When we biked over to OutNorth Thursday evening for the NW Film Festival shorts, we saw a moose on the north side of Northern Lights going and one at UAA coming back.
There was still ice on most of Goose Lake, and the new UAA Science building was looming large on the other side of the lake from the beach. If we had bigger trees in Anchorage, you wouldn't see it from there.
Prosecutor Bottini responding to Kohring's attorney, who comparing his client to Kott, said Kohring didn't swear or drink or any of those things, that he really is Andy Griffith.
. . . granted, he’s not Pete Kott when it comes to the colorful language, but you saw a guy who was politely corrupt. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t corrupt because he doesn’t swear. The fact that he’s - Andy Griffith - I don’t recall any shows where Andy Griffith took cash from anyone. He may be polite, but still corrupt.
This raises so many issues - about Kohring, but more importantly, about all of us. How do we judge people? How do we decide who to trust and not. We 'hire' politicians to spend our money and steer the ship of State with far less research than most organizations use to hire an administrative assistant or janitor. (And there's no disrespect intended here for admin assistants or janitors, organizations can't run without them.)
So if someone has a veneer of respectable - polite, decent clothes, good haircut, etc. - we make all sorts of positive assumptions about them.
Watching Kohring in court during his trial and even talking to him during breaks, I feel like this is someone who got in way over his head. He reminds me of a kid who has spent his life learning how to avoid trouble, maybe from an abusive parent or from bullies. He's learned to be very polite and to ask "How can I help you?" I think he really means it. But doing everything he's learned how to do, he still gets into trouble. I've written about the contradictions in Kohring's life before - the free market advocate who only has government gigs on his resume.
The rules of life are hard. Some people need hard and fast rules, others are comfortable with the ebb and tide of life. There are different kinds of smarts. Kohring seems to have 'follow the rule' smarts. The problems for this sort of person come when there are conflicting rules, or when conditions change and the rules no longer apply. He pledged early on that he wouldn't vote for taxes. And didn't, but said he would if they called it a fee. Bottini called him a frequent flier at the Legislative Ethics Ofiice meaning he constantly checked on whether he was obeying the law, but they only warned him about state law probably, not the federal law he was convicted of. He understands, I think, that "here's your money, now go vote this way" is illegal. He doesn't understand that "Here's your money" and then sometime later, "Hey, Vic, let that bill out of committee" is the same thing. Don Corleone explained all this: (hit the yellow arrow)
"Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding." "Politely Corrupt" also raises a basic theme of this "What do I know?" blog. How do we know things? How do our brains affect what data from the 'real world' we consider (and what we filter out) and how do we interpret those 'facts' that do get in? "He may be polite, but still corrupt." Polite is easy to see, corrupt is far less visible. We tend not to think of the two combined. Maybe Hollywood needs to make more movies with polite villains so that we get used to looking out for them too.
How did Kohring know who to trust? He trusted Bill Allen, but now he says he was betrayed. He trusts John Henry Browne who at the end of the trial said the defense had cost about $100,000. But Browne also said yesterday, in explaining the new back surgery that Kohring needs, that Kohring had been injured in a car accident before the trial. In Browne's car. Browne was driving. It was his fault.
I guess Browne's insurance is paying for that surgery. But did Kohring check with an attorney other than Browne about a settlement? And some might even think there was a conflict of interest if his criminal defense attorney is the man he might have to litigate over his back injury. And this all happened before the trial.
My biggest hope (though I'm not holding my breath) is that people will take more care and time in studying the backgrounds and beliefs of the people on the ballot in November. That they look past labels like Republican and Democrat and look at the people. They look past 30 second television commercials. Look past bumper sticker slogans like "no taxes" and take the measure of the candidate. Get people down to Juneau and DC who think, are comfortable with themselves, know how to handle money (their own and the state's), and have a good understanding of how everything fits together.
And here's the press grilling one of the jurists after the sentencing. One of Browne's arguments for lowering the sentencing was that we don't know exactly how many of the bribery charges the jury found Kohring guilty of. Although this juror didn't say a lot, I heard her to say she had taken everything into account.
Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross has named five stages of grief people go through following a serious loss. Sometimes people get stuck in one of the first four stages. Their lives can be painful until they move to the fifth stage - acceptance. Five Stages Of Grief
1. Denial and Isolation. At first, we tend to deny the loss has taken place, and may withdraw from our usual social contacts. This stage may last a few moments, or longer. 2. Anger. The grieving person may then be furious at the person who inflicted the hurt (even if she's dead), or at the world, for letting it happen. He may be angry with himself for letting the event take place, even if, realistically, nothing could have stopped it. 3. Bargaining. Now the grieving person may make bargains with God, asking, "If I do this, will you take away the loss?" 4. Depression. The person feels numb, although anger and sadness may remain underneath. 5. Acceptance. This is when the anger, sadness and mourning have tapered off. The person simply accepts the reality of the loss. From Memorial Hospital in Towanda, Pennsylvania
If you listened to Vic Kohring's statement in court or the videos in an earlier post today (be sure to link to the AlaskaReport video as well), it's clear, as Myster remarked in a comment to that post, that Kohring is in denial. He did nothing wrong except trust friends who betrayed him. He's also in anger as well, though he covers that well. I suspect that he learned as a child to speak softly and not show his anger. One day he may just explode.
I believe Kohring. Not that he's innocent, but that believes that he is. Of course, I can't tell for sure if he's not quite as bright as most people, or he's incredibly calculating. My guess is the former. He's the legislator who pledged never to raise taxes and then kept that pledge, even if it didn't make sense and was willing to vote for a tax if they changed the name to a fee. That sort of rigidity seems to reflect a mind that doesn't deal well with subtleties.
