October 1, 2007 - Leadership Anchorage and Clerk's Office

It was Joan's birthday today. We went out for dinner last night with friends. Today the rain reminded me of Portland. I had a meeting at the Alaska Humanities Forum with former student of mine and new MPA (they don't all get indicted) Jim MacKenzie, who's the new director of Leadership Anchorage. Jim's had an interesting career, strongly influenced by joining the Jet Program
where he taught English in Japan. He ended up staying for nine years I think, with various jobs - hotels, airlines - and getting married before coming back home to Alaska. Here he worked for a number of years on the staff at the Japanese Consulate General's office. It often surprises people when Jim starts speaking in fluent Japanese.

Then I stopped at the US District Court Clerk's Office to start getting up to speed for the Kohring trial that beings October 22.

Here are the charges. After the Anderson and Kott trials, they look familiar - conspiracy, extortion, and bribery. There’s also a motion to suppress evidence from the initial search of Kohring’s office and interrogation. The press has covered this, but reading the defense’s motion describing what happened that morning and then reading the government’s version is like reading about two totally different events. I’ll share that here when we get closer to the trial.




This is a large file so you should be able to double click it to see it better. I also saw that Kohring's local attorney is Wayne Anthony Ross. The internet is full of Ross links, that one was just the first that popped up. Kohring also is represented by Seattle attorney John Henry Browne. Here's what Adam Liptak wrote in the New York Times about Browne (I'm assuming this is the same Browne):

On Second Thought, Let’s Just Rate All the Lawyers

Published: July 2, 2007

John Henry Browne, a criminal defense lawyer in Seattle, was steamed. A new Web site that rates lawyers the way Zagat rates restaurants, with numbers, had assigned him a low score.

So Mr. Browne filed a class-action lawsuit last month.

“We want to shut the site down,” he said.

The site is called Avvo.com, and Mr. Browne’s first rating on its 10-point scale was 3.7, a score in a range that the site labels “caution.” After he complained, the rating was changed to 5.5, or “average.”

Mr. Browne said he deserved better. As evidence, he said a magazine had called him a “super lawyer.”

But it was Bernie Willard Potter’s initial score of 6.2, or “good,” that drove Mr. Browne out of his mind. Here Mr. Browne had a point. Mr. Potter, another Seattle lawyer, was in fact not likely to provide effective representation, on account of possessing neither a law license nor a pulse.

“I do take offense,” Mr. Browne said, “when I get rated lower than a dead, disbarred lawyer.”

Crown Maker

The dentist sent me to get the color right for my new crown. I never even knew this job existed, but I was quickly taken in by Ken Clester as he talked about his job. When someone really loves something, it doesn't matter what it is - when they talk about it, it's interesting. Here's a bit I had space for on the chip in my camera.

Shaggy Mane - Coprinus comatus

It's over a year since my first (and last) shaggy mane post. They're back. These two are about four inches high.


Below you can see what happens if you wait too long to pick them. They turn inky. According to Tom Volk

Members of the genus Coprinus have been collectively known as the "inky caps" because of the curious character of autodeliquescence of their gills-- in other words self-digestion to release their basidiospores. Most of these species have gills that are very thin and very close to one another, which does not allow for easy release of the spores. . . After the spores have matured and been released, the gill tissue digests itself and begins to curl up, allowing easy release of the basidiospores above. In other words, the digestion opens up the fruiting body so that spores from further up the gills become exposed to the air and a clear path of spore release. The self-digestion continues until the entire fruiting body has turned to black ink. In the olden days this ink was actually used for writing.

It's Fall Already - Yellow Leaves, Termination Dust, and Rich Compost

Two weeks of trial
Didn't notice green go gold
Some leaves fall to ground










Thursday dinner done
Walking out of Thai Kitchen,
more snow on Chugach.















