Henry v MOA - Drug Day And What Is The Plaintiff Trying To Do?

[I've started a new tab on top - Henry v MOA - so you can find all the posts on this topic.]

I feel like I've walked into the tar pits and the case is sucking me under.  The still mild weather at least allows me exercise and some time with trees as I ride to and from court.  I'd show pictures, but the security at the court told me not to bring my camera any more because I'm not allowed to take it into the court section of the Federal Building and they aren't allowed to hold it for me - as they did last time I covered a trial and for the first few days.  I think it's because I got out late the other day and it was locked in overnight and others asked about it. The next day they wanted to give it back to me in the morning.  But I was going into court.  Should I hide it in the bushes in the atrium?  Sorry, can't take it to my car because I'm on my bike.  We need you to take it by noon.  I found someone in court who could take it out to his car at noon and I got it after court was over.  So now I have to leave it at home.  And no, I only have what someone called a 'smart enough' phone,  I don't think it takes pictures.  But yes, people can take their smart phones up.  I also learned they now have wifi in the court area.  I'm trying not use it.  One of the benefits of going to the trial is not having access to the internet.

I'm writing all this because it's much easier than trying to write about what happened in the courtroom.  First, I got there late, so I missed the finishing up of Ann Kirklund, the FBI agent. She was a great witness yesterday, very credible and I'm sorry I missed her testimony this morning.  I thought they were going to put on the economist to talk about how he calculated the backpay and pension award should Henry win his case.  I had gone to Karen Hunt's OLE class on the 2nd Amendment.  That was interesting.  OK, I need to get to the task at hand.

I got into court around 11am.  The new witness was taking the stand - Joseph Hazelaar.  (The name was hard for me to keep in my head so I looked it up.  It means hazel or hazel wood in Dutch.)

But before getting into details, let me try to outline what I'm starting to see as the strategy of Anthony Henry's attorneys  Since I didn't get to the first several days of the trial,  I missed the opening arguments which, presumably, would have spelled this out.  So I have to tease it out from the myriad details that my gut says we are hearing repeated way too much.  Today I heard Ray Brown ask the exact same questions about an hour apart.  But I'm sure there's a reason that I don't yet fathom.

Anyway, here's my overview based on what I've seen since last Friday.

Basically, Henry’s legal team is trying to disprove the allegations against Henry that came out in the Brown Report.  They are doing it by:

1.  Disputing facts:
1. That telling Gen Katkus about a National Guard member who was a drug suspect did NOT make the drug investigation ‘go sideways’
1. Showing that the drug investigation continued very successfully after Katkus was informed 
2. Informants continued cooperating
2. That what Henry did (informing Katkus) was completely normal and followed procedures
2. Trying to show that certain APD officers - particularly Jack Carson - ran a rogue investigation of the Guard and filed false allegations against Henry
3. Showing that Investigator Rick Brown was NOT an independent investigator, but rather was a captive of people in the Muni who wanted to get evidence to terminate Henry, particularly Jack Carson and  Asst Municipal Attorney Blair Christiansen.  AND that Rick Brown wasn’t competent to do the study.
4. Showing that Carson had personal reasons for wanting to go after the National Guard and harass Henry with complaints.   

These are things that seemed likely based on (mostly) today's testimony.

The Municipality of Anchorage is the defendant, but in a sense, Anthony Henry is on trial, or perhaps on appeal of the decision the Municipality made to terminate him.  So, he has to prove MOA made an incorrect  decision.

To do that, they have to drag  the jury through a mire of details.  And the jury has to see how each of the seemingly random bits of information come together to make the case.  The problem I'm having is figuring out which of the many details we're going through are directly relevant to proving their points, which are necessary to understand those directly relevant points, and which are just distracting.

For example, here are a few of the details I got to sit through today:

1. Technical stuff about how FBI, APD, DEA, State Troopers coordinate through the Safe Street program and a program that seems to overlap with Safe Streets called OCDETF. (They pronounce it something like “Ocidet”).  It stands for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.   This seems to be in there to make the point there was only one investigation of drugs at the National Guard, and thus Jack Carson's claims that there was a separate one at SAU (Special Assignments Unit) at APD (Anchorage Police Department) would be false.  
2. Understand more about how the task force with different jurisdictions work.  Again this seems aimed at delegitimizing Jack Carson.
3. Technical details for processing suspects and requirements for recording interviews. Aimed at showing why Carson's claims were false.
4. Jurisdictional issues like APD wouldn’t pick up $7000 in drug money in Glenallen, because it’s outside their jurisdiction, so troopers would do it, or why they would be collecting the money.  I’m not sure, but I understood it to be related to working with informants and supplying drugs for an outlying area that can’t afford to buy large amounts, so they wait to collect it after the person sells it.  Someone (Carson again?) claimed an APD officer did this.
5. How much cocaine would stay an APD case, and how much would go to the FBI Task Force.  Little stuff stays in Anchorage, big stuff to FBI.  To delegitimize Carson's claims the SAU was also investigating.
6. FBI would have to get permission from Headquarters to investigate a high level official like a General.  Why Henry, as part of the FBI run task force, couldn't do an undercover investigation of General Katkus on his own.  I think.
7. Drug deals happening more in parking lots, because police get search warrants for houses. Random, not essential for the case, I think.
8. Background on Jack Carson  To explain his motive.
9. Undercover agents don’t see the confidential informants they manage in person very often, but frequently by phone. Random? And they don’t last long in that relationship. To dispute Carson's claims that telling Katkus ended the informant's cooperation.
10. A jumpout is a drug bust with lots of unmarked cars. There was a big one at the Debarr Costco parking lot in 2010.  Show that the operation didn't die after Katkus was informed.
11. You need a Glass Warrant if you are state or local law enforcement before you do an audio recording of someone who doesn’t know you’re law enforcement.  I think again to dispute Carson.

I'd note, I made the list of details, by going through my rough trial notes from today. But then I added the italics as I tried to see if I could connect the detail with one of their goals.  The exercise was illuminating to me.  It's mostly aimed at Jack Carson.  I did hear Herny's attorney say they will not call Carson as a witness.  Is he also on the defense's list.  He's someone I want to see for myself.  He's turning out to be the villain of the plaintiff's story.


Today, from a different perspective.  As I said somewhere up above, when I came in Joseph Hazelaar was being sworn in.

I think it's easiest to just give you my rough notes for his background.  They're abbreviated, but a much better option than the long tedious testimony that dragged out until 4:30 when the judge dismissed the jury.  I've combined the questions and the answers so I could keep up.

"Born?  grew up? in Virginia,  HS diploma
14 years in law enforcement
State Troopers, DEA, FBI
4 years in Fairbanks, patrol officer.
Transferred out to Bethel 2004, first drug ring
Training?  Canine handler, OJT, then started sending me to academies
Undercover or as detective?  Both
Dependent on case  - rural Alaska no real undercover, might bring people in temporarily as undercover
DEA 2006 transferred to major offenders, high level drug, the 2007 assigment with DEA to 2010.  Transferred to APD.  Coming out of DEA, not wanting to go back to troopers, Capt. Mallard thinking of assign with cooperation with APD.  To work under Lt. Henry at APD.  Into SAU Special Assignment Unit
Clearance, deputized for DEA, doesn’t cross over to FBI
How long in SAU til full fledged? - on paper around April, still had limited access, still reporting to Annie Kirklund, About April 2010.
Stil police officer?  No.  Self- employed, Fire arms industry.  [I think that's what he said]
Still have contact with law enforcement.  Yes
Terminated?  No
Terminated from Troopers?  April 13, 2011
Rehired?  April 2013
Investigation going on?  Rehired you following investigation?  Remained trooper a while?  Year and a half?
Terminated again?  Yes, I could not hold my Alaska Police Standards Certificate.
Finding against you of dishonesty?  Yes sir."

OK, so he lost his Alaska Police Standards Certificate for dishonesty.  When I looked up the meaning of his name I also got the decision about his certificate.

