Conflict of Interest - California Supreme Court Judges' Portfolios Deny Citizen Justice

From and AP story in yesterday's Anchorage Daily News

For years, Braxton Berkley was exposed to chemicals while helping build top-secret military planes at Lockheed Martin's storied Skunk Works plant. He says those chemicals made him ill - but his case reached a dead end at the state's highest court.

The California Supreme Court has refused to hear his appeal not on legal merits, but because four of the seven justices cited a conflict of interest because they controlled stock in oil companies that provided some of the solvents at issue in the case.

Conflicts of interest are natural. They occur when our personal obligations conflict with our public or professional obligations. They aren't inherently bad. They are potentially unavoidable. People's public and private lives sometimes, unforeseeably come into conflict. But people whose personal interests and obligations are going to frequently and significantly interfere with their ability to perform their public duties, simply shouldn't run for office.

The California Supreme Court is an example of personal obligations not only conflicting, but totally thwarting what they are there to do. Mr. Braxton's right to appeal has been denied, because the court members have conflicts of interest. Not all cases get accepted by the Supreme Court. But if this case was otherwise accepted and is now rejected because of the conflict of interest, then this is completely unacceptable. Their portfolios are more important than their duty to provide justice.

The article says:

It's common for at least one justice to bow out of a case because of a financial or personal conflict. California Chief Justice Ron George, for instance, recuses himself from cases handled by the prominent law firm where his son practices. In those situations, an appellate judge is temporarily appointed to the Supreme Court to hear that case.

George said the remaining justices decided to dismiss the case because they were concerned that a Supreme Court ruling made with a majority of temporary justices wouldn't hold the same weight as an opinion of the permanent court.

Maybe it would be a better decision. And what happens to Mr. Braxton is also important.

Other options include selling the offending stock or resigning from the bench and postponing the case until there are enough new justices without such conflicts. I realize that is may sound extreme, but overall, we've become much too forgiving to public office holders' needs to make money outside of their offices.

Regular readers of this blog know I usually attempt to lay out as many of the cards as I can and just let the reader make her own opinion. And I can give lots of reasons why there might be good people kept out of office by the various restrictions and disclosure requirements. And I think we should pay our elected officials enough so they don't have to go looking for outside payments. But overall, people whose work or whose fortunes are going to create conflict after conflict simply shouldn't run for office. The work got done before these justices were on the California Supreme court and it will get done when they leave. They aren't indispensable.

Overall, I think it is a great embarrassment that these justices felt it was ok to dismiss Mr. Braxton's case because, well, you know, too many of us have a conflict of interest. You know, it happens. Well it shouldn't.

OK, I shouldn't get quite so righteous from reading one article which may have left out some crucial information. But this is a sore point for me - officials who think they are so important and so indispensable that we should make allowances so that on the side they can make lots of money. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with public officials juggling with the schedule to attend significant events in their families.

Backyard Snow Dragon

with thanks to:

www.xtremesled.com/newtemplate/catalog/images
http://www.freewebs.com/doragon15/snake%20eyes.jpg

Jury Got Filled Without Me

I caught the 7:19 bus (well it came at 7:29) and got to court with 15 minutes to spare.






Here's the jury waiting room. It got packed. The 12 jurors called today for Judge Volland were told at 9 that we could have a break til 10. So I went out and walked in the snow.



There were ice sculptures in the town square.





I stopped in the Hilton to warm up a bit and shake off the snow. I know this guy must be tremendously proud of shooting these bears. And I'm sure some biologist could make an argument about it being ok with the balance of nature. But personally I don't understand why he thinks killing this bear and having it stuffed is a great thing.


Well, sure, I remember the thrill of proving my power by breaking windows and other destructive acts, but I got over that when I was nine or ten. I understand it more when they actually eat what they kill. And I'm sure there's a hunting gene or two that helped humans survive when we had to hunt. But I can't help but think its a sign of arrested moral development when grown men spend tens of thousands of dollars to kill magnificent wild animals for trophies. Do you think he has a trophy wife too? (The sign is in the lower left corner of the bear case)






We had to wait until 12:15 before they told us we could go. But the twelve of us (minus one or two who weren't there) were pretty much the only ones left in the waiting room. And this clock. While being on the jury would have been interesting, this wasn't the right time for a three work trial as we're getting ready to head out for Thailand. So I was glad they were able to fill the jury without even calling us into court.




Well, the next bus wasn't for 30 minutes. I figured I could walk home in an hour, so off I went to the bike trail.





I saw a robin several times around the house last winter, but it is always a little strange to see them here in January. The second one was a little camera shy. It is a Robin, right Catherine? It isn't some bird I never heard of is it?


















Well, I didn't quite make it home in an hour. An old friend, PM, skied past me and then looped back and we talked for nearly half an hour.

