Palate Cleanser After All The Trial Posts -Anchorage Sunrise, Blog Mail

A little pink on a cloudy day.





















And just a glimpse into the email bloggers get, and to remind you not to trust what people post.

This one is particularly unappealing.  They didn't even put my name on it.  Not that my name would help persuade me.  I wonder if they've read my posts on cruise lines? Like New Pirates of the Seven Seas?  or How did Carnival Cruise Lines get US taxpayers to buy them a $28 million train depot?  Is it because I'm in Alaska?  Who knows?  And I'm not going to ask.

"Hello,
I was researching a campaign I’m working on for a luxury cruise line and came across your blog. I think you’d be a great fit and we’d really like to partner with you.
Do you offer sponsored posts that would mention or feature our client?
Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Andrea"

So remember, any posts you see about cruise lines or really anything else, should be taken with a grain of salt.  Bloggers get these sorts of requests all the time.  It's a way to pick up a little extra cash here and there.  But rest assured.  in 12 years of blogging I think I have maybe 3 or 4 guest posts.   Two from friends who had something interesting to say and I asked them to write a post, and one from a veteran who had something to say that I thought was worth sharing.

Enjoy your Friday as the jury works through all the allegations and exhibits to figure out if Anthony Henry was wrongfully terminated.

Henry v MOA: Defense Closing Statement

Everything I said about my notes in the post about the Plaintiff Closing Statement applies here.  This a very loose set of notes.  NOT anything close to verbatim.  This will give you a sense of what Doug Parker covered, but not even close to being verbatim.  I'm afraid this won't make too much sense to anyone who wasn't at the trial regularly or even at the closing statements.

Parker:  My first line - why can’t cops lie?  Young man sees cops lights in mirror.  Next thing he knows booked for illegal drugs in vehicle.  No idea how they got there.  Alaska State court system all because a cop lied.  Not in this case.  Nevertheless it illustrates why cops can’t lie.  Our basic liberties at stake.  I bring this up as I think about this a case over last few years.  Our country has tolerated lies more over the years.  But it just can’t happen with police.
Probably wondered if listened to two different cases.  In opening I said one thing and counsel on other side said something different -
We haven’t wavered one bit.  If have learned anything, it’s even more compelling.  Ms Usera and Mr. Vakalis denied that Henry had lied.  [This doesn't make sense, not sure what happened, if auto-correct corrected a word badly.]
Anchorage is my home time.  I feel, as a citizen the importance of a case like this.  I apologize for objecting, considered bad manners in closing, but if you don’t might be held you waved an argument.  Also about the notion I should have called other people.  At one time 80 some people on Henry’s list.  They called a fraction.  There comes a time where you have to draw the line.  My hair longer and voice hoarser, but appreciate opportunity to be here.
As said in opening:
MOA on  becoming aware that APD failed to conduct investigation in possible blocking of investigation into NG, conducted investigation into NG investigation and Henry.  MOA was a target as well as Mr. Henry.  Police chief himself was also disciplined for sitting on this for ?? months.
Rick Brown told you of his credentials, strong.  ?? of Pennsylvania after years.  Investigator concluded Mr. Henry had been dishonest.  Under Garrity - dishonest and failed to tell chain of command.  You’ll hear in his own words about dishonesty and failure to follow chain of command.
Two high ranking MOA officials separated from APD
Conducted at request of Mr Vakalis .  Looked into allegations Henry had stopped investigation into drug and sexual assault at National Guard
[Brown's] Investigation 5 months Oct 2014 - March 2015
97 page report with 2500 pages of attachments
Signed it - it was his, no one else’s.  The final report, despite what others commented on, was his.  Looked at final draft, also heard Rick Brown no material changes between 3/3/ and 3/15
29 year career in Pennsylvania and all the investigations he personally conducted, supervised IA.  This man knew how to do investigations - he did it.  Appointments by judges as monitor for consent decrees  - Detroit, Niagara Falls, Maricopa.  Comparable to what asked to do in this case.  Told to come in and see if true and fair.  No motives.  If he’d found Tony Henry honest ???with him, we would not be here today.  If found that Mew had good reasons for no investigation for many months.  He found what he found…  Suggestions he got too close to Vandegriff or Christiansen who was repeatedly vilified in this court.  Or Carson.  He was called a liar, why I objected. No evidence he lied.
Conducted his interviews at City hall  up the elevator in city hall, not at APD, but at MOA attorney
s office.
Henry’s dishonesty in investigation.  Brown told you critical meetings, and other things.  Important thread and conclusion, that Tony Henry was dishonest about those meeting.  Henry told story Oct 20, 2015 claimed Seth McMillan's fault, Katkus asked why doesn’t McMillan trust me.  Said it was all McMillan’s fault.  He recanted that.  The Mcmillan’s cause.  Who set up the meeting.  It was Tony Henry.  He had to acknowledge it was in his first interview, he lied.
I encourage you, if you don’t read anything else, read at least some of Rick Brown’s interview with Henry.  He’s not saying I don’t recall, he’s saying absolutely that’s what happened  he reported those to Brown and wouldn’t back off. And in first interview denied second meeting or having talked about drug investigation with K or that sexual assaults ever discussed.  Between the interviews, Henry produced the Blaylock statement.  I was accused???.  Document Tony Henry provided to Brown in Nov. it was Blaylocks own words.  He wrote June 4 next to those notes.  Then proceeded on 2nd interview Dec. 18, to claim it happened in January, Seth didn’t trust the General, ….. and so on.  He did that knowing what Blaylock said about June 4 meeting.  If you look at second interview A85 and A87.  He’s adamant.  He’s not qualified.  Also see in those statements.  He’s argumentative and evasive.  Read those questions and way Tony Henry tries to deflect investigators from the questions.
Again, Usera and Vakalis independent of APD.
Also heard a lot about retaliation.  But most people who he claimed were out to get him were gone.  Miller retired Spring 2013, Plummer, Summer of 2013, Hebbe - didn’t have horns - retired in 2014.  Before all this.  Especially Hebbe and Kris Miller were the bad guys, the retaliators.  But they were gone.
So you heard, last week, from Philip Deming who told you how workplace investigations should be conducted - SHRM (Society for Human Resources Management) told you he has written articles and done training on investigations.  He gave you two screens with his hands.  Walked you through how investigation supposed to happen and what Brown did.  And assured you Brown followed the SHRM standards
 Review Information - plaintiff said shame on Christiansen for sending lots of documents.  Bombshell OCI report that caused Katkus to resign next day.  It lit the fuse in the press and caused the investigation.  Once it came out and Mew had to talk to Murkowski and gov  - he asked Fanning to prepare timeline of events to explain why so much time took place [without investigation?].  Led to believe in courtroom all done for Rick Brown, but now, for Senator and Gov.
Brown also conducted interview and [of?} Mr Henry
Following interview realized had discrepancies in key events.  He may have thought I can be done in one trip.  But discrepancies.  Had to come back.  To be fair to MOA , to Justice, had to return to see what was true.
Next round - request for more information - 10 kinds[?things?] he felt was critical to see, to figure out discrepancies.  A week later, dressed??? in interview with Hazelaar and K.   Hazelaar confirmed exactly what Carson said.  K had confirmed that sexual assaults and Blaylock were at second meeting.
2nd round, happened here in Anchorage mid November - interviewed Redick and Blaylock.  Redick told Brown and carefully covered this - He gave specific info about June 4 meeting and that contradicted what Henry said.  Redick provided details about sexual assault - said Blaylock got pretty well chewed out for not divulging names of the victims.  Redick had been Tony Henry’s sergeant at SAU.  That may be the single most evidence.  No one challenged Redick’s credibility.
Consistent what everyone said about meetings.  Nothing supported Henry’s version  Brown still not ready to make a call.  Came back for 3ed round, including Dec 8 interview with Henry.
 Henry stuck to same story about meeting that he told on Oct. 20,  McMillan's fault, no recollection of meeting in June, no sexual assault.  I’d remember if it happened.  He was adamant.  Repeatedly said it, and confronted repeatedly with what others said.  His response when Vandegriff and Carson and other said June 4 happened, sexual assault happened.  His response - they got their date wrong.  He wasn’t going to accept for a second.  When Vandegriff said, is it possible you got the dates mixed up?, No said Henry before V finished question.
Why?  Why?  I ask you,  Right there.  Is that how law enforcement officers should behave.  Unwilling to accept he may have been wrong in his assessment?  Rigid  Rigid.  On that basis, Rick Brown concluded this was dishonesty , disqualifying dishonesty.
We also know Rick Brown had second interview on that trip with Tim McCoy and work? sexual assault group - the very recruiters in the very first National Guard, Blaylock was questioned about when he refused to disclose the names of victims.  Those national guard 15-6 reports show there were victims.  I was astonished when I heard it diminished here in the court.  "There was only one, it was really a consensual relationship."  NO.  That’s not true.  Simply not true.  John Nieves.  These men were in their 30s and 40s and preyed on young women  Had this been properly relayed to Tim McCoy in 2008,200 9, 2010  - in June 4 meeting was right smack dab in the middle.  Some of this could have been prevented then.  But it didn’t happen.
Also interviewed ST who explained she did not come forward after hearing about Blaylock meeting with Katkus.

