Kohring Trial Day 2 - PM Opening Arguments

The prosecutor's witnesses weren't able to fly out of Juneau last night, but it probably didn't matter because the after the opening arguments and one witness - FBI Special Agent Dunphy - who testified how the wire taps are approved and run, it was about 4pm anyway.

First quick impression:

Both the prosecution and the defense made strong opening arguments. The prosecution said it was about abusing public trust. About Kohring getting money from Veco and then offering to help Veco in the legislature. He did a nice job of talking about the context - the gas pipeline, the ppt legislation, the importance of it all, the relationship between the Governor and the oil companies, etc. Well, after sitting through the Anderson and Kott cases, I got it; whether the jurors with much less background could follow it I'm not sure. It did seem pretty straightforward though. He also said the trial was unique because so much of the evidence was on tape - audio and video. It wasn't clear to me how much was actual taking money was on tape - at least one incident where Allen gave Kohring $1000 - and how much is going to rely on others - mainly Allen I guess - testifying that Kohring would say he wanted to do something (visit his family in Oregon, for example) but didn't have the money, and Allen would take out his wallet and peel off hundreds.

The defense began by saying it was an honor to try this case, something about participating in government. We get to vote and we get to be involved in cases like this with public officials. And that the jury should feel honored too.
Then basically he said his client was a decent man who didn't smoke, drink, or swear. But he was still good friends with Allen (who did all those things and Browne quoted him liberally to make the point) because Kohring has a Russian wife and step daughter and Allen then had a Russian girlfriend with a college age daughter.
Another key point was that Kohring had signed a no taxes pledge and would never have voted for the ppt bill because it was an increase in taxes. (If they changed it so it was called a fee he could have gone along.) He spent a fair amount of time trying to show that there were the sleazy, alcoholic, cussing bad guys and their legislative tools. "I own their asses" was quoted about everyone under the son including Don Young and Ted Stevens. He talked about how much money Ben Stevens got paid by Veco (he said $250,000 a year, but my recollection is that $200,000 was the total over a number of years. ) And how much Tom Anderson got paid, both for doing nothing. In comparison Kohring is so poor he lives in his office in Juneau and in a trailer in Wasilla and doesn't drink, smoke, swear, etc.

Clearly, hearing Kott and Anderson use profanity on the tapes and hearing them agree to the various deals made the prosecutors case much stronger. Browne is trying to distinguish his client as not one of those guys. We'll have to see what the prosecution has.

I've got a class tonight, so I don't have too much time here. I'll post my notes of the opening arguments below. NOTE: These are very rough. I did use spell checker to correct some of the worst. There is a lot missing - I just couldn't keep up. But it will give you a little flavor of the arguments. If the Daily News or APRN gets the days CD of the day from the Court today, maybe they'll have the audio available.

Prosecutor Joseph Bottini's Opening Argument

1:47pm

About misuse of public trust for personal gain. Using his office to ask for and accept things of value from people who needed his help.

Public official simply cannot use that office for their own personal financial gain. That is indeed what Mr. K. did. He accept things of value, in exchange for be ready willing and able to help people
Charged with conspiracy, bribery, extortion under color of official light, and attempted extortion.

In essence, charged with selling his public office, in exchange of using his position to help the people who gave him

Prove it through his own actions, his own words.

Central theme: Efforts to get natural gas pipeline built. Exxon, Conoco Philips, Fall 95 condition reached. Conditioned, - something had to take place before deal could happen. Producers wanted oil tax revamped. Wanted certainty for next several decades. Deal -tax rate 20% and fixed for number of years and offset by 20% credit for expenses.

Agreement had to be ratified by legislature. Key issue in 2006 legislative session Jan-May 2006. You will hear repeated refs. 20-20 agreement, Govt’s plan, as 20-20, or PPT, if you hear witnesses or recording using those words, that’s what they are talking about.

Also learn a lot about a company called Veco Corp. Basically an oil field services business - made most money providing services for oil production in AK. Veco’s bread and butter. Bill Allen CEO, basically started company in late 1960s and built it to 2005-06 Veco had 5000 employees world wide, back bone in AK.
Rick Smith, VP for govt. affairs for VECO. Both will testify as witnesses. Tell more in a minute.

Veco’s clients were primary oil producers - BP, Exxon, C-P who made the deal. Veco stood to make 100s of millions of $ from construction of pipeline. Before that could happen, this agreement had to be ratified and passed into law by the legislature. Bill A, RS and Veco were pushing hard in 2006 to get this passed. They pushed too hard, went over the line. The bribed a number of elected public officials. They both have pled guilty and they’ll tell you who they admitted paying bribes to. And that they have agreed to cooperate with the govt. what their expectations are with regard to their cooperation with the govt.

BA started getting active in politics about 20 years ago. Hiring a lobbyist. L = person who communicates info to legislators, tries to advance the ball for his clients. As years go on, Allen gets more active. Organizing fund raisers, Veco employees active with political contributions. Veco and Allen and Smith got in trouble. Veco started reimbursing employees for their political contributions. You can’t do that because corps can’t contribute to political campaigns.

They became so active, that they ended up very year going down to J. setting up shop. They rented suite 604 of the Baranof hotel. Use that as base of operations. Set up shop. You will hear a lot about their conduct in Suite 604.

Case is not about BA and RS. About VK

Elected first in 2006 entering 12th year in legislature. VK generally had a strong anti-tax philosophy. Also strongly in favor of oil industry. Allen and Smith became very supportive, of his campaigns, contributions to his campaign. They considered him a friend.

