Alaska Political Corruption

Tip on Understanding Personal Technology

2012-01-28T15:29:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

So I'm trying to learn more about our wired and wireless world. And I found this "Special Report" from the Economist, which taught me some things even though it came out in October.

Public May Get to See FBI File on Coconut Road Probe into Don Young

2012-01-10T13:01:00.000-09:00

Anchorage--

A federal judge has ruled that the federal government must give a document-by-document explanation of why it wants to hold back files relating to the criminal probe into a change in an earmark engineered while U.S. Rep. Don Young (R.-Alaska) was Chairman of the House Transportation Committee. The Department of Justice investigated how language in a bill passed by Congress changed after passage to benefit a real estate developer interested in a Florida highway project who had organized a campaign fundraiser for Alaska's only Member of the House.

In litigation arising from a request based on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the court ruled that the federal government's claim that Young's privacy interests justified a blanket refusal to turn over files failed given that this investigation was never private. Indeed, Congress itself had taken the "decidedly uncommon" step of passing legislation directing the Department of Justice (DoJ) to investigate the change in language in the Coconut Road earmark.

Additionally, the court stated that "It is difficult to understand how there could not be a substantial public interest in disclosure of documents regarding the manner in which DoJ handled high profile allegations of public corruption about an elected official."

You can find a link to the ruling here.

House Ethics Committee Dismisses Fundraising Complaint Against Don Young

2011-12-20T13:44:00.001-09:00

Los Angeles, California--

The U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Committee has announced that Rep. Don Young (R.-Alaska) will not face sanctions based on a complaint about fundraising for his legal defense fund. The panel did, however, announce that the case had triggered a change in the rules to prevent future violations of the spirit of the restrictions.

Several U.S. Senators Call for Justice Department to Fire Prosecutors and Apologize to Family of Ted Stevens

2011-12-15T06:59:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

In the wake of the bungled prosecution of then-U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, several U.S. Senators called for the Justice Department to apologize to the family of their late former colleague and fire the prosecutors responsible for failure to turn over evidence to the defense as required.

The strongest statements came from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah, a close friend of Stevens who served as a character witness during the five-week trial in 2008. Hatch told the newspaper The Hill that the Justice Department prosecuted the case against Stevens "vindictively" and urged the disbarment of the government lawyers responsible. Hatch said the prosecutors ignored exculpatory evidence that "should have said to them, 'This man should never have been indicted to begin with.'"

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C., said that "If you look at the particulars of that case, the system melted down and trophy-hunting became sort of the focus."

The Hill noted that some Senators contacted by the newspaper would not offer public comment on the Stevens case but suggested that the failed prosecution had "made the agency gun-shy to go after other lawmakers accused of wrongdoing."

Appellate Court Determines that Judge's Finding of Contempt Against Ted Stevens Prosecutors Was Civil, Not Criminal

2011-12-10T12:20:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

Ruling that the contempt in question was civil rather than criminal, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the trial judge did not err in finding that two prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case had committed contempt without providing the pair the procedural protections required when charging someone with criminal contempt.   U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan had made the contempt finding against William Welch and Brenda Morris--two attorneys who formerly supervised the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section--during post-trial litigation over discovery failures in the case.

The contempt finding was previously lifted, and this litigation over that finding appears to be over.

Why Did Rod Blagojevich Get Sentenced to 14 Years in Prison?

2011-12-08T17:46:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

When my wife—a nurse—saw yesterday that former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich got a 14-year sentence for public corruption, she said “Is that all?” When her former prosecutor husband heard thesame news, I thought “That sounds like a long time for a guy society cannot beafraid of.” Here’s an explanation whichattempts to reconcile those different reactions.

This sentence will turn out to be longer than you mightthink—there is no parole in the federal system, and a defendant sentenced underfederal law must serve 85 percent of the sentence. That means that Blagojevich will servealmost 12 years of that 14-year sentence.

This was a significant victory for the prosecution, whichsimplified its presentation for the jury on a retrial after the first trialproduced a hung jury as to most counts.

The length of the sentence reflected a number offactors. The former Governor stood convicted of serious offenses: 18felony counts that included wire fraud, bribery, attempted extortion, conspiracy, and lying to the FBI. Blagojevich tried to sell the U.S. Senateseat formerly held by Barack Obama. He shookdown the CEO of a children’s hospital. Andit’s never a good thing for somebody being sentenced when the judge concludes that that the defendant committed perjury (“The jury didn’t believe him, and neither did I”).

Also going against Blagojevich was his state’s sad historyin this area. Illinois has been acesspool of public corruption for decades, with three previous Governors beingconvicted of such crimes over the past 40 years. (A fourth went to prison for feloniescommitted after he left office). Indeed,Blagovevich’s immediate predecessor as Governor is serving a 6.5-year sentence,a term in prison that was apparently insufficient to deter the next man to fillthe chair.

Blagojevich had a lot of opportunities to learn the contoursand consequences of public corruption—he served as a prosecutor, statelegislator, and Member of the U.S. House before becoming Governor in 2003.

Most people sentenced in most courtrooms have nothing to dowith public corruption, making it difficult to evaluate sentences by ordinarystandards. There is no need to keep Blagojevichin prison to prevent him from abusing the public trust again, so isolation orrestraint for public safety is not a factor in sentencing him. If society is not locking up Blagojevich becausewe are scared of him, why a 14-year sentence?

The judge imposed that length of sentence to set boundariesto show the public what public corruption is and to scare other publicofficials away from committing acts of public corruption. “The harm here is not measured in the valueof property or money,” U.S. District Judge James Zagel said. “The harm is the erosion of public trust ingovernment.”

The judge accepted the logic of the prosecution’s sentencingmemorandum. That document quoted alegal decision’s statement that “Government corruption breeds cynicism andmistrust of elected officials. Itcauses the public to disengage from the democratic process because…the publicbegins to think of politics as ‘only for the insiders.’”

The average annual cost of incarceration of a federal inmatenow runs well over $25,000 per year, so keeping Blagojevich will set back thetaxpayers well over a quarter million dollars. I recognize the unusual nature ofBlagojevich’s case, but financial considerations in imprisonment should playmore into our thinking about sentencing.

Non-Profit News Outlets Will Help NBC-Owned TV Stations to Dig Deeper and Smarter

2011-12-06T06:04:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

Brian Lamb said three years ago that I was a sign of a trend, and news from yesterday makes the C-SPAN founder look even more prescient.

The Los Angeles Times reported that local TV stations around the country are teaming up with non-profit news organizations to increase the stations' investigative, enterprise, and analytical journalism.   The 10 local stations involved are owned and operated by the NBC network.

The collaborations between the commercial TV stations and the non-commercial outfits like public broadcasting stations and the on-line investigative operation ProPublica are aimed at getting at more serious and complicated stories.   Examples of what ProPublica calls "deep dives" could include examinations of the quality and finances of public schools and conflicts of interest involving doctors and drug companies.

Brian Lamb's reference to me as a harbinger for the media came shortly after my stay in Washington, D.C. covering the Ted Stevens trial for five weeks in the fall of 2008.   I was lucky enough to be able to stay with friends who had just rented an apartment about a mile from the courthouse, and they were kind enough to have a dinner waiting for me when I got back each night.   I posted my coverage of the trial on this blog, and I made just as much money covering that trial as I have from modeling and stand-up comedy combined.

Legislation to Toughen Federal Laws Against Public Corruption Moving in Congress

2011-12-02T09:56:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

The Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives reported out a bill yesterday that would address a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued last year on the honest-services fraud statute. The legislation is H.R. 2572, "The Clean Up Government Act of 2011."

You can find a transcript of yesterday's hearing here.

Have We Reached Peak Lawyer? (Is Law School a Good Idea for Many of the People Pursuing It?)

2011-12-01T12:06:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

This blog post assembles the evidence that the demand for legal services in America is declining while the number of people who want to go law school has stayed high.   Specifically, the number of law school graduates each year is approximately double the number of available legal jobs, a number of which will be taken by experienced attorneys who are now unemployed.   Law school for many entering students is now a consumer fraud, particularly for those going to lower-ranked schools and especially for those who end up taking on tens--or hundreds--of thousands of dollars of debt to attend.   It may even be true--as this post suggests--that a law degree may make some law school graduates generally less employable than they would be if they had not slogged through those three years in school.

A big part of the problem is delusion on a mass scale.  Too many people hear the stories of newly minted attorneys making $160,000 the first year out of law school and see themselves in that picture.   There are people like that, just like there are attorneys working at large law firms for more than a decade who feel pressured by their partners to bill $600 per hour for their work.   But the reality is that the attorneys raking in those kind of big bucks are a minority that is facing strong pressure and resistance from clients who are increasingly refusing to pay those high hourly rates.   Set aside questions of whether even high-income lawyers find the work excessive or boring, on a purely financial level the reality is that there are a significant number of unemployed lawyers and a large number of lawyers with some work who are struggling to get by.

Going to law school was a good decision for me, and it might be a good decision for others.   But caveat emptor, folks.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan, who provided some of the title of this blog post.

[UPDATED for clarity and to correct a number.]

Ted Stevens Would Have Liked this Newspaper Story

2011-11-30T08:53:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

Washington Post, posted yesterday: "Despite Earmark Ban, Lawmakers Try to Give Money to Hundreds of Pet Projects."

More Media Notes: Lisa Murkowski and I Appear on TV Talking about Sexual Abuse Charges for Bill Allen

2011-11-29T14:13:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

KTVA, Channel 11 in Anchorage, has posted its story on the new call for Bill Allen's prosecution on charges of transportation of an underage girl across state lines for immoral purposes.

Note that I used to prosecute child sexual cases for the State of Alaska.

Traffic Cop in the Alaska Winter: Notes on News of the Day

2011-11-28T17:03:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has written the U.S. Department of Justice seeking "an objective, thorough and independent" investigation of why the federal government has not prosecuted--and has apparently blocked the State of Alaska's prosecution of--Bill Allen for allegedly bringing an underage girl across state lines for "immoral and exploitative purposes."

KTVA-TV, Anchorage's Channel 11, interviewed me about this letter, and that station's report should appear tonight. My earlier thoughts on Sen. Murkowski's question are here.

The U.S. House Ethics Committee will decide by January 11 whether it will investigate U.S. Rep. Don Young (R.-Alaska) on a matter that apparently involves contributions to his legal defense fund.

Amanda Coyne of Alaska Dispatch has a substantial piece exploring whether the collapse of the prosecution of then-U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R.-Alaska) will lead to reforms aimed at stemming prosecutorial abuses of the discovery process.

Groh on the Radio: Extended Interview on the Week's News on "POLAR PEN"

2011-11-25T13:40:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

Here's a link to a discussion I had with reporter Robert Woolsey that goes over the investigation of the Ted Stevens prosecutors and the Ted Stevens trial. It comes from the website of the Sitka public radio station KCAW. Listening to it this morning, I was struck that this is the kind of long-form coverage of complicated issues that only public broadcasting would put on the airwaves.

KTVA Channel 11 in Anchorage Posts Police Files on Investigations into Bill Allen's Alleged Crimes with Underage Girls

2011-11-24T13:16:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

KTVA, the Channel 11 TV station in Anchorage, has posted files from the Anchorage Police Department generated by investigations into crimes involving minors allegedly committed by former Alaska powerbroker, tycoon, and convicted briber Bill Allen. The station's website also features a piece by Bill McAllister in both video and print form that asks the question "Did the federal government sell out victims of sexual abuse in order to nail some politicians for taking cheap bribes?"

Given that it's Thanksgiving, I don't have time to answer that question or set out my different perspective on it except to point you to my earlier blog post on the related topic of U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski asking Attorney General Eric Holder why Allen has not been prosecuted for sex crimes. That post ends with the question with this question for Sen. Murkowski: "When will you start pressing the Attorney General to explain why the federal government has not prosecuted Ben Stevens, the former President of the Alaska State Senate whom Bill Allen pleaded guilty to bribing?"

Mark Allen's Ex-Wife Accused of Murder

2011-11-23T12:20:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

If you have extra time over the Thanksgiving holiday, you might want to check out this racy tale in the Seattle Weekly about how the former wife of Mark Allen--Bill Allen's son--is facing a murder charge in Washington state.

The story contains details of Mark Allen's life after his horse won the 2009 Kentucky Derby.   A former 50 to 1 longshot, Mine That Bird now has its own website and is "the subject of a new series of graphic novels for kids and a soon-to-be animated movie."

The article--dated November 16--does get at least one detail wrong about Bill Allen, the former CEO of the now-defunct multinational oil-services giant VECO.   The piece says that Bill Allen "still faces prison time, but hasn't been sentenced."    In fact, Bill Allen was scheduled to be released yesterday following a period in custody that included time in federal prison and a stay in a halfway house in his home state of New Mexico.

