Debora Stovern has been the defense witness this morning. She described her relationship with Kott as 'his significant other." She also works as his bookkeeper for his campaigns and Kott Hardwood Flooring. She also does flooring work.
She's been explaining billing practices as the defense was trying to show that the $7,993 paid by Allen was accounted for by invoices to do maintenance work for Allen in the future and also for Rick Smith. This is the money that the prosecutors claim was paid to Peter Jr. for working on the Kott campaign.
And my notes say that yesterday Peter Jr. said the money was for work on Sharon Durant's house and Rick Smith.
On cross the government asked about $30,000 in cash found at the Stovern/Kott residence in Juneau. Why didn't Kott pay his son with this? It was per diem she said. If it was per diem, how come it was collecting? Why wasn't it spent for living expenses, asked Goeke.
Ms. Stovern also embroiders on the side, and the Goeke brought out a box with red baseball hats that were embroidered with VECO on the front and a few that had CBC embroidered on the back. What does CBC mean? Stovern said it was a barroom joke based on a newspaper article - Corporate Bastards something. This was corrected, it was Corrupt Bastards Club. Goeke wanted to offer this as evidence. Wendt asked, all of them? Goeke allowed that one red hat with CBC on it was enough.
Judge Sedwick: Better mark the hat so we know which red hat is the exhibit.
Laughter from the jury.
Judge: The exhibit number doesn't have to be embroidered on the hat.
More laughter
Stovern: I could embroider it.
I think the laughter reflects a level of comfort the jury has with the judge and their time together listening to all these details.
One other detail before I get back into the trial.
Stovern, under questioning from Goeke, said that Kott lived at her place in Juneau and with Peter Jr. in Anchorage. Does he get his Permanent Fund Check at his Juneau address? She wasn't sure. But he does most of the SE Alaska work for the company and Peter Jr. does most of the Anchorage work. [he didn't ask why Pete did the work for Allen instead of Peter.]
But essentially, she said his residence was in Juneau most of the time. His stuff was there. Has been for 3.5-4 years. No one has asked why he was representing Eagle River if his residence was in Juneau in 2004 and for the election of 2006.
Gotta get back into the courtroom now.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Kott Trial Day 10 - The Afternoon
Overview:
From what I can tell the defense was trying to make several points today:
1. Pete Kott wasn't all that influential in the legislature and couldn't deliver what Veco wanted anyway.
In the morning session, Dr. Clive Thomas' testimony seemed aimed at showing that Kott wasn't on key committees and that at the end of the session things are chaotic and he didn't have much influence. Ethan Berkowitz was the Democratic leader in the house, and the legislator who stood up and protested when Weyhrauch voted the wrong way and then had the vote rescinded so he could vote the right way - you can hear Weyhrauch say he made a mistake and so they should revote, Berkowitz's passionate speech about the influence of lobbyists who call legislators on the floor, and Weyhrauch's indignant response here. It all has much more meaning now that we've heard the story from the other side.
On this link you can hear Kott talking to Smith right after Weyhrauch voted 'wrong.' It appears Kott is calling from the floor and Smith is apparently watching on Gavel to Gavel from 604.
Rep. Pete Kott to Veco VP Rick Smith phone call
Today the defense attorney Simonian questioned Berkowitz:
Q: Did Pete Kott get you to trade votes?
Berkowitz: I don't have the authority to trade votes.
They had him read the transcript where Kott said he got him to trade votes, and Berkowitz again said it wasn't true.
This appears again to be trying to show that Kott didn't have the power to deliver to Veco.
As I said in the previous post, I don't think this point matters, legally. The jury instructions in the Anderson trial were that it didn't matter whether a) if he could deliver or b) if he did deliver.
Here's a section of an earlier post on charges from the indictment.
2. That the $7,993 check that Allen wrote to Pete Kott in summer 2006 was NOT to pay for Pete Kott Jr. to continue on as campaign manager as the prosecution said, but rather was really advance payment for two flooring jobs Pete Jr. was to do. One for a Sharon Durant and the other for Rick Smith.
3. That Pete Kott never asked for a poll or wanted a poll or had any use for a poll. Thus even if Dittman did a poll that was paid for by Allen, Kott was not part of a deal to get a poll, and thus didn't enter into any agreement for the poll. Thus that charge is not proven. They also wanted to show that did not follow Dittman's advice to emphasize Kott's experience and accomplishments for the district.
In cross examination, the prosecutors very politely, but relentlessly exposed inconsistencies.
First about the money. Marsh started by reiterating Peter Jr.'s comment about his deep commitment to doing good work. Then asked whether getting paid a year in advance (for Smith's flooring) wasn't a bit unusual. And you haven't done the job yet? No. And you haven't given the check back? I plan to.
