Friday, April 03, 2009

Blogging - What's Real? How Do We Know? Stevens, Kepner, Joy

It's Saturday morning in Chiang Mai. We have tickets for the Monday afternoon flight to Taipei and Tuesday afternoon to Anchorage. I've got things to do, but I got a comment today on the Let's Get Real about Mary Beth Kepner post that has my brain twisting.

How do any of us know what is real? OK, I don't want to go into a deep philosophical discussion, so let's limit this to what we see and hear in the news. Suppose you read that a prominent politician's conviction has been thrown out and that there were allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and that there was an FBI 'whistleblower' who said his partner was violating the rules and was much too close to the witnesses. And the defense claimed this partner was having an affair with a key witness based on the whistleblower's complaint.

How do we cut through all that to find out what is true? I don't know about you, but I tend to rely on my beliefs which are based on my experiences and education. Those beliefs then inform the labels I read in the article. The interpretations are tempered by any personal experiences I have had directly with any of the people or places in the article.

I tend to 'think' more than the average person. My job was to think critically and to teach people to think critically. But I still get seduced by my stereotypes when I'm not being careful, especially if a story matches what I want to believe.

So I tend to be wary of 'politicians'. The nature of the system is that they need to raise money to get elected. And we know that people that help them get elected with big contributions are more likely to get an audience when they want one. Most people write checks to candidates they agree with, so if a candidate votes the way the contributor suggests, it isn't necessarily suspicious. But big lobbyists tend to contribute to all the likely candidates - it's not about ideology, it's about getting a foot in the door and getting what they want later on.

So 'politician' being convicted of corruption. My unthinking response is, "Yes!" If it's a Republican, then add another exclamation point. OK, I know there are honest politicians and good, decent Republicans. But if I don't stop to reflect on that, my gut reaction works through my stereotypes. But in this case, there are personal experiences too. I've met Ted Stevens on a couple of occasions. (I'm an Alaskan. Is there an Alaskan whose been around more than five years who hasn't met Ted?) He's smart, he's rabidly dedicated to doing what he thinks is right for Alaska which tends to mean getting money sent to Alaska. He also has been a Senator forever and from what I can tell, he already had an ego and temper long ago. All these years surrounded by sycophants hasn't helped his ego. And I know people who have told me they've seen the effects close up of how some of that money has spilled over into the waiting buckets of associates. Fishing and Seward for example. [Note: The ADN seems not to be giving free access to the Seward article. You may need a library password to get through on this link. The article citation is: Ben Stevens ' secret fish deal - State senator helped steer Adak pollock to a company he had financial stake in Anchorage Daily News (AK) - Sunday, September 18, 2005 Author: RICHARD MAUER Anchorage Daily News ; Staff ]

Whistleblower. That's a magic word for me. This is someone who sees a wrong and when the powers that be won't fix it, he or she risks everything to make sure the public is protected. Deep Throat. Daniel Elsberg. Jeffrey Wigand (played by Russell Crowe in The Insider). Karen Silkwood. These are all heroes. So the word whistleblower tends to turn on the 'good guy' reactors in my brain.

But in this case, I have some personal contact. I've watched in court and had several conversations with the 'corrupt' FBI agent. And the 'whistleblower's' comments are at odds with my sense of Mary Beth Kepner's professionalism and judgment.

Our science based society puts lots of weight on objectivity. We're supposed to keep an arm's length. We're supposed to judge the facts using rationality, not feelings. I had a conversation just yesterday with an anthropologist who is studying farmers in a small Thai village. Anthropology has gone through these debates about studying cultures 'objectively' from the outside or 'subjectively' by being a participant. This anthropologist is living in the house of one of the villagers when staying there and has been unofficially adopted by the family. This puts some limitations on the anthropologist's movements, but on the other hand gives the opportunity to learn things that wouldn't be available to someone looking 'objectively' from outside. There is no one best way.

