Kohring Trial Day 6 - Defense May Not Defend

Most interesting part of the trial for me today:

Defense attorney Browne said after the jury was dismissed for the day, “Speaking candidly, I may not put on a defense.” (I’m always alert when people suddenly say they are speaking candidly. What were they doing before?) He then asked some questions about whether witnesses would be allowed to testify about Kohring’s habit of being very friendly and offering to help. After some questioning the judge said no. I’d heard at lunch from a close friend of Kohring, that his nephew was going to be called. And he said afterward he’d been told to call all the witnesses to cancel. I’m not entirely convinced. We’ll see. But if it’s true, we could be done tomorrow or Wednesday.

Today's Witnesses

Bill Allen, finished
Frank Prewitt - Former Commissioner of Corrections who is cooperating with the Government
Tom Wagoner, State Senator from District Q in Kenai area.
Joyce Anderson, Administrator for the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Alan Vanderploeg, FBI Agent who led the team that searched Kohring's Wasilla office and interviewed him
Mary Jo Herrett, FBI agent who, I think I have this right, copied Kohring's hard drive.


The Issues

It's getting harder for me to sort things out. Either there was nothing particularly earth shaking - though a number of small details = or my head is turning to mush with all this.

1. Allen's credibility - I think more than anything he said, particularly in the cross examination, this was about whether Allen can be trusted as the only witness to the other times he handed over '6 or 7' to Kohring (Allen speak for $600-$700). It is hard to to be sure I haven't been tainted and my whether my judgment is objective anymore.

Browne would have us think that Allen will tell us anything because of his plea bargain agreement with the government who can recommend a significantly lighter sentence than his potential 10 or 11 years in prison. But Allen is that self made man of American mythology - pulled himself up from a crop picking, poor family to become a successful business man worth several hundred million dollars. And he didn't do it through trading, but through creating real things that were necessary for getting North Slope oil to the rest of the world. He's still proud of what he did, and he has a right to be. And he still had some of the dignity on the stand. This high school drop out stood up to Kohring's high priced lawyer and came out at least tied. Despite his cognitive problems from his motorcycle accident. But I don't know how much of my impression is influenced by seeing him in the Kott trial. I can't tell what the jury will think. (None of these comments is intended to diminish the gravity of the how he has corrpted the democratic process, but to give a sense of why the jury might believe him, despite what he's done.]

2. Gifts, loans, payments, what's the difference? Browne has been arguing from day one, that Kohring never got any payments. He got gifts from friends. The Easter egg payment was a gift from Allen to Kohring's step-daughter, whom Allen says he may have spoken to once by phone.

Joyce Anderson's testimony went right to this as she defined the requirements for legislators receiving gifts.

1. Gifts to legislators related to legislative status cannot be over $250 cumulative from the same person over a year.
2. Gifts that not related to legislative status can be over $250, but must be reported
3. Cannot receive gifts from lobbyists during the legislative session.

She also testified that Kohring had never reported any gifts from Veco, Allen, or Smith.
Does the loan count as something that needs to be reported? Well, it would if he had gotten one, but he didn't. (My comment: But for a legislator to ask for one - even though Browne took pains to point out it was a loan, not a gift or a payment - is problematic and loans fall into the category of something of value.)

However, Browne did point out that these are civil, not criminal offenses. I'm not sure how that plays out in the federal laws that Kohring is accused of violating.

I thought Anderson was probably the strongest witness of the day. She knew what she was talking about, even if Browne belittled her with a left-handed compliment

Browne: You have obviously memorized the statutes for state ethics

And when he tried to force her to say yes or no -

B: If Allen gave money to VK’s child that would be ok? Right?
JA: There is no definition about ‘related or not to legislative status’.
B: Witness is not being responsive
Judge: I thought she was being responsive but if you don’t think so...
B: If he gave a gift to the child for any amount if not related to leg behavior, it is ok, Is that correct? [I wrote down ‘behavior’ but the language she had used earlier was ‘status’ I don’t know if that is what Browne said or something I miswrote.]
JA: After a long pause….. It’s difficult to answer when you use language “related to legislative behavior” LB is not defined in statue, the determination, sorry if you think I’m not answering. If I assume that it is not, then yes.

I can't imagine how this exchange would have endeared him to the jury. She came across to me as knowledgeable and dedicated.

3. The Eric Musser Affair

We've heard bits and pieces of this since the opening statements. Browne even said he hadn't yet decided if he was going to call Musser as a witness. After what we heard today, I don't think he'd help Kohring's case.