How did it come that he was getting such an advance? Well, he didn't have enough money to not do his regular work much longer while he worked on the campaign, and had told his dad he'd have to get paid or quit so he could pay his family's bills. So Allen wrote this check for an advance on these two projects. [I can accept that perhaps Allen might have advanced money for Smith's flooring, though that is a stretch; I never understood why Allen would be paying for the other person's (Sharon Durant) flooring.]
But then Prosecutor Marsh asked Peter Jr. why he wasn't just paid out of campaign money. There wasn't enough money, well, not enough to pay me, enough for signs, fliers, etc.
Marsh: Would you be surprised to learn the campaign had plenty of money?
And then he went on to show that the campaign had a surplus of over $15,000 and that lots of money had been donated to charity.
Marsh: Who filed the seven day APOC report?
Peter Jr.: I didn't file paper work. I handled grassroots stuff.
M: But you were campaign manager.
PJr: That was not in my scope. My job is to get voters. I'm no accountant.
M: But you run a business...
Basically, the idea that the money was for flooring looked pretty shaky, and with two paid staffers who filed the APOC reports and ordered polls without Peter Jr's knowledge, it was hard to believe he was the campaign manager in the traditional sense. So if he knew about the polls or not really wouldn't matter.
The prosecution also pulled out a campaign brochure that was sent out after the polling data came in that highlighted Kott's experience, as Dittman had advised based on the polling. This attempt to show that the campaign did take Dittman's advice was less convincing, since any incumbent is going to push his experience. But Peter Jr. said he hadn't been involved with the flier, reinforcing the idea that he really wasn't in charge.
The defense seems to me to be picking at minor points to discredit the prosecution's case. And the prosecution is very well prepared each time. Again, as in the Anderson case, the power of the government is pretty awesome. That's a good thing if they are going after real crooks, it is scary if they are going after the wrong people, or people they don't like.
Peter Jr. did spend a fair amount of time, in answer to his defense attorney Wendt's questions, talking about the hardwood flooring business. The different kinds of wood, how the wood takes time to dry sufficiently, kinds of coatings for the wood. I'm not sure what the point was - perhaps to show his mastery of the subject and his love for it. The prosecutors didn't object about him as an expert witness on flooring (as they did about Thomas' status as an expert earlier in the day), and after a while I thought I was listening to an infomercial.
Other people in the court today included: former state legislators Vic Fisher and Andrew Halcro. Fred Dyson was back. Weyhrauch's attorneys were there. Kott family members. A lot of press. And others whom I didn't recognize.
And at one point, prosecutor Marsh was asking a question when someone sneezed, "Later you God bless got three thousand...."
Someone told me that Pete Kott would be a witness. It didn't happen today. We'll see if it happens tomorrow.
- Peter Kott Jr. loses some of his luster under cross examination and delivers an infomercial on hardwood flooring
- Ethan Berkowitz, witness for the defense [April 26, 2008: If you are coming here from EthanBerkowitz.blogspot.com, you should note that Berkowitz did not come voluntarily, that Kott wanted Berkowitz to say that he did not vote the way the prosecutors told him to vote, and essentially Berkowitz was not a friendly witness for Kott. The details are below.]
- Brooke Miles, returned as a defense witness
From what I can tell the defense was trying to make several points today:
1. Pete Kott wasn't all that influential in the legislature and couldn't deliver what Veco wanted anyway.
In the morning session, Dr. Clive Thomas' testimony seemed aimed at showing that Kott wasn't on key committees and that at the end of the session things are chaotic and he didn't have much influence. Ethan Berkowitz was the Democratic leader in the house, and the legislator who stood up and protested when Weyhrauch voted the wrong way and then had the vote rescinded so he could vote the right way - you can hear Weyhrauch say he made a mistake and so they should revote, Berkowitz's passionate speech about the influence of lobbyists who call legislators on the floor, and Weyhrauch's indignant response here. It all has much more meaning now that we've heard the story from the other side.
On this link you can hear Kott talking to Smith right after Weyhrauch voted 'wrong.' It appears Kott is calling from the floor and Smith is apparently watching on Gavel to Gavel from 604.
Rep. Pete Kott to Veco VP Rick Smith phone call
Today the defense attorney Simonian questioned Berkowitz:
Q: Did Pete Kott get you to trade votes?
Berkowitz: I don't have the authority to trade votes.
They had him read the transcript where Kott said he got him to trade votes, and Berkowitz again said it wasn't true.
This appears again to be trying to show that Kott didn't have the power to deliver to Veco.
As I said in the previous post, I don't think this point matters, legally. The jury instructions in the Anderson trial were that it didn't matter whether a) if he could deliver or b) if he did deliver.
Here's a section of an earlier post on charges from the indictment.
- (A) Kott and Weyhrauch "unlawfully obtain[ed] ... money and other property... in agreement for the performance of official acts, in violation of Title 18..."
