Talk:Alaska political corruption probe

Hey this may be in dispute status is respect. Well thanks for that. If you look at the start of this thread and the thread starter's statement from way back there in 2006, well it really does tell the untold (outside of talk page) story don't you think?

Definitely goes with the wiki spirit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold crap, huh? Presuming you actually are, Isn't it great to be bold?

I like the new stats available here. Priestley jr's thread is rolling along easily averaging well over 500 hits a month ten years after the fact(s). I wish there was a way to see stats all the way back (or is there?).

Do you figure this article had a bazzilion hits yet? 2600:8803:B604:A500:48B:AD7C:CEAB:D211 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Priestley jr

Re: changes

Since I never seem to know if anyone really pays attention to these pages once they're not flavor-of-the-month, I'll just explain the main change. I'm attempting to remove the constant references to "R-Anchorage" and the like after every mention of every name, and for one simple reason. This reads like someone is using the AP Style Manual to write Wikipedia articles. Alaskan political related articles in general seem to suffer from this.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored material referencing Ben Stevens

Undid vandalization (deletion removing mentions of implicated ex-state senator Ben Stevens) and undid deletion of previously unsourced info on fisheries business subpoenas, supplying cite. Activist (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Two more items

I can't tell if anyone is paying attention on this side, but two items need to be discussed before the article gets tagged for them:

• The article could use some updating. Anderson, Kott and Weyhrauch continue to make headlines to this day over their roles. Probably also several others, though the names don't immediately come to mind.

• The mention of Lisa Murkowski in the lead. If the first sentence explains that Lisa was not involved, then how come she appears to be the near-exclusive focus of other editors' recent work on this article? The lead keeps expanding with Lisa minutiae, while others who played actually significant roles in the affair are deliberately not named in the lead, apparently for the only reason that these individuals served in the state legislature rather than the U.S. Congress.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, Lisa Murkowski is the progeny of the dirtiest of all dirty dealing politicians, and in her position by nepotism. At best she would be a mediocre lawyer in a small town scrouring (sic) for work. I understand she failed the bar exam several times. The 11th Circuit would call her behavior "ostrich" for the current problems with her office as well as her previous transgressions.

We can ignore this or be active about making inherently dishonest people honest, which of course is a futile task; removing them from public servce by any means necessesary is the best alternative to dealing with the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.17.45.8 (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Weyhrauch made headlines over winning his Supreme Court case over the application of the "honest services" statute, at the same time similar decisions were made in the major cases of Jeff Skilling and Conrad Black. If you think that Frank Murkowski was the "dirtiest" politician, I suggest that you look up the seminal case of William A. Clark whose bribery over a century ago prompted passage and ratification of the 17th Amendment (which Joe Miller has opposed). Clark is of current note because of the high profile disputation of the will of his reclusive daughter Huguette Clark. Frank Murkowski was never prosecuted and his daughter Lisa, although appointed due to nepotism, was a state legislator at the time of her appointment. Furthermore she won reelection to her seat as a write in candidate despite being dumped by the Republican party and primary voters. Her only tenuous connection to the Alaska political corruption probe was through her Kenai land deal, later reversed, with Bob Perry, who was slightly involved with issues surrounding Ted Stevens Girdwood "chalet." Lisa Murkowski has never practiced in the "11th Circuit", which is situated entirely within Florida, Alabama and Georgia, but rather in the 9th. Talk pages are the appropriate venues for matters of opinion or conjecture, but Wikipedia articles are exclusively those of verifiable facts. Activist (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013 edit war

I removed the references to Jim Duncan and his alleged conduct which were unsourced and a clear violation of WIKI:BLP. I also removed some material regarding Lisa Murkowski, as well as cleaning up confusing, ungrammatical and outdated language and provided links. Activist (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources for allegations against Jim Duncan, please provide same. Othewise, stop engaging in an edit war. Activist (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, it takes a minimum of two users to edit war, so back at you. And they were providing a cite, so "unreferenced" doesn't seem exactly right either. Now, you could argue that the ref is not reliable or it is giving undue weight to mention it, or whatever, but you are not exempted from the edit warring policy by just saying BLP, BLP! I have protected the page for a week to give you two a chance to work this out. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Rats! I just thanked you. (Can I take it back?:-) There is a cite. It's a document close to a decade old, I think, posted originally it would appear by a guy with a decade-old, unfounded grievance against an organization and an individual that has exactly nothing to do with the subject of the page in question. The text accompanying it is clearly libelous. There are some scrawled comments on the top of the page. It does not have anything to do with "corruption" in the organization cited. The ethics opinion cited does not hint at any corruption, just about a restriction on lobbying, much like those that have been added to federal and other state statutes in recent years, about lobbying the employee's recent past employers, a restriction that lapsed after a year, almost ten years ago. Wikipedia is not a forum for airing ancient grudges that exist largely in the mind of the poster. Activist (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You ask for sources, I put the original document of Jim Duncan's conflict of interest resolution. You have a problem with that?