May

Winter mulch gathered
into summer compost piles
letting nature play

End of September

Grass, veg kitchen scraps,
Join leaves, water, in the piles
Turned sometimes for air















Natural heat first,
Then compost workers appear
Rich black soil results














Once again we say
good bye Alaska summer
Equinox less light

Pete Kott Trial - Department of Justice Press Release

Below is the Department of Justice press release on the Kott Trial. While they list the charges Kott was found guilty of, they neglect to mention that he was found not guilty of wire fraud.

The also call PPT "Petroleum Production Tax." There is a page on the governor's office website lingering from the Murkowski Administration that also calls it the Petroleum Production Tax, but everything else, including people involved in the Kott trial, called it Petroleum Profit Tax. They seem to puff it all up a bit. It's a good thing the DOJ attorneys are more careful with the details than than their press room.

They also note that Allen and Smith "pleaded guilty in May 2007 to providing more than $400,000 in corrupt payments to public officials from the state of Alaska."

• Kott got about $11,500 (the poll, the $7,992 check, and the $1000 in cash).
• Ben Stevens got about $200,000 in consulting fees for doing "not a lot."
  
• Kohring got $1000.
  
• One to four workers to work on Ted Stevens' house for a couple of months. Roughly at $20/hour for 40 hours a week, for three months, for two workers that would be just under $20,000.
  
• Murkowski got a $20,000 poll that came out in the trial.
  

If we add all these up we can account for about $250,000. That leaves another $150,000 unaccounted for. We know he paid Tom Anderson about $2500/month for six months, but that wasn't during the legislative session, and Anderson wasn't charged on this. If I recall correctly, Weyhrauch was charged with arranging for a job, but he never got it or paid, so that shouldn't count in this. There are the other polls Veco did for other Alaskan politicians that were mentioned in the trial. So it would seem there may be some more surprises to come beyond what we already know.

Anyway, here's the press release.


______________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CRM
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 (202) 514-2008
WWW.USDOJ.GOV TDD (202) 514-1888

FORMER ALASKA STATE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
PETER KOTT CONVICTED ON PUBLIC CORRUPTION CHARGES

WASHINGTON – A federal jury in Anchorage, Alaska, has found former Alaska state representative and former Alaska Speaker of the House Peter Kott guilty of bribery, extortion and conspiracy for corruptly soliciting and receiving financial benefits from a company in exchange for performing official acts in the Alaska State Legislature on the company’s behalf, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.

Peter Kott, a member of the Alaska House from 1992 to 2006, who also served as Speaker of the House from Jan. 1, 2003 to Dec. 31, 2004, was convicted yesterday following a 15-day jury trial in Anchorage, before U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District of Alaska. The jury found Kott guilty of conspiracy, extortion under cover of official right, and bribery.

Kott was arrested following the unsealing of an indictment on May 4, 2007, charging him, one former and one current Alaska representative with various public corruption offenses. Kott faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on the extortion charge, a maximum sentence of 10 years on the bribery charge, and a maximum sentence of five years on the conspiracy charge. Sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 7, 2007.

“This verdict is an important victory for the people of Alaska, who deserve to expect honest, ethical representation from their elected officials,” said Assistant Attorney General Fisher. “I thank the prosecutors and the FBI and IRS agents who worked on this case. Their effort shows that the Department of Justice will work hard to bring to justice any elected officials who betray their duties to their constituents.”

“The jury has found that Mr. Kott accepted bribes from VECO in exchange for his official acts as a member of the Alaska State Legislature. The citizens of Alaska have the right to responsible public officials representing their interests rather than filling their own coffers,” said Deputy Assistant Director Daniel D. Roberts, FBI Criminal Investigative Division. “Battling public corruption at all levels of government is one of the FBI’s top investigative priorities, and no corrupt public official is exempt from FBI scrutiny.”

At trial, the jury heard evidence that Kott, while serving as a member in the state legislature, solicited bribes from and took action to benefit the financial interests of VECO Corporation, a major Alaska oil services company. Trial evidence, including more than 60 recordings of conversations involving Kott and former VECO executives, showed that Kott repeatedly promised to cast votes in VECO’s favor on a key petroleum production tax proposal pending before the Alaska legislature. In exchange, Kott received cash, checks and the promise of a future job with VECO.

