I saw an AP story in the paper this morning on the ferry over to Seattle that John Henry Browne, Vic Kohring's slick Seattle attorney, is also Colton Harris-Moore's attorney. Colton's the 20 year old who is alleged to have stolen cars, boats, and airplanes as he ran from the FBI for two years. It seems they're working out a plea deal but they're hung up on the details of possible book and movie deals.
We've been busy having a good time here with both our kids, so I'm just sending that little bit. I found a link to the whole AP story here if you want to see more.
Showing posts with label Kohring Trial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kohring Trial. Show all posts
Friday, June 10, 2011
Friday, October 08, 2010
Cliff Groh Has Lengthy Background Post on Nicholas Marsh
There was an internet problem here at my mom's last night through this morning and the sun is shining beautifully so I had to go run and I do have to talk to and do things with and for my mom while I'm here, so this is just a quick link to Cliff's post at the blog Alaska Political Corruption which fills in a lot more details on Nick Marsh based on various reports he gathered.
Here's the link:
(Marsh is the young federal prosecutor in the Alaska corruption cases who committed suicide last week.)
Here's the link:
Notes on the Life, Death, and Mental State of Nicholas Marsh
(Marsh is the young federal prosecutor in the Alaska corruption cases who committed suicide last week.)
Friday, June 05, 2009
The New DOJ Rules
When Vic Kohring was convicted, the DOJ press release on Nov. 1, 2007, said
It didn't mention the counts he was acquitted on. I guess they wouldn't want anyone to know that they hadn't won on every count. The same was true for the Anderson and Kott press releases. At the time I wrote that I thought a government agency shouldn't be playing with the facts to make itself look better, that they should also mention the counts the defendants were NOT found guilty of.
So I'm still amazemed at the new Obama DOJ. Could you possibly imagine that the Bush Administration would have, on their own, dismissed the conviction of a very prominent Democratic Senator and then gone on to say due to their own errors they are asking two more Republican state politicians be released? OK, it's true that the errors were made under the previous administration, so they aren't exactly admitting their own mistakes. But in the highly competitive game the Bush Administration played, winning was everything, and they would never have given up prisoners of the opposing side voluntarily.
This really is a different type of America today. Not only do we see this in the big things like the Cairo speech yesterday, but also in the little day-to-day things like this announcement yesterday.
A federal jury in Anchorage, Alaska, has found former Alaska State Representative Victor H. Kohring guilty of conspiracy, bribery and attempted extortion, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.
It didn't mention the counts he was acquitted on. I guess they wouldn't want anyone to know that they hadn't won on every count. The same was true for the Anderson and Kott press releases. At the time I wrote that I thought a government agency shouldn't be playing with the facts to make itself look better, that they should also mention the counts the defendants were NOT found guilty of.
So I'm still amazemed at the new Obama DOJ. Could you possibly imagine that the Bush Administration would have, on their own, dismissed the conviction of a very prominent Democratic Senator and then gone on to say due to their own errors they are asking two more Republican state politicians be released? OK, it's true that the errors were made under the previous administration, so they aren't exactly admitting their own mistakes. But in the highly competitive game the Bush Administration played, winning was everything, and they would never have given up prisoners of the opposing side voluntarily.
This really is a different type of America today. Not only do we see this in the big things like the Cairo speech yesterday, but also in the little day-to-day things like this announcement yesterday.
AG
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888
Department Asks Alaska Corruption Cases Be Remanded to District Court, Former State Representatives Be Released
The Department of Justice today asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to remand the cases of former Alaska State Representatives Victor Kohring and Peter Kott, who were convicted on corruption charges in 2007, to the District Court. The Department also asked the Court of Appeals to release the two on personal recognizance, after the Department uncovered material that appears to be information that should have been, but was not, disclosed to the defense prior to trial.
Attorney General Eric Holder also instructed the Department’s Criminal Division to review the Department’s public corruption investigation in Alaska to ensure that all other discovery obligations have been met.
"After a careful review of these cases, I have determined that it appears that the Department did not provide information that should have been disclosed to the defense," Holder said. "Department of Justice prosecutors work hard every day and perform a great service for the American people. But the Department’s mission is to do justice, not just win cases, and when we make mistakes, it is our duty to admit and correct those mistakes. We are committed to doing that."
"The Criminal Division must ensure that defendants receive all appropriate discovery materials, and today’s action demonstrates that commitment to this responsibility," said Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division. "We will continue regular discovery training for all Criminal Division prosecutors to make certain that they perform their duties in adherence to the highest ethical standards. Every day, hundreds of career prosecutors work to uphold this Division’s proud tradition of being vigilant, ethical and stellar in the execution of their work. This action is faithful to that tradition."
Kohring was convicted in U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on Nov. 1, 2007, of bribery and extortion-related charges. He was sentenced on May 9, 2008, to 42 months in prison and two years of supervised release. Kott was convicted on Sept. 25, 2007, of bribery and extortion-related charges and was sentenced on 72 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
In April, after the dismissal of charges against former Sen. Theodore F. Stevens, Attorney General Holder instituted comprehensive steps to enhance the Department’s compliance with rules that require the government to turn over evidence to the defense in criminal cases.
Since the launch of those reforms, the Department has been providing supplemental training to federal prosecutors on discovery obligations and has established a working group of senior prosecutors and Department officials from each component to review discovery practices and the need for additional improvements, resources and training.
###
09-550
Friday, September 12, 2008
Frank Prewitt's Last Bridge to Nowhere
[Dennis Zaki called me Wednesday afternoon saying he had an advance copy of a book about the trial, could he come by and drop a copy off for me. It had a little note to me written by the author. (He had two other books to deliver, one to Shannyn Moore and one to Philip Munger at Progressive Alaska. (Dennis had exclusive rights to talk about the book until Saturday when the book would be officially announced. I could post about it then. You can see Dennis’ Thursday and Friday posts already at AlaskaReport.com.)
Shortly thereafter, he pulled into our driveway and gave me a copy of Frank Prewitt’s new book Last Bridge to Nowhere. As an amateur journalist, I haven’t studied the protocol or ethics of exclusive stories. Obviously, I’m being used to promote this book. It seems that various people have been told that they have gotten first shot at the book so I guess Prewitt will have different outlets dealing with the book for a number of days in a row. Given that ABC, as I prepare this for a Saturday posting, is also sitting on an exclusive to promote Sarah Palin in as controlled a way as her handlers think they can get away with, I think the whole idea of exclusive stories would make an interesting post in the near future. So read this with a grain of salt. Prewitt knew that I, having sat through the three trials, wouldn’t be able to resist reading this. I did toy with the idea of just posting this intro and not going into the book. So my pay for shilling his book is one free copy. Here are my first impressions.]
Synopsis:
Think of this book as a work of historical fiction, based on real events and people, but with everything skewed slightly to make the author appear to be the person who ran the FBI’s corruption probe with the assistance of Special Agent Kepner who he pretended was in charge. (OK, I stretched the last part a bit to give you a sense of how things seem to be stretched in the book.) This impression comes from the first part of the book, which is heavy on unflattering descriptions of people. Toward the middle and end he gets more into moving the story along and the snark meter blips less frequently. At the very end, the tone changes completely as he quotes the bible and discusses his conversations with God. Basically, most of the things I knew about were accurate, but for someone who doesn't know the stories already, it would be hard to determine where Prewitt is embellishing.
To his credit, there are no pretensions about the book itself here. It's like you are in a bar with Prewitt drinking beers as he's telling you about his experiences as a confidential source for the FBI in Alaska's biggest political corruption case.
2. Excerpts. There's little that we don't already know about people under investigation. What he says about people is interesting if you like catty gossip, but nothing particularly important in terms of public policy. What is useful is the deadlines for when cases have to go to trial :
3. Purpose of the book
Why did Prewitt write this book?
4. Will the real Frank Prewitt please stand up?
My sense at the trial was that Prewitt was smarter than most of the people in the courtroom, that he'd made a fair amount of money, that there were probably some shady things in his background, and enough specific stuff that the FBI approached him and offered him a deal to help them. I didn't know this, but it was my supposition. The Anderson and Kohring defense attorneys cross examined him on these points. There was something about illegal campaign contributions and something else about a $30,000 loan from Allvest - a corrections contractor - while he was Commissioner of Corrections. I posted the exchange between Anderson attorney Stockler and Prewitt at the time:
In the last chapter, "Author's Retrospective," Prewitt tells us that he talks with God. He opens the bible - an interesting translation - and God talks back to him through the passages such as:
Prewitt was a lobbyist. He worked legislators all the time. When asked by Kepner whether he would normally attend a fund raiser at Bill Allen's house (so she could use him to wear a wire there),
4. Self-publishing
Self-publishing means you don't have to get your book accepted by a publisher. Nowadays, this no longer automatically dismisses the book from serious consideration. It also means you can often get it out faster. At one point he's talking about July 2008. The book has no index, but it has a list of characters (I would have added the judge, John Sedwick), and a glossary for non-Alaskans. I noticed one citation (Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board) and he has a few newspaper articles pasted into pages.
Sometimes events have dates, sometimes not.
An editor may have done something about the dark and stormy prose such as:
6. Fact or Fiction?
My take, as someone who blogged the three court cases, is that while he has taken poetic license with some of the stories and dialogues and some of the events are meshed together, the book gives a reasonably accurate overview of what happened and gives us some glimpses into the relationship between a source and the FBI agents.
The author's character is painted as a misunderstood, falsely accused, but publicly minded citizen selflessly helping to right wrongs. This may or may not be accurate. I've never talked to Frank Prewitt, I've only seen him testify in court, and I know what people who have known him say about him. (It's mixed.) So while you get the general picture, and most of the details are consistent with what I heard in court, some I don't know enough to be able to verify, and others have been revised to make for better reading. For example, Prewitt writes:
And he also gives us details of events he didn't personally witness - such as Kepner and Joy's first discussion with Don Young for example. Other stories didn't seem right to me, but I had no way to check.
7. Conclusions
This is a short book - 150 pages - so it's pretty easy to get through. As someone who's followed the trials closely, I knew who all the players were and the book filled in some of the gaps in my knowledge. What we learn about the FBI's working the case is also interesting. Again, we have to be careful about buying into all the details, but overall we get more information on how things work. I suspect the book would be interesting to someone who doesn't know as much, but it will be more difficult to sense where he's stretching things and where he's sticking close to the original script. With so much national attention on Alaska right now, people may be interested in this sordid little tale.
I don't think it tells us very much about Prewitt's thinking. I'd guess that the beginning is a flip facade that he may have developed over the years. The final chapter probably gives us a glimpse of Prewitt that isn't seen in public, though it's only a glimpse.
OK, I know this is ending rather abruptly. I only had the book for two days and I'm trying to get this out. I may come back and edit when I look at it later.
Shortly thereafter, he pulled into our driveway and gave me a copy of Frank Prewitt’s new book Last Bridge to Nowhere. As an amateur journalist, I haven’t studied the protocol or ethics of exclusive stories. Obviously, I’m being used to promote this book. It seems that various people have been told that they have gotten first shot at the book so I guess Prewitt will have different outlets dealing with the book for a number of days in a row. Given that ABC, as I prepare this for a Saturday posting, is also sitting on an exclusive to promote Sarah Palin in as controlled a way as her handlers think they can get away with, I think the whole idea of exclusive stories would make an interesting post in the near future. So read this with a grain of salt. Prewitt knew that I, having sat through the three trials, wouldn’t be able to resist reading this. I did toy with the idea of just posting this intro and not going into the book. So my pay for shilling his book is one free copy. Here are my first impressions.]
Synopsis:
- Brief Overview
- Excerpt of what Prewitt expects to happen (there isn't that much new in the book, just more details, like adding color to the black and white)
- Purpose of the book.
- Will the real Frank Prewitt please stand up?
- Self-publishing thoughts
- Fact of Fiction?
