Powering up.
There's more to come.
Showing posts with label Blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog. Show all posts
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Friday, July 17, 2009
Gryffindor or Slytherin?
Blogger "Infinonymous" kindly gave me Hogwarts points I don't deserve when he or she posted :
Mr. Mayo's powers evidently have grown to the point at which he can create links that tie directly to, and highlight, particular portions of P-G articles.
I can't take credit for that. It's some web voodoo the Post-Gazette's implemented on its own.
Try this: select and copy some text in a PG story, then paste it in another document. The result? When you paste, you get not only the copied text but a customized link to the story it came from --- a trick that's both handy and a little creepy at the same time. The virtual "yellow highlighter" effect it generates when you use the customized link does help to show that copied text in its original context -- but how is the newspaper's website commandeering the tools of my browser or operating system?
.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Lamar Billboard Saga
Is it end-of-chapter or end-of-story?
Judge Joseph James has upheld the Zoning Board ruling denying permission for construction of a multi-million dollar billboard downtown --- a billboard that's already mostly completed. (See the PG and the Trib stories. Bram Reichbaum's Pittsburgh Comet has the entire ruling online.)
Controversies connected to the handling of the Lamar electronic billboard are woven into a number of big Pittsburgh political and goverment stories of the past couple of years.
This link will let you check out many of my past blog posts on the topic. After clicking the link, scroll to the bottom of the screen.
This PG story also notes that Mayor Ravenstahl has just changed the makeup of the Zoning Board that ruled against the billboard.
More to come.
.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
1st Mayor's Race Debate -- Your Ideas & Questions?
Next Monday night from 7 to 8 PM, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, Councilman Patrick Dowd, and attorney Carmen Robinson meet in their first debate. I'll be on the panel of reporters asking questions of the three candidates in Pittsburgh's Democratic primary for mayor.
I want to hear what issues you think the candidates should address. You can e-mail me directly at bobmayo4 at gmail.com. I know many readers and bloggers here in the Burghosphere -- Pittsburgh's blogosphere -- follow Pittsburgh politics and government with a passion. Now's your chance to help shape the debate -- tell me what topics we should take on. You can even send along links or background, if you'd like.
WTAE-TV's also inviting viewers to submit your own questions via video or e-mail.
For a taste of what's ahead, here's a link to our Ravenstahl-DeSantis mayoral debate from the fall of 2007.
.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Blogging in Court -- The Poplawski Case Gag Order Hearing
Judge Manning and Richard Poplawski (file photos)[Here's my blog post from the court hearing on
the motion for a gag order in the Richard Poplawski case.]
the motion for a gag order in the Richard Poplawski case.]
Tuesday, April 14, 2009.
I'm writing this in the courtroom of Judge Jeffrey Manning, who granted permission via his staff for me to use my laptop computer for notetaking during the proceeding. These are my raw notes on the hearing, not a comprehensive transcript. They'll help form the basis for my reporting later in the day. Not all quotes here are verbatim -- some are a paraphrasing or a summary of keywords.
10:10 AM
Poplawski not present in court for this hearing.
Common Pleas Administrative Judge Jeffrey Manning: notes for news media that use of laptops to take notes is permissible -- but not to transmit from the courtroom.
Assistant Public Defender Lisa Middleman: says she covered most of what she had to say in her written pleading. Notes that information from police reports and statements or confessions by defendants are among those things she seeks to have covered by a court order. Says her and the DA's office's desire is "to try this case once, in the cleanest way possible". Asks that the judge sign an order preventing further statements from police and prosecutors. Not asking that order cover anyone else. Says families in this case have been extraordinarily dignified.
Assistant District Attorney Mark Tranquilli: notes that he and District Attorney Zappala contacted members of Pittsburgh Police command staff, emphasized to them the importance of curtailing statements and dissemination of evidence to the media. He says he was assured would do so -- but it remains to be seen what effect those efforts have had. Says since dissemination has not abated -- the DA's office joins in asking for court order. Asks that it also cover court staff who have access to filings, pleadings, and to those responsible for housing defendant at the jail. Asks that order also cover agencies that have reports, audio, transcripts, to prevent release of those items to members of the media. Says the DA's office wants the evidence to be heard by twelve citizens, not tried in media. Says they are confident they can give the public the only accurate account of what happened on that terrible day, rather than have the account be the subject of unabated speculation in the media.
Middleman: doesn't think court can preclude release of public filings by attorneys.
Judge Manning: thinks that correct -- they are public record. Judge says any order does not prevent, for example, a police officer who is directing traffic from making a statement, or anyone else not involved in the case.
Middleman: their comments may ultimately reflect on ability to impanel jury, ability to get people who haven't been exposed to coverage of the case and formed an opinion.
Tranquilli: says the records he was referring to are sealed search warrants.
Judge Manning: they're sealed by order of court and will remain so. Notes that under Rule 110 of rules of civil procedure, he may issue an order on extra-judicial statements. Also says that under Rule 111, all court personnel are prohibited from releasing information that is not part of public record.