The VECO executives who testified at trial, former Chief Executive Officer Bill J. Allen and former Vice President of Community Affairs and Government Relations Richard L. Smith, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to providing more than $400,000 in corrupt payments to public officials from the state of Alaska. Currently, two other defendants have been charged in connection with the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation, including former Housemembers Victor H. Kohring and Bruce Weyhrauch. Thomas T. Anderson, a former elected member of the Alaska state House of Representatives, was convicted in July 2007 of extortion, conspiracy, bribery and money laundering for soliciting and receiving money from an FBI confidential source in exchange for agreeing to perform official acts to further a business interest represented by the source.

This case was prosecuted by trial attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch, II, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke from the District of Alaska. The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigative Division.

# # #

The Difference Between Professionals and Amateurs

Well, while the real journalists were waiting for the verdict at the court yesterday, I was catching up with my life. I spent a good part of the morning getting a crown on a tooth that broke. Stopped in at the university to work on the Healing Racism in Anchorage newsletter. And then met with a student in the early evening. I put the trial out of my mind, never had the radio on, and when I got home I got back on to try to do something with all the left over thoughts about the trial still in my head. When I finally finished it was 3am and just before posting I thought, well, let me check if there was a verdict on the ADN website. I really didn't think there'd be.

Boy did I feel sheepish when I found out 12 hours after the verdict was announced. The professional journalists were there as they were throughout the trial. One of the things I learned and it makes me feel good about Alaska, is that the tv journalists were there and writing their own stories. Bill McAllister of Channel 2 was there all the time as was Matthew Simonof Channel 11. It's nice to know we have real journalists who write their own stories and not just people who read the teleprompter. I've already talked here about the ADN news folks, Lisa Demer, Sean Cockerham, Michael Carey, and Rich Mauer, and APRN's Steve Heimel and David Shurtleff. And I also got names the names of the two artists who have illustrated the inside of the court where cameras were not allowed: Pat Gillin for Channel 2 and Tamara Ramsey for Channel 11 whose photo at the door of the Federal Building I posted the other day. And Shannon Moore of KUDO. And there were others who in my ignorance, I never identified.

My hat's off to you all. Thanks for treating this amateur journalist with such kindness and support. And let's not talk about how long it took me to find out the verdict, ok?


Bottom photo: Waiting for the Kotts after the trail Monday.



,

What Will the Jury Do? [They said guilty on three counts]

[I did not go to court today. I didn't even listen to the news - I had a class this evening and didn't even think to check the news until I finished writing this last piece. But before posting it, I thought I'd check the ADN site. And my newspaper is here already - it's 3am - and it says guilty on all but the wire fraud. Well, it's over and I can go back to life as normal.]


Going through each count in the four previous posts, I realize several things:

1. I had my typed notes that I took in the court room to consult. I could go back and say, what did they say? And I could go to the ADN site and play the audio and video tapes to check. And tonight I even had the audio of the closing arguments to replay. And to hear how much I left out in my typing.

• The jury can ask to listen to the tapes, though from the judge's comments, it doesn't sound easy. They don't have a computer with links to all the audio and video they way they are posted on the ADN site. They'll have to go back into the court room to listen.
• The jury can check their notes, but seeing how sketchy mine were when I was typing full speed, and knowing how little note taking the jurors did, they aren't going to have much to go back to.
  
• And when I did go back to my notes, they reminded me of how much I forgot.
• But there are 12 of them, so maybe collectively they'll remember a lot more.

2. I think the that the audio and video were so powerful and such direct access to what happened, that these could trump everything said in the court room. These will stick in people's minds. Goeke even said you have unique evidence - the surveillance tapes - you the members of the jury have been able to sit in a ringside seat as they committed the crimes in the indictment. I also think of one point in the rebuttal where Marsh was emphasizing that Kott voted against the ppt bill so the higher tax rate wouldn't pass. He said something like, "He voted no, pushed the red button, nay..." and I remember seeing the red button and thinking how that image will stick in my mind more than the 'no' or 'nay.' So I think the tapes will probably be the major evidence for most people.

