Hockney Pool Painting - One Of My Favorites - Sells For $90 Million

When I took a computer art class with Prof. Mariano Gonzales at the University of Alaska Anchorage years ago, I realized on the first day, that everyone else in the class was a real artist.  Mariano tried to reassure me.  He said that all the others began with a different medium - water colors, oils, etc. - and had to adapt it to the computer.  I was coming to this fresh, with the computer as my first medium.

At the end of the class, we had to copy a masterpiece.  Simply duplicate it completely digitally.  I started to panic.  First I thought of doing a Mondrian.  For example.  At first that seemed like a copout, but when I looked at some of his paintings closely, I understood that they were much more subtle than I first realized - lots of subtle shades blended.

So I picked out one of my very favorite pictures - David Hockney's “Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures).”   It has the feel of the chaparral hills that I knew so well growing up in Los Angeles.  It has a sparkling swimming pool.  And a man in a salmon colored jacket by the side of the pool and another man swimming.  Except for the people and the vegetation on the hillside in the background, it's pretty angular.  Or so I thought.  

Image from larger LA Times photo

 I had to recreate it from scratch.  I think in that class we were using Corel Draw.  It's amazing how much of a picture you don't see until you really, really look at it.  

But I managed to get a reasonable copy of the picture - at least for someone who didn't know the picture well.  

It was good enough that Mariano has told me that he showed students in later classes - an example of what someone who is not an artist did.  I'd show you my version, but my copy is on an old disk that doesn't fit any current computer I have.  And I'd show the copy I have hanging in the garage.  Except we're with family for Thanksgiving out of state.  And our house sitter isn't technologically savvy enough to take a picture of it and send it.  

But here's a picture from the LA Times article from the auction the other day where it went for $90 million.  I don't think that's a particularly good thing - monetizing art like that.  But that is several more blog posts.  For now, it's important because this is a picture I love and know fairly well. There are some arrangements where the artist gets a percentage of future appreciation of their work.  But I don't think this one is likely to be covered.  It was sold long ago.  

Here's a link to the whole LA Times story.

Seattle From Afar - And Bird Feathers

I biked over to a little rocky beach to enjoy the unexpected sunshine.  Across the water was Seattle.

A few ravens went by- this one was the slowpoke


If you click on the image, you can see the bird's flight feathers.  That caused me to try to find more about them.

First I got descriptions of bird fingers and how they derive from dinosaurs.  This research argues that the three bird fingers are derived from the index, middle, and ring fingers.

Then I got info specifically on the feathers at the end of the wingtips and end of the tail.  I found this Wikipedia page on flight fingers most interesting.

"Flight feathers (Pennae volatus) [1] are the long, stiff, asymmetrically shaped, but symmetrically paired pennaceous feathers on the wings or tail of a bird; those on the wings are called remiges (/ˈrɛmɪdʒiːz/), singular remex (/ˈriːmɛks/), while those on the tail are called rectrices (/rɛkˈtraɪsiːs/), singular rectrix (/ˈrɛktrɪks/). The primary function of the flight feathers is to aid in the generation of both thrust and lift, thereby enabling flight. The flight feathers of some birds have evolved to perform additional functions, generally associated with territorial displays, courtship rituals or feeding methods. In some species, these feathers have developed into long showy plumes used in visual courtship displays, while in others they create a sound during display flights. Tiny serrations on the leading edge of their remiges help owls to fly silently (and therefore hunt more successfully), while the extra-stiff rectrices of woodpeckers help them to brace against tree trunks as they hammer on them. Even flightless birds still retain flight feathers, though sometimes in radically modified forms."

Where Do People Stand On Global Warming? The Numbers.

Saturday's monthly international Citizens Climate Lobby meeting featured Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.  They do a new survey every year to test the political climate of climate change.   They've been doing this for fifteen years.  The new survey is just starting now, but we heard about this year's survey.

The news is good and bad.  Climate change is more politically divisive than abortion.  That showed up in one of the best slides.  It showed how different shades of political thinking rank about 28 issues.  I'd post it here, but it's got so much on it, that it would be hard for anyone to read here.  Here are the categories they used.

