I really need to get a bigger memory card for my digital camera. But here are a couple bits of the interview with attorney Pope after Bobrick received what has to be considered a fairly light sentence of five months incarceration and five months home confinement and a $3000 fine.
The tape does suggest that the viewer remember that:
1. The phone call, as I understood what Prosecutor Bottini said, was not recorded. Pope's interpretation is based on what he has heard about the phone call. We know that messages even between two people get distorted. This phone conversation was made 11 months ago. [See below] What we heard in court was presented in an attempt to lower his defendant's sentence. He argued something like the threats to defendants is a legitimate factor for considering the risk that defendants take to testify. My guess this was put in to sentencing guidelines for organized crime and drug cases where witnesses might be threatened with death. We did not hear how Lesil McGuire would have characterized the conversation.
2. There is a quasi-judicial process for determining who gets medical licenses in the State of Alaska, and a conversation with the Executive Administrator of the Alaska State Medical Board this afternoon suggests to me that it is highly unlikely that a personal feud could prevent
a qualified applicant from being licensed. I'll post my notes on that interview in a separate post.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Notes from Bobrick Sentencing
The court calendar for today was not up on the US District Court's webpage last night, so I guessed the sentencing would begin at 9am. This morning it was up - 8:30. I got to court around 8:50am and the guards at security told me the court was sealed. As I got up the stairs everyone was waiting outside the courtroom. Lucky me.
These are my notes from court today in the sentencing of Bill Bobrick. Actually, I don't even know what he was charged with since there wasn't a trial. He confesse, made an agreement with the government and has worn a wire for them. He testified in the Anderson trial. Judge Sedwick has been the judge for all the trials, so he has been able to see how the various defendants who are cooperating with the government have contributed to the evidence against those who have gone to court. Bobrick was the first of these cooperating defendants to be sentenced. Others that I know of are Bill Allen and Rick Smith of Veco and Frank Prewitt.
As always I offer a WARNING here. These are my court notes - as fast as my ears could hear, my brain could interpret, and my fingers could type. But a lot is missing. This is not a transcript, but a sketch of what was said.
9:05
Filing unsealed,
Bobrick wore a wire about people still under investigation.
[Based on his voice, it seems Judge Sedwick has a cold.]
Pope: First talk about Threat, document filed in public. Then argue for additional downward departure.
Clear that Bobrick told so many people he’d committed a crime, his wife in 3rd year in medical school. Tom Anderson and wife, had socialized in 2004-6 time period, When clear that he was cooperating, Bobrick got phone call from Lesil that she would take steps to prevent Jessica’s medical license in AK. She got Jessica’s phone number.
Then Bobrick called Bottini, understood Lesils calls to be threats, as state senator and daughter of Dr. McGuire. FBI interviewed them and phone message, and contacted Stockler [Anderson attorney] this was violation of condition of release. These threats were credible (Bobrick’s belief). We think govt will agree. Govt took contact seriously. Bobrick was when he continued cooperating against Anderson, was subject to significant danger threat to his family income.
Other cases, don’t go into details those threats. [referred to other cases that took into consideration threats to witnesses] We believe this was a credible threat that should be considered and we don’t know whether it will be carried out. Jessica Bury (Bobrick) Is in 3rd year of medical school and and LM is still a State Senator.
In our view, essentially what the govt. has suggested is four level departure, under the circumstances, we believe a 6-8 level departure is warranted. No questions Bobrick’s cooperation was significant and useful. Using the Washington case a two level departure is warranted.
Govt. Could take the position that Bobrick’s testimony was not instrumental, but it was certainly useful and highly …… The evidence that Tom Anderson received $23,000 out of $24,000 came late and came from Bobrick. No question that govt would agree here, no dispute, the FBI considered Bobrick to be truthful, reliable, trustworthy. Washington court found that to be important that trustworthiness held by both govt. And fbi.
Mr. B was more than debriefed, active cooperation, wearing a wire, testified in court. My belief, when Joe Bottini did redirect of Bobrick, that is what sank TA. Anderson received over $23 of the 24K paid to Pacific Publishing.
The credible threat made by Lesill McGuire. Personally, I thought she was tampering with the witness and she should have been indicted your honor. Whether that threat is realized remains to be seen. His cooperation was timely, in our office the afternoon he was contacted, and he’d signed the agreement. I could argue for a ten level departure downward is warranted, but realistically, I’m arguing for 6-8 level departure. It would not put court or government in awkward position when it comes to sentencing Smith or Allen.
Bottini - first the communication from Lesil McGuire. It can be conceived as a threat, New Years Day this year. Tried to track down Stockler. The following day told him if that happened again we would seek the end of Anderson’s release on bond.
J: Was this recorded? [I think]
B: Asked Bobrick for his wife’s phone number in Minnesota. Was not captured in recording, but I don’t doubt Bobrick’s recollection of what she said. I have no doubt it was a veiled threat about her ability to get a medical license in AK. They knew he was cooperative at that time. For the purpose of trying to rattle his cage, which she succeeded in doing.
It’s a real shame people are saying things about you, this could affect your getting a license in AK. I think that was the purpose of Ms. McGuire saying this, she didn’t come out and say, If your husband testifies, you won’t practice medicine in the state, but it was a veiled threat and we believe that was the intent.
What should he receive. We recommended a four level downward departure. One year and a day. You saw the evidence and saw how the plan, scheme developed. Bobrick was the source of this scheme with Prewitt. He was cooperative and did everything we asked. But tempered by what he did in this. We think we could have convicted TA without him, but he did help. We think a four level departure is reasonable. One year and a day.
J: I’m wrestling now with the extent of downward departure.
First, all the requirements of ??? Are clearly met. The extent of the downward departure. The matter is a close one. Part of the reason we are here is Bobrick’s part in the case. However, I do think a departure of 5 levels is appropriate. His assistance was of high value. A question whether his testimony was - he painted a very unflattering picture of his own conduct and assisting in other investigation, his cooperation about as much as the Govt could hope to get from anybody.
About threat from TA’s wife I can’t give too much credibility, I question, in the objective sense, I doubt it very credible. But from Bobrick’s view, it could have been serious and it could have affected his cooperation, But to B.’s credit, he cooperated as much as you could ask.