I've also encountered a lot of people whose minds are compartmentalized. They don't see the big picture. Thus, if Vic fits that category, he can't quite comprehend how the money he got from his good friend Bill Allen was related to things he did for Bill Allen. After all, as Browne said over and over in court and Vic too, he was always willing to help anyone. I seem to recall that Tom Anderson's lawyer also made the case that Tom was always willing to help.
A couple of quick points to put his appeal into perspective.
1. One point in the appeal is that the search of Kohring's office was illegal. Browne filed a long motion on that before the trial. Here's the prosecution's response to that, and in the post there's a link to the original motion. The prosecution blows his arguments out of the water. And when it came time to cross exam Agent Vanderploeg who did the original interview while other agents searched the office, Browne only asked a few questions, but nothing about the legitimacy of the search itself. He didn't most of the issue that he raised in the original motion. But one part of the motion to have Kohring on bail awaiting appeal (which the judge denied) was based on a case in which the authorities searched a house saying they had a warrante when they didn't. That wasn't the case here, or if it was, Browne didn't bring that out in court.
2. The focus on Kohring's statement was that he couldn't get a fair trial because the judte was married to Kohring's worst enemy. We've discussed that here before. In the video in the previous post and Dennis Zaki's video linked there, Browne also raises this and gets angry when he's questioned. (He also chewed out Bill McAllister (I think it was Bill) in a very mean-spirited diatribe at the coffee stand in the cafeteria.) A few points on this: a. It appears that while Kohring did try to combine Debbie Sedwick's department with another, that she did not lose her job, and that as a professional, she understood this to be political and not personal. I'm guessing there never was a feud until it became convenient for the defense. b. Her name is Sedwick. The judge's name is Sedwick. There are four Sedwicks in my Anchorage telephone book. This is not a common name. If this feud had been such a big deal, if she really was one of his worst enemies, then surely Kohring would have noticed the name and made inquiries before the trial. The judge had no obligation to say anything if he didn't know there was a feud. It was only at the very end of the trial that this came up. Browne and Kohring said they didn't bring it up earlier because they had no idea of the relation. I can accept that for Browne, but not Kohring, if in fact she was one of his worst enemies.
I mention these two, because they are fairly easy to discuss. But my sense is this is the depth of all the other stuff.
The real question now is about money. Vic says this all cost him half a million. So 1. Who's paying for his back surgery? 2. Who's paying for his appeal? It's hard for me to believe that Browne is the type of attorney who would get involved in his client's plight and do this pro bono.
Below are my notes. I can type pretty fast, but not fast enough. But this should give you a sense of what happened today. There are gaps, but I think I've caught the essence. I'll make comments and point out highlights in the next post. The previous post has video of Kohring talking to the press after the sentencing.
Vic Kohring Sentencing
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
9:30 AM 3:07-CR-00055-JWS Judge Sedwick ANCHORAGE COURTROOM 3
USA vs. VICTOR H. KOHRING
(Joseph Bottini) (John Henry Browne)
(Edward Sullivan) (Wayne Anthony Ross)
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE
9:35am Judge Sedwick is explaining why we are here List of Felonies Vic Kohring convicted of Pre Sentence Report Prepared which I’ve read Vic Kohring have you read the presentencing report? Yes.
Presentencing Report. Vic Kohring has mentioned three objections:
A. Not one of allegations predating 2006 is relevant for sentencing B. Since related PPT bill, related to only one subject matter, …. Unwarranted C. Sum total of payments Vic Kohring received was less than $5000 so …..
Sedwick, I will take up these later, but first all other findings of fact I find supported by preponderance of evidence. I’ll hear from lawyers. Then others. Then Kohring Then Determine sentence. Then hear argument on his motion to be released pending appeal.
Mr. Browne: [Kohring's defense attorney. Although Wayne Anthony Ross is also listed, he hasn't been actively involved in the courtroom]
John Henry Browne: You have everything we’ve filed, more detailed than presentation. You summarized objections right. Vic Kohring accepted $1000 and some food, so no basis for upward adjusting under law. Guilty of $10,000-30,000 - he didn’t accept nearly that amount of money - neither the loan or job for his nephew not criminal conduct. Since the jury found not guilty on ??? Not guilty. Not clear exactly what conduct the jury found illegal. According to the newspaper….
Sedwick: I only mentioned newspaper articles because you mentioned them in your appeals. John Henry Browne: No, in your order about our conflict of interest argument you mentioned the newspaper articles. Unusual to rely on newspaper article - I should point out there are jurors here present today - $1000 got on way home from the pub.
For the court to suggest that there was $5000 or more would be a guess what the jury decided.
Whether there is more than one bribe or not, the Govt.’s case supports our permission - “If you find a series of payments” that is usually considered just one bribe. If you accept my reasoning, his sentencing raise would be 17- 23 months, series 18?
Otherwise level 20 - 33- ? Months
Bottini - [Prosecutor #1] Pre 2006 , or course relevant, in the indictment, charged, jury convicted on him. Multiple bribes, we argued this in Anderson and Kott unsuccessfully so we understand reasoning. But this is different. This had nothing to do with ppt. What Allen did was from time to time give Kohring money when he needed it. He remembered giving Vic Kohring $600-700 on several occasions. Doesn’t mean they weren’t a bribe. Giving the money because he felt sorry, but also to grease him. Knowing full well he would have a time to come and ask him for something. Vic Kohring was choking the bill? And he asked him to let it go. He asked him not to run against Lyda Green. Clearly a multiple bribe situation.