He also talked in detail about his undercover work, including a meeting with a representative of a Mexican drug cartel.

When he was questioned by Ray Brown for the plaintiff Henry, he was a very credible witness, answering quickly, articulately.  Seemed to know a lot of details.  But when he was questioned by the defense attorney Doug Parker, his yesses and nos got crisper and tighter.  And he couldn't remember as well. He looked like he was trying to calculate what Parker was tricking him into saying. And a couple of times he seemed to get riled a bit and pushed back with attitude.  Nothing remarkable, but enough to show that calm facade wasn't who this person always is.

And as he testified, I began thinking.  Here's a guy whose job (as undercover agent) depended on his ability to lie convincingly.  But also outside that job, he'd lied enough to get caught and to lose his police certificate.  Jury, be careful here.  (Of course, that's rhetorical since the jury aren't allowed to listen to any news about the trial.)

How much more detail do you want?  Because I'm running out of steam.  I hinted at a lot with my list of details.  Here's something that got me thinking.  Hazelaar told the story of having a confidential informant connect hm up the chain to a high level drug dealer. The names of the people who gave names and the people who were named were discussed in court.  I don't know what happened to the people involved (I asked and was told he couldn't reveal that.)  But I wondered what would happen if word got out to the guy who was informed on.  The names were originally redacted in the documents filed with the court before the trial, but in the trial they are all being discussed.  One attorney told me they had to because using initials was too confusing for the attorneys and the jury.  But I wonder.  I suspect no one is going to publish the names (I'm not) and they will never find out.

He also explained why the drug investigation had to be sped up around the time Henry told General Katkus there was a drug dealer in the National Guard.  It wasn't because  Katkus tipped people off to hide the drugs.  Rather, they had put a tracker and gps on the target's car.  But he found out right away.  How?  He took his tires in to be changed and the mechanic found it.  So lesson learned;  don't put trackers on cars when it's time to change to or from snow tires.  The mechanic thought it was a bomb.


This post sort of wanders from subject to subject, and from one style to another.  In that sense, it gives you an idea of what court feels like.  But I hope it was easier to follow.  It's certainly takes less of your time.

Henry v MOA - "It Is What It Is"

It's lunch break.  Since yesterday's post, I've been trying to figure out what I should be doing here. What parts of the trial to focus on.  The ADN and KTUU are also attending the trial, so I should do what they aren't doing.  But that still leaves a lot.  It's easier to take notes when Doug Parker is asking the questions because he speaks slower than Meg Simonian.

This morning was Anthony Henry being cross examined.  Parker (the attorney for the Municipality of Anchorage - MOA) is trying to give the jury a different view of Henry than we saw yesterday when his attorney questioned him.  Some lines of questioning were:

1.  Questioning the image we were presented yesterday of this long time officer with a spotless record.  Parker raised  prior complaints and internal investigations of Henry.  He asked how many there had been.  Henry didn't know.  Parker said ten and started asking about each.  Henry dismissed them as routine things that all police officers have - like investigations after a vehicle collision.

2.  He spent time on the discussion yesterday of the Rick Brown investigation.  He tried to discredit Henry's claims that he repeatedly asked Rick Brown to show him the documents so he could refresh his memory of events several yeas old, but that Brown wouldn't show him even when he had them.  He quoted Henry's attorney Ray Brown on the video deposition with Rick Brown, saying "He repeatedly begged you, 30 times, to share the documents so he could refresh his memory."  Henry denied that he ever begged, but Parker said, "Your own attorney said that."   He needed this access to documents, Henry had said yesterday, because the APD had taken away his access the computer and to all the records so he couldn't refresh his memory.
Parker went through the transcripts of the two interviews with Brown and pointed out that instances where Henry asked Brown if he had one document or another and told him he (Brown) should get the documents and read them.  Not that Henry wanted the documents.  In fact he got Henry to acknowledge that he did have access to most documents on his own computer which seemed to contradict his claim yesterday that he had no access to anything.  Henry's repeated response was - An investigator should have all this material, it's where he should go first to get the facts of each event.  To police reports, to the informant records that would show much of what he needed.

3.  Trying to pin Henry down on inconsistencies in his testimony.  There were a lot of times when Henry said, "correct."  But there are also times he would not give a yes or no answer.  I have sympathy there because often such an answer has no context.  Here's one exchange: [Note, any citations like this come from my rough notes which I took in court.  They are close to what was said, but not verbatim and there may be missing bits]

Parker:  You agree now, you were collecting for investigation.
Henry:  Correct
P:  Yesterday you denied it.
H:  No I don’t remember.  Yesterday I wasn’t clear headed.
P:  Have to be clear headed to tell the truth?
H: I was emotional
P:  Do they get a pass if emotional or not clear headed?
H:  I agree.
S:  ???
H:  The Truth is the Truth.
P:  Did you tell Rick Brown in your interview, if you had records, I can come up with emails.
H:  Yes.
P:  You never told him at any time you didn’t have access to computer?
H:  confused  I was confused yesterday, I didn’t have access on my computer, but had on other computers.

When Parker tried to pin him down - sometimes Henry agreed like he did here, but often refused and said something like he does here with "the truth is the truth."  In fact I counted in my notes that four times in this exchange between Parker and Henry, Henry said "It is what it is" or "It says what it says."  These responses came when Parker would compare what Henry said at one point (like in yesterday's testimony) and what was written in the transcript from, say, his interrogation with Rick Brown.  He'd point to the words on the page and ask, well, isn't it right here?

P:  but you don’t say that [in the document]
H:  It says what it says.

Here, Parker was trying to refute Henry's claim that he repeatedly asked to see documents to refresh his memory, say of a date.  Parker was countering that actually, most of the time Henry wasn't looking to refresh his memory, but was simply asking whether Rick Brown had seen this document or that one, because BROWN needed the information.

P:  For discussion Ex 835 - first day interview - about Prieto - lines 24 25, "you need to go back and look at the paper work it lays out the National Guard involvement.  You need to look at paper work" - you aren’t asking for documents

P:  Fr discussion Ex 835 - first day interview - about Prieto - lines 24 25, [reading transcript] "you need to go back and look at the paper work it lays out the National Guard involvement.  You need to look at paper work" - you aren’t asking for documents
H:  It says what it says

4.  Selective Memory - Sometimes Henry could remember things in great detail.  Other times he had no memory.  Of course that's fairly common.  But it seemed that he had a better memory for things that helped his case than things that didn't.  And he even spoke of three phases of memory.

H:  There are 3 phases, 2010,  what I knew during my interviews [2014], what I remember now. 

I understood this to mean, there are things I remembered back in 2010.  Four years later when I was having my interviews with Rick Brown, I remembered less than in 2010.  Now, I've had my memory refreshed by reading transcripts and documents, sitting in on all the depositions, and generally preparing for the trial.  It seemed that the 'now' memory was a mix of things that he actually remembers personally after having heard others talk about things, or reading about them, and things he still doesn't actually remember himself, but which he knows from the record.

Examples:

P;  You never took action to send to Tim McCoy anything after June 4 meeting?
H:  That’s broad statement talk to him a lot.  If there was something I needed to report.  I don’t have a direct memory.  If something had happened.

P:  You learned something about Nieves ?
H:  I don’t have an independent memory.P:  I don’t want to build your memory, just your memory.
H: I don’t remember.