Judge Manning says that leading case on this issue is 43 years old -- cites case of Sam Sheppard in Cleveland, Ohio, in which the Supreme Court says the court should have acted to deal with this issue. Judge Manning says he will issue order restricting extra judicial statements that applies to all police officers directly or indirectly involved in the investigation, as well as all persons likely to be called as witnesses by the prosecution and the defense. He will prohibit the release any reports and any an all evidence without the authority of the court. Says he will issue his order within the next hour. Also will add to it the persons housing the defendant (at the jail).
....
Tom McGough, Attorney for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: cites a Nebraska case regarding gag orders. Addresses one: who does it apply to, and two: what does it restrict.
Judge Manning: will craft his order so as to not abridge free speech.
McGough: concerned that an order restricting all extra-judicial statements about the case is too broad. Says this is a case of high public concern. Matters that come up every day -- 911 system, Poplawski's confinement, the defendant's grandmother chaining herself to the house -- will beg comment from pubic officials. He suggests they look for state-of-the-art language as to what statements should be covered by the order. Notes Rules 3.6 and 3.8 of professional conduct. Says court tried to strike balance (between first amendment rights and right to a fair trial). Says the public has right to know about public safety, the conduct of judicial proceedings. Says there is often direct significant debate on public policy. Says the standard is whether particular communications will have substantial likelihood of prejudicing a judicial proceeding. Cites example of the Wecht case.
Ron Barber, Attorney for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: to expand -- in addition to case-specific matters in which public has interest, there may be other important examples in this case where public interest cries out. Cites hypothetical examples in which a witness feels pressure, or there is no minority representative in the jury pool. he says discussion of those could be covered by the court order if not carefully crafted.
Judge Manning: invites them to submit drafts for him to review. Says he will not issue his order until early this afternoon.
Middleman: Any interest the public may have is separate and distinct from the defendant. Says the defendant waives his right to have information regarding his housing be public, and waives any and all rights to a public proceeding at this point.
McGough: we'll have to wait for a public proceeding to see if that waiving is relevant.
Judge Manning: indicates that he will issue his court order this afternoon. At some point he notes that the news media likes to call it a gag order, but it is actually an order precluding extra-judicial statements by those involved in the investigation and in the court case. He concludes the hearing.
As Judge Manning was leaving the courtroom, I asked him if I could pose a quick hypothetical question: would any court order prevent an elected official from discussing the public safety aspects of the case in, say, a candidates debate?
Judge Manning indicated that it would not. He said it would obviously be better for such an official to discuss the broader public safety issues rather than the particulars of the case -- but that, no, the order would not restrict any elected officials or candidates from such discussions.
.
The Busman's Holiday is Back
Coming tonight: the Busman's Holiday returns. Two posts ahead on the gag order in Poplawski case.
--
Sent from my mobile device
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wecht Argues Against A New Trial
Former Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht spent his 78th birthday in court today, watching his defense team fight to keep prosecutors from putting him on trial again.
Wecht's first trial on public corruption and fraud charges ended in a hung jury. The defense is asking the new judge to toss out key evidence, an action that could gut the prosecution's case. Wecht's lawyers argue that the search warrants used to seize records from wecht's private business were invalid.
"In our view, if those search warrants are quashed, there is no case. Those started the whole investigation. they were the fuel of all of this", Defense Attorney Jerry McDevitt said after the hearing.
This was the second birthday Wecht has spent in court, fighting the charges against him.
"Can you imagine younger I would look, if that had not been the case, right?" Wecht joked with reporters afterward.
The government alleges Wecht used resources of his former public office to profit his private consulting business and that fraudulently billed his clients. Judge Sean McClaughlin ordered today's additional arguments from both sides.
If you're reading this on the blog's home page, you can click on the "Read More" link at the end of this post to see my notes on what happened in the courtroom today.
Wecht Case Hearing, Pittsburgh Federal Court
March 20, 2009
What you read below are my raw notes -- not a verbatim transcript. Fragments may contain direct quotes or keywords, but this does not include every aspect of every argument made or every question asked.
1:59 PM This hearing is being held via videoconference. Judge Sean McLaughlin is in his courtroom in Erie. The prosecution and defense are in a courtroom on the third floor of federal court here in Pittsburgh.
Dr. Cyril Wecht has just arrived, joining his defense attorneys Jerry McDevitt and Mark Rush at a table to the right of the courtroom. Prosecutors James Wilson and Leo Dillon are at a table to the left of the courtroom.
Judge: I would like to begin with the discussion of various suppression issues this afternoon.... with an examination of the boxes warrant. The warrant indicates boxes --approximately 20 -- containing private autopsy files.
Judge: Isn't the face of the warrant arguably problematic, In that at a private office there would be numerous files not related to the case? ...How was it meaningfully circumscribed?
Wilson: The number and the description. This warrant -- while arguably over-broad -- does not permit unfettered rummaging.
--------
Judge: Doesn't that warrant on its face authorize the seizing of boxes for which there was no probable cause?