When I first started blogging the trials in 2007, it didn't occur to me to talk to any of the participants. I was somewhat surprised to see some of the reporters chatting with the defense attorneys, the prosecutors, even the witnesses. Well, of course, Steve, that's what reporters do. But to me it seemed like that would taint what I wrote. If I actually know someone, if they had the courtesy to talk to me, wouldn't I owe them something, some sort of restraint perhaps on what I wrote?

Eventually, I did one day ask an FBI technician a question about a missing exhibit and learned from the answer that they had been reading my blog and trying to figure out who in the courtroom was writing it. OK, so that's what I wanted, people reading my blog. But to what extent do I then become a participant? But every reporter has to deal with the fact that their subjects read their articles and in many cases their behavior is affected by what they read. There is no complete objectivity. That led me to invite Mary Beth Kepner to talk to a class. And there were, as I've said in other posts, other conversations when we accidentally met somewhere in Anchorage.

So, when I read her name in the newspaper along with the 'whistleblower's' allegations, I had to think carefully about whether those personal conversations gave me important information (like the anthropologist gets from the adoptive family) or whether those conversations bias me against the 'whistleblower' and make me miss 'the truth.' [I know that putting things in quotation marks can be annoying, but it's the cleanest way I know how to point out that I'm using these words with some skepticism.]

So I read the complaint carefully. While I acknowledge I couldn't totally erase my impressions from my mind, the complaint on its own just seemed peculiar. I've written at length about it. First the redacted version. Then the less redacted version. (I even blew my own horn a bit when there were news reports that Joy hadn't been granted whistleblower status, but that turned out to be another lesson in why you shouldn't blow your own horn. Whistleblower status turned out to not be so clear cut in the Justice Department.)

Law enforcement officers have a lot of pressure to not rat on their own - even when their own commit serious crimes. Why would this agent rat on his colleague for things like being too close to an undercover source? It's an anomaly at the very least, if not bizarre.

I've written quite of few posts on this topic. The one that comes closest to tying things all together with links to all the others is Checkered Swan at the Stevens' Trial? post.

But in this post I want to focus on the difficulty of really knowing and how each of us has stories buried in our heads which give meaning to the words we read, whether that meaning is really in those words or not. Even if we don't have an immediate personal stake and won't be affected in any way, we judge where the truth lies not so much on the facts (in this situation there are still enough missing facts that we have to use circumstantial evidence) but on our beliefs, our prior experiences with the labels in the story, and our own emotional needs.

Perhaps Mary Beth Kepner did some voodoo on me that has kept me disbelieving Joy's allegations. Perhaps my ego is now invested in this and I want things to fall a certain way so that I will be vindicated as being right from the beginning. I work hard to make calls based on as much factual information as possible and with as much self-examination of my own hidden biases and motives as I can. Most of the time I don't write conclusions because there's still too many missing pieces. I just stack up the evidence as I see it and let readers draw their own conclusions. But, of course, which things I choose to list and which I omit, and how I tie them together will affect where the uncritical reader takes it. And the ideologically motivated reader will not be persuaded at all if my stacks of evidence don't point to the conclusion he wants to believe.

So, as someone who has followed this story closer than most people and still is not sure what it all means, I'd call on others who value the quest, if not the certainty, of truth, to be cautious in their conclusions. And to be skeptical of those who use any of this story to declare certainty about anything but the absolute facts - such as the fact that the Attorney General has written:

In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial.
And even here I'm taking the Anchorage Daily News' word for it, but there were many other similar reports so I feel reasonably confident this is accurate.

So, about that comment on the blog today. How do I know that the writer has something solid? Part of me wants to say, "Yes!' just because it would mean I was on the right track. But how much does he really know? It sounds like he's had a closer look than most, but that doesn't mean that his filters, his stories didn't lead him to unwarranted conclusions.

Ambiguity is not one of humankind's favorite places to be. We like to know. And even if we don't have enough evidence, we tend to jump to conclusions anyway. We like closure. I think that's why sports are so popular. At the end of the game we know who is the winner and who is the loser. Some may still dispute which is the best team, but they can't dispute who won the game.

[UPDATE March 17, 2012:  Cliff Groh pursues the question of why the Bush Administration pursued the Ted Stevens  indictment using the Schuelke Report for more information.]


