Sunday, July 15, 2007

GRRRR! Youtube Quality destroys Salmon Video

Took Beth (who's visiting from Texas) to Campbell Creek as the rain mostly ended Friday afternoon. Salmon were making their way up the creek and they are red enough at this point that this one showed up pretty well in the video I took. But saving it in a format small enough for Youtube made this all but unviewable. But I've been playing with it for so long I'm going to put it up anyway in hopes that someone can suggest a better way to save it or a better video host than youtube. (I saved it from i-movie. The best quality was 332 MB - too big for youtube. The next best was 12mb - that's the one you see here. Pretty awful. Not only does the crystal clear water water look muddy, you can barely see the fish until near the end.)



Saturday, July 14, 2007

Ready to Impeach - House Resolution 333

My son is back in the T-shirt business. He designed a T-shirt when he was headed to Denmark to work several years ago. As an American in Europe, he wanted to make it clear that he hadn't voted for G W Bush. He had it made through CafePress and other people could buy it. Proceeds, if any, were going to Doctors without Borders. He sold a few T-shirts after a few months, but then some conservative blog blasted him as a traitor and sales suddenly took off. Cafepress grossed around $45,000 from that and Doctors without Borders got several thousand out of it too.

So now he's back in business. This time with this:

He and a friend are making 20 different T-shirts and each shirt covers a different set of states with the names and phone numbers of the members of Congress in those states. California and New York had to be divided into two because there were two many members of Congress to fit. You can find details at readytoimpeach.com.
The back of the T-shirt has the beginning of Dennis Kucinich's House Resolution to impeach Vice-President Cheney.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Flex Cars - Don't Need Your Own Car

I've known about Flexcar a while now, but Wednesday was the first time I rode in one.

An alternative to owning a car, you get a membership, and then when you need a car, you call in and reserve it. They have set parking places around Seattle (and other cities). You pay by the hour - I think it was $9/hour. Put your Flexcar card over the code reader and you're off.

A Few More Seattle Photos

A few more photos from Seattle. I'm back in a grey, rainy Anchorage now.

I-5 through downtown Seattle


Under the tree in the park on the left was a young woman practicing her poetry to a small group. Sounded like she was getting ready for a slam.


Statue of George Washington - well Seattle is in the state of Washington


Silver, Black, Blue


Seattle Alamo

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Cooler in Seattle

Here are a few pictures of yesterday and today in Seattle. They all get at least a little bigger if you click on them. Get on the plane for home in a few hours.














Tuesday, July 10, 2007

80s in Seattle




Flew to Seattle today to see my son before he leaves for the year in Singapore.


There were two seats empty next to me, so this young woman switched seats, and took them both, without even a good morning or do you mind?













Took the express bus into town and walked over to Joel`s place. It's very warm here, but the sky is also very blue.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Anderson Response

From ADN Politics blog:

"I'm devastated," Anderson said after the verdict was announced. He said he'd appeal.

"The prosecution has criminalized being a legislator over this past year. And I think I fell victim to that," he said.

Sentencing was scheduled for Oct. 2.

His family, including his wife, state Sen. Lesil McGuire, who was not accused of wrongdoing, were not present for the verdict. Anderson said they couldn't get to the downtown Anchorage courthouse in time after it was announced the jury had reached a verdict.

Steve Heimel's had some audio report with quotes from Anderson is this evening, but it's not yet up on the APRN site. But you can check and see if it's up. It says pretty much the same that Lisa Demer's ADN pieces above says.

Anderson Trial - Guilty on All Counts

I didn't go in today, not really expecting a verdict this soon. Only if they all agreed on guilty for all counts would it be done today. So when I heard just now on KSKA there was a verdict, I was sure it was all counts. The seven counts of the indictment are listed below along with a discussion of what the jury would have to figure out.

The ADN website says this:

A federal court jury today convicted Tom Anderson, a former member of the Alaska House of Representatives, of conspiracy and bribery. The jury returned a verdict shortly before 2 p.m. that found Anderson, 39, guilty of all seven charges against him.

