More anger...

So now that the government's case against Salmmy has been dismissed, Salmmy feels that this proves his innocence.

I'm sorry, but the only thing this proves is that the prosecution messed everything up, as well as proving a whole bunch of lawyer stereotypes.

Salmmy, you may be innocent on corruption charges which were never brought up. But you are still guilty of not disclosing some of your major gifts to the public, by not listing those on your Federal Disclosure Reports.

Until the government comes out with evidence that the prosecution withheld evidence pertaining to those gifts, and the FDR forms what the jury found still holds true.

Though, Salmmy, it doesn't matter what I think. Your case was dismissed. That we found you guilty no longer applies. You are not a felon anymore. Go walk your dogs in the bliss that is springtime Washington. (I hope they didn't hear the part of the witness testimony where your wife mentioned how much she hated them). Run for Senator again if you want to.

I do ask you one simple favor though. Please tell every person you meet to fill out their FDR forms. Its really simple. And could save a lot of people grief.

Thank you.

Confusion, Anger, Fear

When people ask me, and oh have they asked me, what I thought or felt about the new developments in the Stevens Trial, i haven't been able to give a direct answer. Why?

Well, first because I wanted to wait until a decision was actually made. And it was, yesterday when Judge Sullivan dismissed the case. Secondly, because I am just too busy. Its holy week. I work at a church. We just downsized. I'm having problems with my computer. Lovely stuff. And thirdly, because I feel too much about the decision.

I'm a little confused. If the prosecution was so shitty, withholding evidence, making witnesses disappear, and forgetting to mention important meetings through out the trial, why was it not as important then? Why did the judge dismiss the defense's objections through out the trial as meaningless? While reading the articles after the trial I realized that all of those extra breaks we had as a jury was caused by some issue with the prosecution. So whats the difference between then and now? There's an FBI whistle blower. And non disclosing of information regarding FBI and prosecution interviews with witnesses and a saucy FBI agent wearing skirts. Was all this enough to throw out a conviction? Well, yes it was. But does it make Salmmy innocent? What evidence was withheld? Was it enough to make a jury find him innocent?


And this leads me to fear. I have always held that my fellow jurors and I found Salmmy guilty based solely on the evidence presented to us. There was work done at his house that he didn't pay for, and there were sizable gifts that he didn't disclose on his Federal Disclosure Form. Which is what we had to find him guilty or innocent for. What I fear is the unknown. Did the prosecution withhold evidence that shows that Salmmy paid for the work and therefore didn't have to disclose it on his FDR form in the gifts received section? Does the withheld evidence include other FDR forms where he very clearly listed the window, salmon statue, and massaging chair as gifts? I am afraid my verdict might be wrong based on the withheld evidence. Did I just convict an innocent person?


So this then, leads me to anger. You made me sit through a trial for a whole month, then made me come back and decide if a person was guilty or not just to throw that conviction out? For no other reason than that the prosecution was crappy? I know everyone deserves a fair trial and if the prosecution were doing a shitty job all along, which they were, dismiss the case then and there! I mean, I was mad before, having to put most of my life on hold as I went to the trial everyday and then go to work every night and sometimes on the weekend, but I was fulfilling my duty. Now it was all just a waste of time and the taxpayers money.

We Do Curruption Better Than You!

Though Salmmy's Trial was not a corruption trial, it was hinted more than once during the trial that The Allen did all this free stuff for Salmmy so that Salmmy would push through The Allen's agenda, I just read this article about Pennsylvania State Senator Vincent Fumo and his insane corruption trial. And he's a democrat for all you people saying that Salmmy's jury was made up of Liberal Democrats Out to Convict Salmmy No Matter What the Evidence Said (LDOCSNMWES). This just shows you that we dems (or those dems, I'm a registered Independent) can take your (implied) corruption and turn it up to 11! And he's only a State Senator! Can you imagine if he was a Senator Senator?!??!?!!

This is the article on yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090316/ap_on_re_us/senator_investigation_trial

I often wonder if Salmmy's trial had been a corruption trial if he would be guilty? It was hinted at by both sides (though the defense was hinting that the prosecution was hinting that Salmmy was corrupt - you see how confusing this could get? This is why we had to take notes!!), but never proven. I don't even remember any evidence suggesting corruption. Though, of course, every time it was hinted at by the prosecution the defense would object. There were even times when I would catch onto to the tone of the question the prosecution put forth before the defense would and then I would look expectantly at the defense waiting to see who would pop up with the objection. Sometimes poor Rob Riggle would like a prairie dog the way he would have to keep jumping up and objecting. I guess thats how lawyers stay fit.

