Who can we trust?
By Charlotte Dennett

Fairewinds energy consultants Arnie and Maggie Gundersen concluded recently that the entire regulatory community in Vermont is not deserving of our trust when it comes to reliably informing us about Vermont Yankee, and I have to agree. In fact, I am now convinced that a significant problem resides within the institution that is supposed to make sure that state agencies are following the law: the top law enforcement agency in the state, the attorney general's office.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it: Who can we trust? The sheer enormity of lies, dissembling, and backpedaling around the issue of Vermont Yankee and the huge health risk it poses to the public is what prompted me to put out a series of press releases (see below) trying to inform the public and correct the record as quickly as it was being covered up. (See www.chardennett.org) I have to thank Vermont's bloggers for paying attention where the mainstream media completely ignored me. When you take on the powerful, it goes with the territory.

Here, then, is a brief recapping of some of the most egregious acts and omissions that I have tried to expose in recent days, with some additional facts thrown in for good measure.

  • Attorney General William Sorrell entered into a confidentiality agreement with Entergy, the subject of his criminal investigation, rather than subpoena documents from the giant nuclear firm. He used that confidentiality agreement to suppress a "non privileged" report Entergy had turned over to him concerning its investigation into lies VY officials told the state denying the existence of underground pipes that had been leaking radiation since at least 2005. Later, during the VPR debate, he said he never objected to Entergy releasing the report, while hiding the fact that he himself had kept it under wraps for two months, refusing to comply with a public records request for its release by 7 Days reporter Shay Totten and the Conservation Law Foundation. I have since seen the report and have concluded that he broke public records law for keeping it suppressed for two months.

  • Meanwhile, the attorney general's office continues to sift through millions of documents that Entergy turned over last winter. Sorrell apparently thinks Entergy is being cooperative. I think differently. Why should Entergy cooperate in a criminal investigation of its own malfeasance? The so-called "independent" report Entergy turned over to the AG is already telling evidence that Entergy will go to great lengths to cover up its deceptions. The report, written by Entergy lawyers and suppressed by Sorrell, is in fact a whitewash, exonerating Entergy officials of any wrongdoing when they misled regulators about underground pipes. Flooding the AG's office with documents is an old corporate practice: bog the opposition down piles of paperwork, confuse them with minutiae, and above all, delay the conclusion. We're now 8 months into the AG's investigation with no answers and no report before the election.

  • Sorrell has denied collusion with the Health Department and Entergy when his office, back in 2007, advised the Vermont Department of Health (VDH) that it didn't need to inform the legislature about a change in the way the VDH measured radiation emissions at Vermont Yankee. As a result, conveniently for both VDH and Entergy, no public hearings were held on a serious fact: that increased, illegal radiation levels resulting from Yankee's 20% increased power output would now appear legal under the new formula. Due to my public records request, I have a document confirming that the AG's office did indeed counsel the VDH about the so-called Oak Ridge Associates formula.

  • In the VPR debate, Sorrell said the Health Department paid for devising the new radiation-measuring formula. That statement was wrong. Entergy paid the VDH $150,000 to get the nuclear industry- funded Oak Ridge Associates to devise the formula - a formula that is, in fact, outdated and no longer in use in the industry.

    That's a lot of money. Too bad the VDH can't afford an epidemiological study (as VDH officials explained to a concerned citizen, Mitzi Bowman) of the impact of radiation leaks on children of the elementary school near the nuclear plant and residents in the vacinity. Many scientists agree that no level of human exposure to tritium or Strontium 90 is acceptable, particularly for women-pregnant women in particular-and children. Limited, preliminary testing of baby teeth taken from children living near Vermont Yankee shows levels of Strontium 90 in their teeth. Why hasn't this information prompted the Health Department to launch an epidemiological study of radioactive materials in the systems of Vermonters living in that area? The cost of the study should be borne by both Vermont Yankee (as the source of the radioactive material) and the Health Department. If such a study is ever undertaken, it would be wise to have it done by a firm independent of both the nuclear industry and, I must now sadly say, our own Vermont Department of Health.

