Kohring Blasts Judge after Being Sentenced to 42 Months

Below are:

1. Brief video of Vic Kohring talking to the press after the hearing was finished.
2. My rough version (typed as he made his statement and full of errors and gaps) of his statement to the court.





[Here's more video from that meeting with the press from Dennis Zaki's blog.

2. Kohring's Statement to the Court (As best as I could catch it as he spoke)

Vic Kohring: Honorable Judge Sedwick, not here to plead for mercy. Instead, to plead my innocence. I was stunned to learn you were married to one of my greatest enemies. You were legally bound to excuse yourself. Furthermore you lived across the street from the government's star witness. I’m so disappointed that the person who holds my fate is married to the person whose job I eliminated.
Then this week’s latest motion you denied. The juror who regretted his decision.

I will admit, I showed poor judgment when I accepted cash for my daughter from someone I thought was my friend who betrayed me. I didn’t live up to my high standards. I never once voted for PPT. My words, How can I help? Were my mantra. Ironic that my words are now being used against me. Intended to be helpful.

The resutling conviction has destroyed me. Cost to me is approaching half a million dollars, all over $1000. But my spirit is not broken. We did all with integrity. Just an honest presentation of the facts. I used to believe in my government. I do not hold it in high regard as I used to. I believe in the principles. I won’t express remorse for something I didn’t do. The truth will only be revealed if heard before jurors without bias. I thank the jurors but want to let them know they didn’t hear all the evidence.

I for one shall not rest until justice prevails. I didn’t anything criminal. I was naive. I assert my innocence. All I ask for is to be treated fairly. All I ask for is a fair trial which I believe would find me innocent.

"Like termites, they undermine the structure of any neighborhood in which they creep."

"If you turn on your television these days, you hear a lot of old white people talking about this 'real America,' some apple-pie, Bedford Falls [Jimmy Stewart's town in It's a Wonderful Life], Walt Disneyfied idea of a simpler country, a 'time of innocence' that we've lost.  They're right.  It's gone.  We destroyed it so we wouldn't have to share it with black people.  We gave up real neighborhoods in real cities so we could pay more to have 'protection' inside the regional profit silos of HomeServices of America.  We gutted Blue Hills, and now you have to go to Orlando to buy it back.  Only that's the big lie at the heart of the J.C. Nichols dream.  Desirable associations aren't something you can buy.  They're something you have to make." [p. 140]

Blue Hills had been one of those ideal middle class American neighborhoods, in Kansas City.  According to author Tanner Colby, Walt Disney grew up there.  It was, like other nearby communities the kind of place

"where families used to pass their evenings on the front porch and the neighbors would stop by to say hello." [p 75]

 But it was destroyed, according to Tanner, by housing developers, like J.C. Nichols.

"But Nichols's most important contribution to the way we live wasn't something he invented himself.  He just perfected it.  And the thing he perfected was the all-white neighborhood, hardwired with restrictive covenants that dictated not only the size and shape of the house but the color of the people who could live inside.  This idea, the racialization of space, would take root deep in the nation's consciousness, for both whites and blacks alike, becoming so entrenched that all the moral might of the civil right crusade was powerless to dislodge it.  In the South, Jim Crow was just the law.  In Kansas City, J.C. Nichols turned it into a product.  Then he packaged it, commodified it, and sold it.  Whiteness was no longer just an inflated social status.  Now it was worth cash money." [p.82]

Tanner, in his book, Some Of My Best Friends Are Black, traces how private housing forces, concerned about expanding black neighborhoods used practices, like blockbusting, to scare whites into selling their houses cheaply to developers, who then resold them to blacks.  They also sold houses to the fleeing whites in suburban housing developments that had covenants that included phrases like:

"None of said land may be conveyed to, used, owned, or occupied by negores as owners or tenants."[p. 91]

One J.C. Nichols innovation was to move this restriction from individual houses to whole developments.

". . .in 1909, J.C. Nichols broke ground on Sunset Hills and Country Side, the first of his developments laid out on land unencumbered by earlier deed restrictions.  Here, he attached the racial covenant, not to the deed for the lot, but to the plot for the entire subdivision.  Thus it became harder for one person to break."[p. 92]

Colby says Nichols was the celebrated leader in the development field, appointed to the National Capital Park and Planning Commission by President Calvin Coolidge and reappointed by Presidents Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, and Truman.  Hoover, Colby reports, was a dinner guest at Nichols' home. 


Colby then discusses Nichols' friends, a group of prominent developers from around the country who were the 'brain trust' of National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB). 

"Not by coincidence in 1924 NAREB made racial discrimination official policy, updating its code of ethics to say, 'A Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood members of any race or nationality . . . whose presence will clearly be detrimental to the property values of that neighborhood.  Like termites, they undermine the structure of any neighborhood in which they creep."

But government got drawn into the discrimination as well.  Colby tells us that Hoover created the Federal Home Loan Bank in 1932 to stimulate home building using government backed loans.  Roosevelt extended this program and then added the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) and the Federal Housing Authority (FHA).

"J.C. Nichols was so intimately involved with the formation of the FHA that he was called to consult privately with FDR in the Oval Office.  When America's housing policy was drafted, whole chunks were lifted straight out of the Nichols Company handbook, practically word for word."

 He goes on to explain how using the Nichols Company handbook led to official government redlining:

"Through the HOLC (Home Owners' Loan Corporation) the federal government developed a four-tiered classification system for neighborhoods:

• high-end, all-white neighborhoods were given the highest rating;
• white working- and middle-class neighborhoods were given a secondary rating;
• Jewish and ethnically mixed areas were rated third; and the lowest possible rating was given to 
• black neighborhoods

 -regardless of the quality of the housing stock or the income of the inhabitants.  Then HOLC went through every block on every map of every city in America, giving each neighborhood a color-coded designation.  Black neighborhoods were coded red." [p.96]

This was supposedly a way to set up a metric for assigning the proper rate of interest.

". . . but black neighborhoods were not simply assigned higher interest rates. They were not assigned anything.  In a process that became known as redlining, the FHA cordoned off black neighborhoods and designated them wholly ineligible for federal subsidies and mortgages.  This was a policy based on nothing more than the say-so of the men who stood to profit from it." [p.97]

I'd read about the federal creation of redlining in Buzz Bissinger's  Pulitzer Prize winning A Prayer for the City.    So this wasn't new.  But Colby puts it into the context of Kansas City.

Perhaps the most insidious aspect was the perpetual discrimination clauses that are legally impossible to great rid of and continue to exist today. 

The early covenants expired in ten to twenty years, Colby writes.  In 1911, Nichols made them 25 years.   Then in 1913 he made them perpetual:

"He wrote all his property restrictions to be self-renewingevery twenty-five years unless a group of owners controlling the most street-facing footage opted to change those restrictions five years prior to the auto-renewal date.  It was the first use of self-perpetuating racial covenants anywhere in the country . . ."

Essentially, blacks couldn't get into these white suburbs (and the covenants were copied by most developers) and they couldn't get money to buy in black neighborhoods, which became more and more depressed.

If you live in a subdivision, you may actually find the clause.  While they may no longer be enforceable, getting them out of covenants may be difficult because of  Colby's work.  Here's a history of housing discrimination in Seattle.


I was a little skeptical of Colby's book when I picked it up at the library new book shelf.   But despite the lack of an index and a bibliography of the many works he says he consulted, Colby does a very good job of what he sets out to do:  find out why he doesn't have any black friends.  As a student of Birmingham, Alabama's premiere white school, Vestavia High when it had court ordered integration, Colby goes back to his old high school to peel back the layers to find out what had really been going on around him then, and reveal the underbelly of the 1960's civil rights movements, integration, and school busing.