Wilson: It's problematic.
--------
Judge: Do you agree to me that a general warrant cannot be saved by the good faith of officers at the scene?
Wilson: Agrees ... but says this is a case of the exception swallowing the rule whole.
--------
Judge: Let's talk about the prism through which I should view this warrant. Through the eyes of the issuing magistrate judge, without reference to what the agents actually saw, once they got on the scene...?
Wilson: Are you asking me "does the 'four corners doctrine" apply'? ...Yes.
Judge: The numerical limitation is 20 boxes, the subject matter limitation is private autopsy files?
Wilson: Yes.
Judge: The problem with an over-broad warrant is that there is probable cause for only some of the items?
....Wilson discusses that what they were looking for was records of private work done by county employees on taxpayer time. He says the records in question were allegedly originally kept at the Allegheny County Coroner's Office and moved to Wecht's private office while the investigation was under way.
Judge: Didn't the face of the warrant permit the agents to rummage through the defendant's papers...?
Wilson: As it related to private autopsy files? Yes.
--------
Wilson: ... Is this a general warrant simply because it suffers from an inability to be redacted? My answer would be no.
Judge: Let's talk about the limiting criteria in the affidavit of probable cause.
--------
Judge: Is it accurate to say there was something in the vicinity of 60 to 70 boxes on the premises?
Wilson: Correct.
Judge: Any indication how many were searched?
Wilson: No numerical indication.... but 60 to 70 is the number they've been working with.
Judge: It's of at least passing interest that there were many, many more boxes there than approximately 20?
Wilson: Correct, your honor. The authorization was only for 20.
Judge: Should it give anyone pause that 29 boxes were seized?
Wilson: Absolutely not. There's nothing in the affidavit that says 20 and only 20. Wilson says there was always an attempt to narrow them to those recently removed from the coroner's office.
Judge: Is there, in your view, any material issue of fact on the record that is in dispute?
Wilson: I have yet to hear from the defendant of a single box-- that single box that has been taken in violation of the criteria. In every instance in which there was a discussion of the criteria for whether a box should be taken, it was to narrow the number.
Judge: Judge Schwab (the judge from the first trial) ruled that the warrant may have been over-broad, but it was solved by the way it was executed?
Wilson: Agrees.
--------
Judge: Says he now wants to the discuss "the laptop warrants", which sought all data contained therein. You maintain that's not a general warrant. Why isn't this equivalent of issuing a warrant for a home and all its contents or a business and all of its files?
Wilson: Answers that some warrants of those sorts for homes or businesses may be perfectly sound. Gives an example of someone suspected of being part of an espionage ring and arms dealing. Says you could search that person's home with a warrant for computer data or microfiche... tearing the place apart, looking for the evidence.
Judge: Raises question of whether there could be data on the computer of an entirely personal nature. Wouldn't it have been possible to give the warrant a more specific particularization? Gives example of the type of data or a date range. Suggests they wouldn't be having this discussion if the affidavit had been attached to the warrant.
Wilson: Says the warrant is very specific. Says the affidavit is silent on any other use than work for Wecht Pathology.
Judge: Is the government's position is that there's something unique about a computer, as opposed to a house or a business, when it comes to a general warrant.
Wilson: The government needs to look for everything here. Look at cases involving computers, across the board. Once you can get into the computer, you can look at everything. Also says if it can show Eileen Young did little or no county government work on the computer, that (also) goes a long way towards making the prosecution's case. ...Says Young identified thousands of computer files involving private work on the laptop.
Wilson: This warrant is precisely specific; it says exactly what we want to seize.
2:54 Defense Attorney Jerry McDevitt's turn to answer the judge's questions.
McDevitt: Looking at the warrant itself ... If you were at home tonight and a federal agent showed up at your doorstep with a warrant for your computer... this says there would be no limitation to identifying any crime at all. These warrants were an authorization to look at everything on a computer, whether it was related to a crime or not.
McDevitt: They now concede you can't redact these warrants. If it's a facially defective warrant that lacks particularity, it cannot be saved.
Judge: I'm looking at United States vs. Rovitto (sp?)...2008. The circuit said that a warrant that is over-broad can be cured by an affidavit, even if it's not incorporated in the warrant.
McDevitt: Says Supreme Court precedence decided this. Says when you're looking at a facially defective warrant, you don't save that with good faith.
3:08 Judge says he's going to give the court reporter a break, then come back and they'll talk about mail and wire fraud.
--------
3:20 Back in session.
McDevitt: (Back for now to a discussion of the boxes.) Says boxes had lids on them, and that an agent on the scene during the search was instructed by phone to open every box and take everything that had contents with Eileen Young's name on them. McDevitt recalls an agent testifying there numerous boxes containing private autopsy files. That agent called FBI Agent Orsini, who McDevitt says gave those directions by phone. It couldn't be clearer what they did: they opened every box, the rummaged through, and took every box that had something inside with Eileen Young's name on it.
Judge: You're saying the executed it as though it were a general warrant.