All Reg. Voters

Liberal Dems

Mod/Cons Dems

Lib/Mod Repubs

Cons Repubs

Global Warming was the 4th most important issue for Liberal Democrats and ranked 28 for Conservative Republicans.  My interpretation is different from Tony's.  It were as divisive as abortion, it would be more important to the conservatives.

It just isn't that important to anyone besides the Liberal Democrats.  It only ranks 16 for the Moderate/Conservative Democrats.  But the upside is that with more education on the topic, it will gain a greater base of support.

Another chart shows that most American believe global warming is happening.

Click on the charts to enlarge and focus

He attributed the drop after 2008 to the Tea Party, and it's taken ten years to get back to 70%.  He mentioned that in Japan about 98% of the population believe it is happening.

The chart on Potential Political Movement shows a huge potential of people who would be ready to work on action to reduce global warming.





More encouraging, perhaps, was this chart that showed across the board strong support for moving to more Climate Friendly policies.





















You can see the presentation here.  Actually the link takes you to the whole meeting.  Tony starts at 3:32 or so (there's a dot on the video timeline there).  His presentation is short, but packed with interesting data and interpretation.  And the charts are easier to read than here.

I've been going to these monthly meetings for many years now and I'm almost always impressed by the quality of speakers and I almost always get some new data or thought that significantly adds to what I know on this topic.

The Anchorage Chapter meets at 8:30am, second Saturday of the month, at the Rasmuson Building 220, at UAA.  Free parking Saturday mornings.  Here's where others can find out about their local chapters.  Don't be shy, everyone is delighted when a new member arrives.



Here's a link to the Yale Climate Connections where Tony works.  There are lots of videos on different climate related topics.

Sullen Trump, Vaporware Presidency, Nevada Analysis, Health/News/Politics From STAT, And Proof Of Collusion

Things to think about from here and there:

1.  From Eli Stokols, LA Times, "Sullen Trump avoids usual duties"

“He’s furious,” said one administration official. “Most staffers are trying to avoid him.”
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, painted a picture of a brooding president “trying to decide who to blame” for Republicans’ election losses, even as he publicly and implausibly continues to claim victory.

It's hard to move from business to government.  All the politicians touting the need to run government like a business simply show their ignorance about government, at least in a democracy.  In business you can mostly choose the projects you want to be involved in. In government the issues choose you.  In business you have much more unified top down command, but in government, you share power with two other branches.  And your customers have a say in more than buying your product or not.  They can decide on who you have to work with.  And in government, particularly in the higher offices, what you do is much more scrutinized.  You can't get away with serial fraud by hiring lawyers who intimidate competitors or quietly settle with cash and non-disclosure agreements.  

So it's easy to see why this Trump might be angry this week.  He's moved into an arena where his various personality disorders are less tolerated.  

2.  The Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last writes a piece called The Vaporware Presidency
Here's an excerpt:

Did you enjoy President Trump’s military parade?
Last winter Trump announced that he was going to stage a military parade in which our glorious armed forces would march down the boulevards of the nation’s capital proudly displaying their firepower and awesome weapons of war. Then we all spent several days bickering about whether or not it was proper for America to throw a military parade. (After all, it’s a totally normal thing that democratic republics do.) The parade was scheduled for November 10. 

Maybe people were taking Trump seriously instead of literally, or diagonally instead of orthogonally, but whatever the case, the walk-backs started soon after the ruckus died down. First, the Pentagon announced that the parade couldn’t include tanks, because they would destroy the streets. Instead, Trump’s parade would be heavy on wheeled vehicles and aircraft, they said. 

Then it was revealed that the parade would cost $12 million. Or, as Axios put it dryly, “just $2 million less than what the now-cancelled military exercises with South Korea would have cost, which Trump has described as ‘tremendously expensive’.” 

But of course, that was just the initial estimate. Eventually the budget ballooned out to $92 million. In August, Trump announced that he was “cancelling” the parade. He then tried to use this pretend cancellation of a make-believe parade that never had any chance of actually marching to attack local Democrats. And in the same breath he suggested that the real parade will really, truly, take place next year.

The article goes on to review the history of the word 'vaporware' coined by a Microsoft employee to describe early announcements of non-existent software.

The reason the nonexistent software was announced so prematurely was to act as an anti-competitive club against other potential entrants to the market. Sometimes the company announcing its vaporware knew it couldn’t deliver the product. Sometimes it didn’t even intend to deliver it.

