Kott Trial Day 13 - Kotts Chief of Staff, "I had two different bosses"

[I accidentally deleted this post that I made with a slightly different title at 10:34 am today. I reconstructed it, but it doesn't want to go back to 10:34]

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Friday, September 21, 2007

---

9:00 AM	3:07-CR-00056-01-JWS	Judge Sedwick	Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. PETER KOTT TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 13

The first defense witness today, State Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux basically said Pete Kott never threatened or coerced her about legislation.

The second defense witness was Judy Ohmer, a PhD in Education from University of Oregon, and said she has extensive experience in alcohol counseling. She also was a chief of staff for Pete Kott when he was speaker and the term after that.

Kott's attorney, Wendt, seemed to be working an earlier theme that once he was no long speaker of the house Kott had littleen power. Ohmer confirmed this - "As Speaker he was King of the Hill and could pull people together at will. But not when a regular legislator."

He started to ask her if she thought Kott was alcoholic. The Prosecution objected she was not there as an expert witness.

Wendt then asked if she ever saw Kott drinking out of the office.

She replied: ( approximation of what she said)

Absolutely, I had two different bosses. When he was drinking he began
speaking hillbilly, swearing...Cussing more, more biting, more boasting,
exaggerated, 'me Tarzan.'

[Was she suggesting that hillbillies are drunk and cuss a lot?]

The Defense rested at 10am. Judge Sedwick asked if we could have closing arguments this afternoon. Wendt said he preferred Monday, Government said they could go either way.

So the jury will go home soon. The attorneys and the judge have to agree on the jury instructions. Closing arguments will be Monday.

Pete Kott Trial Day 13

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Friday, September 21, 2007

---

9:00 AM	3:07-CR-00056-01-JWS	Judge Sedwick	Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. PETER KOTT TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 13

When I got back to the courtroom after posting during the break, the Prosecution had canceled its rebuttal. So the judge told the jury that he'd thought that possibly they could hear the closing arguments today, but it was better to give both sides the weekend to prepare. He thanked them for listening so diligently, warned them not to talk to anyone about the trial, or to listen to tv or radio news, read newspapers covering the trial, or the internet. Then at about 10:45 he recessed them for a long weekend. We could hear a cheer from the hallway as the jurors walked out.

Then the judge asked how long the defense needed for the closing.
Wendt said, "As much time as the prosecution."
Judge Sedwick: "OK, five minutes for each."
Wendt: "That's fine with me."
Government said it had gone over a little in the last trial, so to be on the safe side they asked for an hour and a half.
Sedwick: Then 90 for the defense. And it's ok if you go 95, but I would like us to finish by noon. I don't want to go on into the afternoon.
They then agreed to meet after lunch today to settle the jury instructions.

I went to the Clerk's office to get the proposed jury instructions. I see now that what I got was Defendant Kott's Objections to Jury Instruction, NOT the judge's proposed instructions. Whoops. Good thing no one's paying for this. All right, this says,

The government has charged Pete Kott with one count of Extortion Under Color of Official Right, or the Hobbs Act, based upon four separate alleged benefits:

1. a promise of a job
2. $1000 in exchange for a campaign contribution to Frank Murkowski
3. $7,993 in inflated flooring to pay Pete Kott Jr. for rnning Kott's re-election campaign, and [I thought the Kott's did hardwood flooring. Is inflated flooring like walking on an air mattress?]
   
4. a poll for Kott's re-election campaign.

Well that's only one of the charges. So apparently they are satisfied with the rest of the language, or they submitted other objections. Anyway, here are photos of the language the defense would like for this charge. Now, it's 4:23, so presumably they have worked out the final language already. Click on the pictures to enlarge them.






Tonight is Erev Yom Kippur so this blog gets to rest until Saturday night at the very earliest.

Pete Kott Trial Day 12 - Kott Admits He Lies

The earlier posts today were pretty much on the fly during breaks. For this one I've had about six hours to digest what happened

The prosecutors didn’t make the home run I was expecting when they had a chance to question Kott. Rather they got a base hit here, a walk there. Nothing spectacular, but when it was over, I think they scored a few more runs than the defense.

The most significant gain for the government, I think, has to do with Kott’s honesty. Kott was caught between what he said on the tapes, and the defense’s attempt to prove that Kott was not doing Veco’s bidding. Goeke got Kott to admit that

• He lied to other legislators in his (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to get done what he needed to do, including legislators with whom he had built some rapport
• He lied to Bill Allen and Rick Smith, the two people he told us yesterday were the only two people who had never lied to him.
  
• He would lie to his friends to maintain his principles.
  