Sullivan: [Prosecutor #2] Browne’s arugment that there should be no enhancement, because only took $1000 bribe at Island Pub. Specifically related to $17,000 loan that he was asking for - we charged it as an attempt crime because he didn’t get the amount. Browne says because there was an acquital on Charge 2? - evidence was prsented on other counts, thus there should be a four level enhancement to $29,000.
Sedwick: It seems law clear that court should consider evidence whether it happened. Even the SC says that if preponderance of evidence, the court should consider it even if acquitted. I’ll give Browne a chance to respond. Is it your review I misunderstand the law?
Browne: That’s a tough questions. Your Honor could consider the weather in Anchorage because it is kind of gloomy today. Sedwick: I won’t. Browne: We do not believe that the court can find a preponderance of evidence. Mr. Allen never testified. Interesting, government changed the word ‘loan’ to payment. I thought interesting. That’s the language in the superseding indictment - payment - we know there was no payment. Kohring said, over and over again, everything has to be aboveboard. Nothing from Allen that he considered any requests by Vic Kohring to do anything. I believe it would be a stretch…. [sounding much less certain here]
9:50 Sedwick: Having sat through the trial. I come away with a different assessment than Mr. Browne does. He saw this $17,000 as a way to deal with his financial problems. Despite Mr. Browne’s very able arguments, I overrule the objections and adopt all the statements. That means 24, Criminal history category of 1, the lowest. Advisory is 51-63 months. If the govt. Knows of any victim that would liked to be heard.
Bottini: No.
Would like to hear the attorney’s ideas for sentencing:
John Henry Browne: No secret we will be appealing whatever happened. Based on what you just ruled, and I assume that you included the multiple bribes. Sedwick: Yes, Browne: Object to courts intervening in proceedings at all. Sedwick: Noted Browne: We are asking for the court to depart from the sentencing guideline and reasons in our brief. Sedwick: Principle one being abberant behavior. Browne: Thank goodness the SC has now given courts discretion. I’m happy to see it back. Doesn’t mean I agree with it. I would...point out, today, Mr. Kohring has hitchhiked to court. The door of the truck he borrowed. The door fell off. He hitch hiked.
He is residing with his parents on a doublewide couch, humiliated. Meanwhile, Bill Allen, with $400million he was allowed to keep, the govt. Perhaps because Veco is so involved in the oil industry, has given Veco a pass. While my client is sleeping on a couch. I note that his sentencing has been continued to July again. You saw examples of Kott, Allen, Smith behavior on tape, how they talk, drink, behave on tape. You certainly never saw that of Kohring. He never used one bad word. No matter what happens, Allen has $400 million in his pocket. Mr. Kohring gets to pass on to his relatives debts. Jurors in the newspaper said if they understood the sentencing consequences, they would have taken their job differently.
He spent a decade as a dedicated legislators. Letters say how hard working he was. There were over 50 bankers boxes or more between Kohring and constituents. The letters also say, though you didn’t allow us to present any of this to the jury. Mr. Kohring has a mantra “Let me know what I can do for you.” I know politicians have a tendency to say things like that, though not to the extent Vic Kohring does. Does have obligations and responsibilities to parents- Alzheimer's dad - and facing divorce from his wife. No question it is aberrant behavior. Question for the court whether that should be a basis for departure. Drink of water your honor. The clmate I came to try this case was someone incendiary, because of Anderson case. You were critical of Kott - swearing, etc - and that he wasn’t honest. Not the case here. Kohring didn’t testify. Certaininly 8 months in jail or home detention is a significant penalty… Are there other issues you want me to cover now?
Sedwick: Self surrender. There is a questions about release status pending appeal, I will considere today.
John Henry Browne: Mr. Kohring has preexisting defect in spine in his back. You know because of his surgery reason for $17,000. Mr. Kohring was in an auto accident a week before trial, and I was driving, the only accident in 30 years, I was at fault, and he needs surgery again. He could accomplish that in 45 days, not longer than self surrender takes. You want to hear from Mr. Kohring first?
Sedwick: Yes, but from government lawyers first.
John Henry Browne: Sought advice from myself and Wayne Anthony Ross… He is very concerned about the conflict of interest issue. He’s been advised by some that…. That may not set well with the court. We have put that forward about what you should have told us before and we would have asked for you to be ….. Kohring is not angry. He’s Andy Griffith. He’s not angry, just disappointed. He has a right to talk about his feelings and that the court will listen and understand. I will wait to talk about the bail issue.
Bottini: aberrant behavior issue: This was a four year conduct. Not aberrant, he knew if he told Allen he needed help, he’d get it. He did this over and over for four years. Mr. Browne says well, compare this to Allen. Not true. We went over this in detail. Veco didn’t get a pass. He sold the company at huge discount, because government wouldn’t give a pass. His family situation is nothing unusual. The fact is that he has family here, in state, his sister lives in Palmer.
He offers to help everyone. Modus operandi for Kohring. What is different is that the offer is directly to Allen and smith. After Easter Egg money, he offered to help Allen and Veco.
Contrast between the Kott trial and Kohring tapes, granted, he’s not Pete Kott when it comes to the colorful language, but you saw a guy who was politely corrupt. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t corrupt because he doesn’t swear. The fact that he’s - Andy Griffith - I don’t recall any shows where Andy Griffith took cash from anyone. He may be polite, but still corrupt.