  1. Whatever it is, whether or not these folks on either side are good or bad, I think that Alaskas politics and law are FUBAR. Did these (I feel) corrupt investigators and prosecutors save the ones who were imprisoned from futility and the uselessness of serving? How could the slick movers and shakers stand serving with the antics that are going on?

    I look at an intelligent man like Les Gara serving alongside a dimwit like Mike Doogan under Sarah Palin and I am like, "Excuse me, but am I here? Why yes, I think I am and this is not a bad dream as I am awake." What's it like for guys like Les?

    How can anyone have anything solid to say on a mess that is an embarrassment, a complete absconding of professionalism of the state's top people in the last 2 years?

  2. Steve, do you think that these people actually have personalities? These people have the personalities that they are told to have.

    Chad Joy acts like a jerk and here comes Mary Beth, what a breath of fresh air! You can trust Mary Beth, but that Chad? They know exactly what they are doing and probably laugh about it behind closed doors. You were worked! For you their soap opera had to be more realistic than the people who they put under their microscope.

    In real life, Mary Beth may obsess over picking fuzz off people's sweaters and laugh with cottage cheese in her mouth, and Chad Joy may be a sensitive classical violinist who paints flowers in his spare time. When they are one, they are on. These people can walk in plain sight and not be seen. It's an acting technique.

    People only see what the FBI wants them to see. The bigger picture is one that we may never see.

    The greatest acts are the ones that don't get Oscars and are never perceived as acts.

  3. Your sterotype of a whistleblower as to Joy is way off.
    Is protecting, and pandering to power, even if corrupt some big brave whistleblower thing in action. Hardly.
    What you know as to agent K is much more solid.
    Joy got a jury verdict nullified, is that something AK is proud of. The Club, the party cabal.
    Can any in Ak confront it if Stevens really did get gifts that were worth $ 250,000, largely not reported under law.
    Or, is some outlaw mentality now the thing in vogue, as Ak plays the U S taxpayers as suckers.
    Joy is no whistleblower, who was acting for any greater good, to uphold any laws, he seems more like some outlaw, who has turned things upside down, and as an abettor to corruption, and he really played people and the Press, as suckers.
    But, you are just not sure. So, you question you personal interactions, like maybe they were not real, discount what you experienced,(at a personal level) buy into the JOY gaming the system thing.
    Hey, your doubt has now grabbed you.
    Powerful people can pull strings, and use others, and if your think Stevens was not on the gravy train of Allen's hand out culture, go ahead, makes no difference to those who comment.
    What did Agent K know---- was she clueless,
    or Agent Joy on the $ 250,000 or so he said, or is not saying so now, so this doubt gives you angst, as the puppet masters play the strings, and bring into question your own reality, as if
    you should discount it, not trust what your instincts told you.
    Mad power gone amuck has grabbed you at your core. Do you discount Agent K as even a person, as some now seek to implant more sterotypes, play with your mind, as if the great power of Ted club can grab on to what you even think, so you do not do so independently.

    IS this the FBI that missed 9-11, the keystone cops. Joy is a disgrace to good FBI agents.
    you will see, you respond to the instant headlines, but a longer view will take hold, just as surely as the sun rises in the East.

  4. How do you know:
    Where to start:
    1) the notes taken in April 2008 by some DOJ attorneys...OK the what, where, who, when, why.
    2) that is the supposed basis of the Conviction being tossed
    3) but why so little in teh press on that,
    Like names, dates, particulars.
    4) you have doen more work, given more thought than the main line Press.
    I hope you get back to AK soon, to dig for the truth.
    Fact is, Stevens loss the election, he is old, so was the feeling in D. C, he is such a buddy with Ted Kennedy, and Patrick Leahy, and others in the Senate Club, just let it ride, some pretext to toss.
    But, it never deals with the truth seeking you raise on unanswered questions.
    Remember one of the biggest criminals of our time, March Rich(see book Metal man) was given a free ride by Eric Holder, he has a practice to panderign to soem specail brand of beltway political stuff.
    Holder was with soem big corporate law firm in D C , Covington and Burlingotn a sister in that fashion of Williams and Connoley, Stevens high powered D C law firm.
    The judge most likely would have granted a new trial, if some notes raised some questions, but not total jury nullification, but the political DOJ did a real curve ball.
    Do other federal prosecutors of say teh mafia, now have to watch their back in fear of a knife in their back, what are the bigger fall outs, does Patrcik Fitzegearld in Chicago have to watch his back if senstive stuff in Chicago pops up, is Holder(AG in O Admin) sending a signal, he has some long knife, and gave play some cards from the bottom of the deck as to the DOJ in the trenches, if they do not dance to his music, as the grand puppet master, in D C Central