As 2006 leg. session kicked off, this critical piece of legislation was their primary focus. 20-20. They knew the vote was going to be close. Every vote counted. Every vote critical. Including Kohring’s. Despite the fact that he was generally supportive, they were concerned. He was such an anti-tax advocate, that he would think 20% too hight He might want lower tax.

Would be assigned to Special Committee on Oil and Gas. Kohring head of committee But bill going to Nat. Resources, not his committee. They knew Kohring was upset, that he was being bypassed. That’s why they decided to give him number of benefits. Gave VK cash, to keep VK loyal, that he would support the ppt bill as it went thru the legislature.

Like any trial, you’ll hear from a number of witnesses. Case unique in that bulk of evidence is real time recordings - audio and video - made during legislative session. Made under authority to do this. You’ll learn what govt. has to do to get permission to tape. Difficult to get these. Have to satisfy court that probably cause that criminal conversations will have to take place. Not done lightly. Even when authorized, still can’t listen to everything. Some kinds of conversations you can’t listen to.

Back in 2005 FBI sought authorization to put tap on RS’s cell phone. Then BA’s cell and then home phone. Jan. 2006 application for electronic surveillance in Suite 604 of the Baranof hotel.

From these wire taps and the bug, recorded a number of conversations, including between RS, BA, and VC. In some that we play for you, the language is pretty harsh. These two gentlemen - RS and BA particularly, were pretty profane

Pipeline contingent on 20-20 negotiation. RS and BA go down to J and set up shop in S. 604 in January FBI gets authorization to put a bug for audio and video in that suite.

PPT bill incorporated agreement - introduced to leg. on 2/21. Was not going to Kohring’s committee, but to Nat Resources. BA and RS concerned about VK’s feeling

They take K to island pub in Douglas AK, and gives VK $1000 in cash. Allen will tell you, not the first time he’s given K cash during legislature. He will tell you he gave K cash on 3 or 4 occasions. Always in K’s leg. office, only BA and VK their, $600-800, when K would tell Allen, “ I want to do something, but can’t afford it.” Allen would peel off the money and give it to him. Allen kept several thousand dollars in his wallet.

Reason he gave him the money - he felt sorry for Kohrning an his financial situation
But also because he knew he could keep K. loyal to him. 2002-6, same time he was giving K cash. Also asked K to do things for him, as a legislator, not as a private citizen.
2003, K introduced piece of leg. in house relating to royalties on CI oil platforms. A competing bill in the Senate. Upset that another leg. had highjacked his legislation. Referred to K’s committee. K. sits on bill in anger that someone else had hijacked his bill. He was asked by murkowski admin member, and BA asked him to release the bill and K did.

Also asked K on two occasions not to run against Lyda Green. Twice. Mr. K had announced his intention to run for the senate. He went to K twice and asked him not to run against Green. K. stayed in his house seat.

K hired a leg staffer who’d worked for a prior legislator. They filed a complaint against the legislator. BA angry about this because he liked legislator. BA called K and asked him to ?drop the complaint?

You will hear that these were just gifts between friends. Had nothing to do with his job as legislator. Listen to how these people act, what they say, how he brings up his problems, and how he promises to do things in return. It’s up to you to judge whether these are criminal activities.

2006 legislative session. Allen takes K out to dinner Feb 23 gives him $1000. March 3, Allen and Smith in 604, stressing out about passing ppt bill, this is our future, we gotta produce right now, profane, Smith: I know, we gotta get dirty, we gotta produce. BA: You know, just like the other night with old VK, you take off an I gave him a $1000. I know you did, thats why I left. And he will kiss our ass. They meant that they knew he would be behind them on this ppt legislation.

Another video March 20, 2006, Pete Kott another legislator with RS. You will hear RS’s end of conversation to meet VK in lobby in half hour. PK knows VK on phone. You know you aren’t going to hear VK on that bill. He hasn’t voted for a tax bill in 12 years. NO, no, we’ve talked to him. If you agree on the vote, I’ll vote for you. We’ve talked to him and he said he’d be there if we needed him to be there.

Mr. K ]’s nephew got a job with Veco. BA and RS will tell you how this came up. VK asked if his nephew can get a job there. You’ll hear on the phone. Getting his nephew’s resume. “Thanks for the good things you do for me.” I’ve dropped off my nephew’s resume. Call if I can do anything to help. Let me know what I can do. Can I lobby on your behalf? Keep in mind ppt bill in legislator.

Another call. I stand by ready to help.

March 29 VK calls RS I want to talk to you and BA. Serious matter for me. RS and BA agree to meet. Video March 30, 2006 - VK comes up, sits down. I’m in trouble with personal finances. $17,000 on credit card agency, they’re ready to sue, will hurt me politically. You guys got any ideas? They talk about possibility of cosigning on loan to get him out. Maybe hire him at VEco. As they talk about this. They also say they have to be discreet. CAn’t let people know they are helping K financially. K: I won’t do anything that will raise red flags. Then K brings up his desire to visit family over easter break. BA says I like to put $ in plastic easter eggs and go find them. BA asks RS for $100s. BA gives to VK. VK says thanks. I just sent my step daughter money for a gscout uniform. BA hands a stack of currency to VK “let me help you out.” K: what can I do at this point to help you guys? Just keep lobbying my colleagues for the governor’s plan. Talk about specific legislators he was close to he could lobby. He provides inside info on where dif. legs are on their support for ppt.

Next day phone call: Want to let you guys know I’m doing what I can to help you out. I’m scheduling appointments. I’ll keep lobbying the best I can.” This is the day after they gave him lots of cash.