Yes, I have a problem with that. Even if your conjecture were true, which is isn't, it has nothing to do with the article in which you have inserted it. The article is about the Alaska political corruption probe. You have provided zero evidence for either a connection or for "corruption," as you have it. You're putting unsubstantiated fantasies into an article with no connections to those personal opinions you hold. Activist (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You have a problem with people Lisa Kirsh lying about it being a public file? Read it. As a political wonk, seems you need to look it up and find the rest of it which is the link with extra pages numbered. Change the number and get the page. 2-6 I believe. And make no mistake Jim Duncan IS cause for a federal interest in the Corrupt Bastard Club. You want sources? I've got sources! Why would you avoid the facts indicates your serious POV problems.

Jim Duncan and ASEA had no connection with the long-closed Alaska political corruption probe. I would suggest that you might take your conjectures somewhere they are less likely to get you sued for libel. If you imagine some connection, please provide proof. Activist (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Give the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.193.118 (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW Beetle, thanks for comment and objectiveness. Obviously there are ideologues around. I assume you are more web savvy than me. I gave instructions for finding the rest of Jim's stipulation, you could find them and link them. and even paint out the margins. I did not write those, but they do ring true. Then you can restore it as fact of the matter without liability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.193.118 (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Just collecting what's been said, and what an cativists' vision of Wikipedia is.

″Wikipedia is not a forum for airing ancient grudges that exist largely in the mind of the poster."

The comments scrawled on Jim's Stipulation address this well.

Who was the author of those unsourced, unattributed, scrawled comments? What validity can you show they have? Obviously they were not published in any reliable source. Activist (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not about an old grievance, as much it's a way to provide fair warning about those we elect as our favorites, and then wonder what is wrong with government and make all attempt to cover for them. There's absolutely no reason to squelch the facts and absolutely every reason to make a public file public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.193.118 (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC) This has the files converted to jpeg for your information, expires in just a little less than 24 hours. Can you grab a copy of that for the page, beetle?

I tried to access those apparently ephemeral documents. The link no longer works. Activist (talk)

http://www.zamzar.com/getFiles.php?uid=9a99e313458314d92ae59cf7199135a-859b119599b593a&targetID=12Sr3NF0Ch_Ze92VWapGIUy6rzUxqhfR6

98.168.175.209 (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have the whole document and it has the margins whited out. Jim Duncan was in a situation where if a grievance needed to be filed to affect a illegal labor practice, or statutory violation he was under agreement to not perform a fiducuiary responsibility before he even had to consider it. What is reprehensible is that Jim was not only knowingly allowing violations but enabling violations. More eggregious was offering another agreement for management that was high enough up the ladder to withdraw from the corrupt union (that they knew about) for a salary increase from the Murkowski Admin.

For a fact, a greivant had to go through a 'grievance' process involving a bunch of people, including a corupted Jim Duncan BEFORE filing in the courts. If Jim had represented a grievance properly there would have been no need for anyone to be asking the Courts investigate corruption.

Why would Lisa Kirsh lie about the file 223-03-0342 being a public document and why does the AG's office not publish it? Simple. The short answer is management collusion corruption of the Local 52. Go ask Jim for yourself what happened that one of his bargaining members ended up in the Ninth Circuit asking for Grand Jury. Short answer, Jim didn't do his job, and by collusion with the Murkowski Administration. Now if I was bringing up how Jim Duncan was ousted as speaker of the house, for instance, It would not belong in this article. While that tended towards corrupt, it would not have had the temporal and sequental aspects relating to [ ] or causation required to be correctly associated with this Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.28.2 (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your persistence in inserting material that has no even remote relation whatsoever to this Wikipedia article and which appears which may be libelous as well needs to stop. I researched your contentions and came up with a report from a reliable source, the Peninsula Clarion, about the subject of your edits. http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/022303/ala_022303ala0110001.shtml I looked further and found that there was a resolution of the matter you've contended was somehow connected to the Wikipedia article in the favor of the person of whom you're accusing. It is from another reliable source, the Juneau Empire. http://juneauempire.com/stories/121203/loc_duncan.shtml Union manager Duncan cleared on ethics complaint Ex-commissioner not involved in contract talks before job change Friday, December 12, 2003. Union business manager Jim Duncan, former commissioner of the Department of Administration, will not face disciplinary action related to an ethics complaint filed against him, according to the state Department of Law. Donn Liston, a former business agent for Alaska State Employees Association, filed the complaint. He argues Duncan violated the ethics act by negotiating collective bargaining agreements for the state from 1999 to 2002, and then taking a job with ASEA, the state's largest public employee union. The Department of Law, in September, issued a list of stipulations Duncan was required to sign, ensuring there would be no violations of the Executive Branch Ethics Act, said Lisa Kirsch, an assistant attorney general. But Liston said the law encapsulates Duncan's job duties as union business manager, adding he believes the ASEA Board of Directors also is culpable for hiring Duncan. As business manager, Duncan is charged with advocating for increases in employees' wages and benefits during negotiations on union contracts. Liston, fired by the union in 2000, filed the complaint a few days later (after Duncan had been hired). The ethics act states former commissioners may not lobby the Legislature for up to one year after leaving government. And for two years they may not "represent, advise, or assist a person for compensation regarding a matter that was under consideration by the administrative unit served by that public officer, and in which the officer participated personally and substantially through the exercise of official action." A review by the Department of Law revealed that while serving as commissioner he was not involved in negotiations over the current union contracts. Talks on those contracts began shortly after Duncan resigned as commissioner last December. Assistant Attorney General Kirsch said due to a confidentiality law the Department of Law can neither confirm nor deny whether Duncan acted in violation of the Executive Branch Ethics Act or whether an investigation took place. "The stipulation speaks for itself," said Kirsch, who approved the agreement. The state's stipulation says Duncan must recuse himself from any matter pending while he served as commissioner and precludes him from using information acquired in his official duties as commissioner without receiving approval from the state. It also permits Duncan to participate on the 2003-2004 collective bargaining negotiations. The final section of the stipulation states, " This stipulation fully resolves the presently pending ethics complaint. Nothing in this stipulation is an admission by Mr. Duncan of liability or wrongdoing with regard to any conduct by Mr. Duncan before the date of this stipulation."