He also has a section on Kansas City - where the quotes above are taken - and two more which I haven't read yet.  One on Madison Avenue and the other on churches.  These investigations were, he tells us in the preface, to understand why he didn't have any black friends.  His answer is that the US was structured in many ways to keep blacks and whites separate, even after Jim Crow laws ended.

Colby does something that is hard to do - he explains in very understandable terms, the power structures, private and public, that continue to enforce racial discrimination.  He finds some successes, but also serious problems, including the unanticipated consequences of forced school integration and housing policies intended to undo redlining.

When talking about race, there is always the problem of what 'racism' means.  Most people use it interchangeably with prejudice, but those who study the issue more closely, distinguish it as institutionally supported discrimination, rather than individual prejudice.

It's the institutionally supported discrimination - like redlining - that Colby does an excellent job of explaining.

But not only does a book like this explain what happened in the past (and have continuing effects), but it also should make people wonder what those people with access to power today are doing to make their lives more comfortable and profitable and at whose expense.  

The Case That HD 5 Was Gerrymandered - Part 1

I'm dividing this into sections so it's easier to find the parts you want or need to read.

Introduction
 
This is the first of two posts on HD 5 in Fairbanks.  The title reflects the implied case that the plaintiffs are making against the Board.  The Plaintiffs argue that HD 5 has compactness problems.  They also want a different pairing of House District 5 to make a better Senate seat - one that would make more likely the election of a second Democratic Senator in the Fairbanks area.  They don't use the word gerrymandering, but, as I mention below, the constitutional standards tend to stand as proxies for the harder to prove gerrymandering.

In Part 1 here, I want to give background.  In Part 2 we'll look at maps and details of HD 5 and the related Senate districts.  Other districts in Matsu and Kenai and rural Alaska are challenged by the plaintiffs, but just looking at this one in close detail will be more than enough to understand what's going on and what's at stake.  And, I hope, help people be able to react to the eventual court decision with facts as well as partisan fervor. 

Purpose of the Post

To make this accessible to people not following this day-to-day.
This isn't that hard to understand, it's just that there are so many details, that keeping it all straight is difficult.  Plus, a lot of stuff is subjective and requires someone who has enough grasp on the facts and the standards to come to an informed conclusion.  For example both sides will talk about compactness and then one side will say moving these people from this district to another will cause a ripple effect.  The other side says, no, they can be put into another district easily.  It takes someone who has watched the map making to have a better sense of which claim is more accurate.

As someone who has been to nearly every Board meeting held in Anchorage and at most of the others via the phone or online, I know that this is complex and that there is more to this than can be presented in the facts.  In this post I'm going to present what the parties have said and also give you my sense of which side is more persuasive.  But I have no special powers and other people who were there a lot might come to different conclusions.

Scope of this Post

I'm focusing on Fairbanks HD 5.  I think I understand this a little better than the other points being challenged - Matsu and Kenai and some rural districts.  Looking at HD 5 will inevitably get us into neighboring districts - mainly 3 and 4 - and into Senate Seats B and C.  I'm hoping, though, that if people get into the details of HD 5, they can get a grasp of the competing standards, and why this is all so difficult to prove one way or the other.  But at least, when the judge's opinion comes down, you'll be able to follow it.  

Background - How We Got Here

1. The Redistricting Board submitted its latest redistricting plan July 14, 2013
2. The Riley plaintiffs - George Riley from Ester and Ron Dearborn from Goldstream, two liberal leaning communities near Fairbanks - challenged the plan.  They also challenged the original plans as well, challenges that ended with the Alaska Supreme Court
1. invalidating the first plan
2. requiring some changes to accept the second plan as an interim plan that was used in the 2012 elections, because there wasn't enough time for a complete new plan, and
3. determining the interim plan was unconstitutional and that the Board needed to make another plan for the 2014 election
3. The Board objected to the plaintiffs challenges
4. More briefs were filed with more details of the complaints.
5. The Board filed briefs to dismiss the complaints
6. The Alaska Democratic Party filed complaints.
7. North Star Fairbanks Borough filed an amicus brief.
8. The judge - Michael McConahy - can make summary judgments on some or all of these motions.  That means he can just decide who is right or wrong and issue an order.  Or he can say he needs more information and allow the two sides to make further arguments in court. My guess is that he may make a few summary judgments and then identify the points he needs to hear more on in court.  That court date is set for Dec. 9 - 16 in Fairbanks. 

You can see all these briefs at the Board's website.  In this post my focus will be on House District 5 to give you a sense of what the court has to decide.  But looking at 5 will mean also looking at the districts around it.  But there's lots there.  Here are the ones I'd start with:

Corrected Copy of Riley Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary*
Doc 296 - ARB's Response Part 1
Doct 296  ARB's Response Part 2
Doc 296  ARB's Response Part 3

*I can't find this one on the Board's list.  It was sent to me and I think it's a consolidation of previous motions.  It's long, but there aren't that many words on each page. 

Background - Redistricting and Gerrymandering

 These two words go together.  Redistricting is about redrawing the lines of the political districts (in Alaska's case since we only have one member of the US House, redistricting is only about the state house and senate).  How one draws the lines can have enormous impact on which party gets more members elected.  Gerrymandering is the term used to describe shaping districts to favor one party over the other.

It takes Wikipedia's entry on Redistricting only 253 words to start talking about gerrymandering.  At All About Redistricting's page What Is Redistricting? gerrymander is the 207th word.   My point is that most people who know anything about redistricting expect the party in power to take advantage of their power.  The only real question is can they make their maps so that they favor their side BUT also stay legal?

Both parties will claim, publicly, their innocence and exclaim the other party's guilt.  "We have done nothing but correct the gross abuse of the other party in the last redistricting."

ProPublica's Redistricting, A Devil's Dictionary identifies several of the typical gerrymandering ploys:

• Cracking: This technique splits a community into multiple districts to ensure it doesn't have significant sway with a candidate. . .
• Packing: When faced with too many unfriendly voters, it can also be a winning strategy to limit the damage by drawing them all into one district. The benefit for you is there are fewer of the voters you don't want in all the surrounding districts. When race is involved, redistricting pros call it bleaching.  . . .
• Hijacking: If there's an incumbent you don't like, you can make their re-election difficult by putting them in a district with another incumbent to contend with. . .
• Kidnapping: Most politicians have geographic political bases; places they came up in politics where they have supporters, political allies, donors and name recognition. But what if their home address ends up in a different district than their base? That can make re-election tough. . .

The ProPublica link gives more explanations and examples with maps.


This is like poker.  People keep as straight a face as they can while they make all sorts of claims.


The current partisan redistricting facts in Alaska are these: 

1.  The Alaska Supreme Court declared the process the Board went through last time to be unconstitutional.  The Board will tell you, and not incorrectly, that the Court found the process, not the product, unconstitutional.  But since the process was unconstitutional, the Court didn't look at each district's constitutionality.

2.  The Board has four Republicans and one Democrat.  The Democrat, Marie Greene, is the CEO of NANA Corporation, an Alaska Native Regional Corporation.  The Board  claims that all their decisions were unanimous and since they had a Democrat, it shows there was no partisanship.  I agree that almost all the decisions have been unanimous.  But my sense was that Marie Greene's main concern was to make sure that Alaska Natives were treated fairly.  She did not raise issues about other Democratic party concerns. 