The 6-8 level is clearly too much. Even the government’s 4 level departure cuts his sentence in half. Consider a level 12 instead of 16. Rather than 24-30 months applicable. $3,000 to $300000, Qualifies for split sentence, part in prison, part in half way house. But under guideline, half would have to be served in incarceration.
Pope on appropriate sentence.
First, recognizing that guidelines do recognize that half to be served in prison, but the guidelines are advisory and urge the judge order that less than half or none of the time served be in incarceration and consistent with other cases. Will proceed
If court is going to adhere to the guidelines without going out any way, that the minimum sentence - ten months, I don’t think the govt will dispute. We believe the low end is warranted. Would like to address issue we raised in memorandum
Mr. Bobrick, I’ve been doing this a long time, the court knows that, referring to old case with your honor as private attorney, so court knows I’ve been doing this along time, I’ve been trying criminal cases for 30 years, I have never seen a person charged with a crime who is better suited for a sentence focused on rehabilitation. The many letters were not pleas for mercy, but to show the court what kind of person B is and what he could do in the future for the community. If he were in a halfway house, he would have opportunity to atone for the crimes.
Whatever his sentence, even if half of the sentence in imprisonment, then five months in home confinement or half-way house. Our recommendation is 5 and 5 so he can start the process of
Our position is this an appropriate situation where Mr. B serve all in ½ way house or half in halfway house and half in imprisonment.
J. You siad you think this is a perfect candidate for home confinement and doesn’t need structure of halfway house.
Pope: He is prepared for whatever. He will atone, STAR (Stand Together Against Rape] would allow him to work on the hotline. If home confinement would allow him to go out into the community so during the day he could do a 40-60 hour a week atoning for his crime, that would be his preference. Not clear whether home confinement would be able to stay or leave home…
J: He could do whatever the conditions the court imposes.
P. Then we believe he should be allowed to leave .
J: Thank you sir.
Bottini: I sort of jumped the gun about our ultimate
It’s been a long time since I worked with a white collar criminal who was so remorseful and I think that is significant. He never batted an eyelash about his own conduct. Immediately admitted he’d done wrong and was remorseful.
10-16 months falls in there. If you fashion a sentence…… The govt. Wont’ be upset.
Bobrick: Your honor, I’d like to address my remarks to court and people of the state of Alaska. I’ve had a long time to think about this day, but I don’t really have words to convey the depths of my shame and remorse. Not just the disappointed I’ve caused to family friends, and community, but the knowledge I played a part in contributing to the idea that our political system in Alaska is corrupt. I’ll carry that scar with me the rest of my life. No matter what sentence is imposed on me today. I’ll spend the next 30 years if I live so long, making up for what I’ve done and to pay back the people who have stood by me by continuing to undue the damage I’ve done. The only thing I can do is apologize again to all the people I’ve damaged. My wife plans on practicing medicine here, I’m not going anywhere. I plan to work to regain the trust of my community.
J:
Factors: Nature and circumstances of offense - serious, as B has just said, and I agree. There are politicians who are corrupt. TA is one who was convicted and there are others. It seems as there is not a great difference between our system of government and those other corrupt systems around the world. Corruption has a way of corroding democracy. Considering he has not considered [committed?] another crime. It appears to me Mr. B is probably the most remorseful defendant that has ever walked in the courtroom. In a sense he stands in for all of us. An example of what we ought not to do, but also what we are capable of doing. I could do pure probationary. Consider any special assistance - whether medical or other. Has no such problems his needs could be adequately met.
Has to be fair for crime committed. A sentence that was purely probationary would not be sufficient. It must also deter others.
Required to consider what is likely to protect public from Bobrick. He is the least likely to come before this court again.
Required to consider the guidelines - they are only advisory, and consider disparities. The best way to do that is to stay within guidelines that judges around the country must consider in sentencing.
I think a sentence that includes a short period of incarceration followed by short period of home confinement is acceptable.
Ten months - five in incarceration, five in home confinement.
Probation of two years. Some risk of substance abuse, must be regularly tested for substance abuse.
Conditions: home confinement five months supervised
Monitored electronically, and defendant pay, free to leave for employment, medical, religious, and community service.
In addition to substance abuse testing, andy substance abuse programs.
3. Submit to search of person on reasonable suspicion of contraband.
6. No fire arm
7. 800 hours of community service, directs probation officer to consider my do this through Star, but not limited to this.
Defendant does has ability to pay modest fine - $3000
$100 to court. $50/month or ten% of his income.
Appeal - must be taken up in ten days.
These are my notes from court today in the sentencing of Bill Bobrick. Actually, I don't even know what he was charged with since there wasn't a trial. He confesse, made an agreement with the government and has worn a wire for them. He testified in the Anderson trial. Judge Sedwick has been the judge for all the trials, so he has been able to see how the various defendants who are cooperating with the government have contributed to the evidence against those who have gone to court. Bobrick was the first of these cooperating defendants to be sentenced. Others that I know of are Bill Allen and Rick Smith of Veco and Frank Prewitt.
As always I offer a WARNING here. These are my court notes - as fast as my ears could hear, my brain could interpret, and my fingers could type. But a lot is missing. This is not a transcript, but a sketch of what was said.
9:05
Filing unsealed,
Bobrick wore a wire about people still under investigation.
[Based on his voice, it seems Judge Sedwick has a cold.]
Pope: First talk about Threat, document filed in public. Then argue for additional downward departure.
Clear that Bobrick told so many people he’d committed a crime, his wife in 3rd year in medical school. Tom Anderson and wife, had socialized in 2004-6 time period, When clear that he was cooperating, Bobrick got phone call from Lesil that she would take steps to prevent Jessica’s medical license in AK. She got Jessica’s phone number.
Then Bobrick called Bottini, understood Lesils calls to be threats, as state senator and daughter of Dr. McGuire. FBI interviewed them and phone message, and contacted Stockler [Anderson attorney] this was violation of condition of release. These threats were credible (Bobrick’s belief). We think govt will agree. Govt took contact seriously. Bobrick was when he continued cooperating against Anderson, was subject to significant danger threat to his family income.
Other cases, don’t go into details those threats. [referred to other cases that took into consideration threats to witnesses] We believe this was a credible threat that should be considered and we don’t know whether it will be carried out. Jessica Bury (Bobrick) Is in 3rd year of medical school and and LM is still a State Senator.