Wednesday, Bill Allen, Uncle Bill as Kott calls him, was like family. This was a very special friendship. He could walk into Bill's house any time, and he did. Thursday Kott is trying to show that Allen doesn't "own his ass' as Allen claimed on tape. So now what he said on tape to Allen about doing his bidding and about his power to get things through the legislature was not really the truth, he was telling Bill what Bill wanted to hear. It was ok to lie to his best friends, almost family, to maintain his principles. What Goeke didn't ask was, "What are these principles that are more important than honesty and truth telling?"

What are these principles? In all this testimony, Kott really didn't tell us much about his principles. He did say he believed strongly in natural resources development. Was that really a principle he held stronger than truth telling? Then again, maybe it was. After all, he was willing to lie to other legislators to get the gas pipeline through. He also talked about the importance of family. But he tells us to look at his actions, not his words. While he put "Married for 30 years" on one of his brochures, now, we learned in the testimony, he has been living about four years with a woman who is not his wife to whom he is still legally married. And Bill Allen, he has told us throughout is like family, but he has also told us now that he has lied to Bill.

We don't know what those principles are. We do know he lies to get what he wants. So why shouldn't the jury assume that he is lying to them to get what he wants - a Not Guilty verdict?

Getting Kott to say that he lied to his very, very good friends, and to acknowledge that honesty is not one of his principles (he'd rather lie than violate those principles), the prosecution has undermined Kott's credibility with the jury.

Below is a series of exchanges where Kott said he lied. While they are not verbatim, I think they are fairly close, certainly in meaning, to what was said.

1.

Goeke (G): On the tape you say to Bill Allen (BA) and Rick Smith (RS) that you had to lie, cheat, and steal.
PK: There was a bit of deceit with Rep [Ethan] Berkowitz (B). I didn’t know at the time he knew what I was up to. I felt somewhat disappointed in myself.
G: How long working with EB?
PK: Ten years.
G: His role?
PK: Minority Leader
PK was speaker, had to develop relationship with Minority leader and did.
G: Why were you talking about lying, cheating, and stealing?
PK: Wanted to make point I didn’t feel real comfortable about it. Violated what I perceived as my ethics. Especially with Mr. B. We’d worked in the coup together also.
G: About getting votes of Crawford and Croft through your connection with B?
PK: Yes, if you review all the transcripts, you’ll see Crawford and Croft stuck on 20/20 position. They didn’t want to see anything pass if it wasn’t a gross tax. If they couldn’t get that, they’d do what they could to ?stop it? I was going to get credit for then [for getting their votes] I didn’t really deserve.

So right in the beginning Goeke has gotten Kott to say he had lied. The original quote from the tape, was that he told Allen and Rick that he'd had to "lie, cheat, and steal" to get Rep B to vote his way. So he's admitted that he would lie to his legislative colleagues to get his way, even one he'd developed a close relationship with.
By the end he was also admitting that he also, at least exaggerated, if not lied, to Allen and Smith about having gotten Crofts and Crawford's votes. He got credit for something he hadn't done.

2. The defense was trying to show that while Allen and Smith wanted the PPT to stay at 20/20, Kott was a free agent who instead voted for 21.5. To do this, they had to admit that what Kott said to Allen and Smith on the tape wasn't true. And so he did:

G: Later you went to Room 604 as was your custom. When you’re up there you have no idea the FBI is recording that conversation. So when you told RS, you were going to go up from 20/20 that wasn’t true was it?
PK: it was true
G: Recall later in the room, do you recall those conversations. Going to play a tape.
May 8 06 Ex 30 5:05
I don’t want to jeopardize the gas line, I’ll stay on 20, Reps x,y, and z will stay on 20.
Who’s on the screen?
PK: that was BA
PK You are speculating on my motives. These are good friends of mine. I’m going to tell them what they want to hear.
G: You’re lying to them
PK: I think my votes speak for themselves
G: I agree, but i think for different reasons

3. Then a little later. He gets Kott to say he is willing to sacrifice the truth for his principles. I think he missed an opportunity to ask, "So what are these principles that are more important than the truth?"