- Conclusions
Think of this book as a work of historical fiction, based on real events and people, but with everything skewed slightly to make the author appear to be the person who ran the FBI’s corruption probe with the assistance of Special Agent Kepner who he pretended was in charge. (OK, I stretched the last part a bit to give you a sense of how things seem to be stretched in the book.) This impression comes from the first part of the book, which is heavy on unflattering descriptions of people. Toward the middle and end he gets more into moving the story along and the snark meter blips less frequently. At the very end, the tone changes completely as he quotes the bible and discusses his conversations with God. Basically, most of the things I knew about were accurate, but for someone who doesn't know the stories already, it would be hard to determine where Prewitt is embellishing.
To his credit, there are no pretensions about the book itself here. It's like you are in a bar with Prewitt drinking beers as he's telling you about his experiences as a confidential source for the FBI in Alaska's biggest political corruption case.
2. Excerpts. There's little that we don't already know about people under investigation. What he says about people is interesting if you like catty gossip, but nothing particularly important in terms of public policy. What is useful is the deadlines for when cases have to go to trial :
Crimes committed in 2003 and 2004 ... didn’t technically have to be charged until 2008 and 2009. (p. 136)So, things need to be wrapped up by next year. So what's left? Here's his synopsis done a little while ago.
The way things were shaping up, I figured indictments or plea deals on John Cowdery and Jim Clark (former governor Murkowski’s chief of staff) were right around the corner, the shoe would probably drop on Senators father and son Stevens by mid-summer or fall and the case building against Congressman For All Alaska Don Young would slide past the August 2008 primary elections, and that was a big problem…Presumably this is what's left. But he also said early on he had to be careful not to jeopardize ongoing operations, so possibly there are others. There's also a little bit on Palin, but nothing that hasn't already been picked through by the national media on when she decided she didn't like earmarks.
Then there were the cases sitting on federal ice for lack of immediate concern or stature. Alaska Senator Donny Olson, for example, was named in the Kott trial as the senator that John Cowdery could deliver for a mere twenty five thousand dollar contribution; investigations into former Alaska senator Jerry Ward and multimillionaire businessman Bill Weimar had been completed at least a year before; political cash handouts from Alaska fur-trading entrepreneur Perry Green were burning a hole in prosecutors’ pockets; former representative Bruce Weyhrauch’s trial was stalled on a procedural appeal; former representative Beverly Masek’s alleged quid pro quo relationship with Bill Allen and Perry Green was approaching the statue of limitations for prosecution; the lingering charges against the remaining VECO executives were simmering on a back burner; and a small handful of residual affiliations could prove up after the cooperators’ cooperation. (p. 135)
3. Purpose of the book
Why did Prewitt write this book?
- To clear his name - Prewitt tells us that as an undercover agent he was unable to respond to the various people who saw him as a slimeball lobbyist who made some deal with the FBI to escape jail.
- Revenge - Particularly the beginning of this book is full of acerbic comments about all sorts of people. I get the sense of the smart guy who has had to put up with fools, finally gets to say what's on his mind without concern for consequences. I can just see Prewitt relishing everyone rushing to the bookstore to read all the gossip about well known Alaskans. At one point he even writes,
And the key to special friends in politics is money, and right about now a lot of Weimar’s former special friends are breathing deep sighs of relief as they read my generic passing reference to their special relationship with the big guy. (p. 49)
- To tell his part of this story - He writes in the Acknowledgement, "I sincerely hope this book serves as a foundation and catalyst for a more definitive work by a thoughtful, research-diligent, unbiased source.. A historic event of this stature deserves no less." And not many people could write this book. Though googling FBI Agent Memoir gives quite a few hits on books written by ex-agents.
4. Will the real Frank Prewitt please stand up?
My sense at the trial was that Prewitt was smarter than most of the people in the courtroom, that he'd made a fair amount of money, that there were probably some shady things in his background, and enough specific stuff that the FBI approached him and offered him a deal to help them. I didn't know this, but it was my supposition. The Anderson and Kohring defense attorneys cross examined him on these points. There was something about illegal campaign contributions and something else about a $30,000 loan from Allvest - a corrections contractor - while he was Commissioner of Corrections. I posted the exchange between Anderson attorney Stockler and Prewitt at the time:
Prewitt said he got the loan and paid it back. Stockler: Is there anything in writing? Isn't it true it was a bribe? [Prewitt:] No. [Stockler:] How did you pay it back? [Prewitt:]I worked for Allvest for four months - $7500 per month. [Stockler:] Did you pay taxes on the $30,000? [Prewitt:] No, it was a loan. [Stockler:] But you say you worked for it. [Prewitt:] No, I was paying him back. [Stockler:] 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?Prewitt said in court and in the book that his attorney told him the campaign contribution was past the statute of limits and the loan was not illegal and there were no issues and that he was cooperating voluntarily.
[My attorney] said they [the Feds] agreed there was no basis for federal charges against me and I was under no obligation to continue helping, but they sure hoped I would. (p. 31)But on the very next page, he says his code name was Patient.
She never said whether the name was due to my status or long-suffering nature, but there was no confusion over the anatomy under her control, when she said to turn my head and cough, I did. (p. 32)Why would Kepner have him by the balls if there was no basis for federal charges and he was there voluntarily?
In the last chapter, "Author's Retrospective," Prewitt tells us that he talks with God. He opens the bible - an interesting translation - and God talks back to him through the passages such as:
Mocking ballads will be sung of you and you yourselves will sing the blues...Do chats with God demonstrate his reflective, religious nature? Or megalomania? Or are they there to convince us of his true ethical self? But a good Christian, in my understanding, wouldn't write all those mean spirited comments about all the people in the early chapters.
Prewitt was a lobbyist. He worked legislators all the time. When asked by Kepner whether he would normally attend a fund raiser at Bill Allen's house (so she could use him to wear a wire there),
I said I went to those things all the time, no problem.(p. 37)How do we know he isn't working us the way he worked legislators?
4. Self-publishing
Self-publishing means you don't have to get your book accepted by a publisher. Nowadays, this no longer automatically dismisses the book from serious consideration. It also means you can often get it out faster. At one point he's talking about July 2008. The book has no index, but it has a list of characters (I would have added the judge, John Sedwick), and a glossary for non-Alaskans. I noticed one citation (Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board) and he has a few newspaper articles pasted into pages.
Sometimes events have dates, sometimes not.
An editor may have done something about the dark and stormy prose such as:
By 2003 this unusual compost of big oil, frontier ingenuity, and isolated lawmaking reached critical mass, seeping lethally into the cracks and crevices of Alaska public policy and under the door of FBI Special Agent Mary Beth Kepner. (p. 18)There's a certain blog-like quality - impressions, casual language, different styles, an attempt to capture what happened in almost real time.
6. Fact or Fiction?
My take, as someone who blogged the three court cases, is that while he has taken poetic license with some of the stories and dialogues and some of the events are meshed together, the book gives a reasonably accurate overview of what happened and gives us some glimpses into the relationship between a source and the FBI agents.
The author's character is painted as a misunderstood, falsely accused, but publicly minded citizen selflessly helping to right wrongs. This may or may not be accurate. I've never talked to Frank Prewitt, I've only seen him testify in court, and I know what people who have known him say about him. (It's mixed.) So while you get the general picture, and most of the details are consistent with what I heard in court, some I don't know enough to be able to verify, and others have been revised to make for better reading. For example, Prewitt writes:
Next day Kott walks in, “Allen said he appreciated Kott’s work and handed him a thousand dollars in Cash. Kott stuffed the bills into his politically incorrect Carharts and Allen said, “There, that should keep you in broads and booze for a couple of days.” (p. 74)That's a totally different impression than the court record. My notes have that the $1000 was a reimbursment for a $1000 campaign contribution that Pete Kott had made to the Murkowski campaign. This still is not legal, but it is not as brash as stuffing bills into his pocket for broads and booze.
And he also gives us details of events he didn't personally witness - such as Kepner and Joy's first discussion with Don Young for example. Other stories didn't seem right to me, but I had no way to check.
7. Conclusions
This is a short book - 150 pages - so it's pretty easy to get through. As someone who's followed the trials closely, I knew who all the players were and the book filled in some of the gaps in my knowledge. What we learn about the FBI's working the case is also interesting. Again, we have to be careful about buying into all the details, but overall we get more information on how things work. I suspect the book would be interesting to someone who doesn't know as much, but it will be more difficult to sense where he's stretching things and where he's sticking close to the original script. With so much national attention on Alaska right now, people may be interested in this sordid little tale.
I don't think it tells us very much about Prewitt's thinking. I'd guess that the beginning is a flip facade that he may have developed over the years. The final chapter probably gives us a glimpse of Prewitt that isn't seen in public, though it's only a glimpse.
OK, I know this is ending rather abruptly. I only had the book for two days and I'm trying to get this out. I may come back and edit when I look at it later.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Kohring Leaving Court Video
When John Henry Browne was Vic Kohring's attorney, Vic Kohring would stop and talk and talk with the reporters waiting outside the security barriers at the Federal Court building. Browne would show up a little later and say with a smile, "I thought I told you not to say anything until I got here." Then the two would continue talking to the press.
But today, Kohring walked out and quietly said, his attorney told him not to talk. Then he walked on. Public defender Curtner had nothing to say either. Things might have been a lot different for Kohring, if Curtner had had Kohring's case from the beginning. You can also see David Shurtleff in one of his last APRN assignments before joining the Berkowitz campaign. I asked if he had a comment on the Berkowitz-Benson race. He said, "Not until Monday."
Other posts on Kohring trial.
But today, Kohring walked out and quietly said, his attorney told him not to talk. Then he walked on. Public defender Curtner had nothing to say either. Things might have been a lot different for Kohring, if Curtner had had Kohring's case from the beginning. You can also see David Shurtleff in one of his last APRN assignments before joining the Berkowitz campaign. I asked if he had a comment on the Berkowitz-Benson race. He said, "Not until Monday."
Other posts on Kohring trial.
US Marshals Flying Vic Kohring To California Monday
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
11:00 AM 3:07-CR-00055-JWS Judge Sedwick ANCHORAGE COURTROOM 3
USA vs. VICTOR H. KOHRING
(Joseph Bottini) (Richard Curtner)
(Edward Sullivan)
Session began about 11:06am
Kohring public defender Richard Curtner said that Kohring's surgery requres 6-10 weeks of physical therapy and he is now into week 4.
Also, Kohring has been assigned to the Taft Facility, in Taft, California without going through the Taft Medical designator. They do have medical facilities in Rochester, which has better facilities. Taft is minimum security, but does not have physical therapy.
Trying to get proper answer for Mr. Kohring on the prisons.
2. Mr. Kohring does not have the funds to fly to Taft, and would just like to self-surrender here. Prosecutors said this would not be a problem.
Bottini:
Nothing we see in the doctor's report that suggests he couldn't get adequate treatment at Taft. If he needs further assessment, that can be done fairly expeditiouslyIf at Taft. If he wants to self-surrender here to the Marshal's, we do not have a problem with that.
Judge:
Concur with Botinni. Not to minimize Mr. Kohring's condition, there are many people with far more serious medical and mental conditions who report to prison.
Need to report morning of June 30 to Federal Marshals in Anchorage by 12:00 noon.
11:15 am Done
After the session, Vic came out to just a couple of reporters and said his attorney had instructed him not to say anything. Well that certainly speaks well for the attorney. Too bad he didn't start off with Curtner.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
11:00 AM 3:07-CR-00055-JWS Judge Sedwick ANCHORAGE COURTROOM 3
USA vs. VICTOR H. KOHRING
(Joseph Bottini) (Richard Curtner)
(Edward Sullivan)
Session began about 11:06am
Kohring public defender Richard Curtner said that Kohring's surgery requres 6-10 weeks of physical therapy and he is now into week 4.
Also, Kohring has been assigned to the Taft Facility, in Taft, California without going through the Taft Medical designator. They do have medical facilities in Rochester, which has better facilities. Taft is minimum security, but does not have physical therapy.
Trying to get proper answer for Mr. Kohring on the prisons.
2. Mr. Kohring does not have the funds to fly to Taft, and would just like to self-surrender here. Prosecutors said this would not be a problem.
Bottini:
Nothing we see in the doctor's report that suggests he couldn't get adequate treatment at Taft. If he needs further assessment, that can be done fairly expeditiouslyIf at Taft. If he wants to self-surrender here to the Marshal's, we do not have a problem with that.
