OK, being rational isn't the only reasonable option. There's also funny. And tapping into one's emotions is also fine. But being irrational - things like jumping to conclusions based on false assumptions, not responding to the other person's arguments, not being internally consistent, etc. - doesn't help the discussion along. I understand that someone can forget all those things in an emotional reaction. But then as we calm down a bit and get to chatting, I expect one to get over that and into a more rational discussion, one where we aren't making snide comments. That doesn't mean we can't identify behavior that we see as negative or harmful, but that when we do that we try to separate the behavior we see as problematic from the person were talking to. And we point out the behavior we have problems with. When the discussion is in writing, it's not too hard to do.
As I've said in an earlier post, getting something like this once in a while is not a problem. If someone is doing their best to express themselves, but they aren't great writers, no big deal. But it was a flurry of such posts that caused me to turn on the 'review comments' function and to offer some guidelines for commenting here. And suddenly this and at least one other anonymous poster took more care on their posts. So I began approving them.
Let me go through the latest comment with my reactions. This is a comment on the post Blogging - What's Real? How Do We Know? Stevens, Kepner, Joy? posted April 3 and this comment is dated April 15, 12:27pm. (I've been rejecting this sort of post since last week, but I do want my readers to know what I'm reacting to.) In the comment prior to the one below, I say I have a life beyond the Stevens trial, but I'll pay attention and if I think I have something of important to say, I will. I end with, "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." Anon writes:
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 48ersOK, I take this to mean there are Alaskans who are being derisive and non-objective about some DOJ attorneys.
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:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/351/351.F3d.1348.01-16973.html
OK, I've seen Nicolas Marsh in action at the Alaska political corruption cases. I've given my impressions of him in court which in terms of the important things were mostly positive. I did find him very technically competent, but, particularly in the first trial, I thought his person to person communication with the jury could be stronger. I know about Marsh's previous employment because I googled him during the Alaska trials since the DOJ would give no background information about the attorneys. I'm guessing the victory in the 9th circuit was the Weyhrauch appeal, but I'm not sure the importance of the linked case. It mentions Marsh once as the eighth of eleven attorneys listed for the Plaintiffs-Appellees.
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.
Since my most recent post was about traffic fatalities in Thailand during Songkran and how much higher they were than deaths in the red shirt demonstrations, it seems reasonable to conclude that Anon is including me amongst the 'artic club' 'yappers' that are responsible for Marsh apparently hiring a private attorney. (And I have reason to believe that the Anon comment on the Thai traffic post is from this same Anon.)
Here's a spot where I don't see the logical flow of Anon's argument. I've hardly said anything about Marsh for a long time. I did note a couple of times that he had been on the team that very competently handled the Alaska cases. If anyone cares, they can put Marsh into the 'search blog' window in the upper left on the tool bar above. Is it because I'm not dropping everything else I'm doing to pursue this? Since when are bloggers beholden to do the bidding of their commenters? Now, Anon may take that to be a derisive comment. I think it's a fairly reasonable statement of my take on this. I could be wrong on it being presumptuous, but rather than taking it as an insult or condescension, if Anon were to take issue with this, he should point out why it isn't presumptuous.
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.
I can understand the confusion based on one of my post titles.. But I did address this in an earlier post or comment. And the post itself isn't about identifying the commenter. My post on "Figuring out My Anonymous Commenter" was not aimed at figuring out who the commenter was, but at the commenter's motives and how I could determine if the commenter actually had access to important information relevant to the Stevens trial fallout. While I think I have an obligation to be polite to people who post here, I don't have an obligation to spend my time responding to whatever they propose for me to do. If I determine it isn't leading to something useful (the commenter has the responsibility to help me see the importance,) I don't need to spend more time on it. And if the commenter is changing the tone of my blog by the number and tone of the comments, I have no obligation to keep posting them. Fear of losing friends? It might be interesting to see who Anon thinks my friends are. My friends respect what and how I write even if they don't always agree with me.
