Summary:
Bill Sorrell is a bribocrat, collecting bribes for favors, and buying name recognition ads. I am proposing a law to replace bribocracy with democracy. Sorrell is heading a keystone kops konspiracy to stonewall a request by Governor Dean to review the law I propose. Cutting off bribes would finish off Sorrell (and all bribed politicians). Worse still, Sorrell would have to defend the act if attacked after passage. The Professional Responsibility Board, the errant lawyers' protection racket by fellow lawyers, has rubber-stamped Sorrell's misconduct; they see no wrong in lying, conspiracy, and malicious interference with the Legislature in Montpelier.
Lawyers have been increasingly hated and for good reason. A few years ago, the American Bar Association announced a $700,000 public relations campaign to improve the image of lawyers. It did not do any good because the lawyers' problem is not image but substance. Lawyers can be failures or crooks and most choose the latter which can be financially rewarding. It is easier for an old sexual whore to be a virgin than for a successful lawyer to be loyal or honest or truthful. Although they claim to represent the client's interest, they represent the lawyer's interest. The client wants justice, while the lawyer wants to earn a fast, easy fee without alienating other lawyers or judges. This built-in conflict can be resolved but only by extinguishing law as a career profession. Self-serving pretense to the contrary notwithstanding, justice is not rocket science or the lay jury system could not exist. I have written an essay and I am writing a book on how to replace professional career lawyering and patronage justice with justice.
What do you do when a lawyer damages you in an obvious and indisputably documented way? You can file a complaint with the Professional Responsibility Board (PRB), but don't get your hopes up and don't hold your breath. The PRB is modeled after the Better Business Bureau, which is the local small business protection racket protecting the paying members and exposing small businesses that fail to join or pay the BBB. The basis for both BBB and PRB is the observation that once a wronged underdog victim is given an opportunity to vent spleen, the victim is not likely to pursue the protection racket or even meaningful justice. That is where I break away from the crowd.
William H. Sorrell has been attorney general in Vermont for years and is running again. Like all bribocrats, he collects bribes for "favors," past and future, and uses the money to buy name recognition ads. If you cannot afford to bribe Sorrell, you cannot expect Sorrell to help you or enforce the laws he swore to uphold. Whether it is pederast priests or killer cops or age discrimination victims fired by IBM, you get what you pay for, as the saying goes. Are bribes important to Sorrell? His career, his self-image and his livelihood depends on bribes. Would he oppose the effective elimination of political bribes? You bet and if you doubt that, stop reading now.
In the April 2002 issue of The Fairfax News ["TFN"], I published a column titled "Democracy, Not Bribocracy." On April 4, 2002, I mailed to the Legislature 181 copies of the typewritten manuscript of my proposed "Vermont Fairness Doctrine Law," [VFDL] seeking sponsors. This column was published in TFN in May 2002. By postcard postmarked April 5, 2002, Sergeant-at-Arms Kermit R. Spaulding certified that my mailing was delivered to all legislators and the Lieutenant Governor. In a separate letter dated April 4, 2002, I sought Governor Dean's support realizing that his signature is required before a bill becomes law. By letter of April 15, 2002, Governor Dean said "I have forwarded your letter and the proposed legislation to the Attorney General's office for their review. Thanks again for writing." Significantly, the initials on the bottom left are HD/dmr. It appears that "dmr" is David M. Rocchio, the governor's lawyer, and he cannot credibly deny knowledge of the Governor's interest in a legal opinion on a VFDL. For the next two months, being only too knowledgeable about the duration of legal matters, I was waiting to hear from either Bill Sorrell or Dr. Dean, without result. Therefore, on June 19, 2002, I phoned Sorrell's office and was advised by a staffer that Governor Dean's April 15, 2002 letter was never logged in as all incoming correspondence is. Knowing that both the Governor's and the Attorney General's offices are at 109 State Street in Montpelier, I became distraught. Did some mail person lose the "pink mail" in the elevator shaft? Or was my letter and attachment never forwarded by clerical mistake? A staffer in the Governor's office said that David Rocchio is on vacation and will be back on July 22, 2002. So by letter of June 19, 2002, I mailed a staffer in Sorrell's office a copy of the Governor's April 15, 2002 letter to me together with a copy of the published version of the VFDL asking who will be handling it. The reply dated July 3, 2002, came from Sorrell's deputy Wally Malley pretending that I, not the Governor, requested the review of the VFDL. Significantly, Malley acknowledged my "June 19, 2002 letter and its enclosures." Also significantly, in my June 19, 2002 letter I stated: "Please find enclosed a copy of the Governor's April 15, 2002 letter stating that the legislation I am proposing has been forwarded to the Attorney General's office for their review." Malley can absolutely not deny that he is fraudulently posturing that the request for review came from me, not Dr. Dean, so as to evade a review of the VFDL. In fact, as is clear from Malley's July 3, 2002 letter to me, he has carefully absorbed the entire VFDL, so his fraudulent posturing is not for the purpose of saving review time or delaying a review. I believe I have a right to know why he is deliberately failing in his official duty to respond to the Governor.