P:  Sean Cockerham wrote long letter [article?] in Alaska Dispatch News that talked about sexual assault in the Guard and Blaylock’s blog
H:  I don’t recall, may have read it.
P:  Talked about Blaylock saying brought sexual assault victims to Police and Gov and got in trouble with chain of command there. You don’t remember that?
H:  No,  Don’t remember the article.
P:  Likely you read it?
H: I read the paper, but don’t recall

P:  You know there was sig increase of National Guard sex assault being covered.
H:  I knew it was around the Gov’s election, sexual assaults
P:  You thought it was all political?
H:  That’s what ??  told me  I thought it was all political.
P:  Reports about drugs and young women being lured, that was all political?
H:  Don’t know what you were reading from.
P:  You knew there were all sorts of articles coming out.
H: I knew it was political
P:  Blaylock was saying things about you?
H:  I knew he was writing and gave him no credibility.
P:  You’re aware of all this? [a meeting Henry attended with Blaylock and Katkus where Blaylock said there were sexual assault victims but he wouldn't reveal the names to Katkus.]
H:  I don’t have memory of meeting, but nothing bad at the meeting,  It was appropriate for Katkus to discuss those things.  I don’t have that memory.  If it had been, I would have take action,  That’s certain.

P:  June 3 you get call, repeatedly told Rick Brown that Katkus asked why Seth doesn’t trust me?  H:  I remember call, but no memory.
P:  You don’t recall telling Katkus about Blaylock and Seth?
H:  No, the first knowledge I had was when I got the blog.
P:  You have no memory of this crazy Blaylock, unbelievable right?  I believe is not credible or believable.

P:  You can’t tell us when KatKus called you on June 3 and asked why Seth didn’t trust you you had no idea if Katkus knew about Blaylock?
H:  I don’t have a memory of that, but it’s likely that Katkus knew that.  I don’t have an independent memory of that meeting now.  

5. Retirement - Parker seemed to be questioning  Henry's talk about how the termination had destroyed his life, when he said he couldn't get a job now that paid more than 1/3 of what he made as an APD  Lieutenant and so now he's working in Iraq in security for the US Embassy (where presumably he's getting pretty good pay compared to what he can get in Alaska.)  Parker suggested that Henry could have retired under the police retirement plan.

P;  Are you an expert on retirement system?
H:  I wouldn’t all myself an expert
P:  You talked about this retire and rehire, you could have done that before, but didn’t.
H:  Correct.  There was a change in the system that made it better to wait longer
It was always in my plan, wanted 30 years and retire, the state’s Plan 4 and I wasn’t edible for that which was a 401K plan so I wanted to wait to 30 or 32 years.
P:  Mark [Mew, Chief]  said you wanted to retire at age 50.
H:  He may have told you that.  My wife and I have not planned retirement, we have no children and our work is our ives. 

Redirect  11:28
Simonian:  When do you plan to retire.
H:  I’m 58 now, my family has longevity my wife is 12 years younger, I plan to work until I’m 70

What I took from this, was that Parker was pointing out Henry could retire, get his retirement pay and pursue other work.  Even if he got paid less, he'd still have his pension on top of it. I don't think there are very many APD officers who work until they are 70.   [I'd note that I heard 58 here as his age, but yesterday I thought he said he was a man of 50, so I must of gotten something wrong.]

It's much later now.  The afternoon began with Derek Hseih, former president of the Anchorage Police Union and now representing sheriffs in San Diego.  His key function was to show that the Municipality changed their policy of allowing Police Officers to see their own IA (Internal Affairs) electronic records.  He said that after Henry won his arbitration over his right to have are access to his files,  the MOA imitated this change. When asked how he knew this was in response to Henry's case, he said, "We informally called it the Tony Henry rule."

Hseih was followed by Ann Kirklund. (Spell check is telling me it should be with an 'a', but I really thought I heard her spell it with a 'u' when she was sworn in.)  Kirklund is a FBI agent who was in charge of the joint task force that included the FBI, APD, State Troopers.  Her function here was to:

1.  Say that there was only one investigation into the National Guard, and it was under her.  If there had been others, she would have known.

2.  She also said, that if Carson and McMillan said they were connected with the FBI investigation or were running such an investigation as part of the APD Special Activities [Assignment] Unit (SAU) then that would not be truthful.  

There were other issues she addressed - like the large drug bust that was not hampered by anything Henry was alleged to have said to Gen Katkus.  

There simply isn't enough time in the day for me to do this justice.  Tomorrow I'm going to miss most of the morning.  I've signed up for an OLE class on the Second Amendment that retired Judge Karen Hunt is giving over four Thursday mornings.  

Note to me - Role of investigator and investigated  Henry needs to be in control

Henry v MOA - 1) Sexual Assault 2) Henry I and II

Yesterday we ended listening to video of one of Henry's attorneys, Ray Brown, haranguing Rick Brown the author of the, until last week, secret Brown Report.  I thought that Rick Brown ended up looking pretty unprepared for the deposition and he was unable to handle Ray Brown's withering non-stop questions.

End Of Yesterday's Video

The last 50 minutes of the video were shown first thing this morning.  But the topic now was sexual assault and abuse.   Ray Brown worked Rick Brown  over about what evidence he had that that Anthony Henry meeting with General Katkus  deterred victims from coming forward.  I also realized yesterday that I really didn't know when the deposition took place because from my seat, I couldn't see the date label on the video.  So today I got up and walked to where I could see the date  and was somewhat surprised.  November 16, 2016.  That was two years ago!  Just after Trump was elected.  #MeToo was just starting then.

Even more than yesterday, the tape reminded me of a a movie detective trying to wear down a suspect into confessing.  The questions again were demeaning and so fast that Rick Brown barely could answer one before he was hit by another.

But the topic was different.  The questions were about why this victim or that didn't file a report?  Women have already known, and men who have been paying any attention at all, now know, that coming forward with sexual assault cases is difficult.  Ray Brown belittles Guardsman Blaylock [someone who complained a lot about problems at the National Guard] because he won't release names of women who complained to him about sexual assaults.  [I'm taking my rough court notes and adding words to make them more intelligible, but I don't think I'm distorting the meaning or the tone.]

Q:  "The Army National Guard had appeared to investigate all Blaylock’s charges, but focused on his accusations - investigations did not support any of Blaylock’s allegation.  Initial investigation did not reveal violations.  Does that indicate to you that Blaylock is a reliable source?   

A:  That indicates some problem with his reliability.
Q:  What did McCoy tell you of cases lost due to 15-6  [15-6 is type of internal investigation at National Guard] investigation?   

A:  No affect
Q:  He said didn’t affect people coming forward on sex investigations?  Did it have anything to do with dissuading people from coming forward?   

A:  No
Q:  Rape cases after disclosure, where did your number come from?

A:  No difference since 2010.   

Q:  What do you mean by that?   

A:  Trying to reconcile why numbers in OCI report and first Lt McCoy's numbers are different, need to figure it out to get accurate account.
Q:  How does this Blaylock, dressed down by Katkus, how does this affect stopping women from coming forward?   It's not there.

Q:  We have none.  [Gives initials of alleged victim] did you interview them?  AL?

A:  no 

Q:  MJ? 

A: no

Q:  KD or ST 

A:  no sir.  ST could be

Q:  ST had specifically declined for prosecution by McCoy, right?   

A: I can’t remember when he dealt with her complaint but said it wasn’t prosecutable.
Q:  You said Kaktus ordered them to disclose names of women.  So Henry had nothing he could report, except he had a rogue officer at FBI building. 

Well, many Americans now know, because of Kavanaugh, how hard it is to "prove" something happened, and how men's reputations are considered, by many, more important than women's experiences.  And how women who come forward, and the people who support them, are vilified.  So, the jury today, will probably be less impressed with Ray Brown's performance than they might have in 2016.  He was essentially blaming women for not coming forward, and dismissing any possibility of a hostile environment.

The 'truths' that Ray Brown was claiming, seemed hollow.  Since no one came forward, that proved there were no problems.  And Rick Brown, toward the end, did stand up to Ray Brown.

Ray Brown:  That’s called the truth isn’t it?
Rick Brown:  Depends on how you get there.
Ray Brown:  Truth is the truth?
Rich Brown:  Depends on how you get there

Yesteday's questions were mired in details about the case.  But showing the video deposition in front of the jury allowed Ray Brown to string together a narrative, barely interrupted by Rick Brown's answers - that painted Rick Brown as a bumbling investigator who didn't know anything about how to do an investigation like this.  It allowed him to focus on actions that he then interpreted.  Rick Brown's inability to push back, at all, made it look like Ray Brown was right in everything the way he wanted it.  But the fact that Rick Brown couldn't answer, or that he missed things in the investigation,  even many things, doesn't mean there weren't problems there, as Rick Brown led the jury to conclude.  Would a better investigator have found them?  Maybe.

