The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing

The Alaska House Judicial and State Affairs Committees held a joint meeting today to discuss the removal of US Senate candidate Daniel J. Sullivan from the primary ballot.  

The proceedings were polite, even cordial, though the Democrats and Republicans had very strong opposing views of what has happened.  I think the easiest way for the reader, is for me to break this down into several big questions:

1. Was it legal for the Division of Elections to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot?
2. What's in it for the Democrats?
3. What's in it for the Republicans?
4. If Daniel J. were on the ballot, would it hurt Daniel S?
5. Are there bigger implications?

Let's look at these one at a time.  

1.  Was it legal for the Division of Elections to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot?

I think the answer is pretty clear:  No it was not legal to remove him from the ballot.

The Democrats and the three witnesses all repeatedly pointed out that there are only three qualifications to be  a  US Senate candidate.  They are listed in the US Constitution.  

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

Basically 

1. at least 30 years old
2. a US citizen for at least nine years
3. an inhabitant of the state when elected

That's it.  Nothing else matters because the US Constitution trumps all other laws or regulations.  NOTE: this applies to US Senate and US House races, not to state offices.

The Republicans made the case that Daniel J. Sullivan was not a serious candidate, that his intent was to mislead and confuse the voters.  They implied, but I didn't hear them say directly, that this was an attempt to steal votes from US Senator Dan Sullivan.  

They cited the state administrative code AAC 25.212 - Appearance of candidate's name on the ballot

Specifically they cited the part of the code that says:

(b) A candidate's name may not appear on a ballot . . . (2) in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.

Thus, they argue,  the Division Director had no choice but to remove his name, because it was confusing and misleading.  

All three witnesses and the Democratic members pointed out that thte Administrative Code did not supersede the US Constitution.  

They pointed out cases where other candidates were not removed from ballot.  They particularly focused on Eric Hafner, who ran for US House in Alaska in 2024, even though he had never been in Alaska, and was serving a 20 year sentence in a New York prison.  

The Democrats challenged his name being on the ballot (he was listed as a Democrat).  They argued that he was not and would not be an Alaskan inhabitant when elected.  The Supreme Court ruled that there was a possibility he would be paroled if he won and he was left on the ballot.  

Intent was not an issue, but rather whether he met the Constitutioal requirements.  In that case, the Republicans wanted him on the ballot in hopes that he would syphon off votes from the Democratic US Rep. Mary Peltola.  

2.  What's in it for the Democrats?

The Democrats argued that it was against the law to remove him.  Is there a chance having a second Republican Dan Sullivan on the ballot would help the Democratic candidate?  One would like to think they are doing this because they believe in the rule of law, and believe the law is being thwarted.  But there is also the possibility that if Daniel J. is on the ballot, he could pull votes away from Daniel S.   Let me address that in Question 4.  

3.  What's in it for the Republicans?

I heard frustration and anger from Republicans on the committee that a candidate that they did not vet or approve of  got on the ballot with a Republican label.  It was deceptive.  It was intended to confuse the voters.  It was particularly sneaky because his name was so similar to their front runner candidate.  

Republican Rep. McCabe, I believe, took the opportunity at the hearing to point out that this confusion wouldn't have happened when we had closed primaries and the parties could designate who could use the party's label.  Since, Republicans have gotten a referendum on the November ballot to repeal the Ranked Choice Voting, Open Primaries, and campaign funding limits that were originally established by referendum,  I'm guessing they'll use this case as a reason to vote for the current proposition to end all three (RCV, open primaries, and campaign financing limits and disclosure).

Given that the head of their party, President Trump is the greatest liar, dirty trickster, election denier in US history, one has to take their anger and righteousness with a grain of salt.  They support President Trump's every lie and nasty attack on Democrats, women, immigrants, LGBTQ+, journalists.  While I might accept that they believe that the Administrative Code was a legitimate basis for kicking Daniel J. off the ballot, the law is pretty clear.  