3. The state Senate,  before redistricting, had a 10-10 split between Democrats and Republicans, with a bi-partisan coalition running the Senate.  After the 2012 election, which used the interim redistricting plan, the Senate had a 13-7 Republican majority.  Two Democratic Senators were redistricted into the same district in Fairbanks. (Note the ploy of Hijacking above.) Alaska's only Black legislator was given a far more conservative district than before (Cracking), and a Republican and Democratic Senator were put in the same district in Southeast Alaska.  There had to be a pairing of two incumbent Senators in SE, because of population decline. It could have been two Democrats, two Republicans, or one of each. 

4.  While the Chair of the Board declared, at the first Board meeting, that he had no instructions from the Governor (who appointed him) and had not even met with the Governor, the Chair of the Republican Party, Randy Ruedrich, was an active observer throughout the whole process.  The Executor Director of the Board had recently worked for Ruedrich as the Republican Victory Director in 2010.  I like the (now former) Executive Director and he was always fair and open with me.  And there is nothing illegal about these arrangements, but the Republican Party was able to share its opinions about the districts more easily than was the Democratic Party.

5.  The Board member who did most of the mapping of Fairbanks, Jim Holm, is a former Fairbanks legislator who was defeated by current Democratic representative Scott Kawasaki.  His original maps of Fairbanks turned out to have what was called by the Democrats "the Kawaski finger."  The house of S. Kawasaki was 'kidnapped' into another district by a small protrusion.  It turns out that the house belonged to Sonia, Scott's sister, but you can't convince the Democrats that it wasn't an attempt to put Scott into a totally different district.  The Board's attorney recently pointed out to me that the Court found, in the previous trial, the arguments of gerrymandering unpersuasive.  And I agree that the evidence presented probably wasn't enough to prove anything.  But being the one who does the maps where you lost your last election smells a bit like conflict of interest to me.

As a blogger, I'm more than conscious that raising these points will likely cause Republicans to declare my obvious bias.  But these are things I observed or heard about and to not mention them would also be bias. If readers are going to get a sense of what was happening I need to include them.  These points, by themselves prove nothing, but they do give the context for judging the outcome.   I also heard Democrats who said they would take the same liberties if they had been in power. 

I should also note that the Board’s rules, drafted by the Board’s attorney, Michael White,  say that gerrymandering is illegal, White has also said on a number of occasions, that no redistricting plan in modern times has been overturned because of political gerrymandering.   

The point is, unless a Board member says explicitly that they have gerrymandered, it’s hard to tell what was going on inside their heads. 

That’s why the process of redistricting is so controversial.  The Courts now use the more objective criteria of compactness, contiguity, etc.  as a proxy for gerrymandering.  They don’t call it gerrymandering, but if a district looks strange enough, it can be ruled not compact and thus unconstitutional.  No need to use the G word. 

So, the assumption by many, if not most, is that the Republicans are going to do their best to take advantage of their  4-1 majority on the Board to nudge the districts here and there to favor Republican candidates. 

And the Board members are going to deny this, because if they acknowledge gerrymandering, they would then have their plan thrown out.  So even if a Board were completely unbiased, there would be suspicion of gerrymandering.


And In The Board's Defense

I would also note that the Board meetings were all very accessible for anyone, like me, who had the time and was in Anchorage.  And most meetings, after the first few months, were accessible online or by phone. Most of the Board members and all of the staff were always willing to answer questions in detail during breaks and after meetings.   The Board had a difficult task before them balancing different criteria to map a huge state with a sparse population.    Strangely large districts are inevitable.  Compared to what's happened in some states, this Board has been transparent and did not get greedy.  I think some of the new districts also reflect the split within the Republican Party between the traditional leadership and the new Tea Party activists.  The court's decision is not going to be a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination.  

The question the Court will have to address is whether the issues that the plaintiffs raise are violations of the Alaska constitution, or whether the anomalies they allege are simply the by-products of balancing many factors to map a huge state with a sparse and scattered population. 

Part 2 will look at the maps and the details of HD 5 and neighboring house and Senate districts to help folks understand what is happening and why.  

[UPDATE Nov. 15, 2013:  Part 2 is now up here.]


 

Kohring Sentencing -Notes as it happened

Below are my notes. I can type pretty fast, but not fast enough. But this should give you a sense of what happened today. There are gaps, but I think I've caught the essence. I'll make comments and point out highlights in the next post. The previous post has video of Kohring talking to the press after the sentencing.






Vic Kohring Sentencing

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska


9:30 AM 3:07-CR-00055-JWS Judge Sedwick ANCHORAGE COURTROOM 3

USA vs. VICTOR H. KOHRING

(Joseph Bottini) (John Henry Browne)

(Edward Sullivan) (Wayne Anthony Ross)

IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE

9:35am Judge Sedwick is explaining why we are here
List of Felonies Vic Kohring convicted of
Pre Sentence Report Prepared which I’ve read
Vic Kohring have you read the presentencing report?
Yes.

Presentencing Report. Vic Kohring has mentioned three objections:

A. Not one of allegations predating 2006 is relevant for sentencing
B. Since related PPT bill, related to only one subject matter, …. Unwarranted
C. Sum total of payments Vic Kohring received was less than $5000 so …..

Sedwick, I will take up these later, but first all other findings of fact I find supported by preponderance of evidence.
I’ll hear from lawyers.
Then others.
Then Kohring
Then Determine sentence.
Then hear argument on his motion to be released pending appeal.

Mr. Browne: [Kohring's defense attorney. Although Wayne Anthony Ross is also listed, he hasn't been actively involved in the courtroom]

John Henry Browne: You have everything we’ve filed, more detailed than presentation. You summarized objections right.
Vic Kohring accepted $1000 and some food, so no basis for upward adjusting under law. Guilty of $10,000-30,000 - he didn’t accept nearly that amount of money - neither the loan or job for his nephew not criminal conduct. Since the jury found not guilty on ??? Not guilty. Not clear exactly what conduct the jury found illegal. According to the newspaper….




Sedwick: I only mentioned newspaper articles because you mentioned them in your appeals.
John Henry Browne: No, in your order about our conflict of interest argument you mentioned the newspaper articles. Unusual to rely on newspaper article - I should point out there are jurors here present today - $1000 got on way home from the pub.

For the court to suggest that there was $5000 or more would be a guess what the jury decided.

Whether there is more than one bribe or not, the Govt.’s case supports our permission - “If you find a series of payments” that is usually considered just one bribe. If you accept my reasoning, his sentencing raise would be 17- 23 months, series 18?

Otherwise level 20 - 33- ? Months

Bottini - [Prosecutor #1]
Pre 2006 , or course relevant, in the indictment, charged, jury convicted on him.
Multiple bribes, we argued this in Anderson and Kott unsuccessfully so we understand reasoning. But this is different. This had nothing to do with ppt. What Allen did was from time to time give Kohring money when he needed it. He remembered giving Vic Kohring $600-700 on several occasions. Doesn’t mean they weren’t a bribe. Giving the money because he felt sorry, but also to grease him. Knowing full well he would have a time to come and ask him for something. Vic Kohring was choking the bill? And he asked him to let it go. He asked him not to run against Lyda Green. Clearly a multiple bribe situation.

Sullivan: [Prosecutor #2] Browne’s arugment that there should be no enhancement, because only took $1000 bribe at Island Pub. Specifically related to $17,000 loan that he was asking for - we charged it as an attempt crime because he didn’t get the amount. Browne says because there was an acquital on Charge 2? - evidence was prsented on other counts, thus there should be a four level enhancement to $29,000.

