “Huminski problem” was to ask another judge to substitute for Judge Corsones. In light of the looming “bomb” concerns, this other judge must have been considered expendable by the court staff. The other judge had a full docket and could not fill in for Judge Corsones. So to spare Judge Nancy Corsones exposure to the embarrassing criticism (“bomb”), I was banned from the courthouse for life. Like any oppressor, their greatest fear is being held accountable by those they oppress.

Now we have a Judge and government officials undermining constitutional rights via a corrupt use of false manufactured terror claims to cover-up their own terror of illegal and unconstitutional conduct. When the government wants to achieve a corrupt goal they scream Terror! Bomb! and this technique has extended very effectively to the First Amendment. This reprehensible use of false terror claims to achieve illegal personal goals while capitalizing on past tragedies and deaths achieves a new low in government misconduct. Is this Judge’s conduct a violation of federal criminal statutes? Sure. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241,242 (Conspiracy Against Rights, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) Will she get criminally prosecuted for her conduct in 2002 (too late for 1999) that resulted in my re-banishment from the courthouse --- never.

The “Butcher of the Constitution” remark was true as found by the Vermont District Court affirmed by the Vermont Supreme Court. Truthful criticism seems to be the most painful speech that government seeks to silence. Judge Corsones violated my constitutional rights. When I sought to publicize her disrespect for the Constitution, true to form, she patently violated more constitutional rights, the First Amendment, and to justify it she manufactured a bogus terror/bomb story. This scenario begs for the question, just who is terrorizing whom?


The United States Second Circuit in Manhattan ruled against the government of Vermont in Huminski v. Corsones, Oct 2004 & Jan 2005, holding that the defendants violated my right to free expression by creating a virtual first amendment free zone. The Court also held an individual right to access courthouse proceedings is guaranteed under the first amendment setting new precedent in American jurisprudence. Shortly after this ruling, Judge Corsones threatened a web site (PRWeb) that published an article concerning the ruling causing the web posting to be removed. They just don’t learn.

One of the defendants that I received a federal judgment against, Rutland Sheriff R. J. ELrick, was promoted to director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Counsel just months after the federal courts found him guilty of civil rights violations in my first amendment case. Maybe it takes a criminal to teach criminal justice techniques in Vermont.

In 2002, I mounted a run for the Bennington County State’s Attorney. Wright was both the nominee of the Democratic and Republican parties. With my status as a non-attorney and with zero campaign funding, I received 21% of the popular vote. Wright continues to hold his office and terrorize the people of that Vermont county while he enjoys the unconstitutional rulings and support of judges, like Corsones, appointed by Howard Dean throughout the 1990s up to 2002.

Howard Dean is now the chairman of the DNC and his sidekick Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell still holds that office. Sorrell has kept busy defending his friend, Howard Dean, in the Judicial Watch sealed records lawsuit and spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars fighting me to pursue his goal to create secret courts in Vermont. A case he has now lost.

To this day, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell has supported and approved the bribe accepted by Wright and Sorrell refuses to withdraw the threats against my engaging in civil litigation constituting on-going extortion, obstruction of justice and federal racketeering violations. Sorrell, former president of the National Attorney General Association has not only abrogated his duties to enforce the law and constitution, he became an active participant in the extortion, obstruction and racketeering. Sorrell settled the first amendment courthouses access case paying $200,000, allowing an injunction to prevent similar conduct, yet, in a national television interview 1 month after Sorrell’s capitulation and settlement of the matter he stated that courthouse protestors are “vigilante justice” and the “people taking to the streets”. It seems like after 7 years of litigation and a huge loss Sorrell equates a peaceful protestor holding a sign with a vigilante mob storming the Bastille. Seven years of litigation and the highest law official in the state of Vermont just can’t figure out the law.

Judge Corsones was approved by an overwhelming majority of 170 – 22 of the Vermont Legislature with full knowledge of and in spite of the conduct of Judge Nancy Corsones which was forwarded to them prior to their vote. One member of the state judiciary committee and judicial retention committee, Michael Kainen, had stated that he had no problem with the banishment of citizens from courthouses for life regardless of the unconstitutionality.