Sullivan: Mr. Kohring convicted of multiple instances. I could talk about corrupting public process at great length. But anything I say would pale in comparison to that one snapshot of him taking money from Allen and asking “What can I do for you?” It says it all about Kohring and about the level of corruption in the legislature at that time. You’ve heard a lot about ppt - billions of dollars of tax revenue for the state - that snapshot showed that piece of legislation was being decided in the back room of a hotel. Spoke volumes about Vic Kohring, that he was willing to sell his office for gain,
Videos showed other traits - He was a manipulating and calculating person when it served his purpose. Timed visits when Veco needed something. Those are times he asked for things. He also knows how to play the pauper. He gave Smith and Allen song and dance about his conditions. Never told them that he was making $100K in per dieman and sleeping on couch by choice. Frequent flier at ethics office. He knew what he was doing. Not aberrant behavior, at least 4 cash payments 2002-2006. How many times did we hear phone calls from Vic Kohring he was willing to help Allen and Smith. Vic Kohring’s illeagal conduct clear and the guilty found him guilty.
We asked tha integrity and honesty should have some meaning. The only way to make that image of dishonesty goes away when Vic Kohring goes away. We ask for 60 months.
Sedwick: Vic Kohring
Vic Kohring: Honorable Judge Sedwick, not here to plead for mercy. Instead, to plead my innocence. I was stunned to learn you were married to one of my greatest enemies. You were legally bound to excuse yourself. Furthermore you lived across the street from the governments star witness. I’m so disappointed that the person who holds the fate is married to the person whose job I eliminated. Then this week’s latest motion you denied. The juror who regretted his decision.
I will admit, I showed poor judgment when I accepted cash for my daughter from someone I thought was my friend who betrayed me. I didn’t live up to my high standards. I never once voted for PPT. My words, How can I help? Were my mantra. Ironic that my words are now being used against me. Intended to be helpful.
The resutling conviction has destroyed me. Cost to me is approaching $half a million, all over $1000. But my spirit is not broken. We did all with integrity. Just an honest presentation of the facts. I used to believe in my government. I do not hold it in high regard as I used to. I believe in the principles. I won’t express remorse for something I didn’t do. The truth will only be reviewed if heard before jurors without bias. I thank the jurors but want to let them know they didn’t hear all the evidence.
I for one shall not rest until justice prevails. I didn’ nothing criminal. Iwas naive. I assert my innocence. All I ask for is to be treated fairly. All I ask for is a fair trial which I believe would find me innocent.
10:20am
Sedwick: As lawyers know, sentence requires applying all criteria. 1. Nature and circumstances of offense: Key criterion. Jury shows, Vic Kohring violated the public trust. Reflected in fact Congress has provided that most serious sentence is 20 years. 2. I agree that Vic Kohring’s objective was to serve interests of his constituents. Unfortunately, at the end he sold out the trust he worked so hard to earn, but participating in the relationship with Veco. Browne suggests that he was just doing what he always did - helping people. But difference between lawful and unlawful helpful. Since he spent so much time at the ethics office. It is clear to me, despite what he said, that he knew what he did was wrong.
I think there is no risk of Vic Kohring committing future crime. He has learned he must be careful to help people whose objectives are lawful.
Must consider impact on others. To reinforce message to people elected to serve the public.
Even Mr. Browne believes some period of incarceration is required.
Court has to consider what is available. Probation is legally authorized. Serious nature makes probation outside the bounds. Incarceration and supervised release left.
I have determined guideline 51-62 months. Instructed by congress to avoid disparities. All judges across the country consider the guidelines, even if not absolutely bound. I have to provide for restitution. No way to pay that here.
Finally, Mr. Kohring's physical condition. Given Vic Kohring’s modest financial condition now, it appears he’ll get as good or better care in prison than he could afford himself. If he does need a surgical procedure soon, and plans on that and apparently has the wherewithal to pay for that.
Taking that all into account, I have to say does not deserve same as Kott or Anderson, behavior not as egregious. Clear to me that his desire to help shouldn’t have included things Veco wanted to do.
Finally, it has to be sufficient but no greater than necessary to achieve goals congress has set forth. Lower range is appropriate, 42 months is appropriate. Is one meets requirements of the statute, is no greater than necessary.
Appropriate to hear motion on Docket 181.
John Henry Browne: In recent past, I know you and most attorneys deal with people not released. Unusual for me. Usually a way uphill battle. Very uncomfortable to make arguments because of what is alleged.
Sedwick: Go ahead.
John Henry Browne: I would suggest there are substantial issues on appeal.
Sedwick: You can speak at length. I’ve read them.
John Henry Browne: There are meritorious issues. Novel, that trial judge has made opinion on his own that he is fair. And it is a meritorious issue. Search warrant issue is serious. Controlling law is 18USC…. Is he a flight risk or danger.
2. Is the appeal meritorious and not for the purpose of delay. You heard what he said to you, sticking to his guns. He believes he has meritorious issues on appeal.
3. Raise serious issues of law and fact.
I think he meets the criteria for meritorious issues on appeal.
He’s a very law abiding citizen outside of this issue.
He doesn’t have the $500,000 fees that Mr. Allen has. I’ll continue to help him.
Sullivan: As the court is aware, we received this motion late last night. Would like to respond in writing.
Sedwick: This is not complicated
Sullivan: We conceded he is not a flight risk
We take issue whether he has raised an issue that will be reversed or reduced sentence. We disagree. Laundry list of issues have all been fully vetted by the parties here. We believe the court has correctly handled them here.