Judge:
Concur with Botinni. Not to minimize Mr. Kohring's condition, there are many people with far more serious medical and mental conditions who report to prison.
Need to report morning of June 30 to Federal Marshals in Anchorage by 12:00 noon.
11:15 am Done
After the session, Vic came out to just a couple of reporters and said his attorney had instructed him not to say anything. Well that certainly speaks well for the attorney. Too bad he didn't start off with Curtner.
Approximately 15 percent of the Bureau's inmate population are confined in secure facilities operated primarily by private corrections companies and to a lesser extent by state and local governments, and in privately-operated community corrections centers. Contract facilities help the Bureau manage its population and are especially useful for meeting the needs of low security, specialized populations like sentenced criminal aliens. Staff of the Correctional Programs Division in Central Office provide oversight for privately-operated facilities.
Inmate Mail/Parcels
Use this address when sending correspondence and parcels to inmates confined at this facility. Inmate funds may also be sent directly to this address.
INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER
CI TAFT
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 7001
TAFT, CA 93268
Monday, June 23, 2008
Another Kohring Court Appearance
[Wed. pm: For hearing results go to Kohring Trial label.]
Someone passed this on to me.
Apparently, what this means is that Vic Kohring has filed for a delay in his starting his prison sentence and the judge has agreed to hear this in court.
Here's what I wrote at the sentencing on May 8. This is the judge talking:
Someone passed this on to me.
Full docket text for document 202:
AMENDED JWS ORDER as to Victor H. Kohring re [201] Order; At docket 200 defendant moves to continue the date for his surrender to begin commencement of his sentence. The court will hold a hearing on that motion at 11:00 AM on June 25, 2008, in Anchorage Courtroom 3. The United States may, but is not required to, file a written response prior to the hearing. The hearing will not be under seal. cc: USM, USPO (RMC, COURT STAFF.
Apparently, what this means is that Vic Kohring has filed for a delay in his starting his prison sentence and the judge has agreed to hear this in court.
Here's what I wrote at the sentencing on May 8. This is the judge talking:
Good candidate for self surrender. He won’t be required to surrender any earlier than…And you can see and hear Kohring telling all who would listen about what he saw as the judge's outrageous conflict of interest.
Monday June 30, 2008. Because Mr. Kohring needs to have surgery. That should give him adequate time to have the surgery and recuperate.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Kohring -Politely Corrupt
Prosecutor Bottini responding to Kohring's attorney, who comparing his client to Kott, said Kohring didn't swear or drink or any of those things, that he really is Andy Griffith.
So if someone has a veneer of respectable - polite, decent clothes, good haircut, etc. - we make all sorts of positive assumptions about them.
Watching Kohring in court during his trial and even talking to him during breaks, I feel like this is someone who got in way over his head. He reminds me of a kid who has spent his life learning how to avoid trouble, maybe from an abusive parent or from bullies. He's learned to be very polite and to ask "How can I help you?" I think he really means it. But doing everything he's learned how to do, he still gets into trouble. I've written about the contradictions in Kohring's life before - the free market advocate who only has government gigs on his resume.
The rules of life are hard. Some people need hard and fast rules, others are comfortable with the ebb and tide of life. There are different kinds of smarts. Kohring seems to have 'follow the rule' smarts. The problems for this sort of person come when there are conflicting rules, or when conditions change and the rules no longer apply. He pledged early on that he wouldn't vote for taxes. And didn't, but said he would if they called it a fee. Bottini called him a frequent flier at the Legislative Ethics Ofiice meaning he constantly checked on whether he was obeying the law, but they only warned him about state law probably, not the federal law he was convicted of. He understands, I think, that "here's your money, now go vote this way" is illegal. He doesn't understand that "Here's your money" and then sometime later, "Hey, Vic, let that bill out of committee" is the same thing. Don Corleone explained all this: (hit the yellow arrow)
someday imported by AKRaven
"Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding."
"Politely Corrupt" also raises a basic theme of this "What do I know?" blog. How do we know things? How do our brains affect what data from the 'real world' we consider (and what we filter out) and how do we interpret those 'facts' that do get in? "He may be polite, but still corrupt." Polite is easy to see, corrupt is far less visible. We tend not to think of the two combined. Maybe Hollywood needs to make more movies with polite villains so that we get used to looking out for them too.
How did Kohring know who to trust? He trusted Bill Allen, but now he says he was betrayed. He trusts John Henry Browne who at the end of the trial said the defense had cost about $100,000. But Browne also said yesterday, in explaining the new back surgery that Kohring needs, that Kohring had been injured in a car accident before the trial. In Browne's car. Browne was driving. It was his fault.
I guess Browne's insurance is paying for that surgery. But did Kohring check with an attorney other than Browne about a settlement? And some might even think there was a conflict of interest if his criminal defense attorney is the man he might have to litigate over his back injury. And this all happened before the trial.
My biggest hope (though I'm not holding my breath) is that people will take more care and time in studying the backgrounds and beliefs of the people on the ballot in November. That they look past labels like Republican and Democrat and look at the people. They look past 30 second television commercials. Look past bumper sticker slogans like "no taxes" and take the measure of the candidate. Get people down to Juneau and DC who think, are comfortable with themselves, know how to handle money (their own and the state's), and have a good understanding of how everything fits together.
And here's the press grilling one of the jurists after the sentencing. One of Browne's arguments for lowering the sentencing was that we don't know exactly how many of the bribery charges the jury found Kohring guilty of. Although this juror didn't say a lot, I heard her to say she had taken everything into account.
. . . granted, he’s not Pete Kott when it comes to the colorful language, but you saw a guy who was politely corrupt. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t corrupt because he doesn’t swear. The fact that he’s - Andy Griffith - I don’t recall any shows where Andy Griffith took cash from anyone. He may be polite, but still corrupt.This raises so many issues - about Kohring, but more importantly, about all of us. How do we judge people? How do we decide who to trust and not. We 'hire' politicians to spend our money and steer the ship of State with far less research than most organizations use to hire an administrative assistant or janitor. (And there's no disrespect intended here for admin assistants or janitors, organizations can't run without them.)
So if someone has a veneer of respectable - polite, decent clothes, good haircut, etc. - we make all sorts of positive assumptions about them.
Watching Kohring in court during his trial and even talking to him during breaks, I feel like this is someone who got in way over his head. He reminds me of a kid who has spent his life learning how to avoid trouble, maybe from an abusive parent or from bullies. He's learned to be very polite and to ask "How can I help you?" I think he really means it. But doing everything he's learned how to do, he still gets into trouble. I've written about the contradictions in Kohring's life before - the free market advocate who only has government gigs on his resume.
The rules of life are hard. Some people need hard and fast rules, others are comfortable with the ebb and tide of life. There are different kinds of smarts. Kohring seems to have 'follow the rule' smarts. The problems for this sort of person come when there are conflicting rules, or when conditions change and the rules no longer apply. He pledged early on that he wouldn't vote for taxes. And didn't, but said he would if they called it a fee. Bottini called him a frequent flier at the Legislative Ethics Ofiice meaning he constantly checked on whether he was obeying the law, but they only warned him about state law probably, not the federal law he was convicted of. He understands, I think, that "here's your money, now go vote this way" is illegal. He doesn't understand that "Here's your money" and then sometime later, "Hey, Vic, let that bill out of committee" is the same thing. Don Corleone explained all this: (hit the yellow arrow)
someday imported by "Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding."
"Politely Corrupt" also raises a basic theme of this "What do I know?" blog. How do we know things? How do our brains affect what data from the 'real world' we consider (and what we filter out) and how do we interpret those 'facts' that do get in? "He may be polite, but still corrupt." Polite is easy to see, corrupt is far less visible. We tend not to think of the two combined. Maybe Hollywood needs to make more movies with polite villains so that we get used to looking out for them too.
How did Kohring know who to trust? He trusted Bill Allen, but now he says he was betrayed. He trusts John Henry Browne who at the end of the trial said the defense had cost about $100,000. But Browne also said yesterday, in explaining the new back surgery that Kohring needs, that Kohring had been injured in a car accident before the trial. In Browne's car. Browne was driving. It was his fault.
I guess Browne's insurance is paying for that surgery. But did Kohring check with an attorney other than Browne about a settlement? And some might even think there was a conflict of interest if his criminal defense attorney is the man he might have to litigate over his back injury. And this all happened before the trial.
My biggest hope (though I'm not holding my breath) is that people will take more care and time in studying the backgrounds and beliefs of the people on the ballot in November. That they look past labels like Republican and Democrat and look at the people. They look past 30 second television commercials. Look past bumper sticker slogans like "no taxes" and take the measure of the candidate. Get people down to Juneau and DC who think, are comfortable with themselves, know how to handle money (their own and the state's), and have a good understanding of how everything fits together.
And here's the press grilling one of the jurists after the sentencing. One of Browne's arguments for lowering the sentencing was that we don't know exactly how many of the bribery charges the jury found Kohring guilty of. Although this juror didn't say a lot, I heard her to say she had taken everything into account.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Kohring - More thoughts and questions
Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross has named five stages of grief people go through following a serious loss. Sometimes people get stuck in one of the first four stages. Their lives can be painful until they move to the fifth stage - acceptance.
Five Stages Of Grief
1. Denial and Isolation.
At first, we tend to deny the loss has taken place, and may withdraw from our usual social contacts. This stage may last a few moments, or longer.
2. Anger.
The grieving person may then be furious at the person who inflicted the hurt (even if she's dead), or at the world, for letting it happen. He may be angry with himself for letting the event take place, even if, realistically, nothing could have stopped it.
3. Bargaining.
Now the grieving person may make bargains with God, asking, "If I do this, will you take away the loss?"
4. Depression.
The person feels numb, although anger and sadness may remain underneath.
5. Acceptance.
This is when the anger, sadness and mourning have tapered off. The person simply accepts the reality of the loss. From Memorial Hospital in Towanda, Pennsylvania
If you listened to Vic Kohring's statement in court or the videos in an earlier post today (be sure to link to the AlaskaReport video as well), it's clear, as Myster remarked in a comment to that post, that Kohring is in denial. He did nothing wrong except trust friends who betrayed him. He's also in anger as well, though he covers that well. I suspect that he learned as a child to speak softly and not show his anger. One day he may just explode.
I believe Kohring. Not that he's innocent, but that believes that he is. Of course, I can't tell for sure if he's not quite as bright as most people, or he's incredibly calculating. My guess is the former. He's the legislator who pledged never to raise taxes and then kept that pledge, even if it didn't make sense and was willing to vote for a tax if they changed the name to a fee. That sort of rigidity seems to reflect a mind that doesn't deal well with subtleties.
I've also encountered a lot of people whose minds are compartmentalized. They don't see the big picture. Thus, if Vic fits that category, he can't quite comprehend how the money he got from his good friend Bill Allen was related to things he did for Bill Allen. After all, as Browne said over and over in court and Vic too, he was always willing to help anyone. I seem to recall that Tom Anderson's lawyer also made the case that Tom was always willing to help.
A couple of quick points to put his appeal into perspective.
1. One point in the appeal is that the search of Kohring's office was illegal. Browne filed a long motion on that before the trial. Here's the prosecution's response to that, and in the post there's a link to the original motion. The prosecution blows his arguments out of the water. And when it came time to cross exam Agent Vanderploeg who did the original interview while other agents searched the office, Browne only asked a few questions, but nothing about the legitimacy of the search itself. He didn't most of the issue that he raised in the original motion. But one part of the motion to have Kohring on bail awaiting appeal (which the judge denied) was based on a case in which the authorities searched a house saying they had a warrante when they didn't. That wasn't the case here, or if it was, Browne didn't bring that out in court.