I would further note that if you are the Donn Liston referred to, there appears to exist a breach of Wikipedia Conflict Of Interest (COI) policy. Calling AAG Kirsch a liar or Mr. Duncan corupted (sic) would also seem to be a violation of Wikipedia policy and I might add that engaging in sock puppetry will not resolve this matter either, should such exist. Activist (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The contention that the August 2006 Alaska FBI raid on, not "the legislature" but on legislative state capitol and district offices was the only such raid in U.S. history ignores the recent raid on the office of California state senator Ron Calderon, the searches of Alabama state offices in the preceding two years, and other such searches, particularly with reference to Shrimpscam. It is non-factual, in fact, it is absurd. Activist (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, there was no relationship between what you imagine Duncan and his organization have done, and as I've noted and referenced, your contention that the August 2006 searches were the only raid by the FBI in history on a state legislature has no basis in reality. Activist (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm proud of you for finding an article, but other than that you remind me of the guy who was writing the letter to Ray Metcalfe. If you are Lisa Kirsch then sue me for Slander. In fact I might just spend the winter picketing legislative session with billboards that say in BIG red letters LISA KIRSCH is a LIAR, and since it's true it's not libelous. On matter of me calling her [you] a LIAR, and she can go to court and I will forward the e-mail to the judge where she [you] LIED ABOUT THE FILE [[2]] . Other than that get some stuff in your neck. Call the AG or whatever you have to do, because names need to be associated, especially state's attorneys who take an oath. Contact them enough to know first hand that they are liars , Democrats included.

When a bargaining member who has to have money taken out of his paycheck (compulsory union dues paying) member is in Duncan's office and Jim already promised someone else he won't represent them but pretends like he's trying to, then that's corrupt, fraudulent.

Like I said earlier, you are going to a lot of extra effort, for Jim. Are you one of the cronies or are you just dem-witted? Didn't I just say something about people that go to all lengths to cover....

I'm know you got a copy of that Duncan's Stipulation while it was up didn't you activist? And then breathed a sigh of relief after the link turned dead? You should quit lying to yourself, huh?

Okay I put the page back to include Jim's information and I'll get the whole agreement posted soon. I'll post some more matter of fact things for you guys soon, and don't forget to stay vigilant, because Alaska is a stinky corrupt place that still needs as much help from the outside as it can get.98.168.175.209 (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I guess the 11th circuit and ostrich behavior went right over your head. I can list the dates and find the e-mails, more lawyers, of course . Beth Kerttula, HollisFrench, Les Gara and Jonnie- the minority leader. Can't remember his last name but I got his card. They're all part of ostrich behavior when it comes to the AFSCME and their generous campaign gifts extracted from every state worker's paycheck EVERY paycheck, for a contractual nothing from Jim Duncan. Read the stipulation.

AND...

Clue in, it's not about the circuit, It's about the behavior and a jury instructions.

The Ostrich Instruction is a common feature in white collar crime prosecutions. One basis for the appeal by former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers of his conviction was that the instruction should not have been given at his trial. United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976), sets forth the classic instruction in this area: “You may infer knowledge from a combination of suspicion and indifference to the truth. If you find that a person had a strong suspicion that things were not what they seemed or that someone had withheld some important facts, yet shut his eyes for fear that he would learn, you may conclude that he acted knowingly.” Judge Posner explained how the Ostrich Instruction should be understood, and its limitations, in United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir. 1990):

98.168.175.209 (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I came here to fix the screwy formatting. I'll offer some comments while I'm at it. First, as it regards WP:COI: I am a very close relative of someone who served in the legislature with Jim Duncan. That's about as close as I come to having any part in this. However, also in the spirit of COI: wasn't Donn Liston a legislative lobbyist prior to the ASEA gig? Since one of the purposes of APOC is to track lobbyists, I'm sure there's no problem with verifying that.