G: But you told Smith and Bill Allen frequently about your ability to work things.
PK: These are friends, I’m going to tell them what they want to hear, I want to boost their morale. This is chit chat.
G: You tell this jury here, that what they want to hear is that you lied to them
PK: not quite a lie, but a (stretch?) of the truth.
G: It wasn’t the truth?
PK: No it wasn’t the truth.
G: And those were the people you considered your long time friends, your Uncle Bill.
PK: There’s a difference between my words and actions. My principles.
G: Willing to sacrifice your principle of the truth with them?
PK: Yes. You can’t have it both ways.
G: Long standing relationship, right?
PK yes


4. After talking about the power of Fairbanks Senator Therriault, Wendt, Kott's own attorney asks Kott:

W: Did you have that sort of power
PK: I wish I did
W: Did you want Bill Allen and RS to see you as important?
PK Certainly I wanted to look good in their eyes.
W: Do you regret saying those things now?
PK Certainly led me to say things that weren’t entirely true. Whether I regret them at this point, I’m not sure. Perhaps I shouldn’t have gotten into that environment in the first place. If I have a choice between compromising my principles or lying to my friends, then lying to my friends will take a back seat.
W: What do you mean by back seat? That your principles come first?
PK: Yes

They covered a lot of other ground that I trust will be mentioned in the ADN and other sources. In the end, I would think this was the most important revelation for Thursday. I think that it should be relatively easy for the Prosecution to tie together how Kott's story changes depending on what point he's trying to make. Allen and Smith are my best friends and I trust them completely. Except that I lie to them when it suits me. I tell them what they want to hear. Presumably, before 12 total strangers he should have no compunctions about telling them what they want to hear so he won't have to go to jail.

Pete Kott Trial Day 11 - PM Break

Defense asked Pete Kott about 6 or 7 issues to get him to explain his side of these. I left my notebook with those in the court. These were things like
1. Did you receive a check for $5000 from Allen for a car payment? (It was a loan)
and other open issues.

Then he was done and Prosecutor Goeke began a strong attack. He's asserting things that Kott has supposedly done and why he's done them, often forgetting to make them questions. The defense has objected several times and asked for Goeke to stop yelling at his client and to ask civilly.

Goeke apologizes and asks one polite question and slowly gets back into his attack mode. Basically he's tearing into the long testimony about the votes and what they mean. He's trying to show that Kott actually was working to kill the vote on PPT and that his very last vote as a legislator was actually a no vote which he changed after the vote when he saw that the bill was passed by a lopsided margin.


Below are very notes, typed as they spoke. Goeke is speaking very fast as is Kott. So take these as an approximation of what is being said. I've tried to put PK and G on the left to show who is talking, but there are times when they get mixed together. Though given how Goeke "asked" questions, they were often mixed together. Sorry about the typos. This is time over complete accuracy.

Cross Exam. 2:10 PM

Goeke: A couple questions about procedures in the house. When vote taken in the house, reflected on a tally sheet. Board with red and green lights, you can see. Cutomary for speaker, when voitng is close. Customary for speaker to ask to change their vote. Then new change is recorded in record in the house and reflected that it was changed. Your testimony was you voted for 22.5 because that was a compromise you wanted, everyone had hashed out their positions. This was fair and equitable, splitting the baby and very one was going to go for it right?
PK: I was 20/20 person, at some point you have to throw in tile and compromise.
G: Lets look at last hours of the session.. Exhibt 134. AK House 3rd Special Session. rEcords a particular vote. Date:8/10/06 15:40pm Recognize that sheet? Farily described it. This sheet refelcts SBS 3??? concur. Vote on concurrence of final PPT in the final session?
PK: No, I believe this is a..we need to go to the journal..
Goeke: OK, let’s go to journal
PK: I say this because it is a vote on the issue of concurrence, but not the final vote.
G: Reflects vote on concurance 3:40 pm it failed. You voted no to concurrance?
PK: correct
G: If vote doesn’t concur, then the bill’s dead?
PK: What it says.
G: Voting for concurrence on house bill 3001. If the house agreed to concur, the PPT rate would have been 22.5.. Correct. And you voted no? correct.
G: Keep looking. It’s got a vote tab. 20 y 19 n one excused. Moses. Correct
If you switched your vote, it would be done.
Recognize this exhibit? Another sheet about a vote, a few hours later 21:11:09. That says, HB 3001 concur. Vote to rescind action failure to concur that happened at 3:40pm
With regard to before, 225 was what you wanted. 135 is a motion to rescind previous action. The effect of this vote is to rescind the failure to concur and allow another vote on 3001. You testified, and moses is back. And you vote Nay. You don’t want to rescind the failure to concur. 9:11pm August 6.
25Y 15N motion to rescind is passed. Another vote on should we concur with the senate and if we do, we’ll go to 22.5.
3 minutes later there is a vote on concurrence. Do you recall?
PK: NO
G: You don’t recall the final vote of your legislative career?
PK: I probably voted for the bill.
G: Gexihibit 136. Aug. 10, 2006 9:13pm says concurrence vote on HB 3001. About two minutes after rescind vote carried. Do you see how you voted on that motion?
PK: It appears I voted yes.
G: End of legislature and end of your career. It reflects that you changed your vote from yeah to nay.
PK: At the end of the day, you changed from yeah to nay. After voting was closed.
But before the final tally was cast. You voted yeah, after the tally.
Objections
Sustained
If you wanted to vote yest at 3:40pm. It would have been done.
PK: It might have been changed.
G: If you had voted yes you would have had 22.5.
PK: NO, because we would have had a reconsideration and had it before us again.
G: Wouldn’t it have been 20-19. No, it would have been 21-19. It would have been 21-18. It would have passed. It would have passed.
PK and there would probably be a reconsideration vote.
G: You had a swing vote at 3:40pm, you vote not to concur. They had to fly in a sick man, you vote.
J: What the lawyers say is not evidence.
G: Isn’t it true Mr. Kott, if you had voted to concur at 3:40pm, we would have had 22.5.
PK: correct
G: If you wanted 22.5 you could have voted on the motion to rescind, so could have voted for 22.5. If you wanted 22.5, why vote to rescind concur.
PK: 22.5 was not where I ultimately wnated to get to. At this point there was still hope to get compromise. I didn’t want to see vote on issue of this magnitude to go down in history passed by 1 vote. I wanted it to have a wider margin.
G: You voted to no on the final vote. Didn’t you vote no in the final vote?
PK: I’m looking at the change from nay to yeah. Did you hit the button for no the first time you had the opportunity?
Appears I did
G: You changed it so the writing was on the wall. It was good you did it for the jury.
Objection: there was no jury then
Sustained
G: Isn’t it true you changed your vote after the voting was closed, after you saw the final vote tally on HB 3001 at 9:13, when it was 23-17, you hit no and changed your vote to yeah.