I don't have a need to know who Anonymous is. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish between one Anon and another Anon so I can be sure to respond to them individually. But I respected Anon's privacy and suggested he email me instead of posting to the world if he was concerned.
Anon's response was links to sites explaining government programs to eavesdrop on private email. Since I thought he was telling me he didn't want to be tracked down, I then tried to set up a way for Anon to communicate with me without having to post his comments for the whole world to see. The response to that was blasting me for censoring his comments. I do recognize that trying to communicate that way raised the possibility that some messages from me didn't get read. But I have evidence that most if not all were read.
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.I understand this to mean that I'm still hopelessly unfair and subjective, and I'm still going to ban this commenter. I have a license to be derisive (no examples of where I was being derisive.) Then Anon seems to back off a bit. Go ahead, Anon, seems to be saying, give it up and let others, without an Alaska perspective, pursue this story.
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.
This good cop/bad cop routine is starting to get tiring.
So, why am I spending all this time on this Anonymous commenter? (Yes, I'm pretty sure there are more than one of these Anon bloggers, but I'm also reasonably sure that many are from the same person). Because:
- Writing things out helps me think through them.
- I assume that there is a person inside every body despite the masks people hide behind. So I'm giving a shot at some real conversation before I pull the plug on these comments.
- Anonymous bloggers and anonymous commenters are something of an internet phenomenon. I hope that my thoughts here might be helpful to others facing this.
- Maybe someone who has a better handle on this will email me with sage advice.
- Even if I'm wrong and my effort to engage Anon in a real conversation fails, other readers can understand my thinking process as I try to work this out.
Steve, I find your writing fascinating. The time and care you take to unravel complex issues and give all aspects a fair shake is remarkable. As a regular reader (via RSS), I've come to expect thoroughness and intellectual rigor.
ReplyDeleteYou're providing more of the same here. But as a reader, expressing just my own opinion, I'm beginning to wonder if you're spending too much time on this anonymous commenter business. It's your time to spend, of course, and I have no right or power to suggest you do anything else. All I can do is react as a reader and provide my own thoughts. So here they are:
I'd rather you drop writing about these kooky anonymous commenters. They might indeed have some interesting points, but they're obviously buried in a gobbledygook of what appears to be English and contain no small portion of anger and ignorance. Your attempt to bring out the best in those comments is admirable in principle, but in practice, I must admit I'd much rather you spend time writing about the things you normally discuss. It feels to me like you already dealt with this anonymous issue very, very thoroughly a few posts back. You were so thorough and so absolutely fair I doubt there's really much more to say.
And while most readers/writers in English are well below your capabilities and you have to grant folks -- like me -- some leeway in spelling, punctuation, grammar and logic, it seems there's some point after which you might just want to give up. If they can't be bothered to try a little harder, I'm not sure you should be bothered to give them the sizable lift you're offering.
In any case, thanks for the writing. I'll keep looking forward to your posts.
Was it Marshall McCluan(ph), a Canadian Professor(did not take time to look up the correct spelling(or do a google pop up, just shot it out), who observed: "The medium is the message".
ReplyDeleteIf we could all sit down over a cup of Chai Tea, and confront one another across the table in a greater human dimension, that would be one thing. I respectfully, submit the WWW,I- Sites, very much change the nature of communications, and knowing, and human interaction, not all for the better.
Toss in a heated subject like the Stevens matters, that compounds the situation, as far as that illusive truth goes.
Add to that, each person comes from a certain angle, and that may or may not compound things even more.
Sometime people are more harsh, hard edged in I-Net communications, than they would be if sitting across a table in a coffee shop.
Just my 2-cents, plus, when a person writes an email, it is not like a final version of the old Man and the Sea, where Earnest has changed things 10 times, pouring over every word, and doing great edit work.
Figuring how things over the I-net, it depends on a lot of stuff.
I know the I -net had its birth when the Defense Department set up a means for labs at DOD installatiosn to communicate.
However, this lab of the i-net, has many other
varaiatons, since the personal commputer(routers, C-space, modems, ISP, etc) and we are not exactly getting into nuclear fusion equations.