In our view, essentially what the govt. has suggested is four level departure, under the circumstances, we believe a 6-8 level departure is warranted. No questions Bobrick’s cooperation was significant and useful. Using the Washington case a two level departure is warranted.
Govt. Could take the position that Bobrick’s testimony was not instrumental, but it was certainly useful and highly …… The evidence that Tom Anderson received $23,000 out of $24,000 came late and came from Bobrick. No question that govt would agree here, no dispute, the FBI considered Bobrick to be truthful, reliable, trustworthy. Washington court found that to be important that trustworthiness held by both govt. And fbi.
Mr. B was more than debriefed, active cooperation, wearing a wire, testified in court. My belief, when Joe Bottini did redirect of Bobrick, that is what sank TA. Anderson received over $23 of the 24K paid to Pacific Publishing.
The credible threat made by Lesill McGuire. Personally, I thought she was tampering with the witness and she should have been indicted your honor. Whether that threat is realized remains to be seen. His cooperation was timely, in our office the afternoon he was contacted, and he’d signed the agreement. I could argue for a ten level departure downward is warranted, but realistically, I’m arguing for 6-8 level departure. It would not put court or government in awkward position when it comes to sentencing Smith or Allen.
Bottini - first the communication from Lesil McGuire. It can be conceived as a threat, New Years Day this year. Tried to track down Stockler. The following day told him if that happened again we would seek the end of Anderson’s release on bond.
J: Was this recorded? [I think]
B: Asked Bobrick for his wife’s phone number in Minnesota. Was not captured in recording, but I don’t doubt Bobrick’s recollection of what she said. I have no doubt it was a veiled threat about her ability to get a medical license in AK. They knew he was cooperative at that time. For the purpose of trying to rattle his cage, which she succeeded in doing.
It’s a real shame people are saying things about you, this could affect your getting a license in AK. I think that was the purpose of Ms. McGuire saying this, she didn’t come out and say, If your husband testifies, you won’t practice medicine in the state, but it was a veiled threat and we believe that was the intent.
What should he receive. We recommended a four level downward departure. One year and a day. You saw the evidence and saw how the plan, scheme developed. Bobrick was the source of this scheme with Prewitt. He was cooperative and did everything we asked. But tempered by what he did in this. We think we could have convicted TA without him, but he did help. We think a four level departure is reasonable. One year and a day.
J: I’m wrestling now with the extent of downward departure.
First, all the requirements of ??? Are clearly met. The extent of the downward departure. The matter is a close one. Part of the reason we are here is Bobrick’s part in the case. However, I do think a departure of 5 levels is appropriate. His assistance was of high value. A question whether his testimony was - he painted a very unflattering picture of his own conduct and assisting in other investigation, his cooperation about as much as the Govt could hope to get from anybody.
About threat from TA’s wife I can’t give too much credibility, I question, in the objective sense, I doubt it very credible. But from Bobrick’s view, it could have been serious and it could have affected his cooperation, But to B.’s credit, he cooperated as much as you could ask.
The 6-8 level is clearly too much. Even the government’s 4 level departure cuts his sentence in half. Consider a level 12 instead of 16. Rather than 24-30 months applicable. $3,000 to $300000, Qualifies for split sentence, part in prison, part in half way house. But under guideline, half would have to be served in incarceration.
Pope on appropriate sentence.
First, recognizing that guidelines do recognize that half to be served in prison, but the guidelines are advisory and urge the judge order that less than half or none of the time served be in incarceration and consistent with other cases. Will proceed
If court is going to adhere to the guidelines without going out any way, that the minimum sentence - ten months, I don’t think the govt will dispute. We believe the low end is warranted. Would like to address issue we raised in memorandum
Mr. Bobrick, I’ve been doing this a long time, the court knows that, referring to old case with your honor as private attorney, so court knows I’ve been doing this along time, I’ve been trying criminal cases for 30 years, I have never seen a person charged with a crime who is better suited for a sentence focused on rehabilitation. The many letters were not pleas for mercy, but to show the court what kind of person B is and what he could do in the future for the community. If he were in a halfway house, he would have opportunity to atone for the crimes.
Whatever his sentence, even if half of the sentence in imprisonment, then five months in home confinement or half-way house. Our recommendation is 5 and 5 so he can start the process of
Our position is this an appropriate situation where Mr. B serve all in ½ way house or half in halfway house and half in imprisonment.
J. You siad you think this is a perfect candidate for home confinement and doesn’t need structure of halfway house.
Pope: He is prepared for whatever. He will atone, STAR (Stand Together Against Rape] would allow him to work on the hotline. If home confinement would allow him to go out into the community so during the day he could do a 40-60 hour a week atoning for his crime, that would be his preference. Not clear whether home confinement would be able to stay or leave home…
J: He could do whatever the conditions the court imposes.
P. Then we believe he should be allowed to leave .
J: Thank you sir.
Bottini: I sort of jumped the gun about our ultimate
It’s been a long time since I worked with a white collar criminal who was so remorseful and I think that is significant. He never batted an eyelash about his own conduct. Immediately admitted he’d done wrong and was remorseful.
10-16 months falls in there. If you fashion a sentence…… The govt. Wont’ be upset.
Bobrick: Your honor, I’d like to address my remarks to court and people of the state of Alaska. I’ve had a long time to think about this day, but I don’t really have words to convey the depths of my shame and remorse. Not just the disappointed I’ve caused to family friends, and community, but the knowledge I played a part in contributing to the idea that our political system in Alaska is corrupt. I’ll carry that scar with me the rest of my life. No matter what sentence is imposed on me today. I’ll spend the next 30 years if I live so long, making up for what I’ve done and to pay back the people who have stood by me by continuing to undue the damage I’ve done. The only thing I can do is apologize again to all the people I’ve damaged. My wife plans on practicing medicine here, I’m not going anywhere. I plan to work to regain the trust of my community.
J:
Factors: Nature and circumstances of offense - serious, as B has just said, and I agree. There are politicians who are corrupt. TA is one who was convicted and there are others. It seems as there is not a great difference between our system of government and those other corrupt systems around the world. Corruption has a way of corroding democracy. Considering he has not considered [committed?] another crime. It appears to me Mr. B is probably the most remorseful defendant that has ever walked in the courtroom. In a sense he stands in for all of us. An example of what we ought not to do, but also what we are capable of doing. I could do pure probationary. Consider any special assistance - whether medical or other. Has no such problems his needs could be adequately met.