  • The Health Department deserves scrutiny for the way it reports data to the Vermont public about Vermont Yankee. A closer look at the Vermont Yankee surveillance reports shows serious sins of omission. Nowhere is the original data behind the claims made in the reports provided. And given that their cancer data is presented in a way that could be regarded as deliberately uninformative in a "look here, not there," kind of way, all original data on everything in the reports would be, I think, of great interest. In it's 2007 surveillance report, the health department showed a 30% increase in radiation released by Vermont Yankee. The increase was not included in their surveillance numbers because while radiation levels had gone up, the "fenceline" levels had gone down after Entergy bought adjoining property and moved the fenceline farther away from the plant. A fence can't stop wind-borne radiation emissions, so comforting reports about lower fenceline levels are deceptive.

  • The Health Department should be scrutinized for withholding information it has about a sharp rise in thyroid cancer rates among Vermont women. The VDH acknowledges in public documents that thyroid cancer is closely linked to radiation exposure. But in the annual reports it puts out to the public, the thyroid cancer statistics are ho hum. Believe it or not, VDH provides one set of statistics to the public in its annual Surveillance Report on cancer, and another set it keeps internally that shows a much more serious picture, to whit: a "statistically significant" 400 percent rise in thyroid cancers among Vermont women between 1996 and 2005. In response to my raising this during the VPR debate, Sorrell questioned the very existence of the report and instead told listeners "we do not have a bad story to tell in this area." The Health Department has so far refused to acknowledge the report. But you can find it on my website and face book page. I find both Sorrell and the Health Department's disregard of this report cavalier, especially as it concerns the health and wellbeing of Vermonters, particularly women.

  • The job of the attorney general is to protect the health and safety of Vermonters. I would take that to mean the attorney general should become familiar with health risks in this state. Yet he expressed complete ignorance in debates when I pointed that that Vermont is at the top in the nation in two other kinds of cancers that the American Cancer Society says have close links to radiation. These cancers are pediatric cancer (all cancers in children age 0-19) and skin cancer. Recent data from the federal Center for Disease Control shows that Vermont has the highest per capita cancer incidence among children and young adults in the United States and that Windham County has the highest incidence of cancer for these groups in the state.

    The VDH, in its most recent surveillance report, dated September 2010, provides no real information on the Vermont Yankee tritium leak. None.

    The leaks and accidents that have occurred at Vermont Yankee in the last few years indicate that the plant is way past its prime. While Dr. Irwin, chief radiological officer for the VDH, ignores his department's dire statistics on cancer, he has been candid about the plant's dangerous state of decrepitude. Much of the piping at Vermont Yankee, he says, is very old and virtually "uninspectable" for leaks and the workmanship behind the entire system is "so shoddy it would not likely pass the local town building inspector, let alone the nuclear facility inspector." Vermont Yankee's engineers also acknowledged to Dr. Irwin that "when this kind of work was done in the '60-70s for these nuclear power plants, people really thought that it was unlikely that these plants would have to run so long that corrosion problems such as this would occur."

    Dr. Irwin's comments raises questions about the possibility of other unfound leaks from "uninspectable" pipes as well as the potential for even more unintended releases of radiation from the piping and other plant systems.

    Combine that with the cancer rate story and lack of any serious epidemiological studies of just how much radiation Vermonters do have in their systems and you have a fundamental dereliction of duties on the parts of several key state agencies mandated to stand up to any powerful institution-be it Vermont Yankee's Entergy or any other-and look after the health and wellbeing of Vermonters. As James Moore of the Vermont Public Interest research Group told a Nuclear Regulatory Commission official, "Vermont Yankee is one of the oldest reactors in the country and we need a real cop on the beat."

    Click here to continue.

    Date: October 29, 2010
    Contact: Kristina Borjesson
    Tel: 802 644-5898


    Dennett Says Sorrell Broke Vermont's Public Records Law.
    Gets Yankee-Sorrell Confidentiality Agreement; Says It Did Not Prohibit Sorrell Releasing Report on Leaking Radioactive Pipes.

    Cambridge, VT, Oct. 29 - The Attorney General's office, responding to Progressive candidate Charlotte Dennett's use of Vermont's public records law, has been forced to release Entergy's confidentiality agreement with Attorney General Sorrell. "It proves that Sorrell had the power, at his 'own discretion,' to release the report on Yankee's leaking radioactive pipes," said Dennett. "He should never have denied requests by the press and the Conservation Law Foundation for the report. In effect, he broke the public records law."