This Seattle Weekly piece joins other media coverage in giving you a feeling that Mark Allen has lived a more, um, colorful life than most.   He met his ex-wife--variously described in the article as "leggy" and "formerly drop-dead-gorgeous"--in 2006.   This was the same year his father became a federal informant and apparently began negotiating a plea agreement that spared Mark from facing prosecution for bribery, and the year before the sale of VECO apparently netted Mark Allen $30 million.   Mark Allen met his wife when she chauffeured him in a limousine in Las Vegas she started driving after competing as Miss Washington in a beauty contest held in that gambling metropolis.

Happy Thanksgiving.   As another holiday gift for you, I'll repeat what I told a reporter this morning.   The odds are higher that it will hit 85 degrees in Alaska tomorrow than there will be any prosecutions of the prosecutors for any acts committed in the investigations of the "POLAR PEN" public corruption scandals.   Despite today's editorial in the Anchorage Daily News calling for either for a prosecution of Bill Allen for child abuse charges or an explanation of his non-prosecution, the multimillionaire former tycoon and powerbroker will not be charged for any crimes involving underaged girls that allegedly occurred before August 30, 2006, the day he started cooperating with the federal government in its probe of Alaska public corruption.

Bill Allen Will Escape Prosecution for Crimes Involving Underage Minors

2011-11-22T12:54:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

It looks very much like Bill Allen will skate on charges involving sexual abuse of minors.    The State of Alaska's top prosecutor said that absent new information, the ex-CEO of the now-defunct oil services giant VECO will not be prosecuted by the state on the allegations of sex with underage girls.   The federal government has already said that it will take a pass.

Richard Svobodny, deputy attorney general, told the Anchorage Daily News and Anchorage's KTVA Channel 11 that a major problem with state prosecution of Allen for sexual abuse of minors was insufficient evidence to prove that he had sex with a girl 15 years of age or younger.   Setting aside exceptions that don't apply to Allen, the age of consent under Alaska state law is 16.

Svobodny said that his review of the evidence involving "five or so" underage females indicated, however, that there was a good case to be made against Allen on federal charges under the Mann Act for transporting a person under the age of 18 across state lines for purposes of prostitution.   One of Allen's accusers told investigators that he brought her multiple times from Seattle to Anchorage for sex when she was 16.

There will be no federal prosecution of Allen for crimes with underage girls, either.   The state lawyer told the Daily News that federal prosecutors never explicitly said why they would not allow Allen to be prosecuted under the Mann Act, even when the State of Alaska asked permission to have a state attorney to be cross-designated to bring the federal charge.    Svobodny said that federal officials alluded to Allen's conviction and sentence on federal public corruption charges.

In addition to this "We already nailed this guy" proposition suggesting concerns about resource allocation, rough justice, or both, another clue about the lack of future federal or state prosecution of Bill Allen is to be found in KTVA's account.   The TV station reported that "Svobodny says there were impediments to bringing state charges against Allen, either for public corruption or for sexual encounters with teenage girls...."

Those "impediments" for the State of Alaska might include the statute of limitations as to public corruption charges and inadequate corroboration regarding sexual acts with girls then under 16 as to sexual abuse of minor charges under state law.    For both the federal and state governments, however, the "can of worms" issue could be another "impediment" to any new criminal charges against Allen.    Any additional charges against Allen by any government for crimes committed before August 30, 2006 --his "flip day"--would have to address the practical and legal issues created by a full airing of the conversations between Allen and federal officials when he started as a cooperating witness and informant.

(A bonus--perhaps--to clicking on the link for KTVA is some footage of me discussing the court order issued yesterday about the special counsel's investigation of the prosecutors involved in the Ted Stevens trial.)

Interesting Discussions Available from the Book Tour for Crude Awakening

2011-11-21T23:28:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

Amanda Coyne and Tony Hopfinger's series of media events to promote their new book Crude Awakening--a tour of recent political events on the Last Frontier, including the public corruption scandals--has included both an online chat on www.firedoglake.com and an appearance on the Alaska Public Radio Network's talk show "Talk of Alaska." I learned things from both of them.

TV News

2011-11-21T13:46:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

I'll be on KTVA Channel 11 tonight at 5 p.m., 6 p.m., and 10 p.m. talking about the court order on the investigation into the Ted Stevens prosecutors. I was interviewed by veteran Alaska journalist Bill McAllister.

UPDATED WITH MORE NEWS AND SPECULATION--Judge Sullivan Announces Special Counsel Found "Widespread" and "At Times Intentional" Misconduct by Ted Stevens Prosecutors, but Recommends No Prosecution for the Prosecutors

2011-11-21T08:14:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

The trial judge in the Ted Stevens case has issued an order summarizing a report by special counsel investigating whether prosecutors involved in that case should be prosecuted for criminal contempt of court.    U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan states that special counsel "concluded that the investigation and prosecution of Senator Stevens 'were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated his defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government's key witness...'"

Judge Sullivan states, however, that Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke, III does not recommend charging anyone for criminal contempt because the trial judge never gave a specific "clear and unequivocal" order for the prosecutors to follow the law on sharing evidence with the defense (a process known as "discovery" in the law).

The judge will allow the review of the report by the Department of Justice, "the subject attorneys," and the lawyers for Senator Stevens before deciding how much to release.    Although that review process will run on at least until January, Judge Sullivan's order makes clear his desire to release to the public as much of the report as possible.

Those are the headlines from today's 12-page order.   Now for some details and analysis:

1.   This order and the report it is based on are blistering for those involved with the investigation and prosecution of Ted Stevens.    According to the order, Schuelke and his co-investigator William B. Shields “found that at least some of the concealment was willful and intentional, and related to many of the issues raised by the defense during the course of the Stevens trial.”   Judge Sullivan's order says that special counsel found "significant, widespread, and at times intentional misconduct."

2.    Although the report does not further describe any of the information that was improperly withheld from the defense, it is clear that much of it has not been officially disclosed.    It is also clear that some of that information relates to allegations of sexual abuse of minor(s) by Bill Allen, that person only referenced in the report as "the government's key witness."

3.    The announced decision not to prosecute any prosecutors for criminal contempt based on the lack of a "clear and unequivocal" order from the trial judge to the prosecutors to follow the law on discovery seems--with all due respect--to be a dodge.    A better way to understand the lack of prosecution comes in the report's use of the word "systematic" to describe the discovery failures.   The collapse of the Ted Stevens prosecution produced an orgy of fingerpointing among the government attorneys involved, and some of those fingers pointed at the cultural attitudes about discovery within the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section.    Veteran Washington lawyer Schuelke may have decided it was too difficult--or unfair--to single out individual prosecutors for prosecution in this situation.

Additionally, the suicide last year of former Ted Stevens prosecutor Nicholas Marsh may have brought more complications to efforts to hold any government attorney criminally responsible for the misconduct found in the Schuelke report.   Some of the remaining prosecutors under fire seemed susceptible to the temptation to dump it all on the dead guy, and that possible defense might have been a factor in stopping any prosecution of a prosecutor for criminal contempt.

The judge's order includes a footnote stating "Mr. Schuelke 'offer[s] no opinion as to whether a prosecution for Obstruction of Justice under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 might lie against one or more of the subject attorneys and might meet the standard enunciated in 9-27.220 of the Principles of Federal Prosecution.'"    Although this footnote seems to kick the ball into the Justice Department's court, this blogger says that no prosecutor in the Ted Stevens case will face any prosecution for any offense related to this matter.

4.   The court's order sets out deadlines for a process to release various materials.   Those sealed materials include transcripts and pleadings in the cases of former state legislators Pete Kott and Vic Kohring as well as Ted Stevens.   The order also references materials from the prosecution of former Anchorage businessman Josef Boehm.   That case involved Bambi Tyree, whom Allen is alleged to have had sexual relations with when Tyree was underage.

5.   The judge really wants to release as much as possible of this 500-page report, for which Schuelke and Shields reviewed more than 150,000 pages of documents and conducted numerous witness interviews and 12 depositions over two and a half years.   About a third of the 12-page court order is devoted to laying out arguments and legal precedents justifying why the report should be made public.    This order sets up a big battle over disclosure, as the Justice Department and some or all of the attorneys whose conduct is scrutinized will not want some of the report released.

6. In addition to the probe by the special counsel appointed by Judge Sullivan, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR") has conducted a separate and parallel investigation in its role as DoJ's internal ethics watchdog.   The Associated Press reported today that "a lawyer familiar with the investigation" said that OPR's draft report found that Department of Justice attorneys Joseph Bottini and James Goeke, as well as FBI agent Mary Beth Kepner, "engaged in misconduct" in the Ted Stevens trial.   The AP report has similar information to an NPR report last year.    Although Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month that OPR "had just about finalized" its report, the AP reported today that "lawyers familiar with that investigation" said that it remained open.     Whatever the status of the OPR report, it is far more likely that significant portions of the court-ordered special counsel report conducted by Schuelke and Shields will be released publicly than it is that the Justice Department will make available the OPR report.

CORRECTION--Bill Allen Gets Released Next Week

2011-11-16T17:18:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

I got my Tuesdays mixed up as I read the Associated Press article referenced in my last post. Bill Allen is scheduled to be released next Tuesday (as opposed to yesterday).

Bill Allen Reportedly to Be Released from Federal Custody

2011-11-15T18:45:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

The Associated Press reports that Federal Bureau of Prisons show that convicted briber Bill Allen is scheduled to be released from custody today. The long-time CEO of the now-defunct oil-services multinational corporation VECO and Alaska powerbroker had been in a halfway house in New Mexico, the state in which he was born and his son has a ranch.

Similarities in the Fall of Two Icons

2011-11-13T16:37:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

It is a sadly familiar story.

A man starts with little and rises to the top of his profession.   He becomes a national legend with record-breaking longevity in his field.    He is renowned for his power and good works.   He towers over the landscape, earning the admiration, affection, and love of many people he has never met. By the time he reaches his 80s, he is an icon within his home region, where his success makes him a one-man economic powerhouse.   Monuments are named after him, and he seems untouchable.

Less attractively, his triumphs over several decades seems to produce an arrogance and a sense of entitlement.   He ages in place to the point that his old friends have all died or fallen away, leaving him without any peer around him who will tell him he is wrong or is making a misjudgment.   He becomes so identified with the institution he has served that it appears to become difficult for him to distinguish between the interests of that institution and his own interests.    A political tone-deafness creeps in.   He may even want to establish a dynasty by trying to hang on long enough to hand over his job to his son.   Most unfortunately, he either cannot see or cannot address appropriately the terrible flaws of a close associate--a long-time friend whose crimes include an apparent predilection towards sexual abuse of minors--and the flaws of that close associate are central in causing the great man to fall.

As the news and commentary of the last several days have pounded in to us, this is the story of Joe Paterno, the head coach of the football team at Pennsylvania State University for 45 years until last week.   It is also the story of Ted Stevens, Alaska's U.S. Senator from 1968 until his departure following his defeat at the polls in 2008.

There is more to say later about the similarities--and the obvious differences--between "JoePa" and "Uncle Ted."   The columnist Scott Ostler has already passed on a reader's quotation of F. Scott Fitzgerald:   "Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy."

Will Wonders Never Cease Department: Vic Kohring Has Sued Bill Allen for Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

2011-11-10T18:51:00.001-09:00

Anchorage--

Amanda Coyne of Alaska Dispatch reports that ex-State Rep. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) has sued Bill Allen. Filed last June, the suit reportedly includes claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and damage to reputation. According to the report, Kohring alleges that Allen's testimony against the former legislator caused him to lose his family and left him "seen as a corrupt politician."

The problems with Kohring's position in this lawsuit include (a) the FBI tapes and (b) Kohring's plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery.

Attorney General Says that Internal Department of Justice Report on Prosecutorial Failures in Ted Stevens Case Will Be Finished Soon and Could Be Released

2011-11-08T21:03:00.000-09:00

Anchorage--

To flesh out the comments of Attorney General Eric Holder to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today, he said that the Department of Justice's internal ethics unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility, has "just about finalized" a "multi- hundred page report" on the Ted Stevens case, which Holder arranged to have dismissed in 2009 in the wake of revelations of botched discovery. Asked if the Justice Department would share the report with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder said that decision "is up to the people at OPR."

Traffic Cop in the Winter Sunshine: Two Links for You

2011-11-08T13:05:00.000-09:00

Anchorage--

I am on deadline, so all I will do today is point to two other articles:

1. U.S. Senators grilled Attorney General Eric Holder today on possible criminal or professional sanctions for the team of prosecutors who handled the case against former U.S. Ted Stevens. You can read an account from Politico here.

