I first went to the Anderson trial to see for myself and not have to rely on the Anchorage Daily News. I wanted to know what actually happened, and if Tom was guilty, how did he get there? Everything was pretty new to me. I don't think I'd ever been to a Federal trial before. What was the protocol? Not just for the attorneys, but for the spectators, the witnesses, the press. But beyond the courtroom, what does this tell us about how our state business gets done? Why do some legislators get caught up in private side deals and sell out the public interest? How many more are doing similar or worse things, but just didn't happen to have their numbers in the address book of a tapped phone? I have no illusions that we can stop it altogether, but we can establish and maintain rules and institutions that keep it to a minimum.
These are serious questions. I know that corruption has been part of US government from the beginning, but what factors make it more or less likely to happen? Are we in a new age where our national appetite for consumption and our shorter and shorter attention spans makes us more vulnerable?
How much is this whole investigation costing? How did Alaska get high enough on the federal priority list to become active? Particularly with a Justice Department that has been excessively partisan in favor of Republicans and in an administration that is so closely tied to big oil? I suspect there's a story there.
I'm still sorting this out, but here are some thoughts so far:
The first three defendants have been people who appear to have a strong need to please. They were easy targets for anyone who wanted some pull in the legislature. Allen was an inspiring figure for Kott and for Kohring. Bobrick and to some extent Prewitt played that role for Anderson. All three were always asking, "How can I help you?" "Just let me know what you need." None of them seems to have been consciously criminal. At most they thought they were bending the rules. Anderson was most actively involved by his complicity in laundering the money he got. Kohring tended to say things like, "I want to do this right" or "I could check with the Ethics Office" and chanting those mantras seemed all the thought he needed to do to stay ethical. None got very much money and it would be unfair if they end up serving more time than Allen and Smith. But rich criminals tend to do better than poor ones.
Anderson and Kohring both needed money and could be lured by people who could help them out. Kott had $30,000 in cash in his closet, so he didn't need the money. He may have had some deep insecurity about money and thus kept such a large amount in cash at home. Who knows? I think he and Kohring both liked being in the reflected glory of Allen's power and influence.
They all believed that the people who eventually sold them out were their friends. Anderson and Bobrick just hit it off and were planning joint business ventures when Tom got out of the legislature. Kott called Allen, Uncle Bill. He spent a lot of time at Uncle Bill's house. He admired this guy who'd moved up from poverty to great wealth. Kohring also believed that Allen was his friend. And it appears that they did have close relationships and they were friends. But the real question is whether those friendships would have existed if the three hadn't been state representatives. I doubt it.
It's easy to get caught up in the day to day of the courtroom and I'm still trying to figure out an appropriate role and focus. Since I'm in the courtroom and taking notes, it seems reasonable to share what I see with others who don't have the time to be there. And I don't need to worry about how large my audience is - I'm not selling advertisements. I'm concerned though that I'm slipping into areas that aren't that relevant. I'm still trying to figure out, for example, whether my speculation about the defense attorney shed light on anything important. I'm not interested in saying anything that pops into my head, simply because I can. I have no interest in idle chit chat, just in things that help explain what is happening. I'm not as concerned about what the jury eventually decides as I am with the structure and mechanics of government and how to minimize the likelihood that politicians serve special interests instead of the public at large.
Several of us who have been at the trials will be talking on this subject Thursday at noon in the federal building cafeteria. The event is sponsored by the local chapter of the American Society for Public Administration. So some of these thoughts are warm up for that session.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Kohring Trial Day 5 - Quick PM Report
Bill Allen is 70 and he's suffering some cognitive problems from a motorcycle accident without a helmet. He's also pled guilty to felony crimes and is cooperating with the US Government on a number of cases. But he still has some of the juice that enabled him to move from picking crops to help support his family and dropping out of high school at age 15 to having sold his business for $400 million in September this year.
In this trial and at Kott's, we were told that his thinking is still clear, but he has trouble putting his thoughts into words at times. He did well for much of the testimony, but there were times with both the prosecutor and the defense attorney where he just wasn't processing. He's also wearing head phones to help him hear.
On a several occasions he wouldn't surrender to the defense attorney's line of reasoning. When Browne was trying to get Allen to admit that except for one occasion, no one else saw him give money to Vic Kohring.
Overall, I think the prosecution gained back some ground they lost yesterday. Sullivan wrapped up the questioning of Rick Smith and then Joseph Bottini took over when Allen took the witness stand. In some ways this was a repeat performance - the discussion of Allen's background that's in the previous post was very close to what was said in the Kott trail.
The prosecution scored points when they asked Allen about how close his friendship with Kohring was. A big point has been made that there was a bond between the two because they both were with Russian women - Kohring's wife and Allen's then girlfriend. Another link was that they both had daughters. But today Allen said he had never met Kohring's wife and that Kohring had never met his Russian girlfriend. And that the girlfriend had no children. There was other testimony that would indicate the relationship was less social than business. [jb is Joe Bottini, the prosecutor, BA is Bill Allen]
But probably the biggest impact was the showing of the video tape of Bill Allen taking bills out of his pocket and handing them over to Vic Kohring. Bottini had requested permission to show the clip and Browne didn't object. You can see the tape the clip is from at ADN [at the site click on "FBI surveillance video: Vic Kohring" then go to Trial Exhibit 11: March 30, 2006. Move the bar to about 3:07:00 where they talk about Easter eggs]
[You can fast forward that little button just below the picture - it's right above the timer and sound icon above. Or you can listen to it all. It begins with Kohring talking about how he owes $17000 on his credit cards and he needs some help.]
More thoughts later, but want to get something out fairly quickly.
In this trial and at Kott's, we were told that his thinking is still clear, but he has trouble putting his thoughts into words at times. He did well for much of the testimony, but there were times with both the prosecutor and the defense attorney where he just wasn't processing. He's also wearing head phones to help him hear.
On a several occasions he wouldn't surrender to the defense attorney's line of reasoning. When Browne was trying to get Allen to admit that except for one occasion, no one else saw him give money to Vic Kohring.
Browne:The only evidence we have besides your word is the video interception where you are giving him money and you are talking about Easter eggs. Beyond that we have no evidence except what you said.At times when Allen didn't seem to be able to process what was going on, or at least couldn't articulate what he was thinking, it was like trying to reason with a small child, and Browne's voice got louder and sounded more irritated when Allen didn't answer his question at all or in ways that showed he wasn't processing.
BA: That’s not true, Rick Smith knew it.
B: I’m not talking about Rick Smith. Is there any other evidence other than your word?
BA: Rick Smith knew when I was going to do it a couple of times.
Overall, I think the prosecution gained back some ground they lost yesterday. Sullivan wrapped up the questioning of Rick Smith and then Joseph Bottini took over when Allen took the witness stand. In some ways this was a repeat performance - the discussion of Allen's background that's in the previous post was very close to what was said in the Kott trail.