2. The focus on Kohring's statement was that he couldn't get a fair trial because the judte was married to Kohring's worst enemy. We've discussed that here before. In the video in the previous post and Dennis Zaki's video linked there, Browne also raises this and gets angry when he's questioned. (He also chewed out Bill McAllister (I think it was Bill) in a very mean-spirited diatribe at the coffee stand in the cafeteria.) A few points on this:
a. It appears that while Kohring did try to combine Debbie Sedwick's department with another, that she did not lose her job, and that as a professional, she understood this to be political and not personal. I'm guessing there never was a feud until it became convenient for the defense.
b. Her name is Sedwick. The judge's name is Sedwick. There are four Sedwicks in my Anchorage telephone book. This is not a common name. If this feud had been such a big deal, if she really was one of his worst enemies, then surely Kohring would have noticed the name and made inquiries before the trial. The judge had no obligation to say anything if he didn't know there was a feud. It was only at the very end of the trial that this came up. Browne and Kohring said they didn't bring it up earlier because they had no idea of the relation. I can accept that for Browne, but not Kohring, if in fact she was one of his worst enemies.
I mention these two, because they are fairly easy to discuss. But my sense is this is the depth of all the other stuff.
The real question now is about money. Vic says this all cost him half a million. So
1. Who's paying for his back surgery?
2. Who's paying for his appeal? It's hard for me to believe that Browne is the type of attorney who would get involved in his client's plight and do this pro bono.
I've got to run.
Kohring Sentencing -Notes as it happened
Below are my notes. I can type pretty fast, but not fast enough. But this should give you a sense of what happened today. There are gaps, but I think I've caught the essence. I'll make comments and point out highlights in the next post. The previous post has video of Kohring talking to the press after the sentencing.
Vic Kohring Sentencing
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
9:30 AM 3:07-CR-00055-JWS Judge Sedwick ANCHORAGE COURTROOM 3
USA vs. VICTOR H. KOHRING
(Joseph Bottini) (John Henry Browne)
(Edward Sullivan) (Wayne Anthony Ross)
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE
9:35am Judge Sedwick is explaining why we are here
List of Felonies Vic Kohring convicted of
Pre Sentence Report Prepared which I’ve read
Vic Kohring have you read the presentencing report?
Yes.
Presentencing Report. Vic Kohring has mentioned three objections:
A. Not one of allegations predating 2006 is relevant for sentencing
B. Since related PPT bill, related to only one subject matter, …. Unwarranted
C. Sum total of payments Vic Kohring received was less than $5000 so …..
Sedwick, I will take up these later, but first all other findings of fact I find supported by preponderance of evidence.
I’ll hear from lawyers.
Then others.
Then Kohring
Then Determine sentence.
Then hear argument on his motion to be released pending appeal.
Mr. Browne: [Kohring's defense attorney. Although Wayne Anthony Ross is also listed, he hasn't been actively involved in the courtroom]
John Henry Browne: You have everything we’ve filed, more detailed than presentation. You summarized objections right.
Vic Kohring accepted $1000 and some food, so no basis for upward adjusting under law. Guilty of $10,000-30,000 - he didn’t accept nearly that amount of money - neither the loan or job for his nephew not criminal conduct. Since the jury found not guilty on ??? Not guilty. Not clear exactly what conduct the jury found illegal. According to the newspaper….
Sedwick: I only mentioned newspaper articles because you mentioned them in your appeals.
John Henry Browne: No, in your order about our conflict of interest argument you mentioned the newspaper articles. Unusual to rely on newspaper article - I should point out there are jurors here present today - $1000 got on way home from the pub.
For the court to suggest that there was $5000 or more would be a guess what the jury decided.
Whether there is more than one bribe or not, the Govt.’s case supports our permission - “If you find a series of payments” that is usually considered just one bribe. If you accept my reasoning, his sentencing raise would be 17- 23 months, series 18?
Otherwise level 20 - 33- ? Months
Bottini - [Prosecutor #1]
Pre 2006 , or course relevant, in the indictment, charged, jury convicted on him.
Multiple bribes, we argued this in Anderson and Kott unsuccessfully so we understand reasoning. But this is different. This had nothing to do with ppt. What Allen did was from time to time give Kohring money when he needed it. He remembered giving Vic Kohring $600-700 on several occasions. Doesn’t mean they weren’t a bribe. Giving the money because he felt sorry, but also to grease him. Knowing full well he would have a time to come and ask him for something. Vic Kohring was choking the bill? And he asked him to let it go. He asked him not to run against Lyda Green. Clearly a multiple bribe situation.
Sullivan: [Prosecutor #2] Browne’s arugment that there should be no enhancement, because only took $1000 bribe at Island Pub. Specifically related to $17,000 loan that he was asking for - we charged it as an attempt crime because he didn’t get the amount. Browne says because there was an acquital on Charge 2? - evidence was prsented on other counts, thus there should be a four level enhancement to $29,000.
Sedwick: It seems law clear that court should consider evidence whether it happened. Even the SC says that if preponderance of evidence, the court should consider it even if acquitted. I’ll give Browne a chance to respond. Is it your review I misunderstand the law?
Browne: That’s a tough questions. Your Honor could consider the weather in Anchorage because it is kind of gloomy today.
Sedwick: I won’t.
Browne: We do not believe that the court can find a preponderance of evidence. Mr. Allen never testified. Interesting, government changed the word ‘loan’ to payment. I thought interesting. That’s the language in the superseding indictment - payment - we know there was no payment. Kohring said, over and over again, everything has to be aboveboard. Nothing from Allen that he considered any requests by Vic Kohring to do anything. I believe it would be a stretch…. [sounding much less certain here]
9:50
Sedwick: Having sat through the trial. I come away with a different assessment than Mr. Browne does. He saw this $17,000 as a way to deal with his financial problems. Despite Mr. Browne’s very able arguments, I overrule the objections and adopt all the statements. That means 24, Criminal history category of 1, the lowest. Advisory is 51-63 months.
If the govt. Knows of any victim that would liked to be heard.
Bottini: No.
Would like to hear the attorney’s ideas for sentencing:
John Henry Browne: No secret we will be appealing whatever happened. Based on what you just ruled, and I assume that you included the multiple bribes.
Sedwick: Yes,
Browne: Object to courts intervening in proceedings at all.
Sedwick: Noted
Browne: We are asking for the court to depart from the sentencing guideline and reasons in our brief.
Sedwick: Principle one being abberant behavior.
Browne: Thank goodness the SC has now given courts discretion. I’m happy to see it back. Doesn’t mean I agree with it. I would...point out, today, Mr. Kohring has hitchhiked to court. The door of the truck he borrowed. The door fell off. He hitch hiked.
He is residing with his parents on a doublewide couch, humiliated. Meanwhile, Bill Allen, with $400million he was allowed to keep, the govt. Perhaps because Veco is so involved in the oil industry, has given Veco a pass. While my client is sleeping on a couch. I note that his sentencing has been continued to July again. You saw examples of Kott, Allen, Smith behavior on tape, how they talk, drink, behave on tape. You certainly never saw that of Kohring. He never used one bad word. No matter what happens, Allen has $400 million in his pocket. Mr. Kohring gets to pass on to his relatives debts. Jurors in the newspaper said if they understood the sentencing consequences, they would have taken their job differently.
He spent a decade as a dedicated legislators. Letters say how hard working he was. There were over 50 bankers boxes or more between Kohring and constituents. The letters also say, though you didn’t allow us to present any of this to the jury. Mr. Kohring has a mantra “Let me know what I can do for you.” I know politicians have a tendency to say things like that, though not to the extent Vic Kohring does. Does have obligations and responsibilities to parents- Alzheimer's dad - and facing divorce from his wife.
No question it is aberrant behavior.
Question for the court whether that should be a basis for departure. Drink of water your honor. The clmate I came to try this case was someone incendiary, because of Anderson case. You were critical of Kott - swearing, etc - and that he wasn’t honest. Not the case here. Kohring didn’t testify. Certaininly 8 months in jail or home detention is a significant penalty… Are there other issues you want me to cover now?
Sedwick: Self surrender. There is a questions about release status pending appeal, I will considere today.
John Henry Browne: Mr. Kohring has preexisting defect in spine in his back. You know because of his surgery reason for $17,000. Mr. Kohring was in an auto accident a week before trial, and I was driving, the only accident in 30 years, I was at fault, and he needs surgery again. He could accomplish that in 45 days, not longer than self surrender takes. You want to hear from Mr. Kohring first?
Sedwick: Yes, but from government lawyers first.
John Henry Browne: Sought advice from myself and Wayne Anthony Ross… He is very concerned about the conflict of interest issue. He’s been advised by some that…. That may not set well with the court. We have put that forward about what you should have told us before and we would have asked for you to be ….. Kohring is not angry. He’s Andy Griffith. He’s not angry, just disappointed. He has a right to talk about his feelings and that the court will listen and understand. I will wait to talk about the bail issue.
Bottini:
aberrant behavior issue: This was a four year conduct. Not aberrant, he knew if he told Allen he needed help, he’d get it. He did this over and over for four years. Mr. Browne says well, compare this to Allen.
Not true. We went over this in detail. Veco didn’t get a pass. He sold the company at huge discount, because government wouldn’t give a pass. His family situation is nothing unusual. The fact is that he has family here, in state, his sister lives in Palmer.
He offers to help everyone. Modus operandi for Kohring. What is different is that the offer is directly to Allen and smith. After Easter Egg money, he offered to help Allen and Veco.
Contrast between the Kott trial and Kohring tapes, granted, he’s not Pete Kott when it comes to the colorful language, but you saw a guy who was politely corrupt. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t corrupt because he doesn’t swear. The fact that he’s - Andy Griffith - I don’t recall any shows where Andy Griffith took cash from anyone. He may be polite, but still corrupt.
Sullivan: Mr. Kohring convicted of multiple instances. I could talk about corrupting public process at great length. But anything I say would pale in comparison to that one snapshot of him taking money from Allen and asking “What can I do for you?” It says it all about Kohring and about the level of corruption in the legislature at that time. You’ve heard a lot about ppt - billions of dollars of tax revenue for the state - that snapshot showed that piece of legislation was being decided in the back room of a hotel. Spoke volumes about Vic Kohring, that he was willing to sell his office for gain,
Videos showed other traits - He was a manipulating and calculating person when it served his purpose. Timed visits when Veco needed something. Those are times he asked for things. He also knows how to play the pauper. He gave Smith and Allen song and dance about his conditions. Never told them that he was making $100K in per dieman and sleeping on couch by choice. Frequent flier at ethics office. He knew what he was doing.
Not aberrant behavior, at least 4 cash payments 2002-2006. How many times did we hear phone calls from Vic Kohring he was willing to help Allen and Smith. Vic Kohring’s illeagal conduct clear and the guilty found him guilty.
We asked tha integrity and honesty should have some meaning. The only way to make that image of dishonesty goes away when Vic Kohring goes away. We ask for 60 months.
Sedwick: Vic Kohring
Vic Kohring: Honorable Judge Sedwick, not here to plead for mercy. Instead, to plead my innocence. I was stunned to learn you were married to one of my greatest enemies. You were legally bound to excuse yourself. Furthermore you lived across the street from the governments star witness. I’m so disappointed that the person who holds the fate is married to the person whose job I eliminated.
Then this week’s latest motion you denied. The juror who regretted his decision.
I will admit, I showed poor judgment when I accepted cash for my daughter from someone I thought was my friend who betrayed me. I didn’t live up to my high standards. I never once voted for PPT. My words, How can I help? Were my mantra. Ironic that my words are now being used against me. Intended to be helpful.
The resutling conviction has destroyed me. Cost to me is approaching $half a million, all over $1000. But my spirit is not broken. We did all with integrity. Just an honest presentation of the facts. I used to believe in my government. I do not hold it in high regard as I used to. I believe in the principles. I won’t express remorse for something I didn’t do. The truth will only be reviewed if heard before jurors without bias. I thank the jurors but want to let them know they didn’t hear all the evidence.
I for one shall not rest until justice prevails. I didn’ nothing criminal. Iwas naive. I assert my innocence. All I ask for is to be treated fairly. All I ask for is a fair trial which I believe would find me innocent.
10:20am
Sedwick: As lawyers know, sentence requires applying all criteria.
1. Nature and circumstances of offense: Key criterion. Jury shows, Vic Kohring violated the public trust. Reflected in fact Congress has provided that most serious sentence is 20 years.