    Dennett charged Sorrell with deliberate obfuscation and misleading the public when he told Dennett in a Vermont Public Radio debate that he never objected to releasing the report. In fact, Sorrell originally withheld it from 7 Days reporter Shay Totten and from the Constitutional Law Foundation.

    "First he cited his criminal investigation as a reason for not giving the report to Totten and the Foundation," said Dennett. "Then, a few weeks later, he again told Totten that he couldn't have the report, citing the confidentiality agreement he had made with Entergy. That's why I used Vermont's public records law for the confidentiality agreement, to see when it came into effect and what it covered."

    The agreement is dated February 17, 2010 and gives Sorrell "sole discretion" to release the report and any other documents that would be "otherwise required by law or would be in furtherance of the Attorney General's discharge of his duties and responsibilities."

    This pattern of obfuscation and misleading statements is continuing in Sorrell's office, Dennett charges, citing Deputy Attorney General Michael McShane's cover letter to Dennett accompanying the report: "With regard to the Morgan Lewis (Entergy) report, the attorney general's office did not object to the public release of the report by Entergy" [Our italics]. "That's not what I was asking for," says Dennett, "The issue is not Entergy withholding the report, the issue is Sorrell withholding the report for two whole months after he had received it, despite requests he release it. This is a serious violation of Vermont's public records law. The Conservation Law Foundation had to go to court to get the report from Entergy."

    The confidentiality agreement is actually a letter to Sorrell from Entergy's Robert D. Sloan outlining the terms of their document exchange. It is attached to this press release. It states in part, "Entergy understands that the Attorney General's Office will maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Information and will not disclose it to any third party, except to the extent that the Attorney General in his sole discretion determines that disclosure is otherwise required by law or would be in furtherance of the Attorney General's discharge of his duties and responsibilities."

    "The truth of the matter is this," Dennett said. "Vermont's public records law and the Vermont Constitution require a state agency to turn over documents, with some exceptions that are not applicable here. The central purpose of 1VSA Section 315, the public records law, is to allow the public to 'review the action of a governmental officer even though such an examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment.' He initially used his discretion not to uphold his legal responsibilities, but instead to violate the public records law by not releasing the report. This lack of transparency and accountability is not what Vermonters deserve from their Attorney General."


    DATE: October 24, 2010
    CONTACT: Kristina Borjesson
    TEL: 802 644-5898


    Dennett Calls On Sorrell To Immediately Release All Documents Pertaining To AG Investigation Into Alleged Illegal Contributions And Coordination Between The Republican Governors Association And Brian Dubie's Gubernatorial Campaign. Files a Public Records Request.

    Only days before voters go to the polls, Charlotte Dennett, Progressive candidate for attorney general, is demanding that incumbent William Sorrell release the contents of his investigation into whether or not the Republican Governors Association, with Governor Jim Douglas acting as an agent of the Association, provided in-kind services to Brian Dubie valued at well above the $6,000 allowable under Vermont law. The Democratic Party submitted a complaint to Sorrell's office citing an RGA-produced campaign ad for Dubie as evidence of the illegal cooperation between the RGA and Dubie campaign.

    Governor Jim Douglas narrated the ad for the RGA. Days later, Douglas hosted a fundraising reception for the Dubie campaign. Within a brief span of time, Douglas acted on behalf of both the RGA (when he narrated their campaign ad for Dubie) and Dubie when he held a fundraiser for the Republican gubernatorial candidate on August 20, 2010.

    Sorrell's announced on October 13, 2010 that his office had concluded that there had been no wrongdoing. "We have a right to see what kind of investigation was done to merit Sorrell's conclusion that there was no illegal cooperation, and whether it conforms with election law, "says Dennett, "and we have a right to see it now, before the election. Assistant Attorney General Michael McShane's blanket refusal to release any of the materials gathered in the investigation is unacceptable. Why all the secrecy? On what legal basis? I'm filing a public records request for these materials."