  5. Allen's lawyer stated the Joy complaint was baseless.
    his--Joy- evidence he has as to some motel room ?
    Nada, other than D C area has motel rooms.
    Must be nice for a FBI guy's imigination to work over time, devoid of evidence, when he sets up ploys for the Stevens' defense.
    What or who got to Joy, that is the question, and it is not going away.

  6. So, the names of Branda Morris, and others(DOJ Attys) are all put out there(see your site other), and the ex U S Attorney for Alaska(Shea), buddy of Stevens(political soul mate) is out there, too, seeking to have the headS of any DOJ attorney(RUIN THEIR CAREERS AS IF A SPORT) who stood up to Stevens corruption.(interesting a DOJ ex Atty in the tank for Ted--Wev the weaver of influnce in some circles), & what influence does he have around AK circles etc ?
    But, don't you find it strange the names and particulars of the DOJ attorenys who interviewed Allen(April 2008), who(which, where etc) was the basis to tube the conviction(jury nullification) are so secret--you know so litle on that, like very much in the dark ?
    What you don't know on that, because it so foul, (so inside the cabal) is behind the shadows, & should concern you, and America.
    It is not justice under the law, it is the fix for the powerful to evade the law, and the main(reporter short, going BK) Press is so used to being led as sheep, by the fixers, that it becomes a great deception to America---they just as soon you, and others don't know, and never find out, and just be passive, and not curious on.
    It is what the public does not know now--that is killing our democracy, and the elite just as soon, you never explore or find out.
    Kiss America's democracy good-bye if you remain in the dark on this.
    But some want you to doubt what was real, from your own interaction with Agent K, they want to plant the seeds of doubt in you, as if this game of judas jurprudence is supplanting a real justice system one level for the powerful, another for Joe Blow Smith.
    Because Ted Stevens is powerful, and corruptly so, he can make a mockery of the search for the truth, and he has a lot of help in that area, from the other elite uber class--PARTY APARATUS.
    Be not afraid to search for what you don't know(now)--if it involves the full truth. It goes to the heart of civics, if any still care about that in America !

  7. Wev Shea, using Alaska Dispatch a WWW organ, WWW site, is on a crusade to destroy Brenda Morris, the lead prosecutor in the Stevens case.
    What is the Alaska Dispatch.
    It was formed by Party partisians,
    and this is noted:
    "Alaska Dispatch was started by a few ex-Anchorage Daily News journalists and features an ecletic group of writers including Don Young, Lisa Murkowski, Andrew Halcro, Ned Rozell, Amanda Coyne and Wev Shea"
    Shea has filled the WWW, on the Dispatch, all red hot with flames of hate towards the African Americna Morris, as a hyper for Stevens, his good political pal.
    How did he get his job as a U S Attorney for Alaska ? Most obviously being a crony for Stevens, protector--in chief.
    Yet, what foul activity is being hidden from the American public ?
    As an American would you want the mob to subvert the justice system, would that be in the public good ?
    That would be a fast taxi to the dark side, and unfortunatly that is where this saga is now at.

  8. Put this in your what know file:

    Who bought VECO... ?
    The big company that gets billions out of federal coffers, the one who managed the nuclear trigger clean up, at places, and is the biggest money pot in federal politics, can you guess who._____________?