Human emotions, perspective make things much more complex in that figuring out thing,
After all consider this:
In the Duke Lacross case, a deranged woman took the justice system for a real ride, and the press for a while.(and the fall out...?)
In AK, we have Agent J, seeing visions of sex acts in the middle of the Stevens proceedings, was that real, or not real(in his mind, and others), and how has it taken things for a ride in the matters that concern Steve, and his figurings.
I still believe S/ wants to see the truth, but wanting, and that happening are two very different things.
It is not all in his control, it depends on so many other things, and things come out at their own speeed, and at the happening of other matters.
It is not like we have a book, all we are suppose to know( between 2-covers), is right there, with the next class to start in 10 minutes.
Annons are annons. It is what it is.
JM, I appreciate your kind comments. Part of me agrees 100% that I'm obsessing here and should just let it go. But another part of me holds on because this exchange involves several things that are important to me:
ReplyDelete1. understanding how we 'know' the world around us, which is the basic underlying theme of this blog
- how does anon take what I write and see things that I believe aren't there at all
- how do we know other people, in this case whether Anon is someone who
a. is seriously trying to tell me something important?
b. is using me to work out his anger and frustration for good and bad
c. is simply playing with me
d. add your own possible alternatives
- how do we know what happened - in this case why things went as they did in the Stevens trial?
- if there was sabotage in the Stevens trial, how can we expose that? Can Anon contribute to that or not? Can a blog at least cause the people officially looking into it to be more diligent in looking at these possibilities?
- can we break through the barriers that keep people from really communicating and have authentic conversation between people who initially seem to be hostile? All the world's conflicts depend on finding a positive answer to this.
- what is the nature of blogging, interpersonal relationships, democracy, learning, etc.?
So, sometimes pushing further when everyone else is ready to go home, is when you make new breakthroughs. Sometimes you come up with nothing. But I believe no experience is a waste of time if you can learn from it.
A couple more comments on your comments:
1. kooky - we have a very human trait of trying to find labels that help us bring closure to puzzling situations. And I do this all the time as well. OK, he's just crazy. That explains all. Except that it doesn't explain all, it merely closes our inquiry and we don't see past that label. Closing things off makes life possible, otherwise we'd get lost on tangents all the time. But not closing them prematurely allows for discovery of things we didn't expect.
And then, there are people whose mental functioning makes attempts at rational conversation impossible. How do we know which is which? And are there non-rational (not irrational) ways to communicate that also enrich our understanding?
I think we often give up way too soon and miss the chance to make a difference. People who have mental health problems (well we all do to some extent) aren't stupid, their brains just function differently from the so called 'norm'.
Grammar - this is pretty much a non-issue for me in terms of judging comments. As long as the message can be understood, I'm not making any moral judgment about the writer. I know my Thai spelling and grammar are atrocious. That doesn't mean we can't get clues from how people write that might, along with lots of other clues, give us some insight. But I judge the usefulness of a commenter by content, not grammar or spelling.
That said, it's not completely true. I take efforts, not always successfully, to make my writing as clear as I can. That doesn't necessarily mean grammatical, but I try to minimize the opportunities for readers to be misled because my words are ambiguous or otherwise unclear. And while sometimes the language is difficult because the writer has trouble writing in English, at other times it is just sloppiness, not taking the time to clean it up. That can also show a lack of respect for the readers. That can be more about the writer venting than trying to get the reader to understand.
However, I do insist that there is a level of respect for me and for the other readers. Anon has helped me understand that respect and tone are the key factors I use to decide whether to accept or reject a post.
Again, thanks for your comment. And note that the Anon comment after yours is from the same Anon. Why does his style change so radically? Is it as someone said, "he's off his meds?" Is he sometimes drinking? Is he sometimes extra careful? Is he trying to disguise himself? I'm hoping that one day, he'll feel comfortable enough or find an untraceable way to let me know. Assuming that he knows.
