Pete Kott Trial - Underlying Stories 3

The first underlying stories post outlined some of the possible stories underlying what we see in court that might help me understand thngs. In that I did an overview of the lawyers' stories. The second focused on the cultural stories, particularly what I characterized as a clash between pre-modern, tribal values versus modern, rational values that were apparent.

In this one I'm going to explore a couple stories that could possible shed light on the defendant Pete Kott.

Story 1: The Player - But Poker, not Chess

On Day 11 of the trial (Thursday, September 20) Kott took the stand in the afternoon and his attorney Mr. Wendt asked him about his career. When he started talking about the legislature, his eyes lit up and he started talking with a passion he hadn't shown before. He'd finally found his calling. He took great pleasure, he said, working with his fellow legislators, with the administration. Ramona Barnes took him under her wing and eventually introduced him to Bill Allen.

When Wendt and Kott were going through the legislative history of the PPT bill, Kott seemed to get into his professor role and was explaining the ins and outs of how to get things done in the legislature to the jury. He was articulate and spoke easily of the various strategies one could use to block or move a bill along.

On Friday, still talking about the PPT bill. Wendt and Kott's sentences seemed to run together. Kott is trying to keep the tax at 20%. Rep. Kelly introduced an amendment to raise the tax to 22.5. Then Kott made an amendment to the amendment.

K: You take advantage of any opportunity to get what you want.
W: Sounds like a chess game.
K: Classic chess game.

Kott was smiling now, clearly feeling good about how he had pulled this amendment off.

And I got to thinking about this. It was clear that this was the part that Kott loved - the wheeling and dealing, the strategies, the moves and feints, the game of legislating. It was the chess game he enjoyed. Sure, there were some issues he was interested in - labor issues and natural resource development he told us. His father had worked in a GM factory in Michigan, and Kott himself did briefly before he joined the Air Force, so that support for labor is easy to understand. There wasn't much beyond a love of hunting and fishing in his background though that gave us a hint about the source of his interest in natural resource development prior to his hooking up with Allen.

But the more I thought about it, the less apt the chess metaphor seemed. I wish Goeke had asked Kott if he even plays chess. Poker seems a much better metaphor. But talking about chess was a good move on Wendt's part. Chess is much classier, a smart man's game. In chess, except for white's opening advantage, both players start out equal and everything is in the open. You win on pure skill - being able to see four or five or more moves ahead. But in poker, like in the legislative games Kott described, you can have more players and they begin with unequal hands. Some of your cards are hidden, and deceit is required to win; it's even admired. I mentioned this to a legislative staffer I know and he replied, "And Pete was in the regular Wednesday night poker game in Juneau."

The idea that Kott's love of the legislature comes from the fun of 'playing the game' seems consistent with what we saw and heard. Certainly the tapes revealed lots of back room planning on how to keep the 20% tax rate. Kott seemed terribly proud when he told Allen and Smith of tricking Harvard grad Ethan Berkowitz. (In court he acknowledged that he hadn't.) Kott didn't have a vision of programs he wanted to promote in the legislature. Kott liked the play of the game. While one can say passing PPT at 20% was a vision, it was the oil producers' and Allen's vision that was handed off to Kott. And Kott liked the challenge of getting it through for them.

Oh, my staffer friend also mentioned that at the Wednesday night poker games the word was the lobbyists came with lots of cash and they never seemed to be able to win. Do poker winnings from lobbyists have to be listed with the APOC?


Story 2: Kott's Need for Approval Got Him Into Trouble

This story is pieced together from what I heard in court and from a comment by Fred Dyson outside the courtroom. In this story, Kott has such a strong need for approval from a father figure, that he was willing to do whatever it took to please Bill Allen and, his sidekick, Rick Smith (as Kott's chief of staff described him). So carrying their water in the legislature was one way he could please them, telling them what they wanted to hear while hanging out with them and getting drunk were others. Kott did tell us one of the things he and Allen had in common was "he was by himself. So was I." So both, in this story needed each other.