'Today, when tech people talk about vaporware, they generally mean incompetence. But the roots of the term encompass malice, too.'

Then it lists other Trump initiatives that are vaporware.  I don't think we can be boil down a presidency to just one factor,  but this adds importantly to my own thoughts (influenced, I'm sure by many others):  most of what Trump says has no substance, it is mainly intended to distract from things he doesn't want the media to spend time on.   

3.  Some more probing analysis from the Nevada Independent by Michelle Rindels.  

How Democrat Steve Sisolak defeated conservative rising star Adam Laxalt in bid for governor's mansion

Gives detailed analysis of how The Democratic candidate for governor in Nevada beat the Republican. This piece doesn't focus on just one thing, but takes a wider view of the many little things that collectively matter.  But some things stand out:  focus on and consistency of issues; availability to media and people; and being more of a mensch (my term, not theirs.)  But, of course, lots of candidates who did that - Beto O'Rourke in Texas, Alyse Galvin in Alaska, for example, did all that and still lost.  In Nevada there were more factors - like unionized Latinos - that got Sisolak elected which weren't working in Texas and Alaska.


4.  STAT - A website worth tracking.  Here's how it describes itself:

STAT delivers fast, deep, and tough-minded journalism about life sciences and the fast-moving business of making medicines. We take you inside academic labs, biotech boardrooms, and political backrooms. We cast a critical eye on scientific discoveries, scrutinize corporate strategies, and chronicle roiling battles for talent, money, and market share. We examine controversies and puncture hype. With an award-winning newsroom, STAT gives you indispensable insights and exclusive stories on the technologies, personalities, power brokers, and political forces driving massive changes in the life science industry — and a revolution in human health. These are the stories that matter to us all. 

Some recent STAT pieces:

• 8 burning questions for pharma, as Washington braces for a health policy shakeupHey, 
• NRA: I treat gunshot victims. Advocating about firearms is ‘my lane’
• CDC investigating burst of possible new cases of polio-like paralysis, as mystery persists

5.  Seth Abramson's book Proof Of Collusion: How Donald Trump Betrayed America just came out.  Here's a snipped of  a review by Aaron Gell at Medium:

"It is, as the author concedes, merely a “theory of the case” at this point. But it’s the only plausible theory, he adds, that “coordinates with all the existing evidence” and “explains decades of suspicious behavior by Donald Trump, his family, and his closest associates.”
Incredible as the story of Trump’s Russian entanglements always sounds when stated plainly, the evidence Abramson assembles is compelling, and we don’t know the half of it. Robert Mueller, presumably, knows more.'

[UPDATE Nov 15: I found the Intro and Chapter 1 of this book on the Barnes and Noble site. ]

After seeing Abramson regularly retweeted, I looked him up, and then followed him myself.  

Anchorage Airport and Beyond

From my seat before we left.

Backing out from the gate.

Dirty snow pile beyond the wing.

Empty Anchorage runway.  And when we got to Seattle, there were no delays like last time.

Cloud islands as we head south.

I always did like Mondrian.

Ranges west of Seattle.

Everything worked right.  We left on time.  Arrived a little early, with no delay at SEATAC like last time. Our luggage was on the carousel before we got there.  We only waited a minute or so for the train into town.  And had plenty of time to get the 4:45 ferry.

On the other side we met our daughter and granddaughter for dinner and on home.

Started reading Michael Ondaatje's Warlight.   

AIFF 2018: Stink! (AIFF 2015) Is Now On Netflix - 2018 Festival Opening In Nov 30!

I just noticed that Stink! is showing on Netflix.  It played at the Anchorage International Film Festival in early December 2015 - not quite three years ago.

One reason to go to a film festival is to see films long before they make it theatrically, or, in this case, on Netflix.  Another reason is to good films that, because of the competition of the film world, will never make it to a theater or a film site like Netflix.

The 2018 Anchorage International Film Festival (AIFF) will begin soon and will be over in less
than a month!

You can see a list of the films coming to town at the AIFF2018 website.  On this page to be exact.

I'm a little concerned this year, because all they have listed on the website as of today, is a site blogpost with a list of the film names by the categories there in.  In the past, by now, the site would have a list which included the film name, the director's name, the country, and length.  Until last year, it would also let you know which films were in competition.