Again, looking at the actions of Trump administration, I can't take too seriously that the Republicans are supporters of the rule of law.  It seems more like they are supporters of rule of winning.  And it appears, at this point, they probably will win.  They claim that the ballots will be printed on June 28.  That's about five days away.  I haven't heard about any attorneys about to file a lawsuit to restore Daniel J.'s name to the ballot. *** Anything is possible, but it looks like a win for the Republicans.  (The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) made a complaint about Daniel J.'s candidacy and the Alaska Republican Party made two more complaints  to the Division of Elections, which is under the purview of Republican Lt. Governor Dahlstrom and Republican Director of the Division of Elections Beecher.

***I wrote this post last night and this morning I learned from  Alaska Public Media's Wesley Early that there is indeed a lawsuit that has been filed in Superior Court.  (Links to what they filed) I've only read it quickly, but right off the bat they ask the court, because of the June 28 ballot printing deadline, to either

1. have his name put back on the ballot, or
2. delay printing ballots until this is resolved ***

[And I've learned since, that the hearing will be in Superior Court at 10am Thursday June 25.]

And given the Trump administration's war of Democratic voters - the many moves to redistrict to eliminate Democratic districts, to suppress the Black vote, and otherwise bend the election results through manipulation, I can't help but wonder if this is a test to be used in other states.  Don't like a candidate?  Knock him off the ballot. But time it so there isn't time to appeal before you have to print the ballots.

4.  If Daniel J. were on the ballot, would it hurt Daniel S?

I started this section thinking:  probably not.  That Daniel J. just won't get to the general election.  But read on. I find it hard to believe that Mary Peltola and Dan Sullivan will not be among the four top candidates in the primary election who would move on to the general election in November.  There are 15 candidates on the ballot as of today.  One more has withdrawn and another, Daniel J,. has a denied marked on his name.  

There's one main Democrat and one main Republican - Peltola and Sen. Sullivan.  The only other name that I recognize is Libertarian Party candidate Scott Kohlhaas.  No, there are two more I recognize - perennial candidate for office Dustin Darden and Carol Hafner, the mother of Eric Hafner, the New York prisoner running, again, for the US House seat.  Yes, his mother is running for the Alaska US Senate seat though she has never been to Alaska and lives in South Dakota.  

In the 2024 US House primary race there were three 'known' candidates:  Mary Peltola, Nick Begich, and Nancy Dahlstrom.  Those three captured 97% of the vote.  In the Alaska open primary, the top four candidates go on to the general election.  The fourth candidate got 0.6% of the votes.  The fifth place candidate was also at 0.6%.  The sixth place candidate, the guy in the New York prison, got 0.4% of the votes.  The third place candidate, Nancy Dahlstrom - now the Lt. Governor and overseer of the elections in 2026 - dropped out.  Purportedly so as to not split the Republican vote in the general.  Though because of ranked choice voting, that shouldn't have been an issue.  So maybe there was another reason.  Then the fourth place candidate dropped out.  So the fifth and sixth place candidates moved onto the general ballot.  

So would Daniel J. on the ballot hurt Daniel S. if he were on the ballot?  The GOP members of the committee were right that there would be confusion.  But as one of the witnesses who testified today, Hollis French, argued - it was up to the Division of Elections to find a way to make distinctions between the two candidates so voters could know which one was the 'real' Daniel Sullivan.  And the 'real' Dan Sullivan's campaign would have to find effective ways to help voters know which Daniel Sullivan was their current US Senator.  

We all recall how Lisa Murkowski, after losing the Republican primary, went on to conduct a successful write-in campaign, which required voters to spell her name right..  Not an easy task.  But she pulled it off.  

At this point, I''d guess that Peltola, Sen. Sullivan, and Kohlhaas would be the top three, scooping up most of the votes.  As I look at the 2024 House race, the others won't get many votes.  Though I suspect Dustin Darden has run often enough that people will vote for him because they recognize his name.  And Daniel J. probably has a good chance to get votes too, for the very reasons the Sen. Sullivan campaign and the Republican Party of Alaska and the National Party want him off the ticket.  It would be between him and Darden for fourth place.  