This could be the story the defense will give us in the closing. Kott was caught up in a bad environment. Staffer Ohmer, who articulated Kott's drinking problem also said that the Veco Suite 604 was called the Animal House and it was where people drank, smoked, swore, and watched Gavel to Gavel. Ohmer told us she had two bosses. The one on the tape was only around after a few drinks, drinks he felt he had to accept to please his buddies in the Animal House. The real Kott was the one in front of them in court. The real Kott wouldn't have done so much drinking if he hadn't fallen under the aura of this Uncle Bill father figure.

To a certain degree it makes sense and probably does explain his dependence on Uncle Bill. And as someone from an economically humble background, being around all the money in the Allen entourage was probably mesmerizing. And Allen was a man who came from even more humble beginnings than Kott. What a role model!

But blaming the environment is the sort of story that is more consistent with Democratic ideology than Republican. According to the Alaska Republican Party Platform Republicans believe

The values that strengthen our nation are family, faith, personal responsibility and accountability

Yom Kippur Thoughts

So exactly why does a skeptical agnostic spend most of his day in the synagogue, fasting and praying? Several things come to mind.

1. It's good to have some days where you check out of life as usual and sit and reflect on how you are living your life.
2. The Jewish High Holy Days structure that sort of meditation. Thousands of years of collected wisdom have been invested into this. A lot of the stuff makes good sense in very modern and practical ways.
3. The reformed Jewish movement has a fairly open view that allows everyone to come at this their own way.
4. I figured out, long ago, while living in a northern Thailand town for a couple of years, that tradition is a way to connect people with their ancestors and the generations to follow. At least theoretically, my ancestors were at Mt. Sinai when Moses came down with the Ten Commandments. Who am I to break those links? Hitler tried to wipe out the people who practiced those traditions. Since my parents got out of Germany in time to survive, I would just be completing Hitler's unfinished work if I were to abandon the tradition.
5. I like to see the many people I've come to know over the years who come together at the synagogue.

So let me show you a little about what I like in the services. (All citations are from The New Union Prayer Book: For the Days of Awe. [well it was new once.])

On Rosh Hashanah it is written,
on Yom Kippur it is sealed:

So during the ten days between the two holidays, people have time to repent, ask forgiveness, forgive others and to change their fate before it is sealed.

How many shall pass on, how many shall come to be:
who shall live and who shall die;
who shall see ripe age and who shall not;
who shall perish by fire and who by water;
who by sword and who by beast;
who by hunger and who by thirst;
who by earthquake and who by plague;
who by strangling and who by stoning;
who shall be secure and who shall be driven;
who shall be tranquil and who shall be troubled;
who shall be poor and who shall be rich;
who shall be humbled and who exalted.

But REPENTANCE, PRAYER, and CHARITY
temper judgment's severe decree.

Whether our lives are actually determined for the next year or not, it is true that some will live and some die, etc. I find it good for me to reflect on that. And to consider where I'm slipping, where I can do better, who I've wronged and ask their forgiveness; and whom I have the power to forgive.

And collectively, we have a time to be forgiven and to forgive:

For tansgressions against God, the Day of Atonement atones; but for transgressions of one human being against another, the Day of Atonement does not atone until they have made peace with one another.

I hereby forgive all who have hurt me, all who have wronged me, whether deliberately or inadvertently, whether by word or by deed. May no one be punished on my account.

As I forgive and pardon those who have wronged me, may those whom I have harmed forgive and pardon me, whether I acted deliberately or inadvertently, whether by word or by deed.

This discussion about forgiveness and judging has special meaning this year as I've spent the last two weeks in court watching the trial of an Alaskan politician accused of bribery. He apologized to the jury for his vulgar behavior seen in the surveillance video tapes. Is their forgiveness enough? What about his constituents? All Alaskans? Peter Kott, for my part, I forgive any transgression. And as a blogger, I'm reminded by "whether by word or by deed." Blogging gives me lots more opportunity to do harm by word. And I ask forgiveness for those I might have inadvertently harmed.