Reg. session ran to May 10. PPT didn’t pass. Conversation between RS and BA on May 8. If this goes thru, we’re going to have to take care of a number of people, BW, Ben Stevens, VK - got to figure out what to do with him. Regular session ends w/o ppt. Murkowski calls a special session to continue to consider ppt leg. Toward the end of this 1st spec. session. PPT bill jacked around and comes out at 22.8%. Concerned that the producers will walk away at tax that high. So now they want to kill the bill. On June 8, late in the evening, BA comes up with plan to mess this up.

Plan: If i can get VK away from the capital so he isn’t available, it’s going to die because every member is supposed to be there. Mr. Allen’s end of the conversation. How about you and I go for a ride. Why not just don’t show up. PK and RS say that won’t work. They’ll figure out what’s going on and call for a vote. All you’re going to do is hurt VK and you’ll get into trouble.

Can’t reach K. BA goes to McDonalds and meets VK. On way back to hotel. He pulls out $5-600 out of his pocket and sticks into VKs hands. BAck to 604 talking about how plan wouldn’t work, Allen turns to VK and says, “I wouldn’t done it to you.” VK says, ”I would have done it for you anyway Bill.”

Aug. agents went to Wasilla and interviewed him. Asked if he ever received any money from BA or RS for personal use and campaign expenses. When they asked him to elaborate, VK said, I’d like to reflect on that. Later he says, I only received personal gifts, the value was in hundreds of $ and he didn't keep track. Had asked for help on the $17K credit card debt. The only time I ever took cash was that one time in the suite. It was about $100 bucks or so.

As you listen to evidence in trial. Keep an open mind. Render a true and just verdict in this case. You will find him guilty of receiving benefits in return do favors for those supporting him.

2:31 Break

2:43

Defense Attorney John Henry Browne's Opening Argument

Thank you. I’m honored to be able to participate. It’s an honor for me and you also. Want to thank you for your attention. Interesting that you aren’t taking notes for opening. That makes sense. What we say is not evidence. I’m going to tell you in context, what I think this case will present to you. Top of jigsaw puzzle. I think this is what is going to look like. But it may not. This is not supposed to be an argument. Just supposed to give you an overview of what I think the jigsaw puzzle looks like.

A little out of context, response to what Botinni said. ONe important thing - evidence will show that there are many legal ways to make political contributions to candidates. One example - Haliburton company donated to Bush and Bush listened to Haliburton company. But that is all legal. As long as you declare. People who contribute to your campaign are people you will want to listen to. Not a lot, but about 8% of the money for his campaign where he was elected 7 times with over 60% of the vote. 8% or less. Still a lot of money. Veco was a contributor to VK like Haliburton contributed to Bush and Environmental Defense fund contributes to Democrats. That’s how it is done and is legal.

Talk about fundraisers will be legal fundraisers. Mr. Allen, I will warn you, i will use some of the language. Allen thought he owned the world. He made comments like “I owned so and so’s ass.” They drank a lot. My client doesn’t drink, doesn’t swear. He says I own politicians’ asses. He includes Don Young and Ted Stevens. I own them. He donated lots of money legitimately to a lot of political campaigns. Responding to what Botinni said. This huge bill very important, economy going down a bit because oil production going down. Lots of people saying we need a pipeline, from all poltiical groups. REason bill didn’t go to Vic’s committee, which it normally would have done, was because BA, RS, Ben STevens didn’t trust Vic Kohring. That group, people’s whose asses were owned by BA, didn’t want it to go to VK’s committee. When PK said to Allen and Smith said, you will never get VK to vote for ppt, he had never voted for a tax in his whole career. PK is laughing at them. Ar you crazy? In one vote, VK was the only legislator in house or senate to vote for ppt. They knew they couldn't send the bill to his committee. He’d signed the American taxpayer’s pledge. Pledge never to vote to increase taxes. People who believe that believe enough money generated thru taxes to take care of things, and if you trim back bureaucracy and $150K executives, you can run the state fine. VK has signed this pledge and lived by it his whole career. I don’t know that the government knew this until recently.

VK never voted for any ppt legislation every. If the object is to get the legislation passed. Important for you to know that VK never voted for it. Ever. They knew he’d never vote for the tax. They knew they had to do everything they could. I ‘ll read it to you: “Don’t use this opportunity to go whacko on us” VK reminds them: That is is position that is his philosophy.

During presentation you just heard, VK never voted for ppt. New info, I never heard it before of any meeting at McDonalds or any effort to get VK to kill bill. Let’s see if they can prove that. I never heard it before.

This intern, did something very symbolic of the integrity of this case. I like that word - integrity - based on several things that never happened. Let me talk to you about the Easter egg. VEry symbolic.

BA felt sorry for Bill. BA cultivated friendship. VK felt a friend of BA. Even though very different life styles - VK doesn’t drink, smoke. Talking about easter, BA, whose been drinking. YOu know what I do with my kids, get little plastic eggs, put money in them and hide them. VK loves his daughter. BA actually talked to VK’s daughter, whose Russian. Mr. K’s wife is russian and step daughter’s is russian. BA’s girlfriend at the time was Russian and her daughter too. Here’s some money. BA will tell you he felt tremendous sadness for VK because VK lives within his means. BA is a multi multi millionaire - at least $100 million. VK sleeps in his office in Juneau. in Wasilla lives in a trailer. BA concerned VK didn’t have enough money to eat.