Sedwick: As both noted the statute that controls here 18USC…. With exception of certain crimes irrelevant here. 1. Not flight risk or danger - Vic Kohring meets that 2. I do have to find not taken for purposes of delay that is likely to result in reversal or new trial with lesser penalty. A. Not taken for delay B. Reversal
With respect to related issues Browne and others have written. I believe my decisions isn’t at all unusual.
Good candidate for self surrender. He won’t be required to surrender any earlier than… Monday June 30, 2008. Because Mr. Kohring needs to have surgery. That should give him adequate time to have the surgery and recuperate.
Supervised release for two years. Sentence to run concurrent on each account. Meaning he will serve all sentences at the same time. On release he shall be replaced on supervised…. Speaking way too fast.
1. Cooperate in collection of DNA sample 2. Searches by probation etc. Offers on reasonable suspicion…
Does not have ability to pay fine. Required. $300.
If his condition is such, he may surrender before June 30, I am highly unlikely to extend this no matter what the medical condition might be.
1. Brief video of Vic Kohring talking to the press after the hearing was finished. 2. My rough version (typed as he made his statement and full of errors and gaps) of his statement to the court.
[Here's more video from that meeting with the press from Dennis Zaki's blog.
2. Kohring's Statement to the Court (As best as I could catch it as he spoke)
Vic Kohring: Honorable Judge Sedwick, not here to plead for mercy. Instead, to plead my innocence. I was stunned to learn you were married to one of my greatest enemies. You were legally bound to excuse yourself. Furthermore you lived across the street from the government's star witness. I’m so disappointed that the person who holds my fate is married to the person whose job I eliminated. Then this week’s latest motion you denied. The juror who regretted his decision.
I will admit, I showed poor judgment when I accepted cash for my daughter from someone I thought was my friend who betrayed me. I didn’t live up to my high standards. I never once voted for PPT. My words, How can I help? Were my mantra. Ironic that my words are now being used against me. Intended to be helpful.
The resutling conviction has destroyed me. Cost to me is approaching half a million dollars, all over $1000. But my spirit is not broken. We did all with integrity. Just an honest presentation of the facts. I used to believe in my government. I do not hold it in high regard as I used to. I believe in the principles. I won’t express remorse for something I didn’t do. The truth will only be revealed if heard before jurors without bias. I thank the jurors but want to let them know they didn’t hear all the evidence.
I for one shall not rest until justice prevails. I didn’t anything criminal. I was naive. I assert my innocence. All I ask for is to be treated fairly. All I ask for is a fair trial which I believe would find me innocent.
Halfway through these shorts I started wondering what I do about blogging this. I'm not a blogger who says it's good when I don't think it is, just because I think the idea or the venue is worthy of promotion. And I wasn't impressed by the shorts I was seeing. They were ok, but not exciting. Fortunately, not that many people in Anchorage read this blog so it wouldn't affect them coming or not.
But then the last one started and I got sucked right in. Patterns 3. It had some visual and musical style - essentially it told its story using the medium of film. It wasn't the moving picture adaptation of something else. That's what makes a good movie for me. I don't completely understand it, but that's good too. I do have quirky film taste and this was a quirky film. Leaving I overheard someone very confused about this last film. It was the one that made it all worthwhile for me.
It turns out there is a Patterns and Patterns2 as well. You can check an even shorter clip of each at the Patterns3 link above.
I decided to do this post rather than try to comment on John Henry Browne's motion to allow Kohring to stay out of prison while the conviction is on appeal. There was just too much rehash of old stuff to do it even partial justice with the time I had. One criterion was that the appeal was legitimate and not just a way to stall. It looks like a lot of stall to me. Maybe Browne is much smarter than I think. But at this point I just think he's smarter than Kohring who, presumably, keeps paying him for all these motions that are being filed. And probably doing nothing but fattening Browne's bank account. But, I could be wrong.
When you live in Alaska, you get spoiled when it comes to fresh fish. If you can smell it, you shouldn't eat it. We did have fish dishes now and then in Thailand - local river or lake caught, or farmed fish - but the idea of sushi or sashimi, which was readily available, just didn't seem appetizing at all. Not that far away from the ocean.
So our first trip to Yamato Ya was a real treat.
As was the bike ride home. Cool is such a great concept after hot for so long.
Last week I posted a copy of an email about a presentation in Chiang Mai entitled "Bio Fuel By Decree." Now I'm following that up with a little more substance. This is a report I got in an email from someone I met in Chiang Mai who works for EarthRights, a group that works to help Burmese Refugees in Thailand as well as Burmese still in Burma. I know a little about this organization and met various people who worked for them. They are dedicated and very competent. The people of Burma - including the last democratically elected President of Burma, Aung Sang Suu Kyi - have basically been imprisoned in their home by the SLORC for 20 years.
When people watched Schindler's List and other movies about the Holocaust, many asked, "How could people let this happen?" Well, variations of the Holocaust are happening now in various parts of the world, including Burma.
I'm posting here the EarthRights report. This report was done by people who have been working on these issues in and out of Burma for many years now. It is well documented. Certainly it does not tell everything because access to information in Burma and from Chevron is limited. But if you want to know what is happening in Burma, and how you support it when you buy Cheveron gasoline, read.
