Strictly Business - Daniel Hernandez's Film Showing

Daniel invited me to last Friday night's showing of his film "Strictly Business:  The Prologue."  It's not that I'm special.  He invited everyone he saw.  I didn't even see this poster about it until yesterday.



He was able to set up the showing at the bar in the Prospector Hotel.  By the time we arrived, about ten minutes early, most of the seats in that section of the bar were taken. 

I wasn't sure what to expect.  Daniel is KTUU's camera man for their legislative coverage.  This is his first film.  I asked if it was going to be a Zombie movie and he laughed and said no. 

It turned out to be a movie about drug dealers and buyers in Anchorage.  It was good.   The photography and editing were impressive, and the story moved right along.  The big showdown scene worked well.  There was a second or two of bad focus that should have been cut and the sound was uneven.   He's calling this the prologue because he didn't have enough money to make the whole film.  The photo shows him answering questions after the showing. 

The film shows downtown Anchorage in a way I've never seen before. 

I was really surprised when he told me how much it cost.  He did this for less than $500.  That means he has a lot of friends who pitched in.  I'm hoping he'll submit it for the Anchorage International Film Festival. 




Here he is setting up for the evening news back in early February.

Getting Out of Downtown for Breakfast Sunday

[I thought this one had gone up already, but I see it didn't.]

The last time I was here, two and a half years ago, only the tent/shed was there.  M has been building the house  and the family is living in it. 

S is a full time pirate these days.

Breakfast.

The boat's in the backyard.

They said these were jelly mushrooms and Bird's Nest Mushrooms.

Then we went over to the rocky beach.  The sky was bright and clear, the air was in the 30s, and with a strong north wind, I was getting cold. 

But it was spectacular.

And as we walked back to the house we passed a neighbor child who was playing in a little swimming pool.  He was in the sun, and the deck may have been protected from the wind, and maybe there was warm water in the pool, but I had been fooled by the sun into dressing too lightly for the chill wind, and I was cold.

Then off to another spot on the water.

Where S showed me this titled little cabin in the parking lot.  It was good to see another part of Juneau where people live in the woods and near the water.  But I'm not into driving 20 miles each way every day.  But it was beautiful. 

Obama Signs Health Care Bill with Many Pens

I had hoped to put these pictures up as they were happening, but I was already late for the State Affairs Committee.  This is certainly an historic moment.  Will the passage and signing of the bill mark the highpoint of the opposition or will this mark a point where the conservative anti-forces go into a new phase of anti-government organizing,   bolstered by corporate America's new power to spend money at election time?  Will they make proving themselves right their priority and work to sabotage the bill?  How many will accept the decision and work to make it work for the sake of the citizens of the United States?  In any case, this is not the 'end' of anything, but rather a notable stopping point on the collective journey we're all on. 

Would the opposition be less extreme if our President were a white man or a woman? 

Whatever the answers, this is a major event in American history. 

As with all major bill signings, President Obama used a number of pens to sign the bill.  My basic reaction to this practice is negative.  I understand the practical benefits of being able to give a number of people a 'piece of history' but it seems to me this is like moving Washington and Lincoln's birthdays to the 3rd Monday and calling it Presidents' Day. We take 'practical' action which dilutes the symbolism of real events. We give a dozen people a pen that was used for a letter or two instead of having one pen that was used to sign the bill.  We take something that has inherent value and then chop it up into little pieces each of which have some cheaper value.  

This speaks to the interesting nature of how our brains work, to add value to an item because it has some unique characteristic. An original Rembrandt is worth far more than a copy that no one but an expert can distinguish.  Much of that value is historic value, but much of it simply becomes commercial value. 

I do the same thing.  My grandfather's pocket watch has value to me simply because my grandfather touched it.  It's a connection between us that I wouldn't otherwise have.  So I'm not condemning how our brains work, just noting it.  I understand why the President uses so many pens, but one pen seems more 'pure' to me.  Whatever that means. 

House Judiciary: HB 324 Bail Changes

Things didn't go as planned today, which is pretty normal. I got roped into discussing some proposed legislation, and then someone's wife needed a ride to the doctor so I offered to do that so the husband could do other things. So my time at the House Judiciary listening to the discussion on the Bail bill was cut short. I got there late and had to leave early.