2. I agree that Vic Kohring’s objective was to serve interests of his constituents. Unfortunately, at the end he sold out the trust he worked so hard to earn, but participating in the relationship with Veco. Browne suggests that he was just doing what he always did - helping people. But difference between lawful and unlawful helpful. Since he spent so much time at the ethics office. It is clear to me, despite what he said, that he knew what he did was wrong.
I think there is no risk of Vic Kohring committing future crime. He has learned he must be careful to help people whose objectives are lawful.
Must consider impact on others. To reinforce message to people elected to serve the public.
Even Mr. Browne believes some period of incarceration is required.
Court has to consider what is available. Probation is legally authorized. Serious nature makes probation outside the bounds. Incarceration and supervised release left.
I have determined guideline 51-62 months. Instructed by congress to avoid disparities. All judges across the country consider the guidelines, even if not absolutely bound.
I have to provide for restitution. No way to pay that here.
Finally, Mr. Kohring's physical condition. Given Vic Kohring’s modest financial condition now, it appears he’ll get as good or better care in prison than he could afford himself. If he does need a surgical procedure soon, and plans on that and apparently has the wherewithal to pay for that.
Taking that all into account, I have to say does not deserve same as Kott or Anderson, behavior not as egregious. Clear to me that his desire to help shouldn’t have included things Veco wanted to do.
Finally, it has to be sufficient but no greater than necessary to achieve goals congress has set forth. Lower range is appropriate, 42 months is appropriate. Is one meets requirements of the statute, is no greater than necessary.
Appropriate to hear motion on Docket 181.
John Henry Browne: In recent past, I know you and most attorneys deal with people not released. Unusual for me. Usually a way uphill battle. Very uncomfortable to make arguments because of what is alleged.
Sedwick: Go ahead.
John Henry Browne: I would suggest there are substantial issues on appeal.
Sedwick: You can speak at length. I’ve read them.
John Henry Browne: There are meritorious issues. Novel, that trial judge has made opinion on his own that he is fair. And it is a meritorious issue. Search warrant issue is serious. Controlling law is 18USC…. Is he a flight risk or danger.
2. Is the appeal meritorious and not for the purpose of delay. You heard what he said to you, sticking to his guns. He believes he has meritorious issues on appeal.
3. Raise serious issues of law and fact.
I think he meets the criteria for meritorious issues on appeal.
He’s a very law abiding citizen outside of this issue.
He doesn’t have the $500,000 fees that Mr. Allen has. I’ll continue to help him.
Sullivan: As the court is aware, we received this motion late last night. Would like to respond in writing.
Sedwick: This is not complicated
Sullivan: We conceded he is not a flight risk
We take issue whether he has raised an issue that will be reversed or reduced sentence. We disagree. Laundry list of issues have all been fully vetted by the parties here. We believe the court has correctly handled them here.
Sedwick: As both noted the statute that controls here 18USC…. With exception of certain crimes irrelevant here.
1. Not flight risk or danger - Vic Kohring meets that
2. I do have to find not taken for purposes of delay that is likely to result in reversal or new trial with lesser penalty.
A. Not taken for delay
B. Reversal
With respect to related issues Browne and others have written. I believe my decisions isn’t at all unusual.
Good candidate for self surrender. He won’t be required to surrender any earlier than…
Monday June 30, 2008. Because Mr. Kohring needs to have surgery. That should give him adequate time to have the surgery and recuperate.
Supervised release for two years. Sentence to run concurrent on each account. Meaning he will serve all sentences at the same time. On release he shall be replaced on supervised…. Speaking way too fast.
1. Cooperate in collection of DNA sample
2. Searches by probation etc. Offers on reasonable suspicion…
Does not have ability to pay fine. Required. $300.
If his condition is such, he may surrender before June 30, I am highly unlikely to extend this no matter what the medical condition might be.
Any other matters before I mention appeal rights.
You have right to appeal….
Vic Kohring Sentencing
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
9:30 AM 3:07-CR-00055-JWS Judge Sedwick ANCHORAGE COURTROOM 3
USA vs. VICTOR H. KOHRING
(Joseph Bottini) (John Henry Browne)
(Edward Sullivan) (Wayne Anthony Ross)
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE
9:35am Judge Sedwick is explaining why we are here
List of Felonies Vic Kohring convicted of
Pre Sentence Report Prepared which I’ve read
Vic Kohring have you read the presentencing report?
Yes.
Presentencing Report. Vic Kohring has mentioned three objections:
A. Not one of allegations predating 2006 is relevant for sentencing
B. Since related PPT bill, related to only one subject matter, …. Unwarranted
C. Sum total of payments Vic Kohring received was less than $5000 so …..
Sedwick, I will take up these later, but first all other findings of fact I find supported by preponderance of evidence.
I’ll hear from lawyers.
Then others.
Then Kohring
Then Determine sentence.
Then hear argument on his motion to be released pending appeal.
Mr. Browne: [Kohring's defense attorney. Although Wayne Anthony Ross is also listed, he hasn't been actively involved in the courtroom]
John Henry Browne: You have everything we’ve filed, more detailed than presentation. You summarized objections right.
Vic Kohring accepted $1000 and some food, so no basis for upward adjusting under law. Guilty of $10,000-30,000 - he didn’t accept nearly that amount of money - neither the loan or job for his nephew not criminal conduct. Since the jury found not guilty on ??? Not guilty. Not clear exactly what conduct the jury found illegal. According to the newspaper….
Sedwick: I only mentioned newspaper articles because you mentioned them in your appeals.
John Henry Browne: No, in your order about our conflict of interest argument you mentioned the newspaper articles. Unusual to rely on newspaper article - I should point out there are jurors here present today - $1000 got on way home from the pub.
For the court to suggest that there was $5000 or more would be a guess what the jury decided.
Whether there is more than one bribe or not, the Govt.’s case supports our permission - “If you find a series of payments” that is usually considered just one bribe. If you accept my reasoning, his sentencing raise would be 17- 23 months, series 18?
Otherwise level 20 - 33- ? Months
Bottini - [Prosecutor #1]
Pre 2006 , or course relevant, in the indictment, charged, jury convicted on him.
Multiple bribes, we argued this in Anderson and Kott unsuccessfully so we understand reasoning. But this is different. This had nothing to do with ppt. What Allen did was from time to time give Kohring money when he needed it. He remembered giving Vic Kohring $600-700 on several occasions. Doesn’t mean they weren’t a bribe. Giving the money because he felt sorry, but also to grease him. Knowing full well he would have a time to come and ask him for something. Vic Kohring was choking the bill? And he asked him to let it go. He asked him not to run against Lyda Green. Clearly a multiple bribe situation.
Sullivan: [Prosecutor #2] Browne’s arugment that there should be no enhancement, because only took $1000 bribe at Island Pub. Specifically related to $17,000 loan that he was asking for - we charged it as an attempt crime because he didn’t get the amount. Browne says because there was an acquital on Charge 2? - evidence was prsented on other counts, thus there should be a four level enhancement to $29,000.
Sedwick: It seems law clear that court should consider evidence whether it happened. Even the SC says that if preponderance of evidence, the court should consider it even if acquitted. I’ll give Browne a chance to respond. Is it your review I misunderstand the law?
Browne: That’s a tough questions. Your Honor could consider the weather in Anchorage because it is kind of gloomy today.
Sedwick: I won’t.
Browne: We do not believe that the court can find a preponderance of evidence. Mr. Allen never testified. Interesting, government changed the word ‘loan’ to payment. I thought interesting. That’s the language in the superseding indictment - payment - we know there was no payment. Kohring said, over and over again, everything has to be aboveboard. Nothing from Allen that he considered any requests by Vic Kohring to do anything. I believe it would be a stretch…. [sounding much less certain here]
9:50
Sedwick: Having sat through the trial. I come away with a different assessment than Mr. Browne does. He saw this $17,000 as a way to deal with his financial problems. Despite Mr. Browne’s very able arguments, I overrule the objections and adopt all the statements. That means 24, Criminal history category of 1, the lowest. Advisory is 51-63 months.
If the govt. Knows of any victim that would liked to be heard.
Bottini: No.
Would like to hear the attorney’s ideas for sentencing:
John Henry Browne: No secret we will be appealing whatever happened. Based on what you just ruled, and I assume that you included the multiple bribes.
Sedwick: Yes,
Browne: Object to courts intervening in proceedings at all.
Sedwick: Noted
Browne: We are asking for the court to depart from the sentencing guideline and reasons in our brief.
Sedwick: Principle one being abberant behavior.
Browne: Thank goodness the SC has now given courts discretion. I’m happy to see it back. Doesn’t mean I agree with it. I would...point out, today, Mr. Kohring has hitchhiked to court. The door of the truck he borrowed. The door fell off. He hitch hiked.
He is residing with his parents on a doublewide couch, humiliated. Meanwhile, Bill Allen, with $400million he was allowed to keep, the govt. Perhaps because Veco is so involved in the oil industry, has given Veco a pass. While my client is sleeping on a couch. I note that his sentencing has been continued to July again. You saw examples of Kott, Allen, Smith behavior on tape, how they talk, drink, behave on tape. You certainly never saw that of Kohring. He never used one bad word. No matter what happens, Allen has $400 million in his pocket. Mr. Kohring gets to pass on to his relatives debts. Jurors in the newspaper said if they understood the sentencing consequences, they would have taken their job differently.
He spent a decade as a dedicated legislators. Letters say how hard working he was. There were over 50 bankers boxes or more between Kohring and constituents. The letters also say, though you didn’t allow us to present any of this to the jury. Mr. Kohring has a mantra “Let me know what I can do for you.” I know politicians have a tendency to say things like that, though not to the extent Vic Kohring does. Does have obligations and responsibilities to parents- Alzheimer's dad - and facing divorce from his wife.
No question it is aberrant behavior.
Question for the court whether that should be a basis for departure. Drink of water your honor. The clmate I came to try this case was someone incendiary, because of Anderson case. You were critical of Kott - swearing, etc - and that he wasn’t honest. Not the case here. Kohring didn’t testify. Certaininly 8 months in jail or home detention is a significant penalty… Are there other issues you want me to cover now?
Sedwick: Self surrender. There is a questions about release status pending appeal, I will considere today.
John Henry Browne: Mr. Kohring has preexisting defect in spine in his back. You know because of his surgery reason for $17,000. Mr. Kohring was in an auto accident a week before trial, and I was driving, the only accident in 30 years, I was at fault, and he needs surgery again. He could accomplish that in 45 days, not longer than self surrender takes. You want to hear from Mr. Kohring first?
Sedwick: Yes, but from government lawyers first.
John Henry Browne: Sought advice from myself and Wayne Anthony Ross… He is very concerned about the conflict of interest issue. He’s been advised by some that…. That may not set well with the court. We have put that forward about what you should have told us before and we would have asked for you to be ….. Kohring is not angry. He’s Andy Griffith. He’s not angry, just disappointed. He has a right to talk about his feelings and that the court will listen and understand. I will wait to talk about the bail issue.
Bottini:
aberrant behavior issue: This was a four year conduct. Not aberrant, he knew if he told Allen he needed help, he’d get it. He did this over and over for four years. Mr. Browne says well, compare this to Allen.
Not true. We went over this in detail. Veco didn’t get a pass. He sold the company at huge discount, because government wouldn’t give a pass. His family situation is nothing unusual. The fact is that he has family here, in state, his sister lives in Palmer.
He offers to help everyone. Modus operandi for Kohring. What is different is that the offer is directly to Allen and smith. After Easter Egg money, he offered to help Allen and Veco.
Contrast between the Kott trial and Kohring tapes, granted, he’s not Pete Kott when it comes to the colorful language, but you saw a guy who was politely corrupt. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t corrupt because he doesn’t swear. The fact that he’s - Andy Griffith - I don’t recall any shows where Andy Griffith took cash from anyone. He may be polite, but still corrupt.