Given that early polls show Peltola ahead of Sen. Sullivan, having Daniel J. on the November ballot would be a threat to Sen. Sullivan's reelection.  If Daniel J. made it to the general election, and there he pulled 5% of the vote from the Senator, it could easily be enough to give Peltola the victory.  Some might say that Peltola's ahead now, so she'd win either way.  I think that's counting your chicks before the eggs are laid.  

None of this was said out loud at the hearing - at least not where the mics caught it.  

5.  Are there bigger implications?

A.  Precedent to knock candidates off the ballot in Alaska

If this succeeds, and it appears to have an excellent chance [now that the lawsuit has reached the court, I find it likely not to succeed], it would empower the Division of Elections to remove candidates from the ballot they don't like.  As long as they time it so the candidate doesn't have time to get a court ruling before the deadline for printing the ballots, they could get away with it.  

We know the National Republican Party is looking carefully at this race.  It's one that has been labeled as flippable.  We don't know how much communication there has been between the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Party.  Or with the Dunleavy administration and the Trump administration.  We do know the governor was in the White House recently and didn't protest when the President insulted Lisa Murkowski.  There are short rumors about Dunleavy running against Murkowski in 2028 on websites such as this one..  

I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but we should assume that something is happening until we find out for sure.  

Meanwhile, I found one US attempt to get opponents off the ballot.  And we know that Trump admires authoritarian governments, the type that keeps opponents off the ballot.  

How the Head of a Super PAC Tried — and Failed — to Remove Every Opponent From the 

Surprising but True: 5 Countries Where Political Opposition Is Banned

Twenty years of ruthlessness: how Russia has silenced Putin’s opponents

B.  This could be a trial run for the Trump administration to get states to just knock candidates he doesn't like off the ballot.

C.  Candidates running against each other with similar names isn't that unusual.

First, it's not that unusual for competing candidates to have similar names.  

"In 215 contests across 15 states, 438 candidates running for office this year share the same last name. Every single one of these contests is for a local election. Of these contests, all but one are nonpartisan elections. One contest, District 20 of the New York City Council, was a partisan contest where Allen Wang (Conservative Party) and Steven Wang (Patriot Party) shared a last name." (From Ballotpedia)

And in Washington State, we have a story of a Republican recruiting two Bob Fergusons to run against the Democratic candidate for Governor, Bob Ferguson.  But this was a state office, not a federal office, and the state had rules against candidates running to intentionally confuse voters. 

I think this captures the most important ideas that came out of the hearing - spoken, unspoken, and beyond.  The next focus will be on the Superior Court.  

Below is a link to the video of the meeting.  I think my approach here is more useful to readers than trying to outline what all happened in the meeting.  You can watch/listen to the meeting below.

 

And while I was trying to finish this up, I found a Wesley Early Alaska Public Media  article "Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan sues Alaska Division of Elections after being removed from U.S. Senate ballot"  Other than the first sentence which says he filed suit, the article gives no more details on when or where he filed suit.  It is a brief synopsis of today's hearing and I found nothing about Daniel G. suing other than the headline.  

The hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning in Superior Court.  There will be a zoom link.  I'll get the time and courtroom and zoom number tomorrow I hope.  

Related posts:

June 22, 2026 Senator Dan Sullivan Does Not Want To Run Against Dan Sullivan [UPDATE] 

June 23, 2026 The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing  (You are now reading this one)

June 25, 2026  Daniel J. Appeal Of Division Of Elections Decision Plays Out In Nearly Empty Court Room

June 26, 2026 It's Almost 7pm -I Can't Find The Sullivan Decision - [Update - His Name Goes Back On The Ballot]  

June 28, 2026

Supreme Court Hearing On Daniel J. Sullivan v Alaska Division of Elections Appeal On Zoom Only

Monday, June 29, 2026   Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

Monday, June 29, 2026   Supreme Court Keeps Daniel J. Sullivan On The Ballot 

Tuesday, June 30, 2026  Division of Election's Sample Ballot Leaves Off Daniel J's Party Affiliation

Jury Duty Week

 I was assigned the number 150.  