2. If you haven't seen Jack Abramoff's "60 Minutes" interview from Sunday night, here is a summary from the Washington Post and a link to the program.

It Takes One to Tell Us How to Clean It Up: Convicted Briber Jack Abramoff Gives Tips for Fighting Public Corruption

2011-11-03T11:14:00.000-08:00

Anchorage--

Fresh from more than three and a half years in prison for crimes including bribery and fraud, former Washington super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff is pushing a new book that offers suggestions on how to clean up the system.

The Internet is alive with the proposals of the man in the black hat, who says that he held sway over 100 Members of Congress:

1. Shut down campaign contributions and gifts from lobbyists

2. End campaign contributions from recipients from federal funds

3. Slam shut the revolving door by prohibiting anyone who has ever been a Member of Congress or a member of the Congressional staff from ever working for "any company, organization, or association which lobbies the federal government"--Abramoff says the ban on working must include what is called "consulting," and he announces that the best route to influence was to promise high-paying jobs to the high-ranking staff members of Members of Congress

4. Institute term limits for Members of Congress that would limit Senators to 12 years in office and Representatives to six years in office

5. Ban Members of Congress from proposing, promoting, or perhaps even voting on projects that bring federal money to their districts or states

6. Have state legislatures--not voters--elect U.S. Senators

One commentator points out that Abramoff's reform agenda might be partly motivated by an implicit suggestion that the problem is a whole worm-ridden system, not just the famously rotten apple that he is. There are obviously a lot of arguments for and against each of these proposals, but Abramoff's publicity blitz for his book--including an appearance on the TV program "60 Minutes" this Sunday--insures that they will get some attention.

Tapping into the Vein of Alaskans' Conflicted Views of "POLAR PEN": "Alaska Edition" Version

2011-10-27T10:12:00.000-08:00

Anchorage--

A wrap-up of the re-sentencings of former Alaska legislators Pete Kott and Vic Kohring contains one of the purest distillations of the ambivalent feelings on the Last Frontier about the federal investigation into Alaska public corruption.   In kicking off the discussion last Friday on the public radio and TV program "Alaska Edition," Eric Adams of Alaska Dispatch noted that many Alaskans saw the federal government exposing a "deeply corrupted legislature" as well as leaving its own competence "in tatters" through the revelation of prosecutorial misconduct.

Veteran Anchorage journalist Paul Jenkins, editor of the Anchorage Daily Planet, had a different take.   Jenkins--who once worked for ex-VECO CEO and confessed briber Bill Allen--said "There was no justice."   Jenkins downplayed the severity of the public corruption uncovered and emphasized the prosecutorial misconduct.    Jenkins also lamented that a result of the probe was the defeat of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens.

"We lost the most powerful Senator in the country. He was worth $5 billion a year to this state," Jenkins said.   "Plus he was 'Uncle Ted.'    If you needed something badly enough, 'Uncle Ted' would get it for you.   We lost him because of this."

Jenkins said that he thought that "Alaskans are generally sick of it" and "fed up" with the federal investigation and prosecutions.

Traffic Cop Awaiting Snow, Plus Some Criticism

2011-10-26T11:35:00.000-08:00

Anchorage--

If you haven't read the wrap-ups in the Anchorage Daily News and the Alaska Dispatch of the federal probe into Alaska public corruption pegged to last Friday's re-sentencings, you should.

More speculative is the piece in the Alaska Dispatch partly carved out of the new book on the scandals by the website's Amanda Coyne and Tony Hopfinger. My own view is that the article overplays the role of the "POLAR PEN" investigation in the political rise of Sarah Palin and goes too far in suggesting that the corruption investigation killed off the prospects for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska, but your mileage may vary.

Two Editorials on Kott and Kohring's Guilty Pleas

2011-10-25T14:21:00.001-08:00

Anchorage--

While I continue to sharpen my thinking on POLAR PEN's significance, here are two editorial reactions to the guilty pleas and re-sentencings last Friday that marked the official end of the federal probe into Alaska public corruption. The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner is relieved that former legislators Pete Kott and Vic Kohring had gained enough good judgment to throw in the towel and end their cases without more trials, while the Anchorage Daily News regrets that the discovery failures of federal prosecutors led to those two ex-lawmakers getting off too easily.

Los Angeles Times Has Two Good "POLAR PEN" Stories

2011-10-23T09:31:00.002-08:00

Anchorage--

Kim Murphy has two nice pieces today in the Los Angeles Times on the federal probe into Alaska public corruption. One sketches the overall story of "POLAR PEN" with a focus on the prosecutorial mistakes and/or misconduct that blunted the investigation's impact. Murphy quotes an unnamed attorney talking about the delays in wrapping up the seemingly unending probes of the probers: "Are they waiting for another prosecutor to commit suicide?"

The other story by Murphy looks at the case of Bruce Weyhrauch, a former Alaska legislator who spent almost five years charged with multiple felonies in the corruption probe. The article has Weyhrauch's lawyer Doug Pope digging through the statute books to find the obscure misdemeanor that his client ultimately pleaded guilty to at the end of the case. Weyhrauch is also writing a book entitled "It Could Happen to You."

You should read each of these, and maybe we will get more from Murphy on these topics.

Here's the Article from KTVA/Channel 11 Complete with Video

2011-10-23T08:42:00.000-08:00

Anchorage--

The link I put in for the interview I did on the meaning of "POLAR PEN" apparently broke down overnight, so here is the link to the article with the bonus of actually having the video.

Thanks to Steve Aufrecht for pointing out the broken link to me.

Still Working on What It Means, But Here's a Taste of What I Said on TV

2011-10-22T16:33:00.000-08:00

Anchorage--

I'm still working on my post on what "POLAR PEN" means, but here's a link to Bill McAllister's story that includes some material from his interview of me on this subject for Channel 11/KTVA. (Note this is an article, as the actual video does not appear to be posted on the KTVA website.)

Pete Kott and Vic Kohring Trade Away Their Citizenship Rights to Guarantee They Won't Return to Prison While Karen Loeffler Declares a Victorious End to "POLAR PEN"

2011-10-21T20:49:00.000-08:00

Anchorage—

On a chilly October morning, two men who had admittedly sold their public offices for cash traded away their rights as citizens to buy a guarantee that they would not return to prison.

The guilty pleas of Pete Kott and Vic Kohring triggered a muted victory dance by the people who had pursued them. U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler proclaimed at a post-sentencing press conference that the federal investigation into Alaska public corruption had been a "huge thing" and was now over.

In back-to-back hearings, U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline accepted the plea agreements the two former Alaska lawmakers made with prosecutors.   Kott pleaded to bribery, and Kohring pleaded to conspiracy to commit bribery.   The bribery occurred in connection with the efforts of VECO CEO Bill Allen and VECO VP Rick Smith in 2006 to get the Alaska Legislature to set tax rates on oil production at levels desired by major oil producers, who were big customers of that Alaska-based multinational oil-services company.

The Apologetic Former Drunk and the Surprisingly Quiet Lightweight

These two defendants were each elected seven times and had tenures as legislators from Southcentral Alaska districts that almost completely overlapped, and both engaged in public corruption.    But their different postures in court reflected their different stations in life.

Former Speaker of the Alaska House Kott went first, just as he rose far higher than his fellow Republican Kohring had in the legislature.   Kott apologized for his deeds and comments, at least those shown on the "Animal House"-style FBI surveillance videos taken in a VECO-rented hotel suite that were shown at his trial in 2007.   That trial produced convictions overturned on grounds of prosecutorial failures discovered in the meltdown of the Ted Stevens prosecution.

"In my heart, I thought that my actions in the Legislature were for the best interests of the State of Alaska," Kott told the court.   "I understand that my actions and words off the floor of the Legislature were perhaps wrong."

Judge Beistline agreed with the "wrong" part, telling Kott that the former Air Force officer had "demonstrated a significant character flaw."   After 14 years in the legislature, the judge said, Kott seemed to become tired and in need of financial help, so "you sold your soul."

Kott got the sentence he bargained for:   no additional time in prison beyond what he has already served on convictions that were overturned, three additional years of supervised release, a $10,000 fine--and no re-trial with the associated cost, hassle, and risk of going back behind bars.

Kohring's sentencing had a different feel presaged by him shaking my hand as he walked into the courtroom and thanking me for being "supportive" on this blog.   His comment reminded me of a conversation I had with my wife this morning. I told her that while Kott's lawyer could say in his sentencing memorandum that Kott recognizes that he had an alcohol problem but no longer suffers from it, it was unlikely that Kohring's attorney would say that his client recognized that he had formerly been delusional.

But I was wrong.   In a sentencing memorandum whose contents were only disclosed after the proceeding, Kohring's lawyer said that his client had acknowledged to the federal government before his 2007 trial that Bill Allen had given him $1,000 in cash at a restaurant during the 2006 session.   Kohring had previously maintained that he believed that the cash "was intended as a gift."

In the sentencing memorandum submitted this week, Kohring's new lawyer said that "What is different now is that Mr. Kohring has reflected on his actions and Bill Allen's motivations when this money was provided, and now acknowledges that receiving $1,000 came with expectations from Bill Allen that he would get something in return from Vic Kohring."

In another unusual move, Kohring's lawyer contended that his client's cluelessness justified a less severe sentence than other public corruption defendants received. Michael Filipovic, Kohring's Seattle-based public defender, said that the tall man sporting long locks was "not a person who had much persuasive ability with others in the House" and "not the person who could move other people's opinions."   In a reversal from what politicians' campaign brochures usually boast, Kohring's lawyer argued that it was his client's own low "horsepower" with his legislative colleagues that meant that he was less dangerous than other office-holding defendants.

The final surreal moment at Kohring's sentencing came when he got his chance to speak directly to the court.   His lawyer told his client in one of the loudest stage whispers ever that he had the right to say nothing, and--to the surprise of many in the courtroom--Kohring took that advice.

So there Kohring sat.   In addition to the "shame, embarrassment and public ridicule" that other defendants in the "POLAR PEN" probe have suffered, Kohring has particularly bad personal problems.   He has poor health that leads him to take medication to fight both pain and anxiety, and he is broke with only a lot of debts and only limited part-time work.   Kohring lives with his elderly parents in their mobile home in Wasilla, and serves as their primary caregiver.

Perhaps relieved that Kohring did not try to orally reclaim the innocence that his signed plea agreement had given away, Judge Beistline gave Kohring a break.   Kohring got the time served he had bargained for, and--in an area in which the parties had not negotiated a specific agreement--the judge only imposed 18 additional months of supervised release.    There is no fine for Kohring, and no curfew like Kott got for the first year of his supervised release.

Judge Beistline seemed to lecture Kohring less, and he reserved much of his remarks in both cases for denunciations of two men who were not in the courtroom.   The judge called Allen and Smith "two real disreputable characters" whose behavior in handing out baseball caps advertised their moral flaws.   (Testimony at Kott's trial showed that his girlfriend had made up caps that read "CBC"--for "Corrupt Bastards Club"--that Smith had flung around a bar.)    The judge called Allen and Smith "rich, greedy, amoral" (although Smith would surely disagree about the term "rich" being applied to him as well as the multimillionaire Allen).

The corruption scandals uncovered in the "POLAR PEN" probe were a "truly dark moment in the state's history," the judge said.   Echoing President Gerald Ford's comment when he pardoned his predecessor Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandals of the 1970s, Judge Beistline told Kott that he was accepting the plea agreement because "I recognize the need to put this long state nightmare to an end."

This Thing's Over and It Gave Us Better Government

That was a common theme from the prosecution and the judge throughout the day:   The federal investigation had improved Alaska government, and it was finished.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Feldis said during the Kohring sentencing that he was proud to live in a state and a country where public corruption was not tolerated, and he stated that "Juneau is not the same place it was five years ago."

What had happened to Kohring and Kott would "send shudders to anybody thinking about crossing the line," the judge told Kohring.

"The message has been sent," U.S. Attorney Loeffler said at the post-hearings press conference.    "We're in a different era, I hope."

Loeffler worked hard in front of the reporters to embrace the positive while tap dancing away from the negative.   Pointing to the 10 people convicted of crimes--including six people who had been sitting lawmakers, representing 10 percent of the legislature--the chief federal prosecutor in Alaska said that the record showed that "We're not a Third World country."   She said that the investigations and prosecution had produced a state legislature that was "more honest and open."

Although Loeffler left open the possibility that some other unit of the Department of Justice would do something else, she announced that the job was over for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Alaska.   "We're done."