Sedwick: It seems law clear that court should consider evidence whether it happened. Even the SC says that if preponderance of evidence, the court should consider it even if acquitted. I’ll give Browne a chance to respond. Is it your review I misunderstand the law?

Browne: That’s a tough questions. Your Honor could consider the weather in Anchorage because it is kind of gloomy today.
Sedwick: I won’t.
Browne: We do not believe that the court can find a preponderance of evidence. Mr. Allen never testified. Interesting, government changed the word ‘loan’ to payment. I thought interesting. That’s the language in the superseding indictment - payment - we know there was no payment. Kohring said, over and over again, everything has to be aboveboard. Nothing from Allen that he considered any requests by Vic Kohring to do anything. I believe it would be a stretch…. [sounding much less certain here]

9:50
Sedwick: Having sat through the trial. I come away with a different assessment than Mr. Browne does. He saw this $17,000 as a way to deal with his financial problems. Despite Mr. Browne’s very able arguments, I overrule the objections and adopt all the statements. That means 24, Criminal history category of 1, the lowest. Advisory is 51-63 months.
If the govt. Knows of any victim that would liked to be heard.

Bottini: No.

Would like to hear the attorney’s ideas for sentencing:

John Henry Browne: No secret we will be appealing whatever happened. Based on what you just ruled, and I assume that you included the multiple bribes.
Sedwick: Yes,
Browne: Object to courts intervening in proceedings at all.
Sedwick: Noted
Browne: We are asking for the court to depart from the sentencing guideline and reasons in our brief.
Sedwick: Principle one being abberant behavior.
Browne: Thank goodness the SC has now given courts discretion. I’m happy to see it back. Doesn’t mean I agree with it. I would...point out, today, Mr. Kohring has hitchhiked to court. The door of the truck he borrowed. The door fell off. He hitch hiked.

He is residing with his parents on a doublewide couch, humiliated. Meanwhile, Bill Allen, with $400million he was allowed to keep, the govt. Perhaps because Veco is so involved in the oil industry, has given Veco a pass. While my client is sleeping on a couch. I note that his sentencing has been continued to July again. You saw examples of Kott, Allen, Smith behavior on tape, how they talk, drink, behave on tape. You certainly never saw that of Kohring. He never used one bad word. No matter what happens, Allen has $400 million in his pocket. Mr. Kohring gets to pass on to his relatives debts. Jurors in the newspaper said if they understood the sentencing consequences, they would have taken their job differently.

He spent a decade as a dedicated legislators. Letters say how hard working he was. There were over 50 bankers boxes or more between Kohring and constituents. The letters also say, though you didn’t allow us to present any of this to the jury. Mr. Kohring has a mantra “Let me know what I can do for you.” I know politicians have a tendency to say things like that, though not to the extent Vic Kohring does. Does have obligations and responsibilities to parents- Alzheimer's dad - and facing divorce from his wife.
No question it is aberrant behavior.
Question for the court whether that should be a basis for departure. Drink of water your honor. The clmate I came to try this case was someone incendiary, because of Anderson case. You were critical of Kott - swearing, etc - and that he wasn’t honest. Not the case here. Kohring didn’t testify. Certaininly 8 months in jail or home detention is a significant penalty… Are there other issues you want me to cover now?

Sedwick: Self surrender. There is a questions about release status pending appeal, I will considere today.

John Henry Browne: Mr. Kohring has preexisting defect in spine in his back. You know because of his surgery reason for $17,000. Mr. Kohring was in an auto accident a week before trial, and I was driving, the only accident in 30 years, I was at fault, and he needs surgery again. He could accomplish that in 45 days, not longer than self surrender takes. You want to hear from Mr. Kohring first?

Sedwick: Yes, but from government lawyers first.

John Henry Browne: Sought advice from myself and Wayne Anthony Ross… He is very concerned about the conflict of interest issue. He’s been advised by some that…. That may not set well with the court. We have put that forward about what you should have told us before and we would have asked for you to be ….. Kohring is not angry. He’s Andy Griffith. He’s not angry, just disappointed. He has a right to talk about his feelings and that the court will listen and understand. I will wait to talk about the bail issue.

Bottini:
aberrant behavior issue: This was a four year conduct. Not aberrant, he knew if he told Allen he needed help, he’d get it. He did this over and over for four years. Mr. Browne says well, compare this to Allen.
Not true. We went over this in detail. Veco didn’t get a pass. He sold the company at huge discount, because government wouldn’t give a pass. His family situation is nothing unusual. The fact is that he has family here, in state, his sister lives in Palmer.

He offers to help everyone. Modus operandi for Kohring. What is different is that the offer is directly to Allen and smith. After Easter Egg money, he offered to help Allen and Veco.

Contrast between the Kott trial and Kohring tapes, granted, he’s not Pete Kott when it comes to the colorful language, but you saw a guy who was politely corrupt. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t corrupt because he doesn’t swear. The fact that he’s - Andy Griffith - I don’t recall any shows where Andy Griffith took cash from anyone. He may be polite, but still corrupt.

Sullivan: Mr. Kohring convicted of multiple instances. I could talk about corrupting public process at great length. But anything I say would pale in comparison to that one snapshot of him taking money from Allen and asking “What can I do for you?” It says it all about Kohring and about the level of corruption in the legislature at that time. You’ve heard a lot about ppt - billions of dollars of tax revenue for the state - that snapshot showed that piece of legislation was being decided in the back room of a hotel. Spoke volumes about Vic Kohring, that he was willing to sell his office for gain,

Videos showed other traits - He was a manipulating and calculating person when it served his purpose. Timed visits when Veco needed something. Those are times he asked for things. He also knows how to play the pauper. He gave Smith and Allen song and dance about his conditions. Never told them that he was making $100K in per dieman and sleeping on couch by choice. Frequent flier at ethics office. He knew what he was doing.
Not aberrant behavior, at least 4 cash payments 2002-2006. How many times did we hear phone calls from Vic Kohring he was willing to help Allen and Smith. Vic Kohring’s illeagal conduct clear and the guilty found him guilty.

We asked tha integrity and honesty should have some meaning. The only way to make that image of dishonesty goes away when Vic Kohring goes away. We ask for 60 months.

Sedwick: Vic Kohring

Vic Kohring: Honorable Judge Sedwick, not here to plead for mercy. Instead, to plead my innocence. I was stunned to learn you were married to one of my greatest enemies. You were legally bound to excuse yourself. Furthermore you lived across the street from the governments star witness. I’m so disappointed that the person who holds the fate is married to the person whose job I eliminated.
Then this week’s latest motion you denied. The juror who regretted his decision.

I will admit, I showed poor judgment when I accepted cash for my daughter from someone I thought was my friend who betrayed me. I didn’t live up to my high standards. I never once voted for PPT. My words, How can I help? Were my mantra. Ironic that my words are now being used against me. Intended to be helpful.

The resutling conviction has destroyed me. Cost to me is approaching $half a million, all over $1000. But my spirit is not broken. We did all with integrity. Just an honest presentation of the facts. I used to believe in my government. I do not hold it in high regard as I used to. I believe in the principles. I won’t express remorse for something I didn’t do. The truth will only be reviewed if heard before jurors without bias. I thank the jurors but want to let them know they didn’t hear all the evidence.

