I've been spending time looking at the FBI webpages while working on another post. This is a copy of their page. The link takes you to the FBI code page with working links.
The page on ciphers is pretty interesting.
Showing posts with label FBI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FBI. Show all posts
Monday, December 29, 2008
Can You Crack the FBI's Code?
[UPDATE March 30, 2011: The FBI has coded notes posted today that were in the pocket of a 1999 murder victim and is asking the public for help decoding them.]
I've been spending time looking at the FBI webpages while working on another post. This is a copy of their page. The link takes you to the FBI code page with working links.
The page on ciphers is pretty interesting.
I've been spending time looking at the FBI webpages while working on another post. This is a copy of their page. The link takes you to the FBI code page with working links.
The page on ciphers is pretty interesting.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
FBI Whistle-Blower Document Copy
The ADN was very responsive and quickly added the link to the actual Whistle-Blower document after being notified it wasn't up. Here is that document. You can use the down arrow on the right of the tool bar to enlarge the document.
256-2 Whistle Blower Complaint.source.prod Affiliate.7
I'm just putting this up for now without comment, because I haven't had a chance to read it and think about it. I'll either add an update here or I'll do another post.
256-2 Whistle Blower Complaint.source.prod Affiliate.7
Publish at Scribd or explore others:
I'm just putting this up for now without comment, because I haven't had a chance to read it and think about it. I'll either add an update here or I'll do another post.
Political Oxygen and are the FBI Losing Oxygen?
On the show Law and Disorder this morning, Paul Buhle, talking about the current political times, said:
But it looks like the Bush administration's violations have been so outrageous, and the political, social, and economic consequences so extreme, that people are beginning to stand up and say, "No more."
I like the phrase "political oxygen." (But I hope that its use is limited, that it doesn't become a cliche used by everyone until it has no meaning anymore.) I take it to mean that the people who make up this democracy are waking up from their political oxygen deprivation and now will become politically active to demand accountability from their elected officials and the public administrators who carry out the functions of government. But it is clear, we're talking about political oxygen for the left now. This means not simply rooting out the relatively few problems, but also giving support to the honest, competent politicians and administrators who often get trashed or marginalized when they speak truth to power.
This theme of holding politicians accountable was discussed on this morning's Law and Disorder too. The show was aired in Anchorage on KWMD - 104.5 or 87.7 FM. They discussed the necessity of , as well as the obstacles to, prosecuting members of the Bush administration who committed crimes. Without holding the current administration accountable, they argue, there is no deterrent to prevent future administrations from pursuing similar paths. The likelihood that Bush will sign broad pardons to protect both the low level and high level criminals in his administration was a key concern however.
Related to all this, but in ways I haven't digested yet are ADN's lead story today by Richard Mauer about the FBI informant's report alleging misconduct in the FBI investigation on Alaska corruption, particularly as it affected the Ted Stevens trial. I'll try to discuss this when I've read the report, or at least those parts that aren't redacted. The ADN website has a link labeled Court Whistle-Blower Document. I thought it would be the whistle-blower's actual document, but it links to Judge Sullivan's decision to release the document.
My initial reaction is that the rules for dealing with undercover informants is pretty loosey-goosey. Last December I mused on the ethics and rules of surveillance and touched the topic of working with undercover informants who are also players in the criminal activity. If you watch any tv cop shows - I think The Wire is probably one of the best for this - the cops have to play a lot by ear. They have to gain the trust of the informant, they have to be careful not to inadvertently out' the informant, and they have to make sure the informant isn't gaming them. So to claim that the agents broke the 'rules' as this whistle-blower apparently does, well, I'd have to ask, "What are the rules?" Perhaps they're in the document.
"We have entered a new era, the nation has acquired more political oxygen than it has in a long time."I recently talked about how "out-there radicals" stretch the political agenda in my post on Milk. There's been "political oxygen" for the Right since the Reagan election. And since that time 'center' has moved steadily rightward, so much so that many of Richard Nixon's policies would be considered far left today, and they've been doing their best to repeal them - Affirmative Action, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, for instance.
But it looks like the Bush administration's violations have been so outrageous, and the political, social, and economic consequences so extreme, that people are beginning to stand up and say, "No more."
I like the phrase "political oxygen." (But I hope that its use is limited, that it doesn't become a cliche used by everyone until it has no meaning anymore.) I take it to mean that the people who make up this democracy are waking up from their political oxygen deprivation and now will become politically active to demand accountability from their elected officials and the public administrators who carry out the functions of government. But it is clear, we're talking about political oxygen for the left now. This means not simply rooting out the relatively few problems, but also giving support to the honest, competent politicians and administrators who often get trashed or marginalized when they speak truth to power.
This theme of holding politicians accountable was discussed on this morning's Law and Disorder too. The show was aired in Anchorage on KWMD - 104.5 or 87.7 FM. They discussed the necessity of , as well as the obstacles to, prosecuting members of the Bush administration who committed crimes. Without holding the current administration accountable, they argue, there is no deterrent to prevent future administrations from pursuing similar paths. The likelihood that Bush will sign broad pardons to protect both the low level and high level criminals in his administration was a key concern however.
Related to all this, but in ways I haven't digested yet are ADN's lead story today by Richard Mauer about the FBI informant's report alleging misconduct in the FBI investigation on Alaska corruption, particularly as it affected the Ted Stevens trial. I'll try to discuss this when I've read the report, or at least those parts that aren't redacted. The ADN website has a link labeled Court Whistle-Blower Document. I thought it would be the whistle-blower's actual document, but it links to Judge Sullivan's decision to release the document.
My initial reaction is that the rules for dealing with undercover informants is pretty loosey-goosey. Last December I mused on the ethics and rules of surveillance and touched the topic of working with undercover informants who are also players in the criminal activity. If you watch any tv cop shows - I think The Wire is probably one of the best for this - the cops have to play a lot by ear. They have to gain the trust of the informant, they have to be careful not to inadvertently out' the informant, and they have to make sure the informant isn't gaming them. So to claim that the agents broke the 'rules' as this whistle-blower apparently does, well, I'd have to ask, "What are the rules?" Perhaps they're in the document.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Alaska Democratic Convention - Leftovers
I've mentioned that the Alaska bloggers and media have been very helpful and cooperative of one another. While I think that covering how the media cover stories is important, sometimes I wonder if this doesn't get a little incestuous. I just want to raise this point now and maybe when I've been able to sift through my thoughts on this I'll do a longer post on it.
Meanwhile, here are some leftovers from yesterday at the convention - filling in some details, and odds and ends. First, the delegates:
The Democratic Party Website explains how many delegates there will be and how they were to be
selected. I should have read that before I went to the convention yesterday. Things would have made more sense.
Here's a peek at the list of candidates the Obama delegates had to vote from.
Alaska Report has a list of the people who were selected as delegates and the Barack Obama video address to the convention yesterday.
Representative Gruenberg explained to me the precise purpose of the legislative special session starting June 3.
I got to meet Celtic (pronounced Keltic) Diva, who is the blogger chosen to be the official Alaska blogger at the Democratic National Convention in August. I should have recognized her without someone having to tell me - she's hiding in plain sight on the header picture picture on her blog. Her coverage of this weekend's convention will probably be the most insightful, she's left it to the rest of us to post while driving, so to speak. She's putting her notes in the garage for a few days to figure out what happened and how to write about it.
[Later: I also met Matt Browner Hamlin who was introduced as the blogger honcho who is here to run Mark Begich's campaign website. He seemed decent enough in our short hat. He has posted his observations of the convention on Daily Kos and the Mark Begich blog.]
Like a rare bird among birders, Mary Beth Kepner's appearance attracted a lot of attention among the bloggers and reporters (Alaskareport, ADN, Progressive Alaska, who covered the political corruption trials last year. Kepner is the FBI agent who initiated and ran the whole investigation into Alaska's political corruption. She sat next to the prosecution throughout the trials, but inside security at the courtroom, no cameras were allowed. (Computers and cellphones were allowed for the
Kott and Kohring trials for attorneys and members of the press and no one that I know of violated the no camera rule by using their cell phone or computer to take pictures inside security.) And Kepner must have taken back ways through the building back to her office since I never saw a picture of her. So, everyone had their cameras out for this rare sighting. As everyone else has reported, she said she's an independent and was only at the convention to hear John Dean speak. This wikipedia excerpt shows why an FBI agent might be interested in seeing Dean.
And Kepner breaks all one's stereotypes about FBI agents. So, will seeing her picture and hearing us report she's a real person, change people's stereotypes about what women can do or about the FBI? Just a little? Or just convince you that bloggers are overly gullible?