Sullivan: Mr. Kohring convicted of multiple instances. I could talk about corrupting public process at great length. But anything I say would pale in comparison to that one snapshot of him taking money from Allen and asking “What can I do for you?” It says it all about Kohring and about the level of corruption in the legislature at that time. You’ve heard a lot about ppt - billions of dollars of tax revenue for the state - that snapshot showed that piece of legislation was being decided in the back room of a hotel. Spoke volumes about Vic Kohring, that he was willing to sell his office for gain,
Videos showed other traits - He was a manipulating and calculating person when it served his purpose. Timed visits when Veco needed something. Those are times he asked for things. He also knows how to play the pauper. He gave Smith and Allen song and dance about his conditions. Never told them that he was making $100K in per dieman and sleeping on couch by choice. Frequent flier at ethics office. He knew what he was doing.
Not aberrant behavior, at least 4 cash payments 2002-2006. How many times did we hear phone calls from Vic Kohring he was willing to help Allen and Smith. Vic Kohring’s illeagal conduct clear and the guilty found him guilty.
We asked tha integrity and honesty should have some meaning. The only way to make that image of dishonesty goes away when Vic Kohring goes away. We ask for 60 months.
Sedwick: Vic Kohring
Vic Kohring: Honorable Judge Sedwick, not here to plead for mercy. Instead, to plead my innocence. I was stunned to learn you were married to one of my greatest enemies. You were legally bound to excuse yourself. Furthermore you lived across the street from the governments star witness. I’m so disappointed that the person who holds the fate is married to the person whose job I eliminated.
Then this week’s latest motion you denied. The juror who regretted his decision.
I will admit, I showed poor judgment when I accepted cash for my daughter from someone I thought was my friend who betrayed me. I didn’t live up to my high standards. I never once voted for PPT. My words, How can I help? Were my mantra. Ironic that my words are now being used against me. Intended to be helpful.
The resutling conviction has destroyed me. Cost to me is approaching $half a million, all over $1000. But my spirit is not broken. We did all with integrity. Just an honest presentation of the facts. I used to believe in my government. I do not hold it in high regard as I used to. I believe in the principles. I won’t express remorse for something I didn’t do. The truth will only be reviewed if heard before jurors without bias. I thank the jurors but want to let them know they didn’t hear all the evidence.
I for one shall not rest until justice prevails. I didn’ nothing criminal. Iwas naive. I assert my innocence. All I ask for is to be treated fairly. All I ask for is a fair trial which I believe would find me innocent.
10:20am
Sedwick: As lawyers know, sentence requires applying all criteria.
1. Nature and circumstances of offense: Key criterion. Jury shows, Vic Kohring violated the public trust. Reflected in fact Congress has provided that most serious sentence is 20 years.
2. I agree that Vic Kohring’s objective was to serve interests of his constituents. Unfortunately, at the end he sold out the trust he worked so hard to earn, but participating in the relationship with Veco. Browne suggests that he was just doing what he always did - helping people. But difference between lawful and unlawful helpful. Since he spent so much time at the ethics office. It is clear to me, despite what he said, that he knew what he did was wrong.
I think there is no risk of Vic Kohring committing future crime. He has learned he must be careful to help people whose objectives are lawful.
Must consider impact on others. To reinforce message to people elected to serve the public.
Even Mr. Browne believes some period of incarceration is required.
Court has to consider what is available. Probation is legally authorized. Serious nature makes probation outside the bounds. Incarceration and supervised release left.
I have determined guideline 51-62 months. Instructed by congress to avoid disparities. All judges across the country consider the guidelines, even if not absolutely bound.
I have to provide for restitution. No way to pay that here.
Finally, Mr. Kohring's physical condition. Given Vic Kohring’s modest financial condition now, it appears he’ll get as good or better care in prison than he could afford himself. If he does need a surgical procedure soon, and plans on that and apparently has the wherewithal to pay for that.
Taking that all into account, I have to say does not deserve same as Kott or Anderson, behavior not as egregious. Clear to me that his desire to help shouldn’t have included things Veco wanted to do.
Finally, it has to be sufficient but no greater than necessary to achieve goals congress has set forth. Lower range is appropriate, 42 months is appropriate. Is one meets requirements of the statute, is no greater than necessary.
Appropriate to hear motion on Docket 181.
John Henry Browne: In recent past, I know you and most attorneys deal with people not released. Unusual for me. Usually a way uphill battle. Very uncomfortable to make arguments because of what is alleged.
Sedwick: Go ahead.
John Henry Browne: I would suggest there are substantial issues on appeal.
Sedwick: You can speak at length. I’ve read them.
John Henry Browne: There are meritorious issues. Novel, that trial judge has made opinion on his own that he is fair. And it is a meritorious issue. Search warrant issue is serious. Controlling law is 18USC…. Is he a flight risk or danger.
2. Is the appeal meritorious and not for the purpose of delay. You heard what he said to you, sticking to his guns. He believes he has meritorious issues on appeal.
3. Raise serious issues of law and fact.
I think he meets the criteria for meritorious issues on appeal.
He’s a very law abiding citizen outside of this issue.
He doesn’t have the $500,000 fees that Mr. Allen has. I’ll continue to help him.
Sullivan: As the court is aware, we received this motion late last night. Would like to respond in writing.
Sedwick: This is not complicated
Sullivan: We conceded he is not a flight risk
We take issue whether he has raised an issue that will be reversed or reduced sentence. We disagree. Laundry list of issues have all been fully vetted by the parties here. We believe the court has correctly handled them here.
Sedwick: As both noted the statute that controls here 18USC…. With exception of certain crimes irrelevant here.
1. Not flight risk or danger - Vic Kohring meets that
2. I do have to find not taken for purposes of delay that is likely to result in reversal or new trial with lesser penalty.
A. Not taken for delay
B. Reversal
With respect to related issues Browne and others have written. I believe my decisions isn’t at all unusual.
Good candidate for self surrender. He won’t be required to surrender any earlier than…
Monday June 30, 2008. Because Mr. Kohring needs to have surgery. That should give him adequate time to have the surgery and recuperate.
Supervised release for two years. Sentence to run concurrent on each account. Meaning he will serve all sentences at the same time. On release he shall be replaced on supervised…. Speaking way too fast.
1. Cooperate in collection of DNA sample
2. Searches by probation etc. Offers on reasonable suspicion…
Does not have ability to pay fine. Required. $300.
If his condition is such, he may surrender before June 30, I am highly unlikely to extend this no matter what the medical condition might be.
Any other matters before I mention appeal rights.
You have right to appeal….
Kohring Blasts Judge after Being Sentenced to 42 Months
Below are:
1. Brief video of Vic Kohring talking to the press after the hearing was finished.
2. My rough version (typed as he made his statement and full of errors and gaps) of his statement to the court.
[Here's more video from that meeting with the press from Dennis Zaki's blog.
2. Kohring's Statement to the Court (As best as I could catch it as he spoke)
Vic Kohring: Honorable Judge Sedwick, not here to plead for mercy. Instead, to plead my innocence. I was stunned to learn you were married to one of my greatest enemies. You were legally bound to excuse yourself. Furthermore you lived across the street from the government's star witness. I’m so disappointed that the person who holds my fate is married to the person whose job I eliminated.
Then this week’s latest motion you denied. The juror who regretted his decision.
I will admit, I showed poor judgment when I accepted cash for my daughter from someone I thought was my friend who betrayed me. I didn’t live up to my high standards. I never once voted for PPT. My words, How can I help? Were my mantra. Ironic that my words are now being used against me. Intended to be helpful.
The resutling conviction has destroyed me. Cost to me is approaching half a million dollars, all over $1000. But my spirit is not broken. We did all with integrity. Just an honest presentation of the facts. I used to believe in my government. I do not hold it in high regard as I used to. I believe in the principles. I won’t express remorse for something I didn’t do. The truth will only be revealed if heard before jurors without bias. I thank the jurors but want to let them know they didn’t hear all the evidence.
I for one shall not rest until justice prevails. I didn’t anything criminal. I was naive. I assert my innocence. All I ask for is to be treated fairly. All I ask for is a fair trial which I believe would find me innocent.
1. Brief video of Vic Kohring talking to the press after the hearing was finished.
2. My rough version (typed as he made his statement and full of errors and gaps) of his statement to the court.
[Here's more video from that meeting with the press from Dennis Zaki's blog.
2. Kohring's Statement to the Court (As best as I could catch it as he spoke)
Vic Kohring: Honorable Judge Sedwick, not here to plead for mercy. Instead, to plead my innocence. I was stunned to learn you were married to one of my greatest enemies. You were legally bound to excuse yourself. Furthermore you lived across the street from the government's star witness. I’m so disappointed that the person who holds my fate is married to the person whose job I eliminated.
Then this week’s latest motion you denied. The juror who regretted his decision.
I will admit, I showed poor judgment when I accepted cash for my daughter from someone I thought was my friend who betrayed me. I didn’t live up to my high standards. I never once voted for PPT. My words, How can I help? Were my mantra. Ironic that my words are now being used against me. Intended to be helpful.
The resutling conviction has destroyed me. Cost to me is approaching half a million dollars, all over $1000. But my spirit is not broken. We did all with integrity. Just an honest presentation of the facts. I used to believe in my government. I do not hold it in high regard as I used to. I believe in the principles. I won’t express remorse for something I didn’t do. The truth will only be revealed if heard before jurors without bias. I thank the jurors but want to let them know they didn’t hear all the evidence.
I for one shall not rest until justice prevails. I didn’t anything criminal. I was naive. I assert my innocence. All I ask for is to be treated fairly. All I ask for is a fair trial which I believe would find me innocent.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Best of the NorthWest Film Festival - Out North
Halfway through these shorts I started wondering what I do about blogging this. I'm not a blogger who says it's good when I don't think it is, just because I think the idea or the venue is worthy of promotion. And I wasn't impressed by the shorts I was seeing. They were ok, but not exciting. Fortunately, not that many people in Anchorage read this blog so it wouldn't affect them coming or not.
But then the last one started and I got sucked right in. Patterns 3. It had some visual and musical style - essentially it told its story using the medium of film. It wasn't the moving picture adaptation of something else. That's what makes a good movie for me. I don't completely understand it, but that's good too. I do have quirky film taste and this was a quirky film. Leaving I overheard someone very confused about this last film. It was the one that made it all worthwhile for me.
It turns out there is a Patterns and Patterns2 as well. You can check an even shorter clip of each at the Patterns3 link above.
I decided to do this post rather than try to comment on John Henry Browne's motion to allow Kohring to stay out of prison while the conviction is on appeal. There was just too much rehash of old stuff to do it even partial justice with the time I had. One criterion was that the appeal was legitimate and not just a way to stall. It looks like a lot of stall to me. Maybe Browne is much smarter than I think. But at this point I just think he's smarter than Kohring who, presumably, keeps paying him for all these motions that are being filed. And probably doing nothing but fattening Browne's bank account. But, I could be wrong.
But then the last one started and I got sucked right in. Patterns 3. It had some visual and musical style - essentially it told its story using the medium of film. It wasn't the moving picture adaptation of something else. That's what makes a good movie for me. I don't completely understand it, but that's good too. I do have quirky film taste and this was a quirky film. Leaving I overheard someone very confused about this last film. It was the one that made it all worthwhile for me.
It turns out there is a Patterns and Patterns2 as well. You can check an even shorter clip of each at the Patterns3 link above.
I decided to do this post rather than try to comment on John Henry Browne's motion to allow Kohring to stay out of prison while the conviction is on appeal. There was just too much rehash of old stuff to do it even partial justice with the time I had. One criterion was that the appeal was legitimate and not just a way to stall. It looks like a lot of stall to me. Maybe Browne is much smarter than I think. But at this point I just think he's smarter than Kohring who, presumably, keeps paying him for all these motions that are being filed. And probably doing nothing but fattening Browne's bank account. But, I could be wrong.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Jury Duty Leave from the Muncipality
Today's ADN reported that
I had just gotten back to Anchorage when I read Friday's story about this juror. I was struck by his claim to have had to take vacation time to serve on the jury.
Obviously, they couldn't talk about specific employees, and I know there are always situations that are out of the ordinary - if, for example, Fritsch didn't tell them beforehand he was going on jury duty. His account of things, barring unusual circumstances, doesn't square with Municipal policy on jury duty.