But I think what I like about this service is that next we get into specifics. We can all smugly assume we haven't wronged any, or at least not too many, people when it is stated that generally. But the prayer book gives us an alphabet of sins to help prick our memory.

Who among us is righteous
enough to say: 'I have not sinned?'
We are arrogant, brutal, careless,
destructive, egocentric, false;
greedy, heartless, insolent,
and joyless,
Our sins are an alphabet of woe.

And that still isn't specific enough. We aren't just talking about murder and theft and adultery. The prayer book identifies a list of things that cause all of us to pause:

FAILURES OF TRUTH

We sin against You when we sin against ourselves.
For our failures of truth, O Lord, we ask forgiveness.

For passing judgment without knowledge of the facts,
and for distorting facts to fit our theories. [Who doesn't have work to do here?]

For deceiving ourselves and others with half-truths,
and for pretending to emotions we do not feel.

For using the sins of others to excuse our own,
and for denying responsibility for our own misfortunes.

For condemning in our children the faults we tolerate in ourselves,
and for condemning in our parents the faults we tolerate in ourselves,

FAILURES OF JUSTICE

For keeping the poor in the chains of poverty,
and turning a deaf ear to the cry of the oppressed.

For using violence to maintain our power,
and for using violence to bring about change.

For waging aggressive war,
and for the sin of appeasing aggressors.

For obeying criminal orders,
and for the sin of silence and indifference.

For poisoning the air, and polluting land and sea,
and for all the evil means we employ to accomplish good ends.

FAILURES OF LOVE

For confusing love with lust,
and for pursuing fleeting pleasure at the cost of lasting hurt.

For using others as a means to gratify our desires,
and as stepping-stones to further our ambitions.

For withholding love to control those we claim to love,
and shunting aside those whose youth and age disturbs us.

For hiding from others behind an armor of mistrust,
and for the cynicism which leads us to mistrust the reality of unselfish love.

There are more verses, but you get the point. For most of us, it's these 'little' sins that accumulate and I find it a list that I respect.

And Judaism is not rigid. The rabbis do not all agree, but give their interpretations and the prayer book offers conflicting interpretations:

Rabbi Samuel ben Nachmani said: At times the gates of prayer are open, at times the gates of prayer are barred. But the gates of repentance are never barred.

But it is reported that Rabbi Juday the Prince taught: In truth, the gates of prayer are never barred.

Rabbi Akiba taught: The gates of prayer are open, and the prayer of those who practice steadfast love is heard.

Rav Chisda taught: Though sometimes the gates of heaven seem shut to all prayers, they are open to the prayers of the wounded and the hurt.

And so the prayer book recognizes that everyone has a unique relationship to God.

You are my God, and my redeemer. Therefore, while around me others think their own thoughts, I think mine; and as each one of them seeks to experience Your presence, so do I.

So whether there is actually a God external to human beings, or a God lives 'only' inside of human beings, we have available this connection to each other and connection to this heritage of moral teachings. If someone needs to believe that there is an external God who is watching and who will reward and punish, in order to live a righteous life, then they can have such a God to help them. If others cannot accept that a God exists outside of human consciousness, the words of the prayer book are still a good guide to reflecting on one's actions over the past year and the coming year.

Of course, there is also the music - the melodies that have been heard over and over again and are good friends. And in our synagogue I love that we have so many members who sing and chant the various songs and prayers. They aren't professional cantors, but they have beautiful voices and their participation enriches our services. No cantor's singing of Avinu Malchenu can reach me the way our friend Lynn, standing in front of the open ark and torahs, her dog Mary at her side, can. And members of the congregation come to the bima to read sections of the prayer book as well as the Torah. We aren't just an audience, we're participants.

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.