Loeffler repeatedly refused to answer questions about some less attractive aspects of the federal probe into Alaska public corruption.   She made it clear that the decisions about Ben Stevens--including the one not to prosecute him--were not made by her office, but by other elements within the Department of Justice.    Any federal charges of Bill Allen for alleged sexual abuse of minors would come from the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, not her office.   All questions about investigations of prosecutors and investigators who formerly handled "POLAR PEN" cases had to be directed to people in Washington, D.C., where those investigations were being run.

Loeffler and the chief FBI agent in Anchorage, Mary Rook, did confirm the locations of some personnel who formerly worked on those cases.    The former lead FBI agent on POLAR PEN, Mary Beth Kepner, attended Kott's sentencing and still works in the Anchorage FBI office.    Chad Joy, who formerly served as co-lead agent and became a whistle-blower with grievances particularly aimed at Kepner, is no longer with the FBI.   Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Bottini still works in the Anchorage office, and Assistant U.S. Attorney James Goeke works for the Department of Justice outside of Alaska.

(This blog post was improved by sitting next to Mark Regan during some of the proceedings.    The precise wording of the quotation from Pete Kott comes from the report of Kim Murphy in the Los Angeles Times.)

Tomorrow:   What Did "POLAR PEN" Mean?

Television Announcement

2011-10-21T16:57:00.000-08:00

Anchorage--

While I am working away on my typically oversized post about today's sentencings and the "We're done" press conference from the U.S. Attorney, you can watch me on TV tonight on Channel 11, KTVA in Anchorage, as Bill McAllister interviews me about the significance of today's events and the entire federal investigation into Alaska public corruption.

Lawyer for Lead Ted Stevens Trial Prosecutor Brenda Morris Announces that Justice Department Has Cleared Her, Too

2011-10-19T21:36:00.002-08:00

Anchorage--

A Wall Street Journal blog has reported that the lawyer for Brenda Morris, lead prosecutor at the Ted Stevens trial, has announced that the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) "found absolutely no misconduct" by his client. OPR is the internal ethics watchdog for the Justice Department, and it conducted a probe of prosecutors involved with the trial after the case fell apart in early 2009 following jury verdicts of guilty against the long-time U.S. Senator.

Vic Kohring and Pete Kott Admit Numerous Specific Criminal Acts in Return for No More Time in Prison

2011-10-19T21:25:00.000-08:00

Anchorage--

Former State Representatives Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) and Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River) admitted to various specific acts constituting crimes of corruption in their plea agreements that prevent them from being sent back to prison when they are re-sentenced Friday.

Kohring admitted taking $1,000 from VECO CEO Bill Allen at a restaurant in February of 2006.   "I took this money intending to be rewarded and knowing and understanding why Bill Allen was giving it to me," reads the plea agreement signed by Kohring personally.   "By accepting this money with that knowledge and intent, I knowingly became a part of the conspiracy to bribe elected officials."

Kohring also admits what has been shown on tape about his famous meeting in the Baranof Hotel's Suite 604 on March 30, 2006, which is that he solicited Allen for help with the lawmaker's $17,000 credit card debt and then took cash from the oil-services tycoon.

For his part, Kott personally signed a plea agreement stating that he "corruptly solicited and agreed to accept over $7,900 in monetary payments and a promise of future employment from Bill Allen, Rick Smith and VECO Corporation."   Specifically, Kott admits that he accepted $7,993 on a false flooring invoice; solicited the promise of a future job from Bill Allen; received the benefit of a poll paid by VECO worth $2,700; and took $1,000 in cash from Allen.

As predicted here, the deals explicitly provide for no more prison time for either defendant.   Kott's deal is for three more years of supervised release and a $10,000 fine, while Kohring gets a term of supervision to be set by the judge and no fine (due to his poverty).

As Anchorage lawyer Mark Regan has suggested, the plea agreements leave the potentially tough sentencing remarks from U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline as about the only source of fireworks at the proceedings Friday morning.

Lurching Toward the Wrap-Up: Vic Kohring Cops a Plea, Edward Sullivan Gets Restored, and William Welch and Brenda Morris Fight Contempt Finding

2011-10-18T14:55:00.001-08:00

Providence, R.I.--

It's a busy week in the federal investigation into Alaska public corruption, and on my own getaway day I offer brief observations on three major developments.

Vic Kohring's plea bargain deprives us of what promised to be an entertaining (if sad) re-trial.   Confronted with damning evidence on tape, the former legislator's lawyers would probably have been pushed toward what one expert in public corruption cases has called the "I'm an idiot defense."   The theme likely would have been that Vic Kohring's head was as empty as his heart was full of love, a combination that made him incapable of committing the crimes he was charged with.    Kohring's attorney at the original trial compared him to Andy Griffith's character in the 1960s television show of the same name; his new set of lawyers at the re-trial would more been likely to paint him as similar to the cartoon world's Baby Huey or Gilligan from the Gilligan's Island program.

This defense's appeal is shown in Kohring's hometown newspaper.   Frontiersman editorials have been tough on the former lawmaker and his "sordid" criminal problems, and today's offering followed that pattern by calling on him to apologize to the public for taking a bribe.

But even while harshly criticizing his conduct, the editorial repeated what I have frequently heard about this defendant:   Many people who know Kohring suggest that he had a hard time understanding that he was violating the law, or at the very least think he was far from evil.   "We don't think Kohring was a corrupt, power-mad lawmaker eager to sell his influence to the highest bidder," the Wasilla-based newpaper editorialized.   "We think he was a naive man caught up in sinister business doings beyond his ken."

I continue to believe that Vic Kohring, like his fellow former Alaska legislator Pete Kott, will not be sentenced to any more prison time at the back-to-back hearings set for Friday morning in Anchorage federal court.   As blogger Philip Munger suggests, it is possible that each of those defendants will get some time in a halfway house--if that occurred, it strikes me that the location would likely be in Alaska.

A lawyer who tried hard to put Kohring and other "POLAR PEN" defendants in prison is breathing a lot easier today.    NPR's Carrie Johnson reports today that government attorney Edward Sullivan has returned to the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section and its caseload of prosecuting public corruption cases.   NPR quotes Sullivan's lawyer claim that his client has been "exonerated" by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the agency's internal watchdog.   OPR launched an investigation into several government attorneys in the wake of the collapse of the botched Ted Stevens prosecution.    Sullivan was sent to a relatively obscure post at the DoJ's Office of International Affairs during that investigation, a move that looked like exile to a backwater to some observers.   Sullivan's return to the Public Integrity Section to work on some high-profile cases allowed his lawyer to label him as "vindicated" and the Wall Street Journal to describe him as "back in the saddle."

Two of the other prosecutors under the gun in that investigation--former Public Integrity chief William Welch and Brenda Morris, former principal deputy chief of the section--are continuing to push for lifting of a contempt finding against them entered during the implosion of the Ted Stevens case.   Much of the argument at a court hearing yesterday centered on the legal question of whether the contempt was criminal or civil.   Attention also turned, however, to the investigations of the investigators, the last remaining threads in the long-running federal probe into Alaska public corruption:   the investigations of the investigators.   In addition to the ethics probe run by OPR, the trial judge in the Ted Stevens case appointed Washington, D.C.-based attorney Henry Schuelke to conduct a rare criminal investigation into the conduct of six prosecutors in that case, including Morris, the lead prosecutor at that trial.   It's been more than two and a half years since Schuelke's probe was announced in April of 2009.

A judge at the oral argument yesterday asked the lawyer for Morris "You're happy to put your fate in the hands of Mr. Schuelke?"

The response: "Yes."

[Tweaked to correct a name.]

Vic Kohring Will Also Drop His Not Guilty Plea and Avoid Trial

2011-10-17T07:54:00.000-08:00

Warwick, R.I.--

Former State Representative Vic Kohring's lawyer has filed a notice of intent to change his plea on the charge against him entitled "conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion under color of official right and bribery." The change in plea to this felony charge is explicitly pursuant to a plea agreement with the prosecution.

An Apology and A Question

2011-10-16T19:21:00.000-08:00

Warwick, R.I.--

Let's start with an apology to the Justice Department. I predicted last April 3 on this blog that the government would dismiss the cases against ex-State Reps. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) and Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River).   Although I also predicted in a column for the Alaska Bar Rag published last June that the Justice Department would not re-try the former lawmakers--leaving open the possibility that the cases would be resolved with plea agreements--that April 3 prediction on the blog is obviously wrong as to Kott, who last week announced that he would drop his not guilty plea to a bribery charge.

And now let's have a poll.

How do you think the Vic Kohring case will be resolved?

Dismissal ___

Agreement resulting in a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor ___

Agreement resulting in a plea of guilty to a felony producing no additional prison time ___

Agreement resulting in a plea of guilty to a felony producing additional prison time ___

Trial ___

Get your votes in before 5 p.m. Alaska time Monday, October 17, 2011 (that would be tomorrow as I write this).    I will write my own analysis after that.    Here's a preview:

(1) The outcome in which Vic Kohring pleads guilty to a felony producing additional prison time seems by far the least likely.

(2) Vic Kohring's unusual--some would say "delusional"--view of the world might make it more difficult for his attorneys to talk him into a resolution that they believe to good for their client.

Notes on Improving Our Criminal Justice System

2011-10-15T11:21:00.000-08:00

Providence, R.I.--

On the theory that people read this blog because they are interested in some combination of public affairs, Alaska matters, and what I have to say, here are my notes for a speech I gave last week to the Anchorage chapter of NALS, "the association for legal professionals."

Alternativesto Incarceration:

TheNeed for “Smart Justice”

CliffGroh

TheU.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.

The percentage of Alaska’s population in custody has morethan tripled in the past three decades.

IfAlaska’s total population had increased in the last 30 years at the same rateas its population in custody has gone up, today there would be as many peoplein this state as there are in Houston, Texas.

The United States imprisons people at a rate six timeshigher than that of Canada.

One in 31 adults in the U.S. is either behind bars or onsupervised release.

“Either we are the most evil people on earth or we doingsomething very wrong.” – U.S. Senator Jim Webb

If our criminal justice system worked right, we could cutimprisonment AND cut crime.

Let’s talk about:

--Why oursystem grew so overburdened and turned bad

--The waysin which our system is too costly and ineffective

--How oursystem could be better

Growthin prison populations reflects several factors: taking some crimes more seriously, growingseverity of sentences generally, increase in imprisonment of drug offenders,use of prisons as holding facilities for the mentally ill, and substantialdisparities in ethnic composition of the inmates.

Puttingpeople behind bars is expensive. Thegrowing costs of paying for incarceration around the country is now crowdingout or will soon crowd out spending for other public programs, particularlyeducation.

It costs$49,800.60 to keep someone in prison for a year inAlaska vs. $52,652 to put an undergraduate student at Harvard for a year oftuition, room, and board.

Thecriminal justice system is too often ineffective.

More than 90 percent of all people in prison are eventuallyreleased, and more than one-half of the people released from prison are backbehind bars in three years.

Wecould reduce imprisonment AND reduce crime by relying on “Smart Justice” moves.

One expert—UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman—estimates that wecould simultaneously cut incarceration in half AND cut crime in half in 10years if we moved to a system of “smart justice.”

Asystem that moved away from the current random severity towards swifter andmore certain punishment would work better and be cheaper.

Don’t be hard or soft—be smart.

Swift and certain equals smart.

Smartjustice uses insights from parenting and psychological research andtechnological progress.

Enforce probation and parole conditions faster and morepredictably.

--The HOPE program in Hawaiishows the way. Sending felony probationerswho failed or missed drug tests immediately to prison for 48-hour stays cuttheir arrest rate for new crimes by two-thirds.

--EvenTexas is expanding drug treatment and other programs in lieu of building moreprisons.

Give most people in the system shorter stays in lesspleasant and safer custodial situations.

Use electronic monitoring as much as possible. It costs $136.44 per day to keep someone inprison in Alaska vs. $21.25per day for electronic monitoring.

Put people in prison mostly because you’re afraid of them,not because you’re mad at them. Candidates for long sentences are:

--Thetruly dangerous.

--Repetitiverule-breakers in new system (like somebody who cuts off his ankle bracelet).

--A few tomake unusual examples of.

Hire more police officers and probation and parole officersas opposed to more prison guards.

Traffic Cop in the Ocean State: Kott Talks to the Alaska Dispatch About Dropping His Not Guilty Plea

2011-10-14T09:51:00.000-08:00

Warwick, R.I.--

Jill Burke of Alaska Dispatch gets an interview with Pete Kott about the ex-legislator's decision to change his plea of not guilty to a bribery charge. Consistent with my observation yesterday about his world-weariness, the former seven-term Republican lawmaker from Eagle River told Burke that "I'm just trying to bring finality to this whole thing. It's been five years." Asked whether his move to change his plea means that he is in fact guilty, the former Speaker of the Alaska House added that "Maybe it's just time to put it behind me and move forward in life regardless of what [I] think the outcome should be."