The prosecution scored points when they asked Allen about how close his friendship with Kohring was. A big point has been made that there was a bond between the two because they both were with Russian women - Kohring's wife and Allen's then girlfriend. Another link was that they both had daughters. But today Allen said he had never met Kohring's wife and that Kohring had never met his Russian girlfriend. And that the girlfriend had no children. There was other testimony that would indicate the relationship was less social than business. [jb is Joe Bottini, the prosecutor, BA is Bill Allen]
JB: When you socialize with VK. what did you do?
BA: He’d call me on the phone. I seen him a lot in Juneau.
JB Go to dinner?
BA: Yeah
JB: Who paid?
BA I did
JB: Ever met his wife?
BA No
JB: Step daugher?
BA: No
JB: Ever have a girlfriend from Russia? Way back. Kohring ever met her? NO Did Rita have a daughter? No, she doesn’t have any kids.
BA: Recall VK calling you at home?
BA: No, but at my office
JB: Know where he lived? No
But probably the biggest impact was the showing of the video tape of Bill Allen taking bills out of his pocket and handing them over to Vic Kohring. Bottini had requested permission to show the clip and Browne didn't object. You can see the tape the clip is from at ADN [at the site click on "FBI surveillance video: Vic Kohring" then go to Trial Exhibit 11: March 30, 2006. Move the bar to about 3:07:00 where they talk about Easter eggs]
[You can fast forward that little button just below the picture - it's right above the timer and sound icon above. Or you can listen to it all. It begins with Kohring talking about how he owes $17000 on his credit cards and he needs some help.]More thoughts later, but want to get something out fairly quickly.
Kohring Trial Day 5 - Bill Allen Takes the Stand
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Friday, October 26, 2007
| 9:00 AM | 3:07-CR-00055-JWS | Judge Sedwick | Anchorage Courtroom 3 | |
| USA vs. VICTOR H. KOHRING TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 5 (DEPS) | ||||
Most of the morning was going over points each side was trying to make or dispute. Smith was still on the witenss stand when I got in at 9:20am and Browne was cross examining.
How did the nephew get his job? Defense was trying to show that the 'recruiting' department was going to contact him, that he was actually recruited and went through all the proper processes for getting the job. Browne kept jumping around from topic to topic. The truck, he never got a truck from you?
He continued to try to distinguish Kott from Kohring - trying to emphasize that Kott worked very specifically and hard to get the legislation passed whereas Kohring never voted for ppt. That Kott got more in payments - the flooring money, promise of a Veco job. Kohring was working for a friend. Veco paid for political polls for Kott but not for Kohring. Later prosecution was able to get Smith to say, over Browne's objection, that if Kohring had asked they probably would have done a poll for him.
I got the impression there was less tolerance for leading the witness. At one point, after allowing something that Sullivan objected to, the judge said that he was getting tired of telling the jury that what the lawyers say isn’t evidence. And the judge seemed a little testy with Browne when Sullivan had to keep objecting because "this has already been answered."
J: That goes well beyond the scope of redirect and is something you’ve coveredIt ended there and Bill Allen was called in as the next witness. Bottini took over the questioning from Sullivan. Bill Allen is just an interesting guy with an interesting biography. I'll just stick my notes here. Note, as always, a lot is missing and I've often incorporated the answer into the question just to kee up. But Allen's slower speech makes it a little easier.
Not sure there is a lot here vital to the case, but it really is a piece of Alaska history. Perhaps the ADN will have the audio up tonight or tomorrow. In the mean time:
Bill James Allen, w. 11th Anchorage
Bottini: How old - I’m 70. 39 years in AK, born Soccoro NM, b. 1937 Motorcycle accident in 201. On a harley, took my helmet off, I shouldnt have. guy in front of me didn’t have break lights and I had to lay it down. Screwed up my speech.
Affect thought process? No
How affect? Sometimes I’ll saw the right or wrong word. Or sometimes can’t get it out of my mouth.
Where grow up? Oregon. Four brothers and ? sisters. I was right in the middle.
We picked fruit and hoed strawberries and stuff like that.
When moved to Oregon at 8, had you already started school? Didn’t go to school for about a year when 8. We were pretty poor, so we all had to work, picking fruit or hoeing the fields.
Eventually continued? About 9 or 10, Dad got a job in little place Lisle, Oregon and got back into school Till I was 15, Then moved back to NM with mother and brothers and sisters. I had to quit, I was a sophomore in HS, had to go back to work to support mother and other brothers and sisters.
What work? Got a job helping a welder, worked for El Paso natural gas. 15 years old.
I really loved welding and pipe particularly. I broke out, I done the tests when I was 17. That means I was a welder. It was a hard test. You had to weld an 8 inch pipe, They really take it all apart to see how well.
Did you progress to being a supervisor. About 21 or 22 forman over refinery or ? stations. I think 24 supervisor over pipe and whatever refinery, from that supervising went up to bigger jobs.
What geo part of US? New Mexico, Ok, Tx, Louisiana, went to LA and got into the union in LA, I think 250 pipe and welding union.
All oil and gas related? yes
Came to AK when? 1968. It was my wife wanted to go to AK cause her mom was here. I didn’t want to leave those positions in LA, but I told her I would, I would stay 3 months and was going back, because I thought I had a good deal in LA, and I’m still here.
When you came what kind of work? Supervision over pipe with another ??. Arco asked me to go into business with the King Salmon platform. A production platform, they produced quite a bit of oil, but of course the reserves finally quit. They may still have a little oil. Producing 54K barrels. Right out of Kenai in Cook Inlet.
Arco wanted you to do some work for them? Structural, particularly with pipe. Who were you working for? ? Little bitty outfit.called Waggly
Arco wanted me to stay there, so they asked me if I’d go into business so they could keep me? About the same time Wayne Veltry had the sparks, another platform Arco had. They asked if we could go together. When you have a shut down, you need more help. I’d help Wayne on the Sparks and he’d help me on the King Salmon. That was 68.
Name of that business? Wayne went to get it done. Wayne not good on pipe and he went into town to form the company, when he came back it was Veltry enterprises. i wasn’t sure I liked that. He went back and came back and said how about VE construction? I said fine.
At some time buy him out? wayne wanted to get out of platforms so I bought his 50%. Still VE construction? Yeah for long time, sometime in 70’s had engineering and stuff so I took VE const and it became VECO.
Still servicing the platforms Yes. arco wanted me to go up and build a pipeline in 71 or 72. It was a natural gas fuel pipeline for their camp. At Prudhoe. Was that the first work you starting doing on the Nslope? About 71.
Did VE con continue in 70s on slope? We didn’t get the oil pipeline permit and everything was kinda, wasn’t as good as it was, still had a lot of pipe work in Cook Inlet. KNew there was big boom coming in N Sea between Scotland and Norway. Started company with 50% with English company. Tar people...get some water….They were in the tar business TPTR I think.