MIA Carson said she told Jack Carson about the recruiters.  If one’s involved they’re all involved.  She knew that about the recruiters.  Showed FB pages with fancy cars and toys you don’t get with an ANG salary.  Gets SAU people’s interest.  Elaine Jackson, a poster person for NG, with Prieto - big, bad hygiene, that’s suspicious.  I concluded Henry lied in investigation.  That he’d lied, that his action affected materially the APD.  The fact that I’m here now proves it materially affected the APD. From transcript (deposition?):
Show you a little on Henry on honesty.
P:Have to tell the truth all the time?
Henry:  Important without a doubt.
P:  A job breaker if you can’t tell the truth right?
H:  I agree
Not just his reluctance to consider he might be wrong and others right.  Based on what Hazelaar, Katkus. Blaylock, Seth McMillan, Jack Carson, reports - that’s important in workplace investigation.  If not, don’t need investigations, cops could lie and we’d all be in trouble.
Blaylock’s credibility challenged. The  FBI report to the effect that somehow not credible is based totally on Bridge's report [on Blaylock].  Recruiters - the very ones suspected and the sexual assault coordinator who was found by OCI to be incompetent and people afraid to report to her.  You can read that in the OCI report.
Henry also testified about APD command.  I asked because Brown conceded he had failed to report to his chain of command.  He says correct.  Structure important so things get up to [next?] level so it goes up to chief.  They need to get the info so they can decide.  
He agreed with that standard but Brown concluded he didn’t comply with it.
Henry deposition Aug 2016, brings up first time really was a June meeting.  The one I said was the first one was really the June meeting  Finally, after two more years, acknowledges it happened.  Guess what.  Rick Brown was right and Tony wasn’t truthful.
Goes on to acknowledge drug investigation disclosed not by McMillan but by Henry on Feb 26.  Henry said, I believe he did.
How did he learn about it on Feb. 26?  I believe he learned it from me.
Any ??? He ??? And he said no.
That acknowledgement in his deposition is grounds for termination right there.
Brown had interviews transcribed, report 15 march.  Nancy Usera told you about her long career and high offices - Commissioner of Admin and of Labor.
Vakalis talked about distinguished military career and had Masters in Personnel Management. Usera read findings and concluded he violated standards  Obvious conclusion to make.  She later agreed to review the summary.  And when Henry filed appeal, she read the attachments.
Gone over Henry’s vision
Hazelaar/Carson version - concerned prematurely expose the investigation - you can read on page 3  Ex: A43???
Darren Redick and everyone sees Blaylock called in and sexual assaults discussed.
You aware that Redick said this.  Henry said no, his dates wrong
Couldn’t have been at meeting because Blaylock said he saw him wearing a uniform.  He said he wasn’t wearing uniform.  How can he know he wasn’t wearing uniform if he wasn’t at meeting?
[Picture of Henry in Uniform up]
Henry excuses for not telling truth
Came in ‘cold’  didn’t have access to info
Didn’t come in cold - read Blaylock block in Oct 2014 - 34 minute phone call with McMillan.  By time first Brown interview had read OCI
Regular meetings with Capt. Miller - blamed it on Carson, but admitted later told Miller anxious about meeting.
"I knew there was a big controversy with Gov’s election and NG centerpiece."  And he should get a free pass because it was also a political issue.  You don’t get free pass.  Because it was so political, Henry should have done what he usually does - research
Redick said, Henry has good memory and keeps records.
Peck:  Henry loves to argue and almost always wins.
This isn’t an interview,  he was arguing.  He was under Garrity.  It was an interview.  He should have been answering questions.
Turned over lots of documents, collecting info because allegation Investigation covered up drug investigation to National Guard.
Allegation cut off to computer access.  Never told Rick Brown about being cut off.  No I did not.  Or second interview?  No I did not.
Also claimed, Rick Brown said in deposition 30 times that he asked for something, but we couldn’t find those 30 times.  Maybe a few in second interview could be interpreted a request.
Brown, instead, got suggestions from Tony.  Brown followed up on this.  He told you that.
Interviewers told Tony what evidence was against him so he could respond.
Vandegriff presence affected him.  Claimed V was mean retaliator.  We showed  you evidence not true.  Mew was, but not V.
Henry subjected to numerous IA investigations.  Had been subject to ten prior ones and that these were normal
V asked him several times if he’d mixed up the dates.
You were given chance that you mixed up dates?  No they didn’t (deposition)
Transcript of second meeting V:  possible mixed up>  TH:  NO   - the argumentative Tony.
V:  I understand going back five years, dates can get mixed up, possible you got the two meetings backward?  H:  NO
He’d been telling them what others were saying in previous pages.  No question that Rick Brown reasonably concluded Tony lied and from the report, he lost his job.
TH:  Talked about losing certificate.
Retaliation claim.  Much of what TH  
Timeline up.
Much of what he talked about in courtroom predates red line June 4, 2014 settlement with EEOC - includes JW at OEO, Schmidt, Assignment to so called closet  - which was really a pretty good sized office, going to Homicide, working for Kris Miller
Move to SRO
Claims filed with OEO
All background - all prior to June 4 2014 settlement.  For 3.5 weeks we heard about all this bad stuff.
Talk about the settlement.  I learned new facts - didn’t think I would.  I didn’t realize how much those April 2012 events so manipulated by Henry.
Remember Investigation never told already planning to leave SAU.  Instead stood by while members of SAU very upset by notion that Henry unfairly removed, and he never told them he’d already agreed to moving.  They all believed treated poorly by management.  That uproar not just with command stuff, but with SAU - right when dealing with one of the biggest cases in years - Israel Keyes murder case.  Did you see Hebbe’s emotion over this?  Emotional for good reason.
One doc you can see is the settlement of agreement.  Henry acknowledged he settled his claims.  So all the things you say flow from 2012, you knew you’d give up those claims
It is what it is
Despite how horrible Kris Miller was?
You were paid money?  Correct
His counsel said You don’t need to decide the JW issues
Plaintiffs
NO Retaliation - pre June 2013 events settled.  The protected activity here is about opposing discrimination against JW, so have to evacuate everything that happened after that.
Green bars are when JW and H are working together.  That stops in April 2012 - at that point JW and TH timeline go apart.
Things JW lost his job over things that had nothing to do with THenry.  Whetsell agreed.  To persuade you there was ongoing retaliation related to April 2012 events.
He had to connect dots, because he opposed retaliation
Can’t do it with Miller, Plummer, Smith, Hebbe - they all retired
Mew?  He did everything but retaliate.  He wouldn’t discipline him when he was insubordinate with Mew at ASD.  Mew backed down to TH every time.  Jack Carson not his supervisor, not in command   V had nothing to do with retaliation.  He was required to investigate him.  He didn’t want to.  That that is retaliatory?  That’s nonsense .
Fanning  - come into fold meeting in Feb 4, 2014, not August.  Established date with V.
Fanning will tell you he was attacked by Tony at meeting, back when Fanning was in the army - you are a malcontent.  Nothing relates to JW???
Rick Brown arrives from Pennsylvania - was only here for 3 days prior, not exactly long experience
Now, let’s listen to B Christensen sitting here daily hearing  these attacks on her.  She was new to MOA.   Brown belittled for working for pay from MOA.  For always working with MOA attorneys in his work.
Then they pick on one lone comment out of 100s.  They’re most proud of and dragged out again this morning Jan??? Brown didn’t agree or accept it in the slightest.
Brown not accepting sexual assault, because already being done - work by SAU - Tim McCoy was already doing it, didn’t want to duplicate SAU.  She was ok with mentioning.
Removed to lab - it’s in Police headquarters.  Had to move him out of SAU.  No way he can investigate H and investigations of ???
Fanning complaint, not retaliation.  Actually Henry retaliation of Fanning.  Tracey said I don’t want to work for him.  Fanning said, He may have ruined more careers than anyone at APD, BUT people like to work for him.  Said two years before.
Tony Henry wanted to look at IA records so he could retaliate.  It was a good decision [to block his access?] , but he went to arbitration and won.  All the more puzzling why he refused arbitration, he could have been here.
Puzzling to me that Mew didn’t discipline him over ASD, didn’t discipline over ???, but not retaliation.
Corrosive  - toxic employee - how to try to work something out with someone first, figure out way to resolve.[V had gone to conference and attended a panel on toxic employees.]  Ultimately see if interested in some kind of buyout.  But Tony Henry didn’t know about this because they never followed up on it.  Not retaliation.
Evidence TH insubordinate publicly and all he got was a note in his file.  Unreasonable?  No.
IA investigation - not about JW , but failure of SAU command staff failed to come forward.  TH was interviewed and not sustained.
Gets rid of first two chapters.
OEO
11:36am
OEO was settled.  Protagonists Hebbe and Miller gone.  We heard too much about Marilyn Steward had done.  They did not acknowledge his insubordination.  So it was considered a rogue report.  
Henry repeatedly vilified Carson.  Carson never once complained about Tony.  He confided to Kerl, he’d gone to Redick was the right thing.  Tapped on shoulder by Miller and testified at investigation, and that set off Henry.  At funeral of good friend, called Carson IA snitch.
J:  5 minutes left.
P:  In remaining time - investigation not flawed.  Katkus confirmed sexual assaults.  Tried to talk to Annie Kirkland, couldn’t be interviewed, but what she said at deposition wouldn’t have helped Tony’s version.  Reason to go to K to tell him they would conduct investigation on base.  He never told her about the Feb meeting, and he should have.
Phone call to K at 11 at night.  What was he hiding?
Jury Instructions-??   Damages - you can’t speculate.  Remember evidence - Thelan, his friend said Henry would retire at 60.  Everyone you heard from who retired, retired in their 40s and 50s.  Police work is a young man’s game.  Foster himself acknowledges.  None of the numbers Foster mentions ever came up as evidence in this court.  His salaries at MOA and 3 Canopy all hearsay.
He could have cleared his name thru arbitration and “” commission?  Now coming here to ask you to award him money.
Consider - he lied, properly terminated,  no liability on good faith and fair dealing complaint.  Thank yo very much I appreciate your time and what you’ve given on this important issue
Ray Brown:  Inappropriate argument = not based on any evidence - inappropriate argument to jury, as matter of law settlement agreement.  Didn’t want to interrupt.  As to his legal conclusions is inappropriate,
J;  already told them if they depart from facts or law to disregard.  Already in.
11:45am