Meanwhile, here are some leftovers from yesterday at the convention - filling in some details, and odds and ends. First, the delegates:
The Democratic Party Website explains how many delegates there will be and how they were to be
selected. I should have read that before I went to the convention yesterday. Things would have made more sense.Here's a peek at the list of candidates the Obama delegates had to vote from.
Alaska Report has a list of the people who were selected as delegates and the Barack Obama video address to the convention yesterday.
Representative Gruenberg explained to me the precise purpose of the legislative special session starting June 3.
I got to meet Celtic (pronounced Keltic) Diva, who is the blogger chosen to be the official Alaska blogger at the Democratic National Convention in August. I should have recognized her without someone having to tell me - she's hiding in plain sight on the header picture picture on her blog. Her coverage of this weekend's convention will probably be the most insightful, she's left it to the rest of us to post while driving, so to speak. She's putting her notes in the garage for a few days to figure out what happened and how to write about it.
[Later: I also met Matt Browner Hamlin who was introduced as the blogger honcho who is here to run Mark Begich's campaign website. He seemed decent enough in our short hat. He has posted his observations of the convention on Daily Kos and the Mark Begich blog.]
Like a rare bird among birders, Mary Beth Kepner's appearance attracted a lot of attention among the bloggers and reporters (Alaskareport, ADN, Progressive Alaska, who covered the political corruption trials last year. Kepner is the FBI agent who initiated and ran the whole investigation into Alaska's political corruption. She sat next to the prosecution throughout the trials, but inside security at the courtroom, no cameras were allowed. (Computers and cellphones were allowed for the
Kott and Kohring trials for attorneys and members of the press and no one that I know of violated the no camera rule by using their cell phone or computer to take pictures inside security.) And Kepner must have taken back ways through the building back to her office since I never saw a picture of her. So, everyone had their cameras out for this rare sighting. As everyone else has reported, she said she's an independent and was only at the convention to hear John Dean speak. This wikipedia excerpt shows why an FBI agent might be interested in seeing Dean.As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[1] He was convicted of multiple felonies as a result of Watergate, and went on to become a key witness for the prosecution, resulting in a reduction of his time in jail.For the record, he said last night that he knew nothing before the burglary and that he had thwarted another Liddy plan to firebomb the Brookings Institute. If I recall right, this was when he was signing books, not in the speech, but it's all kind of a blur.
And Kepner breaks all one's stereotypes about FBI agents. So, will seeing her picture and hearing us report she's a real person, change people's stereotypes about what women can do or about the FBI? Just a little? Or just convince you that bloggers are overly gullible?
Monday, March 03, 2008
Plea By Jim Clark, Frank Murkowski Chief of Staff, Means He's Helping Feds
Chiang Mai Time: March 4, 2008 1:50pm
Reading this ADN headline from Chiang Mai means everyone else knows a lot more about what's going on than I do.
The charge to which he pleaded guilty, is relatively minor in the big scheme of things - charging $68,000 in political polls by Dave Dittman to Veco - but is bigger money than any of the three already convicted legislators saw.
Specifically, from the ADN link to the plea agreement, here's what he pleaded guilty to:
[NOTE: Double Click on the Images to Englarge Them]
For this, according to the documents, he's facing:
These are recommended sentences from the prosecutors. Nothing binds the judge, and all this is dependent on how well Clark cooperates, meaning how well he shares what he knows, testifies as a government witness in court, etc. The recommendation is for a three level downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. So far Judge Sedwick, in the one case of a cooperating witness in this series of cases - Bill Bobrick - has followed the recommendations of prosecutors.
From the ADN link to the Factual Basis for the Plea are more details:
More important, is that Jim Clark must have worked out a deal, meaning that he's been telling the FBI and Federal Prosecutors what he knows about the Murkowski administration. This could get interesting.
Thanks to the ADN for posting the court documents on their website.
Reading this ADN headline from Chiang Mai means everyone else knows a lot more about what's going on than I do.
Former Murkowski chief of staff pleads guilty to corruption
The charge to which he pleaded guilty, is relatively minor in the big scheme of things - charging $68,000 in political polls by Dave Dittman to Veco - but is bigger money than any of the three already convicted legislators saw.
Specifically, from the ADN link to the plea agreement, here's what he pleaded guilty to:
[NOTE: Double Click on the Images to Englarge Them]
These are recommended sentences from the prosecutors. Nothing binds the judge, and all this is dependent on how well Clark cooperates, meaning how well he shares what he knows, testifies as a government witness in court, etc. The recommendation is for a three level downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. So far Judge Sedwick, in the one case of a cooperating witness in this series of cases - Bill Bobrick - has followed the recommendations of prosecutors.From the ADN link to the Factual Basis for the Plea are more details:
More important, is that Jim Clark must have worked out a deal, meaning that he's been telling the FBI and Federal Prosecutors what he knows about the Murkowski administration. This could get interesting.
Thanks to the ADN for posting the court documents on their website.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Postponing Allen and Smith's Sentencing
[Update Sept. 5, 2010: Someone pointed out that these links are dead. This one seems to have both pieces still up.]
From The Anchorage Press website today:
An accompanying story by Tony Hopfinger and Amanda Coyne reports that Anchorage Police Department spokesman Lt. Paul Honeman says they were told to call off an investigation of Bill Allen by the FBI so as not to interfere with the FBI's investigation.
The investigation itself was related to the Boehm case where the contractor was convicted of luring runaways into sex parties with crack.
I'm not sure whether there is is any fire here or not. The implication in the article seems to be that Allen was involved in more than the prosecution let on to at the Kott and Kohring trials and their attorneys should have known about it so they could have raised more questions about Allen's credibility as a witness. I'm guessing this story had a tight deadline and that explains why the story itself is not as tight as it could be.
From The Anchorage Press website today:
Here's an excerpt from today's filing in Allen’s case, dated Jan. 31, 2008:
"As the court is aware, Mr. Allen has been cooperating with the government in its investigation and he continues to do so. The investigation is exceedingly complex due to a variety of issues and is ongoing. Given the substantial amount of work that remains to be done in the government's investigation, the government requests that sentencing continue to be postponed in order to give the defendant time to fully realize the benefit of his cooperation."
An accompanying story by Tony Hopfinger and Amanda Coyne reports that Anchorage Police Department spokesman Lt. Paul Honeman says they were told to call off an investigation of Bill Allen by the FBI so as not to interfere with the FBI's investigation.
"The feds said that if you go down that road, you'll compromise our investigation," Honeman said. "They said they were working an ongoing case that they couldn't tell us about."That sounds suspiciously like the kinds of denials Congress has been hearing from the Bush administration people. No one says it didn't actually happen, just that they don't recall it. How can something like telling the the APD to stop an investigation be something they 'don't recall?" The FBI and the prosecutors at the various trials last year seemed to remember every detail and now they can't recall?
But that conflicts with statements from the FBI. Eric Gonzales, an FBI spokesman in Anchorage, said he has heard rumors about the police investigation, but his agency knows nothing about it. "I've spoken to people here and nobody recalls us telling the police to drop an investigation," he said.
The investigation itself was related to the Boehm case where the contractor was convicted of luring runaways into sex parties with crack.
I'm not sure whether there is is any fire here or not. The implication in the article seems to be that Allen was involved in more than the prosecution let on to at the Kott and Kohring trials and their attorneys should have known about it so they could have raised more questions about Allen's credibility as a witness. I'm guessing this story had a tight deadline and that explains why the story itself is not as tight as it could be.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Frank Prewitt's Book Deal - Bridges to Nowhere
[Update: September 13, 2008. The book is out and I've reviewed it here.]
Someone tipped me off to this, but I forgot to ask permission to use a name. I'll add it later if it's ok.
Makes Prewitt sound like this great public servant doing all this work for the FBI as a great citizen protecting the public interest. It doesn't mention they came to him because of his shady reputation and that there was some sort of plea agreement involved. Doesn't mention the: [from my second post on these trials this summer]
Nor does it mention that he asked to be paid for all the work he was doing for the FBI, but they turned him down. Was getting to write a book in lieu of pay?
[Source: PublishersMarketplace]
Someone tipped me off to this, but I forgot to ask permission to use a name. I'll add it later if it's ok.