VE const. continue in AK, didn’t shut down? I went back and forth. Same work we did on platforms in CI. A lot bigger. We done a lot a hook up, modules, it was a pretty they was a lot work, it was a boom. Started in 72 and built it up to 77, then Norwegian gov started taxing everybody. Norwegians thought they knew enough to do the oil field. Idecided time to get out and sold my half to English company I talked about.
Successful venture. Put money back on the slope. By then we had the permit to build the oilgas pipeline. Put money into camps , these shops, equipment, and it was a pretty good, timeing pretty good.
How big had VE Const grown? How many employees? Probably 2000 here in AK?
Who were clients:? BP ARco, Exxon,
Change VE cons to VECO, Continue to grow? Yeah. I bought that drilling rig company in GJ Colorado. Already had engineering, about that time brought VE construction down to VECO.
Did VEco ultimately become international? Yeah,we ah, I sold the ah drilling company and bought a ship yard in channel view right next to Houston. we built a lot of platforms in Gulf of Mexico. We still have AK, and 84, there was an agreement with unions, when building the oil pipeline and facilities ont he slope. That agreement ended in 84. they went to non-union. THen Veco got a lot of work ont he slope because we were non-uniion.
Four to Five thousand employees. Probably 50% alaska. AK always been the backbone.
BP, CPhillips (bought Arco, BP got part of ARco) and Exxon major oil partners.
2005 what role did you have in mgt of Veco? I was the Chairman. We asked about corp structure. Veco Corp, Subsidiaries?
BA: We had regions, Canada, Lower 48, Mid East, and Russia.
Bot: have a management team at V? Sr Management TEam
BA: Pete Leathard, President; Roger Conn, Overall Finance CEO Fin; Rick Smith, under me with Govt. can’t remember title; Jamie Slack, HD, saying it right? HR
Tom Corcharon, controller.
JB: 2005, total revenue?
BA: Pretty close to a billion. I think as far as private profit, 70%, 60% from AK
JB: Children
BA: Three. Mark had mgt position, maybe 8 years. At the end Tammy Carrigan was the chairman
JB: Sold Veco?
BA: Closing was 6th or 7th of September this year.
JB: While running Veco here in AK, did V get involved in politics?
BA: Yeah, I think I started in 84. the native coprs, particularly Arctic Slope they could tax the oil companies on the slope, stop permits. I thought if I didn’t get into politics the native corps would have pushed me out?
JB ??
BA: They had more horse power politically than I did, so I thought I’d get into politics.
I hired a guy as a lobbyist. Ed Dankworth. About 84.
JB;
BA: He lobbies Leg on what you’re trying to get done. Mine was oil industries. I knew if they were ok, they’d have work we could bid on.
I think Dankworth and I got crossways when we bought the Anchorage times. I wanted Ed to work with ACS, Chuck …………..can’t say his last name……………
JB Chuck Robinson? What was Anch Times
BA: Newspaper here in AK, in competition with Daily News. I think I bought it in 1989.
I wanted Dank to help Chuck, he really tried to help the Anch Times with advertising. I asked Ed if he would help him and he said no, I won’t do that, because he was … the other company. I’m sorry, drinking.
B: I have no problem with leading questions
BA: the other phone company
JB: GCI? yes
JB: Fund raisers?
BA: We done that with Ed. You organize an event and get everybody who likes a candidate. We have some food, drink, take their checks. They like the candidate, then we take the money and give that candidate, I think this thing (earphone) has quit.
J: here’s another
BA:
J: works on infra red, line of sight, if he turns his head it doesn’t work.
JB: also politically active for campaign contributions?
BA: that’s what fundraisers for.
RS came to work for us when we had the spill, when i bought the paper, he told me by that time, Ed was gone, hey, I could organize those fund raisers. I didn’t know but I let him try. He did a good job. He always done the fund raisers.
JB promoted to mgt
BA: Government Affairs, VP
JB: over the years, did you attend, become close to legislators
BA: Ramona Barnes, she’s died. John Cowdery, Pete Kott, Vic Kohring. Beverly Masek. I can go on for…
JB OK, Became active as far as individual contributions. Did Veco develop programs where senior execs were reimbursed for campaign contributions
BA: Special bonus. It was supposed to been, if they wanted to be into politics, you know, mostly the candidates would like oil industry, there was a charity, so we gave them the money, they supposed to do it or not do it. Once we give them the money it was there money. I thought it was legal. I think it really is.
Objection, there isn’t a question?
JB: Some of the execs directed to whom they should contribute?
BA: Yes they were, that’s why it didn’t work.
JB: what issues you concerned with in leg?
BA: oil tax, permits
JB: good place to stop?
Photo: Prosecutor Sullivan in the cafeteria. I'm still uncomfortable taking pictures of people who'd rather I didn't, but I don't think he can object to this one. He sat down nearby where I was writing this.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Kohring Trial Day 4 - The Afternoon
I'm going to try to hightlight some things that stood out for me. But let me warn you I didn't get enough sleep last night and my eyes are at half=mast as I write So, even more than usual, read with extreme skepticism.
Defense attorney Browne’s cross-examination of Veco VP Rick Smith seemed focused mainly on these points:
Following up an opening argument theme, Browne highlighted how much money Smith made at Veco, and how much he got in his settlement. A lot of mocking of the $500,000 for attorney fees he got when he left Veco after the company was sold this summer.
Browne: Do you really think your attorney is going to go to trial for $500K.
Smith: I’m afraid more.
Browne: This is an ALASKA attorney? [as though this was absurd]
I happened to sit down next to John Murtagh, Smith’s attorney, because he was by the seat closest to the electrical outlet for my MacBook. I asked him how much of that was left. That was the only question I asked this afternoon he didn’t answer.
One wonders what Browne is thinking. Murtagh is representing a client with a $500,000 legal defense fund. Browne is representing a client whose credit card was maxed and collection agencies were threatening him. Which raises the question of who is paying for Kohring’s legal defense? Could that be a reason Kohring finally resigned from his house seat? Because it would have been an illegal contribution had he been a legislator? Or would it? Legal defense funds are exempt for all I know. If anyone reading this knows, please tell us in the comments and cite the law.
But back to the trial. Browne railed about the Anderson and Ben Stevens no-work Veco contracts - this time he had Stevens getting $243,250 from January 2002 to August 30, 2006. (He’d said Stevens got $250,000 per year for the contract in his opening statement.)
And all Vic got was some Easter egg money. Now, if I understand the law right (no guarantee at all) based on the prior trials, for a federal conviction there is a $5,000 threshold. We have so far:
$1000 in cash payment in the Douglas restaurant while Smith went to the bathroom.
$3000 Smith estimates the value of the internship for Vic's nephew.
There's some other cash, but it isn't clear to me how much and the evidence. I have to pay more attention and I'm too tired to go back through my notes tonight. I'm not clear on how much Easter egg money there was. Was it just the $100 bill that Allen asked from Smith? Or was there more?
