Potter Marsh Swans

Stopping at Potter
Summer north to winter south
Swans rest then fly on.

Lazy Sunday - and shameless pandering pet pics

There was a phone message Saturday evening from our birder friend that we should check out the long-tailed duck at Lake Spenard/Lake Hood. As it turned out we'd been invited to brunch at a friend's near Lake Spenard for Sunday. We pulled into the parking lot by the little park, took out the binoculars, and confidently walked up to the water. A brief scan spotted a white looking bird, and there it was in the middle of the lake. Clear and beautiful in my binoculars, but nothing in my camera. But we couldn't even find long tailed duck in our Alaska bird book. Then we went to brunch. We were greated by Bracha who was so excited we offered to take her for a walk to work off some of that energy.

Janet's house was really comfortable. She'd set the table so nicely, it all looked so inviting. And the healthy quiche was delicious, not to mention all the fruit. And we talked for several hours. The cat - well there were two - eventually appeared on my lap while we were eating and talking. Joel, your mother says hello

After we went back to the lake to show Janet the duck. And on our way home we went back to see if it would get close enough to get it in my camera. It got close enough, unfortunately, I didn't get close enough. But this float plane lake is supposed to be one of the busiest in the world. Well, Lake Hood, to which it is connected is.




Later, I looked up long tail dog on the internet and found out it used to be called old squaw. That was in my book. If you want to see one, you can go here. This one looks just like the one we saw.

Tom Anderson Sentencing - Five Years

Tom Anderson was sentenced to five years in prison today, but a lot more happened in court this morning than that. I'm still sorting through it all. When I wrote my first post on the Anderson trial I said there might be problems because I knew Tom. He'd been my student. In the field of public administration. He'd had ethics in some of my classes. But because of this I couldn't say things that I'd learned in our student-teacher relationship. So I've only written stuff here that has come from other sources - mainly the trial.

It's been difficult acting here in two different roles - one as an amateur journalist, the other as the observer of my former student. It became clear early on that he was guilty and given that, I wondered why did he insist on going to trial? Why didn't he work out a deal like the others? We even learned that he had worn a wire for a while, but not what happened.

Today we got some answers to those questions.


He'd been offered a deaL Basically:
1. He had to plead guilty to one felony charge.
2. There were no guarantees on penalties.
3. He had to do what the government told him to do.

Through testimony from two attorneys who preceded Stockler as Anderson's attorney - Jeff Feldman and Craig Howard - we learned about the deal and the conditions (listed above.) Several things were happening in his life.
1. His girlfriend - and now wife - was pregnant and they wanted to get married.
2. The legislative session was going to begin and the government wanted him to wear a wire in Juneau.

He was getting very stressed working for the FBI. Secretly taping others was uncomfortable. He had been allowed to tell his father (former head of the state troopers) what he was doing but it was difficult lying to his fiance about where he was going all the time. Feldman said that in the summer of 2005, Tom's only job was working (without pay, of course) for the government. The government wanted him to go to Juneau for the session and continue taping people. Feldman said that Tom felt his job as representative was to do the legislative work of his constituents and he couldn't do that if he were working full time as an undercover agent.

You can be skeptical of some of that, particularly in light of his working for what he thought was Cornell instead of his constituents. Yet I think that humans have an ability to delude themselves into believing that what they are doing is ok. I don't think it is far fetched that Tom really did believe that since he agreed ideologically with what he was being asked to do, that it was really ok. Obviously he knew it didn't look good - or they wouldn't have had to launder the payments. As his teacher, these are the points that are haunting me. It wasn't pleasant seeing him sentenced even though it was the correct thing to do.

That doesn't excuse it - as he acknowledged today - but it may help explain it. His choice was to take a single felony - and his first two attorneys said when they saw the tapes they knew he was in trouble - or risk being convicted of what turned out to be seven felonies. He let the first attorney go. It wasn't clear why Feldman did not continue to represent Anderson. The ADN in December 2006 reported Feldman said there was a conflict in schedules. In any case, it appears that Craig Howard was let go because of the requirement to accept one felony. It's not clear what happened with Feldman. Feldman said, not only was the agreement the investigators wanted Anderson to sign unique among the many he'd seen, he also had never seen a client turn down the chance to reduce the charges like this.