Makes Prewitt sound like this great public servant doing all this work for the FBI as a great citizen protecting the public interest. It doesn't mention they came to him because of his shady reputation and that there was some sort of plea agreement involved. Doesn't mention the: [from my second post on these trials this summer]
$30,000 loan Prewitt, while Commissioner of Corrections, got from Allvest another firm that subcontracted with the Department of Corrections (I think that's what he said.) Prewitt said he got the loan and paid it back. Stockler: Is there anything in writing? Isn't it true it was a bribe? No. How did you pay it back? I worked for Allvest for four months - $7500 per month. Did you pay taxes on the $30,000? No, it was a loan. But you say you worked for it. No, I was paying him back. So, all of us could avoid paying income taxes by having our employer loan us our pay before, and then we'd repay it by working and not have to pay taxes?
Nor does it mention that he asked to be paid for all the work he was doing for the FBI, but they turned him down. Was getting to write a book in lieu of pay?
Bridges to Nowhere | | ||||
 | |||||
| | James "Frank" Prewitt | ||||
| |||||
| | Non-fiction: History/Politics/Current Affairs | ||||
| |||||
| | As you are reading this, one of the biggest cases of political corruption in U.S. history is unfolding – reaching from Alaska to the United States Congress in Washington, DC. At issue is the high stakes game of taxing and developing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Midwestern United States – and the spin-off, toxic culture of political waste. BRIDGES TO NOWHERE is written by the confidential source the FBI relied on to help uncover an intricate web of bribery, money laundering and criminal conspiracy – with more indictments of major political figures expected soon. The story begins in 2004, when the author finds himself a “person of interest” to a federal investigation. To clear his name, the author agrees to “cooperate” in exchange for leniency over crimes the federal government knew he didn't commit – but could have, if their theory had been correct. As CS-1 (Confidential Source One), the author teams with FBI Special Agent Kepner to expose a sobering and far-reaching network of political corruption. Wired for light and sound, CS-1 embarks on an incredible journey into the world of undercover surveillance and the corrupting influence of money, corporate power and politics. While the events invite serious reflection about our system of government, the actual conspiracies unfold more like a season of Desperate Housewives Go to Washington…political intrigue and provocative crime in a delicious wrap of irreverence. Senator Ted Stevens (Senate Appropriations Chair, President of Senate Pro Tempore) and Congressman Don Young (Resources and Transportation Chair, and 7th ranking member of the House of Representatives) play a pivotal role in this saga. Young, alone, has spent over $400,000 in attorney fees from his campaign funds preparing for the inevitable shoe of indictment to drop. Early '08 promises a season of indictments and scandal in Washington. BRIDGES TO NOWHERE is based on thousands of hours of interviews with “perps” and “persons of interest”, off and on-the-record conversations with agents and attorneys of the Department of Justice, confidential records, transcripts of secret recordings and first hand accounts. Incredibly, every person, every event, every dialogue is real. The author, James “Frank” Prewitt has a law degree from Seattle University School of Law. He is a 34 year resident of Alaska, and has served as the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Corrections, adjunct professor of Justice at the University of Alaska, Director of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute and an Alaska Assistant Attorney General. He currently has a Government Affairs consulting practice. In addition to working undercover investigations as a Confidential Source, Prewitt provided indispensable strategic consultation to the U.S. Department of Justice on the behind-the-scenes world of contemporary politics and the legislative process. | ||||
| |||||
| | All | ||||
| |||||
| Diane Nine Nine Speakers, Inc. ninespeakers@usa.net phone: 202-328-6861 | ||||
| |||||
| 5094 | |||||
| |||||
[Source: PublishersMarketplace]
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Ethics and Rules of Surveillance
I started this post almost a month ago, but it didn’t feel right, so I’ve left it simmering. I picked it up about two weeks ago. I think I’ve finally got a way to talk about this, and why this undercover stuff feels wrong, but seems logically justified.
Private Life Values in Conflict with Public Life Values
When human society began changing from premodern to modern (as social scientists label these things,) we changed from societies in which family loyalty, group loyalty, fealty were the most important measure of a person. The modern world - the world in which scientific rationality replaced traditional authority - made merit the main measure of a person, and logic and rationality the path to truth and justice.
The point is that today we live in world with two major systems of rules. (Yes I know there are more than two, but for this situation, bear with me and accept two.) In our private lives, loyalty to family (and close friends and associates) is one of the most important standards. We accept parents standing up for their children even when the children did something terrible. We think that is normal and natural. In our public lives, rationality and merit are supposed to be the standard. The United States is a country based on the rule of law, not the rule of men. Everyone is supposed to be equal before the law.
But we can’t shut down our private value system when we go to work everyday. We make friendships with people at work and our relationships with them are both professional and personal. So these two value systems overlap in our lives. We have laws against nepotism because we recognize that it would be hard to use objective, rule of law, standards when a family member is involved. We have conflict of interest laws and require people recuse themselves when these two systems overlap.
As much as we like to believe in this separation, except for androids like Data, the separation doesn’t really exist. For most people when emotion and reason are in conflict, emotion wins. Professors Jules Lobel and George Loewenstein write,
Where’s all this headed? Patience, I’m almost there. In our public world, we talk nobly about obeying the law, but in our private world we may go over the speed limit, we may pad our charitable contributions in our tax returns, and we may give preferential treatment to good friends when we deal with them professionally. We live with an inherent conflict between the rule of law and the rule of me and my friends.
I think this is hardwired into most of us. We learn about this early on. Telling the teacher about another student who broke a rule, makes us a tattletale. We have lots of other negative terms for being disloyal to the group. Should you ‘rat’ on your friend who cheats on his exam? College honor codes place students in a moral dilemma. Should you ‘betray’ your friend? Blowing the whistle is the positive term for someone who ‘squeals’ on his organization when it hides its illegal actions. A study for the International Association of Chiefs of Police found that
I wonder what the response would be for FBI agents.
So when the FBI and the federal prosecutors offer (bribe) witnesses a chance to reduce their sentences if they do undercover work, if they rat on their partners, there is an inherent conflict of the personal and public systems of ethics. The part that I think has bothered me, but I haven’t been able to articulate until now, is that in the court of law, the private value system of loyalty is treated as if it didn’t exist. Only the rule of law matters. Yes, the legal code of the United States as an extension of the US Constitution is the backbone of our democracy. The Constitution is like a legal contract that the people of the United States agree to live by and it is the legal blueprint
For most people I've ever met "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" includes the bonds of loyalty of family and friends. So, yes, the rule of law is important, but the value of loyalty is probably a more basic human characteristic. It is the reason we need the laws. And so when in court, the rule of law is the only important value, and humans are pressured into violating their loyalty to close friends with no acknowledgment that this is also an important value, we naturally feel uncomfortable, even violated and betrayed.
Use of Undercover agents
There's no question that in the Alaska political corruption trials of 2007 the surveillance tapes made all the difference with the juries and the public.
The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Work
There are powerful arguments FOR doing the undercover work but also troubling arguments against.
Reasons For Undercover Surveillance:
Reasons Against Undercover Surveillance
Tentative Conclusion includuing the need for better oversight
Just because some people drive badly when drunk, others shoot people with guns, and still others do a lousy job teaching third grade, doesn’t mean we should ban alcohol, guns, and third grade teachers. FBI surveillance can be abused too. Because some people do these things badly doesn't mean the activity itself is bad. Some things are more prone to abuse than others and thus we have restrictions, special oversight, and other measures to prevent abuse. Yet, FBI (and other) surveillance, by necessity is done in the shadows. Abuse is harder to discover. Therefore, I think it is necessary to design better oversight processes including more representive parties involved. Yes, I understand, the more who know, the harder to protect the investigation. But if they can trust the criminals who wear the wires, they can trust carefully, but representatively chosen monitors of the process.
Power
One other observation. At the trials, I was alarmed by the power of the US Government - represented by the FBI and the US Department of Justice - and the potential to abuse that power. The FBI and DOJ (Department of Justice) generally had, in court, close to a ten to one advantage over the number of defense people. When Kott’s attorney insisted that each tape introduced as evidence be verified by the agent who monitored it, the government had the budget to bring about 18 agents into court - most from outside Alaska. This doesn't count the thousands of hours of spent on the investigations and trial preparation. While the DOJ may complain about limited funding, their campaign chest is much bigger than any of the defendant's, and probably than all of them rolled together - including the $500,000 each that Allen and Smith got for legal defense as part of the sale of VECO.
I was alive when J. Edgar Hoover was the head of the FBI and used it as his own private investigation unit:
While everything I saw in court suggested a high level of integrity and professionalism on the part of the FBI and the DOJ, I have no idea of what went on outside of court. And if the Code of Silence cited above for police is part of the culture of the FBI, it would be hard to know when something did happen.
At this point, I don't have any strong recommendations one way or the other, but I wanted to record my observations based on the trials before I forget this all.