You can get to an index of all posts on this trial at the Henry v MOA tab under the blog header at top.  Or click here. 

Henry v MOA: Plaintiff Closing Part 1

The court gallery had 33 people this morning.  Probably the highest number of the trial, or at least since I've been here.

Meg Simonian presented the closing for Henry.  [rough notes warning:  These are what I could type as she talked.  She was slower today so I could keep up a little better.  But this is to give you a sense of the closing statement.  It's relatively close, there here and there my mind/finger connection stopped and I missed a bit. Apologies. I did spell check and made additions or changes only when I was sure.] [After going through these, it's pretty basic.  Doesn't really catch the sense of the comments.  Sorry, it's the best I can offer you.]

Smonian split her statement.  This is the first part.  Then after Doug Parker did his closing statement, Simonian got 30 more minutes.  I'll try to put that up later.

Closing statement - Plaintiff

S:  Said [at opening?], case is simple, but complicated.  What we teach our kids to do.  Stand up against bullies.  When you came here a month ago, you showed up, in common, away from family, classroom. . .  For that sacrifice, we, society, give you tremendous power.  Judge said, Thomas Jefferson said jury is the power of our democracy.  Power to hold the powerful accountable, to give Henry his reputation back.

After Jason Whetsell (JW) diagnosed with MS,  Fanning, Vandegriff, disciplined him. Tony got upset and was removed from SAU, put in closet.  Restricted from communication, moved to Kris Miller’s command.  Restricting what he could do, gag order for 6 months.  After all that Henry didn’t file complaint, kept head down, but when he found they were secretly ??holding?? his file.   The  OEO, found against the MOA.
Discrimination claims here,    you aren’t making a decision about JW, it’s just background info, into their motive, bias, what they did to Henry.
Clear that Tony was retaliated against for standing up for JW.  OEO findings went into Mew’s safe, no one, not even Tony, could see them.  They tried to convince you Marilyn Stewart wasn’t supposed to do investigations and make findings. Mayor Sullivan sent memo saying she should.  Do that.     Didn’t dispute the policy.  They focused on part of role of solving informal complaints and ignored the part that gave her ??unmated??? power to resolve complaints.
Mayor Sullivan sent memo telling everyone she had the power.  OEO’s role to do it.  Did bring in 2006 memo, but that was different administration.  When OEO doesn’t do something they shouldn’t do, they write a memo.  Mr. Wheeler’s own statement - statutes and policies said, she had the power.
Sullivan - wrote her a glowing recommendation - though the others trashed her.

January after 0E0 findings, Henry moved to School Resources.  Others said moved too, but Henry more than most.  Before moved twice in 4 years.  After, moved 6x if ??? months.

[They wanted to?] Undermine OEO findings, find someone that will say JW was sick.  They found Jack Carson.  Kept that complaint secret, after EEOC complaint.  That policy says you don’t get to try to get someone to settle on own.  All sorts of pressure to end EEOC complaint.  No one is supposed to got outside MOA to challenge the power structure.  They asked for her complete investigation, but never got it.  Stewart’s finding.

Settlement June 2006, 2 days later started JW coverup investigation.
Settlement was Henry’s attempt to get them to stop, get this behind us and move forward.  Stop moving him around, and move stuff from his IA file.
Retaliation began again.  Never gave OEO finding to Henry or EEOC.  Kept moving him, all to places off campus.  Out of the building.  There are good reasons for some to be off campus - sex assault unit, schools, but he wasn’t in schools, he was in ASD office.
Message, if you mess with us, we move you out
Instruction 28 - Jury instructions - Background info OEO
Dep Chief Steve Smith said, all knew Henry was target and they kept him the target.
Filed second EEOC right away because they knew they weren’t going to follow up.  The training they were supposed to do, didn’t happen until we filed lawsuit.
Spent time on EEOC complaint, because defense ???
Vandegriff said not to put OEO in - violating, treating people differently.  Sure, chief ordered him, but he was willing.  Wrote exec summary shows charges against Henry not substantiated.
Covered up info on Whetsell to make it look like Henry just didn’t understand.
After finding wasn’t substantiated.
Use of Force meeting - right after that.  Expresses displeasure.  Chief doesn’t see problem, but Vandegriff does.  Fanning ready to fire him.  Chief says no big deal.
Gave Hebbe, Vandegriff, Fanning - gave them wrong findings and told them to undermine findings. ???
SGT, Carson comes up with next complaint, bombshell guard allegations
Nov.  Carson interviewed with Fanning by FBI
Vandergriff goes on junket, how to fire problem police - how to get rid of him.  May 2014
Then Fairbanks funeral.  Hebee gone.  Carson said at funeral made vile comments about Vandegriff, no one else heard, open investigation,  un substantiated.
EEOC response to matter  - exec summary by Vandegriff and ??? Nothing to look at here, move on.
Move him to Special Victims Unit?  Why would they send him there if Carson’s charge had any merit?   Moved without consultation.  Mew asks him to drop EEOC complaint, in the same email, violating policy to do that, here (jury?) instruction, making management, shouldn’t substitute your opinion for Management.
Instruction 19  - you can disagree if you find these moves are part of retaliations
After funeral, they change policy. Won’t let Henry look at IA file.  Won’t let him see Carson complaint.
Henry filed another complaint (about being kept out of IA files on himself) because didn’t want to be treated differently others .  Big move to stop him.
Meeting about Tony Henry policy, no doubt he was targeted
Henry filed complaint about DC Fanning, DC Fanning said some really bad things about you.  Didn’t wait a year.  As soon as he found out he filed . . ??.  Meehan had to investigate because “IA tainted”   Fanning asked. But Vandegriff to be his witness.  Told Investigator he’s a malcontent, litigious, made complaint outside investigator.
Aug more communication Christianson and EEOC.  After complaint against Fanning substantiated, Vandegriff goes to City Hall.  Nothing different with timelines different from what Carson had a year before.  Only difference DC Fanning disciplined for dissing Henry.  DC Fanning and Vandegriff trying to get him back into the hold ???? for covering up Drug Investigation.
Instruction 16.
No dispute about protected complaint.
Jury Instruction 17 two ways:  More likely than not real reason fact he had participated in those protected activities.  More than 50%  Two ways
 You decide if Rick Brown report was the real reason
Or because of the protected activity - wouldn’t have been terminated if he didn’t file the two EEOC accounts.
Either or, it was #2; or #2 was part of the reason.
Rick Brown hired.  Makes money working for MOA.
Judge found Henry the policy change was wrong and he should have access to the file.
Jury Instruction 18:  Even if reasonable action, if protected activity set in motion or manipulated, or employee’s bias may be attributed to the admins who  - if you find that F V and BC had bias due to EEOC.  That intent, in bad faith, is imputed on those who made the final decision.