Anon, It's rude to talk about people in the third person in front of them. I apologize. And when I mention the possibility of a mental health problem, it's not intended as a put down, but it is just being raised as one possible explanation for something that I can't quite grasp.
It's the same sort of process I used on the Joy complaint. What possible things could be true that would make all this understandable? It's one of many possible hypotheses that I throw out until I can get evidence that increases the likelihood of one over the others. Do I slip into conclusions sometimes prematurely? Of course. This is my target and I'm often unsuccessful.
Yes, it was Marshall McLuhan. And I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure out the message that your medium (how you write your messages) is sending.
Basically, my intuition (by that I don't mean some fuzzy extrasensory perception, but rather the unconscious workings of the brain that make connections between the information coming in and everything you have stored) suggests to me that you and I are after the same thing. But the more conscious parts of me are asking whether you really know something that others don't know. Again, the intuition says yes, but I'm waiting for some more concrete confirmation.
And your other self that calls me names and attributes my motives to the dark side isn't helping I have no problem if you question what I write and my motives, but your conclusions seem to be limited to good or evil. I don't sense anything in-between. It's one or the other and I'm getting nauseous bouncing back and forth from one comment to the next.
Actually, Steve, you work from a deeply academic perspective and are now applying it to what I see as conspiracy 'gaming'.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully add me to those readers awaiting an end of this. My thanks.
Is this what living in UK does to you? You can say "Enough already!" so charmingly it's almost a compliment.
ReplyDeleteAn end, add me to your dropped readers
ReplyDeleteI'm almost a little jealous. I turned on comment moderation because I didn't see any reason to give negative commenters a platform (I mean, they have the ADN for that, right?), but my critical comments are usually things like "Your so pathetic u want the government to solve all you're problems 4 u." No one sends me essays...
ReplyDeleteAdd me to you new readers, along with several other "annons" I know, but dare not disclose their names, SS #, place of work, occupations, and other assorted vitals.
ReplyDeleteAs to plus, minus, positive, negative, I do not declare any preference, here.
On "conspiracy gaming", as touted by UK Jay,
MI5 is not an issue in AK.
The question is did the Government(USA), the DOJ/ FBI blow it, and were they gaming it in the Stevens Girdwood matter.
Of course, there is other stuff going on in the world, like the new super star 47 year old singer from Scotland, but we can't cover every event in the world
An anonymous blogger suggested people look at this site:
ReplyDeletecoldheartedtruth.com
Discussing conspiracy theories is a bit like arguing about gods. But that seems to be the point, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteSteve, I just finished a course in parliamentary debate. It is much more aggressive in style than what Americans are used to. Journalism is much more editorial in style than the states. In other words, there are forum for driving home the point.
In the internet each blog is self-moderated. There is no standard but that set by each host. It's Wasilla-world doing diplomacy. In an unmoderated group, what are the rules? Maia deals with this nicely by laying them out, visible every time you check in.
I guess I want conversation, not fear or loathing posing as thought. I know well the heat of the kitchen. Give me your backyard deck on a sunny day. That'll do quite nicely.
And yes, for all its problems, I can say I do like the UK much more than I do the USA now. I expect to become a citizen.
Here is the flat out paradigm in the search for truth:
ReplyDeleteI have looked at a lot of Blawg sites, on the topic, looked at house prices in Ak.(data--can get some from computer searches)
The issue is: did Stevens get a gift and not report it, as required by U S law, and thus violate criminal law as to a Senator:
If you were going to buy a house(piece of RE), you would ask yourself, is the house(OR RE) you are interested in selling at near some average sq ft price.(so you don't pay too much)
So, in 2001, the real estate data shows a averge sq ft price of about $ 75 per sq ft in Anchorage, market value of real estate, per yr.(you can find if good a google etc searches)
So, next phase of valuations(questions on)
I found the same site(See above and looked at above), and it notes a Mr Jim Crawford, who was a mortgage broker in AK.(and seemed to work for Stevens at some point---see his lesson: learn to count)
He did an anlysis, and found no problem with the checks paid by Stevens, & as not meeting the value put on the improvements. i. e the checks paid were above the reasonable value of the improvements.(Thus no gap for a problem) See above.