The blue wall of silence is raised to a heightened level in this story. The prosecutor was the buddy of all cops and in reality was nothing more than a cop in a suit with the same mentality as a street cop. No accountability there. Then there were the judges who ideally would act as gatekeepers and hold officials accountable. Unfortunately these judges were appointed by Howard Dean according to his policy of disdain for the constitution. Then there was attorney general William Sorrell who was nothing more than an appointee and disciple of Howard Dean and his constitutional views were just as repulsive. Why did Haverkoch and Wright act so brazenly in this matter – because they knew they could. In Vermont the lowest ranking cop knows that anything goes because the system, at it’s highest levels, will back them up.

Vermont has not requested the $100 fine in Vermont v. Huminski nor have they taken any steps to make the dubious misdemeanor allegation against me part of the Court record or part of my criminal record. The entire set of circumstances described above arose out of a political, bad faith and frivolous criminal prosecution in which the state has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars, five years of litigation in multiple courts and the state didn’t even collect its $100 fine. Now federal judgments have been levied upon a number of state personnel. I’d like to ask Howard Dean and Vermont if using the power of criminal prosecution to pursue personal and political agendas was worth it.
Judge: Patrolmen's lies threatened justice

by Cole G. Libby
Bennington Banner
December 5, 1986

Judge Robert Grussing said Thursday the two Bennington police officers threatened the justice system by telling lies on the witness stand.

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.

"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."

In a related development, X-ray records from the southwestern Vermont medical Center confirmed that Marc Y. Fernald suffered one, possibly tow, broken ribs on his left side along with swelling to the outside of his left leg after being arrested by the officers April 20.

Fernald says he doesn't get hurt easily.

"I'm big boned. I've fallen off ladders and that doesn't stop me. Those were deliberately inflicted wounds."

State's Attorney-Elect William D. Wright who brought the charge against Fernald questioned Wednesday whether Fenald had actually been injured in the arrest.

Fernald said Thursday he is considering a lawsuit against the town of Bennington to follow up Grussing's ruling.

"I've spent $2000 playing this game," he said adding that the money went to lawyers' fees and he hopes to get some back.

Grussing's decision sparked an internal investigation by the Bennington Police Department and a review of the case documents by the state attorney general.

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.

Second Reprimand Cited

Acccording to a source in the police department, it is the second time in two months that Haverkoch has 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.

In his decision Grussing wrote that Haverkochs's and Gilbar's testimony about the arrest did not coincide with how on would expect officer to act.

It is a judge's role to make the determination of what is the truth, Grussing said, explaining that judges use several methods to do that.

One way is to ask yourself "does what (witnesses) say square with what the surrounding circumstances indicate might have actually occurred?" Grussing

Transcripts released

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.

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.

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.

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.

Grussing asked Fernald" "You said that you saw Officer Gilbar?"

"Yes, I was facing him , and he was coming from the back of the truck." he answered.
Grussing: "So he was not the one who pulled your hair?"

Fernald: "No, he was not. Someone grabbed me from (behind) which would have been the front side of the truck."

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.

Twenty day after Grussing filed his decision Wright brought the case to the attention of the attorney general, Wright has disassociated himself from the case because of his close relation to the officers in the department.

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 on the trip.

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.

Explaining that he want to either exonerate or prosecute the officers. Ryan said he will share the department's findings with the attorney general.

"I suspect if we decide anything at all we will touch base with (assistant attorney general David) Suntag because don't want to jeopardize his investigation down the road."

Ryan said punishment may range from a written reprimand to firing if it truns out either officer committed perjury.

