1) election interferene is a class c felony. the judge by movnig the certiiffcation of vote back is commiting a clas c felony. we argue by his timing , and the timing of his attorneys. mr. kowalke as well as ms fletcher and mr davis. have commited a class c felony. election inteference. we believe that their only recourse would be to correct this. as they may not be aware of the alaska statue. and revert to the cert of vote happening consecutive after vote. consistent with other districts. and that their civil suit can carry on indpendently. we note hte judge pressure the div of elections to do this, where they previously answered him it was not the correct thing to do. we note that pressuring and intimidating election officials thru a suit and court is illegal. under the same statue. as well as encouraging thru suggesting rank choice voting will fix this delay issue with eastman eligibility …encouraging people tomark someone else on the ballot. even as second choice. is violation of law. under law they are reasonablly expectedto only choose one person eastman. and no ruling by judge can order voters to mark someone else a) and b ) votersin the district of are all stripesand may be unaware of this civil trialand the issue and may only mark eastman.
2) 5 muslims hijack a plane. that does not mean by default all muslims are bad people, or that muslims cannot hold office in america, or that a muslim candidate in alaska would be barred from holding office. just because an extreme faction, of muslims advocate for violence etc or are or were violent.
3) betty davis. african american rep from alaska. if she went to a BLM protest in portland oregon, and a faction of protestors began to riot, burn buildings, smash cop car. that does not implicate her as an individual. she did not physically do the actions. BLM advocates for abolishing the police. and sometimes is linked to the more extreme antifa… which also advocates for this. as well as “atuonomous zones” which is effectively one adn the same as “over throwing the government’. betty davis by donating to blm, and attending a BLM event. might just believe that police violence and discrimination need to stop. you cant implicate her as being someone who wants to over throw the government by that loose association. same with mr eastman and oath keepers
4) citing the above #3 …. we have to examine the case of mr forest dunbar from anchorage alaska. who is also a legislative candidate. in this election.
to rep a anchorage district. i believe i saw him at a anchorage BLM event. and or photos of him there. is he disqualified as well ? if the judge rules on mr eastman? should he also have the certification of the vote by his district pushed back? I believe there would need to. be an impartial indepdent investigation of all candidates by the plaintiff at the plaintiff expense. to prove that the plaintiff and his attorneys are not simply predujiced against mr eastman and that they are not simply committing a class c felony of election inteference. as this court case might prove other candidates and other organizations also might meet the alaska clause. if the court chooses to loosely interpertthesethings as making mr eastman ineligible to hold office. than the court ruling would needto be consistently applied to all other legislative candidates. to not seem political, subjective, and persecutory.
5) there is no reason the plaintiff could not go down to session in juneau. and work with the legislative body. to pass a law that names specific organizations that would not align with the alaska clause. we note that the plaintiff has not made any steps, expect a vexatious lawsuit designed to defame and intidmitade bankrupt a alaska legislator. and tointefere with an election. to
resolve this out of court. we point this out in light of the fact that these extreme riots and protests and social stress is objectively something that was unprecedented in our country. starting after george floyd and covid , and reaching a crescendo with the jan 6th event. we note this because previously it was objectively probably not necessary to name a specific organization, or to better define or intereprt the alaska clause of the constitution. the founding fathers who made that clause did not intend surely for it to be used as the plaintiff attempts to use it.
6) wenote that objectively jan 6th shuold simply have had more security. the travis scott concert in houston had more casualties. that was about a mob of people. and not sufficient security and management. not anything else. same with jan 6th. mob of people, not sufficient security and management. if mr eastman had been at that concert or in area or a fan of travis scott. u cant implicate him as a passive fan etc of music and a concert goer as being at fault for any thing that happened at concert unless he directly related. and or ucant implicate him for any actions by travis scott that are unlawful etc.
7) pattern of mr davis and his firm, that includes ms fletcher. targeting conservative alaska politicains
with th eir vexatious and political lawsuits. ms reinbold was sued for blocking someone on facebook. but ms fletcher, whom herself is on the fairbanks assembly. has beenfound to be blocking and or hiding anddeleting comments from her public facebook page. this is objectively double speak. this is disgraceful and an embarrasment to both legal community and state of alaska.
8) ms fletcher works from a business. law firm. northern justice project with a sole bricks and mortar location. in anchorage alaska. but is on the fairbanks assembly . this is a conflict of interest. peopleon fairbanks assembly should be employed infairbanks. wenote this because its worth reviewing the fact she herself is a liberal politican. has been in alaska very briefly. has no real ties to the state. and we find it questionable that such a person should be interperting the alaska constitution and or suing he division of alsaka elections. its not aligned with alaska values. alaska value would be to workwithpeople,go to juneau. get a law passed. its unethical and. immoral to reward ms fletcher and mr davis. by pandering to their frivioulous and persectory lawsuits. we need a higher standard for attorneys in this state. and as an attorney witha firm in anchorage. she simply should not be on the
fairbanks assembly. its an embarrasment to fairbanks and alaska to have a stanford girl wiha plane ticket in her back pocket and no mud on her boots. get into office. than turnaround and sue the division of alaska elections and try to be a media star. at their expense.noting they are hard working people who are selflessly dedicated to the state and are like infrastructure we all rely on.
9) confilcts of interst withthe judge past employer law firm,being involved in lawsuit representing other party than mr eastman. judge thus shouldnt be presiding over this . as its clear he is not objective on many levels for many reasons. we note “3AN-18-10987CI “ civil disbursement to birch horton and cherot.
10)underlining the effects on the district. and how div of alaska elections and the judge are not legally permitted or authorized by any law to delay certification. and that it is a crime to do that under alaska law .