    Also, see, hyber tab:

    So, is Ak politics worst than Chicago, or ILL ?
    In AK, the U S Attorney in AK, has been mostly in the tank for its seedy politicans.
    You never saw in Ak, a U S Attorney like the one in Chicago.
    Was the sabotage of the Ted convictions, just part of how corrupt AK stuff is, and it rolled the Obama Adminstraiton in the staggering, nature of how it was pulled off ?
    Alaksa is not an island, it is linked to the lower 48, as it is taxpayers who fed the funds to the Ted club, and interwoved, in big movers who get big booty out of federal coffers, and Joy is not an boy-scott, unleveraged from twardy goings on, tainted by
    matters some are hoping stay in the dark

  9. Don't forget, it was some time before people knew the staggering corruption of the FBI in Boston
    No joy in this justice, outlined
    By Kevin Cullen
    Globe Columnist / outlines that:
    It recounts:
    While Marra began his law enforcement career with the FBI, he has for the last six years worked as an agent for the Department of Justice's inspector general's office, and it was in that capacity that he helped prosecute John Connolly, the retired FBI agent who was convicted of the 1982 murder of John Callahan. No FBI agents were part of the prosecution team that won Connolly's conviction.

    Whitey Bulger, who was a serial killer in Boston, he is still on the FBI's most wanted list( No 1), still a fugtive from justice, as he coopted the FBI in Boston to part of his criminal club.
    The FBI, agent Robert Hanssen, who was a Soviet spy, caused the death of many U S agents, as his betryal, was very deadly, and harmful to America, in so many ways. He worked out of FBI headquarters in Washingotn D C.
    A month ago, a jury convicted an ex FBI agent who was a major criminal, as documented in the DOJ's own press release:

    SANTA ANA, Calif.—A New Orleans man who was a special agent with the FBI for over a decade was convicted of several federal charges related to a scheme to commit a home-invasion robbery at a residence he thought was a drug “stash house.”

    A federal jury this morning returned guilty verdicts against the former agent and his accomplice in the scheme to commit a home-invasion robbery of a house in Fountain Valley, California. Vo Duong “Ben” Tran and Yu Sung Park, now face mandatory minimum sentences of 30 years in federal prison. And, this is only a small partial recount.

    Don't be sent into shcok and awe by some Joy ring, who has dazzeled the Press, and the Chiefs, who often play games, as it is jerked around by events, it seeks to contain.

  10. Oh, what timing, just as you land in AK, in D C, the following is going down, Judge Sullivan issued two new Orders this evening in U.S. v. Theodore F. Stevens.

    The first Order states as follows:

    “MINUTE ORDER as to THEODORE F. STEVENS. The Court, sua sponte, directs that by no later than 10:00 a.m. on April 6, 2009, the government shall provide to the Court copies of all material gathered post-trial and produced to the defendant. The government shall also provide to the Court all exculpatory evidence, witness interviews, 302s, and affidavits gathered, created and/or reviewed as part of the investigation into the Joy Complaint, and the attorneys notes regarding the April 15, 2008 interview with Bill Allen, whether or not that material has been produced to the defendant. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 5, 2009.”

    The second Order states as follows:

    “MINUTE ORDER as to THEODORE F. STEVENS. The Court, sua sponte, ORDERS that the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, and any and all other government agencies involved in the investigation and/or prosecution of Senator Stevens immediately preserve any and all documents related to this matter, including but not limited to emails, notes, memoranda, investigative files, audio recordings, and any and all electronically stored information, until further Order of this Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 5, 2009.”

    Seeminly, Judge Sullivan wants to keep control of the process and certainly doesn’t want DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (”OPR”) to have sole responsibility for ferreting out any wrongdoing.