During the trial(in D C), the DOJ put in evidence the job cost detail of VECO, at about $ 188,000.(was a problem, may have been bogus)
VECO was not the major builder another company was, besides, and Stevens wrote checks of $160,000.(was as noted an amount above the reasonable value of the improvements) ERGO; NO GIFT basis, if the checks were above any value of the improvements.
Then, another question, after the improvements what did Steven insure the Girdwood house for.
Then, there is another problem Jim Crawford, City Mortgage was all tied up in all kinds of lawsuits, etc (bankruptcy, tied in with State fee problems, etc,on mortgage funny business in the same time frame. Do a googles on Jim Crawford City Mortgage Alaska, it only deepens the puzzle.
So, why did the DOJ not even do the kind of anyalysis that any person who bought a house(RE) would do, or pays taxes on a house/ real estate ? That is very troubling, why did they(DOJ) drop the ball..?
So, where did Stevens get the cash/ money to write the checks ?
The checks he wrote was within what seemed to be the value paramaters for the improvements in question, thus no gap to constitute a GIFT(getting something for nothing).
If no gift, the reporting requirment does not kick in, it is just some guy adding an addition, and paying a reasonable price for it.
But the DOJ did such a shoddy, and sloppy job , there are still unanswered questions.
I have seen AK real estate go in phases.
One of the worst was in 1986 when the price of oil crashed, a terrible real estate market then, if any recall.
It looked like Stevens buddy Crawford was tied up in some subprime, big mortgage problems, but he wrote a salient, lucid letter in the AK papers on,(See above) and he predicted that Stevens would be found innocent, and he did that in 2008, shortly after the indictments.
I hope this adds to your ALLs search for answers in matters.(some illusive truth, or part of it)
It appears the DOJ/ AK/ Dc dropped the ball, and why that is, will be the remainder of the story, to be determined.
I used to own a place in Girdwood, BTW, but I hope you can appreciate, I just as soon not give my name etc. I sold it too, but you know what, I wish I still had it.
Heck, I could be Ted's neighbor.(not that he is every there--much)
So, Crawford, who worked for Stevens, once upon a time, was in a mire in AK:
ReplyDeleteI don't know if any of you took the time to do a googles, so I will make it easy for you, and drag in the results on the google, here:
COPYRIGHT 2000 Anchorage Daily News
Byline: Tony Hopfinger
Aug. 12--"Jim Crawford is fighting to save City Mortgage, one of Alaska's top residential lenders.
Here's what he is up against:
Only once since January 1999 has City Mortgage made a profit, he said. Twice in two years, large groups of employees have quit. And now, Crawford said, 70 percent of the company's business could vanish.
"We got hurt. We got hurt real bad," said Crawford, the lender's primary owner.
The fall of City Mortgage has led to lawsuits, a letter to the state special prosecutor's office and a meeting in Washington, D.C.
But the allegations aren't new. For two years now, Crawford has claimed that City Mortgage was raided by its ex-president, Roger Aldrich, and Aldrich's new bank, stripping the company of more than 85 employees..."
What is most curious, is all the subprime, Fannie Mae stuff the fell out later, and was the leading edge of the melt down.(THE BIG CRASH of 2008---lingering still, 2009).
So, this Girdwood thing has several tangents, and it has a lot of implications, players, and
layers.
Having said that, I would give my eye teeth to still own the Girdwood place I once owned.
But, I am not giving you the address, and particualrs, as I just won't go there...as you can well fathom.
City Mortgage declared bankrupty, it was a total debacle, leaving many creditors unpaid, it was one of the biggest financial debacles in Ak. But, Crawford wrote a interesting letter for his old friend Ted, see where Steve posted it up(above), tab in, it is most illuminating----in part.
I am an "annon", I hope Steve looks for the truth on things that count, and matter for people, it is often not easy to find, all parts of it.