Set in Motion
Hebbe and Carson come up with Accusation
Multiple Meetings over a year   -
 no documentation,
no attempt to verify
Myron Fanning to Blair Christiansen
Hire Rick Brown

Claim they wanted to find out what went wrong with National Guard, really goes to EEOC
Used Vandegriff to study Henry.  Everyone got timeline, but Tony Henry.  Everyone has access to police report but Henry.  When he found out something that didn’t match timeline, he just ??? away.
Parker didn’t call Bill Miller - he said it’s ok to talk to Katkus, we have agreement
Hazelaar said they talked to Katkus all the time .  These things not in Brown Report.
It’s a white wash.  Only way you’ll know is by looking at everything.  Destroyed recordings  - Steve Payne interview destroyed, why?   What did he say to Payne that Payne said "it blew my mind."  We don’t know, it’s destroyed.  Vandegriff also destroyed Steve Smith’s notes.  The meticulous note taker.
Didn’t record key interviews - ST (anon sexual assault victim) before . . .
Evidence misconstrued, destroyed, missing.
FBI saying of course we talked to Katkus, that doesn’t make it into the report
Christenson advised Vakalis to fire Henry.
Ms. Usera provided with 17 pages, didn’t look at attachments until afterward.  Didn’t say that in deposition, that was new.

Timelines important only documents that say what happened  No other documents of Carson investigation or use of Blaylock as a source.
First timeline Jack C initialed had things on that Carson said, he get taken out, and 2/26-3/10  added issue about steroids.  No one could explain.
What Brown did have, but ignored, were the 15-6 documents.  Blaylock was known before the June 3 meeting.  Blaylock didn’t say ordered??? not reported to APD.  Ordered to follow the chain command.  He said John Nieves did nothing wrong.  If anyone misleading at meeting it was Blaylock.  Shows got call from Gen K and called him back.  After he called Plummer and told him.  Told?? he said he didn’t remember.  Elaborate power point presentations.  No one said they were kept out of the loop.  Miller or Plummer didn’t say they would have stopped it if knew.
Police officers can’t lie.  Carson.  Objection.
J:  Allowed to argue evidence,  up to jury
S:  Evidence of police officers lying or violated policy.  None of them disciplined.  Carson gets promoted every time.  MOA says this is how to evaluate credibly.  Two people reports conflicting - determine if memory or other reasons, besides lying, may be those are the factors to consider.  Everyone had discrepancies.  Miller says fuzzy.  Only thing they agreed on, Kenneth Blaylock told not to ???
No one, not even Blaylock testified to that.  You make the allegations so horrible and bad, maybe people won’t see there’s no evidence.  Rape, teenage girls lured to parties.
Everyone on this table thinks sexual assault horrible and should be taken seriously.  Nothing at the JUNE 4 meeting about that.  Henry called in for assigning lower rank person to talk to higher rank.  Weaponizing sexual assault.  In the end there was only one person who didn’t want to report a crime.  Fanning.  Blaylock not credible.  Agent Kirkland said disgruntled employee put everything but kitchen sink into allegations.  Used sexual assault victims in fight against Katkus.

In hiring Rick Brown, that’s what they did.  Text messages and email.  So excited when they got evidence against Tony.  “good news!”  “Call you later”  I want to get you the beefed up findings.”  “I’ll get it cleaned up and get with your comments.  Make it smoking.”  He did, he delivered.  If about sexual assaults - but Blair C said don’t look there, keep focus on Henry.
Rick Brown said K’s laptop could be icing on the cake.  Vandegriff, I hope so. . .
Ignored findings that didn’t support their findings.  Even analysis because drug not supported.  Focus on sex, because when you say rape, people look closer.
No evidence of separate investigation.  None of them kicked out of NG by drugs.  Jane W who was hired by Katkus didn’t show anything about drugs.  Lots of bad behavior.  Only sexual assault was a women he had an affair with, who said not completely consensual.

Lt. McCoy.  Most likely - about ST - only person not reporting their finding.  Only victim Blaylock had..  Restricted report in March but had nothing to do with???  .  Rick Brown knew that but didn’t report it.  When he met with ST off the record said she spoke to McCoy and Blaylock.  Means she reported after disclosure.  Delayed reporting for other reasons.  Not the June 4 meeting.  Not what they wanted to hear.

Mia Carson.  Should be clear major drug deal at NG, everything to do with the guard.  Charges were there.  Even tho Rick Brown said weren’t.  “Quote on illegal activities in the report.”  Like Christiansen.  Stylistic changes Brown said of Christiansen.  You can see, it’s spoon fed.  You can see it here
 9:42am  - direction to make report - seems like they should have made a big finding - lying - Blair Christiansen advice why informant be bad - verbatim.
Jury Instruction 20 - good faith and fair dealing  - if you find they didn’t treat him fairly, then this would be a yes.
When they castigated him and publicly humiliated him.  In this court room justice is only about winning.  That’s all we can do.  Only way we can prove they’ve done something wrong.  And we did.  We had Dr Foster come and talk about damage calculations.  You’ll hear instructions about loss. Jury Instruction-30 includes Dr. F testimony, not some conjecture.
Instruction-31  tells you do simple arithmetic, pretty complicated.  Amount would have been earned if continued working at APD, subtracting what he earned elsewhere at comparable employment - working Iraq away from his wife 7 days a week, not comparable employment as APD - 1000 more hours.  What loss if he worked comparable work and hours.
You can figure out when he would have retired.  His wife ten years younger, if allowed to retire and rehire - Nancy Usera said no one had been denied [retire/rehire program].  Also asked if Foster - doesn’t want to keep working for 3 Canopy.  If you annualize any of these, ??% more.
Mr. Voth said no difference at 3 Canopy - none of the extra hours matter because he volunteered at APD.  Glossed over fact 3000 hours over ten years.  Not the same if he volunteered to help APD is not the same as required work.
I-33 you may award fair, and any losses reasonable experience? In the future
I-34 - we bore proof of losses.  Because he didn’t ??? Failure to mitigate damages.  He didn’t relinquish police certificate, it wasn’t voluntary.  He lost it because APD fired him and so they took his certificate.  He may never get it back.  An exemplary officer lost it.
Finally you get to decide non-financial damages.  Didn’t get to sit through trial, not based on evidence.  Lies.  Two meetings, conflating two meetings together?  Seth M did get into trouble for running his mouth.  Henry told you that and others.  Brown didn’t mention that.
How do you compensate someone who was called liar, said covering illegal activity?  What motive would Tony have not to say anything about June 4 meeting?  He said I never told them about Blaylock because they knew about him.  I didn’t tell them about ??? Said in first and second interview.  He’s not a liar  You get to decide.
That, again is a very difficult thing to do.

You can get to an index of all posts on this trial at the Henry v MOA tab under the blog header at top.  Or click here. 

Henry v MOA - Witnesses Done, I Got Most Of The Day Off - Tomorrow Closing Arguments

I'm not really sure what today was for.  We saw parts of the video deposition of FBI agent Steve Payne, a few minutes of his boss at the FBI, Annie Kirklund.  Then Tony* Henry took the stand for less than five minutes.

*Throughout the trial, everyone called Anthony Henry "Tony."  I was caught in the official Anthony and just stayed there, but it seems wrong, since every one seems to know him as Tony.  So, now the the trial is pretty much done, I'm switching too.

Steve Payne

Payne was the FBI agent that Jack Carson contacted when Tony Henry told Carson and Seth McMillan to stop their questioning of Guard people over sex and drugs.  Payne got allegations both from Carson and from Kenneth Blaylock - he wasn't sure which came first.  Blaylock was a contact for Carson too.
He went over events and people that we've heard about repeatedly from different perspectives.

Going back over my notes, I think the critical part the defense wanted to get on the record was was about how telling Katkus about the Guard Drug investigation and that there was an informant, made it harder to investigate.    [Here's my usual warning:  these are my rough notes.  My fingers can't keep up with the words, so I try to get the sense of what was said.  It's not verbatim  If something looks really wrong, it probably is.  Words, sometimes sentences, are missing, but it gives you a sense of what was said.] [And let me remind you, this was video of depositions taken in 2016.]