And because the festival is a little behind, and because I've been at the Henry trial for the last three weeks, I'm behind too.

Seeing Stink! listed on Netflix got me to write this first post for this year's festival.  The Shorts programmer has sent me a list of the Shorts in Competition so that will be one of my first posts after this one.  And I'll get an AIFF2018 tab up top pretty soon too.  In the meantime, I'd suggest people trying to figure out the ins and outs of this film festival check out the AIFF 2017 tab above. Or you can get there with this link.  Then scroll down to #2.  Tips and Background.  Then go to the links there.

The festival begins Friday, November 30 and goes until Sunday, December 9.  The Festival Schedule is available here.  

My Voting Reform Fantasy - A Short Story

It's two months before the election in the not-to-distant future.  She had three more days to take the voting test.  She'd looked on line and studied all the questions and the answers.  She was excited.

It had taken years, but when people realized what Alaska was ike after four years of Dunleavy, the reform movement began.  People realized that knowing something about a candidate's past, and knowing something about how things worked, made you a better voter.  Things like how a trust fund works, or how much an income tax would cost most people compared to a Permanent Fund check.  Like knowing what the budget was before they said it was too much and needed to be cut.  Like understanding what services government provides people BEFORE they get cut.  And understanding the link between potholes and the cost of car repairs, between crime and insurance rates.   Like understanding the costs of a good school system compared to the cost of any prison system and how those costs are related.  Just knowing the size of the population and understanding how to figure out costs per capita.

So finally, Alaskans passed new voter registration rules.  Everyone could still register to vote.  But you also had the option of taking a bi-partisan approved factual exam.  The more answers you got right, the more your vote counted.  It could count one time if you didn't do very well, two times if you got half the questions right, and three times if you 90% of the questions right.

No, Alaskans hadn't gotten rid of the one person one vote rule.  The extra votes didn't change the election.  But along with the actual one vote per person results, Alaskans got to see what the results would have been if informed people got two votes and very well informed people got three votes.

So she took the test and instantly learned that she was rated "informed."  She was looking forward to the results of this experiment.  Would it make a difference?  Would the people of Kivalina, (who are in a lawsuit over  the loss of their village due to climate change)  vote for a climate change denier instead of a a strong advocate of slowing down climate change if they knew the facts?  Would knowing the facts change people's voting?  (Kivalina example from a FB message from Elstun Lausen.)

Henry v MOA: ADN Reports Jury Sides With Henry For $2.3 Million

There were a lot of details in this case and I couldn't imagine that the jury would decide this soon.  They only got the case yesterday afternoon.    The judge explained that in Federal Court they can have 6-11 jurors.  This trial began with 9.  The judge didn't think they'd decided this quickly either because he was arguing for releasing one of the jurors who had plane tickets for Tuesday.  I didn't see her in the jury box Thursday.

I want in to this trial without knowing which side was right.  If I had a bias at all, it was against the MOA because of what I saw last year in the Graham v MOA case that I was involved with.  It never should've gone to trial.  The MOA was clearly wrong, from my perspective, and should have resolved this long before it ever went to court.

But this case was entangled in lots of bizarre complications.  The plaintiff, Tony Henry, was a key witness against two minority police officers in a case that ended in a hung jury and had to be tried a second time.  When the first trial was over, the MOA then hired the investigator, Rick Brown, to, ostensibly, look into why the APD hadn't responded to the sex and drug scandals at the National Guard. Henry was a big part of that issue, being blamed for tipping off the Guard about the an informant who worked for the Guard.

So Henry know exactly how the police did this sort of thing.  He was in on the first case, going after two minority officers.  (They won the second trial.)  The jury didn't know anything about the prior case and Henry's role in it.  The case name popped up twice, but the plaintiffs seemed to have successfully kept it out.  Or did the defense?

And that's what's so crazy about this case.  Both sides had problems.  I think it could have gone either way, depending on the jury.  So I'm a little disappointed that this jury came to such a quick decision.  I'm not saying they were wrong, but they couldn't have picked through the issues very carefully in such a short time.  I'm guessing most of them must have decided Henry was treated unfairly (not an unreasonable conclusion).  But nothing was clear cut.

Here's a link to the ADN story.  [11/10/18  1:30pm Sorry, had a bad link, fixed now.]

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.