2. That the $7,993 check that Allen wrote to Pete Kott in summer 2006 was NOT to pay for Pete Kott Jr. to continue on as campaign manager as the prosecution said, but rather was really advance payment for two flooring jobs Pete Jr. was to do. One for a Sharon Durant and the other for Rick Smith.
3. That Pete Kott never asked for a poll or wanted a poll or had any use for a poll. Thus even if Dittman did a poll that was paid for by Allen, Kott was not part of a deal to get a poll, and thus didn't enter into any agreement for the poll. Thus that charge is not proven. They also wanted to show that did not follow Dittman's advice to emphasize Kott's experience and accomplishments for the district.
In cross examination, the prosecutors very politely, but relentlessly exposed inconsistencies.
First about the money. Marsh started by reiterating Peter Jr.'s comment about his deep commitment to doing good work. Then asked whether getting paid a year in advance (for Smith's flooring) wasn't a bit unusual. And you haven't done the job yet? No. And you haven't given the check back? I plan to.
How did it come that he was getting such an advance? Well, he didn't have enough money to not do his regular work much longer while he worked on the campaign, and had told his dad he'd have to get paid or quit so he could pay his family's bills. So Allen wrote this check for an advance on these two projects. [I can accept that perhaps Allen might have advanced money for Smith's flooring, though that is a stretch; I never understood why Allen would be paying for the other person's (Sharon Durant) flooring.]
But then Prosecutor Marsh asked Peter Jr. why he wasn't just paid out of campaign money. There wasn't enough money, well, not enough to pay me, enough for signs, fliers, etc.
Marsh: Would you be surprised to learn the campaign had plenty of money?
And then he went on to show that the campaign had a surplus of over $15,000 and that lots of money had been donated to charity.
Marsh: Who filed the seven day APOC report?
Peter Jr.: I didn't file paper work. I handled grassroots stuff.
M: But you were campaign manager.
PJr: That was not in my scope. My job is to get voters. I'm no accountant.
M: But you run a business...
Basically, the idea that the money was for flooring looked pretty shaky, and with two paid staffers who filed the APOC reports and ordered polls without Peter Jr's knowledge, it was hard to believe he was the campaign manager in the traditional sense. So if he knew about the polls or not really wouldn't matter.
The prosecution also pulled out a campaign brochure that was sent out after the polling data came in that highlighted Kott's experience, as Dittman had advised based on the polling. This attempt to show that the campaign did take Dittman's advice was less convincing, since any incumbent is going to push his experience. But Peter Jr. said he hadn't been involved with the flier, reinforcing the idea that he really wasn't in charge.
The defense seems to me to be picking at minor points to discredit the prosecution's case. And the prosecution is very well prepared each time. Again, as in the Anderson case, the power of the government is pretty awesome. That's a good thing if they are going after real crooks, it is scary if they are going after the wrong people, or people they don't like.
Peter Jr. did spend a fair amount of time, in answer to his defense attorney Wendt's questions, talking about the hardwood flooring business. The different kinds of wood, how the wood takes time to dry sufficiently, kinds of coatings for the wood. I'm not sure what the point was - perhaps to show his mastery of the subject and his love for it. The prosecutors didn't object about him as an expert witness on flooring (as they did about Thomas' status as an expert earlier in the day), and after a while I thought I was listening to an infomercial.
Other people in the court today included: former state legislators Vic Fisher and Andrew Halcro. Fred Dyson was back. Weyhrauch's attorneys were there. Kott family members. A lot of press. And others whom I didn't recognize.
And at one point, prosecutor Marsh was asking a question when someone sneezed, "Later you God bless got three thousand...."
Someone told me that Pete Kott would be a witness. It didn't happen today. We'll see if it happens tomorrow.
Kott Trial Day 10 - The Professor and Pete Jr.
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Tuesday, September 18, 2007
| 9:00AM | 3:07-CR-00056-01-JWS | JudgeSedwick | Anchorage Courtroom 3 | |||||
USA vs. PETER KOTT
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 10
I got into court just before the morning break. (I had some things to do that I'd been putting off and couldn't put off any longer.) Michael Carey caught me up. There'd been a debate among the attorneys about expert witnesses and now on the stand was Dr. Clive Thomas, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau. I know Clive somewhat - he recruited students for legislative internships and he keeps close touch with what is happening in the legislature.
I watched as he and defense showed charts of how a bill becomes law. The point seemed to be that Kott wasn't on any of the important committees and thus couldn't really influence the legislation the way the prosecutors had portrayed. There was something about the testimony that was different from most of the other testimony. Part of it was Dr. Thomas' informality. While he told the attorney, "You can call me Clive," (he called him Mr. Thomas), that informality also came across as a lack of respect to the court. While that lack of deference is not atypical among academics (I say this as one of them), it was very much in contrast to the deference all the other witnesses displayed toward the court. The prosecutor's cross exam made Dr. Thomas seem far less expert than the defense would have liked. Perhaeps the jury can get a college credit or two on American government after the trial.