The charges include conspiracy to commit extortion, bribery and money laundering and stemmed from claims he took money to do the bidding of a private prison firm. 4:02 p.m. AKST


Life Beyond the Court House

The jury's inside here working out its decisions. I've decided not to sit and wait since I'm skeptical that they'll be done today and I'm off to Seattle for a couple days tomorrow to visit with my son.






But, just a reminder of why I live in Anchorage - here are some pictures riding back from the Court House Friday afternoon on the bike trail.








































We ran into our friend Yakob at Goose Lake (along with his wife Lisa).

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Anderson Trial - What does the Jury Have to Decide?

I've been attending this trial as a member of the public. I'm not a lawyer. What I'm going to try to do here is look at the jury instructions - as best as I could take notes on them as they were being read - and see what questions and problems I would have in reaching a decision as the jury is required to do. The jury has the advantage of having a copy of the written instructions, each other to help fill in what any individual missed, all the exhibits (except they don't have the CD's of the taped conversations, though they can ask to hear specific parts) and they can send a note to the judge to get answers to their questions. Any attorneys reading this are invited to jump in and make any necessary corrections.


I do have a Summary of Charges from one of the court documents available on line.
Anderson is charged in the Indictment with the following offenses:
I've taken the counts verbatim from DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING GOVERNMENT’S TRIAL EXHIBITS

The jury instructions are a little sketchier - they are from my notes. Marsh highlighted some of the points in his closing argument and then the judge went through them quickly at the end. But at least this will give you a better idea of what the jury has to determine.

Count 1 - Conspiracy - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
The Instructions to the jury were (again as best as I can pull out of my notes - anyone who can correct anything here, please jump in and do so):
  1. Beginning about July 2004 there has to be an agreement to commit at least one crime, at least one covert act.
  2. The have to have knowledge of the agreement and that it is unlawful.
Marsh said in his closing that it is not like an agreement to buy a car. There doesn't have to be a written agreement, it can be something that is understood by the parties. It is not necessary that they discuss every detail.

As I write this, I have questions about which of the things discussed in the trial would fit here, and so if I'm having trouble, perhaps the jury will too. Though the jury has the written jury instructions and that may make figuring this out easier.
Does setting up the electronic publishing company to conceal the payments constitute a crime?
Do the various functions Anderson did for Prewitt - writing the letter to Antrim on his own House of Representatives stationery, getting other legislators to sign a letter about the Certificate of Need, lobbying Commissioner Gilbertson, etc. - constitute crimes because he was being covertly paid to do these things by Prewitt?
If I were on the jury I guess I'd want to get some instructions on this from the judge.
The next problem will be to determine if Anderson knew they were illegal. The defense attorney argued throughout that what he did was no different from what other legislators who got campaign contributions did. What is the difference he asked again and again. And the Prosecutors said the difference was that he was being paid directly, not through a campaign contribution, to do the unlawful legislative acts. I'm guessing that some of the alleged crimes will serve double duty for different counts. And as I write this, I'm thinking of the power of the jury. They are the ones who can change an alleged crime into a crime.


Counts 2 & 7- Interference with Commerce by Extortion Induced Under Color of Official Right - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and § 2
In each case (counts 2 and 7) according to the jury instructions, they have to prove
  1. The person is a public official
  2. He got money he was not entitled to
  3. He took an official act
  4. There was interstate commerce
#1 is clear. Anderson was an elected official, a state representative.
#2 In the closing, Marsh said this was for the $24,000 Anderson was paid by Prewitt through Bobrick for Count 2. Count 7 was for the extra $2000 check that Prewitt gave directly to Anderson when Anderson complained that Bobrick was taking half the money. We saw copies of the checks from Prewitt and the checks from Bobrick to Anderson, signed and cashed by Anderson. And also a copy of the check directly from Prewitt to Anderson. I don't recall that anyone denied that Anderson got the money, though Stockler argued that Bobrick was taking half of the money himself. The Prosecutors later came up with checks that Bobrick wrote from his own account that got Anderson to the full $24,000. So, the question the jury has to wrestle with here is whether he was entitled to this money. Was he getting paid to work on the website or for his legislative duties? The first draft of the website made it onto the web. But there was no evidence that Anderson wrote any articles or that any ads were solicited. And it was pretty clear there never was a functioning website newsletter business. So, he wasn't being paid for the website. So, was he being paid for doing legislative acts? The jury will have to decide.
#3 Did he take an official act? The jury was presented with a number of situations where Anderson did things that Prewitt asked him to do. He got appointed to the Corrections and HSS committees as well as the budget subcommittees that dealt with the issues Cornell was concerned with. He lobbied fellow legislators including Lesil McGuire. He lobbied two different commissioners to make changes in the Certificate of Need process and in the budget as asked to do by Prewitt. And he went to a public hearing, as a legislator, not a private citizen to argue on behalf of Cornell. So I think the jury has a lot of choices here.
#4 Marsh, as he talked about the jury instructions, pointed out that Cornell was a company based in Houston, Texas, which made this an interstate commerce issue. But, the money wasn't coming from Cornell, it was coming from the FBI. Does the FBI count as commerce? Does it matter that the money isn't coming from Cornell? Or since Prewitt was being paid by Cornell, it counts as interstate commerce? I guess they have to ask the judge on that.