Last Friday after I 5pm and the called up numbers 1-75

Monday evening no additional jurors were needed.

Tuesday evening no additional jurors were needed.

Wednesday evening no additional jurors were needed.

Thursday evening no additional jurors were needed.

So Alaska State court in Anchorage this week only needed 75 jurors.  I remember in the past when a couple of hundred people (or so it seemed) gathered in the large jury room awaiting someone calling them to serve.  

Either there are a to fewer cases now, or at least this week, or they got smarter and just called the number they thought they'd need for Monday and let the rest of us stay home.  And that first 75 was all they needed.  That saves money for the court system (for one, they pay parking for jurors who bring their parking tickets from one particular lot.)  And with way fewer people to track at court, they can use the court personnel for other purposes.  

Being on a jury is an interesting experience and defendants deserve thoughtful attentive jurors.  But if I wasn't going to be in a courtroom, it's better to be told the night before not to come in at all.  

The Trump Indictment - An Outline And Brief Thoughts

I've read the indictment and these are some of my own notes so I could keep track.  My notes are an abbreviated version that might be quicker for people who haven't read the Indictments.  They're below.  But first I'll make some comments based on what I've read.

Image from Reuters via BBC

1.  There's a co-conspirator also indicted - Waltine Nauta.  Nauta is from Guam and was in the Navy and assigned to Trump in the White House as his valet.  He followed Trump to Mar-a-Lago post presidency.  It's clear that Nauta followed Trump's orders closely, but I'd like to know more about him.  Given the job of a 'valet' and looking at this picture, I'd, for now, give him a break.  He was clearly caught between his loyalty to his boss - and a valet has a particularly close relationship with his boss - and responding to the FBI and others truthfully. Seems it's akin to a spousal level of confidentiality.  (Or maybe I've watched too many British tv shows with butlers and valets.)   It seems there are a lot more folks who went along with Trump (and even serve in Congress still) who are far more guilty than Rauta.  But as I say.  Maybe he's more savvy than I'm giving him credit for, which is why it would be good to learn more bout him.  

2.  The indictments are very specific and there is lots of evidence showing

• Trump knew the law 
• He broke the law
• He tried to cover it up

He had lots of top secret documents related to national security, to intelligence about other countries' military readiness that he kept in boxes, some in spaces at Mar-a-Lago that members could have gotten into if they poked around a bit.  There are even a couple of cases where Trump shared these documents with others who weren't authorized to see them, and he said that as he showed them.  I can't help wondering what purpose Trump could have to keep all those top secret documents regarding US and other nations' military security, other than to sell or gain other favors.  This is not like a 19 year old stealing street signs to put up in their dorm room.  

But there is nothing hinting of sharing or selling documents with foreign nationals or others who would get them to foreign nationals.  

3.  I'm assuming that if they have such evidence, they are saving it for a different trial.  And that such evidence would be hard to come by.  This case looks like it's intended to be foolproof.  Here's the law, here's how he broke it, here's the evidence.  Only a juror who wanted to sabotage the trial could dispute the evidence that a crime had been committed.  

I have more thoughts on other issues surrounding the indictment, but I'll leave those for now.

Here's my outline so you don't have to read the original, unless you want even more details.

[I'll check for typos and make corrections later.]

INDICTMENTS

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Introduction

This section talks about background - 

1. Trump was president, 
2. As president he gathered notes and documents
3. The kind of info in the classified documents stored in boxes - defense and weapons capabilities of the US and foreign countries;  US nuclear programs, potential vulnerabilities of the US and allies; plans for possible retaliation to a foreign attack.  Unauthorized disclosure would put US at risk
4. Jan. 20 he left White House, ceased to be president, transported boxes to Mar-a-Lago
5. Describes Mar-a-Lago, the events and numbers of people there.  Unauthorized location.
6. Trump twice showed secret documents to people without security clearance 
7. March 30, 2022 FBI opened criminal investigation
8. Lists times Trump withheld documents, subpoenas, and the search of Mar-a-Lago

[Given the limitations of Blogspot lists, I'm going to break the numbering here to at least include main headings.]