Has to be fair for crime committed. A sentence that was purely probationary would not be sufficient. It must also deter others.
Required to consider what is likely to protect public from Bobrick. He is the least likely to come before this court again.
Required to consider the guidelines - they are only advisory, and consider disparities. The best way to do that is to stay within guidelines that judges around the country must consider in sentencing.
I think a sentence that includes a short period of incarceration followed by short period of home confinement is acceptable.
Ten months - five in incarceration, five in home confinement.
Probation of two years. Some risk of substance abuse, must be regularly tested for substance abuse.
Conditions: home confinement five months supervised
Monitored electronically, and defendant pay, free to leave for employment, medical, religious, and community service.
In addition to substance abuse testing, andy substance abuse programs.
3. Submit to search of person on reasonable suspicion of contraband.
6. No fire arm
7. 800 hours of community service, directs probation officer to consider my do this through Star, but not limited to this.
Defendant does has ability to pay modest fine - $3000
$100 to court. $50/month or ten% of his income.
Appeal - must be taken up in ten days.
Bobrick Sentenced to Ten Months
Bill Bobrick was sentenced this morning to ten months - five months incarceration and five months home confinement. The court was sealed for the first half hour or so. The Government asked for a
In the end the judge gave a five step departure. Bobrick's cooperation and contrition clearly played a significant role in the sentencing. Somewhat in contrast to this image, after all the parties had left the court building, one of the Channel 2 camera people was complaining - and the other camera people were supporting her - that Bobrick had shoved ("not bumped") her on his way out. Bobrick did not stop to talk to the press - though his attorney did. I personally think the cameras are rather obnoxious and I only take pictures from afar or when someone is clearly willing to be photographed [but I don't have an editor expecting me to take pictures] but it seems to me the contrition and remorse he mentioned in court should include accepting the press as part of the atonement he talked about.
Defense attorney Pope began by arguing that New Years Day phone calls by Tom Anderson's wife, State Senator Liesel McGuire, were evidence of a significant threat to his client's financial well being. He said that she called Bobrick to ask for Bobrick's wife's phone number at medical school in Minnesota. Pope said that Bobrick did not give her that number, but she managed to call Bobrick's wife, Jessica, and 'in a veiled threat" suggested that if Bobrick testified against Tom Anderson that she would never get her medical license in Alaska. He mentioned that in addition to her role as a State Senator, her father is a prominent doctor so that the threat was credible, and seriously disturbed Bobrick. Pope said he notified the FBI immediately and that Anderson attorney Stockler was notified that this was a violation of Anderson's conditions of release.
Prosecutor Bottini's take on this was that there was no voice message, but that it was clearly intended to influence Bobrick's testimony. It seems to me that due process is the right for someone to face her accusers and have her say. Since McGuire isn't facing charges here, perhaps due process is not the issue. But to have such allegations considered without McGuire's ability to challenge them seems a little questionable.In the end, judge did not seem to give much weight to this threat in the sentencing, though he acknowledged that it might have had an affect on Bobrick at the time, he continued to cooperate fully.
Top Photo: Press surrounding Bobrick as he walks out of the courtroom.
Bottom Photo: Lisa Demer (ADN) and David Shurtleff (APRN) interviewing Bobrick attorney Doug Pope outside the courtroom.
Monday, November 26, 2007
And the winner is....
And the winner is.... My Sitemeter hit 10,000 on Nov 26 2007 at 4:29:56 pm (Alaska Time). Well, not sure yet about the winner. 9,998 has left a comment. I'll give 9,999, 10,000 and 10,001 a day to contact me. 10,002 went directly to an old page and probably never saw the announcement. I assumed people would be able to find the "View Profile" to find the email link. "View Profile" is in the right column between "About Me" and "Blog Archive"
Here's some of what I know about the finalists:
Visit 10,003 was from Cleveland, Ohio
Browser: Internet Explorer 7.0
Operating System: Microsoft WinXP
Linked direct to Whatdoino.
Visit 10,002 was from Montclair, New Jersey
Operating System Microsoft WinNT
Browser Internet Explorer 7.0
And this person got here googling "cow parsnip tea"
Visit 10,001 from Anchorage, Alaska
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Came directly to the site.
Visit 10,000 from Lawrenceville, Georgia
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Googled "how do gangs affect 8th graders"
Visit 9,999 from Seattle, Washington
Lat/Long : 47.5951, -122.3326 (Map)
Operating System Macintosh MacOSX
Came direct
Visit 9,998 was from Wasilla, Alaska
Microsoft WinNT
Browser Firefox
Came direct
Visit 9,997 was from Anchorage
Operating System Macintosh MacOSX
Browser Safari 1.3
Came direct
Visit 9,996 was most likely the same person from Lawrenceville,Georgia
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Googling: how do gangs affect 8th graders
Here's some of what I know about the finalists:
Visit 10,003 was from Cleveland, Ohio
Browser: Internet Explorer 7.0
Operating System: Microsoft WinXP
Linked direct to Whatdoino.
Visit 10,002 was from Montclair, New Jersey
Operating System Microsoft WinNT
Browser Internet Explorer 7.0
And this person got here googling "cow parsnip tea"
Visit 10,001 from Anchorage, Alaska
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Came directly to the site.
Visit 10,000 from Lawrenceville, Georgia
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Googled "how do gangs affect 8th graders"
Visit 9,999 from Seattle, Washington
Lat/Long : 47.5951, -122.3326 (Map)
Operating System Macintosh MacOSX
Came direct
Visit 9,998 was from Wasilla, Alaska
Microsoft WinNT
Browser Firefox
Came direct
Visit 9,997 was from Anchorage
Operating System Macintosh MacOSX
Browser Safari 1.3
Came direct
Visit 9,996 was most likely the same person from Lawrenceville,Georgia
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Googling: how do gangs affect 8th graders
10,000
We're getting close to 10,000 hits since I put site-meter on this blog. Probably in the next day or two someone will be that special visitor. Site-meter lets me know a fair amount about each visitor - but not who you are or your email address. So, Monday and Tuesday, maybe Wednesday, visitors should check if the site-meter number in the right hand column says 10,000.