Paul Stockler, was a gentler, kinder version of the attorney we saw at the trial. He'd learned a lot from this trial he said. He tried to strike a balance between admitting that Anderson had been guilty of serious crimes and deserved to be punished and advocating for leniency in the sentencing.

Thanks to the Alaska Public Radio Network, who posted the court recording on their website, below is Tom Anderson's statement to the court. You can judge it for yourself.

Tom Anderson's Statement to the Court imported by AKRaven

There's lots more to write about, but I'm trying to sort it out. As you can see from this post, I've got a ways to go.

John Henry Browne's Response to Magitstrate's Ruling and Court Efficiency

The Anchorage Daily News reported yesterday that the Defense "Motion To Suppress Statements Allegedly Made in Violation of Miranda and the Fifth Amendment" did not persuade the magistrate judge who said the evidence should be allowed. The final decision is up to Judge Sedwick. I posted both sides' Statements of Fact in the previous two posts.

The article is interesting to me also in what it tells us about Kohring's defense attorney. He's not going to be the polite, cooperative colleague that Kott attorney Wendt was. He's may even make Anderson's attorney look warm and fuzzy. Lisa Demer further on in the article gives us Defense attorney John Henry Browne's (see a little about him in an earlier post):

Browne [Kohring's attorney] said Friday it won't be a big deal if the judge follows the recommendation and allows the evidence.

"My opinion is that Mr. Kohring didn't say anything incriminating to begin with," he said. "But I was just filing the motions in order to be a good lawyer and to make a record because I think what the government did when they told him 'You give us consent or we'll use the search warrant' is not legal."

If it won't be a big deal, then why file the motion? One big gain Browne gets by filing the motion is learning the government's version of this story. Up til the government filed their argument against the motion, he mainly had his own client's version of events. Now he gets to go into court a little better prepared knowing where the prosecutors agree with his client and where and how they don't. Fewer surprises. And saying, "It won't be a big deal" sounds like he's putting the best spin on losing, when he actually got what he needed when the government filed its argument. At least that's one interpretation of this action.

But I'm still scratching my head about this part:

Prosecutors wanted Browne to agree to allow a single FBI agent to authenticate any secretly made recordings involving Kohring before they are played for jurors.

No way, Browne responded.

That means prosecutors must call as witnesses an FBI employee directly involved with any recording they want jurors to hear. Agents from all over the country were involved in monitoring telephone calls of Veco Corp. executives as well as happenings in Suite 604 of the Baranof Hotel.

But this isn't all of the story. On the ADN Alaska politics blog Demer added a little more to this story.

Browne says in an e-mail that he filed in court on Thursday.

"I am not trying to be difficult but the GOVERNMENT is trying to put my client, who never voted for Veco, or promised to vote for Veco, in Prison. This allegation is based on the ATTEMPT to BORROW a pick-up truck, an internship that his nephew was qualified for (and brought up by Smith and Allen) and personal gifts of under $1,000. Sorry, but if that what the Government wants to do then the Government is going to have to work for it and spend every last dime of the taxpayers money doing so."

He signs it "Respectfully, JHB."

OK, his job as the Defense attorney is to give his client the best case he can. And he's reminding the taxpayers that they are paying for the government to railroad his innocent client. But given the previous two trials and Governor Palin's ability to ride the anti-corruption wave into greater than 85% popularity I'm not sure that's going to sell. People may think that forcing the FBI to fly up countless agents is just a waste of everyone's time and money. The defense in the Kott case agreed to the the arrangement the government proposed - to allow one agent to certify all the tapes. And Judge Sedwick has proven to be a very practical judge and interested in doing things efficiently, as long as the effect is neutral. On the other hand if an agent or two is unable to get to court on time and that results some tapes not being played, that helps his client, but not necessarily justice.