The Rules of Surveillance
Finally, a fair amount came out at the trials about the steps the FBI must go through before, during, and after the wiretaps and the use of the surveillance video recordings. Below are my notes from October 23, 2007 when Prosecutor Joe Bottini was interrogating FBI special agent Steve J. Dunphy, from Cincinnati Ohio about what it takes to get orders for a wire tap or video surveillance and then restrictions they have when taping. These are spell-checked notes that might be considered merely a sketch of what was all said. It gives you the basic outline, but some of the detail is lost.
First they have to get an application, then an order from a judge.
Bottini: All this in secret?
Dunphy: yes,
Bottini: purpose?
Dunphy: if it became known we were listening in it wouldn’t be fruitful
Bottini: Do phone company factor in this?
Dunphy: Yes, they are served with order and they would assist in getting it technically set up.
Bottini: Order cut to the phone company?
Dunphy: Redacted order
Bottini: Ordered not to disclose?
Dunphy: yeah
Bottini: How actually recorded?
Dunphy: When I started reel to reel. Now digitally onto portable hard drive then to other media, cd.
Bottini: Perfect or tech flaws?
Dunphy: You can bet on it [technical flaws]
Bottini: You have served as a monitor. Someone has to actually be listening real time?
Dunphy: yes/
Bottini: Purpose?
Dunphy: If only can record pertinent information, not about going back and listening.
Bottini: Required for minimization?
Dunphy: yes. if conversation not pertinent, personal, not related. the monitor will stop recording and stop listening. Back in a minute or whatever is reasonable to see if it changed.
Bottini: Is there a general rule of thumb on what you described? about how long go down ?
Dunphy: Generally told to go down a minute , but you learn what is appropriate as you go along. A learning curve as you learn the voices of the people. Minimization becomes more efficient as time goes on.
Bottini: Other kinds you can’t listen to?
Dunphy: Privileged, A lawyer. Those would be minimized right away and not turned on. Spouse, priest. Attorney client is the big one.
Bottini: If you are the monitor, is there a process to familiarize your self?
Dunphy: Have to read the affidavit with the case, meeting with one of the Asst US attorneys to brief on the case and minimization requirements
Bottini: Does monitor sit and take notes while calls intercepted?
Dunphy: Yes, record times, parties speaking, brief synopsis..
Bottini: Today’s tech also record date and time? [I think this means the tech for the recordings to be listened to in court that day.]
Dunphy: yes
Bottini: End of 30 day period what happens to original recordings intercepted. Dunphy: Original sealed and given to the court.
Bottini: Other types of electronic surveillance. You know about bug?
Dunphy: Yes, open type mic in a room.
Bottini: Video too?
Dunphy: yes.
Bottini: Authorization the same for intercepting phone conversation?
Dunphy: Yes, application process the same,
Bottini: application to court with affidavit. probably cause, all that?
When sought, G also has to request authorization to install?
Dunphy: Yes, sometimes to get mic into location, need to surreptitiously enter, then have to apply for that authority too.
Bottini: Same process with bug same as with phone, real time monitors?
Dunphy: Yes
Bottini: Same minimization with bug? Dunphy: yes
Same with privileged conversations? Dunphy: yes
Bottini: [Ever?] Just record it all and look later?
Dunphy: No, listen, if not pertinent stop it and on and on we go.
Bottini: Telephone intercept, Monitors real time take notes. Same with bugged monitor?
Dunphy: Yes, A little more because listening and watching, a little more awkward.
Bottini: Interception orders good for 30 days. Possible might not go the whole 30-days?
Dunphy: yes. Bottini: Examples?
Dunphy: Not getting any worthwhile activity, might change phone number, or something happens where you have to take down case, life in jeopardy.
Bottini: Were you asked to come to Alaska to assist?
Dunphy: Yes, March 2006.
Bottini: Specifically asked to do?
Dunphy: Monitor bug in hotel room in Juneau
Suite 604 in Baranof? Yes
Bottini: When installed? Dunphy: Jan
Bottini: Did you familiarize yourself with investigation. Dunphy: Yes, best I could
What did you do? REad the affidavit, with the agents monitoring before us, the agent, etc.
Aware or made aware that wire taps had been authorized? yes
What did you know? Yes Cell phone in SEpt for RS, couple months later November on BA’s cell, home phone.
While served as monitor, what is your day like?
…..
Two months, over time familiar with voices of people in suite.
BA? yes
RS? He lived here, so, obviously
VK? one time - March 30, 2006.
VK here today? Yes he is seated there in the red tie.
Original portable hard drive recorded to is sealed.
But recorded video and audio. yes. when we thought activity ceased, dubbed from hard drive to dvd, and could make multiple dvd’s from that. original sealed.
While monitoring bug, are you able to see and hear what is going on? Yes, within the camera view of the camera.
Private Life Values in Conflict with Public Life Values
When human society began changing from premodern to modern (as social scientists label these things,) we changed from societies in which family loyalty, group loyalty, fealty were the most important measure of a person. The modern world - the world in which scientific rationality replaced traditional authority - made merit the main measure of a person, and logic and rationality the path to truth and justice.
The point is that today we live in world with two major systems of rules. (Yes I know there are more than two, but for this situation, bear with me and accept two.) In our private lives, loyalty to family (and close friends and associates) is one of the most important standards. We accept parents standing up for their children even when the children did something terrible. We think that is normal and natural. In our public lives, rationality and merit are supposed to be the standard. The United States is a country based on the rule of law, not the rule of men. Everyone is supposed to be equal before the law.
But we can’t shut down our private value system when we go to work everyday. We make friendships with people at work and our relationships with them are both professional and personal. So these two value systems overlap in our lives. We have laws against nepotism because we recognize that it would be hard to use objective, rule of law, standards when a family member is involved. We have conflict of interest laws and require people recuse themselves when these two systems overlap.
As much as we like to believe in this separation, except for androids like Data, the separation doesn’t really exist. For most people when emotion and reason are in conflict, emotion wins. Professors Jules Lobel and George Loewenstein write,
Intense emotions can undermine a person's capacity for rational decision-making, even when the individual is aware of the need to make careful decisions.Rule of Law versus Personal Loyalty
Where’s all this headed? Patience, I’m almost there. In our public world, we talk nobly about obeying the law, but in our private world we may go over the speed limit, we may pad our charitable contributions in our tax returns, and we may give preferential treatment to good friends when we deal with them professionally. We live with an inherent conflict between the rule of law and the rule of me and my friends.
I think this is hardwired into most of us. We learn about this early on. Telling the teacher about another student who broke a rule, makes us a tattletale. We have lots of other negative terms for being disloyal to the group. Should you ‘rat’ on your friend who cheats on his exam? College honor codes place students in a moral dilemma. Should you ‘betray’ your friend? Blowing the whistle is the positive term for someone who ‘squeals’ on his organization when it hides its illegal actions. A study for the International Association of Chiefs of Police found that
· 79% of respondents said that a law enforcement Code of Silence exists and is fairly common throughout the nation.
· 46% said they would not tell on another officer for having sex on duty.
· 23% said they wouldn’t tell on another cop for regularly smoking marijuana off duty.
I wonder what the response would be for FBI agents.
So when the FBI and the federal prosecutors offer (bribe) witnesses a chance to reduce their sentences if they do undercover work, if they rat on their partners, there is an inherent conflict of the personal and public systems of ethics. The part that I think has bothered me, but I haven’t been able to articulate until now, is that in the court of law, the private value system of loyalty is treated as if it didn’t exist. Only the rule of law matters. Yes, the legal code of the United States as an extension of the US Constitution is the backbone of our democracy. The Constitution is like a legal contract that the people of the United States agree to live by and it is the legal blueprint
... to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...But the government that is formed based on the rule of law is merely a means to an end that is addressed more specifically in the Declaration of Independence. There we find that "Governments are instituted among Men" to secure "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
For most people I've ever met "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" includes the bonds of loyalty of family and friends. So, yes, the rule of law is important, but the value of loyalty is probably a more basic human characteristic. It is the reason we need the laws. And so when in court, the rule of law is the only important value, and humans are pressured into violating their loyalty to close friends with no acknowledgment that this is also an important value, we naturally feel uncomfortable, even violated and betrayed.
Use of Undercover agents
There's no question that in the Alaska political corruption trials of 2007 the surveillance tapes made all the difference with the juries and the public.
- Hearing a politician say in his own words he knew what was happening
- Listening to another politician slurring his four letter words and joking about getting a job from the drunk lobbyist
FBI tape of Pete Kott 01 uploaded by
AKRaven - Seeing the money handed over from the lobbyist’s pocket to the politician's, followed by profuse thanks and promises to help in any way (the hand off is toward the end of the tape, first he's trying to get help for a $17,000 credit card problem.)