There's the $17,000 problem Vic had with his credit card companies, which we have been told is solely based on his Mayo Clinic bills. The government didn't challenge that. In the video of Kohring asking for help on this (Ex. 11 I think), we have this statement from Kohring (as always, this is based on my very fallible note taking):
But it seems to me that for the jury, the government still has to demonstrate that this request counts. So far was we know, it never got past the request stage. I'm pretty sure that a sitting legislator going to a lobbyist and asking for $17,000 whether it is a gift, loan, or a job is pretty clearly a violation. But Browne has been pushing the point that they were friends. This argument didn't help Anderson or Kott, but they had much more damning tape that got played over and over. The prosecution, it seems, is going to have to show the jury that the job of a good lobbyist is to make every legislator feel like the lobbyist is his best friend. In any case, if the $17,000 counts, then the $5,000 threshold is met with this one item.
And then there's the truck he requested for his campaign. I Googled for Anchorage truck rentals. The tape was Aug 23, 2006. Since he needed it for the election, I figured he needed it for two months - September and October. But I couldn't book more than 40 weeks in advance on that first site, so I figured March 1-May 1 might be months with c
omparable prices. I'm sure Kohring could have rented a used
truck for much less in the Valley.
a. The first objective was, at least as I read it, to show that in the sealed agreement, it says that if Smith does a good job for the Government, the government will, not may, but will, request substantially reduced sentence (from the 135-180 months range listed.) Browne also established that the agreement protected Veco from being indicted, which meant that Allen could sell the company for a lot of money, and Smith could leave with lots of money. Both of these are good points. In all three cases, it would seem to me that Smith and Allen were the pushers and Kott, Anderson, and Kohring are the addicts. Are the addicts going to end up with bigger punishments than their dealers? Jurors were instructed not to think about sentences, but how can you not? The prosecution will have to make it clear that all the stuff about sentences is pure speculation and that's why they shouldn't think about it. But that assumes the defense is going to make this a part of the closing argument.
b. The second objective of going through the plea agreement seemed to be to make the point that the government was now charging Kohring with a lot of things that Smith and Allen hadn’t mentioned in their plea agreements. (Browne had to be told, as I understood what happened, to wait for Allen to talk about his plea agreement.) This all seemed to be leading to the key question Browne was raising: If it isn’t mentioned in the Plea Agreement, why is Kohring charged with it?
John Murtagh, who had a fat notebook on his lap that opened to the plea agreement pointed to a heading that read: This document does not set forth a complete statement of all relevant facts.
We can assume the prosecution knows this document pretty well.
Earlier in the trial, Browne said he noticed in the transcripts of the earlier trials, that a lot of the direct examination and cross examination questions seemed to be leading the witness. The judge acknowledged a certain flexibility that he was willing to allow if it didn’t prejudice either side and it was expedient. Well Browne has been calling the prosecution on this much more than did the defense attorneys in the previous two cases.
So I was somewhat surprised at what Browne did when he started the cross-examination. And the prosecution didn’t say much until near the end when he started to read whole sections. The prosecution did object now and then, but I think Browne got away with a lot more ‘fouls’ than did the prosecution today.
I talked about the tapes in the previous post. Not being able to play them seemed to really knock the wind out of Sullivan’s direct examination this morning. But this afternoon we saw a good example of why the tapes SHOULD be played. Browne kept reading the transcripts, but with a very exaggerated emphasis. The extreme to me was when he accused Smith of bullying Kohring as he read, “Don’t you DARE go whacko on us…” Making it sound like a serious threat. It seems to me the advantage of having the tapes is that the jury can hear exactly what the person said, including intonation. I was waiting for the prosecution to jump up and make this point. “He’s totally distorting the transcript. This is where we need the jury to hear what Smith actually said in his own voice and intonation. Not Browne’s interpretation of the transcript.” But they didn’t.
With the submission of transcripts as exhibits, the judge told the jury every time, that it was what they heard on the tape, not the transcript, that was the evidence. But Browne has now succeeded in getting the transcripts as the main evidence, not the tapes. The prosecution seems to have lost big time on this.
The paradoxical performance of Smith as a witness.
In the morning Smith spoke slowly and with a scratchy, gravelly voice. It wasn’t until the afternoon, when Browne asked Smith to explain the meaning of Perfect Storm in the context of oil and gas legislation, that he perked up and showed his stuff. He was suddenly articulate, knowledgeable, and sounded a little like the VP of a half billion dollar a year company. And from that point on he stood up to Browne, pointed out his mistakes, and didn’t allow Browne to lead him into answers he didn’t agree with. This was the Smith we should have seen in the morning when the Prosecution should have been lobbing him easy pitches. Through some bizarre switch, Smith looked, to me at least, much better in the cross examination than he did in the direct.
A follow up to yesterday's post where I asked what happened to Exhibit 14. I asked one of the Government's people if there was an Exhibit 14. The answer was no. I asked why. She didn't know, but got back to me later that it wasn't deemed relevant - it was about the nephew getting his job and they had enough on that.
Since it's world series time, I'd say we've completed the third or fourth inning. There's still a lot that can happen. I'm guessing Bottini will be pitching tomorrow for the prosecution.
Defense attorney Browne’s cross-examination of Veco VP Rick Smith seemed focused mainly on these points:
- These other guys made tons of money for sham contracts and Kohring got easter egg money.
Following up an opening argument theme, Browne highlighted how much money Smith made at Veco, and how much he got in his settlement. A lot of mocking of the $500,000 for attorney fees he got when he left Veco after the company was sold this summer.
Browne: Do you really think your attorney is going to go to trial for $500K.
Smith: I’m afraid more.
Browne: This is an ALASKA attorney? [as though this was absurd]
I happened to sit down next to John Murtagh, Smith’s attorney, because he was by the seat closest to the electrical outlet for my MacBook. I asked him how much of that was left. That was the only question I asked this afternoon he didn’t answer.
One wonders what Browne is thinking. Murtagh is representing a client with a $500,000 legal defense fund. Browne is representing a client whose credit card was maxed and collection agencies were threatening him. Which raises the question of who is paying for Kohring’s legal defense? Could that be a reason Kohring finally resigned from his house seat? Because it would have been an illegal contribution had he been a legislator? Or would it? Legal defense funds are exempt for all I know. If anyone reading this knows, please tell us in the comments and cite the law.
But back to the trial. Browne railed about the Anderson and Ben Stevens no-work Veco contracts - this time he had Stevens getting $243,250 from January 2002 to August 30, 2006. (He’d said Stevens got $250,000 per year for the contract in his opening statement.)
And all Vic got was some Easter egg money. Now, if I understand the law right (no guarantee at all) based on the prior trials, for a federal conviction there is a $5,000 threshold. We have so far:
$1000 in cash payment in the Douglas restaurant while Smith went to the bathroom.
$3000 Smith estimates the value of the internship for Vic's nephew.
There's some other cash, but it isn't clear to me how much and the evidence. I have to pay more attention and I'm too tired to go back through my notes tonight. I'm not clear on how much Easter egg money there was. Was it just the $100 bill that Allen asked from Smith? Or was there more?