The second witness, Peter Kott Jr. was a total contrast. This clean cut, nice looking man with what appeared to be Asian features was not the image I had when Pete Jr. had been mentioned in court. He was deferential, spoke easily, and seemed like a thoroughly likable man. He talked about being born at an air force base in Omaha and ending up in Alaska when he was 13. Started college at UAA, about 15 years later is still working on finishing the degree. He got trained by his uncles in Michigan to do hardwood floors and came back to Alaska to start a business that he owns with his Dad.
Pete Jr. was a good move by the defense. He is a stark contrast to the alcohol influenced, profanity laden speech that we've heard in the tapes the prosecution has shown us of Pete Sr. Pete Jr. talked about his family - at 23 he married a woman of 39 with three kids. They have added two more. He named each one and the ages.
He also talked about working on his Dad's campaign in 2006. The key point was that they "Never, never, never used polls, don't believe in them." As campaign manager in 2006 he never asked for a poll, it was never discussed, and he never saw it. The way he testified, I'm sure the jury has no reason to doubt his sincerity.
So what does it all mean? Well, even if Pete Kott had no influence in the legislature to do what Veco wanted, that really doesn't matter. The law, as I understand it, only cares if he took money with the understanding that he would use his position to favor the needs of those paying. Actually doing it doesn't matter. Whether he would have done it anyway doesn't matter. The point is he is already paid to be a legislator and shouldn't be taking money from others to do his job. Or to do special favors.
Pete Jr. softens the image of Pete Sr., but I'm not sure that anything he said affects the facts in the case. I'm sure they'll make the case that since he was the campaign manager and didn't order a poll, that Pete Sr. can't be seen as having asked for the poll. But he also says he was an unpaid campaign manager and that Deborah (the same Deborah that FBI Agent Milne yesterday said Kott lived with in Juneau?) and Jerry Mackie did get paid for working on the campaign. Pete Jr. didn't know how much Mackie got paid, but he thought it was a lot. And we know that Mackie ordered the poll from Dittman. So I don't think this will go anywhere either.
Kott Trial Audio and Video on ADN website
The ADN has gone through the audio and video tapes, organized them, and posted them. I don't think it's everything, but it includes audio from the trial itself. To get a sense of how Veco used the Alaska State legislature, click here.
Monday, September 17, 2007
FBI Wire-Tap Tapes and Videos
I've just looked at the material made available by the Prosecutors through the Anchorage Daily News.. From the couple that I've opened, it looks like this (on first count):
FBI tape of Pete Kott 01 uploaded by AKRaven
Here's a video. I couldn't get onto Viddler, so I uploaded it to YouTube, but had to pick a small file. This one isn't anything remarkable. At least the videos have the date and time on them. This is May 9, 2006 in Suite 604 at the Baranof. Rick Smith, Veco VP, is trying to call Pete Kott at 12:21 am. Bill Allen, Veco CEO, walks out of the bathroom.
This is just to give you a sense of what's in here - and what people have been listening to at the trial.
- 46 audio (wma or wav) files dated September 17, 2007. The first two are Kott audio files.
- 14 video (wmv) files dated September 17, 2007.
- 38 audio files dated August 24, 2007. The couple I opened are from the Anderson Trial. I assume they all are.
- 24 video (wmv) files dated August 24, 2007. These are from the Anderson Trial also I assume.
- 25 pdf files dated August 25, 2007. The two I opened are from the Anderson trial
FBI tape of Pete Kott 01 uploaded byHere's a video. I couldn't get onto Viddler, so I uploaded it to YouTube, but had to pick a small file. This one isn't anything remarkable. At least the videos have the date and time on them. This is May 9, 2006 in Suite 604 at the Baranof. Rick Smith, Veco VP, is trying to call Pete Kott at 12:21 am. Bill Allen, Veco CEO, walks out of the bathroom.
This is just to give you a sense of what's in here - and what people have been listening to at the trial.
Kott Trial - Three Cheers for the Press
The Anchorage Daily News got copies of all the government's tapes used in the trial - the wire taps and the video from the Baranof Suite 604 - and has emailed the local media how to download them.
I'll be checking through some of this material that is now available, but I'm not sure if I have the time to post all or even any of it. But I'm sure it will be widely available soon through other media websites. The Daily News has already been posting portions of the daily audio from the trial. If you haven't heard it, go listen. They've picked some of the highlights.
High school and university teachers!!!! Are you listening? This, and the cd's of the trial itself are great materials for Alaska history, for government, and other classes.
This really is a chance for people to get a real understanding of the facades some politicians put on. People really do hold important bills up if other legislators don't vote their way.
And this is must listening for all legislators. Sitting in court would have been a better way to go, but this is second best.
This is all due to the fact that the Daily News and KTUU hired attorney John McKay to represent them as interested parties in this case to get access to the materials in the case. Thanks for this public service! You can find some of the audio here - in the middle of the page.