3. I think in the end, without good notes, their emotional response will matter. Whether they liked the attorneys, whether they liked Kott. My sense, based on how they laughed at times with the judge's jokes, is that they did like the judge. If they can figure out what he thinks, I suspect that would influence them. But he's done a great job of staying neutral and not tipping his hand.

4. And if the jury is feeling the way I do, they're going to be happy when this is over and they can get back to their normal lives.

Kott Trial - Conspiracy Charge

Conspiracy

For the conspiracy charge the jury has to agree that

• First, beginning in or about September 2005, and continuing until on or about August 30, 2006, there was an agreement between Bill Allen, Rick Smith, and Peter Kott to commit at least one crime as charged in the indictment;”

So, as a juror looking at this, I have to figure out - did they come together to agree to commit a crime? At first blush, it looks like they came together to get legislation passed. That in itself is not a crime, as Wendt emphatically told the jurors. Marsh, in the rebuttal, argued strongly that they had a plan and it was an illegal plan that linked getting the legislation passed to benefits for Kott, particularly a lobbying job when he got out of the legislature.

I think it would be a lot easier for the jury if it were a conspiracy to rob a bank. In that case it would be clear they were knowingly planning to commit a crime. In this case it is much more subtle. They never said, let’s commit bribery, extortion, and wire fraud. I wonder if Pete even knew what wire fraud is. The plans they discussed were getting ppt passed at 20/20, getting a gas pipeline in the long term, getting Kott a job when he left the legislature.

The jury is going to have to not think about the plan being simply about getting ppt passed - which they clearly did plan, and which Wendt said was 'the plan' - and think of the plan that Marsh described that linked the legislative work to the $7,993 check, the $1000 cash, the poll, and the future job. Or the plan to get Allen to pay for Pete Jr. working on Pete Sr.'s campaign, by setting up invoices that say it's for doing future flooring work.

In the Tom Anderson case I think it was clearer. They all knew they were setting up a scheme to launder money so that Cornell Enterprises could pay Anderson without people knowing where the money was coming from. Of course the jury wouldn’t know those details about Anderson, so would they think this way? Before I go too far, maybe I should read the rest of the instructions:

• Second, the defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one of its objects and intending to help accomplish it, and;

If we look at the other charges, they are bribery and extortion and wire fraud. So let me refocus. They worked out a way to get Kott money to pay for Peter Jr. to work on his campaign.

• Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy with all of you agreeing on a particular overt act that was committed.

The jury has lots of evidence that Kott took actions for Veco in the legislature. And that Allen made payments to Kott. This part shouldn't be a problem


Then the judge goes on:

• A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership - an agreement of two or more persons to commit one or more crimes. The crime of conspiracy is the agreement to do something unlawful; it does not matter whether the crime agreed upon was committed.

• It is not necessary that the conspirators made a formal agreement or that they agreed on every detail of the conspiracy. It is not enough however, that they simply met, discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar ways, or perhaps helped one another. You must find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a plan to commit at least one of the crimes alleged in the indictment as an object of the conspiracy with all of you agreeing as to the particular crime which the conspirators agreed to commit.

I still expect that there will be jurors who will say, "Yes, they did exchange money for legislative work, but they didn't actually plan it. It just sort of evolved from the relationship." Or they might ask, what exactly does 'plan' mean? They never sat down and said, "OK, Kott, you do our bidding and we'll get you whatever you need." But others on the jury might counter with some examples from the tapes where Smith says, for instance, "You've got a job, now get us a bill."