But, he does seem to be interested in still searching, and that is good.
Anon, I went through Crawford's letter in Aug 2008.
ReplyDeleteCrawford claims Stevens wrote checks for $130K, not the $160K you claim, but I'd have to go back to the trial stuff to see what was claimed there. In any case, a key problem I saw in the Crawford letter is his assumption that the property value increases exactly the same as your remodel costs. That just isn't the case. Property value depends on lots of factors - what sort of improvement you made, is it appropriate to the neighborhood, what style is it, etc. Raising a building and adding a new first floor is not a cost effective remodel by any stretch of the imagination. Might have been cheaper to demolish the old structure and build new.
When I get a chance I'll check the other numbers - how much Stevens paid vs. how much Allen/VECO spent. Between the FBI and the Prosecutors, not to mention the defense, I don't see how that could have been off the way you claim. They would have gotten that in the courtroom and he wouldn't have been guilty. He got off because they didn't turn over evidence about what Person's said or didn't say.
Steve/
ReplyDeletePoint well taken on property valuations are more complex than what is in the tax assessors office, especially on additions.( market values often don't match what is in some assessors office. or otehr valuations on additions etc)
Information came out that Stevens wrote two checks, one for $ 130,000, and the second one for $ 30,000(not sure of dates...//) for a total of $ 160,000, as per testimony brought out when T S was put on the stand( D C).
VECO was not the main builder, but it has a job cost detail showing job costs of $ 188,000, an exhibit that I got off the ADN site, as it has some of the exhibits one can get off of I-net.
So, this all begs the question, how did the DOJ get to gifts of $ 250,000 not reported on some forms ?
I don't see how the DOJ gets to $ 250,000, and as it turns out some now question whether the DOJ was inducing perjured testimony, false stuff, etc.
Bill Allen was considered corrupt, and so Stevens hung around him, and was at his place in Girdwood, a lot(staying there even when T S was in D C), but still, the DOJ has the burden of proof, and must prove guilt by overwhelming proof in a criminal case.
I don't believe the DOJ did a good job, if Mr Crawford can pick holes in their case, and did it in the open in the AK papers shortly after the indictment. But, then I wondered who is Crawford, and was I ever shocked to see the troubles he had in the mortgage business in Alaska(as found in several news clips that pop up in googles).
Is it possible, Ted is getting old, he never paid much attention, he was in D C, some in Ak handled it, did it kind of 1/2 ass, but Stevens and his wife were like millions of people just putting an additon on their house, and did nothing wrong, that ever rose to a criminal violation.
I started out believing Stevens was guilty, I should not have done that(go back and see the press coverage in 2008 etc), he deserved the presumption of innocents afforded by the constitution, and so I went back and tried to reexamine stuff in some detail.(more than just reading old news stuff, that did not tell the full story). I looked at your site, I have spent hours on the WWW looking at stuff.(lots of stuff, and putting up some matrix to look at).
My feeling now is Stevens was just some old guy, he added to his Girdwood(via workers carpenters etc) house, and I can not find that he did anything wrong in any criminal sense. Why the DOJ has no explanation on the real estate values is something i find troubling.
If I missed anthing i would be more than happy for any to point out, where evidence points to some other conclusion(underscore EVIDENCE).
Thank you for providing me an opportunity to put up my comments, as a citizen, and might I add a property tax payer.
Rush to judgements:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jackhamann.com/pdf/HoustonPress%20Rush%20to%20Judgment.pdf
I'll check on those numbers again, but they weren't the cause of the dismissal of the trial. Trust me, if there'd been a problem with the numbers that $! million plus defense would have gotten a not guilty verdict.
ReplyDeleteNow, this link to the Houston Press, while very tangentially related to the trial (an example of a prosecutor suppressing evidence that would have gotten the defendants off) it is a compelling story that changes how history will evaluate Leon Jaworsky.
Stevens has a hot temper, Brenda Morris(DOJ) bated him, made him to look angry.