I attended the Anderson, Kott, and Kohring trials last year and only missed a couple of days due to other commitments. Judge Sedwick seemed to bend over backwards to make sure everything was fair. In the long and tedious process of choosing jurors for such well publicized trials, he treated each juror with a voice that gave respect and no hint that it was the 20th time he'd asked the same questions that day. He was practical about moving on when something wasn't relevant to the outcome, but gave both the prosecution and the defense all the time they needed if something was important.
So if Sedwick dismissed this, then I'm convinced he gave it careful thought and had good reasons.
U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick on Monday denied Kohring's request to interview a member of the jury that convicted him in November on federal bribery charges.This whole thing sounds fishy like a lot of what Kohring's attorney has filed, starting with his attempt to throw out all the evidence found in Kohrning's office.
I had just gotten back to Anchorage when I read Friday's story about this juror. I was struck by his claim to have had to take vacation time to serve on the jury.
He works four 10-hour shifts a week as a People Mover bus driver. After an eight-hour court day, Fritsch said he was told at work that he either had to put in another two hours for the city, or take vacation time.It was my understanding that the Municipality of Anchorage, like nearly all public employers, has a very liberal jury duty policy. So, when I was reminded of the story by today's article I called the Employee Relations department of the Municipality and asked what sort of jury duty accommodations were made for people mover bus drivers. I was told they don't have to take vacation time for jury duty. They are covered.
Obviously, they couldn't talk about specific employees, and I know there are always situations that are out of the ordinary - if, for example, Fritsch didn't tell them beforehand he was going on jury duty. His account of things, barring unusual circumstances, doesn't square with Municipal policy on jury duty.
I attended the Anderson, Kott, and Kohring trials last year and only missed a couple of days due to other commitments. Judge Sedwick seemed to bend over backwards to make sure everything was fair. In the long and tedious process of choosing jurors for such well publicized trials, he treated each juror with a voice that gave respect and no hint that it was the 20th time he'd asked the same questions that day. He was practical about moving on when something wasn't relevant to the outcome, but gave both the prosecution and the defense all the time they needed if something was important.
So if Sedwick dismissed this, then I'm convinced he gave it careful thought and had good reasons.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Prosecution Responds to Kohring's Requests
Brendan Joel Kelley reports in the Anchorage Press website about the prosecution's response to Vic Kohring's motion for a retrial and the recusal of Judge Sedwick. Here's an excerpt:
I had pretty much the same reaction when I heard about this in early February:
[A few minutes later: Phil Munger's report on on Kohring's response to the prosecutors' filing is worth reading. A real scoop.]
The government refers to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that—barring newly discovered evidence—any motion for a new trial would have had to been filed no later than November 12, 2007, within seven days of the guilty verdict.
The government also aggressively argues that Kohring’s supposed discovery that the Sedwicks were related—7 to 10 days after his conviction—doesn’t constitute new evidence.
“Assuming for a moment that a ‘deep animosity’ truly existed between Kohring and Mrs. Sedwick in or around 1998, it is illogical and unreasonable for Kohring to suggest that he did not realize the familial relationship between Mrs. Sedwick and the assigned trial judge during the several months prior to his trial or, at the latest, when Mrs. Sedwick was reportedly in the courtroom near the end of the trial,” a portion of the government’s argument reads. “Kohring’s ‘new evidence’ argument might have some air of plausibility had Mrs. Sedwick’s last name been Jones or Smith, but Sedwick is a surname that is not commonplace within Alaska.”
I had pretty much the same reaction when I heard about this in early February:
And it never occurred that Judge Sedwick might be related to this Sedwick who he says was "worst political rival and enemy" until the end of the trial? How many Sedwicks do you know? I certainly would be asking questions if the judge hearing my case had the same name as my worst political rival and enemy. I wouldn't wait until a few days before my sentencing to bring it up.
[A few minutes later: Phil Munger's report on on Kohring's response to the prosecutors' filing is worth reading. A real scoop.]
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Almost Gone
Spent the day making lists of things to do before I go. Getting stuff out for the suitcase. Looking for things I want to take. The Birds of Thailand book is still missing as is my spare battery for my digital camera. But got things straightened out with my students and their thesis advisors and we met for dinner tonight. Prepped for the house sitter and the friends who are car sitting our van so it's out of the way when the snow plows come.
So, as much as I was tempted to write about Kohring's swipe at Sedwick I've resisted. All I can say is this: They started out with a long brief alleging all sorts of improprieties by the FBI in an attempt to quash the evidence collected in the search of his Wasilla office. Things like being under arrest in his office and not allowed to call his attorney or go to the bathroom. All of that was refuted by the prosecution in a brief and later in court. It was full of holes. I can't help but believe the same is true of this latest attempt. I sat through almost six weeks of trials in Sedwick's courtroom last year. This judge was the most patient, respectful, and fair person I've seen in a long time. And it never occurred that Judge Sedwick might be related to this Sedwick who he says was "worst political rival and enemy" until the end of the trial? How many Sedwicks do you know? I certainly would be asking questions if the judge hearing my case had the same name as my worst political rival and enemy. I wouldn't wait until a few days before my sentencing to bring it up.
I was in the courtroom for the closing arguments. I don't recall anything different about Kohring - that he appeared more agitated because of the presence of this worst enemy whose name is Sedwick. How much research do you have to do to find out that the judge and the former commissioner with the same uncommon name are related? I'm sorry, this just sounds so totally bogus to me.
If Kohring really wants to know who's taking advantage of him, I'd suggest he look closely at his attorney who's lifted over $100,000 from Kohring. How many more billable hours is this new little escapade? At one point Browne required that the prosecution bring every single FBI agent who monitored the tapes to fly to Alaska to verify the tapes. He was quoted as not caring about making the government go to great expense. (The attorneys in the other two cases waived this requirement and let one agent verify all the tapes.) There's a reason that most people who are indicted plea and never go to trial. It seems to me with a different attorney, Kohring might have saved himself the trial and a lot of money.
So, as much as I was tempted to write about Kohring's swipe at Sedwick I've resisted. All I can say is this: They started out with a long brief alleging all sorts of improprieties by the FBI in an attempt to quash the evidence collected in the search of his Wasilla office. Things like being under arrest in his office and not allowed to call his attorney or go to the bathroom. All of that was refuted by the prosecution in a brief and later in court. It was full of holes. I can't help but believe the same is true of this latest attempt. I sat through almost six weeks of trials in Sedwick's courtroom last year. This judge was the most patient, respectful, and fair person I've seen in a long time. And it never occurred that Judge Sedwick might be related to this Sedwick who he says was "worst political rival and enemy" until the end of the trial? How many Sedwicks do you know? I certainly would be asking questions if the judge hearing my case had the same name as my worst political rival and enemy. I wouldn't wait until a few days before my sentencing to bring it up.
I was in the courtroom for the closing arguments. I don't recall anything different about Kohring - that he appeared more agitated because of the presence of this worst enemy whose name is Sedwick. How much research do you have to do to find out that the judge and the former commissioner with the same uncommon name are related? I'm sorry, this just sounds so totally bogus to me.
If Kohring really wants to know who's taking advantage of him, I'd suggest he look closely at his attorney who's lifted over $100,000 from Kohring. How many more billable hours is this new little escapade? At one point Browne required that the prosecution bring every single FBI agent who monitored the tapes to fly to Alaska to verify the tapes. He was quoted as not caring about making the government go to great expense. (The attorneys in the other two cases waived this requirement and let one agent verify all the tapes.) There's a reason that most people who are indicted plea and never go to trial. It seems to me with a different attorney, Kohring might have saved himself the trial and a lot of money.
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]
Friday, November 09, 2007
DOJ Press Release on Kohring Trial
Again (as with the Kott verdict), the Department of Justice tells the world that the defendant was convicted of three counts (bribery, conspiracy, and attempted extortion) but doesn't mention that he was NOT convicted of one count (extortion.) It's one thing for private companies to omit important information to make themselves look good, but it's entirely different when the government does that.
Also of interest is that they say he faces a maximum of 35 years in prison (20 years on the attempted extortion charge, 10 years on the bribery charge, and five years on the conspiracy charge.) If the attempted extortion charge means up to 20 years, what would he have been facing if convicted for extortion? Not only did the DOJ not mention that he was acquitted on one charge, but that he was acquitted on the most significant charge - Extortion.
The last paragraph is also of interest:
The first sentence includes all four attorneys, though only Sullivan and Bottini actually tried the case. Marsh was there for the first couple of days. He said he was returning to DC after that. Goeke was in Courtroom 3 during most of the Kohring trial, sitting in the back.
The last sentence says the IRS is investigating the case with the FBI. One question that has been raised about the Veco contributions to remodeling Ted Stevens' Girdwood house has been about what Stevens did for Veco in return. Can the Government prove a direct connection? There is the National Science Foundation grant that Veco got. But if the IRS is investigating too, perhaps they are checking on whether Stevens declared the $100,000 worth of work Allen says Veco did for Stevens on his income tax forms.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CRM
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888
Former Alaska State Representative
Victor Kohring Convicted on Public Corruption Charges
WASHINGTON – A federal jury in Anchorage, Alaska, has found former Alaska State Representative Victor H. Kohring guilty of conspiracy, bribery and attempted extortion, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.
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.
On May 4, 2007, Kohring was arrested following the unsealing of two indictments charging him and two former Alaska representatives with various public corruption offenses.
At trial, the jury heard evidence that Kohring, while serving as a member in the state legislature, solicited bribes from and took action to benefit the financial interests of VECO Corporation, a major Alaska oil services company. Trial evidence, including more than 25 recordings of conversations involving Kohring and former VECO executives, showed that Kohring repeatedly agreed to lobby his colleagues and, if needed, cast votes in VECO’s favor on a key petroleum production tax proposal pending before the Alaska legislature. In exchange, Kohring received multiple cash payments and solicited a $17,000 payment.
“Former Representative Victor Kohring betrayed his oath of office and the people of Alaska when he deliberately and repeatedly took bribes in exchange for official acts,” said Assistant Attorney General Fisher. “I thank the federal prosecutors and FBI agents who have worked so hard on this case. Their efforts demonstrate that the Department of Justice will pursue public officials who abuse their positions of power for their own financial gain.”
The VECO executives who testified at trial, former Chief Executive Officer Bill J. Allen and former Vice President of Community Affairs and Government Relations Richard L. Smith, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to providing more than $400,000 in corrupt payments to public officials from the state of Alaska.
Kohring is the third former member of the Alaska House of Representatives to be convicted this year of corruption crimes. Thomas T. Anderson, a former elected member of the Alaska state House of Representatives, was sentenced to 5 years in prison for extortion, conspiracy, bribery and money laundering for soliciting and receiving money from an FBI confidential source in exchange for agreeing to perform official acts to further a business interest represented by the source. Peter Kott, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, was convicted in September 2007 of extortion, bribery and conspiracy, and is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 7, 2007.
Kohring faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on the attempted extortion charge, a maximum sentence of 10 years on the bribery charge, and a maximum sentence of five years on the conspiracy charge. U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District of Alaska set sentencing for Feb. 6, 2008.
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 of the District of Alaska. The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigative Division.
###
07-878
Also of interest is that they say he faces a maximum of 35 years in prison (20 years on the attempted extortion charge, 10 years on the bribery charge, and five years on the conspiracy charge.) If the attempted extortion charge means up to 20 years, what would he have been facing if convicted for extortion? Not only did the DOJ not mention that he was acquitted on one charge, but that he was acquitted on the most significant charge - Extortion.
The last paragraph is also of interest:
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 of the District of Alaska. The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigative Division.
The first sentence includes all four attorneys, though only Sullivan and Bottini actually tried the case. Marsh was there for the first couple of days. He said he was returning to DC after that. Goeke was in Courtroom 3 during most of the Kohring trial, sitting in the back.