Related Items
Excerpts of Huminski prevailing brief in the Vermont Supreme Court authored by Allison Fulcher, Martin & Associates, Barre, Vermont. Although the court threw out the charges on double jeopardy grounds, it was silent on the corruption portrayed in the below brief excerpt. The Vermont Supreme Court, the highest attorney disciplinary body in the state should have disbarred the offensive prosecutors for unethical and outright criminal behavior. With the support of Dean’s Attorney General, William Sorrell, crimes by prosecutors were rewarded in Dean’s Vermont:


As expressed by Judge Hudson, the Defendant, under the Vermont Constitution, has the right to access the Courts and such right could not be foreclosed upon by the State. PC at 62. The Vermont Constitution, Ch. I, Art. 4 states, "[e]very person within the state ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which one may receive in person, property or character; every person ought to obtain right and justice, freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely and without any denial; promptly and without delay; conformably to the laws." This Court has held that this constitutional provision, "has been treated as the Vermont equivalent of the federal Due Process Clause...[a]s such it protects recourse to the judicial process..." Levinsky v. Diamond 151 Vt. 178, 197 (1989). "[F]ree access to the courts is an essential right recognized by our state constitution." Kollar v. Martin, 167 Vt. 592, 594 (1997) citing Jacobsen v. Garzo, 149 Vt. 205, 209 (1988). Our constitution further reads, "[t]he Courts of Justice shall be open for the trial of all causes proper for their cognizance; and justice shall be therein impartially administered, without corruption or unnecessary delay." Vermont Constitution, Ch II, 28. The State argues that the Defendant violated the plea agreement by the refiling of the cases by the Defendant's wife. As clearly concluded by Judge Hudson, "[m]ost certainly the Defendant's wife was not a party to this prosecution and her right can in no way be foreclosed by the enforcement sought by the State in this case." PC at 63. Furthermore, Judge Hudson found that "[t]he agreement contemplated a civil dismissal by the Defendant, and he did that. ...The State got exactly what it bargained for: a dismissal without prejudice." PC at 58. The record supports a finding that the Defendant did not breach the plea agreement. But even if there had been a breach by the Defendant, the adoption of the State's interpretation of the plea agreement and the enforcement of that interpretation through vacating the Defendant's plea, would directly contravene public policy and place an unconstitutional burden on the Defendant's access to the Courts. As such, this matter was properly dismissed by Judge Hudson.


The question of Double Jeopardy, as raised in this case, requires the use of case law from other jurisdictions, as there is no Vermont law on point. The Supreme Court of Nevada held in Parker v. State, 679 P.2d 1271, 1272, "[l]ike the decision to enter a plea of guilty, the decision to seek withdrawal of the plea and proceed to trial is personal to the accused." In Jackson v. State, 659 So.2d 994, 995 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994), the Court found that the lower court erred in granting the State's motion to set aside the defendant's guilty plea and trying the case, for the reasons enunciated above in Parker. The Court further held that the "[a]ppellant's constitutional protection against double jeopardy was violated. Jeopardy attached when the appellant's plea was 'accepted and entered by the court with jurisdiction.'" Id. citing Ex Parte Hergott, 588 So.2d 911(Ala. 1991). Judge Hudson found that in reviewing the plea change held in front of Judge Corsones, that the Defendant's plea of no contest to a charge of disorderly conduct was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. "Despite a reference to a collateral agreement, the transcript reflects that the acceptance of the plea was unconditional." PC at 51. Jeopardy attached when the court accepted the Defendants plea and imposed sentence. The Defendant could have waived his double jeopardy rights by seeking to withdraw his plea, but he did not. As held by other jurisdictions, this right can not be transposed to the state. Therefore, it was error to vacate the Defendant's plea on motion by the State as it violated the Defendant's constitutional rights against double jeopardy. Judge Hudson's dismissal of the case should be upheld.