TRUMP's Co-Conspirator

9.  Defendant NAUTA - was member of Navy, stationed as valet in White House, worked closely and traveled with TRUMP

The Mar-a-Lago Club

10.  Location, TRUMP's residence. more than 25 guest rooms, two ballrooms, spa, gift store, exercise facilities, office space, and outdoor pool and patio.  As of Jan 2021 had hundreds of members, staffed by more than 150 full, part-time, and temp employees.  

11.  From Jan 2021 to Aug 2022 hosed more than 150 social events and drew tens of thousands of guests

12.  US Secret Service provided protection services to TRUMP and family at Mar-a-Lago, but was not responsible for protecting the boxes or their contents.  He did not inform of them of contents.

Classified Information

13.  Description of National Security and 3 levels of classification - Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential

14.  NOFORN = "Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals"

15.  Classified info related to intelligence sources, etc. was designated Sensitive Compartmented Info (SCI)

16.  Another classification was Special Access Programs (SAPs) to further protect classified documents.

17.  Only authorized people eligible for access to classified info. After presidency TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents.

18.  Executive Order 13526 provided former president could get waiver if approved.  TRUMP didn't get a waiver.

The Executive Brand Departments and Agencies Whose

Classified Documents TRUMP Retained After His Presidency

17 - 21  List agencies Trump got briefings from as president.  21 lists agencies he retained documents from after he left office:  CIA, DoD, NSA, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Department of Energy, Department of State and Bureau of Intelligence and Research

TRUMP's Public Statements on Classified Information

22.  5 Public Statements TRUMP made as candidate for president about classified info

23.  A statement he made as president on classified information

TRUMP's Retention of Classified Documents After His Presidency

24-26  Describe TRUMP taking documents from White House and storing them at Mar-a-Lago with pictures.  Nauta is mentioned as doing much of this work

27-32  Texts, descriptions, photos regarding moving of boxes around Mar-a-Lago showing Trump directly involved, including NAUTA reporting finding a box knocked over and documents marked secret and 'TRUMP caused' boxes to be moved to Bedminster Club, also not authorized for classified documents.

33-34.  July 21, 2021 Trump, no longer president showed reporter and publisher classified documents during interview (reporter was recording the interview)

35.  August or September 2021 met with representative of his PAC at Bedminster Club and shared document on ongoing military operation in Country B

36.  Feb 16, 2017 Trump press conference statement about the media printing classified info "But more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves.  Really ashamed."

TRUMP's Production of 15 CardboardBoxes to the

National Archives and Records Administration

37.  Beginning May 2021 NARA repeatedly demanded documents 

38-45  Descriptions, including text messages and photos between Nauta, Employees 1 and 2, and Trump regarding storage and moving of boxes containing classified documents are Mar-a-Lago.  Includes moving boxes to Trump's office so he can go through them.

46.  January 17, 2022 "Employee 2 and NAUTA gathered 15 boxes [there were still lots more boxes] from TRUMP's residence, loaded the boxes in NAUTA's car, and took them to a commercial truck for delivery to NARA."

47.  NAUTA'S May 2022 FBI interview he made "false and misleading statements" regarding his knowledge of how many boxes, where they came from, how they'd gotten into Trump's residence etc.

48.  In the 15 boxes provided to NARA, NARA determine 14 boxes contained classified documents. FBI later determined boxes had 197 documents with classification markings, of which 98 were marked "SECRET," 30 were marked "TOP SECRET,"  and the rest "CONFIDENTIAL."

49.  Feb 9, 2022, NARA referred discovery of classified documents in TRUMP's boxes to Dept of Justice.

The FBI and Grand Jury Investigation 

50.  March 30, 2022 FBI opened criminal investigation

51.  April 26, 2022 federal grand jury opened an investigation

The Defendants' Concealment of Boxes

52.  May 11, 2022 grand jury subpoena to Office of Donald J. Trump requiring of production of all documents with classification markings in possession, custody, or control of TRUMP.  Trump Attorneys 1 and 2 inform TRUMP of Subpoena and he authorizes Attorney 1 to accept service.