McDevitt: Yes. (McDevitt goes on to read at length from a transcript of statments by FBI Agent Welsh.)
Judge: On the subject of the computer warrant and its alleged generality: how could that have been solved, if it was flawed as you contend?
McDevitt: Specifying they were looking for evidence of doing private work on county time. It's a unlimited search, unrestrained by criminal law.
No warrant without specifications is a valid warrant.
3:35 PM. Judge calls on Mr. Dillon.
Judge: I'd like to spend a few minutes to discuss the counts of mail and wire fraud here. The government posited that payments were made only because of the fraud. My initial question to you is this. Isn't that the wrong approach here? Isn't the proper inquiry whether an objectively reasonable informed victim would have found it (important) to the decision making process. ...The mere fact of payment was made cannot address the materiality of the falsehood?
Dillon: Argues that the victims would not have paid the alleged overcharges if they knew about them.
Judge: Can you tell me the nature of the evidence that the nature of the overcharges were material?
Dillon: The falsity of the bills is in the nature and totality of the expense. They're false in their essence. In regard to the mileage charged to other counties, there was no mileage.
Judge: Asks questions about any amount so de minimis as to not be material. Calls McDevitt back to answer questions.
Judge: In a nutshell, what was it in your view about these two sets of charges --mail fraud and wire fraud -- that was missing?
McDevitt: Quotes a case in which a court ruled on the actual testimony of the people making the decisions. He says in this case they failed to give the jury adequate information to determine whether the actual person would find it (de minimis). It's just a morality play, that's all it is. They didn't prove that element of the crime.
Judge: Let's move on... I understand your position that aggregation should not be permitted. ...Doesn't it put out of the reach of prosecution a perpetual embezzler who is smart enough to avoid embezzling more than $4,999 a year?
McDevitt: Says Congress drew the line at $5,000. State law is there to deal with other other figures.
Judge: What in your view does the record show as to whether Dr. Wecht's employees did or did not complete their required county work over the course of the work day?
McDevitt: Says asked at trial: "Cut to the chase, did they get their county work done?" The answer was that they did.
McDevitt: If you believe Dr. Wecht did everything they accused him of, it's not as though there's not state laws to deal with it. They could have filed a state ethics complaint, a prosecution under the state ethics act. None of that ever happened.
--------
3:59 PM
Dillon: There are separate bills for 30, $40 each, and none of the expenses were incurred. They were all part of the whole scheme to defraud.
Judge: The jury was only presented with discrete instances of fraudulent conduct. Is it your position they should have been able see it as part of a scheme?
Dillon: Says there was testimony of this taking place over a number of years.
Judge: What, if anything, does the record in this case show about whether the the employees were able to complete their county work on county time.
Dillon: Says they had little or no county work to do. Says in the case of the administrative assistants, they spent virtually all their time doing private work.
Judge: You are suggesting they were essentially sham employees of the county?
Dillon agrees.
Judge: Asks whether the annual pay of the administrative assistants meets the standard to trigger the federal law: a figure in excess of $5,000 in a year?
Dillon details information to support that position.
Judge: Asks about the "Wecht details" -- private, personal errands done by coroner deputies for Whect on county time.
--------
4:11 Judge says he wants to check his notes. He'll be back in a bit and he says they may wrap up soon.
4:17 Judge McLauglin reappeared on the videoconference screen briefly to thank the attorneys and conclude the hearing. There's no indication of when he will issue a ruling.
.
This Date In Wecht Trial History
On the eve of today's hearing in the Wecht case, Channel 4 Action News reporter Shannon Perrine e-mailed to me a reminder that today is Doctor Cyril Wecht's 78th birthday.
Sure enough, here's my entry for this date a year ago, when the jury from the first Wecht trial was deliberating:
Wecht Trial Day 27 - March 20, 2008: Jury Watch Day 3
8:30 AM Today is Dr. Cyril Wecht's birthday. The defendant turned 77 today, as the jury entered its third day of deliberations in his federal trial on mail and wire fraud and theft of services charges.
10:00 AM We're halfway through the thirteenth hour of deliberations. So far today, there have been no questions from the jury for the judge.
1:00 PM The Wecht jury has now deliberated a total of 15 1/2 hours over the course of three days. If there is no verdict within the next 45 minutes, Judge Arthur Schwab will bring the jury into the courtroom to remind them of his instructions before they leave for the day at 2:00 PM.
While we're looking back, here's a link to my Busman's Holiday blog posts tracking the Wecht case... and a link to my blogging from the courtroom during the first trial for WTAE's The Pittsburgh Channel website.
The former Allegheny County Coroner is accused of fraud and using that public office to benefit his private consulting business. The first trial ended in a mistrial, with the jury deadlocked. This was the scene leading up to that announcement:
Wecht Trial Day 35 - April 8, 2008
8:29 AM The judge's bailiff just came from the direction of the jury room; she just locked the courtroom doors and is headed for the judge's office carrying a blue envelope and a sheet of paper. That doesn't necessarily mean there's a development... but there could be.