ReplyDeleteJuries don't take kindly to displays of anger.(seems to be part of the behavioral science of juries, and trail decisions)
Stevens made a retort at the trial(from testimony): He "does not play number games".
The alleged cause of the dismissal(post jury verdict, April 2009) was some April 15, 2008 attorney(DOJ) notes, where Allen was interviewed by DOJ attorneys, and Allen said the fair value of the imporvements was "80,000".
Apparently, DOJ(DC) attorneys left it to some
back in Ak, to do redactions, and the defense team had part of the notes.(parts not redacted)
Suggests the notes were redacted when Allen said the fair value of the improvements was
$ 80,000". So defense could not use during trial (in D C) in cross of Allen. But ...Agent ____ knew...
So, why did the VECO job detail put in evidence showing $ 188,000 as to the additions of Stevens place ?
And, of course the checks written by Stevens were 2x $ 80,000, or $ 160,000( 2 checks--dates ???)
The solid evidence on the real value of the improvements was crucial !
VECO was not even the major builder.
Allen it turns out had a lot to lose.
HE had a deferred sentencing agreement, depending on the Stevens trial, also his attorney Bundy is now part of the investigation into misconduct.( Order of Judge Sullivan)
If the DOJ can't support with evidence of how it got to $ 250,000, then a big cloud hangs over if any really bad faith by the DOJ in cahoots with ALLEN.
What is most curious, some Anchorge mortgage broker poked a giant hole in the DOJ case in August of 2008(shortly after the indictment)
Didn't Agent K and Agent J read the AK papers. etc.. ?
In some parts of the country, house values are @ $ 400 sq ft.(or much higher)
But not Girdwood.
Girdwood is no Aspen, or Sun Valley.
The DOJ should have figured that out, before it started playing number games.
Just a sample, up for sale, 2009.
ReplyDeleteBack in 2001 prices lower.
See:
http://www.trulia.com/AK/Girdwood/
In Aspen a 2 bedroom place near the ski area may cost as much as $ 800,000 or higher.
Yes, it is crazy, Girdwood, is a fantastic buy, lets keep it a secret.
Both of you neglected to mention that Jim Crawford was former Head of the GOP Party, and a big mover in GOP politics in the Reagan and Dole Pres runs. Regardless, he spotted the big weakness in the DOJ case in August of 2008, so big one could drive a FORD pickup through it & had his views published in several Ak papers, including the ADN.
ReplyDelete440 sq ft of the improvements were a garage, and that type of construction costs less than other sections of a house.
It was on the DOJ, it had the burden of proof in the matters, and somehow it got a D C jury to convict, but that did not last long, and Stevens never spent a second in jail.
He now can make really big bucks, soon as a lobbyist in D. C., and is considered a big hero, and who knows at age 91 may run for the Senate, again.
Anon, I think I see why you are so focused on the money now. My understanding of the problem with the Allen testimony - and I was traveling or just back when this was happening so I'm not completely on top of this - was that Allen said that Persons said that Stevens just needed a bill but that he didn't intend to pay it. But at the April 15 meeting, Allen says he doesn't remember what Persons said. It is the fact that originally Allen didn't remember and then later remembered that was the problem. Well, actually the legal problem was that the prosecutors didn't tell the defense that Allen didn't remember in the earlier meeting. At least that was my understanding. You seem to think the problem was over the changing of the amount of money. I'll check into that.
ReplyDeleteWhen you write, in the previous comment, 'both of you' exactly who are you referring to?
I'm reminded that your headings mark the subject matter of your posts. Like all good supporters of open discussion, I can respect your decision to continue the discussion on Ted.
ReplyDeleteI guess it just doesn't matter that much to me anymore living in GB (and for that, we are grateful). The content has been much more rational today. My thanks on that, to all.
if the value of the improvements was
ReplyDelete$ 80,000, and Stevens had paid $ 160,000
then why another bill, and why and false
memory on that ?
why didn't the DOJ ask then on the
VECO job cost detail showing $ 188,000,
seems DOJ allowed the conflict to exist, then
it later blew up in DOJ's face.