Frank Prewitt, as part of his cooperation agreement with the government, video taped a dinner with Kohring during which he asked about Eric Musser. Kohring told Prewitt the story on tape. Musser had worked for Rep. Beverly Masek and they’d had a falling out. Musser came to work for Kohring. Then Musser filed a complaint against Masek with the APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission) over illegal use of campaign funds. Kohring learned about this when an irate Bill Allen called to ask what was going on. Kohring checked with APOC and learned about the complaint.

Kohring on tape:

He filed complaint while he was working for me, Didn’t tell me. Bill Allen said, what is this chicken shit? Doesn’t he work for you? I called APOC and sure enough it had gone through. I was shocked. Eric didn’t even tell me. BA really liked Bev and didn’t want that to happen to her. So that was a bad thing for me to go thru and affected so many of my supporters. He wanted to get Eric to withdraw the complaint. But they already had it. She was caught red-handed..

He then listed various illegal ways she spent campaign money, including paying off her credit card bill. In his opening statement, Browne said this was about integrity. But as we hear it now in Kohring's words, he wasn't interested in making sure a legislator who had violated the law was caught. He was upset that his aide did this behind his back and helped get rid of a legislator who was a friend of Allen's. This made him look bad. Getting rid of corrupt legislators wasn't his objective here. It was just too bad about Beverly. This doesn't make him look like a man of 'integrity."

If he said he actually fired Musser over this I didn’t catch it. But what was clear was that Allen could call and make Kohring jump.

If Browne made important points in the cross, I didn’t catch them. He asked about Prewitt’s deal with the FBI, and kept asking things like,

B: You brought up Musser, obviously they asked you to raise that.


4. He had to think about it

I'm not sure what Alan Vanderploeg's testimony added. He was a very cheerful, polite, and friendly witness. So perhaps he was there to counter any ideas that the FBI interrogation was the heavy handed third degree the Defense had suggested in the pre-trial motion to supress statements elicited from this interrogation.
However, I thought one exchange was notable.

Bottini: Tell VK about allegations at the beginning?
AVanderploeg: Told him conducting corruption probe, there were allegations he had taken money or other things of value.
JB: Did you ask him
AV: He said he had asked and received for personal benefit and campaign contributions?
JB: Did you ask to elaborate?
AV: Yes He said that he preferred to think about that question further.

Browne did a good job in the cross examination pointing out that from the written summary - I learned in one of the previous trials that the FBI policy is to NOT tape interrogations, so now we have to rely on the FBI's notes, and can't see or hear for ourselves - that the next thing was that Kohring talked about this, so he didn't think very long.

The point, as I understood it, was that at first he admitted things - not totally sure what - and then he seemed to have backed off a bit.

5. The Red Carpet List and HB 198

Mary Jo Herrett, the FBI agent who copied Kohring's hard drive when it was confiscated in the search (at one point Browne said "Before this raid" and Bottini objected, and it was sustained. Then Browne said, "Before this incursion..." and Bottini objected, and it was sustained. Finally Browne said, "Before this search,...") of Kohring's office. She produced three items from the computer, nothing as incriminating as the updated invoices for the flooring work in the Kott case:
1. The Red Carpet list - which was a list of people who, if they showed up at the office, would be shown right in. It was divided into categories in this order:
Lobbyists
Personal Friends
Supporters
Other
-Family members and relatives
-All legislators

With a Note at the bottom: This list is not in order.

What was of interest is that Bill Allen and Rick Smith were listed, not as friends, but as supporters.

2. HB 198 History (Oil Royalty Reduction for Cook Inlet Offishore Platforms)
This bill is the one we heard about where Kohring is said to have gotten upset because Sen. Wagoner had 'hijacked' it from him, so Wagoner would get credit for having introduced it and getting it passed. This seems to me so petty and trivial that I don't even want to write about it. But it fits in the prosecution's case (if I haven't mixed this up with another bill) because Kohring is said to have been sitting on the bill, and Allen was the person who persuaded him to let it out of his committee, thus demonstrating Allen's power over Kohring. Wagoner testified how his Senate version got passed out of committee and by the Senate before Kohring's identical house bill. So the Senate bill was the bill that went on to be passed. This memo found on Kohring's computer wasn't on the screen long, but it was a history of the bill and included the words "hijacked' on the memo.

3. A memo with emails setting up a meeting with Allen and Smith. First from Kohring dated Feb. 22, 2006 to Pamela Marquez asking to set up the meeting

Can you call RS and get a brief meeting including brief bite to eat at the Baranof would be good.