By letter dated July 22, 2002, Rocchio implies that the VFDA proposal was forwarded but that the Attorney General is not obligated to review proposed legislation at the Governor's request. Ironically, Malley says they do not provide "legal analysis and opinions except at the request of state officials and legislators." More ironically, in a letter dated August 1, 2002, Malley lies outright that "the Governor has not requested" a review, and attaches a copy of Rocchio's July 22, 2002 letter in which Rocchio says that the Governor's request does not obligate the Attorney general to review proposed legislation!! Clearly the conspirators Malley and Rocchio have not quite coordinated their mendacious excuses, but the exhibits speak for themselves. Any day now I expect a letter saying the Governor is a lame duck, not a state official, therefore the lame duck attorney general cannot review proposals forwarded by lame duck governors!
In his July 22, 2002, Rocchio also says that "This office cannot endorse a proposal." First, the media reported that Dr. Dean did endorse the Instant Runoff Voting proposal so Rocchio is clearly lying again. Second and more importantly, why did Rocchio send the VFDL to Sorrell if the governor cannot endorse it in any case? And rhetorically, why can't lawyers and truth coexist? Which is it clowns: the Governor didn't request a review or the Governor's request is not binding on the Attorney General? Please get your ducks, er, lies in a row.
Conspicuous by his personal absence in all this is Bill Sorrell. No phone calls, no letters, nothing. Either he is too busy to do his job of reviewing legislation he may have to defend, or he thinks Malley cum Rocchio can give him cover until the election is over. Unfortunately, "when an act of the Legislature is attacked as unconstitutional, it is the role of the Attorney General to defend the presumed constitutionality of the law," as Sorrell stated in his candidate statement last time. I would rather have the loser in the next dog catcher election than Sorrell if VFDL is attacked. And besides, there are Republican and Progressive candidates available and far more qualified than Sorrell. It is not possible and absolutely not credible that Sorrell knows nothing about any of the above. Since he does, I accuse him of failure to do his job and to rely on mendacity and to rely on subordinates to subvert the opportunity to clean up politics and liberate politics from bribers and lobbies, in the public interest. If Sorrell was truly ignorant of the events complained of, his complete lack of supervisory skills clearly disqualify him from supervising any subordinates. Incidentally, my July 17, 2002 letter was addressed to William Sorrell, and I marked on top of his name TO BE OPENED ONLY BY in 3/4 inch red felt tip. Malley's reply never mentioned that he was authorized to open, or asked to respond, by William Sorrell. The voters should know that Malley is the power behind the throne and Sorrell is merely a figurehead. While Malley and Sorrell are in office, nobody should submit anything sensitive or confidential to the office of these clowns. I accuse William Sorrell of masterminding a conspiracy to derail or delay consideration of a Vermont Fairness Doctrine Law by manipulating subordinates or by neglecting to supervise their misdeeds. I accuse Walter Malley of fraudulent posturing to evade his responsibility to review the VFDA as duly requested by the Governor. I accuse David Rocchio of lying and conspiring with Walter Malley to derail or delay consideration of a Vermont Fairness Doctrine Law in violation of the express written direction of the Governor.
Conclusions. It is my carefully considered conclusion that William H. Sorrell, nominally attorney general of Vermont, should be defeated and disbarred in the interest of the people of Vermont, and in the interest of democracy and justice. Sorrell and his co-conspirators , Walter Malley and David Rocchio, are unfit for any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States or any of its political subdivisions. It is imperative that a public hearing be scheduled on an emergent basis to enable the voters of Vermont to learn of the misconduct or negligence of William Sorrell in time to elect a qualified attorney general on November 5, 2002.