Below is most of the executive summary for those who don't have time to read the whole report. And for those thinking, "What can I do?" there is a recommendation highlighted in the executive summary below of recommendations "To the United States and the world community." [You can easily enlarge the pages of the document by clicking on the magnifying glass]
. . . EarthRights International (ERI) began documenting the human Residents and refugees from fourteen villages throughout the pipeline region, with whom ERI conducted over 70 formal interviews in the past five years as well as additional corroborative contacts, confirm that, for the people of Burma, “human energy” means human exploitation. Chevron and its consor- tium partners continue to rely on the Burmese army for pipeline security, and those forces continue to conscript thousands of villagers for forced labor, and to commit torture, rape, murder and other serious abuses in the course of
Part 1 describes the background of the Yadana Project, which involves a pipeline constructed to carry gas from offshore fields, across Burma, and into Thailand. In 2005, Chevron became part of the Yadana Project through its acquisition of Unocal, one of the original developers of the project. The Burmese military junta, a brutal regime routinely condemned by the United Nations and the world community for its widespread violations of basic human rights, is one of Chevron’s partners in the project through its military-run oil company, Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise.
Part 2 explains how the Yadana Proj- ect finances oppression. The project is the single largest source of income for the Burmese military; it was instru- mental in bailing out the junta when it faced a severe financial crisis in the late 1990s, and it has enabled the regime to dramatically increase its military spending and continue its rule without popular support.
Part 3 describes how Chevron was fully aware of the human rights abuses associated with the Yadana Project when it acquired Unocal in 2005, but nonethe- less chose to stay involved with the project and the Burmese military. The Yadana pipeline is guarded by the Bur- mese army, and the human rights abuses committed by the army in the course of providing security have been widely re- ported and documented; victims of the project sued Unocal in U.S. courts in the landmark case Doe v. Unocal.
Part 4 documents the continuing seri- ous human rights abuses by the pipeline security forces, including torture, rape, murder, and forced labor. Seventeen years after abuses connected to the Yadana Project were first documented, and years after they were highlighted in Doe v. Unocal, these human rights abuses continue in the pipeline corri- dor. Residents and refugees fleeing the pipeline region report that they are still forced to work for the pipeline security forces, who continue to commit acts of violence and terrorize the local popula- tion. This forced labor occurs thousands of times each year.
Part 5 debunks the oil companies’ claims that life in the pipeline region has improved. While some villages have re- alized minimal benefits from the compa- nies’ socio-economic program, the ben- efits do not reach the entire population affected by the pipeline security forces. Even for the chosen “pipeline villages” life remains so difficult and dangerous that families continue to flee for the rela- tive safety of the Thai-Burma border.
Part 6 discusses Chevron’s response to the 2007 demonstrations in Burma against the military regime and the re- gime’s crackdown. Despite its threefold status as the largest U.S. investor in Burma, the military’s direct business partner, and a partner in the project that constitutes the largest source of income for the regime, Chevron has failed to take any noticeable steps to condemn the violent repression or to pressure the military to respect human rights.
Finally, Part 7 describes Chevron’s ongoing potential legal liability for its role in the Yadana Project. Although the Doe v. Unocal litigation resulted in a settlement in 2005, that settlement only covers the claims of the victims involved in that suit; Chevron remains responsible for compensating the thou- sands of other residents of the pipeline region who have suffered abuse by pipe- line security forces.
Two appendices offer additional detail on oil and gas investment in Burma. Appendix A details the Shwe Project, a new gas project which could dwarf Yadana both in revenues for the military and in the abusive impact on the local population. The project is being devel- oped by South Korea’s Daewoo Interna- tional along with other companies from Korea, India and China. Appendix B briefly outlines China’s growing involve- ment in Burma, especially in the oil and gas sector. The Yadana Project remains a serious problem both for the people of Burma and for Chevron itself.
In light of this, EarthRights International makes the following recommendations: To the Burmese military regime: » The SPDC should cease human rights abuses against the people of the pipe- line region and throughout Burma, including extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, torture, excessive force, ar- bitrary detentions and imprisonment, forced labor, and forced relocation, and abide by its obligations under in- ternational law to respect fundamen- tal human rights and environmental protection.
» The regime should begin a full transi- tion to a system of government that allows for all of Burma’s peoples to fully participate in development deci- sions and freely determine their own futures.
To Chevron Corporation and its partners: » Chevron, Total, PTTEP, and all other oil and gas companies in Burma should suspend ongoing projects, cease de- velopment of new projects, and refuse to sell gas that enriches the Burmese regime until the SPDC fully respects internationally-guaranteed human rights and environmental protections and allows for a full transition to a participatory system of government as described above.
» The Yadana consortium and other com- panies should terminate any contracts that require them to provide monetary support to the military regime or that contemplate or require the use of the Burmese military as security forces.
» The companies should publicly con- demn past human rights abuses and use their influence with the SPDC, their business partner, to press for respect for human rights in the future, not only in the pipeline region itself but throughout the country.
» The companies should immediately stop relying on the Burmese military for any security or other services. If alternate security measures are taken, Chevron and its partners must provide adequate human rights train- ing and supervision in order to ensure respect for fundamental human rights (in accordance with international law and Chevron’s stated commitment to respect human rights).
» The companies should allow indepen- dent third-parties with experience documenting human rights abuses in Burma access to the pipeline region, without military supervision, in order to monitor the situation. Such moni- toring should include a mechanism to allow local residents to bring com- plaints to an independent body on a confidential basis.
» The companies should provide ad- equate compensation to all individu- als and communities harmed by the Yadana Project.