Kott indicated that he had been in some turmoil about the decision: "I've been like a windshield wiper on a car--back and forth."

We'll learn a lot more about the difficulties that played on Kott's mind when we see the actual plea agreement and sentence on that plea.

Pete Kott Will Plead Guilty to Bribery Charge

2011-10-13T18:02:00.011-08:00

Warwick, R.I.--

So I'm here visiting my son in college, and Pete Kott's lawyer announces that the former Speaker of the Alaska House will plead guilty to a charge of accepting a bribe from VECO executives Bill Allen and Rick Smith. All indications would be that the defense and the prosecution have made a plea agreement in which the government will dismiss the other three counts against Kott: conspiracy; extortion; and honest services wire fraud.

Given that my location thousands of miles away from Alaska, I feel even more free to speculate than usual:

1. It would appear that the former seven-term Republican State Representative from Eagle River is more concerned about the cost, hassle, and risk of a trial scheduled for Fairbanks in December than he is bothered about the prospect of becoming a felon again.

2. The logic that seems to be working here is consistent with my understanding of the defendant and what it seems likely he understands from his conversations with his attorneys. Pete Kott strikes me as a sensible realist who had become afflicted with world-weariness and an alcohol problem, and when he heard--as he probably did--that he is highly unlikely to spend more time in prison, he decided to cop a plea and cut his losses.

3. As suggested above, I think it likely that Pete Kott believes that his guilty plea will not lead to more prison time, probably because the plea agreement either specifically guarantees that result or because the prosecution has promised not to ask for it and the defense believes that under all the circumstances the judge would not impose it.

4. Note that my prediction that the government would not re-try Pete Kott and Vic Kohring now looks to be at least half-correct. Just like Lincoln seized upon the partial Union victory at Antietam to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, I will take this opportunity to offer a new motto for this blog based on the football columnist Gregg Easterbrook's repeated disclaimer: "All Predictions Wrong or Your Money Back." I'm going one better than Easterbrook: Here, it's "All Predictions Wrong or Double Your Money Back."

Court Denies Pete Kott's Motion to Dismiss Alleging "Egregious Government Misconduct"

2011-10-05T12:52:00.004-08:00

Anchorage--

Continuing a path towards a re-trial that I have repeatedly predicted wouldn't happen, District Judge Ralph Beistline today entered in U.S. v. Kott an "Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Due to Intentional Prosecutorial Misconduct." In the order, the court describes the core of Kott's argument as an allegation that the federal government "suppressed information relevant to Bill Allen's predatory sexual conduct and subordination of perjury in order to protect Allen's reputation as a witness in a white collar trial."

The court said that evidence that the lead FBI agent allegedly had a practice of not writing down information that was not favorable to the government was useful material for cross-examination of that agent, not grounds for dismissal of the indictment. The court also said that even if the defense was accurate in its allegation that the Justice Department made "a conscious decision to 'sacrifice the child victims of [Allen's] predation and perjury'" to pursue public corruption charges against Kott, such a decision would be within the broad discretion in prosecution the law gives to the government.

Pete Kott Gets the Same Remedies of Curative Instruction and Special Verdict Form that Vic Kohring Did

2011-10-04T09:15:00.002-08:00

Anchorage--

U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline handled the duplicity issue with Pete Kott the same way he did for Vic Kohring.

Prosecution Announces Preliminary Intent to Put Bill Allen on Witness Stand in Vic Kohring Re-Trial

2011-09-30T16:53:00.011-08:00

Anchorage--

The notice filed by the United States this afternoon states that government lawyers will ask the court to declare off-limits certain questions on cross-examination "to prevent confusion of the jury and the creation of irrelevant and improper side-trials on collateral issues," such as Bill Allen's alleged sexual crimes with minors and any alleged efforts to cover them up.

Judge Orders Curative Instruction and Special Verdict Form in Kohring Trial to Address Duplicity Issue in Bribery Charge

2011-09-30T09:36:00.010-08:00

Anchorage--

To remedy a problem with charging too much bribery in one count of an indictment, the court has ordered that the jury in the Vic Kohring re-trial get a curative instruction and a special verdict form to insure that any conviction reflects unanimous jury agreement on what act constituted a bribe.

U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline quoted the government's characterization that the court had decided that the indictment charges five bribes involving the former Wasilla Republican legislator and VECO executives. The government has described those five alleged bribes as:

1. the acceptance of approximately $1,000 in cash on February 23, 2006 ("the Island Pub incident")

2. the solicitation and securing of a job for Kohring's nephew beginning in February, 2006

3. the acceptance of cash payments on March 30, 2006 ("the Easter egg and Girl Scout uniform incident"

4. the solicitation of $17,000 on March 30, 2006 ("the credit card incident")

and

5. the acceptance of between $500 and $1,000 on June 8, 2006 ("the McDonald's incident").

For a variety of reasons--including the unfairness and uncertainty involved in not knowing exactly what conduct the jury would be convicting on--the defense asked the court either to dismiss the bribery count or force the government to choose in advance which conduct it would be relying on in seeking a conviction for bribery in the re-trial.

The government countered by requesting that the court issue a special jury instruction ordering the jury to agree on what act of bribery it was convicting on as well as a special verdict form in which the jury would specifically identify that conduct.

The court sided with the prosecution, ordering a special jury instruction and a special verdict form. Citing "expediency" and "public accountability," the court rejected the defense's requests for either dismissal of the bribery count or an order requiring that the prosecution elect in advance which of the five acts it was relying on. The court announced that the special instruction "would allow the jury to try Kohring on all the acts of alleged bribery" and that the special verdict form "would forestall any possible double jeopardy or unanimity problems."

This is a significant victory for the prosecution if there is a re-trial. The government lawyers will get to present to the jury what they have called "the full range of Kohring's corrupt conduct."

I'm Back, and Judge Beistline Tells the Prosecutors that They've Alleged Too Many Crimes Against Pete Kott in Too Few Counts

2011-09-22T13:31:00.003-08:00

Anchorage--

With another writing project mostly completed, I can return to blogging and announce that the court has agreed with Pete Kott's defense lawyers that two of the counts in his indictment are duplicitous.

The law prohibits charging two or more distinct offenses in a single count of an indictment. This rule against duplicitous charging is based on a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights to know what she is charged with and to be only convicted of a crime in a jury trial in federal court if the jury is unanimous. (The logic is that if a count charges Crime A and Crime B, allowing the jury consider that count could unfairly produce a conviction on that count even if only five jurors concluded that the defendant was guilty of Crime A and the other seven jurors concluded only that the defendant was guilty of Crime B.)

The court observed that another argument against duplicitous charging was that it violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy in that it created a lack of clarity over the offense for which the defendant was charged or convicted.

One count of the indictment against ex-State Rep. Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River) charges him with at least separate acts involving bribery: a bogus flooring invoice; a political poll; and a promise of employment. Similarly, another count charges him with "Interference with Commerce by Extortion Induced Under Color of Official Right" for committing those same three acts.

The court ruled that as to both counts, the three acts described different facts--different days, different amounts of money, different locations. Accordingly, both counts are duplicitous.

The court laid out three possible remedies for the duplicitous nature of the two counts: (1) an announcement by the prosecution for each count of the specific act upon which the prosecution will seek conviction; (2) an instruction from the court requiring the jury to agree on the specific act for which the defendant is being convicted; or (3) dismissal of the duplicitous count. The court gave the prosecution and defense a week to submit suggestions on what should be done.

Vic Kohring's Trial Moves to Fairbanks, Too

2011-08-13T14:36:00.003-08:00

Anchorage--

Judge Ralph Beistline yesterday moved the trial of ex-State Rep. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) from Anchorage to Fairbanks in an order that expressed the same logic as his order making the same shift for ex-State Rep. Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River).

Judge Moves Kott Trial to Fairbanks

2011-08-12T11:29:00.003-08:00

Anchorage--

Judge Ralph Beistline has ordered that the trial of former State Rep. Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River) be moved from Anchorage to Fairbanks. The order came in response to a request by the defense to move the trial out of Anchorage due to concerns that publicity in Alaska's largest city would make it difficult to find an unbiased jury. The selection of Fairbanks as the site for the trial was made by the judge, who frequently notes his origins in the Golden Heart City.

When scheduled for Anchorage, the trial date was December 5, but the shift might cause a change in the date.

What About Ben?

2011-08-11T14:08:00.008-08:00

Anchorage--

So I haven't been the most consistent blogger. To compensate, here's an early taste of my new column for the Alaska Bar Rag, the official quarterly publication for the Last Frontier's lawyers. As you can see, I submitted a few hours before the news of last night, which caused me to drop in one sentence as an update.

What About Ben?

By Cliff Groh

Judging by what has happened in court, Ben Stevens might argue that he was an honest man wrongly dragged into the Last Frontier’s public corruption scandals.

After all, the man who only a half dozen years ago seemed set to be the next Alaska Governor or U.S. Senator was the only state legislator in 2006 whose offices were searched by the FBI who did NOT become either a criminal defendant or a cooperating witness.

But you have to wonder.

Accounts of the actions of Ben Stevens in the seafood industry as a consultant, lobbyist, investor, and member of a federally funded non-profit board while his father Ted was in the U.S. Senate read like textbooks on conflict of interest. While continuing to deny wrongdoing, Ben Stevens was by his own account under investigation by four federal agencies in 2007.

More pointedly, two executives of the now-defunct oil-services giant VECO testified under oath in 2007 that they had pleaded guilty to bribing Ben Stevens. Those VECO executives—Bill Allen and Rick Smith—agreed with federal prosecutors that the $243,250 in consulting fees that the Anchorage Republican lawmaker reported receiving from VECO through a private company he owned while he served in the State Senate was actually for “giving advice, lobbying colleagues, and taking official acts in matters before the legislature.”

Yet the eight-year-old federal investigation into Alaska public corruption has not produced a charge against Ben Stevens, and I will eat my baseball cap if he is prosecuted in that probe. [UPDATE: Several hours after this column was submitted to the Alaska Bar Rag, the Anchorage Daily News reported on its website that the Department of Justice has advised former Alaska State Senate President Ben Stevens that the ex-lawmaker will not face charges in the federal investigation into public corruption in the 49th State.]

Why didn’t that dog bark?

We must clear substantial underbrush in answering this question. Understand that nothing in this analysis is based on inside information from decision-makers within the federal government. Recognize that nothing written here is intended to accuse anyone of committing a crime. Ignore the controversy stirred by Ben Stevens getting more than $715,000 for three years of part-time work as chief executive of the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games. Set aside any surprise over the fact that he served four years on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.

Let’s skip any sense of regret or schadenfreude about this obviously intelligent and hard-working man’s meteoric career in business and public office, folks, and just focus as lawyers on how Ben Stevens escaped criminal charges.

It is not enough to whistle the Creedence Clearwater Revival song lyric “I ain’t no senator’s son.” Whatever protection (as well as career promotion) was afforded by having Ted Stevens as a father seemed to be over by 2008, when the iconic U.S. Senator got charged in a case that generated guilty verdicts on seven felonies before imploding less than six months later.

Nor does it work to suggest—as some observers have—that Ben Stevens made his own deal with the feds to give him immunity from prosecution. It’s not just that no evidence exists of such an agreement—there appears to be nothing that the former Anchorage Republican lawmaker ever gave the Justice Department to make such a deal plausible.

No, Ben Stevens’ avoidance of prosecution in the “POLAR PEN” probe seems to stem from a combination of luck, prudence, and hiding in plain sight.

Ben Stevens caught a big break when the Justice Department did not include him in the first wave of defendants charged in May of 2007 with crimes associated with VECO executives’ corruption of state legislators over oil-tax legislation debated the previous year. This omission might have been caused in part by the feds seeing the potential prosecution of Ben Stevens as a bargaining chip they could play later in the negotiations with his father.

Yet time did not turn out to be kind to the federal investigation into Alaska public corruption. The feds charged Ted Stevens without charging Ben Stevens, and the probe’s fortunes soured quickly after the jury returned guilty verdicts against Ted Stevens in October of 2008. The Ted Stevens prosecution collapsed in April of 2009 in the wake of revelations of failures to provide discovery, putting the government employees best informed about “POLAR PEN” under investigation themselves. Additional disclosures have dented the credibility of Allen and Smith, two of the prosecution’s key witnesses in previous trials. Last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Skilling v. U.S. sharply pruned the scope of the honest services fraud statute, a favorite weapon wielded by federal prosecutors in public corruption cases that was used against half of the 12 defendants charged in the “POLAR PEN” probe.