I estimate the jurors are in their 53rd hour of discussion on their eleventh day working day of deliberations. This is their fourth calendar week of deliberating, which they began on March 18.
This is the 35th working day of the trial and the 72nd calendar day since the trial began on Jan. 28.
8:40 AM As the bailiff just passed in the hallway, I asked her if there was anything new to look for on the court's electronic filing system ECF. Her answer was "no."
9 AM Judge Schwab's office just e-mailed the following notice to reporters:
"USA v. Wecht 06cr26 - - Time of Announcement of Verdict"
This afternoon, Erie federal court Judge Sean McLaughlin wants to hear still more arguments from both sides on defense motions to reconsider past rulings by the judge who presided over the first trial.
As I've noted before, this is significant because it suggests Judge McLaughlin is seriously considering the defense motions to toss out most or all of the government's case.
While the judge will be in Erie, the prosecution and defense will make their arguments via videoconference from a courtroom here in Pittsburgh. Judge McLaughlin has yet to rule on a prosecution motion to move any retrial from Pittsburgh to Erie.
.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Ravenstahl Promises Renaissance Blueprint
The following news release arrived tonight from Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's re-election campaign manager, Paul McKrell. The e-mailed media advisory promises a major announcement Monday at noon by the mayor. Readers interested in some background might want to check my post, "Renaissance Three? Four? Or Five?", from a couple of weeks back.
Here's the news release:
Media Advisory
for March 9, 2009
For Immediate Release
Mayor Ravenstahl to Announce his Blueprint for Renaissance III
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – On Monday, March 9, 2009 at 12:00PM, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl will announce his blueprint for Renaissance III.
WHO: Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
WHAT: Remarks followed by Q & A
WHEN: 12:00PM on Monday, March 9, 2009
WHERE: Grant Street Portico, City County Building, Downtown, Pittsburgh
###
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Motznik: The Beginning of the End of an Era
The PG reports this afternoon:
Jim Motznik will give up his city council seat to run for district judge...
The Trib has more on the brewing political feuds.
Long before Allegheny County Executive
Dan Onorato began cybercasting...
... or Councilman Bill Peduto launched his
now-silent "Reform Pittsburgh Now",
Motznik briefly but memorably explored the wilds
of Pittsburgh's Burghosphere.
[Click to enlarge.]His decision means Motznik's "boots on the ground" support of Mayor Ravenstahl in city council will be absent after December.
Not quite three weeks into 2009, it's apparent that 2010 will bring new alignments and alliances in the city council chamber.
.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Problem Listening to the Costa & Victor Q&A Audio? Try This Video
UPDATE: Check out the video file version of the Costa Q&A and let me know what you think. Because this blog is my personal hobby, I don't use WTAE's raw video -- the audio is from my personal recorder. The "video" is simply a screenshot of Costa with a brief title caption. Meanwhile, the audio files are working again -- but service could go down if the host's bandwidth limits are exceeded. My original posts continue below.
A few minutes ago I discovered that the audio links in my last blog post are no longer working. What went wrong?I was using an older Google service called GooglePages to host the mp3 files. It seems that the size of the audio files aren't a good match for bandwidth limits of that free service. When I tried to check the files directly, I got the error message you see above.
Maybe I should add video captions to the audio files and upload them to YouTube.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Are You Interested In Blogging?
You might want to check out this free local event this weekend.
I'm going to attend and I hope to learn more about creating blogs, podcasts, and social media.
.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The Blogosphere, Politics, Gifts, & Mainstream Media
"A Simple Question: Yes or No?"
In the age of raw online video and blogs, newsmakers can no longer easily dismiss reporter questions by repeating the same answer, say, twelve times in three minutes. The clip above illustrates the point. If you weren't curious about the senator -- or where he gets his suits -- you likely will be after watching this exchange.
The reporter pressing the hardest is Rachel Stassen-Berger of the Pioneer Press. Here's an updated partial transcript:
Reporter: ...Is there a reason the Senator won't say whether or not somebody else bought some suits for him?
Spokesman: Rachel, we've reported -- the Senator has reported every gift he has ever received.
Reporter: That wasn't my question, Cullen.
Spokesman: The Senator has reported every gift he has ever received. And we're not going to respond to unnamed sources on a blog.
Reporter: So, Senator Coleman's friend has not bought these suits for him? Is that correct?
Spokesman: The Senator has reported every gift he has ever received.
Reporter: Why can't you say that? Why won't you give us an answer -- yes or no -- on that?
Spokesman: He's reported every gift he has ever received.
Reporter: We haven't asked whether or not he's reported every gift he has ever received -- and I will take his word that he has reported every gift he has ever received. Has he ever received a gift of suits?
Spokesman: He's reported every gift he has ever received....
What's going on here? From The Columbia Journalism Review, headlined:
"E-gads! A blog!?!"
Blog. Say out it loud. Blog!
If you say it right, it almost sounds like a nasty word. (It’s got that hard plosive at the end.) It sounds especially nasty if you find a way to slip it into the right sentence.