    It took three weeks for Sorrell to decide to reject the Democratic Party's complaint. The Attorney General's office claimed it could not find sufficient evidence of the RGA illegally coordinating with or making illegal contributions to the Dubie Campaign. But Dennett acknowledges the strong points Green Mountain Daily reporter John Odum has made in his article, "Brian Dubie is Breaking the Law-Why Haven't Vermonters Been Hearing More About It?" Odum writes in no uncertain terms that the RGA ad was coordinated with Dubie's campaign. "…it is obviously staged. Dubie is being directed in an ad produced by the RGA for upwards of $30,000," writes Odum. "Hence, a violation, and a significant one."

    The RGA claims that the Dubie campaign did not cooperate in the making of the ad and that the footage of Dubie was acquired by following the gubernatorial candidate around at "public events."

    But Odum's report, which mirrors information sent to Dennett's campaign office by other sources, shows that in the ad, footage of Dubie at the Jay Peak Ice Haus facility was not shot during a public event. Dubie's calendar, they say, shows no announcement of any public event at Jay Peak at the time the filming occurred. One day before Dubie went to Jay Peak, a Dubie campaign website blog posting referred to the candidate for governor making an upcoming stop at Jay Peak. There was, however, no information in the posting about the day or time Dubie would be there. So how, Odum and others ask, could the RGA's professional camera crew know when to be there without coordinating with Dubie's campaign office?

    Other footage in the ad shows Dubie inside what looks like an empty dress shop talking to a salesperson and in a nearly empty church facility talking to several young children. What public events were being held at that time, it could be asked, and when did Dubie publicly announce he would be there? How did the camera crew know to be there? Also, filming inside venues like these invariably requires permission from the owners; when was that procured and by whom? The lack of people in these parts of the video does not suggest that this footage was procured at public events. The footage of Dubie with the salesperson and the children suggests that Dubie worked with the RGA-paid film crew to create these sequences for his campaign ad and that the sequences were not independently filmed by the RGA.

    Applicable Vermont campaign finance laws on contribution limits clearly state that political committees like the RGA are only allowed to contribute $3000 per election, which means that between the primary and the general election, the RGA was only allowed to give Dubie $6,000 in money or "related campaign expenditures made on the candidate's behalf." The law defines those expenditures as "any expenditure intended to promote the election of a specific candidate…if intentionally facilitated by, solicited by or approved by the candidate or the candidate's political committee." 17 V.S.A. §2809(c).

    "I think the RGA-financed ad for Dubie may very well be a 'related campaign expenditure made on the candidate's behalf"," says Dennett, "which is why I want the documents detailing this investigation released to the public immediately."

    Since Sorrell made his last decision, documents pertaining to additional possible illegal connections between the Dubie campaign and the RGA have arrived at Sorrell's office. This set of documents is directly connected to the issue of campaign ads. Assistant Attorney General McShane is reviewing an RGA filing with the IRS showing that the RGA received an in-kind contribution of $25,500 from Friends of Brian Dubie (Dubie's campaign organization) on September 22, 2010. Meanwhile, papers filed with the Secretary of State's office show that Friends of Dubie paid the RGA $25,500 on September 27 for a poll. The purpose of the poll was to gather information on public attitudes that would then be used to shape Dubie's campaign ads.

    "Elections are in just a few days, " says Dennett. "Sorrell's office needs to weigh in on this new information now and let people see exactly how he made his last decision before they vote. This is part of the public's fundamental right to make informed decisions. His foot-dragging and lack of transparency on this and other critical issues," she added, "like Vermont Yankee and child pornography viewing on state police computers is deeply troubling and must be stopped. Last time I looked, we were living in a democracy, and a cornerstone of democracy is transparency, not secrecy."


    Date: October 21, 2010
    Contact: Kristina Borjesson
    (802) 644-5898


    As part of her ongoing investigation into the lack of transparency at the Attorney General's office and into conflicting statements made by Attorney General Sorrell, Charlotte Dennett has requested the release, under Vermont's Public Records Law, of a confidentiality agreement that Sorrell signed with Entergy in early 2010, around the same time he began investigating the nuclear company. Sorrell's investigation was a response to widespread reports that Entergy officials had misled state regulators about the existence of underground pipes carrying radioactive materials at their Vermont Yankee plant.