Today that issue was much clearer with the questions about sexual abuse victims.  Just because Blaylock couldn't or wouldn't produce names, didn't mean those victims didn't exist.  Just because they couldn't prosecute, didn't mean the assaults didn't take place.  And in this new #MeToo reality, more people understand why victims won't come forward.  I'm not sure why the defense allowed that tape in, or, if they protested, why the judge did.  A deposition takes place in a relatively small room.  In the courtroom, the attorney could never have pulled off a harangue like that.  I can hear every television lawyer I've ever seen jumping up and yelling, "He's badgering the witness!"

We'll see what comes next.  This trial isn't close to the end yet.

Anthony Henry Takes The Witness Stand- Part I

Then the plaintive Anthony Henry went to the witness stand.  We learned about him.

There was a lot of questions leading him through the being a successful long time police officer and then things started falling apart.  According to his story, it began when Jack Carson started accusing harassing Jason Whetsell after he was diagnosed with MS and Henry tried to protect Whetsell during that period.  Then Carson went after Henry.  The story he told was of the beginning of a series of of complaints about him which he characterized as Carson going after him, that eventually resulted in his being terminated.

This has led him get a security job in Iraq as the only way he can approach the pay he had as a police Lieutenant in Anchorage.  He's in Alaska about 60 days a year.  Wants to come back but says can't find job with reasonable pay.

When his attorney Margaret Simonian (he has several attorneys) asked him how this affected his life, he said "This has destroyed my life" and started started to choke up.  Then he began to cry and turned his head away from the jurors.  When he regained his composure he apologized and said, "I'm a 50 year old man and I have to go through this.  This affects everything.  Every aspect of my life."  The judge called for a break.


Anthony Henry Takes The Witness Stand- Part II

By 4 pm, the defense attorney began to cross examine.  He started picking at some of the answers Henry had given earlier.  It sounded like a gentler version of Ray Brown questioning Rick Brown as attorney Doug Parker questioned him on details and started raising questions.
He pointed out contradictions - that Henry had blamed McMillan for telling Katkus first, but really Henry had told Katkus first.  Henry said that was correct.
Parker mentioned a situation where Henry got dates mixed up and 'emphatically' insisted the others were wrong.  But it turned out Henry was wrong.  Henry agreed, he'd relied on his notes because he didn't trust the others, but his notes were wrong.  This exchange ended with this:

Parker:   You said telling the truth was one of two things that could get you fired.
Henry:   Yes.

And that was the last thing the jurors heard that day.  The judge called it a day and the jurors were excused.

As I said Friday, trials are wild rides as you hear from people being questioned by friendly lawyers and then unfriendly lawyers.  As one witness testifies, and later another one contradicts him.  You hear about terrible people and then they show up as witnesses and don't seem so terrible at all.  It's like a live mystery and the people on the jury have to take in all the clues and decide what happened


Extra For Junkies

Here's some slightly edited (for clarity) rough notes from Henry's testimony about his background. I thought it would be easier for the reader if I made it third person, but as I went along, I let it revert back to the first person.):

He grew up in Pittsburgh,
Since child always wanted to be in law enforcement.  He had family in law enforcement.  His dad took him to station, locked him in a cell. He never wanted to do anything else.  Graduated HS, His dad was a veteran, had GI benefits, so he had to go to college even though he really was not into academics. But he liked sports.  He took criminal justice classes and really enjoyed them.  He completed some sort of degree in criminal justice and then enlisted in the army.  Nine years in active duty.  Wanted to be in criminal investigation.  Started as  a military police, then CID special agent, (Criminal Investigation Div for the  Army, doing felony criminal investigation.
He had a 16 week program,  He also graduated in military police school for investigators and military police.  Army CID had 4 months residency.  Good part of training on drug enforcement.  Finished college, got BA in Criminal Justice.  Several service medals.  Meritory service.  One significant  long term undercover drug investigation in Colorado and Alaska.  Always my dream to come to Alaska.  Got opportunity to work with APD and decided where I wanted to spend life.
Returned to Colorado, reenlisted since APD not hiring then.  Went to Fairbanks.
APD 1992 - 5 months academy  - honor grad.
Full time assignment,  preferred busy areas, Spenard, mid town.  Applied for SWAT team.  Spent 18 years on SWAT.  Promoted to SRG.  Asked to take over canine unit, 4 years handled dog.  Lot of ongoing training, formal and informal.  Schools in area - Drug enforcement, DEA basic and advanced.  Commanders Academy.  Compeitive?  Drug Commanders and FBI National - I attended both.
Most significant at APD tactical team - school violence, developed for dept and ASD.

Selected as employee of year, for tactics repsond to active shooter event.  ASD superintendent.  SWAT team for agency and schools and took statewide.
Formalized through writing policies, bring folks from out of state here canine, school violence, Carol Comeau, wrote grant, bring dogs into schools, kids love them, help with anti-bullying.
S:  Relationship with Hebee - Agree with characterization with Hebee before 2012. 27 years ago. You obviously heard of relationship with my ex-wife and have love of my life, we’re never going to be friends, when he does good things, I recognize that.  Our careers crossed paths and I’ve had no issues.

Henry v. MOA - Henry's Attorney Destroys Author of Brown Report

A trial builds.  A victory one day seems less important after a few more witnesses.  But this afternoon in court I heard a withering barrage of disparaging questions that Rick Brown didn't have good answers for. This was a bit confusion, because Ray Brown - one of Anthony Henry's attorneys - asked the questions of Rick Brown, the 'consultant' hired by the Municipality in 2014.  Also, this didn't happen live in court.  It was a video of Rick Brown's deposition.  Also, we haven't heard the Municipal Attorney's cross examination of Rick Brown.

Basically, at the end of the day - and there are 50 minutes of that tape left for Tuesday - Rick Brown appeared:
1.  Unprepared for an investigation this complex.
2.  To rely on a few people as his trusted guides to the APD and Alaska National Guard
3.  Set up to target Anthony Henry as though his job was to show he was the bad guy and so he was biased from the beginning to believe things said about Henry, but not believe Henry
4.  Reliant on interviews for information
5  Not to have sought much verification
6.  Overly reliant on Dep. Municipal Attorney Christiansen and reworded the final report to reflect things she wanted him to put in, even though, as Ray Brown asserted, and Rick Brown didn't answer very effectively, he hadn't actually found information to support the allegation

Some possible explanations for Rick Brown's poor performance:
1.  He was jet lagged from flying to Anchorage (I don't recall any details of when the deposition took place.  I suspect it might have been on the video, but from where I sat, I couldn't read it - or how long he was here for the deposition.  I'm even assuming it took place in Anchorage.
2.  He just was out of his depth in doing an investigation like this
3.  He was here to collect a fee and give the MOA whatever they wanted
4.  Other?