[double click on a picture to enlarge it]

Frank Prewitt's Book Deal - Bridges to Nowhere

[Update: September 13, 2008. The book is out and I've reviewed it here.]

Someone tipped me off to this, but I forgot to ask permission to use a name. I'll add it later if it's ok.

Makes Prewitt sound like this great public servant doing all this work for the FBI as a great citizen protecting the public interest. It doesn't mention they came to him because of his shady reputation and that there was some sort of plea agreement involved. Doesn't mention the: [from my second post on these trials this summer]

$30,000 loan Prewitt, while Commissioner of Corrections, got from Allvest another firm that subcontracted with the Department of Corrections (I think that's what he said.) Prewitt said he got the loan and paid it back. Stockler: Is there anything in writing? Isn't it true it was a bribe? No. How did you pay it back? I worked for Allvest for four months - $7500 per month. Did you pay taxes on the $30,000? No, it was a loan. But you say you worked for it. No, I was paying him back. So, all of us could avoid paying income taxes by having our employer loan us our pay before, and then we'd repay it by working and not have to pay taxes?

Nor does it mention that he asked to be paid for all the work he was doing for the FBI, but they turned him down. Was getting to write a book in lieu of pay?

Bridges to Nowhere			Nov. 11, 2007
		Author:		James "Frank" Prewitt
		Category:		Non-fiction: History/Politics/Current Affairs
		Description:		As you are reading this, one of the biggest cases of political corruption in U.S. history is unfolding – reaching from Alaska to the United States Congress in Washington, DC. At issue is the high stakes game of taxing and developing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Midwestern United States – and the spin-off, toxic culture of political waste. BRIDGES TO NOWHERE is written by the confidential source the FBI relied on to help uncover an intricate web of bribery, money laundering and criminal conspiracy – with more indictments of major political figures expected soon. The story begins in 2004, when the author finds himself a “person of interest” to a federal investigation. To clear his name, the author agrees to “cooperate” in exchange for leniency over crimes the federal government knew he didn't commit – but could have, if their theory had been correct. As CS-1 (Confidential Source One), the author teams with FBI Special Agent Kepner to expose a sobering and far-reaching network of political corruption. Wired for light and sound, CS-1 embarks on an incredible journey into the world of undercover surveillance and the corrupting influence of money, corporate power and politics. While the events invite serious reflection about our system of government, the actual conspiracies unfold more like a season of Desperate Housewives Go to Washington…political intrigue and provocative crime in a delicious wrap of irreverence. Senator Ted Stevens (Senate Appropriations Chair, President of Senate Pro Tempore) and Congressman Don Young (Resources and Transportation Chair, and 7th ranking member of the House of Representatives) play a pivotal role in this saga. Young, alone, has spent over $400,000 in attorney fees from his campaign funds preparing for the inevitable shoe of indictment to drop. Early '08 promises a season of indictments and scandal in Washington. BRIDGES TO NOWHERE is based on thousands of hours of interviews with “perps” and “persons of interest”, off and on-the-record conversations with agents and attorneys of the Department of Justice, confidential records, transcripts of secret recordings and first hand accounts. Incredibly, every person, every event, every dialogue is real. The author, James “Frank” Prewitt has a law degree from Seattle University School of Law. He is a 34 year resident of Alaska, and has served as the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Corrections, adjunct professor of Justice at the University of Alaska, Director of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute and an Alaska Assistant Attorney General. He currently has a Government Affairs consulting practice. In addition to working undercover investigations as a Confidential Source, Prewitt provided indispensable strategic consultation to the U.S. Department of Justice on the behind-the-scenes world of contemporary politics and the legislative process.
		Rights available:		All
		Contact:		Diane Nine Nine Speakers, Inc. ninespeakers@usa.net phone: 202-328-6861
		Item number:		5094

[Source: PublishersMarketplace]

The Great Debaters and Atonement

Atonement won the Golden Globe for Best Drama.
[Double Click to enlarge]



This was a good year for movies. All of these are fine movies (well, we haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet). I didn't get a chance to post about Atonement yet, and we just saw the Great Debaters tonight.

Atonement stands out from the others by how it tells the story. American Gangster and Michael Clayton seem to have simply condensed their books into movies that told the basic story but lost the details that made the stories rich. Eastern Promises and No Country for Old Men both told there stories well. But Atonement was a movie. Yes, it was based on a book, but it used the medium of film to tell the story. The camera transcended the words skipping over time and then back to see how we got there. A significant part of the story was conveyed visually. And the story it told was about what happens inside people's heads. About knowing and judging but not knowing and having to live with the consequences. A powerful film.


The others were good films, but didn't take advantage of the medium of film nearly as spectacularly.