(H)JUDICIARY		STANDING COMMITTEE *
Mar 22 Monday 1:00 PM		CAPITOL 120
=+	HB 324	FAILURE TO APPEAR; RELEASE PROCEDURES

Things were pretty technical. Rep. Gruenberg kept asking lawyerly questions about the implications in real people's lives. Sometimes the witness, I think it was Sue McLean of the Department of Law, said something like "Well the law has said that since 1966." But it was clear that there were real issues lurking beneath the surface that were not obvious to someone who doesn't regularly deal with clients getting bail. Here's a bit of what it sounded like from my rough notes. They were talking about what happened if you had to arrest a material witness for a trial. Then they were talking about when is a person technically convicted:

Ramras: What does this have to do with the Governor's sexual assault initiative?
Ramras: Could you point out what has to do with the Sexual assault initiative and what is general updating? General Sullivan [Attorney General] initially said this was related to the initiative.
Dahlstrom: If I were a material witness, would I know? Do I need to be arrested if I'm a material witness?
McLean: No, the person has been served a subpoena and says I'm not coming.
Gruenberg: I'm concerned. Someone comes to the door. Home owner is just angry, spur of the moment, says, "Hell no! I won't go." Would that go on his record?
McLean: When I said there was a record of the arrest, the police have to keep track of who they arrest. In most cases probably not come up in employment application, but possibly for high security jobs.
Heron: Are there classes of material witnesses?
McLean: Material witness is someone who has knowledge of a case. Judge wouldn't issue a warrant unless the judge ???. Regarding the employment, as someone who does hire people, arrest records are not routinely asked for. Now it is conviction not arrests.
Gatto: Difference between protective custody and arrested?
McLean: Protective custody, mentally ill, alcoholic, is confidential. It is on the police record, but not released to others.
Gatto: ???
McLean: I can't think of a time that a victim is arrested as a material witness in investigative stage, though possibly during trial if witness doesn't show up.
Gruenberg: Standards in this bill are lower than others - 'practical' We have to deal with how people can handle this later and language needs to be tightened.
McLean: Has been the language since 1996. These grants for material witnesses are very rare.
McLean: Sec. 13 - conforming amendments. Sec. 14 makes it clear ??? Sec. 15 adds definitions Sec. 16-18 are conforming amendments.
Gruenberg: SEc. 14 - no problem, first time really setting out time someone is technically guilty.
McLean: We're setting out when a person is convicted.
Gruenberg: In civil case, person isn't liable until judge signs the judgment. But you're moving up the time from when the judge signs it to when the jury convicts. Prior to sentencing and prior to any post conviction motions. Is this a change in the law?
McLean: For the most part no. It comes up often. Presumptive sentencing. Over the years it's been a matter of debate when the conviction occurs. If after conviction but before sentencing, it depends. This bill tries to explain when they are convicted for purposes of bail.
Gruenberg: The changes the bill makes in current law.
McLean: Under current law, there is nothing that states when a person is officially convicted for ??, though we proceed as though we know. Once a person is convicted, they are taken into custody, but here we are making it clear.
Gruenberg. Yesterday a jury convicted. Today back on a second charge, is that a second offense if the Judge hasn't signed it yet?
McLean: One of the most debated points. Person is not regarded as convicted for DUI if not sentenced on the first one. Other than that I'll research it and tell you where the differences are.
Gruenberg: Consider these as friendly questions.
McLean: Section 19 provides that sexual violence protective orders may not be ? require that defendent be served by law enforcement officer. If the person is in court on the criminal part, not necessary to go find the person again.
Gruenberg: Any tech difference between "process" and "courts order"? ...
McLean: I'll look into that, what is served on the person at the time is the order and the victim's -
Gruenberg: this only requires the court order and not the dv petition. I'd like the person to get the same as what the police would get.

 Then I had to take off.  I think this was only the second time I've driven a car since I got here.  Travel time in a car is much faster than walking.  I know that sounds obvious, but my head is geared to walking time these days, so I got over to Douglas Island with plenty of time.  Since I was early, I went to the end of the road where I'd heard there was a good hiking trail.  I had time to get out of the car and look around a bit.  And I discovered this sign at the trail head which handled the 'dog nuisance' dilemma with much more style.