There's the $17,000 problem Vic had with his credit card companies, which we have been told is solely based on his Mayo Clinic bills. The government didn't challenge that. In the video of Kohring asking for help on this (Ex. 11 I think), we have this statement from Kohring (as always, this is based on my very fallible note taking):
With Mayo clinic, my insurance didn’t cover it. Aetna only covers in West, not back East. I want everything completely above board. And please don’t feel like I’m abusing our relationship.My state insurance plan covers care in more places than the West. Perhaps Mayo charges more than what the insurance company allows for that procedure and Kohring had to pick up the differnce, but I'm pretty sure it didn't get turned down because it wasn't in the West.
But it seems to me that for the jury, the government still has to demonstrate that this request counts. So far was we know, it never got past the request stage. I'm pretty sure that a sitting legislator going to a lobbyist and asking for $17,000 whether it is a gift, loan, or a job is pretty clearly a violation. But Browne has been pushing the point that they were friends. This argument didn't help Anderson or Kott, but they had much more damning tape that got played over and over. The prosecution, it seems, is going to have to show the jury that the job of a good lobbyist is to make every legislator feel like the lobbyist is his best friend. In any case, if the $17,000 counts, then the $5,000 threshold is met with this one item.
And then there's the truck he requested for his campaign. I Googled for Anchorage truck rentals. The tape was Aug 23, 2006. Since he needed it for the election, I figured he needed it for two months - September and October. But I couldn't book more than 40 weeks in advance on that first site, so I figured March 1-May 1 might be months with c
omparable prices. I'm sure Kohring could have rented a usedtruck for much less in the Valley.
- How come these things aren’t mentioned in your plea agreement?
a. The first objective was, at least as I read it, to show that in the sealed agreement, it says that if Smith does a good job for the Government, the government will, not may, but will, request substantially reduced sentence (from the 135-180 months range listed.) Browne also established that the agreement protected Veco from being indicted, which meant that Allen could sell the company for a lot of money, and Smith could leave with lots of money. Both of these are good points. In all three cases, it would seem to me that Smith and Allen were the pushers and Kott, Anderson, and Kohring are the addicts. Are the addicts going to end up with bigger punishments than their dealers? Jurors were instructed not to think about sentences, but how can you not? The prosecution will have to make it clear that all the stuff about sentences is pure speculation and that's why they shouldn't think about it. But that assumes the defense is going to make this a part of the closing argument.
b. The second objective of going through the plea agreement seemed to be to make the point that the government was now charging Kohring with a lot of things that Smith and Allen hadn’t mentioned in their plea agreements. (Browne had to be told, as I understood what happened, to wait for Allen to talk about his plea agreement.) This all seemed to be leading to the key question Browne was raising: If it isn’t mentioned in the Plea Agreement, why is Kohring charged with it?
John Murtagh, who had a fat notebook on his lap that opened to the plea agreement pointed to a heading that read: This document does not set forth a complete statement of all relevant facts.
We can assume the prosecution knows this document pretty well.
- The battle over leading the witness, objections, and playing tapes.
Earlier in the trial, Browne said he noticed in the transcripts of the earlier trials, that a lot of the direct examination and cross examination questions seemed to be leading the witness. The judge acknowledged a certain flexibility that he was willing to allow if it didn’t prejudice either side and it was expedient. Well Browne has been calling the prosecution on this much more than did the defense attorneys in the previous two cases.
So I was somewhat surprised at what Browne did when he started the cross-examination. And the prosecution didn’t say much until near the end when he started to read whole sections. The prosecution did object now and then, but I think Browne got away with a lot more ‘fouls’ than did the prosecution today.
I talked about the tapes in the previous post. Not being able to play them seemed to really knock the wind out of Sullivan’s direct examination this morning. But this afternoon we saw a good example of why the tapes SHOULD be played. Browne kept reading the transcripts, but with a very exaggerated emphasis. The extreme to me was when he accused Smith of bullying Kohring as he read, “Don’t you DARE go whacko on us…” Making it sound like a serious threat. It seems to me the advantage of having the tapes is that the jury can hear exactly what the person said, including intonation. I was waiting for the prosecution to jump up and make this point. “He’s totally distorting the transcript. This is where we need the jury to hear what Smith actually said in his own voice and intonation. Not Browne’s interpretation of the transcript.” But they didn’t.
With the submission of transcripts as exhibits, the judge told the jury every time, that it was what they heard on the tape, not the transcript, that was the evidence. But Browne has now succeeded in getting the transcripts as the main evidence, not the tapes. The prosecution seems to have lost big time on this.
The paradoxical performance of Smith as a witness.
In the morning Smith spoke slowly and with a scratchy, gravelly voice. It wasn’t until the afternoon, when Browne asked Smith to explain the meaning of Perfect Storm in the context of oil and gas legislation, that he perked up and showed his stuff. He was suddenly articulate, knowledgeable, and sounded a little like the VP of a half billion dollar a year company. And from that point on he stood up to Browne, pointed out his mistakes, and didn’t allow Browne to lead him into answers he didn’t agree with. This was the Smith we should have seen in the morning when the Prosecution should have been lobbing him easy pitches. Through some bizarre switch, Smith looked, to me at least, much better in the cross examination than he did in the direct.
A follow up to yesterday's post where I asked what happened to Exhibit 14. I asked one of the Government's people if there was an Exhibit 14. The answer was no. I asked why. She didn't know, but got back to me later that it wasn't deemed relevant - it was about the nephew getting his job and they had enough on that.
Since it's world series time, I'd say we've completed the third or fourth inning. There's still a lot that can happen. I'm guessing Bottini will be pitching tomorrow for the prosecution.
Kohring Trial Day 4 - Morning Report
I didn't get enough sleep last night, and then I spent most of the lunch break talking to people, so there isn't much time left.
Morning was tedious. Prosecutor Sullivan questioned Veco VP Rick Smith about oil and gas policy. There was a closed meeting with the judge and attorneys early this morning to talk about confidentiality issues in cross examining the witnesses to protect on-going FBI investigations from being exposed. Defense attorney Browne must have also gotten in some restrictions on the use of audio and video tape.
In the previous trials, this was the point where the government played the tapes and had the witnesses interpret them. This was the most interesting part of the other trials in many ways. You would see and/or hear the witness in the tape and then hear his explanation of what was happening. But today the government hasn't played any tapes. When they tried, Browne has objected and forced them to work from the transcripts. This is not nearly as interesting or compelling. The jury did see the tapes yesterday when they were introduced, but the government doesn't look like it's going to get the advantage of playing them over and over again before the jury. This may also have put the government off its stride.
The discussion of the tax details dragged. Sullivan had his script and it sounded like he was perfunctorily reading the questions. It needed to sound more conversational, not like a list of questions he was checking off as he read them. And Smith's slow gravelly voiced responses didn't help.
And then they weren't able to show the tapes.