I for one shall not rest until justice prevails. I didn’ nothing criminal. Iwas naive. I assert my innocence. All I ask for is to be treated fairly. All I ask for is a fair trial which I believe would find me innocent.

10:20am

Sedwick: As lawyers know, sentence requires applying all criteria.
1. Nature and circumstances of offense: Key criterion. Jury shows, Vic Kohring violated the public trust. Reflected in fact Congress has provided that most serious sentence is 20 years.
2. I agree that Vic Kohring’s objective was to serve interests of his constituents. Unfortunately, at the end he sold out the trust he worked so hard to earn, but participating in the relationship with Veco. Browne suggests that he was just doing what he always did - helping people. But difference between lawful and unlawful helpful. Since he spent so much time at the ethics office. It is clear to me, despite what he said, that he knew what he did was wrong.

I think there is no risk of Vic Kohring committing future crime. He has learned he must be careful to help people whose objectives are lawful.

Must consider impact on others. To reinforce message to people elected to serve the public.

Even Mr. Browne believes some period of incarceration is required.

Court has to consider what is available. Probation is legally authorized. Serious nature makes probation outside the bounds. Incarceration and supervised release left.

I have determined guideline 51-62 months. Instructed by congress to avoid disparities. All judges across the country consider the guidelines, even if not absolutely bound.
I have to provide for restitution. No way to pay that here.

Finally, Mr. Kohring's physical condition. Given Vic Kohring’s modest financial condition now, it appears he’ll get as good or better care in prison than he could afford himself. If he does need a surgical procedure soon, and plans on that and apparently has the wherewithal to pay for that.

Taking that all into account, I have to say does not deserve same as Kott or Anderson, behavior not as egregious. Clear to me that his desire to help shouldn’t have included things Veco wanted to do.

Finally, it has to be sufficient but no greater than necessary to achieve goals congress has set forth. Lower range is appropriate, 42 months is appropriate. Is one meets requirements of the statute, is no greater than necessary.

Appropriate to hear motion on Docket 181.

John Henry Browne: In recent past, I know you and most attorneys deal with people not released. Unusual for me. Usually a way uphill battle. Very uncomfortable to make arguments because of what is alleged.

Sedwick: Go ahead.

John Henry Browne: I would suggest there are substantial issues on appeal.

Sedwick: You can speak at length. I’ve read them.

John Henry Browne: There are meritorious issues. Novel, that trial judge has made opinion on his own that he is fair. And it is a meritorious issue. Search warrant issue is serious. Controlling law is 18USC…. Is he a flight risk or danger.

2. Is the appeal meritorious and not for the purpose of delay. You heard what he said to you, sticking to his guns. He believes he has meritorious issues on appeal.

3. Raise serious issues of law and fact.

I think he meets the criteria for meritorious issues on appeal.

He’s a very law abiding citizen outside of this issue.

He doesn’t have the $500,000 fees that Mr. Allen has. I’ll continue to help him.

Sullivan: As the court is aware, we received this motion late last night. Would like to respond in writing.

Sedwick: This is not complicated

Sullivan: We conceded he is not a flight risk

We take issue whether he has raised an issue that will be reversed or reduced sentence. We disagree. Laundry list of issues have all been fully vetted by the parties here. We believe the court has correctly handled them here.

Sedwick: As both noted the statute that controls here 18USC…. With exception of certain crimes irrelevant here.
1. Not flight risk or danger - Vic Kohring meets that
2. I do have to find not taken for purposes of delay that is likely to result in reversal or new trial with lesser penalty.
A. Not taken for delay
B. Reversal

With respect to related issues Browne and others have written. I believe my decisions isn’t at all unusual.

Good candidate for self surrender. He won’t be required to surrender any earlier than…
Monday June 30, 2008. Because Mr. Kohring needs to have surgery. That should give him adequate time to have the surgery and recuperate.

Supervised release for two years. Sentence to run concurrent on each account. Meaning he will serve all sentences at the same time. On release he shall be replaced on supervised…. Speaking way too fast.

1. Cooperate in collection of DNA sample
2. Searches by probation etc. Offers on reasonable suspicion…

Does not have ability to pay fine. Required. $300.

If his condition is such, he may surrender before June 30, I am highly unlikely to extend this no matter what the medical condition might be.

Any other matters before I mention appeal rights.

You have right to appeal….

Christie's Great Performance

I missed the news yesterday so I knew nothing about the emails from Chris Christie's deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly.  They indicate that the traffic study that jammed the nation's busiest bridge for a week and clogged the streets of Fort Lee, New Jersey was not the reason of the jam.

Instead it was done intentionally to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee who did not endorse Republican Chris Christie for governor.

I didn't know any of that when I got up this morning and my mom had on Chris Christie's news conference on CNN.

I haven't watched Christie closely.  I live in Alaska.  New Jersey's far away.  But my superficial knowledge was that he was the sensible Republican among those being mentioned as potential presidential candidates.  He worked with President Obama and praised his hurricane Sandy response just before the 2012 election causing other Republicans explode.  He seems to be able to work with Democrats and won reelection as governor by a wide margin in a Democratic state.  He was, I understood, the most likely Republican to be able to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016, but the question was whether he could survive the Republican primaries.

So that was the background I watched the news conference with.

I was impressed.  He sounded sincere.  He didn't seem to be using any notes.  He said the right things about his responsibility - he didn't know anything until yesterday, but he's the governor so he's responsible - and he'd fired the Kelly as soon as he learned about the incriminating emails.

He went on and on - almost two hours.  It was riveting television.  He was good.  He's obviously both intelligent and experienced.  In response to a question about why he didn't ask Kelly about what actually happened before firing her, he said he fired her for lying to him, not for what she did.  Since there were state and federal investigations already announced, if he questioned her it actually might be seen as inappropriate.  He mentioned his own experience as a prosecutor.

He expressed his sadness and disappointment with a close associate he trusted who lied to him.  

But we saw the Wolf of Wall Street the other night. Leonardo DiCaprio as Wall Street huckster Jordan Belfort makes me pause in my judgement.   Belfort could sell anyone anything.  There's a scene that everyone should see.  Belfort is starting his own brokerage firm and he's teaching his crew how to make cold calls to sell penny stocks - ones where the broker gets 50% commission - that are worth basically nothing.  He's got a client on the speaker phone and smoothly tells him the thickest lies about about the potential of the stock, while his body language to his employees tells the story about reeling in the fish and then screwing him.

Everyone should see this scene and have it implanted in their brain so that it rises to one's consciousness every time a car salesman, a cable tv or phone salesman or a stockbroker opens his mouth.  People should see DiCaprio thrusting his pelvis for his salesmen while he so sincerely assures the client that nothing could go wrong. 

I walked out of the three hour movie telling my wife that as skeptical as I already am, this movie makes it hard to trust any one.

And so that's what I brought to this news conference with Christie.  Christie's performance was perfect.  But I also wondered if he were thrusting his pelvis in his head.  There are so many questions.


Was Kelly the culprit or the scapegoat? 

How could he have a staff person he worked closely with for so many years who would lie to him like this?

How did he misjudge who she was so enormously?

Why would they jam up the 'busiest bridge in the world?' to punish a political opponent who, according to Christie, wasn't even on his radar?   This reeks of the kind of dirty tricks that, while both parties commit them, have become more associated with Republicans since Watergate and then the rise of Karl Rove.  