IMO, the mentions of not only Duncan but Lisa Murkowski in the lead are highly inappropriate. Moreover, the inclusion of such pushes the lead to eight paragraphs, twice as many as it should have. I can only guess someone figures that placing it in the lead will actually attract reader's attention. Never mind WP:NOTAFORUM, as it's evidently already been discarded from reading this thread.

Our anonymous friend choose to bring up the 12th Legislature, where Duncan was deposed as House speaker. This article could use a small section briefly outlining the history of political corruption in Alaska. I'm not sure that episode really fits. The George Hohman/Russ Meekins affair, the other major news story to emerge from that particular legislature, would certainly fit. Compared to Hohman, none of these legislators were convicted while still in office, nor were they expelled or under any consideration for expulsion. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 19:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Hohman episode and the fantasies about Duncan and/or ASEA certainly don't fit. The Alaska political corruption scandal was circumscribed by those charges arising out of the "Polar Pen" investigation. It resulted in a dozen or so indictments. Surprisingly, those didn't include Jerry Ward or Ben Stevens, though they were referred to in indictments in the case. It had nothing to do with Jim Duncan, nor Kim Metcalf, nor Art Chance, though the poster imagines somehow that it did. He or she (Donn Liston, are you there?) posts a link to PACER, as though that satisfies a request for a citation. Besides the fact that PACER is a pay site demanding an account for a user, it would be like someone referring someone vaguely to the Bible or the Encyclopedia Britannica without so much as a hint as to what should be found and where. There's not even a case number that would allow a user to find the alleged filed documents. Activist (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the ethics opinion as well that appears to have no relationship whatsoever to the topic or page in question. It names no names and is not connected to anything else. It appears just to be a random document dropped into the middle of a sentence. Wikipedia is not a wall and legitimate edits to articles are not random graffiti decorating same. Activist (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

'Thanks for the input, KAOS. Not really here to give or receive black eyes, myself. From what I glean Don Liston was either a Business Manager or Agent who successfully represented grievances against Commissioner Duncan. When Duncan was shoehorned in to the Union by the politicos, the first thing he did with the union was fired people that had been keeping him in check, ie, Don Liston for one. Duncan might have just fired everyone. He filled the Union with his own cronies, many of them like Kim Metcalfe (no relation to Ray) had the same conflict of taking jobs with the union straight out of Administration.

Jim was also observed running campaign phone banks after hours out of the State Office Building in Juneau, but through politics made it prohibitively expensive for a citizen to pull up phone records to confirm that was exactly what he was doing. I think the person attempting to get facts of the matter through proper channels was or is now elected. IMO there was no short on corruption in the administration previous to Murkowski's, and it was a cake walk to see which party it spun out on. Sure Jim Duncan absolutely needs mention, but 12th legislature is a historical perspective.

Kim Metcalfe was close to Tony Knowles, and according to Labor Relations Director Art Chance[[3]], spent much of her time in State employment out of her office and campaigning for Democrats during hours when she was supposed to be in her office.

By the way, I wouldn't intend to be anonymous, but somehow I cannot log in to my account for a number of years. Have you any instructions for getting my information (account name ) back with no information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.175.209 (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"as though that satisfies a request for a citation. Besides the fact that PACER is a pay site demanding an account for a user"

Yeah, very very real reasonable price for everything filed everywhere in Federal Court, too. You saw what Commissioner Duncan did with the Phone records request? It would have taken a half hour on a computer and a few pages of print to show he was campaigning out of the State Office Building. I think he was wanting about $20,000 to do the records request, probably closer to $500 or more a page at the Jim Duncan information distribution systems. Pacer is peanuts compared to trying to get a piece of paper out of Commissioner Duncan.

For all the time you spend trying to suppress public record and defending corrupt behavior you should get a job and get a pacer account. You might even get on their search feature without an account, but don't bother. You're much better off that way~ blissfully ignorant.

And FYI quid pro quo is corruption according to courts. Jim Duncan should have been preventing the violation of statute , shouldn't he? Or was his stipulation preventing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.175.209 (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of "suppress(ing) public record (sic) "and defending corrupt behavior." I have done no such thing and your attack upon me is a violation of Wikipedia standards. Don't tell me to "get a job." I note also that your reference to a website with regard to "Art Chance" does not clarify anything. Activist (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Would somebody please give Donn Liston a job so he can quit writing all those letters to the editor?" – Juneau Empire, January 9, 2001 RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 05:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, what was' filed the Ninth Circuit that mentions veco, and why were corrupt hiring practices occurring during the Duncan Ethics Stipulation period? Causasion, my dear Watson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.175.209 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that a neutral observer has to totally disagree with the idea that the Sadlyno thread does not clarify the Alaska Labor Relations dynamic. The only thing it does not clarify is how the victories Art is so proud are because the adversaries across the table have sold out the dues paying worker because of their own conflicts of interest. Was Jim allowed to file grievances that arose under his administration? Sadly, NO. 98.168.175.209 (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Whining because the the other party is involved with corruption, and Bill Allen, and Alaska's problems