53.  May 22, 2022 NAUTA spent 34 minutes in Storage Room and carried out one box

54   May 23, Attorneys 1 and 2 meet with TRUMP to say they needed to search for documents responsive to subpoena and provide certification of compliance.  Trump tells Attorney 2

• "I don't want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don't, I don't want you looking through my boxes"
• "Well what if we, what happens if we just don't respond at all or don't play ball with them?"
• "Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?"
• "Well look isn't it better if there are no documents?"

55. TRUMP tells Attorneys 1 and 2 story about Clinton's (doesn't mention her name) attorney who did a great job and deleted 30,000 emails, so she didn't get into trouble.

56-58 - TRUMP arranged for Attorney 1 to search for documents on June 1 without Attorney 2.  Trump postponed departure to be there too.  Then TRUMP had NAUTA about 64 boxes from Storage Room to residence

59. June 1 TRUMP confirms June 2 date to search boxes to certify May 11 subpoena had been complied with fully

60-61 June 2, day Attorney 1 to review boxes, TRUMP has NAUTA and another employee move 30 boxes from residence to storage room

62.  So 64 boxes had been moved from Storage Room but only 30 returned.  Attorney 1 not informed.

The False Certification to the FBI and the Grand Jury

63  June 2 TRUMP met with Attorney 1 before review  NAUTA takes Attorney 1 to Storage Room

64.  Attorney 1 2.5 hours reviewing boxes.  Fnds 38 documents with classification makings, removes them, puts them in Redweld folder and seals with clear duct tape.

65.  After TRUMP meets with Attorney 1 and asks if he found anything, Is it bad?  Good?

66.  Trump suggests Attorney 1 take the folder back to his hotel room and put them in safe.  Asks him (in gestures) to pluck out anything really bad.  

67.  Attorney 1 notifies DoJ and asks FBI agent to meet him at Mar-a-Lago to pick up documents responsive to May 22 Subpoena.

68.  TRUMP tells Attorney 1 to have Attorney 3 act as custodian of records and sign certification, even though Attorney 3 had no role in review of documents

69-70  Next day Attorney 3 falsely certifies documents

71  Trump joined Attorneys 1 and 3 to turn over folder to FBI and said he was an open book

72  Earlier that day NAUTA and others loaded several boxes on plane that flew TRUMP north for summer

The Court-Authorized Search of The Mar-a-Lago Club

73.  July 2022, FBI and grand jury obtained and reviewed surveillance video from Mar-A-Lago showing movement of boxes set forth above.

74.  August 8, 2022  FBI executed court-authorized search warrant at Mar-a-Lago to search for and seize all documents with classification markings.

75.  During search, FBI seized 102 documents with classification markings in TRUMP's office and Storage Room.    Office - 27 docs, 6 top secret, 18 secret, 3 confidential  Storage Room- 75 docs, 11 top secret, 36 secret, 28 confidential

COUNTS 1-31

WILLFUL RETENTION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE INFORMATION

76-77 Counts 1-31 lists  31 Top Secret documents in Trump's possession and which he had his valet move back and forth to hide from his attorneys and from the FBI and other agencies.  The documents had descriptions like:

• "Document dated March 2020 concerning military operations against United States forces and others"
• "Document dated December 2019 concerning foreign country support of terrorist acts against United States interests"
• "Document dated October 21, 2018, concerning communications with a leader of a foreign country"

Count 32:  Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice

This count includes:

• a.  Suggesting that Trump Attorney 1 falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that TRUMP did not have documents called for by the May 11, Subpoena
• b.  moving boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump Attorney 1, the FBI, and the grand jury;
• c.  suggesting that Trump Attorney 1 hide or destroy documents called for by the May 11 Subpoena;
• d.  providing to the FBI and grand jury just some of the documents called for by the May 11 Subpoena while TRUMP claimed he was cooperating fully;
• e.  causing a false certification to be submitted to the FBI and grand jury representing that all documents with classification markings had been produced, when in fact they had not; and 
• f.  making false and misleading statements to the FBI

Count 33:  Withholding a Document or Record  (more concerning hiding documents)

Count 34:  Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record (Trump had Nauta move boxes around so the attorney's didn't see them.