Rule 4.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, entitled, THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION reads as follows: "A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges in order to obtain an advantage in a civil matter." The Rules of Professional Conduct were adopted by Vermont on September 1, 1999. Previous to this date, Vermont was a jurisdiction which followed the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Reporters Notes to Rule 4.5 explain that the Rule is essentially identical to the former Vermont DR 7-105, the only change being the removal of one word. Administrative Orders & Rules, pp. 679-680. The removal of that word, essentially broadens the scope of the rule and heightens the impact of that provision. The State moved to vacate the Defendant's plea on April 9, 1998. PC at 32. On or about December 15, 1999, the State filed its Notice of Appeal. In both actions, the State was seeking to enforce the terms of the collateral agreement, and in so doing was using criminal proceedings or the threat of presenting criminal proceedings to dispense with civil actions. Making it even more egregious, is the fact that the State is a party to the civil proceeding in question. Not only is such practice clearly unethical, under either the Code or the Rules, but it is an abuse of the judicial process and therefore grounds for sanctions. SeeIn Re Sherman Hollow, Inc., 160 Vt. 627, 630 (1993), (Court's possess the inherent power to sanction lawyers for abuse of the judicial process.) The appropriate sanctions to be imposed in this matter is dismissal of the case.


Our legal system is comprised of two distinct legal forums, each designed to address matters of its own kind. The civil adjudication 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 the person's 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. Comment to Rule 4.5 of the Rules of professional Conduct, Administrative Orders & Rules, pp. 679-680. Simply stated, the State's use of the criminal process to manipulate civil proceedings, to which it is a party, contravenes public policy. The State's claim that the Defendant breached the plea agreement is unsupported by the record. Yet, even if the Defendant had breached the collateral agreement, the appropriaterecourse for the State should be no different than that available to any private citizen who felt that they were a victim of a breach of contract. The State should have sought relief through use of the civil process. In this case, the State could have sought dismissal of the pending action against it, in the Court where the matter was pending. The State's utilization of criminal proceedings to gain advantage in a civil proceeding flies in the face of public policy and as such warrants dismissal of this matter.

Vermont Supreme Court decisions:

Vermont v. Huminski, 2001-330 (“After defendant's wife filed an amended complaint in federal court, however, the State moved to vacate the plea and reinstate the obstruction charges.”)

Huminski v. Lavoie, 99-330, (“The [lower] court rejected the State's argument that plaintiff had violated the plea agreement when his wife refiled in federal court, noting that plaintiff's wife was not bound by the agreement between plaintiff and the State. Moreover, the court ruled that the State was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the federal constitution from pursuing the two original charges for obstruction of justice. The State appealed this ruling, which we affirmed in State v. Huminski, No. 99-445 (Vt. Dec. 13, 2000) (mem.).

Vermont v. Huminski, 99-445, (“Moreover, Defendant’s wife was not a party to the plea agreement, and thus, there is no breach of the agreement based on her refiling [civil litigation] in federal court.”)

Howard Dean’s own Supreme Court concerning the state manipulating civil matters with threats (and the reality) of criminal retaliation. Taken in context with the threat detailed earlier this conduct constitutes textbook extortion, obstruction of justice and racketeering violations. American government crime at its apex. Aside from the obvious criminal nature of the governments actions, their conduct spawned over a dozen cases heard in five state and federal courts.


Barre Montpelier Times Argus
Article published Mar 30, 2006
by David Gram Associated Press

MONTPELIER — The head of the Vermont Police Academy has been ordered to pay $50,001 for violating the free-speech rights of a former Bennington man in 1999.

A jury in U.S. District Court in Brattleboro returned the verdict against R.J. Elrick, executive director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, which operates the academy, on Tuesday. The case involved actions Elrick took as Rutland County sheriff.

Elrick must pay $50,000 in compensatory damages and $1 in punitive damages to Scott Huminski, 46, now of North Carolina. As sheriff, Elrick ordered Huminski to leave the Rutland courthouse grounds after Huminski parked there and posted a sign on his truck critical of a judge.

"Elrick's own attorney told the jury that they could only award punitive damages if Elrick was found to have acted with malice," Huminski said in an e-mail. "The jury did find that malice."

Huminski's lawyer, Robert Corn-Revere, confirmed the outcome of the case on Wednesday. Messages left at Elrick's office and at the office and home of his lawyer, Pietro Lynn, were not immediately returned.