Like this one:
“We’re not going to respond to unnamed sources on the blog.”
That’s part of what Cullen Sheehan, campaign manager for newly endangered Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, had to say yesterday at a cringe-inducing press conference.
You can read more of CJR's take at this link.
David Brauer of the Minnesota Post also has more on the interesting intersection of the blogosphere, politics, gifts, and the mainstream media.
.
Ethics Code Update Coming?
Ethics Board File PhotoThat indirectly prompted this question from Bram Reichbaum over on The Burgh Report -- what happened? The short answer: nothing just yet, but something is in the works. A longer response, in the form of my e-mail to Bram R, follows.
Bram,
I can tell you that the City Ethics Hearing Board has taken no action yet.
I spoke with Vice Chair Kathleen Buechel. (A dentist's appointment delayed my arrival until after today's half-hour long ethics board meeting had ended, but I crossed paths with her on the fifth floor of the City County Budiling as she was leaving Council' s offices. ) Buechel tells me they decided to delay releasing anything until after they've had a chance to further consult with the City Law Department. She anticipates they will hold a special meeting sometime between today and the next regularly scheduled meeting in November.
Of course the recommendations of the working group will face a vote by the full ethics board. Those final recommendations will then be submitted to city council for consideration.
PS: Thanks for asking -- I needed a fresh blog post.
.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
So, Where's My Blog?
I've been on a break here for a couple of weeks. Because I do this as a hobby and not as an assignment, I have that luxury. I thought I might benefit from standing back a bit from The Busman's Holiday and considering whether to make any changes.
My interest in blogging started with a desire to explore what sorts of things I could do in this medium. That's included offering additional details on stories I cover -- providing readers with looks at the raw material of news gathering, e-mails, court documents, and extended Q&A sessions. My blogging tends to be more motivated by the enjoyment of creating the posts than anything else.
My interests in covering local government and politics mean there's a lot of focus on Grant Street here. While I'm a general assignment reporter, I don't really have a taste for "crime blogging", for example. I've been thinking about the fact that the accumulation of my posts may create expectations about content. If I broadened into a wider range of topics, how would that be received?
Because I moderate reader comments, there's not the opportunity to build the momentum of readers interacting on this blog. I moderate the comments because -- as a reporter -- I don't feel comfortable hosting the occasional anonymous allegations or attacks that can pop up in an unmoderated environment. The downside is that I don't benefit from the potential for immediate response. I do enjoy feedback from readers and other bloggers about what I write here. Let me know what you think.
.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Sirk's Attorney Calls E-Mail "Bogus"
There's a disturbance in the Burghosphere:
allegations of a "bogus" e-mail and of bloggers being used as "pawns".
The attorney for Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's ex-press secretary Alecia Sirk claims that an e-mail attributed to Sirk by two Pittsburgh bloggers is a fake.
Not so, say the bloggers.
The anonymous blogger known as The Burgher of The Burgh Report provided me with a copy of an e-mail allegedly sent by Alecia Sirk to Bram Reichbaum of The Pittsburgh Comet. The bloggers offered it to refute suggestions that Reichbaum had threatened Sirk and her husband, URA Executive Director Pat Ford. In the disputed e-mail, the author sounds chatty, friendly, and not at all threatened. The e-mail says "thanks" and "pat and i both appreciate that you always come to us".
Ford is on paid leave while the state Ethics Commission investigates gifts that he and Sirk received from Lamar Advertising executive Jim Vlasach. Sirk resigned from her job in the wake of the revelation of the gifts. Ford describes Vlasach as his "best friend". Together, they negotiated the controversial permit which allowed Lamar advertising to begin erecting a large electronic billboard on Grant Street. Ford himself was the one who went to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review with word of the gifts; he did so after blogger Reichbaum privately questioned Sirk about some references to Vlasach in her own discontinued blog, Love of Chair. In one post, Sirk described her delight at getting a gift from Vlasach -- a surround-sound system.
The Trib reported on April 15th:
...Ford said he believes someone connected to the Housing Authority "mysteriously" resurrected his wife's defunct blog, LoveofChair, which detailed Ford's friendship with Vlasach.
He said blogger Bram Reichbaum called Sirk and threatened to release a copy of the blog publicly if she did not tell him about the surround-sound system.
First, let's look at the e-mail sent to me by The Burgher.
From: "The Burgher" [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Date: April 15, 2008 1:04:30 AM EDT
Subject: Proof Bram did not threaten Sirk
The very threatening Bram Reichbaum ...
Check sirk's frightened post-interview email to bram.
(Sarcasm over).
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bram Reichbaum [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Subject: Fwd: Phone Tag
To: The Burgher [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Here is a bit of our correspondence. It looks as though I couldn't have spoken with her until 2:30 or maybe 3:00. You may utilize this for anything.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: alecia sirk [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Date: Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Phone Tag
To: Bram Reichbaum [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Hi Bram-
Don't forget to email me the blog! I'd love to be able and sit around and read it when i'm 70!
thanks, and thanks for calling to ask me about those things. pat and i both appreciate that you always come to us and say HEY, what about this.
have a great day,
a
X
----- Original Message ----
From: Bram Reichbaum [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
To: alecia sirk [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 2:28:12 PM
Subject: Phone Tag
I'm trying to all you back. "All circuits are busy now" for the past two hours, and I don't want to bother you on your cell phone.