Then I picked up the patient and whisked over to the doctor's office.   I perused a book I'd picked up at the library and soon the patient was back home and I was back at the Capitol.



My ex-staffer role sometimes gets me into meetings that I can't write about, but they give me insight into what is going on for other posts.  I went to one of those and from there went to the Leg Council meeting.

Alaska Legislative Council (from the Gavel to Gavel Guide)

The Alaska Legislative Council is a permanent interim committee of the Legislature and is responsible for conducting the business of the Legislature when it is not in session. It was first established in 1953 and was given constitutional status at statehood. The council is composed of the president of the Senate and five other senators appointed by the president, and the speaker of the House and five other representatives appointed by the speaker. The council elects a chair and a vice-chair. Members continue to serve until reappointed or replaced after the organization of a new Legislature.

The Alaska Legislative Council constitutes the Alaska Commission on Interstate Cooperation, which encourages and arranges cooperation with other levels and units of government and carries out the programs of the Council of State Governments as they apply to Alaska. The council chair serves as chair of the commission.

No sooner had I sat down than they called an executive session.  At a different committee  the chair couldn't readily say why they were calling an executive session.  But this time as I was walking out I heard the explanation:

 discussion of matters, the immediate knowledge of which would adversely affect the finances of a government unit;

 I just don't know what matters.   It was after five already so I packed up and called it a day. 

Thoughts on Blogging the Legislature and the Gov's Bill on Bail

There are a lot of unfinished posts backing up.  As I go into my last three weeks here I have lots of thoughts about the legislature, about how it works (and doesn't), about particular legislators, and what ways make sense to report on these things.  I'm reluctant to write "gotcha" articles because you could 'get' anyone over something.  I'm more interested in the larger context of why people behave the way they do.  And I'm more interested in getting more regular people taking advantage of all the information that actually is available through BASIS (the legislative website), through Gavel to Gavel, and through various news media. 

A key issue is how to take the huge amount of available information and make it useful to people who have full time jobs, families, and simply not enough time to keep up with everything. (Actually, full time viewers like I am this session don't have time to keep up with even a fraction.) 


With that said, I'm just going to throw a out context-less letter from the Attorney General to House Judiciary Chair Jay Ramras to take up the Governor's bill on changing conditions of bail, HB 324.  Many Republicans are supportive of Ralph Samuels in the Republican primary against Gov. Parnell.  This is apparently one of the reasons for Republican foot dragging and sniping over Gov. Parnell's agenda.   Rep. Ramras is running for Lt. Gov in November and if he won, he'd be the running mate of the Republican gubernatorial candidate. (Current Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell will be Ramras' opponent in the primary.) 

The letter came from Atty-General designee (if he did finally get confirmed, I missed it) Daniel Sullivan whom Ramras bathed in compliments when the confirmation vote came up in the Judiciary committee.  The letter is dated Feb. 3 and HB 324 was referred to Judiciary then.  It was first on the agenda on Friday, March 19.  I'll try to get to the meeting today to see what's going on.  If you are interested you can listen on Gavel to Gavel.  Here's the letter.  (You can double click the image to enlarge it.)

Health Care Bill HR 3590 - 219 Yea 209 Nay

There are two more votes left.

Update 7:27pm: This vote, as I understood it, would have put in anti-abortion language into the bill, which surely would have killed it in the Senate.  It was defeated 232 -199.  Now they are doing the final vote on the reconciliation bill.

Update 7:39pm:  House passes Senate Bill and Reconciliation Bill 220 yea  211 nea.  

My Attorney's Response Letter

Last November I wrote a post about the Alaska International Film Festival.  Last week I received a letter from their attorney saying I had libeled them.  This is my attorney's letter in response. 

March 19, 2010

Mr. Robert Jassoy
Law Offices of Robert K. Jassoy
110 W. “A” Street, Suite 950
San Diego, CA 92101

Re:    Your Client:    Alaska International Film Festival
My Client:    whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com

Dear Mr. Jassoy,

Your March 10, 2010, letter to “Mr. John Doe aka Steve, whatdoino@alaska.net” threatening a suit for libel and other tort claims has been forwarded to me for a response. Because your demands are without legal or factual basis, my client does not intend to remove his blog post as you have demanded. Whether or not the activities of your client are of more than passing interest to him, my client does have strong feelings about folks who try to use bullying or intimidation to interfere with the free flow of ideas and information concerning matters of public interest or concern. And that would be the effect, as well as the apparent purpose, of your letter.