And her response:

I have talked with Rick today, He’ll get back to me to schedule you in.

I wasn't sure the point of this and I'm still not. But it takes place the day after Kohring talked to Rick Smith and was told, "Don't you dare go...whacko." And before the meeting where Kohring tells them he needs $17,000 because of his credit card debt. The ADN summary of the audio tape adds more insight to how strange this all is:

Kohring calls Smith, who says he's having dinner with U.S. Rep. Don Young, Veco CEO Bill Allen and Veco President Pete Leathard. Smith mentions that he would be having dinner the next night with then-Atty. Gen. David Marquez (a former lobbyist for Veco whose wife, Pam, was an aide to Kohring at the time). "So we'll be with your staff tomorrow night," Smith says, laughing. "Small world, man," says Kohring. Later, Kohring - who is strident about opposing tax increases of all forms - says he might reluctantly support the oil tax plan being pushed by Veco. Smith suggests how Kohring can justify his support then says this: "Don't you dare take this as an opportunity to go crazy, you know, to go wacko." Kohring, at the time chairman of the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas, says he'd reluctantly go along with the tax if Veco and the North Slope producers want it. (Smith and Allen testified that Allen gave Kohring $1,000 in cash two days later, on Feb. 23.)

There are other minor events - like the judge chewing out Browne for sharing Bill Allen's crib sheet with the press Friday, which was mentioned in Lisa Demer's Saturday article on Browne. Allen had a list of names to help him with his cognitive problems of getting words from his brain to his tongue. Browne had asked him what it was and if he could look at it. Then took it to the defense table. Afterward he showed it to several members of the media.

Today, after the jury left for lunch, Bottini complained about this action. At first Browne was contrite. Then he defiantly said,

I believe in a public trial.

Judge Sedwick then asked:

Did you get permission from Mr. Allen? It was not an exhibit.
In the future, you will not show things to the press without getting their permission.

Kohring Trial Day - Allen Cross Examination

Defense attorney Browne was much more polite in his cross exam this morning, most of the time anyway.

But Bill Allen proved again - as he did in the Kott trial - that he's not given up his dignity yet. He did not simply agree to everyting Browne asked. He forced Browne to wait until he found the lines Browne was asking about. Other times he simply disagreed. His long pauses seemed to try Browne's patience. At one point he asked for another headset. It was close to break and the judge had asked to hurry things along. Browned didn't want to wait. Allen retorted, "it's not my fault I can't hear." and put in his hearing aid. But it messed up Browne's pace, which had been picking up as he seemed to be trying to rattle Allen. Instead, Allen seemed to rattle Browne.

Mostly Browne was trying to get him to acknowledge that Kohring always said the money he asked for was for a loan, not a payment. The judge got irritated when Browne asked, "When he asked you for a loan, he always intended to pay it back? Right?" The judge said, well, of course, that's a tautology, rephrase the question. Browne didn't see to understand the Judge's objection, but finally figured out a different way to ask, "When he aske for money, it was for a loan, right?"

At one point Browne asked Allen about his being mad at Pete Lethard, then President of Veco, for telling the Australians who were considering buying Veco, that he was buying politicians including Don Young and Ted Stevens. That this disclosure caused them to drop out of negotiations. Allen responded, I said that, but I may have been wrong about Pete saying that.

Browne also spent a lot of time quoting Allen's profanity. He asked him whether there were two Bill Allen's - the one in front of us in his suit and the one who says fuck 52 times on the tape. Allen said, no, there's only one.

What about the Bill Allen who gives money to the Boys Club and the one in the tapes. Allen: It's the same Bill Allen.

Bottini has jumped up a few times to object to Browne reading to Allen.

I don't quite know where Browne is taking this. Even if it is a loan and not a payment, so what? If he could get a legitimate loan he should go to the bank. If he can't get such a loan, then being able to get one quicker or even at all, is a special benefit most people don't have.

He also tried to distinguish Vic Kohring from the others that Allen bribed. Well, it may be Kohring got less than the others, but so what?

This is a little disorganized, I just hae a short time during break this morning.

The Enigma that is Vic Kohring

Here's some of what his defense attorney said about him in his opening argument:

John H Browne Opening Argument uploaded by AKRaven

(audio edited from court recording posted on ADN's site today)

It's true that he's a giant teddy bear of a man. He seems to smile at everyone he looks at in court, as if acknowledging an old friend. He asks the prosecutors how their lunch was after the noon break in a cordial tone you might use with someone you know well.

I'm trying here to put down what I know from observing him in court and from what he says on the surveillance tapes that have been played.