Just to give you a sense of the deposition, I've copied just a short snipped of my rough notes.  I cleaned them up a bit - it went really fast and I didn't label which Brown was talking, hoping I'd remember from the context.  And in this section I think it worked.  Remember this is not verbatim or complete, just as much as I could get in the rapid fire questions. Q=Attorney Ray Brown, A= Witness Rick Brown.  I've missed some exact details, but this gives a sense of what the deposition was like:

Q: Did APD reports you received mention the Natl Guard?  Did they mention investigation into other members of the Natl Guard?   Did you ever see documents provided by anyone besides Carson, McMillan, Steve Payne that they were investigating anyone in NG other than EP?
A: Yes.  Not investigating but going to look to see if anything was there.
Q:  Your report says Henry was being deceptive to you because he had stopped one case going forward because he disclosed it to Katkus.  You say the case that dried up.  What part dried up?
A:  EP said he had the ability to transport drugs in military vehicles.
Q:  Did you ever hear that from EP?  Only person you heard that from was Jack Carson, right?
A:  Can’t remember if him alone or also McMillan.  Not 100% sure.  All audios of all EP contacts tape recorded.  Listened to all the interviews.
Q:  To explanation of scope of his drug dealing?  Nothing in any of these audios that suggests he could move drugs in NG vehicles.  If you're investigator, that’s pretty big stuff to know.  Never saw it from EP’s mouth.  Wouldn’t that be important to document?  Especially if others ….
You talked to "P" directly, could have asked him when it occurred, if he continued to cooperate with the investigation.  Was there any info that he stopped cooperating with SAU, FBI, Safe street?
A:  Early March he stopped cooperating.
Q:  Who told you that?  Let me guess - Jack Carson.
A:  Carson or McMillan.  He quit cooperating with SAU investigation.
Q:  What did he stop cooperating in?
A:  I had no ability to investigate the NG.  Cooperating with SAU investigation
Q:  Any evidence that he cooperated?  Wouldn’t it be helpful to have evidence?
Did you look at the police report?
A:  Yes Reports with # Feb 23, 2010.
Q:  What did EP stop doing?
A:  Early March stopped cooperating.
Q:  From Feb to March?  Did you interview - Carson and MacMillan wasn’t a rogue investigation - they were working with SAU.  Interview SAU people.  Eric Smith former SAU.  Why didn’t you ask if there was a separate investigation.
Q:  Did you ask EP if he stopped cooperating?
A:  No
Q:  Why not?  Did you ask Redick if there was a separate investigation?  I
A:   don’t know.  

Ray Brown's tone was derisive the whole way - implying, and sometimes saying explicitly - that a good investigator would have asked this question or asked for proof or would have done this or that.




I'm thinking this through as I write here.  I want to get something up.  Tomorrow there will be new things to report.  And it's getting late and court starts at 8:30am tomorrow.

 I've gone back to the Brown Report (Part 1, and Part 2) to make a list of all the names.  And as I skim through it this time, after hearing today's testimony, it's making more sense.  That is, I'm more familiar with the names and activities described.

I've concluded that my notes are too sketchy to put up.  I've tried to capture the general nature of the questioning  and how it appeared to me.

I'm still not comfortable with the plaintiff's depiction of Katkus as this great administrator who was on top of issues of sexual abuse and other improprieties in the Guard.  Ray Brown made a big deal of the fact that there was this close relationship between the APD and the Guard  and FBI and the State Troopers when fighting drugs.  And thus there was every reason to share the information with the Guard.  But if Katkus and the Guard were out of control, then sharing the information might have enabled the people in the Guard to clean things up, hide evidence, etc.  And so there were only one or two actual convictions.  If Katkus was wrongly terminated, why haven't we seen his lawsuit?  There are still lots of unanswered questions.

But what's clear is that there was a lot of conflict going on in the APD.  Feuds, vendettas.  The morning session witness was  Jason Whetsell (I think I've got the spelling right but I'm not completely sure.  I used the Brown Report to find a lot of names, but there were still some I wasn't sure about.)  I'm still figuring out where he fit into the bigger picture.  He testified Thursday they said.  (I didn't get to court until Friday.)  They spent all morning on Whetsell, so one would think it's important to the plaintiffs' theory of the case.

Basically Whetsell was an officer who worked with a dog named Alex.  He was in the canine unit, but also worked with the SAU (Special Assignment Unit).  He worked with Anthony Henry over the years and was directly reporting to him for about five months.  But generally he was supervised at the Canine Unit and had a long, poor relationship with a supervisor Sergeant Jason Schmdtt. From what I could figure out, Whetsell felt hounded by Scmidt.  A key factor was that Whetsell was diagnosed with MS and was taking serious drugs that were affecting his performance.  An issue was that allegation that Henry and the other officers in the SAU had tried to protect Whetsell from Schmidt and the various complaints about his erratic behavior.

Some larger issues that came out in the testimony raise serious question about how well the APD was operating then  And of course questions about whether it's any better now.  There were serious divisions.  At one point Chief Mew calls Whetsell into his office to try to work out a deal with him.  He wants him to drop his EEOC complaint (based on discrimination based on his medical condition I'm assuming).  From Whetsell's testimony:

"He wanted me to drop the EEOC complaint.  He said it was causing a fire.  The fire had spread to second floor (admin) and now the whole building is on fire." 

Mew told Whetsell that if he settled the EEOC complaint, then Mew would guarantee that if he laid low and kept his head down, he'd make ti to retirement.  (From what Whetsell said, he made it to a medical retirement, but they wouldn't extend the retirement date a day so his APD health insurance would cover an MRI test.  

Whetsell's record got pretty spotty and it's not clear how much of that was the MS, how much the drugs he was taking for the MS, and how much was the pressure he was feeling from the series of complaints Schmidt was making against him.  There were several incidents that were written up where he had problems performing his job.  Should the APD have made accommodations for him and moved him into a position that allowed him to continue working with his disability?  The did move him to other positions.  One could see that Whetsell, a basketball player and as the MOA attorney characterized him - a good athlete' once - must have been going through hell on several levels.  He was seeing his health deteriorate and he'd been diagnosed with a serious disease.  And with that deterioration, his livelihood was being threatened.  His family live suffered as well.  As portrayed today, Henry and the SAU staff were supporting him and the Canine Unit head was hounding him.  

Other issues came up.  Whetsell was asked about missing lots of work time.  He responded that he took flextime.  The attorney for the Municipality pointed out that the union had given up flextime. Whetsell said that everyone still took it.   I believe that flextime can be very useful as a way of dealing with uneven work loads, allowing people to take time off after a period of heavy workload beyond one's regular duty.  But it has to be carefully monitored and it runs into conflicts with paying people overtime.  What Whetsell seemed to be describing was an unofficial flextime.  But, of course, we don't know whether everyone was doing it.  But it's something to follow up.  

The fire on the second floor was also described as lots of yelling on the second floor - it was hinted that Henry was fighting over how Schmidt was treating Whetsell.  

And Chief Mew's hardball to get Whetsell to drop the EEOC suit was another issue.  Did he not want an outside agency looking to closely at the APD?  What else was he hiding?

And the questioning of Rick Brown raised questions about whether the Brown report was really a custom made report in order to support the position of the MOA legal department?  The impression I got of Rick Brown today was NOT of a competent, independent investigator.  It's a reminder of an old definition of an expert - someone who lives more than 100 miles away.  

And how does all this relate to the discrimination case two police officers won against the Municipality two years ago?  

There's good reason the MOA tried to keep this report hidden.  Today it didn't stand up well to scrutiny.  

I'm afraid this is going to be an active think piece, rather than a well thought out conclusion.  There just isn't time to do more now and I need this up before tomorrow's notes swamp me.


One last thought.  I have great respect for court transcribers.  If you saw my rough notes, you'd know why.

Anthony Henry v MOA - Former Alaska National Guard Boss Katkus Testifies [UPDATED] [2nd UPDATE with Complete Brown Report]

The ADN article Tuesday about the police trial that began Monday had me confused.  The Kyle Hopkins piece Thursday added more confusion.   There was a connection to the police discrimination case of two years ago when two black officers won a  million dollars each for discrimination.  That trial included the judge making extraordinary condemnation of the APD (Anchorage Police Department).

But it also seemed to relate to the Alaska National Guard scandal that helped defeat Gov. Sean Parnell in 2014.  It took him way to long to figure out what was going on and to fire Katkus.

But who exactly was Anthony Henry, why was he fired, and what all was this trial going to reveal to the public about the APD?  The ADN reported that Henry inappropriately shared confidential information about an investigation with the Alaska National Guard.  So, was he part of the web of corruption between the APD and the Guard?  Was he tipping them off?  If so, that would seem good grounds for terminating him.