Kott Trial - The Wire Fraud Charge

As I understand this, it basically relates to using interstate phone lines to plan your criminal action. This is based on a single phone call Kott made from Washington DC. Here's the link to the audio from the ADN website. - Audio:
Kott and Smith phone call - March 10, 2006

The jury instructions say:

Wire Fraud

• First, the defendant made up a scheme or plan to deprive the State of Alaska of its right to honest services;
• This would be, I think, the plan for Kott to do Veco's bidding with the understanding that he would be rewarded for that. The defense argued that the only plan was the one to promote the ppt bill in the legislature so that a gas pipeline would get built. And that, he said, was perfectly legal. Lobbyists work with legislators like that all the time. In the rebuttal, Marsh said,
  

Plan. people come to get together with common plan to get something. Wendt talked about them having a common plan. They can work together. It’s a crime when the lobbyists offer a benefit and the politician accepts the benefits knowing they are related to official acts. I respectfully submit to you to consider the words pk used with allen. Allegiance, I’ll get her done, and this is illuminating, pk described it as a team effort. You know who the roster of the team is? Count one of the indictment pk, ba, rs. [Now that the audio tapes of the closing arguments are available on the ADN website, I can see how sketchy my 'transcript' was. This section about the plan starts about halfway into this link. Part: 3 |]

• Second, the defendant acted knowingly and with the intent to deceive and deprive the state of Alaska of its right to honest services; and
• I would say that the defendant acted knowing that what he was doing was not legal based on things he said on the tapes, such as "I sold my soul to the devil" Even though Wendt made a valiant attempt to dismiss that as an expression people say without meaning it, or as boasting to Allen and Smith, it's pretty hard for the jury to ignore his own words here and other places on the tape.
  
• Third, the defendant made, or caused someone to make an interstate telephone call to carry out or to attempt to carry out the scheme or plan.
• There is the call from the DC restaurant, and Smith seems to be able to cause Kott to change his plan to work with the Marathon employee, Thierwechter, (spelling corrected from Thurwacker in previous posts after seeing how the ADN spelled it) he's meeting for dinner. It is one tiny part of the larger plan to get the 20.20 rate on the ppt bill.

• Fourth, the statements in the telephone conversation were in furtherance of the scheme or plan in that they were an important part of the scheme or plan.
• Ah, here's the rub. What exactly is 'important'? The defense dismisses it as a phone call made to get Thierwechter's phone number because he's late and Kott wants to make sure he's coming. While on that call, Smith finds out Kott is meeting with Thierwechter and tells him not to work with him because it would jeopardize the ppt bill. Kott says, "you know where my allegiance lies." But you can listen to the link at the top of this post and hear the call for yourself.

This seems to be the most tenuous of the charges. I would guess that it will depend on how the jury interprets 'important.'

Kott Trial - The Bribery Charge

Bribery

• First, the defendant was an elected official of the State of Alaska;
• This is not at issue

• Second, during the period between in or about September 2005 and August 30, 2006 the defendant corruptly solicited or demanded for the benefit of any person, or accepted or agreed to accept from a person, something of value, with all of you agreeing on what that thing was, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with a business, transaction, or series of transactions of the State of Alaska;
• This is very similar to the extortion charge. As I understand it, we have the same four items - the $7,993 check for flooring work that was used to pay for Peter Kott Jr.; The $1000 cash; the political polls; and the future lobbying job. And the jury has to believe that these were all in exchange for Kott's work in promoting their bills in the legislature. It doesn't matter whether the parts of the agreement are fulfilled, just that they agreed and understood this was the deal. So, even though he didn't get the lobbying job, that shouldn't matter. Even though he wasn't able to keep the ppt bill at 20/20, he said he would and he tried. Like with the extortion charge, if the jury has trouble with this, Kott's in good shape.

• Third, the business, transaction, or series of transactions involved something of value of $5,000 or more; and
• The poll and the $1000 in cash together are only $3500. But the job and the $7,993 check each would be over $5,000. All four also qualifies.
  

• Fourth, the State of Alaska received benefits in excess of $10,000 in calendar year 2006, pursuant to a federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of federal assistance.
  
• This just means that the State of Alaska gets more than $10,000 in money from the federal government. Clearly this is the case.
  

Again, this one seems pretty clear. Of course, you never know what a jury will think.