11)this all leads us to ask… is this truly about the clause in the ak constitution … and about extremist groups. and trying to remove connections from alaska leigslatures to extremist grouips… or is it just political persecution of mr eastman as an indivdiual. because hes a conservative. etc. why are not other individuals or
other groups named. where objectively its seems there would be merit. if operating witha consistent metric and policy. to name others.
12)the oath keepers by liberal media is liberally referred to as a “miltia” tho objectively it looks like most people were sold on memberships because they wanted to preserve 2nd amendemnt rights. aka owning guns. no evidence of mr eastman involved in any militia activites presented. alaska is a strong 2nd amendment state. these values clearly align with the state and mr eastman district. and plenty of 2nd amendment organizations have deep memberships in alaska. mr rhodes who was the oath keeper leader didnt physically go into the capital building on jan 6th. hes good at advertising was smart in building his organization by using a pyramid type scheme. this doesnt implicate every joe shchmoe like eastman who wants to keep his guns and made a nominal donation to the organization as being a person whom stormed the capital. we cant just persecute conservatives. thats unlawful.
13)for instance as compartive example im a nike member. because i like michcael jordan and want 20 % off on shoes. and am a runner. that doesnt make me liable thru membership for what nike
does over seas. or what happens at some store in america.
14)theres is abuse at boy scouts and at churchs. that doesnt meanall people who go to those churches and all people who are involved in boy scout are bad. that logic is flawed. even if the pastor at a church where they donate money did something or said something bad. when they were at church they were not supporting those actions. they were attempting tobuild community around the values that the church mission had stated.
15)another example is crossift is an organizaion under an affiliate structure. they grew their membership rapidly as entrpreneurs. they did a good job with marketing like mr rhodes. mr greg glassman is not unlike mr rhodes. he has a big base of people. that are connected to him. that have never met him. he himself is not the most fit individual. having suffered a prior injury. mr rhodes also suffered a prior injury. its a very good comparative example. because mr glassman, with the current events. unprecedented of george floyd and covid etc. made some public remarks that were very controversial. and ended up moving on from the organization. my point tho is. that mr glassman and mr rhodes were not elected figures
by votes. the people connected to them were interested in the values they espoused … fitness, health… or 2nd amendment rights etc… respectively.. but these leaders words that were controversial, their free speech as indidviduals…. were not necessarily aligned with the values or beliefs of the majority that were connected to them thru the organizations that they built. in other words a whole lot of people in crossfit took issue with mr glassman saying “george floyd 19”.. and im sure many oath keepers dont believe in rioting in a protest. infact i believe the opposite. and the intention of them is to aid LEo in establishing order with a protest where enough security was not present. trying to twist it around to make it seem something else. like that everyone believes whatever rhodes says. and if he does something bad or says something bad. everyone however tenousouly connected to oath keepers is somehow implicated. is objectively not just far fetched its just false. neither of these leaders were voted in. they are not elected. their words cannot be assumed to be speakin for the majority. its only the mission statement of org when they signed up. that they canbe legally argued to be agreeing with. Judge and plaintiff shouldnt be persecuting eastman for believieng in
2nd amenmdent andgiving an organization a few dollars.
trying to defame the divisionof alaska elections, and trying todefame an persecute an alaskan lawmaker. whom spent a portion of his life in service. and who has been cooperative and reasonable with both the court etc and the plaintiff. doesnt seem to be a respectful way of proceeding on behalf of the plaintiff and the plaintiff attorneys.
the plaintiff mr kowalke has peviously attempted to recall the govenor mike dunleavey. and in that situation a judge had to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. with the conflicts of interest that are present here. we feel it necessary and reasonable to suggest that the judge jack mckenna recuse himslef from this case.
that not suggesting that jack mckenna is not a good person, or judge. we are simply stating that a conflict of interest exists. as his past employer law firm was on the otherside of a previous case or involved in a civil disbursement . with mr eastman. and that connection, combined with the recent
ruling. esp. in light of the impact the recent ruling has on voter process . etc.
we also point out that judge mckenna is and was , likely. not aware of this suit before it was filed. and like the defense doesnt have tons of preparation. and is also acting in a pressured envieronment on short notice to make decisions. and he did ask the div of elections a question. they cited the alaska consitution statues. not the alaska election interference statue. tho. when he pressured them and asked them a second question… and the alaska election inteference statue is the one getting violeate here by thejudges order andhte plaintiffs lawsuit. thus uponbringing this to the attention of the judge. we feel there is not excuse to not rreverse the order. and allow thedistrict vote certfifactionto happen ina way consistent to all other districts. and also no reason not to recuse himself. in the interest of justice and integrity of process.
class c felony to move certification of vote, to encourage voters to mark someone other than eastman, (even if its just a second choice) to order election officials to do their duties in a way that is inconsistent based on district or politics or
speculative outcome of civil case or not how they are charged to peform them. election inteference to pressure eleciton officials to change process without the process change first going to a ballot and a vote.
we argue that the suit, as well as the ruling. is destructive. in terms of energy. intent and effec. vs being constructive fair and balanced and trying to build a better alaska. that would be going to lawmakers trying to get something passd in law that clarifies any specific groups that would violate that clause of constitution. and what metric policy used to designate these groups. currently nothing exists along those lines. or making a ruling that is not disadvanaging and disenfranchising a district
we need to build alaska up. for a just and sustainable future. not tear it down with petty lawsuits and rulings we would argue.
in closing we argue that this situation. and its effects to the district is like a hotel. in a dispute with aconstruction company. (like dispute between plaintiff and defendents here) but the people in the
hotel (people in district) have a contract with the hotel to have a election process consistent with the other districts.
their contract withdivision of elecions for a fair and reasonable and consistent process to the other districts. needs to be upheld.
sept28 2022 john t hessert