I think that removing links and posts has to stop. People come here to gather facts about matters and it is chore enough to deal with keeping up with providing documentary evidence without some ideologue instantly deleting what you post because they asked for a source. Demanding sources and realizing it is all out there, and some of it is even available should help people to learn to be careful what they wish for, and live with what they requested. You wanted sources I've got plenty of sources, but want more. The kind of information that people guard like it was gold [Duncan's phone bank records]. The Kind Attorney Generals lie about to avoid the appearance of corruption. Read 'em, and weep, but don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.175.209 (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You have regularly responded to requests for source materials by providing useless URLs to home pages such as the AK Department of Law and PACER. That would be like providing a wall calendar to "substantiate" your claim that something happened in that particular year. You're sending Wikipedia readers on snark hunts. I had hopes for you to finally understand the task involved in editing when you posted that 2007 Empire article regarding Ray Metcalf, but you quickly reverted. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to post your opinions. It is an encyclopedic presentation of actual facts. Materials posted by editors should refer to the actual article. You may have gotten gum on your shoe, but you can't post that to this or any other Wikipedia page, just because you imagine that there's a connection somehow. Save for the Metcalf piece, nothing you've posted has any actual relationship to the subject at hand. Conspiracy theories are not facts. Activist (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No conspiracy theories, just a conflict of interest that went horribly wrong for the state as a whole. You really should be seeking answers to these questions at the links provided. Department of law, Federal Court records, they aren't that hard to search except some people like omissions and deletions. I suggest start with the AG office, call up David Jones for yourself. Ask Bill Milks about suborning perjury. Ask your government, start there. Pacer you can just type in a party name, and it's reasonably priced to pull the doc. Now a Jim Duncan records request, on the other hand, it's pretty darn spendy, excess $12,000 just to pull a few damning phone records. Too bad someone with money to burn didn't use it to burn Jim for campaigning out of the State Office Building. [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.175.209 (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@98.168.175.209: Citations and sources given to support claims, especially controversial ones, about living persons and actions attributed to them must clearly and specifically support contain (and not just infer) the claim made. You cannot point to a Web site's index page and say, "It's in there somewhere if you look for it." Unless and until you provide specific and reliable sources (and you, as the contributor of new information, have the responsibility to do so), the claims must be removed immediately per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy -- and anyone who insists on repeatedly re-inserting them without sources is very likely to be blocked from editing. Dwpaul (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you guys have really gutted the information in this article. Instead of having a factual setup of why the investigations ocurred it's just POP we're at 2008 and people are convicted. I continually add valid relevant sources as required and poof they're gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.28.2 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Relevant Information and Sources Previous to 2008

Public records of the Ninth Circuit [5] case #05-35694 show that in November 2005 a former state employee asked a 9th circuit three judge panel to mandate a Grand Jury to investigate a company, VECO, for peddling influence for passage of "leglslation that robs the permanent fund." He had experienced workplace retaliation for reporting violations of collective bargaining contract, ethics laws (See ethics opinion 665-05-0160 )[6] and international treaty obligations in the state's 'organized' workplace. Even though Assistant Attorney Generals William E. Milks, and David T. Jones and Kathryn Strausbaugh had documents in hand asking for empanelment of a Grand Jury, no information was passed between the Attorney General's office and the Legislature.

+

The FBI had set up in a Baranof hotel suite just three blocks away from the capitol building in Juneau. There they videotaped VECO's CEO Bill Allen, peeling off bills for legislators to stuff in their pockets. According to the Juneau Empire, Metcalfe said he had spoken with FBI agents about the case, but didn't know how the feds first got interested in Alaska."I think the jury is still out on what started this," said Metcalfe. Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho, the longest serving attorney general in the state's history over two administrations, said it looks like those state agencies responsible for ensuring ethical government failed to do their jobs, but it is too soon to tell for sure.[7]

− The AFSCME Local 52 had been corrupted by an agreement between newly appointed Business Manager and very recent former Commissioner of Administration Jim Duncan. Murkowski Administration's Attorney General found a creative way to eliminate the conflict of interest. In AG file 223-03-0342, drafted by Assistant Attorney General Lisa Kirsch, Jim Duncan agreed to take his job with the AFSCME Local 52, and get his pay, with a stipulation to not represent his members for a matter of years. The Murkowski Administration's advantage was to have no grievances properly articulated or filed and management's unfettered ability to retaliate against whistleblowers. The disadvantage was they did not expect an ordinary technician to navigate the courts and ask for what became the only FBI raid of a state legislature in the history of the United States to this date. More recent AAG opinions suggest a need to review and revisit citing the previous conflicts of interest by former State employees like Jim Duncan's stating "Alaska court may disagree with the advice we previously provided."[8]