As you can see in the screen capture to the right, it is way down there, between "Blogs of Friends and Acquaintances" and "Labels." If it does, email me (there's a link in my profile, also in the right column) if you think you're number 10,000. Or if you are right around there, let me know who you are. I'll figure out a prize for the visitor I can identify who is closest to number 10,000.
And it doesn't matter if it is the 10,003rd visitor. After all, while 10,000 sounds like a nice round number, why shouldn't we celebrate the 10,003rd visitor instead? Probably just a legacy of humans having ten fingers and something about how our brain works that makes lots of zeros seem more important.
And if you want to see what information site-meter collects, click on the number (the real one, not the picture in this post). I've left it open so people could see it for themselves. Once you're on the summary page, you can any of the links under "Recent Visitor", and then click on any of the numbers listed in the "Detail" column to see what it shows for each person. A lot more information than I realized I was leaving at sites I visited.
As you can see in the screen capture to the right, it is way down there, between "Blogs of Friends and Acquaintances" and "Labels." If it does, email me (there's a link in my profile, also in the right column) if you think you're number 10,000. Or if you are right around there, let me know who you are. I'll figure out a prize for the visitor I can identify who is closest to number 10,000. And it doesn't matter if it is the 10,003rd visitor. After all, while 10,000 sounds like a nice round number, why shouldn't we celebrate the 10,003rd visitor instead? Probably just a legacy of humans having ten fingers and something about how our brain works that makes lots of zeros seem more important.
And if you want to see what information site-meter collects, click on the number (the real one, not the picture in this post). I've left it open so people could see it for themselves. Once you're on the summary page, you can any of the links under "Recent Visitor", and then click on any of the numbers listed in the "Detail" column to see what it shows for each person. A lot more information than I realized I was leaving at sites I visited.
I at Ten Months
Last January we visited I. at the hospital when he was born. Here he is ten months later.
As I looked at the video I had a couple of thoughts. Attending the Assembly work session on Paul Bauer's proposed ordinance to ask for people's proof of legal presence in the US whenever the police stop someone is making me think things I would never have thought of. Will someone watch this and ask what language is that? Who is that person? Why isn't she speaking English? Is she legally here? Yes, she's legally here, married to a native born US citizen, and making a positive contribution to the people of Alaska through her job and hard work. She's teaching her baby her native language in hopes that he will grow up totally fluent in both her native language and English. I wonder if Paul Bauer is fluent in another language besides English? He said he spent time in Germany in the military. I wonder if he spoke German when he was in German shops or did he use English? Maybe he did.
I find the paranoia about people not speaking English incomprehensible. The whole world speaks English. It's not going to die out. It's just Americans who don't speak other languages. Except immigrants and their children who are the people we have to depend on for translators. What would we do without Arab-Americans to help us understand what the Arab world is saying and writing?
And spending the evening with the baby and his family I had to think about what Tom Anderson will be missing when he leaves for prison. His youngest is a little older than I. Five years, minus whatever good time he manages to accumulate, will be a significant time in his child's life. Just as it is for people headed off for Iraq, people who might not come back to ever be in their kids' lives again. We should all be grateful for the many things we have that we take for granted, like being around our kids when they're growing up.
As I looked at the video I had a couple of thoughts. Attending the Assembly work session on Paul Bauer's proposed ordinance to ask for people's proof of legal presence in the US whenever the police stop someone is making me think things I would never have thought of. Will someone watch this and ask what language is that? Who is that person? Why isn't she speaking English? Is she legally here? Yes, she's legally here, married to a native born US citizen, and making a positive contribution to the people of Alaska through her job and hard work. She's teaching her baby her native language in hopes that he will grow up totally fluent in both her native language and English. I wonder if Paul Bauer is fluent in another language besides English? He said he spent time in Germany in the military. I wonder if he spoke German when he was in German shops or did he use English? Maybe he did.
I find the paranoia about people not speaking English incomprehensible. The whole world speaks English. It's not going to die out. It's just Americans who don't speak other languages. Except immigrants and their children who are the people we have to depend on for translators. What would we do without Arab-Americans to help us understand what the Arab world is saying and writing?
And spending the evening with the baby and his family I had to think about what Tom Anderson will be missing when he leaves for prison. His youngest is a little older than I. Five years, minus whatever good time he manages to accumulate, will be a significant time in his child's life. Just as it is for people headed off for Iraq, people who might not come back to ever be in their kids' lives again. We should all be grateful for the many things we have that we take for granted, like being around our kids when they're growing up.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Lazy Run
I took my camera on my run today. The end of November is not supposed to be so snowless. Yes, there's some snow left over, but not very much.
A - I don't know that this little lake has a name. I checked Google maps - that's why there is a map at the end - and it isn't even on that map. But then I checked for the Municipality of Anchorage Trail Maps and found a map with the trails on it. And tweaked that a bit.
This is a marshy area in the summer. B on the map.
From the bike trail bridge over Northern Lights Blvd, looking west.
And east. The bridge pictures are at C on the map.
One day I'll do a whole post on Lanie. She's a wonderful human being and was one of the people who got Anchorage's great bike trails started. This is at D on the map.
These last two pictures are at E on the map, where the bike trail comes right up on Goose Lake.
This is also at the lake at A on the map. I couldn't tell what kind of bird it was, sort of scoter like. Usually only see them in summer and they have somewhat different markings. Maybe Catherine or Dianne (who's on her way back from bird watching in Bhutan - now that's a serious birder!) can identify it. I'm experimenting with different download levels from iMovie. This was CDRom quality. Not very good I'm afraid.
Map from Anchorage Municipality Trail Page I've added the A-E letters and the bright blue lake at A. The yellow dashed trail is my run - just under 4 miles. By connecting the trails through the university and then the Lanie Fleischer trail (the dark green one - covered with the yellow dashes of my route) I get about half the run in the woods.
A - I don't know that this little lake has a name. I checked Google maps - that's why there is a map at the end - and it isn't even on that map. But then I checked for the Municipality of Anchorage Trail Maps and found a map with the trails on it. And tweaked that a bit.
This is a marshy area in the summer. B on the map.
From the bike trail bridge over Northern Lights Blvd, looking west.
And east. The bridge pictures are at C on the map.
One day I'll do a whole post on Lanie. She's a wonderful human being and was one of the people who got Anchorage's great bike trails started. This is at D on the map.