Hello news directors/news organizations. This is David Hulen, I'm the assistant managing editor for news at the Anchorage Daily News. After several weeks of trying -- with huge help from John McKay -- we were able today to get from the government all of the exhibits that have been introduced by the prosecution in the Kott trial.Ray Metcalfe, who was in court today, has been accusing Ben Stevens of ethics violations for years, but no one wanted to listen. This is a giant civics lesson for Alaska. But it's important that we not walk away thinking all politicians are crooks. Rather, that we learn to listen carefully and to distinguish those who are honest and dedicated from those who would sell their office for their own gain. And we need to ask more about the corporations that sprinkle our non-profits with donations. Are they doing the same with our politicians? The testimony in the trial is raising the issue that the big oil companies let Veco do their dirty work here, while ostensibly keeping their hands clean. If it wasn't clear before, it's clear from this trial, that Metcalfe's tenacity is likely to see Stevens' indictment before long.
We are the pool for this material and we're making it available via FTP server as we did with similar material during the Anderson trial. Instructions on how to download are below.
A couple notes: The quality of the material is a huge improvement from what you hear in the courtroom or what some of us have been grabbing off the official courtroom recordings. The quality of the video recordings inside Suite 604 is pretty good, too. Here's the hitch: There are no dates on the audio files. I think they're listed by exhibit number, although I havent had time to check that for sure, and I'm not sure the exhibit numbers, if that's what they are, are in sync with what actually was entered into evidence. So you're on your own to figure out what's what. The videos at least have a time stamp.
If I've missed media that would be interested in this material, please let me know and I'll get in touch.
I'll be checking through some of this material that is now available, but I'm not sure if I have the time to post all or even any of it. But I'm sure it will be widely available soon through other media websites. The Daily News has already been posting portions of the daily audio from the trial. If you haven't heard it, go listen. They've picked some of the highlights.
High school and university teachers!!!! Are you listening? This, and the cd's of the trial itself are great materials for Alaska history, for government, and other classes.
This really is a chance for people to get a real understanding of the facades some politicians put on. People really do hold important bills up if other legislators don't vote their way.
And this is must listening for all legislators. Sitting in court would have been a better way to go, but this is second best.
This is all due to the fact that the Daily News and KTUU hired attorney John McKay to represent them as interested parties in this case to get access to the materials in the case. Thanks for this public service! You can find some of the audio here - in the middle of the page.
Pete Kott Trial Day 9 - Miscellaneous Notes
Things got pretty tedious in court today as the lawyers fished the answers they wanted from the witnesses. My wrist was sore from typing so much Friday i didn't bring my computer so I don't have anything close to verbatim, but the attorneys would tell the facts they wanted the witnesses to say, and end it with, "right?" So, I began to doodle. Than can be dangerous, but with no cameras allowed, and no artists in the courtroom, you'll have to make do with these dubious likenesses. But you can get a little sense of what it felt like. Above Kott's attorney Wendt is questioning Smith. He got Smith to say that his Veco salary was $165,000 a year. Plus annual bonus. It took a while to get that out, but it was $20-90,000. And then there were special bonuses which Smith said he got seven of the last eight years. Another $20-50,000. Anything else? Well there was severance pay. He got a monthly check until about ten days ago when he got a lump sum $384,000. Oh yes, don't forget the attorney's fee payment - an even $Half Million. If the costs are less, he can keep it. If more, he has to pay himself. He didn't ask about health care or other perks. Or even if he gets a pension.
He also asked Smith about his dealings with the owners of the Buckaroo Club where he got cash for checks for one of the 150 golf tournaments he arranged. He said that he only used them to cash checks for the last tournament of each year. . Wendt asked about whether the Buckaroo owners had warned him about the IRS opinion of this. He said he did it because he enjoyed and to raise money for charities. Sometimes there was extra money, sometimes he was behind. I'm not totally sure about the relevance to the trial, but perhaps it was part of his questioning about the many charges that apparantly were dropped in exchange for his testimony. Or just to raise questions with the jury. The prosecutors did protest a few times that Wendt was asking Smith questions that weren't related to the original testimony and the judge said that he understood that, but would give Wendt some leeway so he didn't have to call Smith in as a witness for the defense.
Judge Sedwick continues to appear very patient and even-handed. He makes practical decisions that seemed at getting the proceedings moving along. He even has suggested to the attorneys how to word questions to get at what they wanted to get at without having objections.
The prosecution used Dave Dittman to pin down the payment of the poll he did for Kott, that it was ordered by Jerry Mackie and he was told to bill it to Veco. And Dittman did that without calling Allen to check. And he also testified that he talked to Kott about the numbers and what they meant and what he should do with the information (Stress your experience in the legislature, point out all the school improvements you brought to Eagle River.)