BA says, here, take some money, put them in the easter eggs. What B. left out of the conversation, VK says thanks a lot. I got the money to go home, we went to church we had an incredible time because I put all the money you gave me into the easter eggs.

If they can be characterized as gifts, there can be no crime there. Another 15 or 20 minutes]

At some point during conversations with BA and RS, um, VK tells them, often, I can’t vote for ppt I can’t vote for any tax. If you want to restructure this legislation, and he believed it was good for AK, and turn it into a fee and not a tax, then it would be something I could support. He tells them that.

Govt. says sometime in 2003, allegation made in last two weeks, Mr. K did something to release a bill from his committee because BA told him too. I believe not evidence to support that, except for BA. In addition to alcohol problems BA had, he had a very serious motorcycle accident without a helmet, BA this millionaire who uses fuck, shit asshole in every sentence. It is his testimony alone that says this.

BA will tell you he made a deal with the govt. to save his children from being prosecuted. Is there anything we love more than our children? BA made a deal with the govt - the G really owns his ass. If he satisfies them he probably won’t go to prison as long as he expects and his children won’t be indicted. And Veco as a corp will not be charged as a defendant. Corps can be charged as defendant. Part of the deal was that VECO would not be charged. Then Veco would be worthless. Who would buy Veco if it was under fed indictment. In addition to the 50-80 million he made from sale of Veco - he was allowed to keep $500,000 to pay for his attorneys. This personally makes me feel really bad. You’re going to plead guilty, make a deal with the govt. your kids not charged, the corp not charged, and you’re going to spend $500K to plead guilty.

BA and RS made a great deal, and this is what you will hear. You’ll hear about people who will kiss their asses, They own, I already told you. Ben STevens Ted Stevens, Pete Kott, and once they threw in Kohring’s name. Ben Stevens had a consulting contract with Veco that gained BS $250,000 a year while he was a legislator.

The money they are talking about giving this guy is less than $3000. They are bragging about people they own. They paid BS $250k/year. They owned Kott because he inflated the bill, he made $10K more graft money to do what BA told him to do. They did vote for ppt. They did take a lot of action for ppt. They did a lot for their $250K. Mr. Anderson also had a contracting job for Veco. Not required to do anything BA will tell you and BS didn’t have to do anything. And they’re giving money to VK for easter eggs.

I don’t know what to say about this allegation bout trying to kill the bill. We’ll see what they say.

He’s known as gentle giant, few people taller than me, he’s one. He’d stay in his office til 2am where he slept because he couldn’t afford a home. He would always return every constituents phone call. When not working in legislature. He’s a sheet rocker. He doesn’t live in a multi-millionaire. He’s a sheet rocker and refuses to be bought. Somewhat controversial because of his no tax pledge. He’s never violated in the seven times he was elected. He will explain to you why. He things taxing corps and individuals hurts economy in the long run. If you really don’t want to hurt the economy you don’t tax individuals too much or corps more than already.

Met ba because of the russian women in their lives and their children. Did legal fundraisers - you’ll hear of APOC - keep in mind only 8% of his campaign money about $80K - came from Veco.

What’s important about, BS made all this money and Anderson made all this money from Veco and Kott also and promised job from Veco, what’s important, they all voted for ppt. Which Botinni admits is what Veco wanted to do. Mr. K never did.

Mr. K would from time to time in his recordings say, “i’ll help you guys try to get this point across. It was the gov’s bill. You understand, I didn’t , these bill oil companies wouldn’t make any investments in the pipeline unless they had certainty thru this ppt bill which VK always voted against. In these tape, if you don’t take them out of context, you’ll know what was said. He says, You know my philosophy you know I can’t vote for this, but I’ll help you get your point across. BP, Conoco, whats the other one? would invest without being taxed. Believed pipeline good for AK.

Checking his notes.

Let’s talk about what was actually said. You heard something about mr.K firing one of his aides because BA told him to Eric Musser, you’ll see from emails, he left, not fired, the emails themselves say, VK wants him to come back to work. But the Govt.s argument is that he was fired, at will employee. Mr. Musser was ragging off some really good friend of ba there were phone calls. VK didn’t know about the complaint. I don’t know if Musser will be awitness or not.

How much time your honor? about 7 min.

Tom Anderson, had a contract with Veco to do nothing
Pete Kott, speaker of the house at one point, inflated one of his invoices, made $10,000 or more.
BW, don't want to talk about him, his case is on hold, you’ll hear about his son in this trial. FBI, BEn stevens, John Cowdery, Bev Masek, Don Young Ted Stevens. With these huge names, and then you have VK on his couch in his trailer.
[He did the next part really fast, and this isn’t even close, but the best I could do. I’m guessing one point was to show the profanity these people used and how they bragged about owning all these politicians.]
Direct quote: conversation between Smith and Allen: March 6. They have all this stuff.
S: Well you will always coer my ass
BA; you too
S: Thank you cuz, I told that little gal, whose all fucked up,
BA: Which one?
S: Theres’ som any of them
BA How many times have we gotten out of spots
S: Oh Jesus
BA O Shit, even before with old Jerry Ward. That was all horseshit
S: We got PK
BA And on and on
What about Rick Halford, we owned him
S: The list goes on and on
But we’re still here, absolutely
S; I don’t have a prob.
A: We know what the gov wants. And we got Ted. And we got DY?

Who’s name is not mentioned in that diatribe? VK.
Go on about who they own. Kott. Anderson, Give them a fake contract.
Anderson asking about getting $ for doing nothing. Lots of money. Anderson is worried about this. Don’t sorry. Is Ben stevens worried about this shit? Hell no. Then why should Anderson be worried.