The Great Debaters had me shaking my head. It's a good movie. Americans should see it - to remind them if they knew, and to tell them if they didn't - of the history of race relations in the US in the first half of the century. It's a great way to learn about what happened. But the story is such a movie cliche - obscure school wins competition against all comers, and then faces "The Big School". We've seen it with football, basketball, spelling bees, you name it. And I'm not giving anything away because it is obvious what is going to happen from the beginning. The story is how it unfolds. And the actors, the photography, the story, all are done well.

Back to Court Tomorrow at 8am

They called numbers 1041-1079 last night. But tonight they called 1080-1091 and I got snagged. The people who went in today didn't have to be there until 10am, but I have to be their at 8 again.

Judge Volland seems to be doing this differently from how Judge Sedwick did it. I like this better. The jurors don't all have to stick around while they weed people out. But this trial doesn't have all the publicity that ones Judge Sedwick presided over. So tomorrow maybe I'll find out what is going on. As long as I know nothing and I can blog.

Sun and Beauty and Cold

White heat 93 [92,955,820.5]
million miles later lights sky
becomes white cold.

The blue is outside. Red inside. Converting from Fahrenheit to Centigrade
0 Fahrenheit = -18 Centigrade

Unfuck the World - From Kathryn Blume's Boycott

Click the yellow button.
unfuck-the-world imported by AKRaven

I had no idea what we were going to see. Friends called, they had extra tickets, did we want to go? But I like the intimacy of Cyrano's and we wanted to see our friends, so sure.

It didn't start out well for me. This woman (Kathryn Blume) walked out onto the pretty empty, stage with the painted floor. You can see it in the picture before the performance. As she started to tell her story, it came across stagy, rather than genuine. I hate that. But as she continued I started getting used to it, and I think it also got more real sounding. It was funny because all the voices she did sounded more real than her own voice. Huh?

Well, there were two stories going on. First was the Kathryn Blume telling us how and why she wrote this play - basically she felt she had to do something about Global Warming. She'd write a movie that would star George Clooney and Susan Sarandon, the First Lady who starts a national women's Boycott of sex until the President signs the Rio Treaty on climate change.







The second story is the movie itself, which she acts out - a whole slew of characters including a frog. The onstage action switches between the two stories. But it all came together for me at one point when one of the characters challenges us all to "unfuck the world." That is, I realized, what the environmental movement is all about. And then there it was as a song. After the play the song was on the speakers again, so I caught enough on my camera to put it up here.


I wasn't sure the sound was good so I bought a CD when I left. I was feeling a little bad about posting the music from the CD, but I did buy the CD. But I looked at www.arthurblume.com and there was the song out in the world for anyone to download. So that was a better way to go.

Kathryn did get her own voice much more natural and the play manages to get a global warming message out and be funny at the same time. It'll be here through January 27 at Cyrano's.

The Erosion of Freedom - Today's Losses

Two stories that mark today's erosion of liberty. I'm starting to think that one of the purposes of all the different rules we have to obey getting onto airplanes is to accustom us to obeying more and more rules. They just keep adding one indignity after another until we simply accept anything they ask. Perhaps we need to start standing up to the TSA. If people decide not to fly because of the TSA hassles, they should contact the airlines they didn't fly on and their Congressional delegation. We have to start saying no to 4 inch baggies for our toothpaste and all the other nonsense. Ideally in a way that doesn't result in a felony. Send in your suggestions for clever ways to protest how we get treated getting onto planes.

In the first story, the seventeen states said "no" and now Bush is punishing the citizens of those states saying they can't board airplanes without the right kind of driver's license. Maybe this will be the last straw and people will stand up and say "No more."

The second story - the government is drugging people involuntarily? Is this America? And we just sit back and take it? At least the judge said, "No."

These were both short items in the Anchorage Daily News. I could only find the second one online in the ADN, the other was apparently taken from the LA Times. (Why doesn't the ADN credit the LA Times?)

By Nicole Gaouette, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 12, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration hit the brakes Friday on a controversial law requiring Americans to carry tamper-proof driver's licenses, delaying its final implementation by five years, until 2017.

A number of states have balked at the law, objecting to it largely over cost and privacy concerns. But under the administration's new edict, states that continue to fight compliance with the law face a penalty: Their residents will be forbidden from using driver's licenses to board airplanes or enter federal buildings as of May 11 of this year.

The rest of the story is here.

U.S. immigration agents must not sedate deportees without a judge's permission, according to a policy change issued this week. Immigration officials have acknowledged that 56 deportees were given psychotropic drugs during a seven-month period in 2006 and 2007 even though most had no history of mental problems. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit over the practice in June.

The full story is here.