Anderson was the VECO worker, whose labor
ReplyDeletewas assigned to the Girdwood house, when he
was acutal in Oregon, thus this makes
the VECO job cost detail fishy,
and that was presented to the jury, while the
DOJ covered up Allen telling the
DOJ earlier that the fair value of
the additions was $ 80,000,
more than $ 100,000 less than the
VECO job cost detail, used to dupe
the jury to get a conviction on
a frame job.
Back in 2008, a lot of people thought the DOJ indictment of Stevens was a joke, never going after the big stuff, and would be a mere pass for the King Fish of flushing cash around.
ReplyDeleteShannyn Moore sums it up best(April 2009), she was there she says(at Stevens place in Girdwood) the day it was raided:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/the-lieonization-of-alask_b_182578.html
It just don't matter( says, Jay UK).
ReplyDeleteFigures, from afar in England, it just don't matter.
BP, a British company, sucks so much money out of America on federal lands, it matters to a lot of people in America.
Do some people's apathy on civics in America mean much. No.
People have the perogative to be totally apathetic, have no civic responsibility, and those that do, lets hope they more off shore or to England, or to the South Pole.
Anon, I made the assumption that your comments about people's apathy were general comments and not specifically aimed at a previous commenter. Since I don't think you know the specific commenter, you really have no basis for evaluating whether he is apathetic or takes an active role in improving his community. Thus it would be hard to make comments about him specifically. Thus my assumption. If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll delete the comment.
ReplyDeleteHis own words, were it "doesn't matter" in the context of the Stevens situation.
ReplyDeleteNo need to delete your comment, you don't have to agree with me, but I took him at his own words, there was a context in which he posted.
The specific commentator(JAY UK) doesn't know others either, but again, it was his own words, like he is in England(UK), and the situation in America Stevens etc "don't matter"(or doesn't matter").
Well, do trilions of dollars of red ink "matter", does justice in the USA society matter, or not matter, to who, etc.
His community is not America, he posted from UK, the nexis to his "doesn't matter"
So, he says from (in) UK it "don't matter" as to Americans etc, his words.
Well, if you want to defend his it "don't matter"(doesn't matter), fine, or take exception hey, your perspective, you don't know any of the annons, their background, etc etc, etc.
That was the phrase Cheney used "deficits don't matter".
If one starts from that premise, it can lead to a lot of non- caring, and not caring can lead to other problems, and it just compounds itself. Good levees in New Orleans did not matter-- to some---until a major city turned into a Lake, and wrecked havoc in many people's lives.
Now, I think you might care.
Some don't find the Stevens non-conviction the total all, as for example that woman blogger in Homer, her comments on fisheries, that is painting AK blue one strip at a time.
There is a divison in AK... Ted the old crusty grumpy guy who is 85, and the new generation.
Now, I was wondering on Ted's great skills at getting money for Ak.(THE GREAT appropriator"
Because of the small population in Ak, if one divided those appropriatiosn by the small Ak population it would appear large, if divided by the size of Ak land, it would look different.
I just took the commentators own words, it "doesn't matter".
If it don't matter to him, that is his cup of tea, nobody can force anybody to care or for stuff to matter to them---in the United States of America. he is far from Ak--it don't matter to him, apparently, his own words.
A couple of thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. Jay at UK spoke for himself when he said "I guess it just doesn't matter that much to me anymore living in GB." He doesn't have to know the others because he didn't say anything about them, he didn't demand others agree with him, he didn't even suggest I stop the discussion. He just talked about his feelings.
2. Just because Jay is tired of talking about Ted, doesn't mean he isn't active in other causes that are more pressing to him living in UK. He may well be quite active on issues that he's more interested in. Not everyone has interests in the same things that I'm interested in or you're interested in.
I agree that there are a lot of people uninvolved in politics. But all you know about Jay in UK is that he is no longer very interested in keeping a close eye on Stevens. Which does not translate into being apathetic; he's just tired of this particular issue. And that's all we know from the record he's left here.