Pete Kott Trial Day 11 - Pete All Afternoon

There was a lot said, not much earthshaking and I just don’t have time to cover it all. Pete Kott took the stand and covered things like:

• Why he keeps $30,000 in cash in his closet. (Is it alone on F Street while he and Deborah are in Anchorage? I hope the burglars don’t read the newspapers.)
• He never asked for a poll to be done, never used it.
• Old campaign fliers that showed he used the slogan “Experienced, Proven Leadership” since his second campaign (implying that the fact it was on a 2006 flier didn’t prove that he took Dave Dittman’s polling advice to stress leadership.)
• He’s never taken a bribe from Bill Allen.
• A blow by blow account of the November ‘04 legislative coup by 13 Democrats and 9 Republicans that would have had Pete Speaker of the House for two days.

He talked about his life:

Born in Flint, Michigan. Dad worked for GM. So did Kott after high school. But in 1969 he joined the Air Force. He had postings in Texas, Thailand [Taiwan according to ADN] (where he met his wife), Turkey, New Mexico, and Florida (where he got a BA in Criminal Justice and a Masters in (dare I say it?) Public Administration. That’s two MPA’s out of two legislative corruption trials. Really, we teach ethics. But these are things that faculty can’t really test (unless students cheat on their assignments) for, and in the short time students are in graduate school it isn’t easy to change fundamental values. And many could argue legitimately that we shouldn’t. But the basic standards of the field? But I digress.

He ended his Air Force career in Anchorage where he also started teaching political science at Whalen Baptist College. A student who read the chapter on when to run for office, pointed out that after reapportionment, Kott’s district had no incumbent. So Pete ran. He loves being a legislator.

All this testimony, starting at 1:30 and going till 4:30, seems to be intended to contrast the real, living Pete Kott with the often drunk, foul mouthed, guy the jury has seen and heard on tape. And he looked much more impressive on the stand under the friendly questions of his attorney. He even looked like he was talking directly to the jury. But he may have only been looking at his monitor.

What about his relationship with Bill Allen? Well, they were introduced by Ramona Barnes who had taken Kott in when he joined the legislature and they bonded on a bus on Sakhalin Island, Russia, a state paid trip.

He and Bill hit it off so well, he thought, because

• we liked each other
• his immediately family was not so immediate - son and sister moved away. He was by himself and I was too sort of
• we had a lot of things in common
• hands-on trying to scratch through a living - he did much better than I
• Our beliefs in developing natural resources

This is pretty close to verbatim:

Bill Allen was very knowledgeable. He was my number one source of information. Before lobbyists, They have their own interests. Bill and Rick always gave me an honest answer.

It was at this point that the lady behind me laughed out loud. I was also thinking, Bill Allen didn’t have his own interests? Didn’t he get fined for lobbying when he wasn’t registered as one?

Then at 3:20 pm Wendt started asking Kott about the PPT legislation. Detailed information about it. Starting with page one of the legislative history. Line by line. Translating every coded term. (PPT was the Petroleum Profits Tax that was the highest priority of Veco.)

2/21/06 FN1 Zero DNR
3/30.06 RES RPT CS 1DP 1DN 2NR 3AM

This went on until 4:30. Actually, I have to admit, that while I thought I would fall asleep for sure, learning the code was kind of interesting.
FN= fiscal notes DNR= Department of Natural Resources - they had zero fiscal notes

RES = Resource Sub Committee
RPT = Report
CS = Committee Substitute
So the Resource Sub-Committee reported the bill out with a Committee substitute bill

1DP = 1 Do pass
1DN = 1 Do not pass
2NR = 2 No recommendation
3AM = 3 support the Amended bill

This is how the seven sub committee members voted on the bill.

But why are we doing all this?

It appeared to me that Defense was trying to make two points:

1. Kott had no impact on the bill.
2. Kott actually voted to raise the tax, not lower it.

The first time he got to vote on it was May 7,the second to the last day of the regular session I think, There was one other vote when it was unanimously voted onto the floor for debate. Even though the Senate bill was passed first and so became the working bill for both houses, and the Senate had voted for 22/22 (I think) instead of 20/20 (20% tax; 20% credits for new investment), the Finance subcommittee had voted it back down to 20/20 before it got to the floor of the House.

Another line in the record looked so innocent:

5/7/07 (H) AM NO 20 Adopted Y21 N19

On May 7, in the House, Amendment Number 20 was passed 21-19. This was the famous (among wonks) vote when Weyhrauch voted wrong. He voted to raise the tax to 21.5 by mistake, and they had to get the vote rescinded. Under questioning from his attorney, Kott said

I made the motion to rescind. Rep. Weyhrauch came to me. And I believe...(I didn’t catch it quite, but it was something like votes should be what people really meant, not mistakes). Anyone on an issue of this magnitude, if someone made a mistake, I wanted to be sure everyone voted their conscience.