Count 3 - Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds - Violation of 18 U.S.C. §666(a)(1)(B) and § 2
The jury instructions for count 3 include:
  1. Was there an elected official in Alaska?
  2. In the time period from 2004 to March 2005 did he accept/receive something of value?
  3. Was the something of value over $5000?
  4. Did the Alaska program receive over $10,000 in federal funding?
Again, #1 is easy. Anderson was an elected official in Alaska. No dispute here.
#2 - Marsh pointed to the $24,000 he received.
#3 - During the trial I didn't understand the relevance of asking if the payment was over $5000 and if the State program received more than $10,000 in federal grants and aid. I'd missed the opening of the trial and so these questions only began to have meaning when I heard this part of the jury instructions. The $24,000 is over $5000, so that would fit. But if the jury wants to split hairs, they may argue that the individual checks were under $5000. Though I'd have to go back through my notes to be sure there wasn't one payment that was over $5000. The jury has the exhibits, they can check.
#4 - Both Commissioners Gilbertson and Antrim assured the Prosecutor that the state received significantly more than $10,000 in federal funding.

Counts 4 - 6 Money Laundering - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) and § 2

I'm least certain about the jury instructions for these counts. As best as I can tell they have to use the criteria from either the first or second bullet:
  • Conduct a financial transaction
    1. There is a financial transaction using the proceeds of the bribe in count 2
    2. The person knows it (not sure what they know - I guess he knows the money source is being concealed)
    3. The person acted with intent of carrying out the unlawful act in count 2
The Prosecutor said that the financial transaction here was simply cashing the check - and we saw copies of at least three checks (one for each count) that Anderson cashed. Perhaps the fourth check - the one from Prewitt directly - doesn't count here because it wasn't laundered. #2 then would be that the person knows the money is isn't what it appears to be. And I guess #3 is related to the intent to commit the official act.

  • Laundering the Money
    1. There was a transaction of the proceeds of the bribe in count 2.
    2. The person knows that source of the money is being concealed
    3. There is a transaction to conceal or disguise the source of the money
#s 1 and 2 would be the same as above. #3 would be the setting up of the sham company to conceal that the money was coming from Cornell (again I should point out that in actuality Cornell knew nothing about this because Prewitt was using FBI money and did not tell Cornell, though I wonder how many people, at the end of this, will be under the impression that Cornell was trying to bribe Anderson.)

As I understand this, the jury has to find all three of the first bullet points or all three of the second bullet points to be true to find him guilty of these charges. I think it generally means that you are hiding the source of illegal proceeds. If I were on the jury, I'd have to have more clarification of this.



Count 7 - Interference with Commerce by Extortion Induced Under Color of Official Right - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and § 2

This was covered with count 2.

Friday afternoon, I was pretty sure the jury wouldn't be able to make a decision that day because it would take them the rest of the afternoon to decipher the jury instructions and how they relate specifically to the case. After going through this exercise myself, I'm guessing that with 12 people having to understand and agree on what these mean, it might be a while before a verdict comes in. After all once they understand what they have to decide, then they have to decide and agree on all of the counts.

Again, any attorneys out there who can correct and/or clarify, please jump in and leave a comment.