Politics attracts people who need or want power, power over others.  People who need power, I suspect, feel some inferiority, some lack, that this power will help them overcome, that will show others that they are somebody.  And such people seem particularly vulnerable to using their power inappropriately.  This was truly a petty act of retribution.  Petty only in the sense of inappropriately demonstrating one's ability to take revenge for some assumed slight.  But the impact on people was hardly petty.  I saw petty people like this with giant chips on their shoulders in 2011 when I blogged the state legislature in Juneau. 

Was this even a plot by the more conservative wing of the party to derail Christie's presidential campaign?  Or less likely, but plausible, a Clinton plot?

The biggest question outstanding seems to be whether Christie's performance today was genuine or whether he actually knew about this.  If he knew, and today's news conference was just a giant lie, I don't see how he can recover as a presidential candidate.  I don't see how he could stay in office in New Jersey for four more years.

If follow up investigations support his claims of innocence, I'd say today's performance shows him as a very competent leader.  People will still attack him for letting Kelly into his inner circle.  But lots of people have secrets that they hide from those around them and other politicians have had close aides resign because of scandals.

I would note that CNN had a feeding frenzy over this story, repeating parts of the news conference over and over again.  


[UPDATE 9pm - whatever the outcome, this political cartoon by Bill Bramhall of the NY Daily News is priceless:

click image to go to the source:  Bill Bramhall/NY Daily News

Meanwhile, in Pakistan . . .

If you listened to the foreign policy debate of the Republican candidates, you might want to read something with real meat.  The source article is by, according to the blurb in the Asian Times, Indian career diplomat Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar whose assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

The heart of the matter is that the Pakistani citadel has pulled back the bridges leading to it from across the surrounding crocodile-infested moat. This hunkering down is going to be Obama's key problem. Pakistan is boycotting the Bonn Conference II on December 2. This hunkering down should worry the US more than any Pakistani military response to the NATO strike.

The US would know from the Iranian experience that it has no answer for the sort of strategic defiance that an unfriendly nation resolute in its will to resist can put up against an 'enemy' it genuinely considers 'satanic'.

The Pakistani military leadership is traditionally cautious and it is not going to give a military response to the US's provocation. (Indeed, the Taliban are always there to keep bleeding the US and NATO troops.)

This is an Indian talking about US-Pakistani relations. Someone in a position to know a lot more about this sort of thing than most Americans, including most members of Congress and presidential candidates. He's also someone with skin in the game.  It does provide a lot of information to use to help assess other information (or lack of information) you read on this topic.  In discussing the Pakistani response to the NATO air raid which killed 28 Pakistani forces, Bhadrakumar writes:

Exactly what happened in the fateful night of Friday - whether the NATO blundered into a mindless retaliatory (or pre-emptive) act or ventured into a calculated act of high provocation - will remain a mystery. Maybe it is no more important to know, since blood has been drawn and innocence lost, which now becomes the central point.

At any rate, the DDC [Pakistan's Defence Committee of the Cabinet] simply proceeded on the basis that this was a calculated air strike - and by no means an accidental occurrence. Again, the DDC statement implies that in the Pakistan military's estimation, the NATO attack emanated from a US decision. Pakistan lodged a strong protest at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels but that was more for purpose of 'record', while the "operative" part is directed at Washington.

The GHQ in Rawalpindi would have made the assessment within hours of the Salala incident that the US is directly culpable. The GHQ obviously advised the DDC accordingly and recommended the range of measures Pakistan should take by way of what Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani publicly called an "effective response."

The DDC took the following decisions: a) to close NATO's transit routes through Pakistani territory with immediate effect; b) to ask the US to vacate Shamsi airbase within 15 days; c) to "revisit and undertake a complete review" of all "programs, activities and cooperative arrangements" with US, NATO and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), including in "diplomatic, political and intelligence" areas; d) to announce shortly a whole range of further measures apropos Pakistan's future cooperation with US, NATO and ISAF.  [Read it all in the Asian Times.]

It makes me think of the advice Vaclav Havel gives in Power of the Powerless. I wrote about it earlier in the context of TSA.  Here it fits in the relation of one nation to another.  Of course, it's a form of civil disobedience as well.  Just say no.   Those who have power say everyone should fight like they do.  That's because they have all the weapons in that sort of battle.  But disobedience is the main  tool of those without power.  There is immense power in simply refusing to cooperate.  Ask the Occupiers.  Ask the Republicans in Congress. 

Thanks to my friend who alerted me to this article.

Principles And Verification Tasks For Journalists And Their Readers

I've mentioned I'm taking an online class called Journalism Skills for Engaged Citizens from the University of Melbourne.  Last week I got one of the optional books they recommend - Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel's The Elements of Journalism.  The copy I got from the library is a 2007 edition and given the changes in electronic journalism since then, I'm sure the newer version has been updated quite a bit.  Nevertheless the chapter on verification is still worth thinking about - both for journalists AND for readers (listeners, viewers, etc.)

Much of this stems from, according to the authors, a 1997 meeting of journalists concerned about the future of journalism in the age of digital and commodified journalism.  The meeting led to a group called the Committee of Concerned Journalists.  (I chose this link because it lists their principles of good journalism.)

In Chapter 4, they talk about verification being central in defining good journalism.  I'm going to offer several of the guidelines for journalists including techniques for verification.

Note:  I've done some editing because the authors have written quite a bit about each point and the one and two word titles don't necessarily capture the gist.  I've tried to give a slight bit more to aim the reader in the right direction.  I've added some links at the bottom* for a little more depth.

Let's start with "Intellectual principles of a science of reporting"

1. Do Not Add.  Never add anything that wasn’t there (don't make anything up)
2. Do Not Deceive.  Never deceive your audience
3. Transparency.  Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives (more on transparency below.)
4. Originality.  Rely on your own original reporting (get the facts yourself, don't just rely on others, a particular issue in the age of 24/7 news and online rumors)
5. Humility.  Exercise humility 

 Transparency Questions

1. What does my audience need to know to evaluate this information for itself?
2. Is there anything in our treatment of this that requires explanation, including any controversial decisions made about leaving something in or taking something out?
3. Journalists should acknowledge the questions their stories are not answering. a. Misleading sources: Corollary to transparency. Truth goes both ways. Sources need to be truthful. Some say a misleading source should be revealed. Part of the bargain for anonymity is truthfulness.
4. Masquerading (getting stories with deception) - ok if you follow principles: Three Step Test:
1. Information must be sufficiently vital to public to justify deception
2. There is no other way to get the story
3. Journalist should reveal to audience whenever they mislead sources to get info, and should explain reasons, including 1. why the story justifies deception and 2. why there was no other way to get story.

I'd like to think that I've incorporated most of this in my blogging.  Some comes from having to verify in academic writing, some comes from my personal values of keeping the public interest in mind.  I know that I have often, for example, spoken to readers directly about how I've gotten a story, why I'm writing it a certain way, what cautions they should take interpreting what I've written.  The most typical warning I'd guess, has been reporting meetings when my fingers couldn't keep up with what was being said.  For example, from a redistricting board meeting:

"Below are my very rough notes.  Use with caution, until the official transcripts are available."

And finally I get to the list specifically addressing Verification.   There's a fair bit of discussion on the definition of 'objectivity' and whether a journalist can achieve it.  The authors say that the original use of 'objectivity' coming from Walter Lippmann and others, acknowledged bias in the writer, and offered 'objectivity' as a method that focused on techniques of verification that would unite journalists regardless of their bias.  (I would argue that even those techniques have their built in biases to be aware of, but that's for a different day and post.)