Doug Parker:  Did you do an investigation?
Steve Payne:  We tried to, but at that point not much we could do, as it was relayed to me.  Conversations with Jack C an Seth M  advised chain of command, investigation had been conducted and had been involved in Sexual Assaults  and Drug Trafficking, and they indicated that source had been compromised.  All occurred in meetings before the matter referred to us.
DP:  General at National Guard?
SP:  Yes, really whole chain, but went all the way up to Gen. K.
DP:  All this indicates it’s going to be Federal Case, agree?
SP:  Depends on relations to other subjects, factors yes, but can’t tell with 2-3 criteria, can’t tell if Fed case
DP:  What did you do to look into recruiters?
SP:  By then dried up.  [that may have been part of the question, not sure]  One meeting APD and National Guard Chain of Command, advised them of the investigation.
DP:  Who?
SP:  Only by hearsay,
DP:  Go ahead.
SP:  Henry, Seth or Jack, not sure of those people.  Couldn’t tell names of command staff - Katkus ..don’t know others.
Complaint, checked data bases for criminal records, believe negative.  Possible informants, but not effective.
DP:  Who work with?
SP:  Jack Carson, Seth McMillan, maybe Eric, not sure.
SP:  Allegation entire unit involved, tacit understanding of Chain off Command, not assisting, but turned a blind eye.
DP:  Implicated as part of overall - Including Katkus?
SP:  Correct.
P:  Main complainant Jack Carson?
SP: Most contact with him, but Seth too.
DP:  Concern both drugs and sex assault?
DP  You went to your boss Annie, why not to Tony Henry?
SP: Annie was my supervisor,
DP:  Describing I think your belief that investigation thwarted before got to FBI?
SP:  I wouldn’t personally use the word thwarted.  Now more people aware of activity, not necessarily compicit.  Connected to investigation as subjects, now aware.  Makes it more difficult.
DP:  How?
SP:  My understanding entire chain of command aware, based on meeting we talked about.
DP:  You believe because of the meeting, that Chain able to cover it up?
SP:  Probably assisted them in that.  Included people like Katkus.

This is important because The Brown Report that was used to justify terminating Tony Henry said that his talking to Katkus about the informant ended any serious investigation.  The plaintiff attorneys have had witnesses say Katkus already knew and that the big drug bust - based on a Guard informant - went on successfully to nail large amounts of drugs and at least one member of a Mexican drug cartel.  One issue the jury is going to have to wrestle with is which of these two versions is true?  Henry's meeting Katkus effectively ended a serious investigation into the guard, or it didn't.  

The plaintiff's played another part of the deposition - actually a different day, still Steve Payne - where attorney Meg Simonian is getting Payne to acknowledge there was no investigation into Katkus, or even the National Guard at all.  And makes the point that there was no documentation.  

[These are really loose notes.  Simonian talks fast, and for much of it Payne just affirmed what Simonian said. I've highlighted the parts I think the plaintiffs wanted the jury to hear.]

Simonian:  Reporting to your supervisors, credible info Tony Henry and K were covering drugs and interfering with Law Enforcement.
Payne:  I wanted to believe, but couldn’t get corroboration.  
S:  Serious allegations.  Only investigation you assigned to do relating to NG.  Info is not documented in this report.
P:  Don’t know if documented elsewhere.
S:  I’ll let you know, not corroborated anywhere.  About Drug Trafficking or sexual assault. 
S:  Annie K - your not doubting her memory.  You wouldn’t have been doing an investigation into K in June without a complaint and without my supervisors knowledge.
P:  I can’t recall if Carson came to me before Blaylock or the other way.
S:  I understand, but it suggests that you were not involved until after June 24, 2010.  If you were doing an investigation into a 2 star general,
P: I wouldn’t do anything off the books.
S:  I asked if you documented what you did with Seth McMillan.  You never investigated K for interfering with a case?  So Carson didn’t assist you in such an investigation?  
S:  They said they had done an investigation.  Shocked that no documentation.  
P:  They’re good officers and can’t believe they didn’t document anything.  

They showed some very short clips of FBI special agent Annie Kirklund.  I wasn't sure what the point was.  It was maybe 10-14 seconds (less than some of defense attorney Halloran's pauses). First the played out with the jury out of the room so both parties could agree on what was allowable to be shown to the jury.
A jury on the end near me, shrugged her shoulders as if to say, "What?!!!"

Tony Henry was called to the witness stand once more by the defense.  This is the whole of his testimony:

Parker:  At sometime in 2016 you told police certificating agency you would not use your police certificate?
Henry:  Yes I did
Simonian:  Did you voluntarily relinquish it?
Henry:  No
Parker:  If you had ??? Something you would have had to ??? before.

I don't think it matters if the jury understood it.  I think they needed material from the clip and from Henry's testimony so they could mention it in their closing arguments.  

The jury was allowed to take the rest of the day off at 10:23.  There's a question about one juror who has plane tickets to somewhere for Tuesday.  The judge thinks it's better to dismiss her now, rather than leave her on the jury and make the rest of the jurors feel rushed to make a decision before her flight.  But they will only start deliberations tomorrow afternoon after the closing arguments, which start at 8:30.  

They seemed to be agreed upon the most of the jury instructions, except the part about compensation.  They were getting together to resolve that at 1pm.  I decided it wasn't critical to stay for that.  So I left and did a few of the errands and chores I've neglected for the past three weeks while covering the trial.  I've got to go now, so excuse the typos.  I'll proof this when I get back later.  

Henry v MOA - PM - Finish Carson,, Blaylock, and Hebbe (video)

The biggest news is the judge thinks the witnesses will be over tomorrow and that the closing arguments will be Thursday morning at 8:30am, and the jury will get the case Thursday afternoon. But it's a been along complicate trial and the jury is up against a three day weekend with one juror with tickets out of state next Tuesday or Wednesday.

That's all stalling as I try to figure out what and how to write about this afternoon.  The morning is posted here.  With election news it's hard to write, but I've turned things off so I can give you a sense of the afternoon.  [Now that I'm done with this post, it seems reasonable to warn you this is my sense of things as of today.  It's my impressionistic take.]

I've been in court long enough now to get a sense of how the details fit into the overall picture.  I have no idea what the jury is thinking, but I can tell you where I am.  I really didn't know enough about the case to be rooting for one side or the other.  I knew there was a connection to the Feliciano/Kennedy case but I didn't know how.  And there was a connection to the National Guard scandal of 2013/2014.  The Brown Report was cited by the judge in that case as showing the MOA had hidden important information in an attempt to win their case. (It was hung jury the first time around and the plaintiffs won the second round.)  Was the plaintiff, Anthony Henry, who'd been terminated by APD, a good guy who got mistreated or did the APD act in good faith when they terminated him?

What I've learned is that the APD was a hot bed of problems.  There's been talk of Tony Camp and Command Camp.  There's an internal investigation unit for investigating police.  I understand a police department having a unit - preferably independent of the police - to investigate complaints by citizens.  But what I'm hearing at the trial, it was used to resolve complaints between officers.  And punishments and reprimands seem to be fairly common.

The plaintiffs started off calling witnesses and the attorneys - Ray Brown and Meg Simonian - had a story to tell and the browbeat and disparaged witnesses whose stories didn't confirm to their narrative of the case.  In in there narratives there were names we heard over and over again.  This afternoon's witnesses for the defense were villains in this narrative.

• Jack Carson, in their narrative, set up a rogue investigation to go after the National Guard recruiter who was having an affair with his (now ex-) wife.  He filed complaint after complaint against Jason Whetsell, an officer in the canine unit, who was diagnosed with MS. 
• Blaylock was the crazy National Guard Lt. Col who published the Blaylock Manifesto on a website  which made wild allegations about abuse of sex, drugs, and guns at the National Guard.  Henry had no use for him.  He said he was just not credible and even accused him of being a conspiracy theorist who believed in aliens.  And all his accusations turned to nothing.  
• Steve Hebee was a former friend of Anthony Henry who had become his boss.  We learned early that he'd had an affair with Henry's wife and that they tolerated each other, but more recently he'd been one of the sources of investigations and accusations against Henry.  (When Henry testified he did explain that it had been an affair with his ex-wife and was 27 years ago and he was no happily married).

So today the jury got a chance to see them in the flesh, as they did Rick Brown yesterday.  And they turned out to be much more reasonable and credible that we'd heard.  

Carson was perhaps the least sympathetic, to me he came across as someone who wanted to be somebody, was idealistic, and who was pulled in different directions.  He was disturbed by Jason Whetsell's MS diagnoses and reported that Whetsell wasn't performing like he should.  That Tony Henry seemed to be protecting Whetsell was a problem for him.  He told us that Henry was a father figure for him.  In this very hierarchical and military like (several described it that way including attorney Ray Brown) organization, broke the rules and went behind his supervisor's back  (Henry) to pursue leads from Blaylock.  My sense was he saw this as an opportunity to break open a big case of drugs and sex parties at the National Guard.  He saw his boss tipping off the head of the National Guard who Carson believed was part of the problem and would thus cover up the problems.  Carson's story contained all these contradictions, which we already had heard about.  He didn't come off particularly well, but probably the human being on the witness stand was more sympathetic than the theoretic villain we'd been hearing about.  