Meg Simonian introduced herself to Dittman as "one of Pete Kott's attorneys." I had wondered earlier why Wendt introduced himself to witnesses as "I'm Pete Kott's attorney." Did he catch her phrasing? She also started by saying, "We haven't met before this, correct?" And "You didn't want to meet with me did you?" And Dittman confirmed this. I have to find out exactly what the rules are on that. If the defense hadn't talked to the prosecution's witnesses, then it makes their questioning a lot more difficult and explains why they tried lots of different approaches and sometimes lost points because of the answers. The picture shows the basic view I had, with the attorney's mic cutting through my view of the witness. I did a lot better on the likenesses of those you see from behind. But, given no one else seemed to be drawing in the courtroom, these are probably the best pictures there are of today. State Senator Fred Dyson has been in court a few times. Bill Allen was in his truck when Dyson pulled over and told him there were some people he needed to talk to. That was when Allen first talked to the FBI. He was sitting behind me today and during the break I asked him if this was all stuff he already knew or not. He said he suspected a lot, but this was all very enlightening. I asked him why there weren't other legislators there. He said Hollis French and Gary Therriault had been. He agreed with my thought that this was a far more effective ethics training course than what the legislature got last January. He mused how easy it would be for a legislature to have a Bill Allen in the office, someone he's known for a long time and with whom he agrees with on many issues, to offer some work to him. He related how one businessman had talked to him about some issue and Dyson had been sympathetic and the guy was so happy that someone didn't just blow him off. As he left he asked how he could contribute to his campaign. Dyson said he had to tell him, that he couldn't do that way.
The court room is pretty full of journalists these days, so all the other basics will be available at other sources. I'm sure you can hear on APRN, Channel 2 or 11, or read in the Anchorage Daily News.
Pete Kott Trial Day 9
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Monday, September 17, 2007
| 9:00 AM | 3:07-CR-00056-01-JWS | Judge Sedwick | Anchorage Courtroom 3 | |
| USA vs. PETER KOTT TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 9 | ||||
A few interesting things came up, but nothing spectacular came up as the Prosecutors were trying to dot all the i's and cross all the t's in their case - showing each invoice and check
that would show Kott received something of value from Veco - and the defense trying to show that the government was stretching to try to make their flimsy case.
Witnesses:
Rick Smith - defense finished cross examination including questions about his Veco salary, severance and legal fee payments (more next post), prosecution did its redirect
Linda Croft - an administrative employee at Veco who also handles Bill Allen's personal checking account to confirm invoices (and lack of) on the flooring bills paid to Kott and who wrote and signed the checks.
David Dittman - Of Dittman Research to ask about poll conducted for Kott and who ordered and paid for it. (more next post)
Jennifer Ferguson - A manager at Key Bank to confirm the dates the flooring check was written and deposited and who cashed them (Kott Flooring.)
Bruce Milne - Fairbanks FBI agent who first notified Kott about the tapes and did the first interview with him in his home in Juneau.
Brooks Miles - Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission who confirmed that it was illegal (at the time being investigated -Jan 1, 2005 - Dec. 31, 2007) for corporations to contribute 'something of value' to political candidates and that polls were specifically mentioned as 'something of value.' (I don't often use pictures I didn't take myself, but when I saw this on the APOC site my reaction was, "Wow, she sure didn't look like that today." She had light yellow hair falling around and framing her face today.)At the end of the testimony, about 4pm, the defense asked for a Rule 29 Judgment for acquittal on all accounts on the grounds that no reasonable jury could find Kott guilty based on the evidence. The prosecution argued briefly against this. The judge denied the Rule 29 judgment.
At the most crowded there were about 40 spectators in the courtroom. In the afternoon there was a contingent of judges from the Russian Far East in to observe a US courtroom.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Termination Dust
Termination dust in Anchorage refers to the first snow on the mountains. It signals the termination of summer. But we did manage to enjoy the 60's temperature and warm sun. But the first leaves are starting to drop and the mornings are cooler. Our neighbor Chris said the snow was there Thursday already.
Yes it would be prettier without the streetlight, but this is reality.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Pete Kott Trial - The Underlying Stories Part 2
I started this thread in an earlier post, where I pondered the underlying stories of the trial. I identified just three different sources of underlying stories.
Story 1: How the attorneys tell their stories.
Story 2: How the press tell their stories.
Story 3: The stories of our culture, indeed of humanity, that the trial reveals.
Of course there are hundreds of other stories - each of the jurors will find a number of stories in the proceedings. And the Clerk and others who have to get the court room ready, post the calendar and all the items in the docket, each have very different stories of the trial than I'm identifying. But I can only speculate on a couple here.
I started sketching out the attorneys' stories in the earlier post
I'm still thinking about the press stories. Are bloggers members of the press? Well, the security guards allowed my computer into the courtroom with the other press computers yesterday. But I'll save these stories for a later post.
Right now I'd like to muse about the cultural stories that arise in this trial.