The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Work
There are powerful arguments FOR doing the undercover work but also troubling arguments against.
Reasons For Undercover Surveillance:
- There's no other way to get the information. These are things not meant to be heard by others. There are no written contracts, just people verbally agreeing to break the law, often using code words (prison warden in Barbados for Kott.) Anchorage Daily News editor and reporter Rich Mauer told PBS:
Journalists don't get to tap phones. Journalists don't get to—to place secret cameras. So, the FBI is listening in on conversations that we thought maybe were happening. But lo and behold they really were, and we're getting to—to hear these things.
- The victim often is 'the general public,' not a specific person who can file a complaint. So without the intervention of an investigatory agency with extraordinary powers, no one would be in a position to file a complaint.
- Without this sort of evidence, it is difficult for juries to determine where the truth lies. They hear different witnesses, but which one should they believe? Simply because one is a better actor doesn't mean that one is telling the truth.
- Hearing it directly from the person's mouth on tape allows the jury to hear the exact intonation - whether it is said in jest or in anger, whether one word is stressed or another. Reading the transcript allows the reader to interpret the words in many different ways. Prosecutor Nick Marsh, in his closing argument in the Kott trial, said that this case had unique evidence, that because of the hours of electronic surveillance
- you the members of the jury have been able to sit in a ringside seat as they committed the crimes in the indictment.
- Playing the tapes can get the criminal to plead guilty and cooperate with the FBI and prosecutors. This certainly worked for Bill Allen and Rick Smith..
Reasons Against Undercover Surveillance
- Entrapment - would these people have committed a crime independent of this? The basis for Tom Anderson's conviction was the cooperating witness' offer to pay Anderson for helping out in ways consistent with Anderson's ideological beliefs.
- Motives of the cooperators - To get their own sentences reduced. There is a powerful incentive to paint the picture the prosecutor wants to hear in court, even if it isn't true.
- Invasion of privacy
- Surveillance involves listening to personal conversations. The hour or less of actual surveillance tape played at each of the three trials was a tiny fraction of the many hours of actual taping. Much, if not most of what was heard had nothing nothing to do with the investigation
- The FBI has a word - minimization - for deciding what they should not listen to and guidelines for turning off the recording device. At the end of this post I have my notes from court when one of the FBI agents discussed the procedures for surveillance tapes.
- The tapes also pick up the conversations of people who have nothing to do with the investigation
- Betrayal of associates - We live with overlapping values systems. As citizens we value the law. As members of families and of groups of friends, we value our loyalty to each other. In these cases, people who described their relationships as "like family" were now required to betray those relationships in order to save their own skin. The easy response is that "they were criminals," "they were breaking the law." But how easy would it be to turn in your child, your best friend? We have powerful social norms against betraying our friends and colleagues.
Tentative Conclusion includuing the need for better oversight
Just because some people drive badly when drunk, others shoot people with guns, and still others do a lousy job teaching third grade, doesn’t mean we should ban alcohol, guns, and third grade teachers. FBI surveillance can be abused too. Because some people do these things badly doesn't mean the activity itself is bad. Some things are more prone to abuse than others and thus we have restrictions, special oversight, and other measures to prevent abuse. Yet, FBI (and other) surveillance, by necessity is done in the shadows. Abuse is harder to discover. Therefore, I think it is necessary to design better oversight processes including more representive parties involved. Yes, I understand, the more who know, the harder to protect the investigation. But if they can trust the criminals who wear the wires, they can trust carefully, but representatively chosen monitors of the process.
Power
One other observation. At the trials, I was alarmed by the power of the US Government - represented by the FBI and the US Department of Justice - and the potential to abuse that power. The FBI and DOJ (Department of Justice) generally had, in court, close to a ten to one advantage over the number of defense people. When Kott’s attorney insisted that each tape introduced as evidence be verified by the agent who monitored it, the government had the budget to bring about 18 agents into court - most from outside Alaska. This doesn't count the thousands of hours of spent on the investigations and trial preparation. While the DOJ may complain about limited funding, their campaign chest is much bigger than any of the defendant's, and probably than all of them rolled together - including the $500,000 each that Allen and Smith got for legal defense as part of the sale of VECO.
I was alive when J. Edgar Hoover was the head of the FBI and used it as his own private investigation unit:
The committee staffs report shows that Hoover willingly complied with improper requests from Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. He gratuitously offered political intelligence to Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman, but both seemed unimpressed.
While everything I saw in court suggested a high level of integrity and professionalism on the part of the FBI and the DOJ, I have no idea of what went on outside of court. And if the Code of Silence cited above for police is part of the culture of the FBI, it would be hard to know when something did happen.
At this point, I don't have any strong recommendations one way or the other, but I wanted to record my observations based on the trials before I forget this all.
The Rules of Surveillance
Finally, a fair amount came out at the trials about the steps the FBI must go through before, during, and after the wiretaps and the use of the surveillance video recordings. Below are my notes from October 23, 2007 when Prosecutor Joe Bottini was interrogating FBI special agent Steve J. Dunphy, from Cincinnati Ohio about what it takes to get orders for a wire tap or video surveillance and then restrictions they have when taping. These are spell-checked notes that might be considered merely a sketch of what was all said. It gives you the basic outline, but some of the detail is lost.
First they have to get an application, then an order from a judge.
Bottini: All this in secret?
Dunphy: yes,
Bottini: purpose?
Dunphy: if it became known we were listening in it wouldn’t be fruitful
Bottini: Do phone company factor in this?
Dunphy: Yes, they are served with order and they would assist in getting it technically set up.
Bottini: Order cut to the phone company?
Dunphy: Redacted order
Bottini: Ordered not to disclose?
Dunphy: yeah
Bottini: How actually recorded?
Dunphy: When I started reel to reel. Now digitally onto portable hard drive then to other media, cd.
Bottini: Perfect or tech flaws?
Dunphy: You can bet on it [technical flaws]
Bottini: You have served as a monitor. Someone has to actually be listening real time?
Dunphy: yes/
Bottini: Purpose?
Dunphy: If only can record pertinent information, not about going back and listening.
Bottini: Required for minimization?
Dunphy: yes. if conversation not pertinent, personal, not related. the monitor will stop recording and stop listening. Back in a minute or whatever is reasonable to see if it changed.
Bottini: Is there a general rule of thumb on what you described? about how long go down ?
Dunphy: Generally told to go down a minute , but you learn what is appropriate as you go along. A learning curve as you learn the voices of the people. Minimization becomes more efficient as time goes on.
Bottini: Other kinds you can’t listen to?
Dunphy: Privileged, A lawyer. Those would be minimized right away and not turned on. Spouse, priest. Attorney client is the big one.
Bottini: If you are the monitor, is there a process to familiarize your self?
Dunphy: Have to read the affidavit with the case, meeting with one of the Asst US attorneys to brief on the case and minimization requirements
Bottini: Does monitor sit and take notes while calls intercepted?
Dunphy: Yes, record times, parties speaking, brief synopsis..
Bottini: Today’s tech also record date and time? [I think this means the tech for the recordings to be listened to in court that day.]
Dunphy: yes
Bottini: End of 30 day period what happens to original recordings intercepted. Dunphy: Original sealed and given to the court.
Bottini: Other types of electronic surveillance. You know about bug?
Dunphy: Yes, open type mic in a room.
Bottini: Video too?
Dunphy: yes.
Bottini: Authorization the same for intercepting phone conversation?
Dunphy: Yes, application process the same,
Bottini: application to court with affidavit. probably cause, all that?
When sought, G also has to request authorization to install?
Dunphy: Yes, sometimes to get mic into location, need to surreptitiously enter, then have to apply for that authority too.
Bottini: Same process with bug same as with phone, real time monitors?
Dunphy: Yes
Bottini: Same minimization with bug? Dunphy: yes
Same with privileged conversations? Dunphy: yes
Bottini: [Ever?] Just record it all and look later?
Dunphy: No, listen, if not pertinent stop it and on and on we go.
Bottini: Telephone intercept, Monitors real time take notes. Same with bugged monitor?
Dunphy: Yes, A little more because listening and watching, a little more awkward.
Bottini: Interception orders good for 30 days. Possible might not go the whole 30-days?
Dunphy: yes. Bottini: Examples?
Dunphy: Not getting any worthwhile activity, might change phone number, or something happens where you have to take down case, life in jeopardy.
Bottini: Were you asked to come to Alaska to assist?
Dunphy: Yes, March 2006.
Bottini: Specifically asked to do?