Then we got Kenneth Blaylock.  The crazy didn't match what we saw.  He knew his stuff well, spoke strongly, and was able to fend off Ray Brown's questions. We learned, when he was questioned by Doug Parker, for the defense, that he'd spent time in Iraq, which we knew from Seth McMillan's testimony already.  We also learned that Gen. Katkus never had an overseas assignment.  When he got back from Iraq he was put in charge of the recruiting office, the Alaska Guard was ranked last among all US states and territories and in the nine months he was there, it had overtaken one other state.  But he reported discrepancies in financial transactions in, reported these to Katkus, and was immediately removed from his position.   Which was a plausible reason why he was suspicious of the commander, and possible a reason others with problems in the Guard went to him.  They knew he'd been punished for doing his job.  He also got called up to the General's office the very next day after a meeting APD officer Sean McMillan asked him to talk to one of the recruiters.  And disciplinary action was taken against him at that meeting when he refused to reveal the names of the women who'd confided in him.  And he knew the policy on not revealing the names of victims, and the plaintiff's lawyers never challenged him on that.  We know that if he were wrong on this we would have seen the policy up on the screen.  

He was also able to clear up the allegations we'd heard earlier that he brought many victims to meet a phony FBI agent in Spenard.   [From my rough courtroom notes - regular warning here - these are clearly not verbatim, but get the gist.]

Parker:  In this report there is a discussion about allegation that you took a victim to someone impersonating an FBI agent.
Blaaylock:  Bill Fulton, said I could take someone to his office any time.
P:  How did this happen?
B:  Victim talked to me briefly was nervous.  I said lets go to Appleby’s, but she did't was to talk  in public area  We went to his office to talk.  Her fiancé's  there too.  He was in Natl Guard.  She’s wearing an ankle monitor.  Mr. Fulton was a bounty hunter,   Saw her, punched her name in his computer and gave her a pep talk [I think about he could help her.]  He left the room.
P:  Did he have any association with the FBI,
There was an objection and sidebar, and then this resumed
P:  Col Blaylock, the sum total of visit to Bill Fulton’s office is you interview the victim?
B:  yes.
P:  Did you claim he was an FBI agent?
B: No.
P:   Did he?
B:  No.
P:   Ultimately the FBI  said there was no evidence there?
B:  Right.  

In cross exam, RB tried to catch Blaylock lying because there was a discrepancy in what he said today and in the FBI report.  But Blaylock said the FBI agents wrote the report and it was their account, not his (Blaylock's).  He never verified or signed that report.  

The Blaylock we saw in court was very different than the one that had been portrayed, and he was adept at avoiding Ray Brown's verbal traps.  

Finally we got Deputy Chief Steve Hebee. This was a video of his deposition with the plaintiff's Meg Simonian.  And it was offered by the defense.  Hebee came across to me as thoughtful, sincere, and very reasonable.  He, like Plummber (previous post) just wanted to find a way to get Henry cooled off and back on his game as a very good police officer.  

It starts off (these are excerpts of the deposition, so it didn't start at the beginning) talking about the high tension level as the APD is dealing with the Israel Keyes case and the time trying to find the 18 year old barista who'd been abducted.  Simonian says something about this being a high profile case.  Simonian argues that was the last thing on his mind. 

Hebee:  Don’t know if high profile, it was high stress.  Wasn’t looking at profile,  worried about 18 year old girl.  Very stressful, demoralizing, and brutally tragic.
Simonian:  News every day?
H:  yes.  

It was in the middle of all this that Tony Henry is reacting badly about Jason Whetsell's being returned to the canine unit full time from the SAU.
Hebee can't understand how in the big picture - with this murder case going on - how Henry is being so difficult about moving a dog and his handler back to his original unit  - the canine unit.

He talks about how he'd wanted someone he could trust and asked Henry to take over the crime unit and with it the Keyes investigation.  It was an important case and he wanted Henry because he got along well with the FBI with whom the APD were working on the case.  He said he knew it had been discussed with Henry, but they hadn't told him in advance because it never occurred to him that it would be a problem.  He acknowledge they should have  talked to him but again talked about all the stuff going on at the time, particularly the Keyes case.

The image I saw wasn't an evasive witness who callously treated Henry.  He had a strong regard for Henry and he was disappointed at what was happening with Henry.

Hebee and Plummer (previous post) combined was a powerful counter to the repeated stories we had heard of the isolated and backbiting Command that was seeking to retaliate against Henry.

I think we have some more video deposition of Steve Payne and some video to clear up some concern of the plaintiff's attorney tomorrow

I'd note that the plaintiff's attorney's have been hampered by a time restriction.  The court allots both sides an equal amount of time.  The plaintiffs burned through theirs at a faster rate than the defense.  So the judge ruled the other day that there cross could be, at most, 50% of the time of the defense's direct.  That was not something Brown handled well.  He did request that the judge explain to the jury why they were going so fast in a way that didn't prejudice their side.  So the jury knows, but I know they would have worked over Blaylock much more if they'd had more time.

That's the best I can do.  Closing arguments are scheduled tentatively for Thursday morning for anyone who wants to see these players live.  

You can get to an index of all posts on this trial at the Henry v MOA tab under the blog header at top.  Or click here. 

Henry v MOA - Fanning, Plummer, Carson

Things started late.  Retired APD Deputy Chief Myron Fanning was the first witness.  The second witness was via video deposition - Retired (I think) Deputy Chief Plummer.  Both witnesses knew Henry a long time and both told a story of him as a good cop until the Whetsell situation came up. (Whetsell was a canine officer who got diagnosed with MS and Henry was protective of him.)

Fanning seemed to be more of a rival. (Ray Brown suggested that.)  He'd called Henry The Golden Boy who was in tight with the chiefs and could by pass the chain of command, but he always was able to make thing work.  Fanning also was the one who'd said, Henry "had destroyed more careers than anyone else in APD." When plaintiff attorney Ray Brown attributed this to Fanning and added, he was the golden boy until 2012, Fanning replied,

F:  He always had conflicts with people.  He affected a lot of careers.  

Fanning said he grew up in Alabama and graduated from the University of Alabama with a degree in criminal justice and a minor in military science.  And his concern with following rules, appropriate discipline, and chain of command seemed consistent with that.

We saw Plummer via very edited video of his deposition.  (Nothing nefarious about the editing, it seemed more a time issue, but it jumped a bit now and then.)  He billed himself as a good friend of Henry's for 27 years and called Henry his best friend.  But with the Whetsell issues, his behavior began to change.  Plummer sounded genuine to me and that he was pained to be giving testimony that might hurt his friend.
[As always, WARNING:  these are my rough running notes. I miss a lot of words or change to shorter ones so I can keep up.  I think the gist is preserved.  Some words below added in to make more sense.]

Halloran:  Was there a time frame when conduct seemed to change and began to go out of control?
Plummer:  Yes sir
H:  When?
P:  Really became hard to deal personally with Henry in time frame Whetsell being transferred out [of SAU] to canine.
H:  Time when you and others met with Dr S about his conduct?
P:  yes.
H:  Reason?
P:  Commanders, captains had experience, inappropriate behavior from Henry, discussions, similar about his emotions, not being himself.  Discussion about what we should be doing.  Concerned something would happen.  Capt ?? Had relation with Dr. Spurlock, so talk to him
H:  psychologist?
P: I think Lt ??? Invited Spurlock to talk to captains.
H:  Outcome?
P:  He listened to us, then pulled out for another meeting, never heard anything else.
H:  Tony trying to protect Whetsell as one of his….  
P:  I think he was upset, he felt the officer not being treated appropriately.
H:  Aware of Henry trying to protect others?
P:  yes.
H:  Appropriate?
P:  Couple of occasions inappropriate .
H:  Example?
P:  Swing shift pursuit,  on the street, asked H to investigate, he did, We agreed there was a violation.  He wanted to handle it as a training issue.  I didn’t agree.  He didn’t want to give the punishment.  There will be a letter.  He decided to take the letter himself and not give to the SGT.  [My understanding, Henry took the discipline for his officer, but I could be wrong] Violations officers would make, not major, not enough to fire someone violation.  In house solution rather than write up and document.
H:  You said occasions when H handling discipline in own unit instead of using dept policies and resources.?  
P:  Commander or SGT have certain amount of discretion on how to handle complaint and discipline.  But Henry made decision, somewhat in his discretion, but no documentation to show what if any action happened.  Made it so later on, if any action to take, no documentation.  

He also talked about Henry being more emotional, swearing more often, outbursts.  Said that he didn't swear and Henry tried to not swear when they talked, but in this period, Henry lost control much more often.  It was ok in their personal relationship, but inappropriate in their professional relationship.  

I typed appropriate and inappropriate a lot this morning.  Two words used often, especially by Plummer.