That sounds pretty noble. But you know that the defense is going to play the tape I posted last night in which Kott, from the floor, calls Smith in Room 604, and tells him what happened and they’re going to rescind the vote and revote. Here you can listen for yourself:
Rep. Pete Kott to Veco VP Rick Smith phone call

So then the next line of the history of the bill:

5/7/07 (H) RESCIND ACTION ON AM20 Y22 N18

By now I bet you can read that without translation. Rescind the vote on Amendment 20 passes 22 to 18.

Kott said he was surprised it was rescinded 22-18. Someone beside Weyhrauch changed his vote. If only Weyhrauch had changed his vote it would have been 20-20 and the 21.5/21.5 would have stayed. "On an issue this contentious, I just thought if only Bruce Weyhrauch changed his vote, it wouldn't pass."

Do you think that Pete Kott, if the original vote had failed and a Democrat had asked to have it rescinded so he could vote his conscience, would agreed? Listen to this the audio of what Kott told Smith right after the vote:

Rep. Pete Kott and Veco VP Rick Smith phone call

These simple cryptic lines hide so much. Defense was trying to show that Kott never did anything to help Veco get the bill passed. He has to know these tapes are going to be played in the cross examination.

The second main thing he was trying to get across was on the next lines:

5/8/07 (H) AM NO1 BEFORE THE HOUSE

5/8/07 (H) AM2 TO AM1 ADOPTED Y22 N17 E1

If I understood this right, there was a new amendment to raise the level from 20/20 to 22.5/22.5. (Veco wants it to stay at 20/20). But Kott is able to get AM2 passed 22-17 (I don't think he told us what E1 was) AM2 amended the AM1 changing the 22.5/22.5 to 21/21. So, instead of an Amendment raising the original 20/20 to 22.5, Kott's amendment had it only go up to 21. In essence, he lowered the amended level of 22.5 to 21, thus, I'm assuming, limiting the damage.

But Wendt characterized this as Kott's only real action on this bill was to raise it from 20/20 to 21/21 - the opposite of what Veco wanted. And the opposite of what happened. Cute. But I'm sure the prosecution will easily knock over this house of cards.

So at 4:3o (yes there was 70 minutes on this) the jury left and the attorneys talked about the schedule. I think that is worthy of a post by itself and not being buried down here at the bottom of this long post that only three people will see to the bottom. But for those of you who made it this far, the prosecution expects to begin its cross examination of Kott in the afternoon tomorrow for a few hours. I would guess this will be the most interesting part of the trial.

Lisa Demer's Style Changes Slightly

[Additional Comment: Today's (Thursday) article looks like the old Demer]

I've complimented Lisa on her reporting of the Anderson trial. She's kept up crisp, relevant, and neutral coverage of that trial and the Kott trial. I know from the blog how hard it is to keep the writing as unbiased as possible. It's hard to do succinct summaries of all the details that capture the key points without putting one's own spin on it. I've got a little more freedom here because all the other media cover the basics. I don't have to give a complete overview.

So I was surprised to read this morning's article on the Kott trial.

It started out with:

Ex-state Rep. Pete Kott's son tried to keep his father out of federal prison Tuesday

Well, probably this is true, but it sure puts a negative spin on Kott's testimony from the git go. I'm sure Judge Sedwick wouldn't allow this in the testimony. We don't really know what Peter's thinking.

The younger Kott, who is also named Peter, testified Tuesday that $7,993 in cash he received from his father was just an advance for future flooring work. That's not so, said the Veco executives. They said the money was a payoff to allow Kott's son to take time off and work on Kott's re-election campaign.

It looks like the Veco executives were rebutting what Kott Jr. said. What they are quoted as saying happened last week in court. You wouldn't know that by reading it.

Kott said that he served as his dad's campaign manager in 2006 but that his title just as easily could have been gofer.

The first part of this sentence is accurate, but he didn't say "I could have been called a gofer." The writers are making that point, which I would agree with based on what he said he actually did. But the sentence starts with "Kott said..." and there is nothing to indicate where the writers stop quoting Kott and start adding their own interpretation.

These are just little things, but it is just these little things that make the difference between sloppy, biased reporting and good reporting. The only difference I see is that Lisa isn't writing this alone the way she has been. I recognize it isn't easy to get your writing all cleaned up. And I know that I leave things in my posts I wished I'd fixed. It's especially hard when I'm doing a quick post during a break in trial. So, this is just a friendly chide. Keep up your regular high standards.


I'm reluctant to put my camera in people's faces, especially when they'd rather not be photographed. But from a distance without interrupting is ok I think. That's just my comfort level and I'm glad the other guys have the stomach to flash in the faces of people we should see. Anyway, here's a picture in the Federal Building cafeteria at lunch today to give you a sense of things. The Kott party is on the left. (Pete's in the red tie.) KTUU's Bill McAllister is working on his computer toward the middle. And Lisa Demer and Sean Cockerham work on the right.