Score this round for Browne.
Morning was tedious. Prosecutor Sullivan questioned Veco VP Rick Smith about oil and gas policy. There was a closed meeting with the judge and attorneys early this morning to talk about confidentiality issues in cross examining the witnesses to protect on-going FBI investigations from being exposed. Defense attorney Browne must have also gotten in some restrictions on the use of audio and video tape.
In the previous trials, this was the point where the government played the tapes and had the witnesses interpret them. This was the most interesting part of the other trials in many ways. You would see and/or hear the witness in the tape and then hear his explanation of what was happening. But today the government hasn't played any tapes. When they tried, Browne has objected and forced them to work from the transcripts. This is not nearly as interesting or compelling. The jury did see the tapes yesterday when they were introduced, but the government doesn't look like it's going to get the advantage of playing them over and over again before the jury. This may also have put the government off its stride.
The discussion of the tax details dragged. Sullivan had his script and it sounded like he was perfunctorily reading the questions. It needed to sound more conversational, not like a list of questions he was checking off as he read them. And Smith's slow gravelly voiced responses didn't help.
And then they weren't able to show the tapes.
Score this round for Browne.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Kohring Trial Day 3 - The Tapes
I'm trying to figure how to present this. My transcription is really spotty and misses a lot. I thought about basic themes and tried to do a table and show which themes come up in which tapes. But that left out too much and would give a false impression. So I'm going to pick out some themes and give some examples of what was said for those themes. I'm sure they'll be up on ADN soon if they aren't already.
Some recurring themes on the tapes:
Cracks in the Kohring Boy Scout Image
In his opening statement, Browne worked hard to show that Kohring was different from the foul mouthed drinkers that we would see on the tapes - Bill Allen, Rick Smith, Pete Kott. He doesn't drink or swear we were told.
But already yesterday, Kohring was heard on tape talking about drinking vodka (now that he had a Russian wife) at dinner, and that it was nice how it relieved stress. Today he twice suggested to Rick Smith they go out and have Long Island Tea. He also slipped in words like 'bullshit' 'asshole' and 'turd'. Not terrible in the big picture, but contradicting the boy scout image Browne was trying to portray.
There are a lot more items, but they'll come out when they play the tapes again with the witnesses who are in the tapes.
Some recurring themes on the tapes:
- Thanks for everything you've done for me.
- RV: I pace myself, at comfortable pace, sip my Tea and water, aspirins and vitamins. Some days tense with all the committee meetings
Bill happen to get my card? I sent a thank you card?
RS:
RV: Isn’t he amazing to send a sick man soup? Got a heart the size of a watermelon, (Exhibit 2 or 3?) - Uncle Bill, I want you to know how much I appreciate you. You’ve helped you my nephew. If I were there I’d, no I wouldn’t hug you, but give you a handshake. This is going to open up his life. I really thank you. (16)
- Thanks for the kind remarks the Voice of the Times attribute to me
Thanks again for my nephew. Finished third week, and really appreciates it. He said, I wish I could work longer, this money is great. $24/hour. Great for 17 year old. Friends making $7/hour and he’s getting $16. People at Veco treating him very nicely (22) - Hey Rick this is VK
Couple things briefly, thanks for that event, very successful. $4000, expect it will be more when people send more who couldn’t attend. And thanks for Vof the Times printing my column. Thanks for them putting my stuff in. - Anything you need from me, just let me know.
- Keep in touch with my friends at Veco, willing to help if there are any issues that come along. (Ex.1)
- if any need to contact me don’t hesitate to call me (Ex. 1)
- RV: Anything i can do to help, points to make in committees, radio, columns, I find myself in small minority of people who think like I do. Elephant herd coming at me, gonna be beat up.(2)
- Doing what I can to help you out. Doing the best I can to lobby for the Gov’s bill. Met with Kevin Meyer, good friend of mine, we get along great. Just hope that final bill is close to what the gov proposed.(13?)
- My nephew needs a job.
- want to call about a number of things, follow up of dinner in Douglas, possibility my nephew can do an internship with Veco
RS: Resume? I need that as soon as possible, they’re probably already making decisions on kids. School record, gpa, work experience, etc. (5?) - Left envelope with your name, contains my nephew’s resume you asked for and the Dittman poll on the oil industry and tax, you may already have it. Thanks for the nice dinner last night and in regards to my nephew, thank you very much. (7)
- My 17 year-old nephew will be here, want to introduce him to you. Got a bunch of lobbyists lined up to take him to dinner. (13?)
- Aaron’s [the nephew] basketball team’s award ceremony yesterday, presented them with a leg. certificate. Nephew got most valuable player award
RS: They sent a note, saying they are planning to hire Aaron. Qualifies by turning 18 in July. One of our recruiters will be in touch with him. They have him scheduled to work with one of our engineers with the BP contract. (15)
- Here's what good things I did at the office today.
- good start for me, relationship with my constits going just fine
Got to do the little things too, returning tel calls, responding to emals and letters, pain in the rear end, but got to do it to stay in office. (1) - Also those extra tax credits were the direct result of my office, we worked on it for the last three months. Tax credits not only for production, but real estate, (8)
- Hey, listen, I have this situation and maybe you could help or give advice.
- ONe final thing about something importance for me, you going to be there tomorrow? Time best for you and Bill, (10)
- situation, that could hurt me politically. when I had my surgery a couple of years ago I put it on credit cards, ask you guys for your recommendations for how I can deal with this. I want to suggest, tell you guys cause your friends. Do some project where I can do some work for you or recommend me to someone. Collections company, Can’t sell my Wasilla house. They are demanding full payment for $17.000. I was paying a month. I don’t have the wherewithal to pay this. I’m living paycheck to paycheck. Not trying to come to the well, just asking if you guys would consider helping me or give me some options. (11?)
- Hi Rick this is VKohring in Wasilla. did you get to check into the pick up situation and if you didn’t no big deal. I can call around as well, I haven’t talked to them yet. Even if I can rent on something $1000 or so, for door knocking and putting up signs. Need to get out of this jalopy that keeps breaking down. If too many things on your plate, I understand.
- I want to do this the right way.
- I’m always looking out to the industry, not beholden, but less government is better, less taxes. (1)
- VK If I did do something for you, I’d want it real, above board never criticize our relationship or getting something I don’t deserve.
BA: Don’t say anything til I can figure out, so it doesn’t come back to bite my ass or yours.
VK: I wouldn’t tell anybody of financial situation. What would happen if I were to borrow money. But I don’t have to I don’t want to raise any read flags or anything.(11)
Cracks in the Kohring Boy Scout Image
In his opening statement, Browne worked hard to show that Kohring was different from the foul mouthed drinkers that we would see on the tapes - Bill Allen, Rick Smith, Pete Kott. He doesn't drink or swear we were told.