My client chooses, as do many bloggers, to conduct his on-line activities at this site using the anonymity of the name he has chosen. However, he has nothing to hide. His name is Steven Aufrecht. He is Professor Emeritus of Public Administration at University of Alaska Anchorage, respected both in his previous academic career and his current avocation as a blogger and commentator. His identity is widely known, and in any event, he provides ready access for those who wish to contact him.

If your client has nothing to hide, we would ask that you disclose the name and contact information of the owner of the Alaska International Film Festival, whose legal interests you represent. My client does not know whether, as you assert in your letter, “awards-based film and screenplay competitions” and “virtual film festivals” are “viable and important avenues for independent filmmakers seeking recognition for their works.” However, he doesn’t feel the need to question your opinion about this matter, or your right to express that opinion. We don’t doubt that

[Robert K. Jassoy, Esq. March 19, 2010 Page 2 of 3]

there are legitimate contrasting points of view concerning your client’s activities, and my client would be happy to continue an open, direct and civilized conversation about some of these issues.

You do not explain in your letter what, if any, specific facts in my client’s blogpost you consider false and defamatory. You don’t seem to dispute that the “film festival” is not a “festival” in any traditional or commonly-accepted sense of that term, which would usually connote some on- site event at an announced time and place, and would usually involve the screening of films submitted. (Perhaps it is your position that what is or is not a “festival” is a matter of opinion.) Nor do you dispute that your client has chosen to appropriate a name for itself that is as close as one might get to the name of the actual established and prestigious Alaska film festival, the Anchorage International Film Festival. Nor do you dispute that your client attempted to make the public think that it has a place of business in, or other substantial contact with, Alaska, e.g., by advertising that it has a suite of offices at a “place” in Anchorage that turns out to be only a small mailbox. Nor do you dispute that other commentators have questioned whether factors such as these should raise flags of caution among members of the public interested in events calling themselves film festivals, and have questioned whether under these circumstances the label “scam” might be appropriate to use in expressing their opinion about your client’s “festival” – or that my client fairly quoted the source of such earlier opinion, and attributed it so that readers could go to that source for more information and judge it for themselves. Nor do you dispute that your client falsely represented to the public that its Alaska “film festival” is more established than it is, and has traded off the existing AIFF, by talking about the awards that it gives out “each year” when in fact it has apparently never given out awards before at all, and, indeed, apparently has not even existed before this year.

The only thing you specifically identify in your letter as being objectionable is that my client raised a question about whether your client’s “film festival” might be characterized as a “scam.” I’m sure you understand that the law allows great latitude in how one chooses to characterize, or express an opinion about anything at all, including a commercial enterprise soliciting money from filmmakers around the world under circumstances such as this. For the sake of argument, I will grant you that reasonable people could differ in their opinions about whether to characterize your client’s activities as a scam — but that’s the nature of opinions, isn’t it?

If my client had called your client’s activities a scam, it would be fully protected by the First Amendment and common law. A fortiori, his raising the question about how your client’s activities are appropriately characterized under these circumstances, or noting that such questions have been raised by others, is also fully protected. The fact that, as you recognize, film festivals and competitions are important to independent filmmakers (and to the larger public, we believe) makes it all the more important that discussion and debate on the nature and quality of such events be uninhibited, wide-open and robust.
I was pleased to see in your firm’s on-line advertising that one of your specialties is “anti- SLAPP” litigation. This means that I don’t need to explain to you about laws like the one your state found necessary to enact specifically to counter what it found to be the “disturbing” use of litigation to chill the valid exercise of free speech and other First Amendment rights. It also means that you

[Robert K. Jassoy, Esq. March 19, 2010 Page 3 of 3]

should easily grasp why any suit like the one you have threatened in your letter to Dr. Aufrecht would be thrown out, and fees assessed against your client, if a motion were filed pursuant to an applicable SLAPP statute.

I can appreciate that you would consider the matter “resolved” if you could succeed in getting those who raise questions about your client’s business, or who might portray its activities in less than flattering terms, to submit to the censorship of your threats and remove these discussions from the public arena. Fortunately, the law does not give you a right to require this.