So I decided that I'd attend the trial to see if I could get a better handle on this.  I missed the first 15 minutes or so.  When I walked in a striking looking man with a shiny bald head sat in the witness chair being questioned about his career and experience.  He was being called General by the attorney. Katkus has had a similar bald pate.  But this guy seemed a much better speaker than I remembered.

Some Background 

I blogged the Alaska legislature in 2010.  At one State Affairs committee meeting I observed the confirmation hearing of Thomas Katkus to be the Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard.  I sat behind him.  He had a completely bald head and I wasn't impressed by how he handled the session.  Lots of jargon and self importance was my impression.  Looking back at the old post, perhaps this is what turned me off somewhat.  He was talking about quitting the APD to be in the Guard full time (he was already part time), and the note I wrote in the post was "bigger, better toys." I understand that could be a joke, but he clearly meant it.  That's not a good reason in my mind. 

That post got me an email from a spouse of a former Alaska national guardsman who quit because of the corruption in the Guard with Katkus mentioned as part of the problem.

And, like everyone else, I read the newspaper stories about the guard and Sean Parnell's firing of Katkus.  Here's a post on that with lots of the details, including a link to the investigation Parnell used to justify the firing.


Back To The Trial

So it's slowly becoming clear to me that, yes, this is Katkus.  But as the plaintiff's attorney questions him, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance for me.

There were questions and answers about the relationship among the APD, the National Guard, the State Troopers, the FBI.  They all worked together to fight drugs.  It was common for them to share information.  (The argument developing, I assumed, that it was normal for Henry to share the kind of information he was fired for sharing.) There was also discussion about Posse Comitatus - a federal law that limits the army (including the Guard) from being involved in local law enforcement.  Katkus talked about how they have to be careful not to be involved in drug busts, but that they have technical equipment the APD needs and that they have a very close relationship.

Katkus during a break in the trial

The guy being questioned is coming out looking like a victim of a smear campaign by Ken Blaylock, a disgruntled National Guardsman who constantly complained about sex, guns, and drugs abused by the Alaska National Guard.  Katkus, according to this testimony took sexual harassment seriously.  But given the chain of command, those things should have been handled much lower than his level and he shouldn't have heard about it.  (I'd heard about Blaylock in the past too.  He was the guy who had been finally vindicated by all the investigations and the sacking of Katkus.  Now he was being portrayed as a crazy conspiracy theorist.)

When Henry's attorney, Ray Brown, had finished with Katkus, the Guard was now a highly efficient and well run organization.  No one had ever been convicted of any crimes.  Katkus had been a strong leader who'd done nothing wrong.  His firing was based on sensational media reports, not truth.  There were some loose ends - something was fishy with the recruiters, but we never heard resolution about the charges of them having sex parties with high school age recruits.

Are you seeing where my cognitive dissonance is coming from?

When the defense attorney for the Municipality, Doug Parker, questioned Katkus, he pointed out parts of the reports that Ray Brown had skipped over. [Note:  Ray Brown is part of a team of attorneys  representing Anthony Henry.  The Brown Report mentioned in this post was written by a Rick Brown, no relationship.]   Like the survey that found people in the Guard very distrusting of their superiors.  Of severe problems in the department that took sexual harassment complaints from 2007-2011.  The department got a new person who fixed a lot of that, but apparently the distrust continued.  The investigator who looked into Blaylock's charges, apparently didn't look too hard because he found them unbelievable.  And why did Katkus promote Blaylock if he was so problematic?

Katkus' memory got much worse when he was questioned by Parker.

I was also struck by his use - three times I think - of the term "There was no visibility on that"  which, I understood in the context to mean, I never saw that.  Maybe that's their jargon, but it's pretty bizarre sounding to me.

There was also an FBI agent involved in some meetings.  Three times Katkus referred to her as "the lady FBI agent" as though her gender were the most important factor.  We did know her name so he could have said Agent Kirkland without emphasis she wasn't a man. 

Katkus had been an APD officer and knew lots of the APD, but he said there were 4000 people in the Guard and he couldn't keep track of them all.  Yet, at another point he said that in a small organization like the Guard there were lots of rumors.   But as Adjutant General he was many levels above what happened and didn't need to know about details.  Too large for him to know people, so small there was lots of rumors, which, presumably, at the top of the hierarchy, he shouldn't have known about.  Rumors are a symptom of an organization that isn't transparent, where communication is closed. 

Katkus was on the stand from 8:30am until around 2pm.  There were three 15 minute breaks.  Katkus and a juror both needed to catch planes, so they skipped lunch to get out early.

By the end of the day's testimony, my mind was all twisted up.  I think it's important to consider whether what you believe is really true.  Keep an open mind.  This was only my first day at the trial.  I didn't hear the opening arguments or the earlier testimony.  Apparently there is a long, long list of witnesses yet to come.  Including Ken Blaylock.

I went to the Clerk of the Court's office afterward and looked at some of the documents on their computer.  There were several studies mentioned in the trial.  The Brown (Rick Brown) Report that was done for the APD, which had been keep secret until this trial.  The OCI (National Guard Bureau  Office of Complex Investigations)  report that Sean Parnell asked for in 2014.  An Inspector General (IG) report.  There's a report that Lisa Murkowski requested, and various 15-6's which are what some sort of internal Guard reports are called.

I found the Brown Report in the list of documents on the computer in the Clerk's office.  You can't download it or save it to a thumb drive or email it.  So I took pictures of the Cover Page, Reasons for Investigation, Synopsis of Investigation, Time Line of Significant Events, Conclusions, and Recommendations.  Pages 1-21 of 97.  This report was the basis for the two week suspension of then Police Chief Mark Mew and Anthony Brown's termination.  You can see these 21 pages right below.

[UPDATE Oct 21, 2018 10:30pm  - I managed to get an official copy of the Brown Report, so I have deleted my original photos of the computer screen version I posted originally.  It's in two parts.

Brown Report Pt 1 by SteveAK1 on Scribd

Here's Part 2:

Brown Report Part 2 by on Scribd

end of Oct 21, 2018 10:30pm  UPDATE0


When I got home home I checked the old post I did when Katkus was fired.  It should help people unfamiliar with all this understand why today was like being Alice in Wonderland.  But at the recommendation of a reader, I copied the OCI report and posted it at Scribd where you can still see it.

It almost felt like this was a trial to exonerate Katkus and to find Blaylock guilty.  This is supposed to be a couple week long trial.  Don't hold your breath.

[UPDATE Oct 21, 2018:  Devin Kelly's article in today's ADN does a much better job of conveying the details of the Friday trial.  I was having a lot of trouble figuring out what all the details were leading to, so I just gave some broad background.  Devin gives more details.  Also I've corrected the spelling of Blaylock.  It has a y.]

Walker's Statement About Why He's Ending His Campaign For Governor

I spent all day in US District Courtroom #2 - Henry v. MOA.  I got out at 2pm, with my head spinning and my stomach protesting the lack of a lunch break.  Stopped at the Court Clerk's office to see what I could find about the case on their computer.  I ended up taking images of the Summary, Main Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations from the Brown Study that was released the other day to the public.  Then I biked home along Chester Creek.  There, my wife asked if I'd heard the news.  I hadn't.

So here's the Governor's announcement and explanation.  I could have lived reasonably comfortably with Bill Walker getting another four years.  I voted for him last time and he's an honorable man, intelligent, and appears always to have the best for Alaska in mind.  I don't agree with all his positions, but that's true about most elected officials.  As of today, it's (sort of) a two way race between Mark Begich and Mike Dunleavy.  Walker's name will still be on the ballot and I'm sure some people will vote for him (please don't unless you were planning to vote for Dunleavy.)  And the Division of Elections has said 1000 absentee votes are already in, and surely some of those folks voted for Walker.

I'll try to get something up about the trial later tonight or tomorrow.  Meanwhile, here's the email the Governor sent out.