First, I would note that the main character in the trial so far has been Bill Allen. Pete Kott has said very little since the first day when the jury pool assembled and Kott stood up with the attorneys and introduced himself as "Pete Kott, the defendant." Since then he's been a quiet shadow sitting between his attorneys. Witness Rick Smith has a supporting role to Bill Allen. So let me try on this story as an interpretation of some of what is happening here in court.
We have a clash of two different cultures - a pre-modern, tribal world and a modern, legal world. In Bill Allen's world, as I tease it out of his words and behaviors, power and family are the main values. Loyalty is a second, but lower value. The law, the government, the legislature in particular are seen as either obstacles to be overcome or tools to get what you want. Allen is clearly an intelligent man. Coming from a poor family, as he told the story, where he and his family survived as 'pickers' of fruit and vegetables in Oregon, he often missed school to pick. He finally dropped out at 15 to earn money as an assistant welder. He has used his wits, his ability to work hard, and his ability to size up people, to create a business that earned between $750 million and $1 billion last year, according to his testimony.
In the world he described, good and bad referred to how something would affect his business. Good legislation was legislation that would benefit - directly or indirectly - Veco's prospects. Good people were those who supported Allen and Veco. Money was a sign of power. And with money, this high school drop-out could show his power over the better educated. He could buy legislators. He paid Tom Anderson to be a consultant who did, apparently, very little for his monthly check. He paid for political polls for state legislative candidates. He handed out checks to legislators. They had audiences with Allen in the Baranof Hotel's Suite 604. But symbolically, he could really show his power by building the addition to Ted Stevens' house and by hiring Ted Stevens' son for $4000 a month to do "not a lot." The most senior Republican U.S. Senator was beholden to him. Surely, that's a sign of power. He even bought a newspaper - The Anchorage Times. So all these educated people worked for him - a high school drop out who'd picked fruit as a child.
Earlier in the trial, I'd thought perhaps loyalty was the main virtue in this world - the loyalty of the Pete Kotts. The loyalty of his Veco employees. He said he trusted Kott as a friend who would do whatever it took to support him. He told the court he'd put aside $10 million when Veco was sold, to support the loyal employees who'd worked for the company and made it what it was - not the executives, but the workers.
But then I looked at the situation before me. Allen was the government's witness against his most loyal servant, Pete Kott. We've watched this tribal culture on HBO - in the Sopranos and in Rome. We see it in the car bombs of Baghdad. We even see it in the White House where the rule of law is trumped by the raw use of power, and the redacting of significant parts of the Constitution. If the rule of law has any meaning in this culture, it is might makes right. And when the FBI confronted Allen with hundreds of hours of secretly recorded audio and video tapes, he saw that their army of investigators and attorneys had more juice than Veco. In this conflict of power, the FBI had him by the balls, a graphic image that would say it all in Allen's world And to protect the ultimate core of a tribal culture, his family, he abandoned Kott and the others, to keep his family out of prison.
This is not an immoral man. Rather this is a man who lives by a different code of right and wrong from the one that now judges him. Family and power come first. Loyalty to underlings comes next. He told the court he didn't expect anything from the Government for his testimony. He recognized their power, and in their place he would not treat his vanquished with 'fairness'. But he also had his own pride - in the powerful company he built by his own hands and wit, in his own hard work - and as he told Kott's attorney, "I won't beg" the government to lower his sentence. He'll take what comes as a man. He's protected his family, whatever else happens, happens.
This man who ruled by the pre-modern values of power and personal loyalty is put on trial by the rules of a modern state, where rationality, not personality count. Where merit, not loyalty and personal connections, is the standard. (A merit generally prefers college degrees to dirty fingernails.) His behaviors are judged, not by power, but by laws. The kind of laws he paid legislators to write in his favor and that he ignored when they were in the way.
I think it is important to recognize the good qualities in Allen. This is a man who, it would appear, was raised in a culture where poverty was bad and thus money was good. No one was there to help him, he had to help himself. The modern, civilized world failed him. It forced him to work as a child. The school system didn't work for him. The idea of rule of law wasn't, apparently, one he learned from his family and he wasn't in school enough to get it there. With what he had, he build a large corporation which gave him the power to take care of his family. He played well by the rules of tribal culture.
And lest those of us who believe in the rule of law get too smug, tribal instincts are alive and well under the veneer of civilization we wear. We see it flare up in divorce courts, at football stadiums an boxing matches, among hunters and fishers. It's part of our humanity. We're still learning how to balance the tension between protecting our own and helping others, between the freedom of the individual and the good of the larger community.
Story 1: How the attorneys tell their stories.
Story 2: How the press tell their stories.
Story 3: The stories of our culture, indeed of humanity, that the trial reveals.
Of course there are hundreds of other stories - each of the jurors will find a number of stories in the proceedings. And the Clerk and others who have to get the court room ready, post the calendar and all the items in the docket, each have very different stories of the trial than I'm identifying. But I can only speculate on a couple here.