Dunphy: Monitor bug in hotel room in Juneau
Suite 604 in Baranof? Yes
Bottini: When installed? Dunphy: Jan
Bottini: Did you familiarize yourself with investigation. Dunphy: Yes, best I could
What did you do? REad the affidavit, with the agents monitoring before us, the agent, etc.
Aware or made aware that wire taps had been authorized? yes
What did you know? Yes Cell phone in SEpt for RS, couple months later November on BA’s cell, home phone.
While served as monitor, what is your day like?
…..
Two months, over time familiar with voices of people in suite.
BA? yes
RS? He lived here, so, obviously
VK? one time - March 30, 2006.
VK here today? Yes he is seated there in the red tie.
Original portable hard drive recorded to is sealed.
But recorded video and audio. yes. when we thought activity ceased, dubbed from hard drive to dvd, and could make multiple dvd’s from that. original sealed.
While monitoring bug, are you able to see and hear what is going on? Yes, within the camera view of the camera.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Disclosures
My first trial blog was June 28, 2007. My first words were:
When I started blogging, the separation between my life and my blog was ambiguous, but it really didn’t matter because I wasn’t writing about public topics and hardly anyone was reading the blog. That changed when I started blogging the trials.
At this point, since I have been writing about public events, I do think I need to be open about relationships I have with people I write about. On the other hand, my interest in talking to Tom was not about getting material for the blog. He was my student and that relationship takes precedence over the blog. There may come a time when we both feel that it is appropriate to post something about Tom here. At this point I simply want to be open about the fact that someone I have blogged about extensively and I are having conversations, even though they will not appear in the blog.
With Tom’s permission I’ll just say that I’m convinced that Tom clearly understands that he has broken the law and violated the public trust. He’s still going back through all the things he could have done differently at every step of the way - from saying “No” to Bobrick and flat out rejecting Prewitt, to whether he should have continued to work with the agreement to help the prosecutors. And he’s still frustrated in the disparity in time different players are likely to spend in prison. I think this is probably normal for someone who has screwed up and is now trying to move on. There's stuff you have to work through. I've already commented in several posts at the obvious imbalance of power in court between the resources of the government and those of the defendants. My conversation with Tom makes it clear that even those of us who sat through all three trials only saw a small portion of what all went on before everyone got to court. Perhaps more than the tip of the iceberg, but not all that much more.
As Tom looks to the future, he makes me think of the old Peace Corps ads that went something like: "Optimists see a glass of water as half-full. Pessimists see a glass of water as half-empty. Peace Corps volunteers see a glass of water and say, 'I can take a bath with that.'" In terms of optimism and seeing a positive spin on things, Tom would qualify for the Peace Corps. But I think that his ability to see the good and block out the bad is partly what got him into trouble.
Second disclosure: I've also mentioned very briefly here that I have three UAA honor students who are doing a directed studies class with me. We've been meeting, generally over dinner, with people from different academic fields and different professions to find out how their fields deal with the idea of truth. What meaning(s) does truth have in their fields? What criteria do they use to measure it? How do they know it when they see it? We have a couple of justice students in the small group and so last night our guest was Mary Beth Kepner, the FBI agent who has coordinated the Alaska political corruptions investigations and who has been at the prosecutors' table at all the trials. I had a chance to talk to her during a break in the trial and asked if she'd come to class. What she said last night was focused on the concept of truth more than the cases. We both were clear that whatever she said was not going to the blog. But as I said above with Tom, since I have been writing about the trials and am still writing about topics that arose at the trials, I feel that I need to disclose when I meet with people involved in the trials. Even if I that's all I can put on the blog.
Disclosure First: Tom was a student of mine a while ago. I don't remember when I talked to him last. However, I have been disturbed by this case since the beginning. I haven't blogged about this, in part, because I can't talk about anything I learned about Tom through our student/teacher relationship which is the only relationship I've had with him. I decided I should go to court and hear the evidence for myself. What I say here is strictly reporting what I saw in court, stuff anyone who went could have seen.We nodded to each other in the courtroom and shook hands a couple of times, but said nothing more than pleasantries. But I did want to talk to him before he leaves for his incarceration and so I emailed about a week ago. We talked on the phone for a couple of hours and Monday he came over for lunch.
When I started blogging, the separation between my life and my blog was ambiguous, but it really didn’t matter because I wasn’t writing about public topics and hardly anyone was reading the blog. That changed when I started blogging the trials.
At this point, since I have been writing about public events, I do think I need to be open about relationships I have with people I write about. On the other hand, my interest in talking to Tom was not about getting material for the blog. He was my student and that relationship takes precedence over the blog. There may come a time when we both feel that it is appropriate to post something about Tom here. At this point I simply want to be open about the fact that someone I have blogged about extensively and I are having conversations, even though they will not appear in the blog.
With Tom’s permission I’ll just say that I’m convinced that Tom clearly understands that he has broken the law and violated the public trust. He’s still going back through all the things he could have done differently at every step of the way - from saying “No” to Bobrick and flat out rejecting Prewitt, to whether he should have continued to work with the agreement to help the prosecutors. And he’s still frustrated in the disparity in time different players are likely to spend in prison. I think this is probably normal for someone who has screwed up and is now trying to move on. There's stuff you have to work through. I've already commented in several posts at the obvious imbalance of power in court between the resources of the government and those of the defendants. My conversation with Tom makes it clear that even those of us who sat through all three trials only saw a small portion of what all went on before everyone got to court. Perhaps more than the tip of the iceberg, but not all that much more.
As Tom looks to the future, he makes me think of the old Peace Corps ads that went something like: "Optimists see a glass of water as half-full. Pessimists see a glass of water as half-empty. Peace Corps volunteers see a glass of water and say, 'I can take a bath with that.'" In terms of optimism and seeing a positive spin on things, Tom would qualify for the Peace Corps. But I think that his ability to see the good and block out the bad is partly what got him into trouble.
Second disclosure: I've also mentioned very briefly here that I have three UAA honor students who are doing a directed studies class with me. We've been meeting, generally over dinner, with people from different academic fields and different professions to find out how their fields deal with the idea of truth. What meaning(s) does truth have in their fields? What criteria do they use to measure it? How do they know it when they see it? We have a couple of justice students in the small group and so last night our guest was Mary Beth Kepner, the FBI agent who has coordinated the Alaska political corruptions investigations and who has been at the prosecutors' table at all the trials. I had a chance to talk to her during a break in the trial and asked if she'd come to class. What she said last night was focused on the concept of truth more than the cases. We both were clear that whatever she said was not going to the blog. But as I said above with Tom, since I have been writing about the trials and am still writing about topics that arose at the trials, I feel that I need to disclose when I meet with people involved in the trials. Even if I that's all I can put on the blog.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Was the Tennessee Waltz the Playbook for the Alaska Oil Spill?
From Wikipedia
And a news report from the Nashville Post:
And from the Chattanoogan, we learn there was a hero:
Will Alaska have a hero or two?
And how could there be an FBI legislative corruption trial without a blogger?
And what do the FBI call this operation? The Alaska Two Step? No, there's more than two steps. How about the Alaska Oil Spill? Allen and Smith did work in the oil industry and they did spill the beans. The PeePee Tea Scandal? But the Anderson case didn't involve PPT and future indictments will get beyond PPT too. Do they have a name for ours? In Tennessee, the name came out in the press coverage of the indictments. I thought maybe the press came up with the name, but its in the DOJ press releases.
At the end of the DOJ Public Integrity Section press release on the conviction of Roscoe Dixon, they include the "operation name."
All this "the people of Tennessee. . . need to understand" sounds a little condescending. Maybe someone wised up and they decided the cutesy name and the lecture on public ethics didn't need to be included in the Alaska press releases.
And I think I may have cracked part of the Public Integrity Section code. I mentioned in earlier posts that the press releases on Kott and Kohring never mentioned that there were counts for which these men were found Not Guilt.
But I noticed that in the Dixon press release it says:
So I looked up the Anderson press release, and bingo, it says the same thing:
So, if the press release doesn't say "all counts" I'm guessing it means they got off on one or more counts. Come on PIN (yes, they abbreviate the Public Integrity Section as PIN, but think about it and it makes sense) you can put on your press releases that you didn't get every count. Don't force the reader to have to look up other sources of information to find that out.
Operation Tennessee Waltz was a sting operation set up by federal and state law enforcement agents, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. The operation led to the arrest of seven Tennessee state lawmakers and two men identified as "bagmen" in the indictment on the morning of May 26, 2005 on bribery charges. The FBI and TBI followed these arrests with an additional arrest of two county commissioners, one from Hamilton County, and the other a member of the prominent Hooks family, of Memphis. Investigators also arrested a former county administrator.