Count 35:  Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation

Count 36:  Scheme to Conceal

Count 37:  False Statements and Representations - Trump and Nauta (by moving boxes) caused Attorney 3 to make false statements to the Grand Jury

Count 38:  False Statements and Representations - Nauta lied to FBI during interview

This LA Times Story Tells us Prisons Are A Criminal Justice Joke

[The point here is the excerpt below from an LA Times story.  But I ended up putting a lot of context before the excerpt.  You an skip down to the quote if you think you know all the introductory thoughts already.  And, of course, you don't need my permission to do that, or whatever you want.]

I've watched enough prison movies and read enough books and articles to know that the US prison system doesn't work very well*.  First of all we top the world in prisoners per 100,000 population:

The countries on this list are not among the most enlightened and prosperous.  But we're on top.  By a lot.  

Our justice system massively discriminates against people of color.

"Nationwide, Black people are locked up in state prison at a rate of 1,240 per 100,000 residents, as compared with 261 whites. That’s 4.8 times greater incarceration of Black than white people, based on 2019 data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. On average, one of every 81 Black Americans is in a state prison.

In California, it’s worse. One of 62 Black Californians is in state prison."

The editorial goes on to counter the traditional response that it's because people of color commit more crimes, but rather it's discrimination throughout the justice system.

When people make lascivious remarks about what evil things might happen to a young defendant when he reaches prison, do you smile or do think that something is wrong with prisons? If you smile or if you're the one who makes the joke, you're part of the problem.  

What about people who are wrongly convicted?  The Innocence Projects around the US have gotten 399 prisoners exonerated.  Those are just the people who were able to get enough evidence to prove their innocence, even though it's guilt that is supposed to be proven in court. 

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery, EXCEPT for prisoners.

"Thirteenth Amendment

Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

  Prisons and companies who get prisoners to work for them take advantage of this exception.  

So all that was preface to this excerpt from an  LA Times story that appeared last week about the Mexican Mafia (their term) that has operated in San Bernardino for decades (again, according to the story). 

This excerpt truly tells us of how truly corrupt and failing these prisons are.  (Yes, I know they depict this in tv shows and movies regularly, but still it's shocking.)

Moreno was Rodriguez’s “secretary” — a role once typically filled by women who were not in prison, who used visits and letters to pass messages from Mexican Mafia members to their underlings. But the proliferation of contraband cell phones in the state prison system has proved a “game changer,” testified Lt. Eddie Flores of the San Bernardino Police Department. Prisoners can now communicate directly with one another to arrange drug deals, order assaults and organize collection rackets, Flores testified.

Phones are smuggled in by correctional officers and “free staff” — plumbers, electricians, food preparers, Goo Goo testified. “I’ve seen nurses bring ‘em in, I’ve seen ‘em flown in on drones.”

A phone costs about $1,200 in prison, he said. “You kind of learn how these things work, the economics. If you’re bringing in too many cell phones, flooding the yard, the price drops.”

Goo Goo described his daily routine as Rodriguez’s man on the street: “I’d get up in the morning — it’s like going to work, having a job,” he told the jury. First he would call someone in the prison system, usually Moreno.

From his cell at the state prison in Calipatria, where he was serving 10 years for possessing an assault rifle, Moreno would tell Goo Goo what needed to be handled that day. “Patch this up here, that there,” he recalled. Deliver drugs. Pick up money.

That's from LA Times,  but if you can't get in, it's also on Wildlandfire News.

*Whether the prison system 'works well' or not, of course, depends on whose objectives you measure it by.  The official objectives to get dangerous criminals off the streets so they can't keep committing crimes, to mete out justices, to rehabilitate offenders, or the objectives of other players like the prisoners who are well connected, the owners of the private prisons, or the various people who work in the prison who can double and triple their salaries by smuggling in contraband.  