I do want to mention the stoopid juror on the Fumo (I keep wanting to type Fuma) trial who posted on twitter and facebook about the trial before the trial was over!!! GAH! I want to smack them upside the head! When the judge tells you not to talk about the case he means DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE CASE!!! Its really hard to do, but its called endurance, punk! Don't you think I wanted to tell all my buddies who were politic-addicts about the trial I was on?!?!? But did I? NO! Now you can't shut me up about the case - BUT ITS OVER!!! Seriously, this conviction could be overruled because some punk had to tweet! I know, I know. I did tell friends and family I was ON a trial, and if this punk had just left it at that then everything would be hunky-dory, but he didn't. Here's the quote from the article:

Monday's verdict came shortly after the judge ruled that a juror could remain on
the panel despite his posts about the case on Facebook and Twitter.
The juror told the judge
in a closed-door hearing early in the day that none of his online "friends" had
commented back to him about the Fumo case. The juror said the posts were his way of
talking to himself and expressing his emotions, and were not intended to
communicate anything to others, according to defense lawyer Peter Goldberger, who attended
the session.
The defense believes the posts "tainted" the jury and said it
plans to raise the issue on appeal.

There you go anonymous commenters. Go rag on that juror.

Corrupted corruption?

As the new year beckons to us on the horizon a few ugly bits of 2008 and before are still rearing their ugly little heads. No, I'm not talking about the economy, or anything happening in the Middle East. I'm talking about the trial that will not go away quietly.

As I have mentioned before Dave Anderson (nephew to The Allen, and supposed worker at the Salmmy Estate), has said that he lied while on stand. As to what exactly he lied about and why isn't exactly clear to me, something about lying about having been granted immunity by the FBI in exchange for his testimony, but he didn't really have the immunity? When he was a witness he wasn't all that clear in his testimony with exact dates and exact work done, he seemed kind of stoned while testifying. Well, 'happy drunk' at least. My opinion is that he might've lied about what work HE actually did, but the work was still done, in full knowledge of Salmmy, and not paid for by Salmmy, therefore; Salmmy is still guilty.

Now, however, an FBI whistle-blower comes on to the scene, telling tales of misconduct on behalf of the FBI agents and the prosecution. WB says that there were private meetings, gifts exchanged and evidence omitted.

And now I'm worried. What if the prosecution was only out for blood any way they could get it? What if they did have some evidence that out weighs the guilty evidence? And why am I worried? I still feel I came to the right decision based on the facts presented during the case. I don't feel worried about our verdict. I'm worried that if this case does get re-tried some poor sap (more correctly 12 poor saps) are going to have to sit through another month long trial. (they won't make us do it again will they? You can't have the same jury try the case again - right? Oh God - I hope not!!!).

So if the prosecution was corrupt and withholding evidence that showed that Salmmy was not corrupt I'm all for another trial. But I noticed that the WB only mentioned work done by VECO and such at the Salmmy Estate, nothing about all of the gifts that were not disclosed on the FDRs. So, if all else fails, Salmmy is still guilty of receiving those gifts (not loans!) and not reporting them and therefore is still corrupt. Is that enough you ask? YES!!!!

On a lighter note, this quote caught my attention:

During the Stevens trial, the agent inappropriately met with Allen in a hotel
room more than once, the whistle-blower said. During Allen's testimony, the
agent dressed in a way that was meant to be a "surprise/present for Allen," the
whistle-blower said.

Now I'm wondering who this agent was...were they in the audience? OH! I hope I find out! I remember looking at the audience a lot during his testimony, but all I remember that was different from other days, is his lawyer who may or may not have been making signs to him to steal third. Or whatever the judge saw him do and reprimanded him for.

What We've Missed

The trial judge in the corruption case against Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens has
ordered a "brief hearing" Monday concerning a prosecution witness who said he
was untruthful.
After dealing with cantankerous and AWOL jurors, a lawyer who
he thought was signaling a witness, and multiple accusations of prosecutorial
misconduct by the defense, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan now has a witness
who appears to be recanting at least part of his testimony.
Sullivan, in a
one-sentence order issued Tuesday to attorneys in the case, indicated he was
seeking ideas about how to proceed with the witness, David Anderson.