Dear Alaskans,
I ran for re-election because I still believe that, more than anything else, Alaska deserves integrity, honesty, and courage.
Alaska First is, and cannot only be, a campaign slogan. When I said I ran for governor to do the job, not make the decisions to keep the job, I meant exactly what I said.  Every decision I have made as your governor, I have made on the basis of what I believe is best for Alaska.
With that said, effective today, I am suspending my campaign for re-election as Governor. With more time, I am confident that Val and I could deliver a message and a campaign that could earn a victory in this election.
But there are only 18 days remaining before election day. Absentee ballots have already been mailed, and Alaskans are already voting. In the time remaining, I believe we cannot win a three-way race.
This week I have talked to many Alaskans to determine whether I or Mark Begich had a better chance of running a competitive race against Mike Dunleavy. The determination was made that, at this point, Begich has the better odds.
Alaskans deserve a competitive race. Alaskans deserve a choice other than Mike Dunleavy, whose record and campaign rhetoric indicate he will:

• eliminate Medicaid Expansion that has provided healthcare access to 44,000 Alaskans, created jobs and brought $1 billion federal dollars into the Alaskan economy while decreasing State healthcare expenditures by $16 million, kept hospitals from closing, and saved lives;
• defund the Alaska LNG Gasline project that has made historic progress, will create 12,000 high paying construction jobs, 88,000 direct and indirect jobs and deliver low cost energy to our homes and businesses;
• undo the bipartisan approved sustainable fiscal plan that has resulted in fiscal stability, significantly reduced the deficit, improved our credit rating and preserved the PFD program into perpetuity;
• cause our most vulnerable to suffer the brunt of the additional $1 billion in budget cuts he vows to make to education, rural Alaska and those receiving healthcare.

Moreover, my administration has worked tirelessly to improve the relationship between Tribes and State and restore respect for Alaska's First Peoples in state government. Yesterday, I apologized on behalf of the State of Alaska for the wrongs committed against the Alaska Native people throughout our history, because I believed that was best for Alaska. My expectation is that this work critical to the healing of historical trauma and unifying all Alaskans will be undone in a Dunleavy administration.
On balance, it is my belief that despite my many differences with Mark Begich, his stance on the important issues I have listed above more closely align with my priorities for Alaska.
This is not the first difficult decision I have made this week, but it is one I know I must make. There simply are no words to express my deepest gratitude to the incomparable, dedicated team of outstanding Alaskans who have served in my administration and to the thousands of supporters, donors, volunteers and campaign staff who have been passionately committed to my re-election. And above all, I want to say thank you to my family and to Donna, my first lady for life.
As I said earlier this week, ultimately, it's not how long my team and I serve, it's how well we served the people and the state we love while the opportunity was ours. We have served with integrity, courage, devotion, and compassion, never asking ourselves whether a decision is politically correct but always asking if it is right for Alaska. I am proud of the work we have done in the most challenging fiscal crisis in state history and it is the honor of my life to have served as the governor of this great state.
Thank you, God bless you all, and may God continue to bless Alaska.
Bill Walker

In this age of cynicism about politics, I thank Governor Walker for what he's done in the last four years and for taking this difficult step.  

Pamyua At Stand For Salmon

There was a party - well that seems the best word - for the Yes on 1 Stand for Salmon folks.  Some talk about the 400 pages that regulate fishing versus the relatively little that regulates those who develop around fish habitat.  I know there are more regulations in other places for the developers, but really, this is about corporate interests wanting to be able to do what they want in Alaska without pesky citizens raising issues at public hearings.  This is one of the world wide battles between indigenous peoples and corporations over protecting the land that allows indigenous peoples to keep their cultural heritage.

I did talk about the history of this recurring battle in the post Vampire History of Alaska.

But tonight was great music by an Alaska band that combines Native and Western music.  At Out North's newish downtown location.

And vote yes on proposition 1.

Some Things To Chew On: "angry mob;" '[if] you admit to using pot in the past, you can be banned;” "“'I didn’t do anything illegal."

Trump and the November Elections

An LA Times piece on Trump has this sentence:

"He has taken to describing Democrats as “an angry mob,” “wacko” and “unhinged” and has said they seek to drive the country “maybe into poverty and ultimately into chaos.”

This is Trump's way, apparently, of firing up 'his base' to go out and vote.  Demonize the 'enemy.'   I can't comprehend how Republicans blaming Democrats for the level of conflict in DC these days can keep a straight face when they manufacture and then repeat inflammatory lies like this constantly.

An essay by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stigletz

"Will the US electorate declare that Trump is not what America is about? Will voters renounce his racism, misogyny, nativism, and protectionism? Will they say that his “America First” rejection of the international rule of law is not what the US stands for? Or will they make it clear that Trump’s win was not a historical accident resulting from a Republican primary process that produced a flawed nominee and a Democratic primary process that produced Trump’s ideal opponent?"

He talks about the importance of turnout.  But lets also remember that in many states, the districts have been gerrymandered so they give Republicans a big majority of Congressional seats even though they get just a slight the majority in total statewide vote. And there's the voter suppression campaigns in many states  (which he does mention.)  And the massive disinformation campaigns which the president contributes so heavily to.   But given the vast number of people who don't vote, getting them to vote IS the best antidote for the Republican schemes to thwart majority rule.

And here's a Vox interview on the contradictions in people's views of government and voting:

"In the book, you cite Mitt Romney’s famous “47 percent” comment from 2013, in which he claimed that 47 percent of the population are dependent upon the government and will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. But data shows that it’s the so-called “red states” that contribute the least to the federal coffers and rely the most on federal services — and of course, nearly all of those states voted for Romney. What the hell is going on here?
Suzanne Mettler:  Yeah, this is quite frustrating. I spent a lot of time looking at the state of Kentucky to try to make sense of this. Kentucky is a very poor state. And when you look at congressional districts there, you find a bunch of them where the average person gets more than 30 or 40 or 50 percent of their income from federal social benefits.
Yet those same districts are electing very conservative members of Congress who promise to introduce work requirements for food stamps and repeal the Affordable Care Act and so forth. It’s really puzzling.
I think there are a couple of things that might explain this. One is that I found that people who benefit from more visible social programs, like food stamps, are much less likely to vote."

Honesty About Marijuana With Border Officials Leads To Being Banned

US Border Patrol Banning Canadians Who Admit To Having Smoked Marijuana, Ever“If you’re a Canadian tourist in Seattle and you’re over the age of 21, you can buy marijuana. But if on your next trip to the U.S., you’re questioned by border agents and you admit to using pot in the past, you can be banned,” he said. “It’s totally backwards and doesn’t make sense.”
Last year, more than a dozen members of Congress wrote to U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, as well as to U.S. border officials, to express concerns about Canadians and other noncitizens being targeted at U.S. ports of entry.
“We ask that your respective agencies develop policies that ban penalizing noncitizens based on their use or possession of marijuana if they are visiting or residing in states that have enacted marijuana use laws,” the lawmakers wrote."

OK, Rep. Young, why is your party administration doing this sort of stuff.  Does this happen when Canadians cross the border into Alaska?


Hunting Ethics Breach With Appropriate Results

A member of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission resigned after posting pictures of himself and a family of baboons he had killed.  He was at first surprised at the protests against his actions and said,

“'I didn’t do anything illegal. I didn’t do anything unethical. I didn’t do anything immoral,' Fischer said.
'I look at the way Idaho’s Fish and Game statute says we’re supposed to manage all animals for Idaho, and any surplus of animals we have we manage through hunting, fishing and trapping. Africa does the same thing.'
But Steve Alder, executive director of the pro-hunting group Idaho for Wildlife, said he was glad — though not surprised — the governor had called for the resignation and suggested that this would be “a milestone” in how future commissioners might be selected.

It's good to see in a big hunting state like Idaho, that the reaction was swift and that Fischer, rather than deny any wrong doing and fight back, like so many are doing these days, wrote a letter that took responsibility and apologized.  