    Meanwhile, Entergy hired an industry law firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, to conduct an "independent" review of the same matter. In late February, the review was completed and a report was turned over exclusively to Sorrell's office. In early March, Sorrell publicly stated that the report could not be released because it was part of his criminal investigation. Later that month, the confidentiality agreement's existence came to light when journalist Shay Totten reported in Seven Days that since "the report is covered by a confidentiality agreement signed by Sorrell, he refuses to release it publicly." Sorrell also refused a public records request for the report made by the Conservation Law Foundation [CLF]. The Foundation eventually forced the Vermont Public Service Board to release the report after Entergy failed in its bid to get a court order to suppress it.

    On Vermont Public Radio [VPR] this month, Sorrell denied Entergy's report was ever covered by the confidentiality agreement, a direct contradiction of what he told Totten of Seven Days. "There was never an agreement on our part not to release the investigative report," he said. Dennett is filing a public records request for the confidentiality agreement to find out what exactly it covered. "I'm disturbed by all the conflicting statements and secrecy," says Dennett.

    Dennett is also requesting copies of communications between Chief Radiologist Dr. William Irwin and the Attorney General's office pertaining to testimony in a meeting of the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules that Sorrell's office had counseled the Health Department that it was not necessary to inform the legislature about a change in the radiation emission formula at Vermont Yankee. The law requires that the legislature be informed of such changes. Sorrell denies that his office provided this advice. "He told me it didn't happen," says Dennett "but his then-Assistant Attorney General Dixie Henry confirmed it to me, so now I'd like to see Sorrell's records on the matter."

    Dennett is also seeking copies of emails or other communication between the Attorney General's office and Health Commissioner Wendy Davis, chief health radiologist Dr. William Irwin and other doctors and state health officials regarding cancer rates in Vermont. Sorrell told Dennett during the VPR debate that Vermont cancer rates were falling and that "we do not have a bad story to tell in that arena." Dennett responded by referring to an internal Health Department report she had uncovered that has not been publicly released. The report shows a "statistically significant" 400 percent rise in thyroid cancers among Vermont women between 1996 to 2005. One suspected cause of thyroid cancer is radiation exposure. Sorrell said that he didn't know why the Health Department had not released the report "if the report exists." A copy of the page of the report showing the dramatic rise in thyroid cancer among Vermont women is here.

    In addition, Vermont is at the top in two other kinds of cancers that the American Cancer Society says have close links to radiation. These cancers are pediatric cancer (all cancers in children age 0-19) and skin cancer.

    Regarding skin cancer, recent data shows that Vermont has the highest rate-63% higher than the national average--of new melanoma diagnoses in the nation. In pediatric cancer, recent CDC data shows Vermont ranks number one in data combined from 1999 to 2005. CDC information on skin cancer in Vermont is attached. Pediatric cancer rates for Vermont can be found in the CDC's Wonder Database online and on Dennett's Facebook page.

    Pediatric cancer: click here.

    Thyroid cancer, women: click here.

    VNPR debate: click here.

    Seven Days Report: click here.

    For more information on the correlation between radiation and cancer, see the American Cancer Society's website here:


    Contact: Kristina Borjesson
    Tel: (802) 644 5898


    Cambridge,VT - Charlotte Dennett, Progressive candidate for Attorney General, says she has become deeply concerned after a recent debate with incumbent Bill Sorrell when he denied advising the state Health Department to circumvent the law. "Sorrell's then-Assistant DA Dixie Henry admitted to me personally that their office had okayed the Health Department not telling a legislative rules committee about a new way Yankee's owner, Entergy, had decided to measure its radiation. The law requires that the legislature be informed of this change. This was particularly egregious because Entergy's new measuring formula would have made illegal levels legal."

    Since then, she adds, "I've also learned that Entergy paid the Health Department $150,000 to get the new formula from Oak Ridge, a nuclear industry research institute with a reputation for protecting industry players. "It's disconcerting to me that the Health Department would go to Oak Ridge and get a formula that, I've discovered, was outdated and that the American National Standard Institute had officially withdrawn way back in 2001. What is going on here? The people have a right to know"

    Also, earlier this year, says Dennett, State Senator Mark MacDonald met with an assistant attorney general about the Public Service Department and the Health Department keeping silent about the radiation formula change. In a recent conversation with Dennett, the senator discussed his concerns about the Attorney General's office. "If you're going to investigate employees of Entergy for not being truthful with the public," he said, "you should also investigate their regulators because they have not been forthcoming and are part of a pattern of knowledge not being shared."