Sarah Palin and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Governor Sarah Palin yesterday stood up to Conoco Philips and said their deal is no deal for Alaska. Calling the legislature back into session and leaning on them with the weight of her considerable popularity with Alaskans to revise the Petroleum Profits Tax was also an example of what a principled politician can do. Think about Frank Murkowski, Bill Allen, the large oil companies and their PR flaks as you read the opening to John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

John Perkins' book is hard for Americans to believe, even liberals. It contradicts most of the key interlocking stories that Americans learn:

Story I: The United States of America is the exceptional great nation where freedom and democracy were introduced to the world.
Story 2: The USA is basically good. Those who commit crimes will be punished. Those who work hard will succeed and do well.
Story 3: The Constitution and the Rule of Law are sacred in the USA.
Story 5: Capitalism is the only economic system that promotes freedom and justice
Story 6: What's good for General Motors is good for the USA (Today we can substitute whatever large corporation, such as Conoco-Philips)
Story 7: In other countries the press is not free, but in the US there is no censorship

While we all know there are exceptions to each of these, most Americans down deep tend to believe these stories. Thomas Kuhn (link to Science Friday audio about Kuhn), whose The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Wikipedia link) introduced the word paradigm into the modern American vocabulary, said that even when scientists (he used the word only about scientific paradigms) know their paradigm isn't quite right, they hold onto it until they have a better one with which to replace it. So even though we know there are problems, we stick to our old stories about the USA because we don't have an acceptable alternative. Churchill is said to have coined this phrase that shuts down those who challenge our system: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

But I don't think we have to challenge the system or the stories. Perkins' story doesn't challenge the values of democracy and freedom. Rather he challenges those who wrap themselves in the sacred stories of the system, while they pervert the system for their own power and wealth.

Instead of US policy and corporations being about helping other countries, he says its about conquering them economically and stealing their resources. This is a story Alaska is all too familiar with - starting with the Russians who were after furs, then those after copper and gold, fishing and timber, and oil. The original Pebble Mine folks were so brazen they even called their company Northern Dynasty. What sort of ego names their company "Dynasty?"

While the tactics are a little different when working within US territory, the basic purpose is to gain access to resources as cheaply as possible by buying off those responsible for protecting them. After the trials of Anderson, Kott, and Kohring, Alaskans can no longer believe the myths that our politicians are all working for us, or that the oil companies are giving us the best deal. The posturing of the oil companies this year is right out of Perkins' play book.

Perkins would go into a country to do an economic assessment for developing a power infrastructure. His instructions were to greatly inflate the future power needs of the country and design an infrastructure that would support the industrial needs of the corporations waiting to come into the country. They would snow the country leaders into applying for loans from the World Bank and other such international lenders. Loans they would never be able to repay. Once the countries had overwhelming debts, they essentially became the pawns of US foreign and economic policy.

If the leaders were reluctant, there was plenty of money with which to convince them. If the leaders still refused, the CIA backed real hit men to get them out of the way. The book is dedicated to two such leaders, who Perkins said were principled and stood up for their countries, Jaime Roldós, president of Equador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama, both of whom

died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire.

I don't expect Governor Palin to die in a fiery crash, but she is pissing off people who aren't used to being refused. You've heard the arrogant tones of the oil companies and their supporters in court and on talk radio and in the newspapers.

I've held off on writing about Perkins because there was one aspect of the book that has bothered me throughout. If what he was being asked to do was so evil, why did he do it for so long? I think I'm irked especially because he was a Peace Corps volunteer and should have known better. He raises this question frequently in the book and I don't think he does that good a job of answering it. The words are there, but it's hollow for me. I think because it is an emotional issue and he doesn't do emotion very well. He writes about being born into "generations of puritanical ancestors," so that may play a part. I also think it's hollow because he does still feel guilty for his part in this. But I've looked on his website and listened to his short Democracy Now interview and I think I'm convinced.

Basically, his recruiters did a very good job. He had a day of interviews while hooked up to a lie detector. They pulled out of him all of his insecurities and weaknesses - his sex life, how he felt about money, his resentment for being the poor teacher's son at an exclusive prep school, etc. And then they used his insecurities to trap him into his job. He also knew what happened to presidents who crossed his bosses, what might happen to him? Besides, he got used to the expensive life he led, traveling the world, feted at international meetings, working with world leaders. It's heady stuff.

His website shows that he has been 'repenting' ever since. He held off writing because he was paid half a million dollars to keep quiet. He used that money he says to develop projects aimed at helping the people he'd harmed. Finally, with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, he felt he could keep quiet no more, and pulled out the manuscript he had started several times.

So, for understanding the power plays between Gov. Palin and the oil companies, as well as understanding why the rest of the world, particularly the less developed world, might not see the American Way quite the same as our stories of it, read the book. You don't have to agree, you don't have to believe it. But at least read it. Then tell me where it is inaccurate. In specifics.