Hectic time period May 7 and 8. When you and BW called RS. You made it clear to RS that you were at a rate higher than 20/20.
PK. both BW and I conveyed on May 8 2006 at about ??pm.
G: Later you went to 604 as was your custom. When you’re up there you have no idea the FBI is recording that conversatio. So when you told RS you 1pm, you were going to go up from 20/20 that wasn’t true was it?
PK: it was true
G: Recall later in the room, do you recall those conversations. Going to play a tape.
May 8 06 Ex 30 5:05
I don’t want to jeopardize the gas line, I’ll stay on 20, xyz on 20.
Who’s on the screen?
PK: that was BA
PK You are speculating on my motives. These are good friends of mine. I’m going to tell them what they want to hear.
You’re lying to them
I think my votes speak for themselves
G: I agree, but i think for different reasons


Mr. Berkowitz
G: You shared a common objective, for different reasons. He wanted a higher tax rate. YOU told the jury you wanted to kill the bill because you told BA you wanted to stay at 20/20
PK: He wanted to kill it I wanted to see 20/20, but it didn’t get there.
G: At that time 22.5 was too high
PK; Yes, there’s a process of elimination
G: You thought the senate locked in, infliexible at 22.5
PK That’s what I believed. So I thought, but they were locked in 10-10
G: You say you supported 21.5 at that time, but in the closing hours it would kill that bill. There was no time for a conference bill. Isn’t it true you heard Dr. Thomas that at the end of the regular session any business not done dies.
The session is about to end on May 9.
Correct
G:
PK: That appeare to be their position because they never responded. When sent to the Senate there were several hours left in the session. Sat on Presidents desk for several hours.
G: Your opinion there was time
PK Absolutely
G: But the bill died.
PK: Wasn’t the house fault
G: You had an opportunity earlier to vote 22.5, it would have passed.

June vote. Special session in the middle of June.
G: You told the jury you were at 21.5 or 21.7 in mid June, but not true?
PK> No it was at 20/20 again
G: Where were you at end of session in June,
PK JUneau
G: Your position
PK I do’t know
Video: Fuck you, fuck all those guys. Let’s all go fuck them June 8, 06 11:48 pm
PK At that time my official position is the vote cast on the board. That is the only position recorded for the annals of history.
G: You had no idea of video. that’s a pretty good window into your position with Veco. Consistent with your position all along in the spring, summer.
You talked about what to do with legislators who don’t go along with 20/20
You want to help, you are 20/20 guys.
Wendt: The witness said he didn’t not recall, provide him with a transcript
Judge: Frame the question as you will
G: We could play the clip again
J: We saw it once, that is enough.

Pete Kott Apologizes to the Jury

Kott's attorney asked him:

You've come all this way, your air force career, all the positive things you done as a legislator, how do you feel these video tapes of you acting badly will affect your legacy, how do you want to be remembered?