These last two pictures are at E on the map, where the bike trail comes right up on Goose Lake.
This is also at the lake at A on the map. I couldn't tell what kind of bird it was, sort of scoter like. Usually only see them in summer and they have somewhat different markings. Maybe Catherine or Dianne (who's on her way back from bird watching in Bhutan - now that's a serious birder!) can identify it. I'm experimenting with different download levels from iMovie. This was CDRom quality. Not very good I'm afraid.
Map from Anchorage Municipality Trail Page I've added the A-E letters and the bright blue lake at A. The yellow dashed trail is my run - just under 4 miles. By connecting the trails through the university and then the Lanie Fleischer trail (the dark green one - covered with the yellow dashes of my route) I get about half the run in the woods.
Before "Before..."
To get to the movie yesterday (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead - and thanks to two commenters for explaining that the title comes from an Irish Toast, "May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you're dead") we had to walk through the mall.
If this is a predictor of holiday shopping either lots of people joined the shopping boycott, people are becoming less materialistic, they were enjoying what was for some T-shirt weather (40s F), or the economy is down. Anyway, below is a brief visit to the mall on the way to the movie.
I did this quickly, but I played around with the 'billow' transitions, but decided not to take any more time last night to figure out why some were slow and others faster. I think the clips were too short. Also saved this at 'video' quality which means it takes up very little memory, but the visual quality is pretty degraded.
If this is a predictor of holiday shopping either lots of people joined the shopping boycott, people are becoming less materialistic, they were enjoying what was for some T-shirt weather (40s F), or the economy is down. Anyway, below is a brief visit to the mall on the way to the movie.
I did this quickly, but I played around with the 'billow' transitions, but decided not to take any more time last night to figure out why some were slow and others faster. I think the clips were too short. Also saved this at 'video' quality which means it takes up very little memory, but the visual quality is pretty degraded.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Before The Devil Knows You're Dead
[4/29/08: Title explanation in first comment]At one point in the movie the diamond cutter says something like, "There is evil in the world. Some people make money off it and others are destroyed by it."
I don't believe in the existence of evil as a force in the world, but clearly, there is metaphorical evil, and the Alaska political trials have demonstrated how some make money off of it, and others are destroyed. And some make money before the they are destroyed.
My writing about the political corruption trials here, has always had the goal to try to understand why some people succumb to temptation and others don't. The
traditional explanations - he's evil, he's bad, he's greedy - simply label people, as if the label were an explanation, end of discussion. But the labels don't explain how they got to be evil, bad, or greedy. Such labeling also puts the blame squarely on the individual and thus let's us change topics rather than look at the social, economic, and political structures that reward the 'bad' behaviors, such as requiring politicians to raise large amounts of money to get elected, thus setting up obligations to big contributors. This also takes the blame off of the rest of us who have tolerated this sort of corruption as long as we were the beneficiaries - all that earmarked loot from Uncle Ted for example. How many times have I heard someone say, "That's politics." But in a democracy, we the people are part of the political process, and if politics are corrupt, we bear some of the responsibility. We could spend more time learning about the candidates, we could sacrifice a little television or surfing to contact our legislators. We could stop saying "there's nothing I can do" and take some action. Of all states, Alaska's small population gives individual action much more impact.
Those who get angry at the convicted politicians because they don't seem to own up to their guilt enough for us, ought to face our own denial in all this - denial of our own lack of anger and action while the APOC was gutted, while campaign finance laws were weakened, that we were too lazy to get past the party labels in the polling place and continued to vote in the people we now so easily condemn. And if what you just read angers you and and you feel unjustly accused, then you know how Anderson, Kott, and Kohring have felt. I think they were wrong to feel that way, but their behavior was not that out of the norm in Juneau, and Kott and Kohring had been reelected regularly. That couldn't have happened without the majority in his district voting for him. And those who didn't bother to vote also share the blame. Kott was even elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. Why would he think he was doing anything wrong? He was doing, in his mind, what he needed to do. And we all use that excuse - we have lives to lead, we don't have time to get involved. But in a democracy, if the honest people don't get involved, you know who that leaves.
I'm not saying that these politicians aren't guilty and don't deserve to be punished. The first three have been tried and convicted. They will all serve time in prison. But their crimes couldn't have happened without the rest of us allowing the corruption in Juneau to get worse and worse. And they might well still be honored elected officials if the Department of Justice hadn't gotten involved. Righteous indignation about these defendants says the guilty have been punished, and thus it denies our complicity. And thus prevents us from taking the action needed to minimize the risk of future repetition. Yes, there are people who were politically active, people who didn't vote for these legislators. Your joy at the guilty verdicts is nobler if it celebrates that justice was served, than if it celebrates the suffering of those found guilty.
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead [I have no idea what the title means] lets us watch how a crime is planned and committed. We run through events over and over again from slightly different angles. We learn about the weaknesses of the characters, the father-son, brother-brother relationships that mold people to be able to do what they do, or not be able to do what they should do. The crime is evil, ill conceived, monstrous - yet desperate men succumb. The younger brother succumbing to the older brother's taunt "You said you were going to do it, you can't back out now." [How many siblings never break out of their childhood patterns of behavior with each other?] He succumbs to the $2000 on the table, as the echoes of his daughter asking for money to see the Lion King on a school overnight outing still ring in his head and through his empty pockets. Attending the political trials in Anchorage gave a similar perspective that one just can't get by reading the accounts of the trials. We heard the crimes described from different perspectives. All of these people are human beings whose life stories help us understand how they got to here. (But since Anderson and Kohring did not take the witness stand, we learned less about them than we did about Bill Allen, Rick Smith, and Pete Kott.)