The prosecutors might well have perceived additional problems with charging Ben Stevens even back when the feds were flying high in 2007, however. The combination of what appears to be his relative invisibility on incriminating tapes and his extensive financial disclosures may have saved him.

Ben Stevens received almost a quarter of a million dollars in fees from VECO while he was in the State Senate and also took positions as a legislator on oil taxes that VECO wanted him to take, but those facts do not by themselves constitute a crime. What was going on in Ben Stevens’ mind is where the action is in prosecuting him, as it often is in public corruption cases. (That’s also true in the broader category of white-collar crime cases, like that of his father.)

Prosecutors have found that the best way to show that a defendant in a public corruption case has criminal intent is by playing tapes that show him saying and/or doing things that make him look guilty. All the defendants that juries have returned guilty verdicts against in the Alaska public corruption cases have had damaging tapes of them played in front of the jury.

Tapes tend to trump other evidence. As one former federal prosecutor observed, the government attorneys in the “POLAR PEN” cases sometimes seemed primed merely to walk into court and push “PLAY,” and the feds might have thought they didn’t have enough incriminating tapes on Ben Stevens to go forward.

Unlike other legislators convicted in the probe, Ben Stevens might not have frequented the infamous VECO-rented Suite 604 in Juneau’s Baranof Hotel that the FBI bugged to such effect. Whether this conduct flows from a sensible desire to stay away from that “Animal House” atmosphere or from the family needs of a father of four, Ben Stevens’ apparent lack of a starring role in the FBI’s greatest hits has served him well.

Aside from whatever the more than 17,000 conversations the feds intercepted in the “POLAR PEN” probe may show about Ben Stevens, there is another problem the feds have in prosecuting him on offenses involving either VECO or fisheries. That problem is the fact that the former State Senator apparently disclosed all the income he collected for consulting and/or lobbying that he was legally required to disclose. You might think his conduct was unseemly and unsavory, but it’s likely that Ben Stevens would say that he is just a hard-working businessman who laid bare his income as the law required, both when he served as a federal lobbyist and later when he served as a state legislator.

As to all that money from VECO that came in to the legislator when his work product may look minimal or even non-existent, Ben Stevens might well say that he thought he was on retainer—a retainer that allowed Bill Allen to call Ben Stevens about work for VECO anytime 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Ben Stevens might add that it was not his problem that Allen seemed to call him so infrequently to work on matters such as advice on salvaging vessels.

Observers might point to the $983,807.66 in fees that Ben Stevens reported receiving for business services and/or management services from VECO and fishing interests alone during the five full calendar years he served as a legislator in comparison to the relatively small amounts involved in the cases that sent other lawmakers to prison. The sheer amount of money, however, is not all that matters.

A common thread in the cases against the state legislators convicted at trial in the “POLAR PEN” probe was what juries saw as clumsy attempts to conceal benefits: a bogus flooring invoice submitted by former Rep. Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River); a request to hide help on a credit card balance by former Rep. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla); a phony Website in the case of former Rep. Tom Anderson (R.-Anchorage). The contemporaneous cover-ups helped the juries find the guilty intent. (Reversals on appeal of the convictions of Kott and Kohring have led to re-trials being scheduled for late this year.)

With Ben Stevens, on the other hand, there appeared to be no subterfuge—all the income seems to have been reported. Although paper trails are often seen as trouble, a particular kind of paper trail—one shorn of detailed descriptions of tasks performed or time spent working—appears to have helped keep Ben Stevens out of trouble. The system could not handle that hiding in plain sight.

You might think that the story of Ben Stevens is a prime Alaska example of the maxim of columnist Michael Kinsley to the effect that the real scandal is not what’s illegal—it’s what’s legal. You might also think that not prosecuting Ben Stevens after getting Allen and Smith to plead guilty to bribing him might pose a particular public relations problem for the Department of Justice, but such a result would be neither illegal nor unprecedented. One well-known irony that involved verdicts by juries rather than the exercise of prosecutorial discretion comes from the notorious Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s. Albert Fall was convicted for taking a bribe from oilman Edward Doheny while serving as Secretary of Interior, but Doheny was acquitted of the charge of bribing Fall.

Cliff Groh is a lifelong Alaskan who has worked as a prosecutor and represented some criminal defendants in his private practice. He is a lawyer and writer in Anchorage whose law practice focuses on the writing and revision of briefs and motions. Disclosures potentially relevant to his writings about the Alaska public corruption probe can be found at http://alaskacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/05/even-more-updated-biography-with-still.html on the Internet. Conversations with numerous people—including Anchorage lawyers Mark Regan and George Freeman—have sharpened the author’s thinking on this column’s subject.

Ben Stevens Will Not Be Charged, Feds Have Told Him

2011-08-10T19:24:00.002-08:00

Anchorage--

The Department of Justice has told former Alaska State Senate President Ben Stevens (R.-Anchorage) that he will not be prosecuted in the federal government's probe into public corruption on the Last Frontier. Richard Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News has today's scoop here. Seventeen months ago, I discussed the federal government's substantial problems in prosecuting Ben Stevens here.

Traffic Cop in the Sunshine: Vic Kohring Maneuvers to Get Advantages in the Negotiations with Prosecutors

2011-07-27T12:35:00.005-08:00

Anchorage--

I'm busy today working on income-producing tasks, so all I can do is point you to Richard Mauer's story in the Anchorage Daily News about ex-State Rep. Vic Kohring's motions from yesterday. The attorney for the former Republican legislator from Wasilla asked the court to trim Kohring's indictment to reflect the mixed jury verdicts at his trial. The defense also requested the court to order ex-VECO CEO Bill Allen to announce whether he would assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering any questions under oath about his alleged sexual crimes with underaged girls. More later.

Bill Weimar Dodges a Big Bullet: Florida Prosecutor Drops Sex Abuse Charge

2011-07-21T15:55:00.008-08:00

Homer, Alaska—

I’m late to this party, but I hope that being on my honeymoon provides some excuse. Around the time I was enjoying watermelon champagne soup with my bride in this delightful seaside town, the Anchorage Daily News was reporting that Florida authorities have dropped a charge of child sexual battery against Bill Weimar, a former Alaska corrections magnate convicted of felonies in the federal probe into public corruption on the Last Frontier.

I used to evaluate child sexual cases for a living when I was an assistant district attorney for the State of Alaska. These are difficult cases that pose unusual challenges, and Lisa Demer’s article makes it look like the Florida prosecutors went all-out to make the charge stick against Weimar before dismissing it.

With my special knowledge of child sexual abuse prosecutions, I am not here to say that the Florida authorities blundered. Let’s review the pros and cons of the prosecution’s case as set out in the coverage provided by the Anchorage Daily News and uncovered by my own reporting.

The prosecution had a six-year-old girl’s statements to her mother and an investigator that she had performed fellatio on Weimar at his request. This crime allegedly occurred when the child’s mother left the girl in Weimar’s care while the mother went to the airport.

The Florida authorities also had the fact that Weimar went to Cuba and then Mexico after being questioned by investigators about the allegations but before he was charged, a trip that prosecutors would want to characterize as flight reflecting consciousness of guilt.

And the government might also have had the advantage of exploiting Weimar’s shady background. It’s not just Weimar’s status as a convicted felon that the prosecutors might have been able to get in front of a jury. The ex-tycoon and powerbroker had a reputation among his long-time associates for committing various crimes he has never been charged with. I hasten to point out that Weimar was never before suspected of child sexual abuse, even among the most disappointed of his former friends. But there was some possibility that the jury might conclude that the defendant was a bad man who needed to be punished for something.

“Bill Weimar is a horse rustler. I’ve seen him rustle horses all over the state,” an Alaskan who spent a lot with Weimar for years told me when the news of the child abuse case arose. “Now he’s charged with horse rustling again. I don’t know if he rustled this horse, but if they hang him for it they’ll be hanging a horse rustler.”

So those were the things that the prosecution had going for it, but they didn’t seem to be enough for the Florida authorities. The recognition that the case was lacking seemed to prompt the government to push hard to make it stronger. The Florida authorities trolled for other victims of Weimar by placing notices in Alaska and Seattle, where the multimillionaire also lived. The prosecution also arranged for a surreptitiously recorded telephone call of Weimar, but the law school graduate made no admissions of guilt.

There was no medical or physical evidence to corroborate the child’s allegations, according to a prosecution memo explaining the case’s dismissal reported by the Anchorage Daily News. Particularly in the age of jurors who regularly watch TV shows like CSI, the prosecution’s argument that fellatio will often not leave traces might not been enough.

But the potential problems for the prosecution at trial didn’t end there. The prosecution also faced a defense argument that Weimar’s jaunt across the Caribbean on his yacht was the moving up of a previously planned vacation, not the desperate flight of a fugitive conscious of his guilt.

And my reporting has shown that the prosecution might have also had to deal with a defense attack that the little girl was manipulated by a parent who could be portrayed as having a pre-existing bias against Weimar.

The reactions of various people showed the feelings often surrounding child abuse cases and underscored the differences between them and other kinds of crimes. The child’s father told the Anchorage Daily News that he was disappointed the prosecution had dropped the case but relieved that his daughter didn’t have to testify in court.

"Based on a single statement by a child, a man can be arrested on his vacation in Mexico, with helicopters, gunships, dogs, blacked-out Suburbans and machine guns,” Weimar’s lawyer told Alaska’s largest newspaper. "Thrown into a jail in Mexico, transported to the border, handed over to the U.S. marshals, brought to a jail in Texas, thrown into a holding cell for a week or two without being able to contact his lawyer or know what's going on, and then transported in a van across the country that took almost 2 1/2 weeks going from county to county."

Although Weimar’s attorney complained that his client lost his reputation and “a small fortune,” the former Alaska powerhouse is very relieved today and knows that he is a very lucky man. If Weimar had been convicted of the crime he was charged with, he probably would have died in prison.

(This blog post was particularly improved by suggestions from a fine editor named Theresa Philbrick, who now doubles as my wife. And unless something really big happens, you’ll have to wait until next week for my analyses of the current state of play in the cases of Vic Kohring and Pete Kott, including their motions to move their trials out of Anchorage.)

Vic Kohring Asks for Trial Outside of Alaska

2011-07-08T20:05:00.005-08:00

Anchorage--

Citing heavy and strongly unfavorable publicity over the last half-decade, the attorney for former State Rep. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) asked the court to move his trial out of Alaska. The re-trial on public corruption charges is currently scheduled to start in Anchorage on October 31 of this year. The ex-lawmaker's motion for change of venue does not request a specific location for the trial, but suggests that it should be held somewhere within the boundaries of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court for the West.

Blogging will continue to be a little light while I recover from my wedding last week. (To paraphrase the writer Seth Mnookin about his own nuptials, it surprised the hell out of me as well.)

New Judge, New Trial Dates Coming Up, but Still No Guarantee of Trials for Kott and Kohring

2011-06-28T17:08:00.008-08:00

Anchorage--

I'm engaged in pressing personal business that will limit my blogging for a few more days. Today's news is that the move of U.S. District Judge John Sedwick to senior status (semi-retirement) later this year has resulted in the transfer of the cases of former State Reps. Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River) and Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) to Judge Ralph Beistline.

None of the recent developments have shaken my belief that neither of those former lawmakers will be retried on the federal corruption charges which put them in prison before discovery problems produced the reversals of their convictions.

I'm been lax lately on the posting. To compensate, here's a copy of my column in this month's edition of the Alaska Bar Rag, the quarterly publication for the Last Frontier's lawyers:

What Does the Federal Probe into Public Corruption Mean for Alaska?

by Cliff Groh

(First of several installments)

Born in the Territory of Alaska in 1954, I grew up in a skinny Anchorage media environment in which there was no live TV until the first moon walk occurred when I was 15.

Reading newspapers and magazines as a boy in the 1960s, I noticed occasional stories of public corruption—of police on the take, government officials who accepted bribes—in states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Illinois. I really didn’t see that in Alaska, so I asked my father about it. He was a former President of the Alaska Bar Association who had served as both a prosecutor and criminal defense attorney; he had also been on the City Council, the Borough Assembly, and the School Board.

My father said “Well, son, there’s not enough money to steal.”

Back in the mid-1960s, Alaska was a young state with a thin economy. Although people on the Last Frontier felt poor, there was still some of that aura of idealism and optimism that remained from the excitement of achieving statehood in the late 1950s.

The announcement in 1968 of the discovery of a super-giant oilfield at Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope brought billions and billions of dollars to Alaska, both to the private economy in paychecks and to the state government’s coffers in taxes and royalties on oil development.