The picture that came out was of a technically good officer who solved problems and was fiercely loyal to his team, wanting to solve problems in-house.  This is consistent with my impression earlier in the trial.  I thought of him, possibly, of the excellent employee who contributes a lot more than most to the organization, but who also thinks he should be treated differently due to his value to the organization.  Sort of like the banks that were seen as 'too big to fail.'  But I'm also careful to categorize people because that makes it easier to stop evaluating new information, and because we tend to categorize people into available existing categories, so we may stick them where they don't really belong.  But it's a natural human activity.  It's like when FBI special agent Annie Kirkland talked about how she thought of Blaylock as a disgruntled employee.  Sometimes you're right sometimes not, but we do it without thinking.  

Carson was next - and will continue after lunch, and time's getting short, so I'll talk about him later.  Maybe.  Basically we've heard so much about Carson it's hard to see him without all that influencing my interpretation.  

Basically, two different Deputy Chiefs, one a friend, one not, both describing a man whose behavior got increasingly volatile as the Jason Whetsell health issues emerged as an issue.  

Carson finishes later and if there's time we may see Kenneth Blaylock this afternoon

Henry v MOA: Rick Brown Fishes [Finishes], Drew Voth, Challenges Dr. Foster

This continued from the morning with Doug Parker questioning hired investigator Rick Brown.  Nothing earthshaking, just seemed to be working on details the plaintiff had raised in the deposition they played earlier in the trial.  Why did Rick Brown  think Henry wasn't being honest? He was evasive when I asked questions about [not exactly sure sure about what, but it had to do with the drugs at NG].  He got evasive, talked about OCDETF (Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force) and when I tried to redirect him to my question he went on about OCDETF.

Parker also wanted to talk about the nature of his communications with Dep. Municipal Attorney Blair Christiansen, getting the answer that they were basically routine about arrangements for travel, scheduling witnesses.  There were also suggestions for clarification of the drafts (there were 6 drafts of the report.)  There were suggestions she made about the content, but Rick Brown said he didn't take her changes.

Simonian (not Ray Brown) pitched questions for the plaintiffs in he cross-examination.  She began with his pay ($50,000 about 1/3 for expenses), then went after the fact that Brown didn't show Henry the timeline drawn up by McMillan and Carson when he wanted to check on dates.  She was now down from "thirty times he begged to see documents to fill in dates and other details" to just the timeline now.  And I wondered, as I did when this came up earlier, what investigator shows the information he has to interviewees?  He wants to hear what they know, not their reactions to what others said.  This was an investigation, not a consultation.

Them she got to the honesty issue.  Henry talked about OCDETF, because you asked him about OCDETF she told Rick Brown  He pointed out that he asked a different question and Henry started talking about OCDETF so he asked him what that was, and he took off with it rather than answering the original question.

Then Simonian put the APD IA(Internal Audit) policy for determining honesty, which warns investigator that just because different witnesses tell different stories, it doesn't mean one is lying. Then she accused Rick Brown of not following the IA policy.  He responded that he wasn't employed by APD. He said he didn't disagree with the policy but that it didn't govern him.   She kept accusing him of violating the policy.

Rick Brown:   That policy doesn’t govern me.
Simonian:  You don’t get to decide, the jury decides what governs you.  

Simonian put up a text messages between Rick Brown and Blair Christiansen.  She read from the messages (and my notes are rough but to the point)

Simonian:  Dec 17 you tell her, 3pm  You need to talk?  No Kevin and I had good interview, can show direct impact negatively.  She wrote great news.  

Simonian took this as proof that he was trying to show that there was a negative impact of Henry's disclosure to Katkus and that's why Christiansen said 'great.'  But in re-redirect Parker asked again, and Rick Brown said, Christiansen said great because there were no cases of sex abuse that were likely to still be a liability for the MOA.  

Simonian's questioning style is Ray Brown lite.   She sounds a lot like Rachel in Glee.  While she had a lot of nits to pick, I had trouble figuring out whether they were  important, or even a real issue or just something taken out of context, intended to make Rick Brown look bad in front of the jury.   So I wonder how the jury heard this.   I at least get to type notes in court and reread them and talk to people about what happened and write posts. That gives me lots of time to check and recheck what was said now and before.   The jury all get note pads and pens, but they have to leave them in the jury box and they aren't supposed to talk to anyone about the case, not even the other jurors until the trial is over and they start to deliberate the verdict.  There are a lot of facts and assertions floating around they have to reconcile.

Drew Voth, economist, dismisses Dr. Foster's analysis

When Voth was asked to give his background, he said he had an honors degree in economics.  I didn't know if I heard him right.  What's an honors degree?  Did he possibly say doctors degree?  

RayBrown, who now was pitching again for thet plaintiff, jumped all over this in the cross-exam.  OH, you mean you have a bachelors degree in economics?  Yes.  Well Dr.  Foster has a PhD!  A little bit of mine is bigger than yours.  

You can see a picture of Voth and read his qualifications at his firm's website.  He's a professional expert.  Basically, he

• Reiterated the argument Halloran made when the plaintiff rested, that since the plaintiff didn't present any factual data about his income, pension, and health benefits, there's no data on which to base potential compensation, so there's no need to talk about compensation.  But this hadn't been brought up with the jury present before.  (Is this a Federalist Society legal theory to deny payments to terminated employees?  If this gets introduced often enough in trials, are they hoping some judge will rule in their favor and set a precedent?)
• Said Foster's wrong in saying Henry has a loss, since he's earning more at Triple Canopy than he did as a police officer in Anchorage.  He dismissed the idea that he's working more hours at Triple Canopy since "Henry testified that he donated 3000 hours" to APD.  Ray Brown said there was a big difference between required work and  volunteered time.  
• Posited that the retire/rehire policy that Foster used to calculate lost retirement was bogus since no one at APD would rehire Henry.  Brown asked Voth if he knew that no one who had taken that option had NOT been retired.  I guess I would add no one who took that option had been terminated and sued the APD either.  (The retire/hire option arose when the APD was moved form the old Police Retirement System to the State's public employee retirement system.  It didn't make economic sense for experienced, retirement eligible APD officers to keep working under the new plan.  So they set up a way for them to retire and get their pension, and then be rehired, but not be part of the new pension plan.)

All this ended at about 4:19 and the judge decided there wasn't time for another witness so he dismissed the jury.  Then the judge and the attorneys discussed witnesses, time, jury instructions, and when they could get done.  The judge reminded them again that Monday is a holiday.  Parker said something about being able to finish with his witnesses by Wednesday, and the judge, said they could schedule closing arguments for Thursday then, with a smile.  Could they limit losing arguments to 30 minutes?  No?  An hour?  

So closing arguments could be on Thursday. (Don't hold your breath.)  I don't know if the jury could stay Saturday if they thought they were close to a verdict, or if they would even want to give up any of the three day weekend to be finished earlier.  This won't be an easy deliberation.

Tomorrow's tentative witnesses:  Jack Carson, Kenneth Blaylock,  Myron Fanning.  Carson is the SGT that the plaintiff's have made one of the key villains in their narrative.  And they talk about Blaylock's web posted allegations of problems with the National Guard as the 'Blaylock Manifesto.'  Henry talked about Blaylock as crazy, "he believes in aliens.'  Fanning was part of command.

Others mentioned - and I thought they said these might be video of depositions - include FBI agent Annie Kirkland (who has testified already) , Payne, Plummer, and Hebee.

It's natural for a trial to lean one way, when the plaintiff  case gets made before the jury, and then shift back over when the defense gets to call their witnesses.  Plaintiff painted some of the players pretty grimly, and as they testified in court, they turned out not to have horns and a tail - Rick Brown, Vandegriff, for instance.  If Carson and Blaylock turn out to not seem evil or crazy, then the credibility of the plaintiffs - Henry and the attorneys - will certainly] dip.

Tomorrow should be an interesting day in court if anyone isn't busy hoping to get voters to the polls or working or other normal activities.  Federal building.  The court is in the west end.  First you go through the regular building security, then the court security.  It's upstairs in Courtroom 2.

You can get to an index of all posts on this trial at the Henry v MOA tab under the blog header at top.  Or click here. 

[Damn autocorrect - changed whatever I typed to Rick Brown Fishes instead of Finishes.]

Henry v MOA: Tide Turning? Rick Brown On Witness Stand

Rick Brown was hired by the MOA to investigate allegations that the APD had jeopardized cases of drugs rings and sexual assault at the National Guard.

I first saw Brown in a video  of his deposition with plaintiff attorney Rick Brown.  It was just my second day at the trial (I missed the first four days).  I was taking everything in.  My reaction that day to the deposition was that Ray Brown destroyed Rick Brown.  That was two weeks ago.