I'm not saying everyone is good or that people need not take the consequences of their actions. I accept that there are people who will always take and never give. I accept that there are psychopaths, people whose brains are missing the parts that give the rest of us a conscience. This makes it easy for them to do monstrous things. But if the part of the brain that stops the rest of us from doing evil acts is missing, can we really blame them for what they do? We don't blame the blind because their brain cannot read the light patterns that hit their eyes. Though past civilizations did attribute sometimes favored and sometimes evil status to many who had physical and mental disabilities. Letting psychopaths live free to keep doing harm is not an acceptable answer, but neither will saying they are evil help us find humane solutions to their and our problems. Yes, their problems, the problems of all who break the law, are our problems too simply because they live among us. But I also believe that most evil acts are carried out by ordinary people who never got the approval and love they needed to become mature adults, to grow comfortable with who they are. Rich children can be just as emotionally deprived as poor children. I believe a great deal of attention to child rearing is called for. Parents need more assistance in how to raise kids and the time to be with their children. They need less stress. Mexican siestas, French cafes, these are not idleness and luxury, these are cultural answers to the stresses of life. Pressures on individuals to look younger and more beautiful, to be fitter, to wear the right clothes, to have a good house, to buy flat screen televisions, all this means we have to raise enough money to live the lifestyles we see on tv and in the movies. The more debt we take on to live this advertised dream, the less freedom we have to act ethically. Most of us, faced with the right combination of setbacks become vulnerable. It doesn't take much.
And there are those who will stand up strong and say no to temptation. Why? Saying, "They are good people" is not enough. Why did they turn out that way? Life is complex.
Someone who walks away from this movie and simply says "They were evil" and does not rather say, "They were flawed" has missed much. Or perhaps they've taken their own story about how human beings work into the movie and used that model to interpret the facts. Just as I have.
I don't believe in the existence of evil as a force in the world, but clearly, there is metaphorical evil, and the Alaska political trials have demonstrated how some make money off of it, and others are destroyed. And some make money before the they are destroyed.
My writing about the political corruption trials here, has always had the goal to try to understand why some people succumb to temptation and others don't. The
traditional explanations - he's evil, he's bad, he's greedy - simply label people, as if the label were an explanation, end of discussion. But the labels don't explain how they got to be evil, bad, or greedy. Such labeling also puts the blame squarely on the individual and thus let's us change topics rather than look at the social, economic, and political structures that reward the 'bad' behaviors, such as requiring politicians to raise large amounts of money to get elected, thus setting up obligations to big contributors. This also takes the blame off of the rest of us who have tolerated this sort of corruption as long as we were the beneficiaries - all that earmarked loot from Uncle Ted for example. How many times have I heard someone say, "That's politics." But in a democracy, we the people are part of the political process, and if politics are corrupt, we bear some of the responsibility. We could spend more time learning about the candidates, we could sacrifice a little television or surfing to contact our legislators. We could stop saying "there's nothing I can do" and take some action. Of all states, Alaska's small population gives individual action much more impact.
Those who get angry at the convicted politicians because they don't seem to own up to their guilt enough for us, ought to face our own denial in all this - denial of our own lack of anger and action while the APOC was gutted, while campaign finance laws were weakened, that we were too lazy to get past the party labels in the polling place and continued to vote in the people we now so easily condemn. And if what you just read angers you and and you feel unjustly accused, then you know how Anderson, Kott, and Kohring have felt. I think they were wrong to feel that way, but their behavior was not that out of the norm in Juneau, and Kott and Kohring had been reelected regularly. That couldn't have happened without the majority in his district voting for him. And those who didn't bother to vote also share the blame. Kott was even elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. Why would he think he was doing anything wrong? He was doing, in his mind, what he needed to do. And we all use that excuse - we have lives to lead, we don't have time to get involved. But in a democracy, if the honest people don't get involved, you know who that leaves.
I'm not saying that these politicians aren't guilty and don't deserve to be punished. The first three have been tried and convicted. They will all serve time in prison. But their crimes couldn't have happened without the rest of us allowing the corruption in Juneau to get worse and worse. And they might well still be honored elected officials if the Department of Justice hadn't gotten involved. Righteous indignation about these defendants says the guilty have been punished, and thus it denies our complicity. And thus prevents us from taking the action needed to minimize the risk of future repetition. Yes, there are people who were politically active, people who didn't vote for these legislators. Your joy at the guilty verdicts is nobler if it celebrates that justice was served, than if it celebrates the suffering of those found guilty.
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead [I have no idea what the title means] lets us watch how a crime is planned and committed. We run through events over and over again from slightly different angles. We learn about the weaknesses of the characters, the father-son, brother-brother relationships that mold people to be able to do what they do, or not be able to do what they should do. The crime is evil, ill conceived, monstrous - yet desperate men succumb. The younger brother succumbing to the older brother's taunt "You said you were going to do it, you can't back out now." [How many siblings never break out of their childhood patterns of behavior with each other?] He succumbs to the $2000 on the table, as the echoes of his daughter asking for money to see the Lion King on a school overnight outing still ring in his head and through his empty pockets. Attending the political trials in Anchorage gave a similar perspective that one just can't get by reading the accounts of the trials. We heard the crimes described from different perspectives. All of these people are human beings whose life stories help us understand how they got to here. (But since Anderson and Kohring did not take the witness stand, we learned less about them than we did about Bill Allen, Rick Smith, and Pete Kott.)
I'm not saying everyone is good or that people need not take the consequences of their actions. I accept that there are people who will always take and never give. I accept that there are psychopaths, people whose brains are missing the parts that give the rest of us a conscience. This makes it easy for them to do monstrous things. But if the part of the brain that stops the rest of us from doing evil acts is missing, can we really blame them for what they do? We don't blame the blind because their brain cannot read the light patterns that hit their eyes. Though past civilizations did attribute sometimes favored and sometimes evil status to many who had physical and mental disabilities. Letting psychopaths live free to keep doing harm is not an acceptable answer, but neither will saying they are evil help us find humane solutions to their and our problems. Yes, their problems, the problems of all who break the law, are our problems too simply because they live among us. But I also believe that most evil acts are carried out by ordinary people who never got the approval and love they needed to become mature adults, to grow comfortable with who they are. Rich children can be just as emotionally deprived as poor children. I believe a great deal of attention to child rearing is called for. Parents need more assistance in how to raise kids and the time to be with their children. They need less stress. Mexican siestas, French cafes, these are not idleness and luxury, these are cultural answers to the stresses of life. Pressures on individuals to look younger and more beautiful, to be fitter, to wear the right clothes, to have a good house, to buy flat screen televisions, all this means we have to raise enough money to live the lifestyles we see on tv and in the movies. The more debt we take on to live this advertised dream, the less freedom we have to act ethically. Most of us, faced with the right combination of setbacks become vulnerable. It doesn't take much.