PK: Unfortunately the legislation will be just that. They'll forget the good things, and remember the bad things. Tough to forego being a legislator all the friendships. This has been extremely embarrassing. I knew that coming into this.

To the jury, I apologize for the vulgarity presented to you in this trial, but I believe I had to go through this. The charges are incorrect. I'm not guilty. This trial will probably cost me a lot, but my legacy is more important.

That's not quite verbatim, but gets the gist. He almost sounded like he could produce some tears.

And then it was time for lunch. The defense has a few more topics and then the prosecutors will have a chance to ask questions.

I was told by someone the governor was in attendance, but I didn't see her.

Pete Kott Trial Day 12 - If I Were On the Jury

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Thursday, September 20, 2007

---

9:00 AM	3:07-CR-00056-01-JWS	Judge Sedwick	Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. PETER KOTT TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 12

The defense has me baffled. This morning they have picked up from where they left off yesterday afternoon, going line by line through the code of the official legislative history of the Petroleum Profits Bill (PPT). They are now into the second special session called by the Governor. I really have no idea where Wendt is taking this. I thought he was trying to make the point that Kott was not doing Allen’s bidding. Basically, the other people I’ve asked have said variations of the same. “They’re trying to show he didn’t help Allen with the bill.” “That he was in no position to amend the bill.”

But in order to do so, Kott has had to compromise himself in several way.

1. He's confessed that he was tricky and deceitful:

PK: There was a bit of deceit with Rep Berkowitz. I didn’t know at the time he knew what I was up to. I felt somewhat disappointed in myself.

PK: I wanted to make a point, but I didn’t feel real comfortable about it. Violated what I perceived as my ethics. Especially with Mr. Berkowitz.

Well, if he was deceitful then, why not now in court to save his neck?

2. By making one point for Kott, he seems to give away other points
He wants to show he’s independent of Allen and Smith so:

• at the restaurant in DC he talks with a Marathon Oil Rep. Rick Smith tells him by phone that any change (like the one Marathon wants to exempt Cook Inlet oil) would jeopardize the bill. Kott testifies, “Smith was just blowing smoke.” But yesterday he said Smith and Allen were the only people who always told him the truth. Now he’s saying Smith was lying to him. Hmmm.
  

• He was worried that Allen might question his loyalty because Allen could see him on the Gavel to Gavel coverage of the debates conferring with Democrats. “Allen was very conservative and he could see me conferring with Democrats.” Again, what happened to that great trust and friendship they had? Just talking to Democrats is going to jeopardize all those years of bonding he talked about yesterday?

To make their points, they are going through the official Legislative History of the Petroleum Profits Tax bill. This is drier than desert dust. I can’t imagine what they are thinking presenting all this detail to the jury. Not only are his points being lost in all the detail, the tiny bits of evidence they muster in their favor will blow away like dust when the prosecution cross examines Kott later today.

I can understand that calling Kott as a witness was a way to change the terrible image of Kott the jury got from watching and listening to the tapes. That was a really damaging image. And on the stand, Kott looks very sober and knowledgeable about all the strategies of the legislature. This certainly improves the picture of Kott himself.

But the downside is that prosecution now can question Kott. The defense has proven itself time and again to be well prepared. I can’t imagine any gains Kott may get from his testimony for his own attorney surviving the cross examination this afternoon.

Kott Trial - If I Could Ask Some Questions

There are lots of issues that have been battled back and forth in court, and I'm sure the prosecution will raise in tomorrow's cross-examination, but here are a couple of new questions that came up today.

1. Wednesday, Mr. Kott said that Bill Allen had never lied to him, that he trusted him. But Bill Allen has pleaded guilty to bribing Pete Kott. Given this, how can you say that Bill Allen never bribed you?

2. Deborah Stovern says that you have lived with her in her residence on F street in Juneau for 3 1/2 - 4 years. That when you go to Anchorage you stay with your son. If that is the case, how did you run in November 2004 (only three years ago) and 2006 as a representative from Eagle River?

3. You said in court Wednesday that one thing you had in common with Bill Allen was your interest in Natural Resource Development. I understand that would be helpful to show that you voted for various bills because you had this strong value in Natural Resource Development. But I don't recall NRD as a commonly held human value. And in your discussion of your life, there was nothing - not work experience, not education - that hinted at such an interest. When and how did this interest come up?

Pete Kott Trial Day 12 - Now's the time to come to court

At the end of today's session, the attorneys discussed the rest of the trial schedule.

I would guess that Thursday afternoon, when the prosecution gets to cross examine Pete Kott, will be the pivotal point of the trial. After lunch session begins at 1:30 normally. This should be the most interesting part of the trial.

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.