Since then, I've seen Ray Brown interrogate a number of witnesses and gotten used to his style and remarked on it here a couple of times.  He asks rapid fire clusters of questions embedded in questions encrusted with assumptions and insinuations.  This might be a reasonable tactic with a witness who isn't forthcoming at all.  It might work, or it might get false confessions and rattled testimony.  It may be good to raise doubts in the minds of jurors about the credibility and honesty of the witnesses.  But, if the witnesses are anything like me, if they see this style enough, they start to see through it.  And start to get sympathetic to the victims of Ray Brown's verbal assaults.

So, today, Rick Brown took the stand.  Defense's attorney Doug Parker asked him slowly about his background.  It's impressive.  He went into policing after the Navy with the Pennsylvania State Police and had years of experience in investigations.  After retirement he was called upon to participate in independent monitoring of federal consent decrees of different police departments - Oakland, Maricopa County, Detroit - and one in the state of New York.  

Not only was I impressed with his experience, but also his demeanor.  In an interesting move by Doug Parker, he was asked about his own interrogation style.  [below my rough notes from this morning, so words are missing, I tend to type the gist rather than the exact words.]

Parker:  What’s your style when you interview?
Rick Brown:  I’m very open, easy going, I know hard assignment for people you are interviewing.  Non-threatening approach, treat respectfully, with respect for work they’ve done.  Based on interviews etc.  focus, on inconsistencies  Ask non-threatening  Don’t want to shut officer down,  So I get whole story.
P:  Did Anchorage interviews, and Henry that way?
RB:  I did.

I immediately heard this to be a counter to Ray Brown's style, but Parker, apparently wanted to make sure the jury got the point.

P:  Feel like your style was used in the deposition?
RB: Not used.

From there he went into the substance of the case and his report.  Parker led Brown through some of the key points the plaintiffs have made about the inconsistencies, about how Henry had repeatedly asked to see documents to refresh his memory over dates, etc., about how many meetings there were with Katkus, who initiated them, whether sexual assaults were discussed.  He asked him how he reconciled the inconsistencies.  Essentially he compared Henry's accounts to all the other witnesses' accounts.   He played clips of Rick Brown's interviews with Anthony Henry.  [Again - these are rough notes from this morning.  I'm typing this at the lunch break so I don't have much time to clean up my notes.  Read to get a sense of what happened, not verbatim transcript.]

P:  Get to question Henry about being present June 4 in Gen Katkus office?
RickB:  He said there was no meeting.
P:  Asked about sexual assaults?   ????
RickB:  Exactly, he said no.
P:  [835  telling RickB to read the transcript on the screen of his interview with Henry]
RickB reading: “Also drug and also sexual assault allegations?  H: By then I would have known about it and had I known I would have communicated with McCoy.    RB: So you knew nothing in 2010? "
P:  Henry continued to deny any knowledge of sexual assault and to deny being at a meeting where it was discussed?
RickB: He did.
P:  IN this frist interview, did Mr. Henry ask you to [let him] look at any documents?
RickB:  No
P:  Remember being questioned by Mr Ray Brown that he told you that Henry had asked you to look at docs 30 times?  Remember?
RickB: I do.
P:  Surprised?
RickB:  Yes.
P:  Was it true?
RickB:  No
P:  Had chance to review transcripts of those meetings?
RickB: I did.
P:  Did he ask to show him documents?
RickB:  No
P:  You were asked several times, about the 30 times?
RickB: Yes, not true.
P:  How did you feel?
RickB:  Unnerving because it was false information.  I felt it was unfair to suggest that in th….
P:  Was Mr. Henry making suggestions to you about docs you should look at?
RickB:  Yes.
P:  Did you?
RickB:  Yes.
P:  By second meeting?
RickB:Yes
P:  What did Mr. H say about docs he had?
RickB: He said he had many and I said that whatever he had he should provide them.
P:  Did he?
RickB: yes.
P:  Was Henry the last interview you conducted before leaving Anchorage?
RickB: Best of my memory, yes.
P:  Talked about one meeting with K and sexual assault never came up.  Consistent with what others said?
RickB: No.
P:  That meeting SAU looking into drug allegations????  Who said that in interviews?
RickB:  Jack Carson.
P:  Hearing two different things?
RickB:  yes.
What did you hear about the second meeting?
RickB:  Meeting at K office and he was trying to get names of sexual assault victims.
P:  From?
RickB: McMillan.
P:  Did you know that Henry’s version was wrong?
RickB: No.
P: So?
RickB: I had a lot of work to do.
P:  Did you think what Henry told you might be true?
RickB: I did  

It's getting time to get back into court.  But this gives you a sense.  The Rick Brown we saw in court today was nothing like the Rick Brown we saw in the deposition.  Doug Parker still has more questioning to do.  And then we'll see how the plaintiffs deal with Rick Brown in front of the jury. Will Ray Brown question him again?  Or Meg Simonian?

More tonight.

Why I Fear Dunleavy As Governor - What I Saw In 2015

I'm excerpting the title and beginning of a post I published May 22, 2015.  It's about how Dunleavy, during a special session, tried to hijack a bill to required age appropriate lessons on child molesters in Alaska schools.  It's a classic tale of abuse of power.

"TO DUNLEAVY" (v) "When a situation unexpectedly comes along giving you the power to help another in need, you instead try to extract some gain for yourself while harming the other." 

 EXAMPLE:  "He dunleavied HB 44." As in when you find yourself as the chair of a committee in a special session with just one bill with strong bi-partisan support, and instead of quickly passing the bill, you water down its key provisions, and then add a lot of unrelated amendments that you had tried to pass in the regular session, but couldn't.

This is not how I intended to begin this post, but it seems to encapsulate a lot of analysis in a few words.  Below is the whole post which will show how I got to this point. "  

Here's the link.  

You can read the detailed analysis of what he tried to do to the bill - including banning Planned Parenthood from doing any education work in schools.  

John Creed, who saw Dunleavy close up as teacher, principal, and Superintendent in Kotzebue, has his own take on  Dunleavy's values.   Here's an excerpt:

"I genuinely enjoyed his company," said Jans. "We hung out when I was passing through Kotzebue. As he moved up the food chain, though, he became increasingly authoritarian, easy to anger, and generally inaccessible on a personal level. An aloof, bullying side in him emerged, which I witnessed and heard many others comment on. Not to mention he got strange at times in a way I can't quite quantify but made me uncomfortable about him in a leadership role."

The Caravan Is A Steve Bannon PR Dream

The Henry v MOA trial has taken up a lot of my time lately, and monopolized the blog, but there are other things I've wanted to say.  I'll try a couple non-trial posts today.


A while back I wrote about a book I found on a list of Steve Bannon's favorite books, The Camp of the Saints.   In it a flotilla of nearly a million Indians leaves India for the South of France.  Here's how that post started:

"It's a disgustingly racist novel about 1000 old ships that leave India for Europe with 'the Ganges horde' of nearly 1 million people, led by the giant 'turd-eater' who carries the monster child on his shoulders.  I did try hard to read this book to see if it would help me understand something about Bannon and others who supported Trump.  I wasn't able to finish it - it's really hard to read this stuff - before it was due back at the library.  But I think I got enough to get the gist."

But the post also looks at the insightful analysis of the left wing news media at that time and how it was probably one of the guidelines for Fox and other far right media.

What better image could the Trump folks have that a caravan of wretched refugees coming to invade us?  While the 'caravan' is only 1000 or (compared to the book's 1000 ships) the imagery enables Right Wing fanatics to fan the anti-refugee flames and maybe get more of their voters out by next week.

This caravan comes ready made with an origin story that puts George Soros in the role of God.  That's all too perfect for me.  One of the Right's tactics is to accuse the Left of all the things it's doing itself.  (Think about accusations of Democratic voter fraud as the excuse for real Republican voter suppression, for example.)

Given that such a caravan is the main character of one of Steve Bannon's favorite books, I wouldn't be surprised if conservatives helped organize this group.  I'm not making the accusation, since I only have the circumstantial evidence of their past behavior and the plot of a book.  But I sure hope someone looks into this and finds out how the caravan really got started and who first called it 'a caravan.'  It just seems far to convenient a talking point to accidentally happen just before the elections.

The book itself has an interesting, if disturbing, analysis of post 60's Europe and how the political lines were drawn.  You can read my original post on it here:  The Camp Of The Saints Is a Mean And Racist Diatribe But Given It's A Steve Bannon Favorite, Worth Knowing About

It will also help people understand where a lot of the virulent anti-immigrant sentiment is coming from.  Not that that many people have read the book, but they are getting propaganda themes right out of the book.

[UPDATE Dec 6, 2018:  This piece at Buzzfeed offers some evidence supporting my suspicions here, though to be clear, this is still speculative.  It's about a hijacked FB account used to promote the caravan early on.]