"In his letter of resignation, dated Oct. 15, Fischer apologized for sending the photos and said he hoped his actions “would not harm the integrity and ethic” of the Fish and Game Department.
“I recently made some poor judgments that resulted in sharing photos of a hunt in which I did not display an appropriate level of sportsmanship and respect for the animals I harvested,” Fischer wrote. 'While these actions were out of character for me, I fully accept responsibility and feel it is best for the citizens of Idaho and sportsmen and women that I resign my post.'”

I'd hope this would be the results of a similar incident in Alaska, but with our forever member of Congress' office wall full of animal heads, I doubt it.  But maybe forever will end Nov 6.  [Later in the day I saw this was reprinted in the Anchorage Daily News (ADN).]

Sexual Assault 

I’m a sexual assault survivor. And a conservative. The Kavanaugh hearings were excruciating.

The text of this story is worth reading, but more striking even is the picture that accompanied the story.

There's Kavanaugh testifying and behind him the men's legs are covered in long trousers and the women's legs are bare.  This may say more about our sexualized culture and the roles of men and women in it, than most articles I've read.  How many Senators' offices require women to wear dresses and heels?  Or if not require, let it be known they are preferred? 

Gubernatorial Debate - Walker, Begich, Toien, But No Dunleavy [UPDATE - Walker's Lt. Gov Resigns] [2nd UPDATE]

UAA, the ADN, and a few others sponsored a debate at UAA's Wendy Williamson Auditorium, Monday evening from 5;30pm to 7pm.


It was a pretty low-key affair with each candidate showing courtesy and significant agreement with each other.  My quick crowd estimate (counting people in a few rows and then counting how many rows) gave me a 200-300 estimate.  

Current Governor Bill Walker, Independent, was sincere, practical, sounding a bit frustrated that the legislature wouldn't do the responsible thing and create an overall fiscal plan including new revenues.  He was critical of the fact that they had used up, I believe he said, 80% of the budget reserves in the last four years.

Former US Senator and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, Democrat, had similar themes though he also argued strongly that the Permanent Fund needs Constitutional protections or politicians will use it up.  He also called for new revenues.

Libertarian candidate Billy Toien's take was a little different.  He pointed to stacks of documents - 30 years of budget data he claimed - and said there is no crisis.  He argued that there were various special funds - I think he said about 50 - that should all be put into the general budget and the deficit would go away.  Some were mentioned - like the Alaska Aerospace Corporation and the Alaska Railroad.  I'm skeptical that moving them all into the general budget would solve our fiscal problems, but it raises the issue of whether these units get considered for cuts during budget time in the same way that regular government agencies do.

Toien, unlike Walker and Begich, was opposed to all new taxes and existing taxes and seemed to believe that the additional revenues generated by putting the independent units' funds into the general budget should be distributed to the people of Alaska.

Republican Mike Dunleavy, we were told, had a conflicting engagement and wasn't there.  His presence probably would have added some lively debate.  And he was criticized by the other three - they said he was making short term promises with no eye on the future and that all the things he promised - maintaining the permanent fund and current services, plus cutting the budget, and no new revenues - were impossible to achieve.


I thought Begich and Walker treated Toien with the sort of condescending respect one would use for a little kid who participates in an adult activity.   But everyone was very cordial.

There were three ADN journalist who were given a chance to ask question.

Tegan Hanlon.

Annie Zak and Tom Hewitt.  I wasn't taking notes, but all the questions were pretty routine.  Things like, what is on the top of your list of things to cut?

I was waiting for one of the candidates to mention KABATA (the Knik Arm Bridge And Toll Authority), but no one did.

Toien came across to me as the kind of guy who has latched on to a couple of ideas that may, by themselves, have some merit.  But that they were utterly untethered from the bigger picture.

Walker is sincere and has 'the adult in the room' sort of tone.  He takes his job seriously but it seemed all process - we have to do things reasonably, take the revenues seriously - and little content, and he didn't spell out why he would be more successful with the next legislature than he has been so far.

Begich was able, as he always has been, to talk fluently about facts on all sorts of issues and tie things together.  He has the enviable ability to smile and respond with humor to anyone, even those whose ideas he is totally opposed to.  I would have like to see how he interacted with Dunleavy.

Dunleavy appears to believe, as do many Alaskans, that he has the election in the bag because Begich and Walker will cut into each others' vote count.  So he can just skip forums like this one.  If that's true, Alaska is in for a rough next four years.  Begich's strategy on entering the race - that he or Walker would drop out after the primary when it was clear which had the better chance against Dunleavy - hasn't worked out.

[UPDATE Oct 16, 2018 4pm:  Walker's Lt. Gov Byron Mallott resigned last night, apparently due to comments made about women or to a women.  The Governor has replaced him with Valerie Nurr’araaluk Davidson, Director of Rural and Native Affairs.  See ADN for more details.  It's amazing how quickly many Democratic men step down after an incident like this compared to Republican men.]

[UPDATE Oct. 16, 2018 5pm:  A FaceBook post 15 minutes ago::
Kate Laird: This is the most interesting bit: Asked whether Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Begich could replace Mallott on the lieutenant governor ticket, akin to the formation of the 2014 “unity ticket” between Mallott and Walker, Heckendorn [Walker's campaign manager] said, “We have been in conversations with Begich about the best way to move forward for Alaska, and those conversations will continue. We’ve been in conversations before we had any idea of what had happened with Byron. We’ve been in conversations with Begich for a few days about how to move forward in a way that’s best for Alaska.” <nevermind my minor question about why they couldn't have had that chat before ballots were printed ...>]

Today is Día De La Raza In Much Of Latin America

From what I can tell, various forms of Columbus Day have become - or in some cases always were - broader than just celebrating Columbus and also celebrate the indigenous peoples of the Americas.  I'd note that traditionally Columbus Day in the US was celebrated on October 12.  But in the name of efficiency and three day weekends, it has been moved to the second Monday in October in the US.  Like Presidents' Day and Memorial Day have been moved to Mondays.  But this year, October 12 is closest to the 3rd Monday of October which is why it's today in Chile and other Latin American countries.

From Viva Cuernavaca:  

"In Mexico, since 1928, we have officially noted Día de la Raza (Day of the Race, or Day of the People). However, rather than a celebration of discovery, the day originally referred to the Hispanic influence in the Americas. Día de la Raza has come to be seen by indigenous activists throughout Latin America as a counter to Columbus Day; a celebration of the native races and cultures and of the resistance against the arrival of Europeans in the Americas. In the U.S.A. Día de la Raza has served as a time of mobilization for pan-ethnic Latino activists, particularly in the 1960s. Since then, La Raza has served as a periodic rallying cry for Hispanic activists. The first Hispanic March on Washington (U.S.A.) occurred on Columbus Day in 1996. The name has remained in the largest Hispanic social justice organization, by the National Council of La Raza.
During the four hundredth anniversary in 1892, in the U.S.A., teachers, preachers, poets and politicians erroneously used Columbus Day rituals to teach ideals of patriotism. These patriotic rituals were framed around themes such as citizenship boundaries, the importance of loyalty to the nation, and celebrating social progress. Columbus was from Italy, but gave his allegiance to Spain. As we shall see in the following paragraphs, Columbus did little to bring about social progress to the New World.
However, most do not celebrate the day as a joyous one, but as a day of resistance, of sorrow and in respectful memory of the millions who were killed by the Europeans or died from the infectious diseases brought upon the Americas. Today, most know that Columbus did not discover the Americas, he invaded them. Should we continue to pay homage to Christopher Columbus in light of the many atrocities that he instigated on those who had greeted him with kindness and gifts, a man who was responsible for the mass decimation of millions of individuals, all in the name of greed by a foreign government?"

It's hard for most US Americans to accept this perspective, because it means their prosperity is based on what European settlers took from the original inhabitants here.  It's easier to try to block this out than to consider the implications - like giving something, anything, back.

Here's a blog post about Dia de la Raza in Santiago, Chile in 2015.  Pictures and some short video as well as words.