I have never really followed a case before, but this case seems to have more than its share of problems - note the highlighted portion above. I'm sure Mr. Burns & crew are loving it because it might lead to the conviction being dismissed. (Could it end as a mistrial even though the trial has officially ended? Help me out here lawyers!) I'm equally sure that Judge Sullivan and Rosie and her crew just wish it would end.





By the way this is what I was enjoying last week:

How to Lose Friends and Alienate Blog Readers

Its really simple! Just go on vacation without easy access to a computer and then do a craft show* you really weren't prepared to do!

But now I'm back and ready to dazzle you all with my clever insights and horrible spelling.

woo hoo!

Before I seriously get back into blogging about the trial let me just say it was a little sad to hear Salmmy's farewell speech last month, just shy of 40 years of service. Too bad he had to go out this way. I also wonder if there should be a term limit on Senators like there are for President. I wonder if that will help curb corruption.


*seriously, I was working my bahootus off making crafts check out my even more horribly updated craft blog: www.hotdogsngiggles.blogspot.com.

It Will Never Go Away!

The latest news is that Dave Anderson, nephew of The Allen, and welder of the famous steel deck and stairs at the Salmmy Chalet, is saying that he lied during his testimony.

"I testified to the fact that there was never immunity for me or my family and
friends," welder David Anderson said in a November letter to a federal judge
placed in court files by Stevens' lawyers. "That is simply not true."

ugh. But he's not going back on what he said regarding the work he did. He's going back on saying that he didn't have immunity for himself and his friends and family when he said it:

Anderson supervised the start of the 2000 renovation of Stevens' Girdwood,
Alaska, home and later responded to maintenance requests by Stevens and his
wife. He testified at the trial that a March 2008 affidavit he signed that
would give immunity to his family and friends in exchange for his testimony
was false.
"That was never said," Anderson testified on Oct. 9. "It was kind
of a gentleman's agreement, you know." In his letter, Anderson said: "The
agreement was that if I cooperated my entire family would be safe from the
investigation(s) of the Department of Justice and also the Treasury Department.

The Department of Justice has never ever denied that they shook my hand on this
agreement but instructed me on how to sugar coat it and get it swept under
the rug during the trial as they have told the court just the opposite."

The DOJ was quick with a rebuttal:

But the Justice Department said Anderson told two FBI agents in an August 13
meeting that he knew there was no immunity agreement and that the March
affidavit was false.The government agreed not to make him testify against family
members, but "Anderson knew that there had been no agreement relative to
immunity or promises of immunity by the government as
to anyone," the Justice Department said.

So, he may or may not have had immunity when he testified. Does it really matter? Well, hypothetically, if he felt he had immunity if he gave the DOJ what they wanted he might have lied on the witness stand in order to get that immunity. If he didn't have immunity would he have even testified?

Then he comes out with this doozy:

Anderson also said he was given extensive help by the prosecutors in remembering
events surrounding the renovation of Stevens' house."Without the preparation
from the prosecution and reminders from them about my activities and the
agreement I had with them about my family and myself I would not have given the
same testimony," Anderson said. "Without a shadow of a doubt I believe this
trial would have gone much differently."

But he doesn't say HOW his testimony would be different. Of course the DOJ had an answer for that too:

Federal prosecutors say this is also untrue and they will submit documents and
video evidence Monday "that prove the falsity of Mr. Anderson's allegations."

Now, what did he actually testify that could be affected by this and therefore call for a mistrial? He testified about the work he did personally and the time he spent at the chalet doing that work. Well, the time sheets were already thrown out as evidence so the only thing that is left is the work he did personally. This would be most of the metal work done. The Steel steps, the steel railing, the steel deck, the steel balcony, and the steel safety ladder that he attached to the house. And there is hard evidence that this work was done. Photographic evidence even. And there were some emails back and forth about the steel deck and such. So, in my humble opinion, I don't think his testimony really matters. The facts are still there: the work was done (whether by Dave Anderson or by someone else), Salmmy knew that the work was done, the work wasn't paid for, Salmmy knew it wasn't paid for, and Salmmy didn't put it on his forms. Ergo, Salmmy is still guilty.

Sorry, Mr. Burns and Rob Riggle. Salmmy's still guilty in my book.

Here is the whole link of the article from AP's Jesse Holland: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081121/ap_on_go_co/stevens_trial;_ylt=AgZrPiHRvPtOTZ7YO6B7nPas0NUE