- Factor 1: a medical expense our insurance doesn't cover (that's how Kohring got his $17,000 credit card debt), loss of income because of an injury, which threatens our ability to pay our mortgage, which means we might lose our house, if we have one
- Factor 2: an illegal opportunity to escape our problem is offered
- Factor 3: by a person we trust or who has some power over us
And there are those who will stand up strong and say no to temptation. Why? Saying, "They are good people" is not enough. Why did they turn out that way? Life is complex.
Someone who walks away from this movie and simply says "They were evil" and does not rather say, "They were flawed" has missed much. Or perhaps they've taken their own story about how human beings work into the movie and used that model to interpret the facts. Just as I have.
Disclosures
My first trial blog was June 28, 2007. My first words were:
When I started blogging, the separation between my life and my blog was ambiguous, but it really didn’t matter because I wasn’t writing about public topics and hardly anyone was reading the blog. That changed when I started blogging the trials.
At this point, since I have been writing about public events, I do think I need to be open about relationships I have with people I write about. On the other hand, my interest in talking to Tom was not about getting material for the blog. He was my student and that relationship takes precedence over the blog. There may come a time when we both feel that it is appropriate to post something about Tom here. At this point I simply want to be open about the fact that someone I have blogged about extensively and I are having conversations, even though they will not appear in the blog.
With Tom’s permission I’ll just say that I’m convinced that Tom clearly understands that he has broken the law and violated the public trust. He’s still going back through all the things he could have done differently at every step of the way - from saying “No” to Bobrick and flat out rejecting Prewitt, to whether he should have continued to work with the agreement to help the prosecutors. And he’s still frustrated in the disparity in time different players are likely to spend in prison. I think this is probably normal for someone who has screwed up and is now trying to move on. There's stuff you have to work through. I've already commented in several posts at the obvious imbalance of power in court between the resources of the government and those of the defendants. My conversation with Tom makes it clear that even those of us who sat through all three trials only saw a small portion of what all went on before everyone got to court. Perhaps more than the tip of the iceberg, but not all that much more.
As Tom looks to the future, he makes me think of the old Peace Corps ads that went something like: "Optimists see a glass of water as half-full. Pessimists see a glass of water as half-empty. Peace Corps volunteers see a glass of water and say, 'I can take a bath with that.'" In terms of optimism and seeing a positive spin on things, Tom would qualify for the Peace Corps. But I think that his ability to see the good and block out the bad is partly what got him into trouble.
Second disclosure: I've also mentioned very briefly here that I have three UAA honor students who are doing a directed studies class with me. We've been meeting, generally over dinner, with people from different academic fields and different professions to find out how their fields deal with the idea of truth. What meaning(s) does truth have in their fields? What criteria do they use to measure it? How do they know it when they see it? We have a couple of justice students in the small group and so last night our guest was Mary Beth Kepner, the FBI agent who has coordinated the Alaska political corruptions investigations and who has been at the prosecutors' table at all the trials. I had a chance to talk to her during a break in the trial and asked if she'd come to class. What she said last night was focused on the concept of truth more than the cases. We both were clear that whatever she said was not going to the blog. But as I said above with Tom, since I have been writing about the trials and am still writing about topics that arose at the trials, I feel that I need to disclose when I meet with people involved in the trials. Even if I that's all I can put on the blog.
Disclosure First: Tom was a student of mine a while ago. I don't remember when I talked to him last. However, I have been disturbed by this case since the beginning. I haven't blogged about this, in part, because I can't talk about anything I learned about Tom through our student/teacher relationship which is the only relationship I've had with him. I decided I should go to court and hear the evidence for myself. What I say here is strictly reporting what I saw in court, stuff anyone who went could have seen.We nodded to each other in the courtroom and shook hands a couple of times, but said nothing more than pleasantries. But I did want to talk to him before he leaves for his incarceration and so I emailed about a week ago. We talked on the phone for a couple of hours and Monday he came over for lunch.
When I started blogging, the separation between my life and my blog was ambiguous, but it really didn’t matter because I wasn’t writing about public topics and hardly anyone was reading the blog. That changed when I started blogging the trials.
At this point, since I have been writing about public events, I do think I need to be open about relationships I have with people I write about. On the other hand, my interest in talking to Tom was not about getting material for the blog. He was my student and that relationship takes precedence over the blog. There may come a time when we both feel that it is appropriate to post something about Tom here. At this point I simply want to be open about the fact that someone I have blogged about extensively and I are having conversations, even though they will not appear in the blog.
With Tom’s permission I’ll just say that I’m convinced that Tom clearly understands that he has broken the law and violated the public trust. He’s still going back through all the things he could have done differently at every step of the way - from saying “No” to Bobrick and flat out rejecting Prewitt, to whether he should have continued to work with the agreement to help the prosecutors. And he’s still frustrated in the disparity in time different players are likely to spend in prison. I think this is probably normal for someone who has screwed up and is now trying to move on. There's stuff you have to work through. I've already commented in several posts at the obvious imbalance of power in court between the resources of the government and those of the defendants. My conversation with Tom makes it clear that even those of us who sat through all three trials only saw a small portion of what all went on before everyone got to court. Perhaps more than the tip of the iceberg, but not all that much more.
As Tom looks to the future, he makes me think of the old Peace Corps ads that went something like: "Optimists see a glass of water as half-full. Pessimists see a glass of water as half-empty. Peace Corps volunteers see a glass of water and say, 'I can take a bath with that.'" In terms of optimism and seeing a positive spin on things, Tom would qualify for the Peace Corps. But I think that his ability to see the good and block out the bad is partly what got him into trouble.
Second disclosure: I've also mentioned very briefly here that I have three UAA honor students who are doing a directed studies class with me. We've been meeting, generally over dinner, with people from different academic fields and different professions to find out how their fields deal with the idea of truth. What meaning(s) does truth have in their fields? What criteria do they use to measure it? How do they know it when they see it? We have a couple of justice students in the small group and so last night our guest was Mary Beth Kepner, the FBI agent who has coordinated the Alaska political corruptions investigations and who has been at the prosecutors' table at all the trials. I had a chance to talk to her during a break in the trial and asked if she'd come to class. What she said last night was focused on the concept of truth more than the cases. We both were clear that whatever she said was not going to the blog. But as I said above with Tom, since I have been writing about the trials and am still writing about topics that arose at the trials, I feel that I need to disclose when I meet with people involved in the trials. Even if I that's all I can put on the blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)