• His legislative bio says he was born in Waukegan, Illinois in 1958.
• It also says he received a B.A. in Management Science in 1987 and an M.B.A. in 1989, both from APU.
• He's anti-government and anti-tax. (according to his attorney's opening argument and Kohring himself on some of the tapes)
• He's pro big business and certainly pro-oil development. A couple of times he called Rick Smith (all the calls that have been introduced into court are ones where Vic goes through Rick Smith to get to Bill Allen if I recall right) to tell him that he's been working on a bill that includes even more incentives than just the investment incentives for major oil companies.
  

The other side of the picture.

• He's a humble sheet rocker, when he's not in the legislature. (Defense attorney Browne)
• He lives in a trailer in Wasilla and sleeps on a couch in his legislative office in Juneau. (Browne)
• He did not have enough money to eat. (Browne quoting Bill Allen)
• The only employment his legislative bio lists was government related - such as his legislative work and membership on the Wasilla Planning and Utilities Commission and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
• The only heading his legislative bio lists related to business is "Business and Professional Memberships" which include just: Palmer Chamber of Commerce and Wasilla Chamber of Commerce.
  

So, that means we have an anti-tax, anti-government, pro-big oil, and presumably pro-business in general man with undergraduate and graduate degrees in business, who on his professional legislative resume lists no private sector work in his 49 years. And by all accounts he has very little money - he lives in a trailer and while in Juneau from January to May, sleeps on the couch in his office. Some of that poverty might be explained by the fact that he is supporting, presumably, the household of his wife and step-daughter who live in Oregon. Of course, explaining that as the reason for his not having enough money to eat is a little embarrassing since he's supposed to maintain a residence in his district. But since he lives in a trailer in his district and most other legislators have to support two households while in Juneau, that doesn't really explain it.

What about his sheet rock business? We know from the previous trial that Pete Kott continued to be active, when the legislature was not in session, installing hardwood floors. And his legislative bio lists him as " Owner & Associate, Kott's Hardwood Flooring: 1996 - present" though his business support was tempered by his pro-union stance.

I can't see anything in Kohring's bio that accounts for the time between his high school graduation in 1976 and his graduation from college in 1987. Was he in college for 11 years? Was this when he did sheet rock work? And there were four or five years from when he received his MBA in 1989 until he was elected to the House of Representatives. Did he start a business? What did he do? It isn't reflected on his legislative bio. Why not? Wouldn't such a pro-business candidate want to emphasize his private sector work experience?

Why does such a strongly anti-government advocate only list government work on his official bio?
What influences in his life have led him to be a staunch supporter of business on the one hand, and a state legislator who is so poor he sleeps on his couch in his legislative office? A vow of poverty may be a noble thing, but I can't recall it being part of a pro-capitalist ideology. And the ideology doesn't fit with someone taking cash handouts from lobbyists. He said in a surveillance tape when he asked Allen for a loan to cover his credit card debt that he didn't want any payments that he didn't work for. What non-legislative work did he do for Allen in exchange for the $600 to $700 we saw on the video, not to mention the other times Allen says he gave him money because he felt sorry for him?


Browne called him one of the hardest workers in the history of the Alaska legislature, ever. Surely such a hard worker with an MBA could have earned enough money when the legislature was not in session to live off his $24,000 legislative pay plus more than $150 per diem. Do Alaskans really want people managing the state's budget who can't manage their own personal budgets? Here's a staunch anti-government, no-tax zealot, who won't vote for any legislation that raises taxes, even though the oil companies being taxed support the bill. He did say he would be willing to vote for it if the assessment of 20% were called a fee instead of a tax.

This is a man, it seems to me, who has painted himself into a corner by signing a no-tax increase pledge. In the 2006 session he was faced with what he sees as legislation necessary to develop the gas pipeline, which he sees as critical for the state. But he can't vote for it because he signed the no tax increase pledge 12 years earlier, though it's ok to tell others to vote for it. It's commendable for a politician to stick to his promise. But not when it's a promise that now is going to do harm to the state and people of Alaska. It made more sense to him to stick to a principle he espoused before he had any legislative experience or apparently business experience than to say, "After 12 years in the legislature, I now realize that life is more complex than I thought. There are times when voting against a tax will do more harm than the tax will do. Since the oil producers - the people being taxed here - are saying this bill is essential to getting the gas pipeline built, I'm going to make an exception here." Nixon went to China, but Kohring couldn't vote for the PPT bill.