The long-running federal investigation into Alaska public corruption has underscored some of the changes seen in the 49th State, and that probe has also caused some. Most of the cases produced by the federal investigation involved alleged efforts to influence public officials regarding the state’s taxes on oil development.

This probe electrified Alaskans. Think back to the wild days between the late summer of 2006 and the fall of 2008. In those 27 months, 11 people got charged with federal felonies. Those 11 included:

Ø legendary U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R.-Alaska);
Ø five state legislators (some of whom had left office)—State Sen. John Cowdery (R.-Anchorage) and State Reps. Tom Anderson (R.-Anchorage), Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau), Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River and a former Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives), and Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla);
Ø Jim Clark, the chief of staff to former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski;
Ø Bill Allen, a political kingmaker who was the long-time CEO of the multinational oil-services giant VECO, a billion-dollar company;
Ø Bill Weimar, the multimillionaire former head of the private corrections corporation Allvest;
Ø Rick Smith, a VECO vice president who served as Allen’s chief political lieutenant; and
Ø Bill Bobrick, a prominent lobbyist working on municipal issues in the Municipality of Anchorage.

At the end of 2008, 10 of those 11 people had pleaded guilty or heard juries deliver guilty verdicts on all or almost all counts they faced. FBI surveillance tapes—many made at the VECO-rented Suite 604 in Juneau’s Baranof Hotel—greatly aided the prosecutors in their cases at trial. Alaskans were mesmerized by iconic images of Allen telling Kott “I own your ass” and Allen handing cash to Kohring, and many citizens were stunned by how little it seemed to take to get some public officials to sell their offices.

Long accustomed to serving either as a sugar daddy or a political punching bag on the Last Frontier, between late 2006 and late 2008 the feds seemed to be on a roll straightening out a mess in Alaska.

Back in 2008, those 11 defendants seemed very likely to increase by a lot. Multiple sources told Alaska journalist Bill McAllister that 26 people would be indicted in the federal investigation into public corruption in the state. Speculation on potential additional defendants centered on U.S. Rep. Don Young (R.-Alaska) (identified in media reports as being under investigation for alleged campaign fund-raising violations, among other things) and former State Senate President Ben Stevens (R.-Anchorage) (whom federal prosecutors got Bill Allen and Rick Smith to say that they had bribed).

Code-named “POLAR PEN” (apparently for its origins in an examination into corruption regarding private prisons), this federal investigation has had big effects, both for people and for policy.

Eight defendants ultimately went to prison, and one served a sentence of home confinement. The executions of the search warrants on the offices of six state legislators beginning in August of 2006 helped fuel the gubernatorial campaign of insurgent Republican candidate Sarah Palin, already running on a platform of “I’m not one of the good old boys.” The oil tax legislation in 2006 that sent some lawmakers to prison was amended the next year to increase taxes substantially on the oil companies after the first indictments frightened some legislators into avoiding even the appearance of being in the pocket of the petroleum industry.

And after almost 40 years in the U.S. Senate, Ted Stevens got defeated for re-election in November of 2008 eight days after a jury returned guilty verdicts on seven felony counts of failing to disclose gifts on U.S. Senate forms. At the Senator’s insistence, the trial started only 55 days after the indictment instead of eight months or so later as would normally have occurred in this kind of case. Given the small margin in the voting, it’s clear that Stevens would have been re-elected if the trial had either not started or still been in progress on election day.

But now—about eight years after the investigation started—it’s all different. The POLAR PEN probe has fizzled out in ways that are both surprising and disappointing.

The case against Ted Stevens collapsed in the wake of revelations of prosecutors’ substantial failures to share evidence with the defense; the seven guilty verdicts got overturned, and Attorney General Eric Holder elected not to seek a retrial. The meltdown of the Ted Stevens case led to the federal government finding discovery failures in the cases against former Reps. Kott and Kohring, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed their convictions. (Although as of this writing the federal government could retry Kott and Kohring, I predict that this will never happen. Note that this forecast comes from the same analyst who confidently predicted that Ted Stevens would never testify in his own defense.)

Following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that substantially narrowed the scope of the honest-services fraud statute—a law that provided a favorite arrow in the quiver of federal prosecutors—the Department of Justice dismissed the federal felony charges against Weyhrauch and let him plead guilty to a unique state misdemeanor that resulted in no jail time. (Weyhrauch’s lawyers have also gotten permission from the U.S. District Court to forward to the Alaska Bar Association evidence that they allege shows “serious misconduct by government prosecutors appearing before the grand jury,” including the suborning of perjury.) Clark was also allowed to withdraw his guilty plea in the wake of that Supreme Court decision.

The prosecutors charged a 12th defendant in 2009—former State Rep. Beverly Masek (R.-Willow)—who pleaded guilty and served a prison sentence, but she is clearly the last defendant in the POLAR PEN probe.

It is the probers who are now on the griddle. The federal government is conducting two probes of the conduct of the prosecutors and investigators who worked on the federal government’s investigation of Alaska public corruption. The Justice Department’s internal watchdog unit—the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)—is holding one of the two satellite probes; the other investigation is a highly unusual criminal probe run by a special counsel selected by the trial judge in the Ted Stevens case. Fingerpointing among various prosecutors over the discovery and handling of allegations against Bill Allen involving sexual abuse of minors appears to have contributed to the delays in wrapping up the two probes, which have each gone on for more than two years.

A story that seemed to start out with white hats and black hats has picked up a lot of shades of gray. The arc of some Alaskans’ feelings went from the bumper stickers of “We don’t give a damn how they do it Outside” to “Thanks FBI for cleaning up Alaska”—now it’s more like “How could the feds foul this up?”

This is the first in a series of columns to examine the causes, effects, and significance of the federal investigation into Alaska public corruption. It will rely on my extensive experience in Alaska, which brings both knowledge of how the state works and a number of other associations that might be seen as conflicts of interest when writing about this subject. (The full list of disclosures can be found at my blog at http://alaskacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/05/even-more-updated-biography-with-still.html on the Internet.) There are some lessons here and some elemental human stories, and this series of columns will have some of both.

Cliff Groh is a lifelong Alaskan who has worked as a prosecutor and represented some criminal defendants in his private practice. He maintains a blog on the federal investigation into Alaska public corruption at www.alaskacorruption.blogspot.com on the Internet. He is a lawyer and writer in Anchorage whose law practice focuses on the writing and revision of briefs and motions.

Traffic Cop in the Subarctic Summer: Pete Kott's Trial Scheduled for Aug. 8; Impoverished Vic Kohring Gets Court-Appointed Lawyer

2011-06-14T06:44:00.018-08:00

Anchorage--

A conflict kept me from attending a pre-trial hearing yesterday in the case of U.S. v. Victor Kohring, but fortunately Richard Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News did show up at that proceeding regarding the former Republican member of the Alaska State House from Wasilla. Mauer's article covers both that hearing and some procedural events in the case of former State Rep. Pete Kott, R.-Eagle River. You can find Mauer's story here.

Nuggets from Mauer's piece:

1. The court has set Kott's trial to start August 8 in Anchorage.

2. Despite what you may heard from other media sources, the question of whether retrials of Kott and Kohring will actually happen is still up in the air. Mauer's article says that Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Feldis told him that "the Justice Department hadn't yet decided whether it would retry Kohring, but as in Kott's case, prosecutors were moving ahead as if it would. The decision would be made by a high-level official in Washington, Feldis said."

The higher up that decision-maker, the less likely Kott and Kohring will be retried. I maintain my previously expressed prediction that those two disgraced ex-officeholders will not face trial again on these public corruption charges.

3. Vic Kohring is still poor. The famously broke former legislator announced yesterday that he came to court in a borrowed vehicle carrying a borrowed $40. In a successful bid to get a court-appointed defense attorney, Kohring testified that his four bank accounts hold less than one dollar combined.

Pre-Trial Fencing Starts Regarding Pete Kott's Re-Trial

2011-06-03T11:34:00.014-08:00

Anchorage--

A court hearing in the re-started Pete Kott case this morning resulted in some judicial decisions on procedural matters, but left open the question of whether the United States government will ever re-try the former Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives.

The magistrate granted the defendant's motion to appoint an attorney to defend him in the possible re-trial, and then went ahead and selected the lawyer who has already represented Kott on appeal. The court provisionally denied, however, the request for a second defense attorney more experienced in trials to represent the former Eagle River Republican lawmaker, now a Juneau resident.

Looming over the hearing was the issue of whether the prosecution would press ahead after all that has happened. U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler told U. S. Magistrate John Roberts that "for now" the feds plan to re-try the former legislator, but that "things could change." The government made moves that protected its options on a re-trial--Loeffler named two additional prosecutors in Washington, D.C. who are set to work on the Kott case, one of whom was among the lawyers in four cities participating in the teleconferenced hearing.

Printing your roster is of course not the same thing as playing the game, however, and I adhere to my previously expressed belief that the federal government will never re-try either Kott or his former legislative colleague, ex-State Rep. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla). I predict with even more certainty that neither man will ever spend another day in prison for their roles in Alaska's public corruption scandals.

The pressures on the prosecution and the defense in each of those cases may lead to Kott and Kohring resolving their cases against them by pleading guilty to that same unique state misdemeanor of knowingly consorting with unregistered lobbyists that the feds got former Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau) to plead guilty to in a deal to make the multiple federal felonies go away. Although the evidence is stronger against Kott and Kohring than it was against Weyhrauch, the incentives for the prosecution to avoid airing in a courtroom the federal government's interactions and decisions regarding convicted briber and accused sex abuser Bill Allen are very strong in the cases of all three former legislators.

Whatever happens, it looks like the decisions on the re-trials of Kott and Kohring will come before the leaves fall. U.S. District Judge John Sedwick has ordered that the lawyers agree on a proposed re-trial date that is no later than August 9 of this year in the Kott case, and it looks like the schedule will run about a week later in the Kohring case. Stay tuned.

Justice Department Opposes Bruce Weyhrauch's Requests for Legal Fees and Discovery

2011-05-30T17:36:00.008-08:00

Anchorage--

The prosecution has opposed the request of former State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau) for the government to pay more than $600,000 in attorney and paralegal fees and $63,000 in costs the ex-lawmaker racked up defending against four bribery-related federal felony charges that ultimately went away when Weyhrauch pleaded guilty to a unique state misdemeanor.

Weyhrauch's requests for fees and costs relied on a statute allowing a defendant in a federal criminal case to get payment for reasonable expenses if the defendant is "the prevailing party" in the case and the court determines the government's prosecution was "vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith." The federal government initially charged Weyhrauch with bribery, extortion, honest services fraud, and conspiracy for his role in an alleged scheme to give legislative assistance to VECO's bribers on oil tax legislation in 2006 in return for VECO giving Weyhrauch work as an attorney.

In opposing the defense motion, the government relies heavily on Weyhrauch's guilty plea to the state misdemeanor of knowingly allowing VECO executives Bill Allen and Rick Smith to lobby him when Weyhrauch was aware of a substantial probability that the two men were not registered as lobbyists.

Although those in the know saw that resolution as a big victory for Weyhrauch and an embarrassment for the prosecution, that is not at all how the government's attorneys profess to view it in their response to the motion for fees and costs. To the Justice Department, Weyhrauch's guilty plea was highly significant because it shows that he was not the prevailing party in the litigation. This is particularly true, say the prosecutors, because his guilty plea included an admission that he had asked VECO's top executives for legal work during a legislative session in which he would have the opportunity to vote on oil tax legislation of great interest to VECO. The prosecutors contend that this admission means that he admitted the factual assertion that was "the centerpiece of the federal indictment."

The Justice Department also argues that Weyhrauch's admissions to his dealings with Allen and Smith in the plea agreement show that the original federal prosecution was in good faith, even if Weyhrauch was not convicted of any of the corruption-related felonies initially charged.

The prosecution's opposition does not directly deny the defense's central factual allegation suggesting the government acted in bad faith in prosecuting Weyhrauch. This allegation concerns the different ways an FBI agent characterized a comment made by Weyhrauch to Allen in a meeting monitored by the feds. The defense has alleged that in an affidavit, the FBI agent characterized Weyhrauch's warning to Allen about dealing with a certain unnamed individual as evidence that the legislator was honest because he was telling the tycoon to steer away from somebody who was taking bribes. The defense has also claimed that before the grand jury, that same FBI agent characterized that same comment as showing that Weyhrauch was corrupt because he was advising Allen to stay away from somebody who was "in league with the FBI." (Although that somebody who Weyhrauch was warning about is not identified, it is reasonable to speculate that it was Rep. Tom Anderson (R.-Anchorage), who took bribes, served as a cooperating witness for the feds after being confronted, and then backed out of his cooperation.)

