A concern about Dean and Public Defense...

[bushclipper]

Dean chose not to reappoint Appel for a third four-year term as defender general, the state official who heads the state’s public defender program. In appointing Valerio, of Proctor, the new defender general, Dean had kind words for Appel. But Appel had clashed with Dean on numerous occasions in his efforts to secure for his office the resources necessary to fulfill his duties conscientiously.

Just two years ago Dean tried to prevent Appel from accepting a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities. For Dean to block a government agency from receiving federal money was unusual in itself. But Dean’s openly expressed bias against criminal defendants provided a partial explanation....

http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792

Then, this letter from a lawyer in response:

I was a public defender in Vermont during part of Dean's tenure. He 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, at least on this campaign promise. He did not want to fund public defense.

To his credit he appointed Robert Appel to the post of Defender General (Public Defender in charge of the state system.) Then he refused to reappoint Appel apparently because Robert was most effective on the shoestring budget he was given.

Dean, despite his present self proclaimed environmental advocate status, was fairly hostile to environmental concerns while Governor. Dean repeatedly appointed pro business, non environmentally sensitive people to the Environmental Board. In Dean's logic, any business that would provide a half dozen minimal wage jobs could do what they wanted to the environment. When I returned to New Jersey, I could observe that the only real difference between N.J. and VT environmentally (at least under Dean) was that VT had 7.5 million less residents.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003739.html

I'm for being tough on crime, sure, but having a bias against court appointed public defenders seems a bit orwellian.

The sources seem credible. Is this true?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

2. The Rutland article is correct

and has been verified by other Vermonters.

But, on the other, since Huminski posted here (a bit unconventionally) not many will take anything he says seriously, even when it is true.

[genius]

3. This is frightening

http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001035.html#001035
Also,
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Frank_Dean-Death-Penalty.htm

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

5. Whew! Good thing you didn't post this in General Discussion!

but who is this Scott guy you folks are mentioning?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

7. He got tombstoned

for repeatedly breaking rules. He had less than 20 posts and broke at least a dozen rules.

[blm]

17. That's why I said zealousness.

Zealots are careless with rules.

[dsc]

23. You left the impression in at least two posters

that you were implying he was sensored which he wasn't. And being zealous doesn't mean breaking rules. Lawyers are supposed to be zealous in defense of their clients they aren't supposed to break rules.

[blm]

28. You lost me.

I said the poster who was overly zealous and spammed the board was tombstoned. What's your beef?

[genius]

9. Are you saying people who don't like Dean are being censored?

I hope this is incorrect.

[Rose Siding]

11. That's exactly what happened

You'll notice that everyone left likes Dean and no one EVER criticizes him anymore :eyes:

[bushclipper]

10. oooh... hmmm... is that why poster #4 made that remark?

He/she thinks I'm this person?

And I agree... is Dem Underground censoring Dean critics? Or was the guy just so far out there?

[blm]

18. No, they don't censor here unless

you go overboard and spam or show relentless incivility towards others.

[bushclipper]

20. But is the #4 poster implying that is who I am? No one will answer..

?

[blm]

22. Most likely, yes, they are.

Ask them to retract if it bothers you.

[bushclipper]

26. Hell, I don't care...

I only drop in a few times a month when I make it home. Doesn't matter to me what anyone thinks of me.

[Rose Siding]

8. What I heard is that he's some guy

who covered his van with signs about VT being a police state, hung out at VT courthouses until the judges got an injuction against him and threatens to sue folks who get sucked into debates with him.

[genius]

12. Attacks on the messenger seem to indicate

some people don't want to discuss the information posted.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genius]

14. The info is legitimate regardless of who posted it.

Why is everyone attacking the messenger? Could it be that this is a diversion to keep people from checking out the facts?


As for this Scott guy, I don't know if you are new. But good luck here. This is the kind of reception information about Dean gets from his supporters.

[dsc]

15. No it isn't

here the messanger is in part the message. Since the lawyer quoted above is unnamed we have to trust the person who wrote the article. We don't since we know him to be a liar. Hence the message is not valid.

[genius]

16. Read the articles

I posted a couple of links to additional articles myself. Dean has been fairly consistent on his opposition to the rights of criminal defendants.

[blm]

21. clar is a Dean supporter and he confirmed the Appel story as true.

The Rutland Herald is NOT a rightwing rag.

[dsc]

25. I am referring specificly to the unnamed lawyer

I am not disputing the cut. I am disputing the words put into Dean's mouth by an unnamed lawyer.

[blm]

27. Dean would have gotten a retraction if it wasn't true.

And his penchant for forcing retractions is quite well known.

[acerbic]

29. ...and of course you claim too that this statement is proven true

...because Dean is NOT forcing a retraction of it:

his penchant for forcing retractions is quite well known.

:crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly:

[blm]

32. You don't know your candidate's history

very well, do you?

Why don't you look up the Appel story yourself.

[acerbic]

33. "My candidate's history"?

Perhaps you haven't noticed the avatar I'm using: it should give a not so vague hint about who's my candidate.

Or perhaps it's just that in the minds of obsessed Dean haters everything is about Dean, like if anybody dares contradict them, he/she just must be a Dean supporter or if somebody somewhere sets up a site attacking another candidate, it must be done by a Dean supporter although in the real world there is no sign of it. :eyes:

I hate all the unfounded BS attacks against any Democratic candidates and since the overwhelming majority of unfounded BS attacks in this forum are against Dean, it might look like anyone who simply hates them all is a "Dean supporter", especially to those who keep spamming the same attacks over and over and over, forever and forever and forever and forever and forever...

[blm]

34. Well...that's just recent...

Kerry was getting kicked to the curb pretty regularly for a year now and damn few upbraided the Deanies who were doing most of it.

Dean's history with the press in Vermont was that he called them constantly to force retractions or to clarify a statement or position. So, I expect that if the Rutland paper was incorrect, then there would be a retraction.

[acerbic]

35. So you keep CLAIMING...

Dean's history with the press in Vermont was that he called them constantly to force retractions or to clarify a statement or position.

...but show no proof or source, ever.

[bushclipper]

19. OK, but tell me what footing I'm on here...

... is it being implied I'm Scott? Just want to know. I fit the profile. Low post count. A post with info critical of Dean.

[blm]

24. Don't worry about it...the other guy spammed

the board with antiDean stuff.

Just keep a good head on your shoulders, post what you are concerned about, and don't be too rude to others. It will all be cool.

[tsipple]

30. For the record...

...You have the right to a jury trial in Vermont for a parking ticket.

[DrBlix]

31. Isn't it better to know your candidates pluses AND minuses before the

election. The opposition will surely dig deep and bring everything to the fore. after the primaries. IMO it is our duty to check them all out, how else are we to make the proper choice? We should be researching them all and find out for ourselves what they really stand for and not censored if we find something we don't like. All democrats are tip toeing through the tulips, afraid to scrutinize our own candidates, we are all so anxious to dump Bush, include me BUT we must do our homework here.