So we have a man of contradictions. A man with degrees in business who is too poor, despite a hefty per diem, to afford a place to stay other than his office when in Juneau. Why?
Is he simply ignoring his personal needs to earn a living in his zeal to serve his constituents?
Is he just unable to succeed in the entrepreneurial ventures he's studied and he believes in so strongly?
Are there other explanations?

He is quite unique and leaves me scratching my head trying to understand these seeming paradoxes.

[added Oct. 30 - For a similar assessment in a very different style, read Michael Carey's take on Vic Kohring.]

Kohring Trial - Opening Arguments Available

The ADN has posted the audio for the opening arguments in the Kohring Trial. Now you can see how much I left out in my post that day.

It starts with Prosecutor Joe Bottini. If you want to hear the government's case against Kohring, this is the government's story.

Bottini is followed by Defense Attorney John Henry Browne. The two opening arguments took about 80 minutes altogether. Now you can compare what Browne sounds like to the newspaper man described in today's ADN article by Lisa Demer. What does it mean when the paper writes about the defense attorney instead of about the defendant?

Richard Power's The Echo Maker

Cranes keep landing as night falls. Ribbons of them roll down, slack against the sky. They float in from all compass points, in kettles of a dozen, dropping with the dusk. Scores of Grus canadensis settle on the thawing river. They gather on the island flats, grazing, beating their wings, trumpeting: the advance wave of a mass evacuation. More birds land by the minute, the air red with calls.

So opens The Echo Maker. The sandhill cranes who congregate along the Platte River near Kearney, Nebraska on their way to Alaska play an integral role in this novel about Mark Schluter whose car lands upside down in the middle of the cranes one night and who comes out of his coma with Capgras Syndrome - a cognitive dysfunction in which he believes that his sister is an imposter.

The way the birds remember the long journey to Alaska and back each year, is a metaphor for Powers' examination of the physiological basis of memory and the tricks this physiology plays with human perception.

What does a bird remember? Nothing that anything else might say. Its body is a map of where it has been, in this life and before. Arriving at these shallows once, the crane colt knows how to return. This time next year it will come back through pairing off for life. The year after next here again, feeding the map to its own new colt. Then one more bird will recall just what birds remember.

Mark's brain concludes from the signals it receives from the sensory impressions of Karin Schluter, that this lady looks, acts, and sounds like his sister, but isn't. Karin, the sister, begins to wonder if she is the same person who was Mark's sister. Gerald Weber, the famous cognitive neurologist's brain raises doubts about his whole career and marriage from his contact with Mark and Karin.

The birds also place everything into the context of time.

The yearling crane's past flows into the now of all living things. Something in its brain learns this river, a word sixty million years older than speech, older even than this flat water.

Karin moves in with an old boyfriend while she cares for her brother after the accident. Daniel, the saintly idealist who lives to save the habitat of the cranes from developers, is the man she admires for his goodness, but who also makes her feel inadequate. Sexually, she can't resist Robert Karsh, another former boyfriend, the moral opposite of Daniel, who is now a wealthy developer planning the condos in the birds' sanctuary.

There is also the mystery of the note left in Mark's hospital room:

I am No One
but Tonight on North Line Road
GOD led me to you
so You could Live
and bring back someone else.

Throughout, the book examines the mysteries of the human brain, its evolutionary functions, and the quirky ways its dysfunctions affect people. Professor Gerald Weber is fictional, yet his famous book, Wider than the Sky, is a real book about the physiology of consciousness, written by Nobel Prize winner Gerald M. Edelman, MD, PhD, some of which can be read online.

Overall, this is a stunning book, that has taken me off into Nebraska, into Mark and Karin's world, into Dr. Weber's questions about academic publishing and the value of his life, into the mystery of how the brain works, and into the lives of the magnificent, prehistoric cranes who we are sometimes lucky to see as they pass through Anchorage on their way further north.

The Trials - Why are we doing this?

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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?

They looked at the plea agreement and Browne reiterated the point that the government WILL recommend a reduced sentence if Smith cooperates sufficiently.

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 covered

It 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.

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:

• 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 comparable prices. I'm sure Kohring could have rented a used
truck for much less in the Valley.

• How come these things aren’t mentioned in your plea agreement?

Browne had Smith go through his plea agreement with the government. This is the document he signed when he pled guilty that spells out the conditions of the deal he made with the government. It turns out there were two - a public one and a sealed one. The sealed one, apparently is now unsealed. Browne informed the Judge of this as though he thought the Judge didn't already know. There seemed to be two key points Browne was aiming at in his discussion of the 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.