Gimme a call at [Phone number removed for this post] and I'll pick up.
Bram
Bram Reichbaum affirmed that the above e-mails were authentic when I contacted him. He had forwarded it to The Burgher, who passed it along to me.
Next, I contacted Alecia Sirk using the same address that appears in the disputed e-mail.
----- Original Message ----
From: Bob Mayo [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
To: alecia sirk [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:26:41 PM
Subject: Re: Missed Interview Opportunity
Alecia,
I wanted to check this with you.
Is the following your e-mail to Bram Reichbaum on Monday after his conversation with you about the entry in your blog?
Thanks.
Bob M
Her response:
From: alecia sirk [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Date: April 16, 2008 10:48:40 AM EDT
To: Bob Mayo [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Cc: law fisher [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Subject: Re: Missed Interview Opportunity
Hi Bob-
My attorney, Lawrence Fisher, would be happy to speak to you about this issue.
This is his cell phone number: [Number removed for this post].
thank you,
a
Today I spoke by phone with Lawrence Fisher, attorney for Pat Ford and Alecia Sirk, and asked him if the e-mail is authentic.
His answer:
• "No. The e-mail is bogus. It's part of the smear campaign in which the bloggers have allowed themselves to be used as pawns."
• "The whole story is ridiculous."
• "The idea that a multi-million dollar project could somehow be swayed by a nominal gift is ridiculous."
• "The continued exploitation of this matter is not productive."
Finally, here are the responses from The Burgher and Bram Reichbaum to the comments of Mr. Fisher.
First, The Burgher:
Thanks, Bob.
I'd like to talk to Bram first, but it seems incredible to suggest that someone hacked into Sirk's email account and sent Bram an email collaborating their conversation before any blog posts or subsequent MSM coverage would inform 3rd parties of the event.
So, in other words, they're claiming Bram is lying.
Actually, more than lying; they're claiming that Bram fabricated an entire email conversation with Sirk, and composed a fake email and sent it to me.
Unless their attorney is misinformed, these are desperate lies.
I'll let Bram discuss that with you, but on my end it seems ridiculous to me considering the number of conversations Bram and I have had where Bram expressed sympathy for Sirk. (I'll forward them).
Also, part of the "allegedly" fake Sirk email is collaborated by Bram's conversation with me (by GMAIL chat, if I remember correctly) around the time of the interview where he mentioned that Sirk thanked him for forwarding the PDF.
(This is off the record until Bram responds. I'm assuming he will assert the legitimacy of the emails. If not, please let me know.)
The Burgher later put the above comments on the record.
Next, Bram Reichbaum:
Gentlemen,
I assume you're talking about the e-mail in which Alecia asks for a copy of Love of Chair, and thanks me for coming to them with my questions?
Yes. Yes, that was authentic.
As a matter of fact, you may have noticed an "X" underneath the text of her e-mail, and above the body of my "phone tag" e-mail to her earlier in the day. That "X" is actually my placeholder for an quote she included underneath her message. Since it was italicized and seemed personal, I withheld it from distribution to you and the Burgher, but if you think there will come a time when it is important to reveal, please let me know.
Burgher, go ahead and forward any relevant correspondence we've had about Sirk/Ford to Bob.
Bram
One footnote: the e-mail address in question does belong to Alecia Sirk. It's the personal Yahoo account from which she sent out the news release about Mayor Ravenstahl's endorsement of Senator Clinton. It's also -- as noted above-- the address from which she told me to contact attorney Fisher.
.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Mistrial Day Zero: The Wecht Trial Reloaded
Welcome to any readers following my Pittsburgh Channel blogging of the Wecht trial who are new to my personal blog.
The mistrial brought an end to 35 working trial days...ten weeks in court...including 53 hours of deliberations over the course of three of those weeks. There are blog entries listed day by day at this link. The Pittsburgh Channel has video of my WTAE Channel 4 Action News report, as well some raw video of Wecht's defense team.
Here are some quotes from Dr. Cyril Wecht and his attorneys made following the mistrial declaration.
Dr. Cyril Wecht:
• "The toll on my family has been horrendous."
• "We've been living under this cloud for all that time. The emotional drain has been absolutely unbelievable."
• "...the drain emotionally, personally, professionally and financially.."
• "How much I have been hurt, I'm sure that what I know of represents the tip of the iceberg, because most people are not going to call you and say I was going to consult you, but I can't."
• "We are going to continue to do whatever is necessary. I don't say that in a bold fashion with braggadocio. I'm just telling you what has to be done will be done."
• "If I have to spend the rest of my years, then so will it be."
• "We know where we're going and we know what we have to do. And we know where truth lies and we know where justice resides, and I'm sure that we shall reach those objectives."