I have represented news media and others engaged in exercising their First Amendment rights for over three decades, and have taught a university course dealing with these subjects for almost as long. I am fairly confident in the advice I am giving my client. If you wish to point out legal authorities and facts indicating I am wrong, however, I would be happy to consider them and discuss this further with Dr. Aufrecht. And, as noted above, if your client is willing to identify himself or herself, and t openly exchange information and views about the nature and activities of this business the public at large, and independent filmmakers in particular, are being asked to support, my client looks forward to continuing that conversation.

Sincerely,


D. John McKay
cc:    Dr. Steven Aufrecht (via e-mail)

The A(Alaska)IFF Lawyer's Letter

I mentioned last week I got a letter from an attorney saying my post on the Alaska International Film Festival was libelous. Here's the letter. I'll post my attorney's response letter later today. 

http://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/2009/11/while-working-on-anchorage.html

It really is spring on the equinox in Juneau

I had a noon meeting that got canceled so I can play around with these. I did go for a run first. It's the equinox today, and unlike in Anchorage, it is spring in Juneau.

The peonies are already poking out of the ground.

I'm not sure what these are, but they are spring like.  I did try to find the name.  Instead I was humbled, by Nature's Shutterbug's spectacular spring flower pictures from California.  It's definitely worth looking at the slideshow.  And Shutterbug knows all the names too. Maybe someone will leave the name of these in a comment. [They are Chinodoxa, a/k/a Glory of the Snow. Thanks GGinWI.]

And I've put pictures of the crocus up before. They are still here, still opening during the sunny days and closing every night.

So, after checking on the flowers, I went off up the hill.

It takes me about 20 minutes running (a generous descriptor) uphill to get to this spot from our place. Is there any question why I love Juneau? Downtown starts behind and below that ridge in the middle, left. The snow capped mountains in this picture are across the Gastineau Channel.   Basin Road/Perseverance trail snakes out of Juneau and around the hump just above the words Downtown Juneau in this google map.

 

And I continued a few more minutes until I got to this view and then came back down.  Since the noon meeting was canceled, I'm going to finish this and go enjoy the sun some more.  J went off somewhere before she knew I was free.  And I really have some things to do, but it's much too nice out.

Great Blogging - Mel at Henkimaa on Sullivan Insurance Story

Although it might not always look like it, I'm keeping busy here in Juneau and have left most Anchorage stories to other capable Anchorage bloggers.  Different bloggers do different things well. 

Mel is proving to be the most obsessive in presenting the facts, presented in digestible detail, without much adornment.  Most recently she's been doing meticulous research and then organizing of her results about what she and others are calling Sullygate - the story of former Anchorage mayor George Sullivan's municipal life insurance policy and current Anchorage Mayor and George's son Dan Sullivan's handling of it in his conflicting roles as Trustee and Mayor.  Now she has up the ultimate chronology.  She is relentless about getting the details right, to the point of clearly acknowledging there's more she doesn't have and asking readers to make corrections and additions, and giving credit to others.

Here's a bit of what she posted, but you really should go look at all of it for yourself.  Just to see good work if you aren't from Alaska, and if you are from Anchorage, well he's your mayor.  [Wow, I wrote 'your' instead of 'our'  - I've been in Juneau too long.  I do have return tickets though.]  And outside-Anchorage Alaskans, I'm sure he's planning on higher office in the future so now's a good time get to know him.  The whole post is at Henkimaa

This is a very heavily annotated timeline of the Sullivan “life insurance” issue based on sources that have so far been made public. A big thanks to Sean Cockerham and David Hulen of the Anchorage Daily News, who made public records requests in the process of preparing Sean’s really fine investigative piece,  and posted the documents at the ADN website for the benefit of concerned Anchorage citizens like me.
This is a really long post; I was happy to learn that WordPress (my blogging software) supports internal navigational links: these will help you get around.

1967 | 1982 | 1984 | 1987 | 1992 | 1994 | 1995 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2007 | 2009 | 2010 | References

Please comment, especially if you find errors or can clarify some of my own questions.  This sentence is the very last sentence I’m writing in this post: it is to say that I’ve been at this a very long time and my mind’s too muddled by tiredness now to even proofread — so really, please let me know if you find errors so I can fix ‘em. — Mel

Mel's whole post is here.