» The companies should demonstrate a serious commitment to their socio- economic program by expanding it to include all of the villages that have suffered adverse impacts from the Yadana Project, and by inviting groups experienced in documenting condi- tions in Burma to participate in de- veloping, implementing, and regularly evaluating the effectiveness of, their programs.
» The companies should support efforts that promote transparency through disclosure of payments to all govern- ment and state-owned or state-con- trolled partners.
To Chevron’s shareholders: » The shareholders of Chevron should support shareholder resolutions that promote policies and practices de- signed to improve the promotion and protection of human rights, the envi- ronment, rule of law, transparency, and the rights of indigenous peoples and affected communities to informed consent before projects begin and dur- ing operation phases.
» The shareholders of Chevron should communicate their concern over the situation in Burma, the reputational and legal risks it poses to their com- pany, and their wish for Chevron to follow the recommendations outlined above, to Chevron’s CEO and Board of Directors.
To the Royal Thai government: » Thailand should immediately cease purchasing gas from the SPDC and cease payments for such gas until the Burmese regime respects fundamental human rights and environmental pro- tections and begins a full transition to a participatory system of government as described above. Alternatively, Thailand should place all such pay- ments in escrow for the benefit of the people of Burma under a future gov- ernment.
» Thailand should immediately require that its state-owned company PTTEP suspend its ongoing natural gas explo- ration in the Bay of Bengal until the company conducts environmental and human rights impact assessments, and until appropriate preconditions for responsible investment in Burma are in place, such as a full transition to a participatory system of govern- ment as described above.
» Thailand should allow safe refuge to all Burmese refugees fleeing the abuses there, in accordance with in- ternational law.
» Thailand should provide legal mecha- nisms that allow Thai companies, such as PTTEP, to be held accountable for their responsibility and complicity in human rights abuses in Burma. Civil society organizations and citizens of Thailand should advocate for legisla- tion to create such mechanisms.
To the United States and the world community: » The United States and the world com- munity should make immediate efforts to cut the flow of money to the Bur- mese regime, including stopping the Yadana Project payments and other gas payments through targeted finan- cial sanctions.
» The United States and the world com- munity should condemn the abuses committed in Burma on projects ben- efiting multinational corporations, including Chevron, and pressure the companies to end these abuses and adopt the recommendations outlined above.
» The United States should continue to pressure the Burmese regime to respect human rights and the environ- ment and begin a full transition to a participatory system of government as described above; the world communi- ty, especially China, India, Korea, and Thailand, should join in these efforts. for complicity in abuses abroad, and enable access to justice for survivors of abuses abroad. Civil society organi- zations and citizens of these countries should advocate for legislation to cre- ate such mechanisms.
To Daewoo and its partners in the Shwe Project, and other gas compa- nies in Burma: [See Complete Document for more]
U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick on Monday denied Kohring's request to interview a member of the jury that convicted him in November on federal bribery charges.
This whole thing sounds fishy like a lot of what Kohring's attorney has filed, starting with his attempt to throw out all the evidence found in Kohrning's office.
I had just gotten back to Anchorage when I read Friday's story about this juror. I was struck by his claim to have had to take vacation time to serve on the jury.
He works four 10-hour shifts a week as a People Mover bus driver. After an eight-hour court day, Fritsch said he was told at work that he either had to put in another two hours for the city, or take vacation time.
It was my understanding that the Municipality of Anchorage, like nearly all public employers, has a very liberal jury duty policy. So, when I was reminded of the story by today's article I called the Employee Relations department of the Municipality and asked what sort of jury duty accommodations were made for people mover bus drivers. I was told they don't have to take vacation time for jury duty. They are covered.
Obviously, they couldn't talk about specific employees, and I know there are always situations that are out of the ordinary - if, for example, Fritsch didn't tell them beforehand he was going on jury duty. His account of things, barring unusual circumstances, doesn't square with Municipal policy on jury duty.
I attended the Anderson, Kott, and Kohring trials last year and only missed a couple of days due to other commitments. Judge Sedwick seemed to bend over backwards to make sure everything was fair. In the long and tedious process of choosing jurors for such well publicized trials, he treated each juror with a voice that gave respect and no hint that it was the 20th time he'd asked the same questions that day. He was practical about moving on when something wasn't relevant to the outcome, but gave both the prosecution and the defense all the time they needed if something was important.
So if Sedwick dismissed this, then I'm convinced he gave it careful thought and had good reasons.
[This is not intended to be a complete book review. Rather I'm hoping to just give you a peek into another time and place and the life of a remarkable man, as presented by Sherwin B. Nuland.]
Our book club was reading Maimonides (2005) for May 4, just after we got back. I've had a copy of Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed for years, but could never get more than a few pages into it. But I've always had the sense that this was someone important about whom I needed to know more. So I tested Amazon's ability to deliver to Chiang Mai.
This is not a great book. Nuland wasn't able to get all the pieces of the puzzle together right, so he left some out and forced others into places they didn't quite fit. But since I knew almost nothing about Maimonides, I still got a lot out of it
Who was Maimonides? (all of this according to Nuland)
1138 He was born to a (the?) leading rabbi in Cordoba, Spain under Muslim rule.
Like the inhabitants of all the cities of Andalusia - southernmost Spain - the people of Cordoba were thoroughly Arabized. In dress, language, and popular culture, it was difficult to distinguish one group from another. Jews and Christians wrote Arabic poetry, composed and played Arabic music, and served in the Arabic government, sometimes in high positions. (p. 29)
Many times. like the above quote, I found myself thinking, wow, there are real parallels to the modern day. You could say exactly the same for American Jews in American culture. And then I would stop and wonder whether these similarities were really there or that Nuland had merely written it that way. I don't know enough about this to be sure and he didn't completely convince me.