These are the guys who got bribed, not VK
Keep in mind all of them voted for and lobbied for Veco and ppt. He did not.

Then discussions about how VK told them time and time again, he would not vote for it because it was a tax. How he wanted to borrow, went to BA because V thought he was a friend. That went no where because they knew he wouldn’t vote for them.

OK my time’s up, you’ve been paying close attention. VK’s life changed completely when he borrowed BA’s truck. Tells FBI complete truth in 2.5 interview, could be charged with perjury if he lied. Wasn’t charged. They took 30,000 documents and didn’t find anything.

Please, please keep an open mind. This is really important.

Kohring Trial Day 2 - Jury Selected

The street was white when I got the paper this morning. When I read Lisa Demer's article, I realized that the jury selection got further along yesterday afternoon than I expected. I debated whether to drive or get another bike trip in before the trails are too icy. So I didn't get to court until 10:50am.

By my quick count the jury had seven men and five women. The alternates were two men and a woman. Very different composition from the previous trials.

This was supposed to go up at lunch. Don't know why it didn't.

Mark Twain's "The War Prayer"

There was a reading at Cyrano's tonight of Mark Twain's The War Prayer. It's very short and you can read it at the link. The program cites Kevin Drum,

"His family begged him not to publish it, his friends advised him to bury it, and his publisher rejected it, thinking it too inflammatory for the times. Twain agreed, but instructed that it be published after his death, saying famously: "None but the dead are permitted to tell the truth.

After the reading there was a discussion featuring representatives of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity sponsored by the Interfaith Council. The question was "How can God be on Everyone's Side?"

The comment that was most enlightening to me was from Rev Koun Franz in response to what a good Buddhist would do if he saw someone violently assaulting another. It would be ok to intervene, he said, if you did it for the right reason, which would be to help both people. If you intervened from moral superiority to punish the aggressor you would cause a short term benefit, but you would be perpetuating what the aggressor was doing. This helps me understand a story I heard the other day about a survivor of the Mi Lai massacre during the Vietnam war. Asked today what she thought about Americans coming to Mi Lai today, she said she was glad they came. What if it was one of the people who killed her family? That would be even better, because then I could forgive them.

How different is that way of thinking about the world from an eye for an eye.

Kohring Trial Day 1 - Jury Selection and the Defense Attorney

9:00 AM

3:07-CR-00055-JWS

Judge Sedwick

Anchorage Courtroom 3

USA vs. VICTOR H. KOHRING
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 1

Today was devoted to jury selection. Judge Sedwick used the same process he used in the Kott and Anderson trials. The first part already happened - the elimination of potential jurists based on their questionnaires. From what I understand, those who expressed bias about the case there, have been eliminated. When I walked into court today, about 9:15 am, the gallery was packed by people with little blue stickers on their chests that said "Juror."

I missed the first part, but I imagine it was the same as the Kott trial - jurors were introduced to the various parties, told the charges, given instructions about their job and restrictions about talking to others or viewing news about the case. Another court observer told me that one of the potential witnesses, Fred James, was given permission to be in the courtroom for the jury selection process. He's one of the two writers of the USA v. Victor H. Kohring blog I mentioned yesterday. What I hadn't realized was that the two writers have different views on the defendant and the blog will reflect this. James, I was told, is a long time, good friend of Kohring's.

Anyway, the jury was sent out and then they were brought back in, one-at-a-time to answer questions about their awareness of the case, the people involved in the case, and whether they could be fair and unbiased. The basic questions the judge asked were:
1. Where do you get your news?
2. Do you remember anything from the news about Kohring or Veco, Bill Allen, Rick Smith?
If they did, then
3. What do you know, have you formed an opinion, could you give a fair hearing. One question he asked along these lines to one or two jurors was, "If you were the defendant, would you want someone like you on the jury?"

Most of the jurors said they don't pay much attention to politics and don't know much or anything about the case. My sense this time round - I stayed for the first 29 jurors and the lunch break - was that even when they said they knew nothing, they tended not to be as oblivious as that suggested. When pressed they often knew something

Two jurors, while I was there, were dismissed. One because she had a back problem and sitting for long times caused her pain. Another, a full time student who works full time hadn't asked to be dismissed. The judge asked if this would affect his studies. He said he'd miss some midterms. The judge asked why he hadn't asked to get out. "Several people told me it wouldn't do any good." The judge said, "Well this court is a little friendlier. A two day trial would be ok, but a two week trial would really affect your studies. I'm going to excuse you."

One juror met Rick Smith, a likely witness, smoking outside Reilly's Bar several times. Another juror who works at Cal Worthington Ford, met Bill Allen there. A third juror had been at meetings of his Community Council when Vic Kohring attended. Alaska is a small place.

Jury Composition

The jury looked different from the Anderson and Kott jury pools. The most striking difference was the relative balance of genders. The Kott trial ended up with ten women and two men. But today, in the first 29 jurors questioned, 15 were men, 14 were women. There were two African Americans, a person from Bethel and one from Unalaska, if I understood right. The ages of the jurors seemed more evenly distributed than the prior two jurors - the Anderson jury being particularly young looking. And there was even one gentleman who had on a tie!