+

. Bill Allen lead Tony Knowles' transition team when he took office in 1994.[9]

On April 6, 2006, Chief Assistant Attorney General Dean Guanelli of Governor Frank Murkowski's Administration wrote a response letter to activist Ray Metcalfe rejecting the idea that Bill Allen was peddling influence. Long before Mr. Guanelli wrote the letter, the FBI had set up in a Baranof hotel suite just three blocks away from the capitol building in Juneau. There they videotaped VECO's CEO Bill Allen, peeling off bills for legislators to stuff in their pockets. According to the Juneau Empire, Metcalfe said he had spoken with FBI agents about the case, but didn't know how the feds first got interested in Alaska."I think the jury is still out on what started this," said Metcalfe. Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho, the longest serving attorney general in the state's history over two administrations, said it looks like those state agencies responsible for ensuring ethical government failed to do their jobs, but it is too soon to tell for sure.[10]

 −

VECO and their employees had been a large contributors to politics for some time, notably to Tony Knowles' Governor's Fund,[11] channeling hundreds of thousands [12] of dollars around scrutiny of Alaska Public Offices Commission [13] and to the Knowles and other Democratic Campaigns through other channels. Bill Allen lead Tony Knowles' transition team when he took office in 1994.[14] 68.97.28.2 (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Reliable sources and encyclopedic writing relating to living persons

It is a non-negotiable policy requirement that we not exclusively use primary sources such as court decisions and public documents to source any information about living people. These primary sources may be used in the article only to augment independent secondary sources such as newspapers, magazines and edited news Web sites. Therefore, all such claims have been removed. They should only be replaced if they can be sourced with appropriate secondary-source material. Given the wide array of coverage that this corruption scandal received both inside and outside of Alaska, I'm sure those sources can be found. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed , the sources are available, and replacing the deletions leaves those sources out sometimes. (Dang vandal, mas work!) I will find things (mostly ADN or Juneau Empire) that back up the Department of Law's opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.175.209 (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You have repeatedly restored material that other editors have informed you is inappropriate to this page. That which you have inserted has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Knowles (see WP:BLP) had absolutely no connection, per reliable sources (see WP:RS), to the probe which began long after he left office. Who gave what to whom or did what for whom ten years previously is not germane to this subject. I don't understand your persistence in trying to insert such material. Also, if you're going to post something about a player in the investigation, please try to get your facts straight by at least reading and understanding your own sources, as with the Olson material. Please cease and desist allegations not germane to this subject and please read the opinions of numerous editors that have tried to give you guidance so that you do not violate Wikipedia policy. This is not a joke and Wikipedia is not a playground. Activist (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm the source. What do you want to ask me? Do you want e-mails from Special Agents? Or more e-mails from State Actors? I'm the person that went to the time and trouble to ask the Ninth Circuit to investigate what I observed in the halls of the legislature and workplace. I put a link to my Wiki ID from when I started this article. I know, it just spun out that a Republican Senator got indicted, but before it was in the courts I was dealing with people so crooked I was sure enough to tell OIG that there would be something wrong with the PERS System. And indeed there was something very wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.28.2 (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

None of those primary sources are acceptable on their own. We need reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles, television coverage or posts from reliable and edited Internet news and commentary sites (such as Alaska Dispatch), etc.

Your personal declarations and claims are not suitable as a source. Wikipedia publishes only information which has been vetted by other reliable sources. If you persist in inserting this information in violation of policy, you may end up being blocked from editing the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you have indicated that you have personally and directly played a role in the events concerning which you wish to add information to Wikipedia, it is also essential that you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies, and very likely that you will find that you must refrain from doing so due to your COI or risk being blocked. Dwpaul (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an investigatory agency, nor a repository for others' investigative research. It is an encyclopedia, and as such should reflect only verifiable and clearly sourced facts. Understanding this basic difference in viewpoint may go a long way toward clearing up what may seem to be a conflict but need not be if you will follow some well-documented policies. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. Dwpaul (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Time frame