The name of the operation comes from the state song of Tennessee, "Tennessee Waltz."
And a news report from the Nashville Post:
'Tennessee Waltz' FBI Informant: I Paid Off Ulysses Jones
12-14-2005 6:32 AM —State Rep. Ulysses Jones (D-Memphis) took a bribe from an FBI informant to push through legislation favorable to the government’s fake company E-Cycle, informant Tim Willis has claimed.
Willis, a one-time Memphis lobbyist, worked for the FBI by posing as a lobbyist for the fictitious Georgia company. E-Cycle was central to the sting operation dubbed “Tennessee Waltz,” a sting set up to nab politicians taking bribes, which led to the arrests of four sitting lawmakers and three other political operatives on May 26 of this year.
And from the Chattanoogan, we learn there was a hero:
Attorney Says Former Rep. Brenda Turner Was Tennessee Waltz "Hero"
posted August 25, 2007
A Chattanooga attorney who supported former Rep. Brenda Turner through her long political career said she was a "hero" in the "Tennessee Waltz" scandal that brought down several prominent politicians.
Attorney Russell King said, "They came to her, offered her money, and she turned them down. She did it the right way. She told them a campaign contribution would be hunky-dory, but she was not doing it any other way."
Will Alaska have a hero or two?
And how could there be an FBI legislative corruption trial without a blogger?
And what do the FBI call this operation? The Alaska Two Step? No, there's more than two steps. How about the Alaska Oil Spill? Allen and Smith did work in the oil industry and they did spill the beans. The PeePee Tea Scandal? But the Anderson case didn't involve PPT and future indictments will get beyond PPT too. Do they have a name for ours? In Tennessee, the name came out in the press coverage of the indictments. I thought maybe the press came up with the name, but its in the DOJ press releases.
At the end of the DOJ Public Integrity Section press release on the conviction of Roscoe Dixon, they include the "operation name."
Operation Tennessee Waltz is an ongoing, active, continuing investigation. The people of Tennessee and their elected officials need to understand that where the public trust has been violated, the United States Attorney's Office will prosecute. This office will continue to aggressively pursue those elected officials who engage in public corruption.
All this "the people of Tennessee. . . need to understand" sounds a little condescending. Maybe someone wised up and they decided the cutesy name and the lecture on public ethics didn't need to be included in the Alaska press releases.
This case was prosecuted by trial attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch, II, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke from the District of Alaska. The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigative Division.Do they have a name for ours, but are keeping it quiet?
And I think I may have cracked part of the Public Integrity Section code. I mentioned in earlier posts that the press releases on Kott and Kohring never mentioned that there were counts for which these men were found Not Guilt.
The jury found Kott guilty of conspiracy, extortion under cover of official right, and bribery.
Following an eight-day jury trial, Kohring, a member of the Alaska State House of Representatives from 1994 to 2007, was convicted of conspiracy, bribery and
attempted extortion, for corruptly soliciting and receiving financial benefits from a
company in exchange for performing official acts in the Alaska State Legislature on the company’s behalf.
But I noticed that in the Dixon press release it says:
Mr. Dixon was found guilty on all five counts of the indictment. [emphasis mine]
So I looked up the Anderson press release, and bingo, it says the same thing:
The jury in Anchorage convicted Anderson today of all seven counts charged in a December 2006 indictment.
So, if the press release doesn't say "all counts" I'm guessing it means they got off on one or more counts. Come on PIN (yes, they abbreviate the Public Integrity Section as PIN, but think about it and it makes sense) you can put on your press releases that you didn't get every count. Don't force the reader to have to look up other sources of information to find that out.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Kott Trial Day 3 - PM - FBI Investigation Team Reunion
The afternoon consisted of calling up different FBI agents from all around the country, swearing them in, then asking them the identical questions about whether they had verified that the material on this particular CD - Prosecution exhibits 1- 10 were in the morning, the 11-26 in the afternoon - was the same as the original recording. Then they had to verify the transcripts. (I'm not certain about #14. I had #13 down and the next one was #15. The judge asked about #14 too and the prosecution said, no, the next one was #15. So either they missed one, the judge and I missed one, or they are saving it to introduce at another time. But then they have to bring in the FBI agent again, so I probably just missed it.)
So you can look at this list: (The bulleted ones are from out of town)
Witnesses
Morning
Kelley Woodward, FBI, intelligence analyst, in Anchorage
Jessica Debra Ann Newton, FBI Intelligence analyst, Anchorage Division (twice)
Afternoon
DePodesta again
DePodesta again
Kevin Loader, Anchorage, FBI, 2 years, special agent
DePodesta again
Joe Thelen again
Chad Kadera Anchorage, FBI special agent
DePodesta again
Patricia A. Mumz FBI, 20 years, special agent, Anchorage
As I said in the previous post, the out of town agents are here because defense attorney John Henry Browne insisted that the individual agent who was monitoring the recording had to be here to verify the recording. In the previous two trials, the defense attorneys allowed the prosecution to have one attorney verify all the tapes.
So we have nine FBI agents from out of town (the bulleted names) and five from Anchorage all gathered in the US Federal Courtroom anteroom. An FBI Investigation team reunion. In the overall scheme of what this investigation and trials cost, nine more airfares and several nights of hotel rooms is a minor costs. But there is also the loss of the work the agents could be doing in on other cases. (Some people may see it as a benefit that they aren't doing other work and I must admit that the work they've done in Alaska has reminded me that the FBI can do important work in the public interest.)
So why is Browne insisting on this? Well, for one, the FBI isn't infallible and there could be mistakes. But I suspect that the more work the prosecution has to do on this stuff, it's a little attention taken away from other stuff. And with two lead attorneys and FBI agent Kepner sitting up front, and two other attorneys sitting behind them (well, Goeke is still around, but Marsh said he was headed back to DC this week and I didn't seem him in court today), they do have things stacked in their favor. And this doesn't even mention the home field advantage: they can push their cart full of documents and equipment down the hallway and into their offices without even going downstairs and outside; they can bring in whatever staff from the building to help them in or out of the courtroom to mention just a few benefits.
By calling in all these agents, Browne is probably hoping one or two won't make it and so a tape might not be put in as evidence. We don't know if that is the case or not. He's emphasizing to the jury how many agents have been spending time on this and how much money the government is spending to bring them up here. (I don't believe the jury knows that Browne is the one who insisted on this, and I guess the prosecution can't tell them that.) Whatever extra steps the prosecution has to take, offers new opportunities for them to mess up somewhere along the line, and some bit of evidence may be lost, or some doubt could be raised among the jurors. What happened to Ex. 14 for example? Was I just not paying attention or did they actually skip it?
Browne did ask several of the witnesses where their names were on the documents. A: Not there. Well, how do you know that you were the person monitoring this? A: Well, it's somewhere. It never was clear how they knew. So there was a seed of doubt.
While the defense attorney should be doing everything he can to get his client off, if all he has are technical maneuvers that wouldn't bode well for Kohring.
OK, there was also the substantive material that was on the tapes we heard today. As I understand the process, the prosecution has to play all the tapes when they introduce them. There was really no discussion of them, other than what Bottini said in the opening arguments. And that did alert the jury to what was going to be shown on the tapes. If the previous trials are predictors, as the witnesses come in - and Bill Allen and Rick Smith (key characters on the tapes) have been mentioned - the prosecution will play the tapes again and ask the witnesses to explain what is going on.
But I'll finish this post and try to put together my thoughts about what the tapes were about today.
Jury Notes:
I saw that at some point today, every juror had a pen in his or her hand and wrote something in the court provided notebooks. Many were taking notes most of the time. This is very different from the previous two juries when I rarely saw a juror taking notes.
Eddie Haskell observation:
At the afternoon break, the defense attorney noted that he has copies of Bill Allen and Rick Smith's testimony from the Kott trial. "Would the judge like a courtesy copy?" He didn't do this in front of the jury at least.