Pete Kott Trial Day 11 - Pete Kott takes the Stand

It's lunch break.

Debeorah Stovern continued on the stand till about 11:30am. Overall she seemed to be a good witness. She looked nice without being flashy. She spoke well. She was consistent in her answers about the books and how she kept the records and why invoices said what they did.

When asked if she would be surprised to know that none of the FBI tapes had a conversation about using the $7,993 check from Allen to pay for flooring, she said, yes she would, she knows there were conversations. How does she know? Pete called her to tell her about the check from Allen's house when he and Peter Jr. and Allen talked about it. My sense of that was that she was told it was flooring and believed the conversation was about flooring.

She also gave a somewhat less cynical explanation of the Corrupt Bastards Club. She'd been invited for cocktails at the Baranof lounge and Rick Smith was reading a newspaper article and had her read it. It talked about how all the legislators who got money from Veco were corrupt and named some, including Pete Kott. The reaction was an ironic "hey, we're the corrupt bastards club' and the people listed in the article were the members. I recall back in the Sixties it came out that President Nixon had what he called an "enemies list." The people on that list took it, eventually, as a badge of honor to be on that list. I can see this being the same sort of thing. Of course, there is a difference. Nixon was impeached and resigned in disgrace, so people on his enemies list turned out to be 'good guys.' But two Veco executives have pleaded guilty to corruption and one of the people on the list, Tom Anderson, has been convicted of corruption and several others have been indicted. And Pete Kott is in Day 11 of his trial.

Even though Stovern was a strong presence on the stand, it seemed the prosecution made some points. They asked why Peter Jr. hadn't been paid with campaign funds for his work as campaign manager instead of getting future work for flooring to pay him. Prosecution asked whether it wasn't really so it wouldn't show up in the APOC report. She said it wouldn't look good for family members to get paid too much. But it wasn't a problem to pay family members a fair amount. When questioned about her payment for work on the campaign, Goeke asked why she didn't get paid until January 2007, near the end of the reporting period, way after the campaign, and why it listed Captial Consulting instead of Deborah Stovern? She answered reasonably, they had agreed that she would be paid if there was money left over, otherwise not, and by then it was clear they had money left over. And she had created the Capital Consultants billing form because now that she had learned the APOC reporting procedures, she was thinking of doing work for other campaigns. But she never did create the company. Goeke then asked, so your pay was listed to a company that never existed so it wouldn't embarrassing. And the he compared that to leaving Peter Jr.'s payment being called flooring work because it wouldn't have to go on the APOC report. There was an objection, but the jury heard the question.

The defense also asked Stovern about Pete's relationship with his wife. Not good. Seems they are having trouble with the terms of the divorce.


Pete Kott took the stand about 11:35 and Wendt immediately asked him about the $30,000 in cash in the house. We already heard yesterday from Peter Jr. that he prefers to use cash. The Kott's don't seem to trust banks it seems. Pete also prefers cash. The money was basically from his per diem checks as a legislator over two years. If he isn't spending them, perhaps the legislature should review the per diem policy. It is supposed to be for living expenses while in Juneau. Maybe the pay is too high. But that's another issue altogether.

He said none of the cash came from Allen or Smith, except for the $1000 Allen reimbursed him for his contribution, at Allen's request, to Murkowski's campaign. (Actually, Pete said he only got $900 back.) I recall Allen being questioned earlier about making campaign contributions through his employees illegally. This sounds like the same sort of thing.

Kott also testified about several campaign fliers that showed he's been using "Experienced Leadership" as a slogan since 1994, long before he got that advice from Dave Dittman. He also said he never asked for the poll or used the poll. Again, this would be to establish that the payment of the poll by Allen wasn't an illegal act by Kott since he wasn't a part of it. But he did hire Mackie as a campaign consultant, and it was mentioned already that the candidate is responsible for the campaign. We'll see where this goes.

One other point. I mentioned the jury's laughter at the Judge's humor this morning. I think it probably was a way to relief some stress and a show of trust of the judge. He made another mildly humorous comment when Wendt needed to lower the microphone. Something about Wendt being shorter than the government attorneys, but taller than the judge. The jury laughed loudly again. But when Kott joked about how he knew a campaign brochure's date, "in the photo I look a little younger , so it must have been earlier" that wasn't the slightest titter from the jury.

I've got to go eat before court resumes at 1:30

Pete Kott Trial Day 11 - Morning Break CBC Hats

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.

Kott Trial Day 10 - The Afternoon

Overview:

• 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..."

As I understand it, from the Anderson trial, it's the agreement, not the actual carrying it out, that matters.

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.

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):

• 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

Here's the first audio tape on the list. Kott in Juneau talking to Smith at Riley's Bar in Anchorage. Kott sounds like he's been drinking. Someone named Trotter takes the phone from Smith and Kott tells him he's in Barbados, warden of the prison, and checking out the ladies. He then tells Smith he wants a job. Wants to be a consultant.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.