Techniques of Verification

1. Edit with skepticism - check line by line - how do I know this? Why should a reader believe it? what is the assumption behind this sentence? If the story says events may raise questions, who suggested that? Reporter? Source? Citizen?
2. Keep an accuracy checklist (See below - this is particularly useful for readers as well as journalists.)
3. Assume nothing.  (See Protess Method below)
4. Tom French’s red pencil - he made a check after each sentence if he’d double checked it.
5. Be careful of your sources  

Accuracy Checklist (useful for readers to think about when reading/hearing news stories)

• Is the lead of the story sufficiently supported?
• Is the background material, required to understand the story, complete?
• Are all the stakeholders in the story identified and have representatives from that side been contacted and given a chance to talk?
• Does the story pixies [pick sides] or make subtle value judgments?  Will some people like this story more than they should?
• Have you attributed and/or documented all the information in your story to make sure it is correct?
• Do those facts back up the premise of your story?  Do you have multiple sources for controversial facts?
• Did you double-check the quotes make sure they are accurate and in context?  

This is all good stuff for me (and other bloggers) to be thinking about.  I even put a note about originality in a story I posted recently about a Superior Court decision.  I was quoting the Alaska Dispatch's report, but couldn't figure out how to get the decision online.  I noted the journalist's need for originality and my attempt to get the judge's decision in my post.  Yesterday an attorney told me you can't get them online, you have to go to the courthouse and buy it.  I called the court just now trying to see if there was a way, but they haven't been able to point out a link to get the decision.  They connected me to the judge's assistant and I've left a voice mail message.


*Short of getting the book itself, ideally the most recent edition, there are websites you can check on to get a little more depth on each of these points than I'm giving.

On Verification - Transparency, Humility, Originality

Informing the News - an essay based on a book by that title also stems from the Committee of Concerned Journalists' work that overlaps a bit with the lists here.

Protess Method of Verification - a way of thinking about verification by the head of the Chicago Innocence Project.  It's the method he uses with students to determine which prisoners to work with on their appeals.

[I've made some typo corrections, some of which look like auto correct errors.  Others are mine.]

Once Upon A Time I Thought I Might Catch Up. Fat Chance.

As I wrote the title, I realized we never can catch up in life, but I was referring to little things like writing blog posts and paying the bills.  Today was my wife's birthday.  We went for a movie and dinner.   It seemed like a good day to spend the early afternoon in a movie, but the rain had stopped and there were even breaks in the clouds when we got there.

 And the snow was mostly gone from the Chugach.


I've already  written about my mixed feelings about going to see Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.   Now that I've seen it, if I hadn't, I wouldn't have missed anything important.

Even though I've eaten at Musso & Franks, went to movies at the Bruin theater when I was a student at UCLA, and even interviewed George Putnam (there was an ad for his newscast on a bus stop) for my junior high school newspaper.  Putnam arrived in a gold limo - a Rolls, I think - and he smoked through the interview even though his bio said he didn't smoke. (At least that's what my memory tells me.)

The movie began in a Pan Am 747, which set alarms off right way, since the date posted was 1969.  I'd read that the period details had been carefully done.  And yes, I know some odd details.  In this case because I first flew on one of the early Pan Am 747 flights - from Honolulu to Tokyo - in March 1970. (I was flying from a Peace Corps training program I worked at in Hilo to the second part of the training in Thailand.)  Pan Am 1 and 2 had just started flying. I think it was Pan Am 1 that flew around the world toward the west and Pan Am2 to the east.  Did it start earlier in 1969?  I've now had time to look it up and the first commercial flight was in January 1970.

It wasn't a bad movie - though I generally skip movies with lots of violence - but it felt artificial throughout.  Cardboard.  I assume that was intentional since it was about Hollywood and all the phoniness of that life, but as the birthday girl said over dinner at the Thai Kitchen, with all the really good stuff we're seeing on Netflix, it just didn't cut it.

So I'm reduced to writing filler pieces like this because I just haven't had time to finish my thoughts on the Joseph Maguire hearings and several other drafts that probably will never get beyond that stage.  

And tomorrow I start a slew of OLÉ classes.  (Continuing ed classes aimed at retired folks at UAA.  I think they pay for themselves so maybe they won't disappear next year.)   I have an actual project in one that I need to spend extra time on and I haven't figured out what I'm going to do.  It's a Pecha-Kucha class - you present 20 pictures in seven minutes with narration of the story they tell. Well, I've got plenty of pictures, but organizing a compelling story is the challenge.  As I see it now, though I'll probably discover that was the easy part once I get the story figured out.

Other classes I enrolled in include:

• An Overview of the Pebble Copper-Molybdenum-Gold Prospect 
• The Innocence Project
• State and Federal Courts and Current Legal Issues
• Homeless, Homelessness and Finding "Home"

And a one time short class that's a trip to an Escape Room.

I'm hoping the classes will provide plenty of fodder for the blog.

Is A Hate Crime Terrorism?

There's a new Hate Crimes Act in Congress.  From the LA Times yesterday:

Less than a week before eight people — including six Asian women — were killed in the Atlanta-area shootings congressional Democrats introduced legislation that would bolster the Department of Justice’s ability to address COVID-19 hate crimes.

The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), has been co-sponsored by more than 60 lawmakers and on Friday was endorsed by President Biden, who condemned the “ongoing crisis of gender-based and anti-Asian violence” and urged Congress to “swiftly pass the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.”

So it seems appropriate to repost something I wrote in September 2012.  Back then I titled the post Is Terrorism A Hate Crime?  This time I've reversed the key nouns in the title. Basically, Republicans love Anti-Terror laws but not Hate Crime laws.  They argue that hate crime laws are "thought control" because you have to no the person's intent.  They ignore that intent is what makes an ordinary crime into a terrorist act.  Or that differentiates first degree murder from second and third degree murder.  

So here's the original post:

People get upset over anti-American attacks, like the consulate attack and deaths in Libya.  There's something about terrorist attacks against Americans that adds, literally, insult to injury for most Americans.  Terrorist attacks take, collectively, a minor toll on American lives compared to many other causes of death we pay little attention to.  But they get media attention far out of proportion to their actual impact.  From the Cato Institute, for example:

Any violent crime is terrible, but terrorism is extremely rare in the United States. The risk that any given American will be killed by a terrorist is about the same as the chance that a randomly selected high school football player will one day be a starting quarterback in the Super Bowl. One's chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is many times less than one's chance of drowning in a bathtub or being killed by a fall from scaffolding or a ladder. We would not adopt the "if it saves one life'' theory to justify a ban on bathtubs, even though hundreds of lives would be saved each year. Accordingly, America should reject terrorism legislation that will probably not save any lives and that demands that Americans give up things far more important than bathtubs. 

But emotionally, we are far more affected by terrorism than other causes of death.  We've been willing to compromise basic freedoms to prevent terrorism and punish terrorists  (ie, assassinations, habeas corpus violations, 'extraordinary rendition').   We've been intimidated by terrorists (or manipulated by politicians using terrorist attacks as an excuse) to spend huge amounts to invade the privacy of every airline passenger.  We've committed violence to our justice system to punish those we call terrorists.  The Obama administration's attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York federal court instead of a military court, for example, caused sharp protests.  From the Carnegie Council:

The response of prominent members of the Bush administration and other leading Republicans to the announcement was swift, as they accused the Obama administration of failing to understand the danger of trying a terrorist on US soil. A secondary concern, expressed at Attorney General Holder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 18, was that the trial would give the accused the chance to avoid conviction. The protections of a legal team and the vagaries of juries, it was argued, could result in a suspected terrorist escaping justice.  