    Thus, there were 4 DOJ attorneys at the April 15, 2008 interview of ALLEN, as recently learned, and 1 FBI agent.
    So far that has been below the radar but is the central matter.
    Welcome back to AK, you now have somtehing on your plate----to learn, and know and digest.
    Unpack, and before you >>>>>>>>>>>>>

  11. Who were the 2 DOJ attorneys who took notes
    on April 15, 2008, that were not turned over to the Stevens Defense:

    Go through the list( this site has before, but has not addressed the latest:
    The filing announced(april 2009) the replacement of the original team of attorneys led by the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section from "litigation relating to allegations of misconduct in this matter." The team is headed by William Welch, chief of that office, and his main deputy, Brenda Morris, who was the lead attorney in the Stevens trial. Also affected are two other lawyers in that office, Nicholas Marsh and Edward Sullivan, and two on special assignment from the U.S. Attorney's office in Anchorage, Joe Bottini and James Goeke. <<<<<<<<<

    Since the Allen interview was on April 15, 2008, then most likely Joe B... and James G...
    were the note takers, consistent with two DOJ attorneys, linked into AK.

    How come the AK press is snoozing on this, not covering very good

    So, stuff that happened from AK DOJ sorts, has set up this explosive situation.(leading to the conviction nullification of Ted Stevens)
    Of course Joy, is deep dug in in Ak, too.
    Amazing, in a sad way.

  12. Brenda Morris was only assigned the case, in the Summer of 2008, shortly before the indictment by DOJ brass in D. C. One source is tipping off that this miffed the other DOJ attorneys who had been on the ground in AK.
    However, the discovery of the April 15, 2008 DOJ attorney notes(Allen interview) were before Brenda Morris became involved.( yet those notes were not discovered until Feb of 2009,(in D C) as being revealed to Mr Morris(as some strange hold back by AK or others, who set up the lead prosecutor, and were palying some dicey games, which Joy jumped on in some AK revolt, as if it was out to sink the Stevens prosecution.
    This is noted in a major legal paper:
    "By the time Stevens was indicted in July(2008), Marsh, Sullivan, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys James Goeke and Joseph Bottini had successfully prosecuted seven defendants in Alaska on corruption charges.

    Objections to the last-minute move to add Morris were overruled by Matthew Friedrich, the head of the Criminal Division at the time, and Rita Glavin, his principal deputy, the officials say. Critics of the decision say prosecutors and agents lost valuable time familiarizing her with a case that hurtled from indictment to trial in about two months."

    Ms Morris was not on the ground in AK at any April 15, 2008 interviews, so some kind of truf war happened.
    In the midst of that we now see the conviction of Ted Stevens tossed, due to strange things going on in the DOJ, as the Stevens' case was a D C jury, tried by a DOJ D C attorney, in the midst of all of the above.
    Somehow, some DOJ internal turf war erupted, with Joy(FBI AK) going ballastic, to become some kind of canabalistic maverick out to eat his own, to put a knife in the back of others on the DOJ team.
    DOJ top brass have to be very concerned, that the perception that some in the FEDs were out to throw the case, some pander to powers that undermines an up and up justice system.

  13. Ted Stevens had 13 lawyers from a big Washingotn D C law firm working on the case and that does not include the FBI guys like Joy helping the Stevens defense, and some DOJ rogues who helped the Stevens defense.
    Yet, none of that coverups the facts of the shady dealings Teddy had with hard core criminal Bill Allen, the ex good buddy of Stevens.
    But, some in Alaska love Teddy, he sucked so many trillions out of the coffers in D C to place on the backs of many hard working Americans, he in the end was able to make a total mockery of the justice system, as having a different standard for the uber powerful.
    Stevens is corrupt, he always will, the latest jury nullification changed none of that, all it does is highligt more the culture of corruption in D C.
    Ted don't have much time left, he is old, most rememember him as one of the meanest basdards to ever walk the earth, all filled with himself in all the money he gamed for his CLUB/ clique

  14. Steve: You are patting yourself on the but for your "critical thinking" checkered swan at the Stevens trial.
    The two FBI agents who have been so centered in your blog world, never testifed at the Stevens trial.(Duh, you omitted that, Duh, left it out, Duh, glossed over, Duh Duh)
    Yet, you made one(AGENT) a real center piece, as if she worked some voodoo on you, dislodged that beautiful mind of yours, up close and personal.
    Also, the notes that gave rise to tossing the Steven's convictions were not notes prepared by any FBI agent on April 15, 2008.
    I am not sure were you learned to think critically, but your thinking seems very flawed, kind of like, a checkered duck, or maybe a red striped turkey.
    Did you actually work on real problems in life, or were you trying to count how many angles were on the tip of a pin.
    Also, you can't muster the think power to figure out how much Stevens house really cost, as to all bills etc, etc, the work really done on his Girdwood A Frame in 2000.
    I am going to have to figure out how come there are so many stupid people in the world you traffic in.