But already yesterday, Kohring was heard on tape talking about drinking vodka (now that he had a Russian wife) at dinner, and that it was nice how it relieved stress. Today he twice suggested to Rick Smith they go out and have Long Island Tea. He also slipped in words like 'bullshit' 'asshole' and 'turd'. Not terrible in the big picture, but contradicting the boy scout image Browne was trying to portray.
There are a lot more items, but they'll come out when they play the tapes again with the witnesses who are in the tapes.
Kott Trial Day 3 - PM - FBI Investigation Team Reunion
The afternoon consisted of calling up different FBI agents from all around the country, swearing them in, then asking them the identical questions about whether they had verified that the material on this particular CD - Prosecution exhibits 1- 10 were in the morning, the 11-26 in the afternoon - was the same as the original recording. Then they had to verify the transcripts. (I'm not certain about #14. I had #13 down and the next one was #15. The judge asked about #14 too and the prosecution said, no, the next one was #15. So either they missed one, the judge and I missed one, or they are saving it to introduce at another time. But then they have to bring in the FBI agent again, so I probably just missed it.)
So you can look at this list: (The bulleted ones are from out of town)
Witnesses
Morning
Kelley Woodward, FBI, intelligence analyst, in Anchorage
Jessica Debra Ann Newton, FBI Intelligence analyst, Anchorage Division (twice)
Afternoon
DePodesta again
DePodesta again
Kevin Loader, Anchorage, FBI, 2 years, special agent
DePodesta again
Joe Thelen again
Chad Kadera Anchorage, FBI special agent
DePodesta again
Patricia A. Mumz FBI, 20 years, special agent, Anchorage
As I said in the previous post, the out of town agents are here because defense attorney John Henry Browne insisted that the individual agent who was monitoring the recording had to be here to verify the recording. In the previous two trials, the defense attorneys allowed the prosecution to have one attorney verify all the tapes.
So we have nine FBI agents from out of town (the bulleted names) and five from Anchorage all gathered in the US Federal Courtroom anteroom. An FBI Investigation team reunion. In the overall scheme of what this investigation and trials cost, nine more airfares and several nights of hotel rooms is a minor costs. But there is also the loss of the work the agents could be doing in on other cases. (Some people may see it as a benefit that they aren't doing other work and I must admit that the work they've done in Alaska has reminded me that the FBI can do important work in the public interest.)
So why is Browne insisting on this? Well, for one, the FBI isn't infallible and there could be mistakes. But I suspect that the more work the prosecution has to do on this stuff, it's a little attention taken away from other stuff. And with two lead attorneys and FBI agent Kepner sitting up front, and two other attorneys sitting behind them (well, Goeke is still around, but Marsh said he was headed back to DC this week and I didn't seem him in court today), they do have things stacked in their favor. And this doesn't even mention the home field advantage: they can push their cart full of documents and equipment down the hallway and into their offices without even going downstairs and outside; they can bring in whatever staff from the building to help them in or out of the courtroom to mention just a few benefits.
By calling in all these agents, Browne is probably hoping one or two won't make it and so a tape might not be put in as evidence. We don't know if that is the case or not. He's emphasizing to the jury how many agents have been spending time on this and how much money the government is spending to bring them up here. (I don't believe the jury knows that Browne is the one who insisted on this, and I guess the prosecution can't tell them that.) Whatever extra steps the prosecution has to take, offers new opportunities for them to mess up somewhere along the line, and some bit of evidence may be lost, or some doubt could be raised among the jurors. What happened to Ex. 14 for example? Was I just not paying attention or did they actually skip it?
Browne did ask several of the witnesses where their names were on the documents. A: Not there. Well, how do you know that you were the person monitoring this? A: Well, it's somewhere. It never was clear how they knew. So there was a seed of doubt.
While the defense attorney should be doing everything he can to get his client off, if all he has are technical maneuvers that wouldn't bode well for Kohring.
OK, there was also the substantive material that was on the tapes we heard today. As I understand the process, the prosecution has to play all the tapes when they introduce them. There was really no discussion of them, other than what Bottini said in the opening arguments. And that did alert the jury to what was going to be shown on the tapes. If the previous trials are predictors, as the witnesses come in - and Bill Allen and Rick Smith (key characters on the tapes) have been mentioned - the prosecution will play the tapes again and ask the witnesses to explain what is going on.
But I'll finish this post and try to put together my thoughts about what the tapes were about today.
Jury Notes:
I saw that at some point today, every juror had a pen in his or her hand and wrote something in the court provided notebooks. Many were taking notes most of the time. This is very different from the previous two juries when I rarely saw a juror taking notes.
Eddie Haskell observation:
At the afternoon break, the defense attorney noted that he has copies of Bill Allen and Rick Smith's testimony from the Kott trial. "Would the judge like a courtesy copy?" He didn't do this in front of the jury at least.
So you can look at this list: (The bulleted ones are from out of town)
Witnesses
Morning
Kelley Woodward, FBI, intelligence analyst, in Anchorage
Jessica Debra Ann Newton, FBI Intelligence analyst, Anchorage Division (twice)
- Joel Stephen, Texas Spec Agent FBI,
- William Bondurat California FBI, special agent, LA division, three years
- Tom Szot, FBI, special agent, 8 years, Chicago
- Frank DePodesta, FBI special agent, Chicago (twice)
- Joseph Thelen, retired FBI, 24 years, organized crime, NYC
Afternoon
DePodesta again
- Agent Dunphy (from yesterday)Cincinnati, 23 years FBI special agent
DePodesta again
Kevin Loader, Anchorage, FBI, 2 years, special agent
DePodesta again
Joe Thelen again
- Sean McDermott, FBI special agent, 4 years Miami
Chad Kadera Anchorage, FBI special agent
DePodesta again
- Roslyn B. Harris, Atlanta, FBI, 20 years, Special Agent
Patricia A. Mumz FBI, 20 years, special agent, Anchorage
- Ingrid Schmidt, Columbus, Ohio, FBI, 5 years, special agent (Cincinnati Division)
As I said in the previous post, the out of town agents are here because defense attorney John Henry Browne insisted that the individual agent who was monitoring the recording had to be here to verify the recording. In the previous two trials, the defense attorneys allowed the prosecution to have one attorney verify all the tapes.
So we have nine FBI agents from out of town (the bulleted names) and five from Anchorage all gathered in the US Federal Courtroom anteroom. An FBI Investigation team reunion. In the overall scheme of what this investigation and trials cost, nine more airfares and several nights of hotel rooms is a minor costs. But there is also the loss of the work the agents could be doing in on other cases. (Some people may see it as a benefit that they aren't doing other work and I must admit that the work they've done in Alaska has reminded me that the FBI can do important work in the public interest.)
So why is Browne insisting on this? Well, for one, the FBI isn't infallible and there could be mistakes. But I suspect that the more work the prosecution has to do on this stuff, it's a little attention taken away from other stuff. And with two lead attorneys and FBI agent Kepner sitting up front, and two other attorneys sitting behind them (well, Goeke is still around, but Marsh said he was headed back to DC this week and I didn't seem him in court today), they do have things stacked in their favor. And this doesn't even mention the home field advantage: they can push their cart full of documents and equipment down the hallway and into their offices without even going downstairs and outside; they can bring in whatever staff from the building to help them in or out of the courtroom to mention just a few benefits.