There is no presumed innocence until proven guilty for terrorists here.  Somehow these crimes are different, are more heinous, are less deserving of the American justice system. 
  
The Patriot Act was passed, in part to increase the penalties for terrorists.
From the Department of Justice website:

4. The Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who pushes the button. That's why the Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad. In particular, the Act: 

• Prohibits the harboring of terrorists. The Act created a new offense that prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses, such as: destruction of aircraft; use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; use of weapons of mass destruction; bombing of government property; sabotage of nuclear facilities; and aircraft piracy. 
• Enhanced the inadequate maximum penalties for various crimes likely to be committed by terrorists: including arson, destruction of energy facilities, material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations, and destruction of national-defense materials. 
• Enhanced a number of conspiracy penalties, including for arson, killings in federal facilities, attacking communications systems, material support to terrorists, sabotage of nuclear facilities, and interference with flight crew members. Under previous law, many terrorism statutes did not specifically prohibit engaging in conspiracies to commit the underlying offenses. In such cases, the government could only bring prosecutions under the general federal conspiracy provision, which carries a maximum penalty of only five years in prison.
• Punishes terrorist attacks on mass transit systems. 
• Punishes bioterrorists.
• Eliminates the statutes of limitations for certain terrorism crimes and lengthens them for other terrorist crimes.

There is something different about a lone angry man shooting up a theater and a terrorist who does the same thing.  The latter apparently commits a crime that is even worse than the former.  It's murder plus. One difference seems to be intent.

Here's how the US Congress has defined terrorism 18 USC §2331 from Cornell Law:

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— 

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended— 

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

These are acts as 1(A) tells us, that are already illegal and now are getting the extra label of terrorism added to them.   

The Justice Department defines Hate Crimes on its website : 

Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the healthiest race relations. 

What the two acts - hate crimes and terrorism - seem to have in common are:

• Violence
• Intent to intimidate (and I think coerce plays a role in hate crimes too, though the word isn't used in the definition above.) 

If you read white supremacist or white nationalist websites, there is also a clear  goal to change government policies related to race (usually separate the races to save whiteness)  and there is talk of inevitable civil war in the US.  I won't link to those sites, you'll have to find them on your own.

Given the similarity between terrorism and hate crimes, why is there opposition to hate crimes laws by people who support anti-terrorism laws?   

For instance a statement by House Majority leader Boehner (from CBS News):

All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance," he said. "The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance." 

To be fair to Boehner, CBS contacted his office to see if he objected to all hate crime legislation or just adding gender and sexual orientation:

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics." 

It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislationwould cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.

Of course, religion is NOT an immutable  characteristic.  People choose to change religions all the time and while individual sexual acts may be choices, sexual orientation surely isn't.  But that's besides the point here.

Another legislator also saw the idea of hate crimes as creating "thought" crimes: 

Rep. Tom Price, who heads the GOP conservative caucus, also complained last week that the expansion of hate crimes legislation amounted to "thought crimes," and he labeled the bill's passage – tied to a defense bill – an "absolute disgrace." 

But contacted about his position on hate crimes legislation overall, Price took a different position than Boehner. According to Price communications director Brendan Buck, the congressman opposes all hate crimes protections, including existing ones. 

"We believe all hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional and places one class of people above others," said Buck.

Intent, of course, is the basis for finding someone guilty of murder.  No one cries "thought police" there.  And despite the law, despite Boehner's assertion that "all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance,"  the ACLU points out that some murder victims get less vigorous legal attention than others. 

While white victims account for approximately one-half of all murder victims, 80% of all Capital cases involve white victims. Furthermore, as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims. 

The emotional attachment of the public and of officials affects how they react to events.

The hatred of a specific group of people makes a normal crime into a hate crime.  It's not  just about the criminal and victim, but about all people who share the targeted characteristic of the victim, whether it's race or religion or gender.

In terrorism, we have the same reaction - it isn't about what the victim did, but who the victim was - an American.  I'm an American, so I too could be randomly victimized if I'm traveling abroad.    The impact is wider and stronger because of the intent of the terrorist to use violence to intimidate anyone who is a member of the group American, just as in hate crimes.

Where's this all going?

I would hope that at least some of the readers can see where this is leading.  For some people - especially those who live in a society in which they are among the dominant population (ie a white male Christian in the US) and are never victimized because of their personal characteristics - it is hard to understand the effect of hate crimes on individuals within that group and on the group collectively.  (Though some people who call themselves Christians claim they are discriminated against.)

It seems to me that when the idea of America is attacked - as when the world trade center was destroyed - Americans react the same as members of traditionally victimized groups (racial and religious minorities, women, gays, etc.).

Even if they can't feel  what an African-American feels when seeing a Confederate flag, perhaps they can understand it's the same way they feel when they see video of planes crashing into the World Trade Center.  It doesn't diminish their feelings to know that the Confederate flag can cause the same feeling to many African-Americans.  It's like translating an emotional context from one culture to another.  

That, of course, assumes logic and consistency, and a real desire for the ideals of democracy and freedom.  There are many who are too fearful to be concerned about anyone else.  There are many whose goals are simply personal benefit and for whom American ideals are merely tools to use to get their own way. (Using American slogans to convince people to vote for them.)

And, there are some who, while emotionally impacted by crimes against the US, would advocate that terrorists deserve no more and no less punishment than those who commit similar crimes without an ideological or political motive.

But deep down, we're all humans who should be able to understand all this.   Even Clarence Thomas spoke up when the Supreme Court considered a cross-burning case and convinced his black robed colleagues that cross burnings were more than free speech, they were acts of intimidation.

Symbolic acts can intimidate and cause other real harm, beyond any direct physical harm to the victim.  

 

Just Let The Kids Do Their Thing, And We'll Be Fine

Every year the Museum hosts an art exhibit from the Anchorage School District.  I managed to get there on the last day.  When you look at the work these kids do, you know that we're in good hands in the future.  There were so many worthy works. Here are just a few.

I'm not sure what Heaven was thinking here, but this definitely says she's feeling and thinking about big issues. 






[Click on any image to enlarge it.]

The piece in the exhibit is just the right face of this box, but I knew that the detail wouldn't show up so I added some close-ups of the details. It is really quite amazing.

Here I've meshed three together - Ellie's frog (close-up, not the whole thing), Kynsey's octopus, and Cache's wolf and caribou.

Here's another one where I'd love to talk to the artist and ask how this portrait was conceived and what it all means.  It took me a bit before I saw the musical notes.  A really interesting piece.

Tristan Burgess Grade 10 - Zebra

A beautifully executed and interesting work.  Who are these men?  How did the artist come up with this?

I'm afraid I didn't do Katie's piece justice here.  The whole picture is in the lower right, then I've zoomed in on reflections in what we guessed were drops of water on the table.  Interesting piece.

 

There was just something about this large poster that spoke to me.

Hazel Marucut Grade 10 - Sirens of the Deep

I don't know why.  I guess it's the complicated simplicity of this piece and the slightly racy innocence. 

I know why I liked this one - I used to make similar doodles in class when I was bored.

They weren't quite together like this in the exhibit, but it seemed the right thing to do.  The tiger fish is by Brey Anna.  The rest you can see if you enlarge it.

Sarah Birdsall Grade 11 - Textured Hand

 And this one speaks for itself. 


My 14 year old companion at the exhibit saw one picture by a classmate.  We both agreed that in most cases, it was pretty easy to tell which ones were done by boys and which by girls.  But not all.