Note:
I have used bold print to highlight specific violations of law that only lawyers and judges can get away with. The above is an almost complete text of my complaint to the Professional Responsibility Board. In addition, I filed a supplemental complaint analyzing the motivation of the accused. Bribocrat is my word for any official or candidate who accept bribes (disguised as donations, contributions, support, hard money, soft money, resources, etc.) in return for favors, past and future, by the bribee for the benefit of the briber. Although eleven thousand some dollars ($11,438.95) seems small in the context of the $1.3-million estimated cost of the current Vermont gubernatorial race, and puny compared to the $1,153,672 reported by Patrick Leahy (my likely opponent) to the Federal Election Commission for his Senate run in 1997-98, it seems not so small in the context of what Bill Sorrell could do for bribes. And don't forget: $11,438.95 is only the leftover and rollover, not Sorrell's complete campaign collections and expenditures. Did he receive any money to go easy on the Brattleboro killer cops whose "innocence" is under FBI review?
Did he receive any money from the Catholic Church to go easy on predatory priests and on superiors who did not report them but transferred them to new crops of young victims? Did he receive any money from IBM to get rid of complaints filed by hundreds of victims of age discrimination in the recent layoff waves at IBM?
Did he receive any money from anyone else whose case was or could soon be pending before Bill Sorrell? If the Professional Responsibility Board investigation fails to address these and such questions, the investigation and the Board itself will lose any credibility it may have. One of the candidates has told me that when he told an audience that he is not a lawyer, immediately hundreds of voters stepped up to sign his nominating petition.
My complaint was mailed on August 16, 2002, and in a one-page form letter dated September 6, 2002 and in no way addressing the substance, Robert P. Keiner, a Middlebury lawyer and acting bar counsel, said: "I do not find that the conduct complained of in your letter would provide the basis for disciplinary action. Based upon the above information, I have decided to dismiss this matter. The facts as presented would not be grounds for imposition of discipline in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct."
Keiner forgot to say wham bam thank you ma'am.
Surgeons can bury their malpractice upon death but lawyers are not so lucky: their victims survive and with any pluck, can expose lawyerly misdeeds. Take the willful misrepresentation of "confidentiality." If you ask a lawyer, he will tell you that confidentiality exists to protect wrongfully accused lawyers. Baloney. It exists to prevent public awareness of the fact that the Professional Responsibility Board is a total fraud that could not survive any public scrutiny. There is a Vermont Supreme Court Administrative Order No.9 (which I have not seen) which supposedly requires that dismissed complaints must be kept confidential. But the Order applies only to lawyers themselves, not to members of the public, and especially not to complaining victims who are not lawyers. Even so, both the Board's intake form letter, and the dismissal form letter, falsely imply that confidentiality must be protected. This is especially insidious when the public interest is involved. Joan L. Wing, a Rutland lawyer, is chair of the Professional Responsibility Board. In a letter to Joan Wing, I said that the confidentiality request is not only false and contrary to the rules but it harms complainants on public interest issues, and should be replaced by a statement like: "Under professional conduct rules, in complaints of general public concern and questions of public policy, the complainant and the Board will promptly notify the print and broadcast media of the names, positions and misdeeds of the accused, so that harm to the public interest can be prevented or minimized, and to assure public support for dealing harshly with violators to deter others from similar future misconduct." Campaign financing cannot be reformed, Congressional pretense to the contrary notwithstanding, but it can be prosecuted (18 U.S.C. 201) as criminal bribery. I hope future campaigns will be financed from penalties and forfeiture by bribers and bribees. I am angered and deeply disappointed, that the government attorneys whose misconduct I have indisputably documented, have not taken any defensive action nor even shown any contrition for their documented conflict of interest motivating their misdeeds. Should the Board delay or fail to take effective action to tar the malefactors and eliminate them from Vermont public life, I have every intention to pull the rug out from under the Board on my campaign trail and in any available media. And as my saying goes, ONCE A LAWYER, ALWAYS A LIAR. But it does not have to be that way. A better world can be legislated. For example, the Professional Responsibility Board should be replaced by panels of 12 complainants whose complaints have been wrongfully dismissed by Wendy S. Collins, Bar Counsel, or Robert P. Keiner, Acting Bar Counsel, or Joan L. Wing, Chair of the Professional [Ir]Responsibility Board to protect lawyerly misconduct. If any readers have been treated unfairly or unjustly by any lawyer or judge, please phone me at 802-849-2108 or write me: Fairfax, Vermont 05454-0413, so we can organize to replace the professional career law racket with justice for all, not just the rich.
NOTE TO MEDIA: Candidates for Public Office.
"A candidate for public office is a public figure or a public official."
Thus a charge of criminal conduct against a candidate is privileged.§94.
A communication concerning a public official, in order to be privileged by virtue of the official's status, must relate to his official conduct, or his fitness for office. §95. [citations omitted] 53 Corpus Juris Secundum "Libel and Slander". Thou shalt not fear legal reprisal by Sorrell!!