The last sentence says the IRS is investigating the case with the FBI. One question that has been raised about the Veco contributions to remodeling Ted Stevens' Girdwood house has been about what Stevens did for Veco in return. Can the Government prove a direct connection? There is the National Science Foundation grant that Veco got. But if the IRS is investigating too, perhaps they are checking on whether Stevens declared the $100,000 worth of work Allen says Veco did for Stevens on his income tax forms.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CRM
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888
Former Alaska State Representative
Victor Kohring Convicted on Public Corruption Charges
WASHINGTON – A federal jury in Anchorage, Alaska, has found former Alaska State Representative Victor H. Kohring guilty of conspiracy, bribery and attempted extortion, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.
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.
On May 4, 2007, Kohring was arrested following the unsealing of two indictments charging him and two former Alaska representatives with various public corruption offenses.
At trial, the jury heard evidence that Kohring, while serving as a member in the state legislature, solicited bribes from and took action to benefit the financial interests of VECO Corporation, a major Alaska oil services company. Trial evidence, including more than 25 recordings of conversations involving Kohring and former VECO executives, showed that Kohring repeatedly agreed to lobby his colleagues and, if needed, cast votes in VECO’s favor on a key petroleum production tax proposal pending before the Alaska legislature. In exchange, Kohring received multiple cash payments and solicited a $17,000 payment.
“Former Representative Victor Kohring betrayed his oath of office and the people of Alaska when he deliberately and repeatedly took bribes in exchange for official acts,” said Assistant Attorney General Fisher. “I thank the federal prosecutors and FBI agents who have worked so hard on this case. Their efforts demonstrate that the Department of Justice will pursue public officials who abuse their positions of power for their own financial gain.”
The VECO executives who testified at trial, former Chief Executive Officer Bill J. Allen and former Vice President of Community Affairs and Government Relations Richard L. Smith, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to providing more than $400,000 in corrupt payments to public officials from the state of Alaska.
Kohring is the third former member of the Alaska House of Representatives to be convicted this year of corruption crimes. Thomas T. Anderson, a former elected member of the Alaska state House of Representatives, was sentenced to 5 years in prison for extortion, conspiracy, bribery and money laundering for soliciting and receiving money from an FBI confidential source in exchange for agreeing to perform official acts to further a business interest represented by the source. Peter Kott, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, was convicted in September 2007 of extortion, bribery and conspiracy, and is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 7, 2007.
Kohring faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on the attempted extortion charge, a maximum sentence of 10 years on the bribery charge, and a maximum sentence of five years on the conspiracy charge. U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District of Alaska set sentencing for Feb. 6, 2008.
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 of the District of Alaska. The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigative Division.
###
07-878
Monday, November 05, 2007
Dan Fagan on Vic Kohring
I've given Dan a bad time now and then here about his ADN column, so it's only fair that I give him credit for a decent column. Yesterday's column on Kohring actually offered a little more insight into what makes Vic tick.
Often, Dan's column has fallen into a category I'd call rhetorical pollution. By that I mean, when we discuss politics and other important issues in the public square, the ideal is to shed light, clarify positions, add new facts, so that we can come to understandings of how things work and what is the best policy. Unfortunately, there are people who have gained little corners of the public square who have used that soap box, not to enlighten, but to litter the public square with invective against people and institutions, with uninformed opinion, and often home made facts. People like this do actual harm, just as people who litter do harm. We have to clean up the mess they made before we move forward in solving public problems. We have to reestablish the facts, challenge the biased opinions, and basically undo the pollution in the pursuit of public truths. I've only listened to Dan's radio show a couple of times on the radio - internet actually - but I found his newspaper columns to mostly be in the rhetorical pollution category.
But yesterday's column wasn't in that category. It actually made interesting observations - comparing Kohring's public optimism as he faces prison to a character int he Shawshank Redemption who kept hope alive in prison. That guy was innocent Dan wrote, does Vic have hope because he thinks he's innocent? Insightful. Then Dan talked about his own observations of Vic's habit of eating other people's food. Yet, while being critical -
- Dan is also compassionate about a fellow human being in trouble.
Dan adds enough anecdotes in addition to what others have related and to the trial evidence - that Vic was always on the lookout for a free meal - for me to speculate with a reasonable level of confidence that Vic has some deep seated issues around food and money. [OK, some of you are saying, "took you long enough," but I only really have any direct contact with Vic through the trial, and I think trying to understand who people are based on what they've experienced is a valid approach]
Vic is about 6'7" so he does have a lot more body to nourish than most of us. He's also a middle child - an older brother and sister and a younger brother and sister - he told us during a break in the trial. It doesn't sound like there was a lot of money in the Kohring household and with four siblings, maybe Vic actually went to bed hungry some nights. Many people who lived through the depression became almost stingy with how they spent their money for the rest of their lives. Possibly Vic has tapes playing in his head - maybe he can hear his father telling him not to waste money. I don't know, these things work in strange ways. Some, who were poor, spend like crazy when they get a little money. Others are always afraid of being poor again and just stash it. Pete Kott had $30,000 in cash in a closet when the FBI searched where he was living in Juneau.
Anyway, Dan's column adds a bit to what we know. It's in the positive contribution side of the scale.
It would have been really interesting if Dan had talked about the many times (according to the court testimony) Veco got Vic air time on Dan's radio show. Both Dan and Vic have been stalwart supporters of the oil industry. Dan, working in the private sector, doesn't have to report any support he gets. But what did he think of Vic at the time - besides his eating habits? A little more insight into what he thought of his guest at the time and how he might handle political guests in the future would have made this column yet better.
Often, Dan's column has fallen into a category I'd call rhetorical pollution. By that I mean, when we discuss politics and other important issues in the public square, the ideal is to shed light, clarify positions, add new facts, so that we can come to understandings of how things work and what is the best policy. Unfortunately, there are people who have gained little corners of the public square who have used that soap box, not to enlighten, but to litter the public square with invective against people and institutions, with uninformed opinion, and often home made facts. People like this do actual harm, just as people who litter do harm. We have to clean up the mess they made before we move forward in solving public problems. We have to reestablish the facts, challenge the biased opinions, and basically undo the pollution in the pursuit of public truths. I've only listened to Dan's radio show a couple of times on the radio - internet actually - but I found his newspaper columns to mostly be in the rhetorical pollution category.
But yesterday's column wasn't in that category. It actually made interesting observations - comparing Kohring's public optimism as he faces prison to a character int he Shawshank Redemption who kept hope alive in prison. That guy was innocent Dan wrote, does Vic have hope because he thinks he's innocent? Insightful. Then Dan talked about his own observations of Vic's habit of eating other people's food. Yet, while being critical -
[t]he jury had no choice but to find Kohring guilty. He traded on the power we entrusted him with as a public servant.
- Dan is also compassionate about a fellow human being in trouble.
Dan adds enough anecdotes in addition to what others have related and to the trial evidence - that Vic was always on the lookout for a free meal - for me to speculate with a reasonable level of confidence that Vic has some deep seated issues around food and money. [OK, some of you are saying, "took you long enough," but I only really have any direct contact with Vic through the trial, and I think trying to understand who people are based on what they've experienced is a valid approach]
Vic is about 6'7" so he does have a lot more body to nourish than most of us. He's also a middle child - an older brother and sister and a younger brother and sister - he told us during a break in the trial. It doesn't sound like there was a lot of money in the Kohring household and with four siblings, maybe Vic actually went to bed hungry some nights. Many people who lived through the depression became almost stingy with how they spent their money for the rest of their lives. Possibly Vic has tapes playing in his head - maybe he can hear his father telling him not to waste money. I don't know, these things work in strange ways. Some, who were poor, spend like crazy when they get a little money. Others are always afraid of being poor again and just stash it. Pete Kott had $30,000 in cash in a closet when the FBI searched where he was living in Juneau.
Anyway, Dan's column adds a bit to what we know. It's in the positive contribution side of the scale.
It would have been really interesting if Dan had talked about the many times (according to the court testimony) Veco got Vic air time on Dan's radio show. Both Dan and Vic have been stalwart supporters of the oil industry. Dan, working in the private sector, doesn't have to report any support he gets. But what did he think of Vic at the time - besides his eating habits? A little more insight into what he thought of his guest at the time and how he might handle political guests in the future would have made this column yet better.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
The audio is bad, but the video gives a sense of the rush of the media get their story and Browne's love of playing them.
Driving home from the courthouse I heard Aaron Selbig on KUDO saying things like, "I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for Kohring. He violated the public trust, his constituents..." Aaron's not the only one.
Kohring sold out his constituents and the people of Alaska. I have no tolerance for what he did. But he is also a human being. I was sorry to hear Aaron's retributive ranting. I understand the righteous outrage he feels. But Kohring has been tried and convicted and will go to prison. Save that anger for the people who are still out there violating the public trust. Go after them. As I get older, I know that the total lack of compassion Aaron expressed simply perpetuates the win/lose, the us/them mentality that keeps us stagnant as a society. So, if Aaron gets his way, we'll have 'us versus them' Democrats doing the same thing in the state legislature? No doubt retribution is a natural instinct. But as we grow up we learn to positively channel those instincts that still survive in our amygdalas.
I was hoping KUDO would offer an alternative to testosterone radio mired in playground behavior and ideas. Retributive justice as we practice it in the US has gotten our prison population up to 2.24 million people. People that we pay to house and feed. People who aren't contributing to society, aren't working to help restore their victims. What's wrong with our society that we have such a relatively high percentage of our population in prison? KUDO should be asking these bigger questions and exploring alternatives like restorative justice. We should be figuring out why people have taken this path, how to divert people starting on that path, and how to help the Kohrings learn to give instead of only to take. Selbig wasn't modeling the kind of behavior we'd like Kohring to have. And, yes I realize that there are some people who will never be rehabilitated and we have to find ways to keep them from harming others. There are psychopaths out there. But they didn't choose to be born without a conscience any more than the rest of us chose to have that part of our brain functioning.
Having sympathy for a human being who is hurt does NOT mean one excuses that person for the wrongs he has committed,. Instead of lashing out at him for our own faults we may see in him, or because we can't deal with people like him who directly affect our own lives, or whatever reasons, it seems more practical and decent to recognize that we too are fallible; that we should deal with the Kohrings who directly affect us. Not through safely beating up on already injured person, but by taking more control of our own lives. Aaron use those stones to build something not to pick on a man who is already down.
Driving home from the courthouse I heard Aaron Selbig on KUDO saying things like, "I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for Kohring. He violated the public trust, his constituents..." Aaron's not the only one.
Kohring sold out his constituents and the people of Alaska. I have no tolerance for what he did. But he is also a human being. I was sorry to hear Aaron's retributive ranting. I understand the righteous outrage he feels. But Kohring has been tried and convicted and will go to prison. Save that anger for the people who are still out there violating the public trust. Go after them. As I get older, I know that the total lack of compassion Aaron expressed simply perpetuates the win/lose, the us/them mentality that keeps us stagnant as a society. So, if Aaron gets his way, we'll have 'us versus them' Democrats doing the same thing in the state legislature? No doubt retribution is a natural instinct. But as we grow up we learn to positively channel those instincts that still survive in our amygdalas.
I was hoping KUDO would offer an alternative to testosterone radio mired in playground behavior and ideas. Retributive justice as we practice it in the US has gotten our prison population up to 2.24 million people. People that we pay to house and feed. People who aren't contributing to society, aren't working to help restore their victims. What's wrong with our society that we have such a relatively high percentage of our population in prison? KUDO should be asking these bigger questions and exploring alternatives like restorative justice. We should be figuring out why people have taken this path, how to divert people starting on that path, and how to help the Kohrings learn to give instead of only to take. Selbig wasn't modeling the kind of behavior we'd like Kohring to have. And, yes I realize that there are some people who will never be rehabilitated and we have to find ways to keep them from harming others. There are psychopaths out there. But they didn't choose to be born without a conscience any more than the rest of us chose to have that part of our brain functioning.
Having sympathy for a human being who is hurt does NOT mean one excuses that person for the wrongs he has committed,. Instead of lashing out at him for our own faults we may see in him, or because we can't deal with people like him who directly affect our own lives, or whatever reasons, it seems more practical and decent to recognize that we too are fallible; that we should deal with the Kohrings who directly affect us. Not through safely beating up on already injured person, but by taking more control of our own lives. Aaron use those stones to build something not to pick on a man who is already down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)