"They (the jury) determined that punitive damages were justified because the deprivation of his First Amendment rights had been wanton, meaning reckless and with callous disregard" of Huminski's rights, said Corn-Revere, a Washington lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases.

Of the $1 dollar award for permanent damages, he said, "The jury decided to temper justice with mercy when it came to actually charging the sheriff with additional damages." He said attorney's fees in the case against Elrick were yet to be determined.

The case was triggered by an incident in 1999, when Huminski was angry about the outcome of a case he had had in the Vermont District Court in Bennington in which Judge Nancy Corsones presided.

Corsones was later assigned to Rutland. Huminski, who for a time variously described himself as a "court reporter" and "defender of justice," went to the Rutland courthouse while Corsones was presiding there, parked in its parking lot and put a sign on the side of his truck saying "Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution."

Court officials later said they ordered Huminski away from the courthouse grounds, and later barred him from all courthouses in Vermont, because they feared he might turn violent, which he didn't.

Huminski filed suit against the judges, Rutland court manager Karen Predom, Elrick and the Rutland County Sheriff's Department. The state attorney general's office settled Predom's portion of the case with Huminski last year, agreeing to pay $200,000 in damages and legal fees.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Corsones and Judge Patricia Zimmerman, who were both involved in the no-trespass orders against Huminski, violated his First Amendment rights. But it ruled the judges were not liable for damages.

Corn-Revere said the jury's task was to determine the damages to assess against Elrick. Still to be decided by Judge J. Garvan Murtha is whether to issue the court order sought by Huminski and Corn-Revere that would bar the sheriff's department from enforcing any similar no-trespass order against Huminski in the future.

While the First Amendment case was pending, Huminski was a prolific writer of e-mails and letters accusing Vermont officials including Attorney General William Sorrell and former Gov. Howard Dean of corruption.

He said of Elrick in an e-mail Wednesday, "So now we have a malicious civil rights violator training every single police officer in Vermont."

Corn-Revere said he hoped the former sheriff had learned something about the First Amendment. "Hopefully this decision will help him get better training on compliance with the Constitution. ... I think he's gotten an advance tutorial at this point."

----------------------------------letter to Vermont's Gov. Douglas ---------------------------

Scott Huminski
111-2C Killam Court
Cary, NC 27513

Governor Douglas April 5, 2006
Office of the Governor
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609

RE: Executive Director Elrick, Vermont Police Academy

*** Certified Mail 7005 1820 0002 4430 4817 ***

Dear Governor Douglas,

This letter concerns your appointment of R.J. Elrick (“Elrick”) to the position of Executive Director of the Vermont Police Academy on October 17, 2004.

* On June 1, 1999 civil rights charges were lodged against Elrick in United States District Court (“USDC”).
* In spring of 2001 the USDC entered a federal injunction against Elick for violating the civil rights of a Vermont citizen.
* On October 7, 2004, the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan found R.J. Elrick to be a civil rights violator. This is the highest federal court under the U.S. Supreme Court and Elrick failed to appeal.
* On or about October 17, 2004, you appointed Elrick, a known civil rights violator, to arguably the most important law enforcement position in the state.
* In January 2006 the State paid $200,000 to settle for other defendants
* At trial at USDC on March 27 & 28, 2006 a federal jury found that Elrick was liable for $50,000 in damages, they found he acted with malice.

Governor; (1) you rewarded a malicious civil rights violator with a promotion that puts every Vermonter at risk, or (2) you conducted a negligent or nonexistent investigation prior to appointment of a crony, or (3) Elrick failed to disclose his legal troubles and used deceit to gain your appointment.

Whatever your reasoning was in 2004, your failure to take action to remove Elrick now speaks volumes. Elrick’s last transgression was in the summer of 2002. His conduct constitutes violation of criminal civil rights statutes. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 241,242 (Conspiracy Against Rights, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law). The statute of limitation on the 2002 civil rights crime is 5 years. Whatever powers you can invoke at this time, you certainly can request federal law enforcement investigate this matter.

Very Truly Yours,

Scott Huminski
Cc: Interested parties