John Henry Browne

For me the big unknown was the defense attorney. When I walked in, I saw him from behind and thought he was younger until he turned and faced the gallery. He was wearing what looked like an expensive light grey suit with just a touch of green. His shirt was just barely pink. The prosecutors, in comparison, were in dark, dark grey to black suits with white shirts, except for Mr. Goeke who had a beige shirt. Even Agent Mary Beth Kepner [Thanks, Steve, I was getting tired when I did that] had on a grey suit. And Mr. Browne's hair also looked expensive - basically brown with what would have been called surfer blond streaks where I grew up near Venice Beach. OK, I know what some of you are thinking. But this is not intended as a fashion evaluation of the attorneys. I do think, however, that the dress does tell us something about people. Browne very definitely pays attention to how he looks. He also has trouble talking without moving. If his arms aren't moving, or his hands, then his fingers are moving. A few times I could even see the muscles in his back moving through his jacket. And this was just very low key questions to the jury.

His voice is radio quality deep and his intonation is precise, more articulated than most American speakers naturally talk. Perhaps he's done some acting or had other voice coaching.

When he asked questions of the jurors, or even when he didn't, he would say, "Good morning" in the same exact tone which sounded warm and interested the first time, but after hearing it repeated precisely many times, it began to sound canned. For two jurors, he said something like, "Your comments were much more extensive than the other jurors" which I thought sounded like calculated flattery, and which caused Prosecutor Botinni to object to the "unnecessary editorial comments" about juror performance. The judge concurred.

He also addressed the court twice, between jurors, with two questions that I thought seemed inappropriate. The first time he wanted to know about jurors who came from outside of Anchorage - who paid for them? (The court pays their airfare and hotel, but they don't go back for weekends the judge replied.) The second question was whether the jurors came from all of Alaska. The judge explained that they only came from the Anchorage district, which was a large district, stretching from Cordova to the Aleutians. It just seemed to me that these were curiosity items, that I would have written down and checked on later. Or, as the Outside defense attorney, I would have found out before the trial. And being an Outside attorney - the local attorney Wayne Anthony Ross was not there today - he wouldn't understand the implications of what local talk show hosts the jurors said they listened to.

Overall, his behavior reinforced the impression I've gotten in the pretrial press coverage. This is the Seattle attorney who is coming to the boondocks to try a case. If that really is the way he's thinking, I suspect he's in for a big surprise. Judge Sedwick has run very tight, but fair, trials. His excusing of the full time student today is an example of his practical understanding of what makes sense and what doesn't. The prosecution has done an overwhelming amount of work and have been extremely well prepared. The teams at the previous two trials were one local attorney and one from the DC based Public Integrity Section. These guys do their homework. The pairing for this trial is Joe Botinni, whose been in the Anchorage US Attorney Office for many years, and Edward P. Sullivan from DC. On the other hand, it does seem that the taped evidence is likely to be not as damaging as in the other cases, and that Kohring might appear to have been less calculating than Kott or Anderson in working out ways to get paid. We will see.

Chicago Today - Circa 1935

We've got an extra bedroom downstairs that is essentially a store room that needs to be sorted out. Going through some of my father's old stuff, I came across this soft cover guide to Chicago, that I'm guessing was published in 1936. For a booklet entitled "Chicago Today" you'd think somewhere it would have a date. I've copied the pages here in high resolution so you can double click to enlarge them and see how good the photos are. This is just a few of the 65 or so pages. (No page numbers either.)




Edward Kelly was mayor of Chicago from 1933 to 1947 according to the Chicago public library So that doesn't narrow the date down much - 1933 at the earliest.



But here it says "Chicago -one hundred and three years ago was a 'mud hole trading post.'" And further down the page it says "In the spring of 1833 Chicago was incorporated and numbered at that time 550 people." So I'm calculating 1833 + 103 years = 1936. I see I should have left all the pages the original color. I changed some to black and white thinking a) the pages were black and white (which you can see they really aren't) and b) you would be able to read them better (which you can if you click on them.) It also says, "...and destined to become the world's largest city by 1968."

State and Madison Streets

Lake Shore Drive from the Drake Hotel and Michigan Boulevard from Chicago Ave

Skyline showing Grant Park and Michigan Boulevard

Aviation - "Daily 110 planes arrive and depart bearing some 500 passengers. During 1934 - 40,226 planes arrived and 40,266 planes took off." Ok, this also means we are after 1934 and where did the 40 extra planes that took off come from anyway? And that means an average of 5 passengers per plane!

Famous Restaurants. I'm not a Chicago boy so I don't know what's still around, if anything.

Baseball - Wriggly Field and Comiskey Field

Chicago Leads and Interesting Facts - Among the facts are more clues about the date of the book. "January 1935 brought 6,231 buyers to the Furniture Mart..." This was the latest date I could find, also suggesting the book was published in 1936.


Well, it was chartered in 1833 and incorporated in 1837. So I'm sticking with 1936 as the date of publication for now. But someone looking closer might find a later automobile or some other reference that could put it later.

Michael Clayton

I walked out of Michael Clayton feeling like I'd been to a good restaurant but the food just wasn't satisfying. This is Erin Brockavich from the viewpoint of one of the attorneys trying to screw over the class action victims. But there wasn't any soul. Listening to real life corrupt business men this summer in the US District court telling their stories maybe makes this story seem thin.





I'm not sure why the video quality of the clips is so bad. As usual, this is not a spoiler, but gives you a sense of the film if you don't pay attention to the subtitles.

New Blog to Cover Kohring Trial

Philip Munger and Fred James have set up a new blog USA vs Victor H. Kohring. They are two Valley residents so they have a particular interest in their representative's trail. They have a long list of links to trial related websites. Here's what they say about themselves:

Philip Munger: I've been involved in Alaska politics since 1973, and have been on a first-name basis with all my legislators, local, state and national ever since. I've worked at sea, in law enforcement and public safety, and have been a college music teacher since 1995. I'm mostly known in Alaska as a composer. My politics tend to the left, most notably on environmental and social justice issues. My community activism finds me on the board of Friends of Mat-Su, a local body concerned with zoning and quality-of-life issues in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. I'm a Democrat, and am currently volunteering as the Issues Coordinator for the Diane Benson for U.S. Congress campaign. I live near Palmer, Alaska.