So you can look at this list: (The bulleted ones are from out of town)
Witnesses
Morning
Kelley Woodward, FBI, intelligence analyst, in Anchorage
Jessica Debra Ann Newton, FBI Intelligence analyst, Anchorage Division (twice)
- Joel Stephen, Texas Spec Agent FBI,
- William Bondurat California FBI, special agent, LA division, three years
- Tom Szot, FBI, special agent, 8 years, Chicago
- Frank DePodesta, FBI special agent, Chicago (twice)
- Joseph Thelen, retired FBI, 24 years, organized crime, NYC
Afternoon
DePodesta again
- Agent Dunphy (from yesterday)Cincinnati, 23 years FBI special agent
DePodesta again
Kevin Loader, Anchorage, FBI, 2 years, special agent
DePodesta again
Joe Thelen again
- Sean McDermott, FBI special agent, 4 years Miami
Chad Kadera Anchorage, FBI special agent
DePodesta again
- Roslyn B. Harris, Atlanta, FBI, 20 years, Special Agent
Patricia A. Mumz FBI, 20 years, special agent, Anchorage
- Ingrid Schmidt, Columbus, Ohio, FBI, 5 years, special agent (Cincinnati Division)
As I said in the previous post, the out of town agents are here because defense attorney John Henry Browne insisted that the individual agent who was monitoring the recording had to be here to verify the recording. In the previous two trials, the defense attorneys allowed the prosecution to have one attorney verify all the tapes.
So we have nine FBI agents from out of town (the bulleted names) and five from Anchorage all gathered in the US Federal Courtroom anteroom. An FBI Investigation team reunion. In the overall scheme of what this investigation and trials cost, nine more airfares and several nights of hotel rooms is a minor costs. But there is also the loss of the work the agents could be doing in on other cases. (Some people may see it as a benefit that they aren't doing other work and I must admit that the work they've done in Alaska has reminded me that the FBI can do important work in the public interest.)
So why is Browne insisting on this? Well, for one, the FBI isn't infallible and there could be mistakes. But I suspect that the more work the prosecution has to do on this stuff, it's a little attention taken away from other stuff. And with two lead attorneys and FBI agent Kepner sitting up front, and two other attorneys sitting behind them (well, Goeke is still around, but Marsh said he was headed back to DC this week and I didn't seem him in court today), they do have things stacked in their favor. And this doesn't even mention the home field advantage: they can push their cart full of documents and equipment down the hallway and into their offices without even going downstairs and outside; they can bring in whatever staff from the building to help them in or out of the courtroom to mention just a few benefits.
By calling in all these agents, Browne is probably hoping one or two won't make it and so a tape might not be put in as evidence. We don't know if that is the case or not. He's emphasizing to the jury how many agents have been spending time on this and how much money the government is spending to bring them up here. (I don't believe the jury knows that Browne is the one who insisted on this, and I guess the prosecution can't tell them that.) Whatever extra steps the prosecution has to take, offers new opportunities for them to mess up somewhere along the line, and some bit of evidence may be lost, or some doubt could be raised among the jurors. What happened to Ex. 14 for example? Was I just not paying attention or did they actually skip it?
Browne did ask several of the witnesses where their names were on the documents. A: Not there. Well, how do you know that you were the person monitoring this? A: Well, it's somewhere. It never was clear how they knew. So there was a seed of doubt.
While the defense attorney should be doing everything he can to get his client off, if all he has are technical maneuvers that wouldn't bode well for Kohring.
OK, there was also the substantive material that was on the tapes we heard today. As I understand the process, the prosecution has to play all the tapes when they introduce them. There was really no discussion of them, other than what Bottini said in the opening arguments. And that did alert the jury to what was going to be shown on the tapes. If the previous trials are predictors, as the witnesses come in - and Bill Allen and Rick Smith (key characters on the tapes) have been mentioned - the prosecution will play the tapes again and ask the witnesses to explain what is going on.
But I'll finish this post and try to put together my thoughts about what the tapes were about today.
Jury Notes:
I saw that at some point today, every juror had a pen in his or her hand and wrote something in the court provided notebooks. Many were taking notes most of the time. This is very different from the previous two juries when I rarely saw a juror taking notes.
Eddie Haskell observation:
At the afternoon break, the defense attorney noted that he has copies of Bill Allen and Rick Smith's testimony from the Kott trial. "Would the judge like a courtesy copy?" He didn't do this in front of the jury at least.
Monday, September 17, 2007
FBI Wire-Tap Tapes and Videos
I've just looked at the material made available by the Prosecutors through the Anchorage Daily News.. From the couple that I've opened, it looks like this (on first count):
FBI tape of Pete Kott 01 uploaded by AKRaven
Here's a video. I couldn't get onto Viddler, so I uploaded it to YouTube, but had to pick a small file. This one isn't anything remarkable. At least the videos have the date and time on them. This is May 9, 2006 in Suite 604 at the Baranof. Rick Smith, Veco VP, is trying to call Pete Kott at 12:21 am. Bill Allen, Veco CEO, walks out of the bathroom.
This is just to give you a sense of what's in here - and what people have been listening to at the trial.
- 46 audio (wma or wav) files dated September 17, 2007. The first two are Kott audio files.
- 14 video (wmv) files dated September 17, 2007.
- 38 audio files dated August 24, 2007. The couple I opened are from the Anderson Trial. I assume they all are.
- 24 video (wmv) files dated August 24, 2007. These are from the Anderson Trial also I assume.
- 25 pdf files dated August 25, 2007. The two I opened are from the Anderson trial
FBI tape of Pete Kott 01 uploaded byHere's a video. I couldn't get onto Viddler, so I uploaded it to YouTube, but had to pick a small file. This one isn't anything remarkable. At least the videos have the date and time on them. This is May 9, 2006 in Suite 604 at the Baranof. Rick Smith, Veco VP, is trying to call Pete Kott at 12:21 am. Bill Allen, Veco CEO, walks out of the bathroom.
This is just to give you a sense of what's in here - and what people have been listening to at the trial.
Kott Trial - Three Cheers for the Press
The Anchorage Daily News got copies of all the government's tapes used in the trial - the wire taps and the video from the Baranof Suite 604 - and has emailed the local media how to download them.
I'll be checking through some of this material that is now available, but I'm not sure if I have the time to post all or even any of it. But I'm sure it will be widely available soon through other media websites. The Daily News has already been posting portions of the daily audio from the trial. If you haven't heard it, go listen. They've picked some of the highlights.
High school and university teachers!!!! Are you listening? This, and the cd's of the trial itself are great materials for Alaska history, for government, and other classes.
This really is a chance for people to get a real understanding of the facades some politicians put on. People really do hold important bills up if other legislators don't vote their way.
And this is must listening for all legislators. Sitting in court would have been a better way to go, but this is second best.
This is all due to the fact that the Daily News and KTUU hired attorney John McKay to represent them as interested parties in this case to get access to the materials in the case. Thanks for this public service! You can find some of the audio here - in the middle of the page.
Hello news directors/news organizations. This is David Hulen, I'm the assistant managing editor for news at the Anchorage Daily News. After several weeks of trying -- with huge help from John McKay -- we were able today to get from the government all of the exhibits that have been introduced by the prosecution in the Kott trial.Ray Metcalfe, who was in court today, has been accusing Ben Stevens of ethics violations for years, but no one wanted to listen. This is a giant civics lesson for Alaska. But it's important that we not walk away thinking all politicians are crooks. Rather, that we learn to listen carefully and to distinguish those who are honest and dedicated from those who would sell their office for their own gain. And we need to ask more about the corporations that sprinkle our non-profits with donations. Are they doing the same with our politicians? The testimony in the trial is raising the issue that the big oil companies let Veco do their dirty work here, while ostensibly keeping their hands clean. If it wasn't clear before, it's clear from this trial, that Metcalfe's tenacity is likely to see Stevens' indictment before long.
We are the pool for this material and we're making it available via FTP server as we did with similar material during the Anderson trial. Instructions on how to download are below.
A couple notes: The quality of the material is a huge improvement from what you hear in the courtroom or what some of us have been grabbing off the official courtroom recordings. The quality of the video recordings inside Suite 604 is pretty good, too. Here's the hitch: There are no dates on the audio files. I think they're listed by exhibit number, although I havent had time to check that for sure, and I'm not sure the exhibit numbers, if that's what they are, are in sync with what actually was entered into evidence. So you're on your own to figure out what's what. The videos at least have a time stamp.
If I've missed media that would be interested in this material, please let me know and I'll get in touch.
I'll be checking through some of this material that is now available, but I'm not sure if I have the time to post all or even any of it. But I'm sure it will be widely available soon through other media websites. The Daily News has already been posting portions of the daily audio from the trial. If you haven't heard it, go listen. They've picked some of the highlights.
High school and university teachers!!!! Are you listening? This, and the cd's of the trial itself are great materials for Alaska history, for government, and other classes.
This really is a chance for people to get a real understanding of the facades some politicians put on. People really do hold important bills up if other legislators don't vote their way.
And this is must listening for all legislators. Sitting in court would have been a better way to go, but this is second best.
This is all due to the fact that the Daily News and KTUU hired attorney John McKay to represent them as interested parties in this case to get access to the materials in the case. Thanks for this public service! You can find some of the audio here - in the middle of the page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)