On the other hand, the first responder to Demer's blog post suggested the Alaska attorneys might have too cozy a relationship with the prosecutors:

Wise move not to hire an Alaskan attorney, must have found out that the only difference in prosecutor and defense attorneys in AK is who signs the paycheck and where they got their designer suit. They have to work together every day, something as insignificant as a man's life and future just gets in the way of court house harmony and future private practices. Finding "friendlier" barristers is practically unheard of. Sort of like letting the foxes run the henhouse.

But then only one of the one prosecutor will be from Alaska, the other is from DC.

It's highly unlikely that any of the jury will have read the article, let alone the blog comment so they won't be prejudiced by that. But if Browne says things like that in court, and appears to be dragging things out just for the sake of making the Prosecution work harder, I suspect the jury will see through that.

Kohring Trial - Prosecution's Response

Yesterday I posted the Defense's Statements of Fact in their "Motion To Suppress Statements Allegedly Made in Violation of Mirand and the Fifth Amendment."
Below is the Prosecutor's version of those same "facts." While these are court documents, they are pretty interesting to read. They talk about how the FBI contacted Kohring and then how they treated him when they met him at his office which they searched while they interrogated him. As you'll see when you read this, the refute what the Defense said about his not being allowed to go to the bathroom or call his attorney. I apologize for the difficult reading. I recommend that you click on the pictures to enlarge them. They're still less than idea, but readable. These are photos of the documents on the Clerk's Office public computer.

Note: They say they "sought to obtain Kohring's voluntary consent to perform the search as a professional courtesy to Kohring given his status as an elected official." What does that mean? That rather than breaking down the door (which they probably wouldn't reimburse him for) they ask him for his keys? A professional courtesy? You mean elected officials get a special deal that mere mortals don't get? Or was that just BS to make Kohring think he was getting special treatment?











"Agent Vanderploeg recalls showing Kohring a copy of the search warrant and the items to be seized list... The FBI did not demand or force Kohring to sign the consent form"

Here's what Kohring's attorney wrote (see previous post) “The agents told Mr. Kohring they possessed a warrant to search his offices but never produced or even displayed such warrant. Then, still without producing the warrant, they threatened Mr. Kohring with disclosure to the press of any refusal to cooperate with the government, thereby forcing Kohring, a highly visible, elected public official with no prior involvement with law enforcement or criminal justice procedures to acquiesce to the search and sign a consent waiver rather than force execution of the warrant.”







"During the interview, Kohring indicated he understood that he was not under arrest, was free to leave, and was not required to answer the agents questions."

The Defense wrote, “The agents made clear that due to the serious nature of the meeting and the fact that Kohring was indeed a suspect, he would not be free to leave. “

If I recall correctly in the Kott trial, under questioning, one of the FBI agents said it was FBI policy NOT to tape the interrogations. It seems to me that this whole motion would never have happened if they did tape them. But given a presumption that the FBI are more likely to tell the truth, and since given that they can corroborate each other's version of what happened, it certainly gives the FBI a lot of leeway. Maybe if some judges began to say that "without a tape it is not possible to determine where the truth lies, so I accept the defendant's motion" that the FBI would reconsider their policy. It isn't like they don't have a lot of taping equipment available, given how much time they spent tapping phones and taping other conversations.

A Hint of What is to Come in the Kohring Trial

Last week I dropped by the Court House to go through the Kohring Docket. I was struck by the huge difference in how the Defense and Prosecution told the story about how the FBI contacted Kohring, searched his office, and interrogated Kohring. They have the same characters and locale, but what happens in each is extremely different. This all got written up because the defense wanted all the evidence gathered in the search and the interrogation to be dismissed because Kohring wasn't told his Miranda Rights. Below is the story from the court documents so you can read it yourself. In light of Lisa Demer's recent article this may be a clue to how this trial is going to go. First, here I'm posting the Defense's Statement of Facts. Then tomorrow I'll post what the Prosecution said about the same events. Then I'll talk about this in a third post in relation to what has transpired in the last week. The trial begins a week from Monday, on October 22, 2005.