Fred James:

Fred won't be able to attend the first part of the trial, as he may be called as a witness for the defense, and Judge Sedgewick has ruled such potential witnesses are barred from the courtroom until they testify. But he isn't gagged or barred from commenting on whatever he finds out through other means.

Hijacked Linksys Routers

I've spent way too much time in the last two days trying to get my Linksys router sorted out. My son had given it to us a while ago. When I got my MacBook I finally got the wireless working and my wife's computer could still get internet too.
MAC ID
Key Points:

If the Linksys router is simply set up without changing the name and without password protection, it appears that only one Linksys label shows up when you look to connect, even if there are several. Unless you change it like some of my neighbors have to Linksysa and Linksys71.

So, I got on someone else's Linksys connection, changed the name, put on a password. It was only when I wanted to change things that my friend Jeremy pointed out that I wasn't connected to my own router. You can check the MAC ID ((media access control identification card) on the bottom of the router. In Airport, if you click on "Open Internet Connect" at the bottom of the list of connections above you get this next window. The base station ID appears to be the MAC ID.















Killer Tip to Free Your hijacked Router: If someone seems to have hijacked your Linksys router - as I inadvertently did to one of my neighbors - you can reset your router back to the default settings. There's a little hole in the back of the Linksys router. If you push the button in the hole in back (see red arrow in picture of router) for 30 seconds, with a pen point or paper clip, then still holding it, unplug the power for 30 seconds, then still holding it, plug the power back in for 30 more seconds. Those were the instructions I got from the guy on the phone from Bangalore and it worked. The router was liberated, it went back to default settings. By the way, once I figured this all out, with much help, I did go back and liberated my neighbor's router and set it back to the original settings.



So, thanks Jeremy. I owe you big time.

I keep telling myself that all these things one has to learn are good for your brain. If it's true, my brain is really fit.

[I've noticed a few people googling to here and realized the instructions had been cut off so I've added them back in. 11/13/07]

Will Putting Individuals in Prison Change the System?

I'm still sorting through my thoughts on the corruption trials. I did talk to Rep. Sharon Cissna about it a couple of weeks ago. I asked her the question I'd like to ask all our legislators - "You must have known something was going on. Why didn't you do something about it? Ethan Berkowitz did, but what about the rest of you?"

She said that she and other Democrats did do things. They worked hard to keep the worst stuff out of various bills. But they were pretty much cut out of things. The Republican caucus would go off and meet and make all their decisions privately and the Dems would sit in the chambers because the Republicans would come suddenly and call for a vote. At the ending weeks of the session things work quickly and if the Minority are not right there, they lose what small power they have.

She said that there were many times when they spoke up and she even sent me a list of times to look up on the audio recordings of the session. But my Mac couldn't read what she'd sent and I got distracted. My fault. But rather than hold off, I decided to put this up now, especially after reading Saturday's ADN editorial about Tom Anderson's sentence.

Convicted former legislator Tom Anderson was a relatively small fish in Alaska's corruption scandal. He didn't deserve the harshest possible prison sentence. But his post-conviction display of contrition, and the long roster of support letters he produced, didn't justify the shortest possible sentence, either.

Given the range of prison time Anderson faced, federal Judge John Sedwick's sentence of five years is about right. It sends a strong message that those who get caught violating the public trust are going to pay a serious personal price.

Rep. Cissna's comment was that the system itself is the major problem. When she arrived, if I remember her right, her husband had just recently died. She showed up in Juneau and was surrounded by lobbyists fawning all over her. But given her husband recent death, she rejected their efforts to give her attention. The lobbyists very quickly left her alone. Besides, she was a Democrat without much power anyway.

But, she said, anyone who came to Juneau with ego issues was an easy target for the lobbyists. And with most people living away from home and often without their families, they didn't go back to their families at night, but rather were out for dinner and then the bars, often with lobbyists right there to pick up the tab.

She even commented on the ethics training that was mandatory for all legislators last January. What surprised her was how the workshop caused her to realize how she herself had been affected by the Juneau atmosphere. She heard grumbling made by some around her and comparing it to the ethics expert thought, "Yeah, I knew that was wrong, but I've been here long enough that my own standards of right and wrong have been blurred." She said other legislators felt that the consultant didn't really understand how things worked. (Michael Josephson specializes in state legislative ethics having studied the issue throughout the US, and he charged around $30,000 for the one day workshop.)

So I think the ADN is right. Tom Anderson was a small fish. We know that he wasn't even a target at first. But Bobrick and Prewitt, who had agreed to cooperate with the Prosecution in order to lessen their own sentences snagged him. Mind you, Anderson had had consulting stints with Veco where he got paid for not doing much at all, and at the Alaska Telephone Association where he was paid to read legislation about rural telephone service and do analysis on it, but had no work product at the end. Even his own attorney on the final day said that Tom Anderson really shouldn't have been a legislator - he needed money and the pay of a legislator wasn't going to meet those needs.

So, Tom Anderson will go to jail. Will that make a difference? Sure, in the short run people will be careful. But it won't last long if the system stays the same. Apparently the main part of the new ethics law that is having any effect is the limit of $15 meals someone can spend on a legislator.

