(Washington) - Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, will give oral arguments in the organization’s lawsuit against former Vermont Governor – now Democratic National Committee Chairman – Howard Dean.
The case, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Howard Dean, et al. (656-12-03 Vermont Superior Court, WC), is one of several that have been chosen by the Vermont Supreme Court to be heard during their annual Vermont Law School session in South Royalton, VT on Monday, March 14th. Gravel and Shea, a Vermont law firm, will represent Judicial Watch in the lawsuit.
Last February a Vermont State Superior Court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch’s request for the release of 145 boxes, hundreds of thousands of government documents, pertaining to Dean’s 11 years as governor. This decision frustrated Dean and his taxpayer-funded lawyer’s attempted assertion of blanket executive privilege regarding the records. The state’s Attorney General, who is representing Dean’s interests, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
The initial Judicial Watch brief and several documents obtained under Vermont’s Open Records Law, a state version of the federal Freedom of Information Act, are available at www.judicialwatch.org.
Judicial Watch has been battling Dean and the State of Vermont over Dean’s continued refusal to provide the public access, as required by Vermont law, to his gubernatorial records. Judicial Watch alleges Mr. Dean abused his office by striking an illicit deal with Vermont state officials to keep at least 450,000 pages of records sealed for 10 years.
Initially Dean cited his presidential campaign as the basis for his obstructionism, reportedly telling Vermont Public radio and other sources, “Well, there are future political considerations. We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor.”
Judicial Watch President Thomas Fitton said, “Dean’s political aspirations and his desire to prevent anything from ruining them are not sound arguments for secreting such an enormous quantity of government documents from the public.”