NOTE: First I used my digital camera to take pictures of the documents on the computer screen. I thought that was hard to read, so I broke down and got a Pacer account (that allows you to get US Court documents on the web.) They came out as PDF files I can't cut and paste text. So these are really small. But you can click on the picture of the document and it will appear large enough to read reasonably comfortably. I've also left the computer images below so you can see the difference, and even let me know if you have a preference. You can enlarge those too.


Kohring Defense "MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS ELICITED IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT"

Statement of Facts: [Click on Document to Enlarge]













The following is the same material but as photos from the Court Clerk's public computer. I added the description because the pictures are so bad. You can click them to enlarge them. If you read the stuff above, it's the same thing just in a different format.

Page 1 of "MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS ELICITED IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT" Statement of Facts begins on line 19, starts, "On August 31, 2006, at roughly eleven in the morning, Special Agent Alan Vanderploeg of the FBI called State Representative Victor Kohring on his cellular telephone and insisted upon meeting with him in person at his Wasilla legislative offices." Click on the picture below to enlarge it to readable size.





Pages 2-3, begin..."to his Wasilla offices because it was 'very important." Vanderploeg, though never disclosed the nature of the "very important" business. Ex. A. Decl. of Victor Kohring.
Upon Kohring's arrival approximately fifteen minutes later, five armed FBI agents who were already waiting there, created a quite intimidating scene in the Wasilla Legislative Office Building before attemptig to gain his cnsent for a search of the premises." Click on the photo to enlarge to readable size.

Installation of Rabbi Michael Oblath

Tonight Congregation Beth Sholom in Anchorage, Alaska had a dinner and installation at services for our new rabbi, Michael Oblath. It was probably the first time a new rabbi has been welcomed in the Dena'ina lanaguage which is the language of the original inhabitants of the Anchorage area. He was welcomed by

• Regina Boisclair, Cardinal Newman Chair, at Alaska Pacific University,
• Jonathon Ross, President and CEO, Alaska Native Heritage Center (in Dena'ina language)
• Marla Greenstein, President of Congregation Beth Sholom
• Anchorage Mayor, Mark Begich
• Alaska Governor Sarah Palin

In the service, following the dinner Rabbi Lennard Thal, Senior Vice President for Reform Judiasm, and an old friend and mentor of Rabbi Oblath installed Rabbi Oblath with warmth and wit. All in all it was a very uplifting evening. You can see and hear highlights in the brief video above.

Where did all those falling leaves fall?

The other day I posted a video of the leaves falling in our backyard. So now I'm posting the consequences. Note, the birch trees are pretty much naked. The cottonwood still has a lot left. And as you can see the maples are still pretty full.

And the yet unfallen maple leaves.

So today I moved leaves around, mostly as mulch to cover the flower beds for the winter.

Alaska Apple Users Group

Second Wednesday of the month is the AAUG meeting at the Anchorage Museum. I've posted on these meetings before here, here, and here. I really look forward to them. All of us oddballs who prefer macs to pcs come together and get shown different ways to take advantage of our machines. And then there are all the freebies. Well, tonight I scored. At the review table was a macbook case to be reviewed.
If you review something, you get to keep it. In the past I've mostly reviewed books and software. I did a wrist pad once. That was more like today. But I've been wanting something slim to slide my laptop into and here it is. And the review should be easy.

You can see it is just big enough for the MacBook. It has great zippers with indentations that fit my fingers. It doesn't have a handle though. But it does have thick, but light, padding.

And I sat next to a guy named Zack who showed me some cool things I can do on my keyboard and also helped me change the default screensaver file type from tiff to jpg. And saw some good friends. And had some nibbles. Oh, it's called LA robe protection from be.ez. And I just checked, it's $24.99 on Amazon. So the first draft of my review is done. No nagging emails at the end of the month asking where the review is, right Guy?

Dialogue Alaska

I went to a community meeting today (well it's yesterday now) at the BP Center. Alaska Common Ground, with money from the Council on Public Policy Education, is putting together a couple of public forums to get people together to talk about public policy issues in Alaska. This was something of an organizing meeting. Bill Hall has been the main person behind this all. Below is a short clip of video and photos I took at the meeting.