It would be very helpful if you specified the time frame of the probe in the lead - the date it began and the date it ended. Then, you need to ensure that the material in this article is limited to that time frame and/or directly related to the probe. The source information now in the article -- Kohring is running in the Oct. 1, 2013 municipal election for a seat on the Wasilla City Council -- has nothing to do with the probe and needs to be removed. The headings 2. Corrupt Bastards Club, 3 Raids on legislative offices, 4 Management of corruption investigation, and 5 Investigation widens all should be under a History section head and should be placed above the Figures of note table. Discussion of each individual should be place under The Figures of note heading. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Kohring's candidacy, which was in the referenced article about the unanimous 9th Circuit, en banc denial of his latest appeal. Kohring filed that appeal pro se, after his attorneys withdrew from their representation of him after his earlier loss decided by a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit. His only recourse now is to let the matter drop or file an appeal with the Supreme Court. I can't imagine that any of the justices would feel that it was appropriate to consider the matter. The time frame of the probe is rather murky. Frank Prewitt admitted in his book regarding his role wearing a wire (for a payment of $200,000) on many of the defendants and Jerry Ward the latter of whom was inexplicably not indicted, including for witness tampering, that the FBI already had the goods on Prewitt and pressured him to cooperate in mid-2004. The initiation of the probe must have preceded that confrontation. There was no mention of the probe in the press until the August 2006 searches of legislators' district and state capitol offices. The probe apparently concluded either by August 4, 2010 with Eric Holder's decision not to pursue an indictment of Don Young despite the incriminating testimony of Bill Allen, or by the plea bargain of Young's Washington D.C. congressional staffer Mark Zachares, who was sentenced four months later. Kohring's conviction in the corruption probe is the major feature of tomorrow's City Council election. Activist (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your request to delete materials not germane to the time frame of the probe, which lasted from 2004 through 2010 at least, I deleted the restored reference to Knowles and Allen in 1994 which has nothing to do with the subject of the article. I think the added material about Metcalf does fit within the time frame and is very germane to the subject of the article, so I left it intact. Activist (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I also deleted the Lisa Murkowski material, per guidelines you've cited. I can find no record that Murkowski was implicated in the probe in any fashion. In fact the Wikpedia text material I deleted states that she wasn't implicated. The link about the federal road to the property she purchased and returned in Kenai does not exist, per the TPM publisher's note. If the editor thinks it deserves mention, it belongs on Senator Murkowski's page. Activist (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It is important per BLP etc. to keep this article from being used to tie/connect politicians to the probe who are not one of the sixteen listed in the figures of note. For any politicians named in the article who are not one of the sixteen, please make sure that use of their name in the article helps place the probe in context and that the usage is verifiable against high-quality reliable sources. Also, you might want to consider revising the table to remove Donald Olson, Ben Stevens, Jerry Ward, and Don Young, who were not indicted, since having them in a list that includes criminals gives impression that they were accused of committing a crime. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Inappropriate edits

I went to PACER to get the records of this case. No documents except for the Docket sheet. It looks like you filed this appeal pro se but never filed an accessible brief. It show you as the plaintiff: John J. Priestley, Jr. [NTC Pro Se] 3709 Quail Drive Juneau, AK 99801 However, though you sued the State of Alaska, the Dept. of F&G, the Human Rights Commission and the Dept. of Administration, the state never responded. The appeal was linked back to a case filed in Oregon: Originating Court Information:

    District: 0979-6 : CV-04-06114-MC 
    Trial Judge: Michael R. Hogan, District Judge 
    Date Filed: 04/15/2004 
    Date Order/Judgment:      Date NOA Filed: 
    05/27/2005      06/27/2005 

There are numerous problems with your addition to this Wikipedia page.

You are the party to whom your edit refers. This is a clear violation of Conflict of Interest.

The document to which you have referred was not identified by name and does not seem to be accessible and is behind a paywall. I presume you were referring to Docket entry 16 of 26 entries. When I tried to bring it up I got nothing.

You are referring to a primary source, which has major problems with acceptability.

There's no apparent evidence to establish the validity of your edit, even it abided by guidelines. I've spend time and money checking this out. You've wasted my time and that of other editors. I'm deleting your inappropriate edit. Please do not attempt to make this or similar postings in the future. Activist (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So nobody bothered to talk with AAG David Jones, of having in his hand a ninth circuit document asking for Grand Jury to look at VECO nine months before the raid? Real Activism going on at this wikiplace.

Oh and someone was asking about the politicians I talked with that were worth their salt. Actually Vic Kohring's office staff had some concern in what Metcalfe and Duncan's AFSCME Local 52 was about. I can't believe the State Employees haven't kicked that union to the curb yet, beyond the conflicts of interest, they were both incompetent a decade ago, yet they are still practicing their flim-flam. I think Kohring even sponsored a right to work bill at one point.68.97.193.25 (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding both what Wikipedia is and what talk pages are for. A couple points:

• "Talking to people" is never going to be an acceptable source for content. What is needed are independent reliable sources.
• Article talk pages are not a forum for dicussion of the subject, they are for discussions of how yo improve articles only.
• I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Real Activism" but that is explicitly not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Hope this helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, someone asked which politicians I had spoken with, sorry to discuss it. I know that Vic had some interest in Right to Work and whether or not there was legislation proposed I do not know for sure, but there should be some information around about that. I know if I had any choice I would not choose to have to associate with AFSCME Local 52's people with conflicts of interest and fiduciary duties- wrong any way you examine it. No matter what the dishonest people at Department of Law drafted up to smooth the violation over, it was very wrong. I appreciate that someone looked up the case, but since they didn't find that a 52 member asking for investigations doesn't mean it does not exist; it is public record. It happened, and it happened for a reason. A 52 bargaining member asked for grand jury to look at veco after dealing with an obviously corrupted union entity, and government actors and legislators who chose to play ostrich or worse.