• "We recognize what the ideology as well as the continuing pathogenesis of this sordid saga is, and there's nothing to be happy or comforted about."
Former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, member of the Wecht legal team:
• "A nickle-dime prosecution when there is rampant crime, terrorism, other kinds of threats that affect the American people."
• "These charges clearly were not worthy of being brought in a federal criminal court."
• "The government has utterly failed to prove their case. And it's time in my view for these charges to be dismissed and for Dr. Wecht to be able to get on with his life."
• "The allegations of political influence in this case, about which I testified before the United States Congress -- the judge prohibited any inquiry into that in the course of this case."
Jerry McDevitt, Wecht defense attorney:
• "I thought what happened in that courtroom today was an utter disgrace. On every level, no matter how your measure it, it was one of the most bizarre endings to one of the most unfair trials ever conducted in Pittsburgh history."
• "To announce a retrial of Cyril Wecht this quickly was designed to make sure he would not have one day of respite from what has become a vindictive prosecution. Everybody in Pittsburgh knows it now."
• " 'Get ready for this again, Doctor Wecht.' That is vindictive, that is mean spirited, and that is against everything United States attorneys in this country are supposed to be about."
• "It's hard to beat people that won't quit. We're not going to quit. Period. They didn't beat us this time. This makes us want to beat them even more the next time."
• "I think a federal judge ought to read the constitution, not cookie recipes. Period."
• "Plying jurors with cookies and stuff like was done in this case. It's just one of the many, many irregularities that accompanied this trial, but sometimes I felt like I was at Sara Lee's Bakery, rather than a federal courtroom."
U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan (written statement):
• "We are committed to eliminating the culture of corruption that prevails when officials at the highest levels abuse the public trust. Allegations of wrongdoing by public officials can be both challenging to investigate and to prove. A deadlocked jury means only that the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the charges presented. The government bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of every count charged."
.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Google Robots Ate My Blog
They didn't eat my blog exactly, but they had it locked in their jaws for the past week and wouldn't let go. They're well-intentioned robots...but they kept me from posting here for a while.
Scene from "Forbidden Planet"Last week, I got a troubling (and at the same time charming) e-mail from Google's Blogger service which hosts this blog:
This is a message from the Blogger team.
Your blog, at http://thebusmansholiday.blogspot.com/, has been identified as a potential spam blog. For an explanation of what spam blogs are, please see Blogger Help: http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=42577
You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog. To request a review, please fill out the form found here: [personalized link]
We will take a look at your blog and unlock it within four business days. Please note that if we do not hear from you within 20 days, we will remove your blog. If this blog does not belong to you, then you do not have to do anything. Any other blogs you may have will not be affected.
Since you are an actual person reading this, your blog is probably not spam. We find spam by using an automated classifier. Automatic spam detection is inherently fuzzy, and occasionally a blog is flagged incorrectly. We sincerely apologize for this erroneous result. By using this kind of system, however, we can dedicate more storage, bandwidth, and engineering resources to users like you instead of to spammers.
Thank you for your understanding and for your help in our spam-fighting efforts.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Imagine, I've been blogging play-by-play of the Wecht trial over at The Pittsburgh Channel for two months, and now -- as the end approached -- I feared I was going to be locked out from my personal blog here. When I tried updating The Busman's Holiday, these are the messages I've been getting...
[Click to enlarge.]... until this evening. Tonight I made an urgent plea for help to some media contacts I tracked down at Google, who were kind enough to expedite my release from robot custody.
So, here I am again.
.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Twists And Turns On Grant Street
Meanwhile, here's the latest on some issues bubbling at the other end of Grant Street.
The Burgh Report's post on this flow chart from the mayor's office has stirred up a flurry of discussion.
The Ravenstahl administration is saying that the chart was an informal illustration of lines of communication within the mayor's office... not lines of authority. It notes, for example, that "there is no permitting department".
Just before noon, the mayor's office sent this update to council.
From: Stettner, Melissa
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:58 AM
To: City Clerk's Office; City Council
Cc: Gibson, Debra; Victor, Art
Subject: Mayor's Office Org Chart
Dear President and Members,
Attached is an updated organizational chart of the Mayor's office for
your information. I will also be delivering hard copies to Council's
front desk. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Missy
Melissa M. Stettner
Senior Administrator
to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
Here's the attachment. I'm sure there's more to come on this. The Burgher just called to my attention that the chart shows the law department under the Mayor's chief of staff Yarone Zober.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Wecht Trial -- A Sampler
Today is Day 13 of the Wecht Trial and while I've been blogging about the details from courtroom, I've also been writing about it here in my personal blog in the months leading up to it. They provide an interesting look into the thinking behind the questions that prosecution and defense attorneys are asking in the courtroom.
Here's a sampling of those posts. If you click on the pictures below, they'll take you to the individual entries.
Meanwhile, there are some interesting developments at the other end of Grant Street. Pittsburgh Comet Citizen journalist Bram Reichhbaum did some liveblogging himself from City Council chamber on the digital billboard controversy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