    Dennett says she's worried about the impartiality of Sorrell's criminal investigation into whether or not Entergy lied about having underground pipes. "Why has it taken Mr. Sorrell eight months and counting to investigate this when Entergy's lying was patently clear from the get-go? It was even written up in the New York Times and reported by Vermont's Public Oversight Panel. Does Sorrell really have to spend the time and taxpayer money to pore over "millions" of Entergy documents to determine the obvious? Barraging an investigator with mostly useless documents is a classic ploy big companies use to bog down investigations. Is Sorrell really falling for this?"

    Beyond that, Dennett says, she was shocked to learn that after receiving a report on the pipes that was paid for by Entergy, Sorrell kept the report under wraps for two months. As Seven Days reported on March 30, 2010, "Only Attorney General Bill Sorrell, who is conducting a criminal investigation into Entergy's lies, has seen the report. The report is covered by a confidentiality agreement signed by Sorrell, so he refuses to release it publicly." Sorrell did this even though Entergy had previously promised to make the report public. Sorrell further refused a public records request for the report's release, saying that it was part of a criminal investigation, even though it was a third party report done by the pro-nuclear industry law firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. It took legal action on the part of public advocates to force the release of the report.

    "Imagine my surprise then, when during our recent debate on Vermont Public Radio Sorrell said that his office had no objection to the report being released to the media or anyone else and that there was never an agreement on his part not to release the investigative report" said Dennett. "What happened when he first got the report shows otherwise. This kind of duplicity flies in the face of Sorrell's mandate to protect Vermonters, particularly since the Entergy report turned out to be a whitewash. That's why I'm concerned about his current investigation into Entergy. It just seems to be dragging on with no hard results. Vermonters deserve transparency, accountability and the truth in a timely fashion from their attorney general."


    Dear Friends and Supporters:

    I am pleased to announce my candidacy for Vermont Attorney General, with elections to be held on November 2, 2010. My pledge this year is the same as it was in 2008 (See tabs on the left): to challenge and change the "culture of lawlessness" that permeated our nation during eight years of the Bush administration and trickled down to our separate states, infecting state government as well. As I wrote in my most recent book, The People v. Bush, a viable democracy requires that the people be informed by an accountable and transparent government.

    Vermonters have entrusted the Office of the Attorney General with fair enforcement of the law. To keep that trust, which is so vital to law enforcement, the Attorney General must vigorously enforce Vermont laws, whether criminal or civil, no matter how powerful, politically connected or otherwise influential a person, institution, or company may be.

    The Attorney General is duty-bound to protect the health and safety of Vermonters. The AG now in office, William Sorrell, has failed to do this. As I noted in a recent (Sept. 21) Burlington Free Press article "When protecting the people becomes protecting the powerful from scrutiny, that duty is violated."

    As you can see by my profile I am well qualified to be Attorney General. I have argued before the Vermont Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals and have a proven track record as both an attorney and investigative journalist of being fearless in the pursuit of justice.

    In contrast to William Sorrell's record, I pledge to:

  • Be tough on all types of crime, including white collar crime;
  • Rigorously enforce Vermont's environmental laws;
  • Be vigilant in enforcing health and safety regulations at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and strongly recommend its closure in 2012.
  • Provide politically unbiased interpretation of Vermont laws

    During these hard times, Vermont also needs an Attorney General who will:

  • Help the Legislature devise laws which advance Vermont's energy independence and sustainability, thus creating new jobs;
  • Tackle drug laws and improve drug treatment for youthful offenders
  • Help our farmers by enforcing anti-trust laws against out of state milk distributors
  • Provide whistleblower protection to workers to ensure fair and efficient working conditions in the public and private sector. (Vermont now has the worst record in the country.)

    I hope you will support my campaign by pressing the "Donate" button to the left or by sending checks to:

    Charlotte Dennett
    Vermont Progressive Party,
    Box 281
    Montpelier, VT 05601.

    To follow developments in the accountability movement, I encourage you to visit our movement's webpage, DeclarationOfAccountabiliy.com, as well as my Facebook page. I'm also happy to receive your comments and suggestions at charlottedennett@gmail.com.

    Thank you for your support!

    Charlotte Dennett


    COPYRIGHT © 2010 Charlotte Dennett for Attorney General