BTW- There are more unaffiliated independents in Alaska than either party and I'm not here for 'activism' as it applies to any political party. I'm just a citizen all for communication of corrupting influences and forms corrupt government as it pertains to Alaska and perhaps other places.68.97.193.25 (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Activist (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems post that had been here for months were suddenly deleted a month ago.

The first response to the manufactured 'edit war' :

Uh, it takes a minimum of two users to edit war, so back at you. And they were providing a cite, so "unreferenced" doesn't seem exactly right either. [ ] , or whatever, but you are not exempted from the edit warring policy by just saying BLP, BLP! I have protected the page for a week to give you two a chance to work this out. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Rats! I just thanked you. (Can I take it back?:-)

Source requirements have been steadily added in to validate information since , in spite of what one editor immediately called an 'edit war' and began vandalizing the information. My suggested edit is leaving 'probe' out of the Title, that will resolve most of the issue. Other than that, knowledge needs to be imparted.

Wiki Policy: on protection

Note: this is not a venue for continuing an argument from elsewhere. If a request contains excessive arguing, is being used for edit-warring or content disputes, contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.175.209 (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than a little puzzled as to who said what when in this section, but I have a concern about leaving "probe" out of the title as (someone) suggested above. Reducing the title to "Alaska political corruption" has the effect of making a political comment by asserting that corruption exists. While there may be reason to think so, this would seem to violate MOS:OPED. At least the word "probe" conveys that it is something under investigation. Dwpaul (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

the effect of [making a political comment by] asserting that corruption exists.

And we have a BINGO! If only politicians and revolving-door state actors had an expiration date like the milk in the fridge, or actually followed ethics laws instead of having people that don't for some reason or the other. Neither revolving door corruption or rancid milk should ever be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.175.209 (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. It should be simple enough to type four tildes. Dwpaul (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. Priestley jr98.168.175.209 (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And above you demonstrate that you completely lack any understanding of Wikipedia's core policy concerning WP:Neutral point of view, along with WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research (achieving a sort of reverse perverse trifecta), as well as WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and any number of other guidelines about what is and is not appropriate here. Dwpaul (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, sorry again. I really don't have a bias for left or right, but my assumption that from Alaska is corrupt is unfair. I guess all the perjury has jaded me, and I see your point, which is neither rep/dem or con/lib. And for the record there is one politician I met, from Alaska and I liked what he tried to do with revolving door , in fact.98.168.175.209 (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just curious. Which politician was that, when, and what did he or she do? Activist (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethan Berkowitcz proposed an ethics bill in either 2004 I believe or 2005. I talked with him a couple times while it was pending and he was the most approachable of any of them . It did not pass, too complicated he joked. I think it involved investments and blind trusts. Not sure if it had time limit language for revolving door issues, but in his campaign he proposed the idea of five instead of two year limitation for changing sides of the table or lobbying after leaving the State. 98.168.175.209 (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Even the federal prosecutors on the case had 525 paged of investigation of ethical problems. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/justice-after-senator-stevens.html?_r=0

98.168.175.209 (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone ("truth_in_Alaska?") removed only the name of Bill Bobrick from the page. Evergreenfir appropriately undid the deletion. It should be mentioned that Bobrick was unique in the prosecution. His part in the overall scheme was very minor, he immediately took responsibility for his actions, pleaded guilty and received a six month sentence, if memory serves. Most of the others, far more guilty and involved, fought the charges tooth and nail. Many of the worst involved never were indicted. Bobrick (and Weyhrauch) displayed some dignity and I was actually surprised when they were indicted. Activist (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alaska political corruption probe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905043020/http://www.adn.com/2011/11/15/2173165/bill-allen-scheduled-for-release.html to http://www.adn.com/2011/11/15/2173165/bill-allen-scheduled-for-release.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811003444/http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12952729 to http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12952729

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alaska political corruption probe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923013245/http://www.ktuu.com/news/john-cowdery-former-alaska-lawmaker-dies-at-the-age-of-83-ktuu-20130714%2C0%2C4923833.story to http://www.ktuu.com/news/john-cowdery-former-alaska-lawmaker-dies-at-the-age-of-83-ktuu-20130714%2C0%2C4923833.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224055537/http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6471456 to http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6471456
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=9551979
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921135629/http://www.adn.com/2009/09/24/947518/judge-shows-leniency-in-masek.html to http://www.adn.com/2009/09/24/947518/judge-shows-leniency-in-masek.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://classic.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/Alaskas_Citizens_Lock_Out_Private_Prisons.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111105181859/http://www.adn.com/2008/08/17/496344/bill-allen-waiting-for-ax-to-fall.html to http://www.adn.com/2008/08/17/496344/bill-allen-waiting-for-ax-to-fall.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926080443/http://www.adn.com/295/story/947518.html to http://www.adn.com/295/story/947518.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)