I started sketching out the attorneys' stories in the earlier post
I'm still thinking about the press stories. Are bloggers members of the press? Well, the security guards allowed my computer into the courtroom with the other press computers yesterday. But I'll save these stories for a later post.
Right now I'd like to muse about the cultural stories that arise in this trial.
First, I would note that the main character in the trial so far has been Bill Allen. Pete Kott has said very little since the first day when the jury pool assembled and Kott stood up with the attorneys and introduced himself as "Pete Kott, the defendant." Since then he's been a quiet shadow sitting between his attorneys. Witness Rick Smith has a supporting role to Bill Allen. So let me try on this story as an interpretation of some of what is happening here in court.
We have a clash of two different cultures - a pre-modern, tribal world and a modern, legal world. In Bill Allen's world, as I tease it out of his words and behaviors, power and family are the main values. Loyalty is a second, but lower value. The law, the government, the legislature in particular are seen as either obstacles to be overcome or tools to get what you want. Allen is clearly an intelligent man. Coming from a poor family, as he told the story, where he and his family survived as 'pickers' of fruit and vegetables in Oregon, he often missed school to pick. He finally dropped out at 15 to earn money as an assistant welder. He has used his wits, his ability to work hard, and his ability to size up people, to create a business that earned between $750 million and $1 billion last year, according to his testimony.
In the world he described, good and bad referred to how something would affect his business. Good legislation was legislation that would benefit - directly or indirectly - Veco's prospects. Good people were those who supported Allen and Veco. Money was a sign of power. And with money, this high school drop-out could show his power over the better educated. He could buy legislators. He paid Tom Anderson to be a consultant who did, apparently, very little for his monthly check. He paid for political polls for state legislative candidates. He handed out checks to legislators. They had audiences with Allen in the Baranof Hotel's Suite 604. But symbolically, he could really show his power by building the addition to Ted Stevens' house and by hiring Ted Stevens' son for $4000 a month to do "not a lot." The most senior Republican U.S. Senator was beholden to him. Surely, that's a sign of power. He even bought a newspaper - The Anchorage Times. So all these educated people worked for him - a high school drop out who'd picked fruit as a child.
Earlier in the trial, I'd thought perhaps loyalty was the main virtue in this world - the loyalty of the Pete Kotts. The loyalty of his Veco employees. He said he trusted Kott as a friend who would do whatever it took to support him. He told the court he'd put aside $10 million when Veco was sold, to support the loyal employees who'd worked for the company and made it what it was - not the executives, but the workers.
But then I looked at the situation before me. Allen was the government's witness against his most loyal servant, Pete Kott. We've watched this tribal culture on HBO - in the Sopranos and in Rome. We see it in the car bombs of Baghdad. We even see it in the White House where the rule of law is trumped by the raw use of power, and the redacting of significant parts of the Constitution. If the rule of law has any meaning in this culture, it is might makes right. And when the FBI confronted Allen with hundreds of hours of secretly recorded audio and video tapes, he saw that their army of investigators and attorneys had more juice than Veco. In this conflict of power, the FBI had him by the balls, a graphic image that would say it all in Allen's world And to protect the ultimate core of a tribal culture, his family, he abandoned Kott and the others, to keep his family out of prison.
This is not an immoral man. Rather this is a man who lives by a different code of right and wrong from the one that now judges him. Family and power come first. Loyalty to underlings comes next. He told the court he didn't expect anything from the Government for his testimony. He recognized their power, and in their place he would not treat his vanquished with 'fairness'. But he also had his own pride - in the powerful company he built by his own hands and wit, in his own hard work - and as he told Kott's attorney, "I won't beg" the government to lower his sentence. He'll take what comes as a man. He's protected his family, whatever else happens, happens.
This man who ruled by the pre-modern values of power and personal loyalty is put on trial by the rules of a modern state, where rationality, not personality count. Where merit, not loyalty and personal connections, is the standard. (A merit generally prefers college degrees to dirty fingernails.) His behaviors are judged, not by power, but by laws. The kind of laws he paid legislators to write in his favor and that he ignored when they were in the way.
I think it is important to recognize the good qualities in Allen. This is a man who, it would appear, was raised in a culture where poverty was bad and thus money was good. No one was there to help him, he had to help himself. The modern, civilized world failed him. It forced him to work as a child. The school system didn't work for him. The idea of rule of law wasn't, apparently, one he learned from his family and he wasn't in school enough to get it there. With what he had, he build a large corporation which gave him the power to take care of his family. He played well by the rules of tribal culture.
And lest those of us who believe in the rule of law get too smug, tribal instincts are alive and well under the veneer of civilization we wear. We see it flare up in divorce courts, at football stadiums an boxing matches, among hunters and fishers. It's part of our humanity. We're still learning how to balance the tension between protecting our own and helping others, between the freedom of the individual and the good of the larger community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)