  15. What Steve does not know, or care to now, or even want as part of his crit think:
    1) Who took the April 15, 2008 notes.
    2) where,
    3) what all said,
    4) if took down all said, and accurtely of what all said.
    5) the all on that.

    And, it appears he will never know, given the way he has handled---stuff.
    Good thing he was never an FBI guy interviewing people, the way he blocks finding out so much.

  16. The Washington Post has noted that some Agents(FBI), and DOJ Esq under the gun in the Stevens matter, since the conviction was tossed(April 2009) are hiring their own lawyers.
    Also, the lead prosecutor(Morris) was picked over the objections of some others in the DOJ, by the ex Chief of the Criminal Division( D C), who only moved into that political spot(BUSH Admin) in May of 2008. He is from Texas, deep in the Bush political fold.(How about that Alberto, and his Oil Buddies)
    Now the hand picked Obama Criminal Division Chief is in there( his political spot).
    So, who picks up the tabs for the attorneys for Agent K , Agent J, and the attorneys for the DOJ sorts, as some are calling them the Stevens 6.
    Most likely you are, Mr and Ms taxpayers.
    Hopefully, as more comes out, there will be updates(this and that comes up).
    Stevens was convicted on all 7 counts, the only count that was fishy was pricing matters on the house(additions in Girdwood), so why were the other 6 tossed, Allen is not a pricing expert on Viking Grills, and the jury decided, and there was no hidden notes on that.
    I hope this site keeps up on what unfolds, down the road.

  17. It seems it's getting reasonably good coverage. Also AlaskaPoliticalCorruption is tracking this case carefully. Cliff actually went to the trial. His latest post says Stevens turned down a plea agreement early on.

    If I see things that don't make sense, I'm likely to be on them, but I've got a full plate of other things as well.

    Not abandoning this, but also not making it my full time career. If anyone has important info that isn't available elsewhere and they are willing to write in an objective, non-derisive way, I'll consider guest posts.

  18. Well, derivise, and non-objective commentary, has been thrown at some DOJ attorneys from assorted, as if that is some Soccer Club thing, the Artic Bears vs, AMERICA & fed by the cheering, and Esq AK club fans in assorted artic circles.Wev the head, the main nail 'em,, nail the public servants, those outsiders, those lower 48ers

    The main public servant attorney under attack by the Artic Club is Nick Marsh.
    He acheived a substanial victory in the 9th Circuit, when some of the Artic Club sought to withhold evidence(the Ak bribe matters).
    He is a graduate of Duke Law School, and used to work with a big NYC law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, and was noted in this case:

    With all the artic club white collar club support group, now -- will Mr Marsh have to hire an attorney(his own attorney), given how the artic club is yapping, and jiving, and going on about the low
    fatality rates on red shirts, and the flow of traffic.
    I suppose derivise is in the eye of the beholder, it does point that up.
    For a while, it looked like Steve was obssessed on blowing the cover for some "annons", to tell who they were not, as if he has that copy right, & as if telling 'em how to write comments on SEA Museums, or fear abounded he would lose friends, if he did not.
    We have lost all hope of objective, fairness, and bringing out to the artic club other aspects on things, it is most obvious how the Artic Club works.
    So, now band this post too, with so many others, and pat yourself on the back as some fairness objective: IN the KNOW from your perspective.
    Hey, you pay the hook up fees, that must make you non-derivise, and in the know.
    Now, do as your usual -- push your remove button. And, wait for others to examine matters, who do not have that Artic edge/ slant.


Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.