And without the massive investigation including the video recording for nearly six months at the Baranof Hotel and the tens of thousands of phone calls monitored, there would be precious little evidence and we would probably know nothing.

The trials have revealed a lot and as I sort it out in my own head I'll post more.

Thoughts on the Alaska Political Corruption Trials - Part I Conflicts of Interest, Undue Gain, and Improper Influence

Most people who talk about ethics tell us that public officials and administrators must avoid ‘conflicts of interest.” This is the standard mantra. I’d argue that they CAN”T avoid such conflicts. They are built into being human. There is always the potential for a conflict between our personal and professional obligations. The key is what we do about the conflict. The main potential problems stemming from conflicts of interest are:

• Undue Gain
• Improper Influence

Undue gain is perhaps easier to understand if we talk about due gain first. This is what a public administrator or elected official receives in compensation for completing the job duties in the manner set out by contract, policy, law, etc. Generally it includes monetary payment (salary, per diem, etc.), benefits (health insurance, specified leave time, etc.), and possible benefits related to the job (minor use of a copier, tuition waiver for university employees, for example). Anything beyond that is UNDUE gain - extra payments or gifts to do the job one is already being paid for, special treatment of services (free tickets, meals, etc.)

Improper Influence is also easier to understand if we talk about proper influence. Normally, when an administrator makes a decision it is based on some set of decision rules. These could be specific criteria to get, say, a building permit. They could be based on a standard or procedure established for hiring new employees. There are also more general policies and procedures for how to spend money, and rules to prevent unlawful discrimination and privacy violations. Or they could be professional standards (for engineers, attorneys, or nurses, for example) or even unwritten, but known customary procedure. As you go higher up the organization, the decisions are less concerned with individual cases and more with general policy. Policy often takes one into unknown territory and there may not be specific guidelines on how to make decisions. But there will be procedural rules that, ideally, are intended to make the process open and fair. And there are basic management standards and techniques for anticipating and evaluating things like costs and benefits. Improper influence is when you take into considerations factors that are not in the sanctioned decision making criteria, such as whether taking a certain action will benefit oneself and/or one’s friends.

So if we look at the Anderson and Kott cases, we see in the bribery and extortion convictions, that they had undue gain - money and other benefits to do what they were already being paid for by their legislative salaries and per diem. There was also improper influence. The decisions they made were colored with more than the public interest and objective analysis of the issues; they also considered what their benefactors wanted them to do. And while both Kott and Anderson argued that these were decisions they would have made anyway, since they were consistent with their ideology, it is clear that they might not have pursued their positions with such zeal, and that they might have spent more time on other issues their constituents needed.

But it isn’t simply black and white. If a contractor who wants to do business with a government agency leaves a pen with the company’s name on it after a meeting, is that undue gain? If a law firm that does business with the Municipality of Anchorage sends a fruit basket to the Legal Department in December, is that going to lead to improper influence?

Here’s where we see how conflict of interest is a basic tension embedded in our culture (and most others.) Our personal lives are ruled by values of loyalty. Family and friends take priority over strangers. We give gifts and do favors that we freely exchange with people close to us. But when we go into public office, we are expected to make decisions based on the rule of law, on equal treatment to all (rich or poor, stranger or friend). So when people from our personal lives are also involved in our professional lives we have two different standards in conflict. But even strangers we come to know through our jobs should be treated politely and with respect - as people, not as objects. There are human decencies - exchanging pleasantries and doing minor favors - that we do naturally for people we come to know.

Those with an interest in specific governmental decisions take advantage of these impulses to be friendly and helpful. There was a great deal of testimony that Tom Anderson was a naturally friendly guy, eager to help out, to please. Lots of examples. His defense attorney argued that was all he was doing for Prewitt and Bobrick. Other legislators have told me, "I can't be bought for a $10 lunch." In fact they sound like they have been personally insulted when such actions are criticized. "I have to eat. This gives me a chance to talk to my constituents while I'm eating. I'm actually giving up my time." But if we stand back and look at it in terms of improper influence and undue gain, that answer doesn't hold up. If you have to eat, why not pay for your own lunch? Just say, "Fine, let's have lunch, but I pay my own way." If they pressure you or ridicule you, they are really testing your resolve and willingness to play ball. Even if the cost of the lunch doesn't have an effect on your action, the 90 minutes of private time to tell their side of the story, to give you their facts, in private, without someone with a different view their to challenge the accuracy of their facts may well influence your vote.

Of course my argument flies in the face of what's practical. Legislators must listen to constituents, usually in private. They also listen to proponents and opponents of various legislation well before the topic comes up in on the official public chamber. But these one sided conversations mean that legislators often only hear one side of an issue. One way to counter this is to have legislators imply publicly post their work calendars so all people can see how much time they've spent talking with whom. More work? Not too much. They pretty much have to keep a calendar anyway, and logging phone calls is good business practice, and caller id makes this easier to do. Perhaps no one would even look at the information. But at least it should be discussed with an open mind.

The point is to to have legislators themselves question business as usual, to look critically at "how we've always done it" against the dangers of undue gain and improper influence.


I'm going to try to write a series of posts looking at issues relating to understanding corruption using what has come out in the political corruption trials in Alaska. The theoretical framework is based on: Steven E. Aufrecht, “Balancing Tensions Between Personal and Public Obligations: Context for Public Ethics and Corruption” in Dwivedi, O.P. and J. Jabbra (2007) Public Administration In Transition: A Fifty-Year Trajectory Worldwide, Vallentine Mitchell Publishers