By calling in all these agents, Browne is probably hoping one or two won't make it and so a tape might not be put in as evidence. We don't know if that is the case or not. He's emphasizing to the jury how many agents have been spending time on this and how much money the government is spending to bring them up here. (I don't believe the jury knows that Browne is the one who insisted on this, and I guess the prosecution can't tell them that.) Whatever extra steps the prosecution has to take, offers new opportunities for them to mess up somewhere along the line, and some bit of evidence may be lost, or some doubt could be raised among the jurors. What happened to Ex. 14 for example? Was I just not paying attention or did they actually skip it?
Browne did ask several of the witnesses where their names were on the documents. A: Not there. Well, how do you know that you were the person monitoring this? A: Well, it's somewhere. It never was clear how they knew. So there was a seed of doubt.
While the defense attorney should be doing everything he can to get his client off, if all he has are technical maneuvers that wouldn't bode well for Kohring.
OK, there was also the substantive material that was on the tapes we heard today. As I understand the process, the prosecution has to play all the tapes when they introduce them. There was really no discussion of them, other than what Bottini said in the opening arguments. And that did alert the jury to what was going to be shown on the tapes. If the previous trials are predictors, as the witnesses come in - and Bill Allen and Rick Smith (key characters on the tapes) have been mentioned - the prosecution will play the tapes again and ask the witnesses to explain what is going on.
But I'll finish this post and try to put together my thoughts about what the tapes were about today.
Jury Notes:
I saw that at some point today, every juror had a pen in his or her hand and wrote something in the court provided notebooks. Many were taking notes most of the time. This is very different from the previous two juries when I rarely saw a juror taking notes.
Eddie Haskell observation:
At the afternoon break, the defense attorney noted that he has copies of Bill Allen and Rick Smith's testimony from the Kott trial. "Would the judge like a courtesy copy?" He didn't do this in front of the jury at least.
Kohring Trial Day 3: Technical Stuff
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Wednesday, October 24, 2007
9:00 AM 3:07-CR-00055-JWS Judge Sedwick Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. VICTOR H. KOHRING
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 3 (DEPS)
Basically this was a technical session in which the Prosecution was introducing witnesses who verified exhibits.
Witnesses:
Dan Dickinson, former State Tax Director, and consultant on ppt tax and gas pipeline
Gave background about Alaska’s oil tax regimen and the reasons for changing it. This witness also set the context for the legislative session and special sessions. He also answered a question I ‘d had about whether PPT stood for Petroleum Production Tax or Petroleum Profit Tax. Apparently it has meant both.
Suzanne Lowell, Chief clerk of House of Reps.
Verified House Journal documents about voting on the PPT bill in the regular legislative session and the two special sessions in 2006.
FBI Agents
Kelley Woodward, FBI, intelligence analyst, in Anchorage
Jessica Debra Ann Newton, FBI Intelligence analyst, Anchorage Division (twice)
Joel Stephen, Texas Spec Agent FBI,
William Bondurant California FBI, special agent, LA division, three years
Tom Szot, FBI, special agent, 8 years, Chicago
Frank DePodesta, FBI special agent, Chicago (twice)
Joseph Thelen, retired FBI, 24 years, organized crime, NYC
First four tape exhibits - basically Kohring asking if he can do anything to help Veco or Bill Allen to let him know.
Ex#5 - brings up his nephew getting an internship with Veco, is told he needs to have a resume and Rick Smith tells him what needs to be on the resume and to get it in soon because, if I got it right, they are already filling these positions.
Ex#6 - RS and PK in room 604, RS briefly talks to VK on phone.
Kott: He hasn’t voted on a tax bill in 12 years, He hasn’t voted for a tax bill since he was born.
Smith: If he’s needed he said he’ll be there.
Ex#7 Voice Mail: Kohring: Left envelope with your name, contains my nephew’s resume you asked for and the Dittman poll on the oil industry and tax, you may already have it. Thanks for the nice dinner last night and in regards to my nephew, thank you very much.
Ex#8 Kohring telling Smith how he has pushed through an amendment that adds tax credits and says he thinks the oil companies won’t object because it means more money in their pockets and that he and Theresa worked three months to get this done
Ex#9 Kohring saying he’ll do whatever is needed to help out.
The FBI witnesses were verifying that the CD’s with the recordings are accurate copies of what is on the original audio and/or video, and that the transcripts are accurate reflections of the recordings too. This was fairly tedious as they had to repeat the same set of questions of each witness, each time they verified a specific tape.
Some return because the Prosecutors want to play the tapes in what appears to be chronological order. So they only verify one cd at a time.
In the previous two trials, one FBI agent was sufficient to verify all the tapes, but the defense attorney in pretrial motions would not accept that and insisted that the FBI agent who actually made the recording has to verify it. So we have agents being flown in from all over the US to do that tape by tape today.
John Henry Browne has been asking some of the agents if there is anything on the front of the materials that identifies who made the recording and basically, it appears, there isn’t. I guess he’s trying to raise doubts. Obviously there is is some way to connect the tape with the recorder, but the prosecutors haven’t followed up to clarify that.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Do Bloggers Count as Media?
For the first time since the press have been allowed to take computers into the courtroom, which began during the Kott trial, I was asked more than perfunctory questions today.
The guard took down the url of my blog and my telephone number. He let me in with the computer and said, we'll get back to you. There's no way I could have made this evening's long post without the computer. We'll see tomorrow if bloggers count.
The guard took down the url of my blog and my telephone number. He let me in with the computer and said, we'll get back to you. There's no way I could have made this evening's long post without the computer. We'll see tomorrow if bloggers count.
Is John Henry Browne really Eddie Haskell 50 years later?
I finally figured it out. About 9:15 tonight the name Eddie Haskell bubbled up in my brain and I knew why. John Henry Browne. Actually, with Google's assistance, I discovered that Leave it To Beaver began on CBS on October 4, 1957, so this month is the fiftieth anniversary of the show. For those of you who didn't watch tv in the 50's and 60's, here's what Wikipedia says about Haskell:
It's the parts in italics that I was thinking of. I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to base any of the "shallow and sneaky character" parts of this description to Kohring's attorney. And after 50 years, I'm sure he's had time to work through all that.
Even today, the phrase "Eddie Haskell" is known to refer to an insincere brown-noser. . .He was known for his neat grooming—hiding his shallow and sneaky character. Typically, Eddie would greet his friends' parents with overdone, good manners and often a compliment such as, "That's a lovely dress you're wearing, Mrs. Cleaver."
It's the parts in italics that I was thinking of. I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to base any of the "shallow and sneaky character" parts of this description to Kohring's attorney. And after 50 years, I'm sure he's had time to work through all that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)