Hmmmm. Interesting little development on that vtBuzz posting I mentioned in my previous diary. So far, one comment has been posted beneath it:
Didn’t he get his license suspended years ago?
The author of the comment: Tayt Brooks.
There aren’t too many guys named “Tayt” around these parts, so I’m going to assume that this is the Tayt Brooks who ran Kurt Wright’s campaign for Mayor of Burlington. Who before that was Executive Director of the Vermont Republican Party. Who before that held a Cabinet position in the Douglas Administration. Who before that was an undersecretary in Douglas’ cabinet. Who before that was chief lobbyist for the Home Builders’ Association.
In short: tried and true Republican, well-connected insider.
At a time when Republicans are supposedly urging Illuzzi to run for AG, why is this guy calling attention — albeit with studied innocence — to Illuzzi’s checkered past?
My suspicion, and that’s all it is, no evidence whatsoever: The Republicans would like to see him run for AG so they can be rid of an unreliable Senator with loads of seniority, hoping to replace him with a doctrinaire conservative. My question: Is the Republican Party putting Illuzzi in a lifeboat and trying to convince him it’s a yacht?
…that it’s the same Tayt Brooks, but it wouldn’t be too far fetched to consider an element of the Vt. Repub Pary would like to see Illuzzi gone from the Senate and also defeated for AG. Illuzzi had issues with Douglas, didn’t he? And his saying he’ll run maybe as an Independent, or Independent/Repub, probably doesn’t sit well with the NATIONAL Repub Party. So maybe the RNC made a phone call. Who knows?
Very interesting, as the saying went. And do the Vt. Repubs have another favorite of their own for AG?
Or…even better…if Phil Scott runs for Gov, what Repub will run for Lt. Gov? Now, that seems like a safer place for Vince. He can avoid the stigmas on him from the 90s by not running for the highest ‘legal’ office in the state. Hmmm…I smell something here…or maybe that’s just the dogshit melting.
but I can’t see Illuzzi falling into such a trap. He’s a survivor and quite capable of thinking for himself.
I’ve watched this guy operate for a few years and you can’t say he isn’t able to get things done. It’s not like he’s going to be able to get away with anything. Not being surrounded by a lawyer motherload. Love the guy or hate him, Illuzzi is the go to person most times in the Senate, and if he’s not running someone else’s water, he’s introducing his own bills. I think Illuzzi might be just the jolt the atty general’s office needs. I’ll vote for him.
I’m no supporter of Illuzzi, but all this talk about how bad his problems with the Bar are made me do some research. I think he probably did upset the establishment a little, but I found this editorial from the Burlington Free Press pretty interesting: “Reasonable people would think, with the state Supreme Court under political attack, the justices would make a point of excessive scrupulousness these days. Instead, the court’s mishandling of state Sen. Vincent Illuzzi reveals shabby procedures at best, and a susceptibility to petty politics at worst. It does not demonstrate the professionalism and impartiality Vermonters expect from the state’s highest court. The court restored Illuzzi’s license to practice law this week, but that is no more remedy than a bank robber’s returning the cash. Illuzzi, who never deserved to lose his license in the first place, should have had it back six months ago. Not that the Essex-Orleans Republican is a saint. A controversial lawmaker, he remains one of Vermont’s most censured lawyers, and some of these reprimands were deserved. However, in 1993 he filed a valid complaint that Judge David Suntag was ignoring the state law requiring him to hear Essex County family court cases in that county. Suntag was making families, lawyers, witnesses and assistant judges trek to him instead. Parties in one child support case, for example, had to drive 100 miles for a hearing. The Supreme Court offhandedly dismissed the complaint against Suntag, and initiated action against Illuzzi. His prosecution was a masterpiece of character assassination, from inviting testimony by political opponents, to reviewing 10 years of Illuzzi’s financial records, to asking witnesses whether he had ever molested children. The prosecution even sent Illuzzi a bill for the cost of its investigation. The result: Illuzzi lost his license to practice law. As for the dismissed complaint, at least three other senators raised the same issue without paying a penalty. When Suntag faced reappointment by the Legislature, he came within a dozen votes of being fired. The American Bar Association has since recommended that Vermont overhaul its lawyer discipline system. The injustice did not end there; it lasted till this week. Illuzzi’s suspension required him to take an ethics course and pass an exam, both of which he did long ago. He applied for reinstatement properly, last year. Favorable witnesses at his hearing last winter included lawyers and current and former judges. No one spoke against him. The deadline for action was Feb. 9. Yet the court did not return his license till July 28. That is not merely a case of denying a man his livelihood without justification; it is also a violation of the court’s own rules. Only after news accounts last week did the five justices sign the two-sentence reinstatement. Part of the purpose of the court system is to stand apart from political concerns and provide just resolution of disputes. In this instance, from 1993 till now, the court has fallen far below that standard.”