No Cordoban was more the beneficiary of the atmosphere of tolerance and religious freedom than Rabbi Maimon [the father.] Although the source of his income is uncertain, it is known that he was able to live well, in a comfortable, book-filled house of the Moorish style. (p. 30)
But the good times are about to end. After seven generations of tolerance, a new brand of Islam takes over and the Maimons have to leave. One aspect that was very interesting was that Nuland writes that Maimonides and his family nominally converted to Islam to avoid being slaughtered. And in his writings Maimonides takes on critics of such conversions, strongly defending actions that lead to the survival of Jews.
1148 - the family flees Cordoba for Almeria 1151 - the family leaves Almeria for Fez, Morocco
They seem to have wandered from town to town during the next eight or nine years, unable to leave Spain until 1160, when emigration was permitted following ibn Tumart's death. . .
Incredibly, young Moses [Maimonides] somehow found time to write during the period of restless and often dangerous travel. Initiating a pattern of ceaseless literary activity that would characterize his scholarship for the rest of his life, his rapidly maturing intellect produced a short treatise on the language of logic and metaphysics, commentaries on a few sections of the Bible, and an essay on the Jewish calendar involving rather complex mathematical and astronomical calculations, at the age of not much more than twenty. (p.36)
1160 - To Fez, Morocco
He also began at this time (1158) his first major work, a commentary of the Mishna, which he wrote in Arabic using the Hebrew alphabet. For centuries, rabbis had had to interpret "biblical writ" as Nuland calls it (he too says he was trying to make a book that anyone could understand, but phrases like that left book club members scratching their heads). I understand this to mean that to resolve problems that arose in the Jewish community, they would go to the Torah (the handwritten scrolls that are now referred to as the Old Testament by many) to find the laws that governed the situation. These decisions and the commentary that explained their interpretations were passed on orally.
Around 200 C.E., Judah ha-Nasi, the Patriarch of the Jewish community in the land of Israel, undertook to compile the divergent mass of oral tradition, codifying it into a single consistent text, the Mishnah, meaning "learning by repetition." (p.37)
The Mishnah, in turn, generated centuries of comments, which were written and known as the Gemara.
The separate commu;nities of Palestine and Babylon each produced its own Gemara, which, though based on the same Mishnah, are in fact quite different. (p. 38)
Moses [Maimonides] determined to produce a compendium making use of only the most essential Talmudic precepts, thereby permitting direct access to an understanding of the Mishnah for less learned readers, or for those who simply did not have the time or inclination to wade through the vastly more complicated, abstruse, and disorganized text of the Gemara. (p. 39)
1165 Fled Fez, Morocco for Palestine, which, under Christian rule, proved as dangerous to the Jews as the Arab ruled lands they had fled. So they went on to Alexandria, Egypt (named, after Alexander the Great.)
1168 Published the Commentary on the Mishnah. 1168 Moved once more, this time to Fustat, several miles from Cairo.
By this time, the father had died and Moses was the head of the family. With his younger brother David, Moses had started a gem business. David managed it so that Moses could study. As he became better known, his advice was being sought by Jews throughout the Arab world. Nuland discusses particularly a widely disseminated letter he wrote, in answer to Yemini Jews. He also brokered deals to get back Jews who had been taken prisoner.
1174 Brother David dies on a gem selling trip to India. Moses now must support both his family and David's. He has vowed not to take money for doing God's work (being a rabbi) so he had to find another source of income.
Moses had studied not only religious works, but all the scholarly and scientific works available including medicine. He became a doctor and eventually the doctor to the rulers of Egypt.
His great contributions to medicine, in Nuland's view (Nuland was asked to write the book because he is a doctor) were
clearly articulating a separation between religion and medicine. The Jewish practice of medicine did not depend on divine intervention, rather it was people's responsibilities to keep themselves healthy and doctors had to learn how to heal the sick.
using 'modern' philosophy and science in his analysis of religious works as well as medical works
articulating the importance of mental and spiritual health as well as physical health
As I understood Nuland, while Maimonides was not the first or only one doing these things, he was the first to clearly and strongly write about them in widely read texts. He also strongly criticized some of the masters, such as the Greek doctor Galen, when he found their work not supported by facts.
Nuland's task was difficult. I took lots of notes to keep things straight - like the dates and who was who. I had only the sketchiest knowledge of this significant player of that time and place. I found Nuland's first chapter on Jewish doctors interesting, but it felt very self-congratulatory of all modern Jewish doctors - not only do they save lives but they are doing God's work. Something about how he wrote it irritated me. The final chapter about Maimonides as a doctor seemed to be tacked on at the end, one of those extra pieces he couldn't fit into the main text, and which also repeated things from the earlier chapters. But I did read much of the book on the eight hour flight from Taipei to Anchorage, so it had enough to keep me awake and involved for most of the trip.
someday imported by 
And here's the press grilling one of the jurists after the sentencing. One of Browne's arguments for lowering the sentencing was that we don't know exactly how many of the bribery charges the jury found Kohring guilty of. Although this juror didn't say a lot, I heard her to say she had taken everything into account.
When you live in Alaska, you get spoiled when it comes to fresh fish. If you can smell it, you shouldn't eat it. We did have fish dishes now and then in Thailand - local river or lake caught, or farmed fish - but the idea of sushi or sashimi, which was readily available, just didn't seem appetizing at all. Not that far away from the ocean. 