OLÉ - The Innocence Project: "50 To 150 People In Alaska Prisons Are Innocent"

It's sort of like I ordered way more off the menu than I'm going to be able to eat.  Yesterday was the Pecha Kucha (pronounce in the four syllables you see) class and today began with the Innocence Project and the Pebble Mine.  And I seem to be coming down with a cold.  

But let me get a little up here since I didn't post yesterday.  Let's get some of the Innocence Project up.  This is the work of saints - helping people wrongly convicted to get out of prison.  The speakers were Mark Johnson, (sitting) the head of the board for the IP, and Bill Oberly the employee who does most of the work.  I took the picture after the presentation when they were answering individual questions.  

Every time I read about a prisoner getting out of prison after 10, 15, 30 years because of evidence that clearly exonerates them, or a confession by another of the crime, it breaks my heart thinking of someone taken from the family and thrown into a cell.  For example from The National Registry of Exonerations.

Many prisons are inhumane for guilty prisoners.  Imagine if you didn't do the crime.  

If imagining that is hard to do, watch Netflix's When They See Us*  about five teenagers who were imprisoned for a rape they didn't commit because of a prosecutor who coerced confessions and ignored evidence that didn't fit her story.   This is the story of the kids convicted of the Central Park jogger rape.  I confess, that I didn't want to watch it, but saw it was getting awards and so we decided to try the first episode.  It's mostly painful, but the actual rapists eventually confesses (after meeting one of the five in prison) and they do get out.  There's an extra episode which is an Oprah show of sorts (she was the producer I think) where all the actors who played the boys and their older selves are interviewed.  And then the original real prisoners are interviewed as well.  

*This is not a great link here, but when I link to Netflix, to goes to my subscription which won't work for others.  It may go to the right place for other Netflix subscribers, I don't know.  And reviews at Washington Post and New York Times have paywalls.  You might also want to check Wikipedia.  

It's pretty powerful, and one line from the film's director really caught my attention.  She challenged people who talk about the system being broken.  It's not broken, she said, it was designed that way.  And when it comes to people of color and poor folks that seems to be accurate.  

So that was my most recent connection to this sort of injustice and was good background for understanding the enormity of the wrongs that the Innocence Project tries to right.  

A little bit from today's class from my notes.  

Innocence Project's MISSION

1. Identify , investigate, and exonerate individuals who have been wrongly convicted in the State of Alaska
2.  Education - doing that today (at OLÉ).  Provide ed opportunities for advocates and for the public that foster a culture that champions the defense of the innocent.  
3. Implement policies, practices, and reforms  that will prevent wrongful convictions and hasten the identification and release of innocent persons.

Number 1 is the main priority.  

History

The Alaska IP is part of a national Innocence Network   All independent, but share experiences, best practices.  There originally was just one, but it became clear quickly that they couldn't cover the whole country.  A Northwest PI was started, but they couldn't even handle all of Washington, let alone the rest of their territory.  Alaska's Project Innocence began in 2006.  

The Project has 6 criteria for accepting cases.

1. Individual is incarcerated
2. Individual has at least two years remaining on sentence.
3. Factually, the client is actually innocent.  (They don't work on technical legal issues for people who aren't innocent.)
4. Evidence is available which may prove actual innocence
5. Individual has exhausted all court actions under the facts of the criminal conviction upon which the individual is incarcerated where the individual has appointed counsel as a matter of right
6. Notwithstanding numbers 1 through 5, the Board of the Alaska Innocence Project may accept any case at its discretion.  (but number 1 - actual innocence - is necessary)

They said that research suggests that 1-3% of people in prison are innocent.  Given Alaska's prison population, that means 50 - 150 people!   

The only people exonerated so far through the Alaska Innocence Project have been the Fairbanks Four, which is a big deal.  There are more potential cases in the pipeline.  

Here's a link to their website.  You can find more there.  We've got three more session on this topic.    

Sorry for such a truncated post, but really need to get to bed.  I have a 9am class on State and Federal Courts tomorrow and a 3pm class on Homelessness.