The prosecution does not concede that the alleged misconduct as suborning perjury before the grand jury occurred, but what the government's attorneys really want to stop is any additional court orders for the government to turn over evidence to Weyhrauch's lawyers. The prosecution argues that the statute authorizing payment of fees and costs does not permit any more discovery. In any case, the prosecutors say, Weyhrauch's guilty plea to the state misdemeanor shows that he has not shown good cause to get any order for more production of documents.

In the prosecution's final flourish, the government's lawyers argue that Weyhrauch has not met the statute's requirement that any ex-defendant seeking relief must show that his net worth is less than $2 million. Unless Weyhrauch has won a lottery, a solo practitioner who racked up more than $600,000 in legal fees and costs while being under felony indictment for almost four years would obviously satisfy that standard.

Disclosure: I have known Bruce Weyhrauch for about three decades, but he has never discussed this case with me. More on this here.

Appeals Court Panel Denies Kott and Kohring's Requests for Rehearing of Their Appeals

2011-05-20T14:50:00.010-08:00

Anchorage--

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the requests of former State Reps. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) and Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River) for rehearing of that panel's decisions to reverse their convictions but allow the federal government to retry them. As Jill Burke explained yesterday in her piece in http://www.alaskadispatch.com/, attorneys for the two ex-legislators caught up in the Alaska public corruption scandals were "pushing for a chance to have the court rule that prosecutors screwed up so badly that the only way to make things right is to throw the cases out."

The three-judge panel also denied Kott's motion for an evidentiary hearing into the trial prosecutors' handling of discovery.

The vote in both cases on the rehearing and Kott's motion for an was 2-1, with the dissenting vote coming from Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher. In the earlier decision overturning the convictions, Judge Fletcher had been particularly scathing in her criticism of the conduct of the trial prosecutors in the Kott and Kohring cases.

This blogger maintains his view that the question of whether the Department of Justice has the legal power to retry Kott and Kohring is effectively moot, as the federal government would never exercise that power. Putting either of those two men back on trial would open doors the Justice Department is trying to leave closed.

Presentation on Alaska Public Finances Last Week

2011-05-19T17:58:00.004-08:00

Anchorage--

I have received some interest in my presentation last week about Alaska's public finances from those who couldn't attend it. Accordingly, here are my notes, plus my bio for the introduction.

P.S. Watch this space for another announcement coming soon on my work on Alaska public corruption.

Cliff Groh
“The Prudhoe Bay Curve and the Squeal Point”
Bartlett Democratic Club May 12, 2011

The Pipeline Is Less than One-Third Full and Production Continues to Fall

High Oil Prices Can’t Bail Us Out Indefinitely

Gasline and ANWR Are More Political Footballs than Economic Saviors

Alaska Eventually Hits a Squeal Point

What Should Happen Then?

Actual Alternatives Include:

1. Budget Cuts Beyond the Bone
2. Personal Taxes
3. “Permanent Fund Solution”

Your Answers to “What Should Happen Then?” Turns on:

1. How Long You Intend to Live in Alaska
2. What You Fear the Most
3. What You Think the Permanent Fund Is For

Cliff Groh

Cliff Groh is a lifelong Alaskan who has been a lawyer for more than 20 years. He is now a writer and attorney in Anchorage.

Groh served as the Special Assistant to the Commissioner of Revenue in the administration of Gov. Steve Cowper from 1987 through 1990. In that capacity, he served essentially as the State of Alaska's tax lobbyist in the successful effort in 1989 to revise the state's oil taxes in a way that increased revenues from the giant Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields. The legislation adopted in 1989 to revise the Economic Limit Factor (ELF) created a regime for oil taxes that lasted until the Alaska Legislature adopted the Petroleum Profits Tax in 2006.

Groh was also the principal legislative staff member working on Permanent Fund Dividend legislation in 1982. He worked closely then with two former Speakers of the Alaska House of Representatives, State Representatives Terry Gardiner of Ketchikan and Hugh Malone of Kenai. That legislation adopted in 1982 produced the per capita Permanent Fund Dividend Alaska has today. Groh has co-authored two chapters for an academic book on Permanent Fund Dividends to be published by Palgrave Macmillan.

Groh has been a board member of Alaska Common Ground for more than 15 years. He has organized, presented at, and/or moderated at more than a dozen events regarding Alaska fiscal policy over the past two decades. He was a delegate to the Conference of Alaskans in 2004.

Groh is probably the only Alaska lawyer who has performed stand-up comedy in multiple states, and he is definitely the only Alaska lawyer who has been interviewed for an hour on national television about public corruption.

His speech today is entitled “The Prudhoe Bay Curve and the Squeal Point.” He would like each of you to think of vicious questions to ask him at the end of his presentation.

Bartlett Democratic Club May 12, 2011

Even More Updated Biography, with Still More Disclosures

2011-05-10T08:29:00.014-08:00

Anchorage--

In preparing for publication in another forum of some of my writings on public corruption, I have tweaked my bio and expanded my disclosures of various interests and relationships with various defendants, suspects, and lawyers involved in the investigations and trials covered by this blog.

Biography of Cliff Groh

Cliff Groh is a lifelong Alaskan who has been a lawyer for more than 20 years. He is now a writer and attorney in Anchorage. Formerly a prosecutor, Groh has represented some criminal defendants in his private law practice. His law practice focuses on the writing of appeals and motions and the revision of legal documents.

Groh has been doing research for a book on the Alaska public corruption scandals uncovered by the current federal investigations and the resulting trials. To that end, he has observed most of the trials of former state legislators Pete Kott and Vic Kohring in Anchorage and all of the trial of then-U.S. Senator Ted Stevens in Washington, D.C. He has taught two classes on Alaska public corruption through the Opportunities for Lifelong Education (OLE) program. He maintains a blog on the Alaska public corruption scandals at www.alaskacorruption.blogspot.com on the Internet. He was interviewed for an hour about Alaska public corruption on C-SPAN by the network's founder Brian Lamb, and he has also given a Polaris lecture on the subject at the University of Alaska Anchorage for the Forty-Ninth State Fellows program.

Groh served as the Special Assistant to the Commissioner of Revenue from 1987 through 1990. In that capacity, he served essentially as the State of Alaska's tax lobbyist in the successful effort in 1989 to revise the state's oil taxes in a way that increased revenues from the giant Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields. The legislation adopted in 1989 created a regime for oil taxes that lasted until the Alaska Legislature adopted the Petroleum Profits Tax in 2006.

Groh was also the principal legislative staff member working on Permanent Fund Dividend legislation in 1982. That legislation produced the per capita Permanent Fund Dividend Alaska has today. Groh has co-authored two chapters for an academic book on Permanent Fund Dividends to be published by Palgrave Macmillan.

Groh worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Anchorage and in rural Alaska communities such as St. Paul, Unalaska, and Sand Point. He has handled approximately 30 jury trials as a prosecutor. He has also served as in-house and outside counsel for municipal governments in Alaska. He served as a delegate to the Conference of Alaskans in 2004.

When Groh was first out of college in the late 1970s, he worked as a reporter with a statewide newspaper called the Alaska Advocate. He has also published historical articles on topics ranging from the Permanent Fund Dividend to the history of journalistic coverage of the capital move campaigns.

Groh is a graduate of Harvard College, where his senior honors thesis was on the history of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA). His law degree is from the University of California at Berkeley (then called Boalt Hall, now known as Berkeley Law).

Disclosures of Potentially Relevant Interests and Relationships

Groh’s work in government has included service in both partisan and non-partisan positions. Groh has worked for Democrats while serving in partisan positions in the Alaska State Legislature and the Alaska Department of Revenue. He is a registered Democrat who was a delegate to the 1988 Alaska Democratic Convention.

Groh socialized with Bruce Weyhrauch during periods in the 1980s and early 1990s when both lived in Juneau, and Groh had some social contacts with Weyhrauch afterwards. While serving as City and Borough Attorney for the City and Borough of Sitka, Groh arranged in 2002 or 2003 for Weyhrauch to act as counsel for the City and Borough in a case where Groh had a conflict of interest. Weyhrauch and Groh have never discussed the criminal case against Weyhrauch.

Groh knew Ted Stevens all of Groh's life, and Groh's father—who passed away in 1998—was a close friend and political ally of Ted Stevens. Groh lived in a dormitory in Washington, D.C. in the summer of 1975 with interns of Stevens' Senate office while researching a college senior honors thesis on the history of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, and Ted Stevens apparently made the arrangements for Groh to live in that dormitory. Groh sometimes used space in Ted Stevens' Senate office during the summer of 1975 while researching his thesis, and Groh both interviewed and had some social contacts with Stevens that summer.

Groh’s mother was a close friend of Ted Stevens’ first wife Ann Stevens, who died in an airplane crash in 1978. Ted Stevens and his Senate staff worked to arrange for additional medical care for both of Groh’s parents when they were stricken with cancer in the 1990s.

At various points over the years, Groh met and spoke with Jim Clark, Bill Weimar, and Pete Kott about various matters. Groh also exchanged e-mail messages with Vic Kohring about fiscal policy. Groh interviewed Don Young in the 1970s, and as a child he may have played with Ben Stevens.

In the 1980s, Groh’s father served as VECO’s lawyer in defending the corporation against an enforcement action brought by the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) regarding VECO’s campaign contributions. One or both of Groh’s parents also had some business dealings with Bill Allen in the 1980s. In an apparent attempt to interest Bill Allen in buying real estate, Groh’s father reportedly took Allen to a subdivision in rural Alaska owned by a corporation controlled by Groh’s father. Neither Allen nor VECO purchased any property at the subdivision. Given the limited number of sleeping spaces available in the area at the time, however, that visit by Bill Allen probably means that Groh has slept in a bed that Bill Allen once slept in.

Groh's law practice has included work for a law firm representing a municipal government in administrative proceedings and litigation over the property tax on the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The opponents in those legal matters consist mostly of the major oil producers on Alaska's North Slope, who are the majority owners of TAPS.

Groh has also worked and/or socialized with a number of the Anchorage lawyers who have worked on matters associated with the federal government's “POLAR PEN” probe into public corruption in Alaska. Some of those attorneys are or have been prosecutors on those matters, and some of those attorneys have served as defense counsel on those matters.

Another Sign of How Long the Probes of the Probers Have Dragged On: A Correction

2011-05-09T21:42:00.003-08:00

Anchorage--

I said here that the Ted Stevens case collapsed in April of 2010. That event occurred in April of 2009, when the Justice Department agreed to the defense's motion to overturn the jury verdicts of guilty and also decided not to retry the defendant.

Sex, Death, and Fingerpointing: Why the Probes into the Original Alaska Corruption Prosecutors Are Taking So Long

2011-04-29T13:49:00.040-08:00

Anchorage—

More than two years have passed since two investigations began into the conduct of prosecutors and investigators who worked on the federal government’s investigation of Alaska public corruption. These probes of the probers arose in the wake of the botched prosecution of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, which ended in April of 2010 with the overturning of a jury’s guilty verdicts on seven felony counts and the dismissal of the case against the longtime lawmaker.

The Department of Justice’s internal watchdog unit—the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)—is conducting one of the two satellite investigations into the prosecutors and the investigators; the other investigation is a highly unusual criminal probe run by a special counsel selected by the trial judge in the Ted Stevens case.

Why have these two investigations gone on so long?

As I have said before regarding these matters, I don’t know for sure, and unless you are one of this blog’s readers on the inside in Washington, D.C., neither do you. Having said that, here are several factors that may be contributing to this delay of more than two years:

1. Sex. Issues surrounding the federal government’s handling of Bill Allen’s dealings with underage girls threaten to overwhelm the public’s recollection of the entire “POLAR PEN” federal probe into Alaska public corruption. Bill Allen is the multimillionaire former CEO of VECO, the defunct oil-services corporation, who became a key government witness against public officials he used to pal around with. (Allen is also my neighbor, although Bill and I don’t run into each other now that he’s in federal prison following his convictions for bribery and other crimes related to public corruption.)

The Department of Justice did not turn over to the lawyers for the defendants in the “POLAR PEN” probe the information federal officials possessed about Allen’s exposure to prosecution for various crimes associated with sexual abuse of minors and attempts to cover up that abuse, and those failures to share that evidence has raised some thorny issues. The natural human interest in sex—and the natural human outrage at sexual exploitation of minors—has apparently made particularly sensitive the question of who within the Department of Justice was responsible for not turning over that information.

Another hot potato is the question of what federal officials told Bill Allen about any relationship between the corrupt tycoon’s decision to cooperate with the feds and his potential prosecution for offenses related to sex with underage girls. Despite considerable evidence tending to show Allen’s guilt, no government has ever charged Allen with sexual abuse of minors or transportation of a person under 18 across state lines for purposes of prostitution (or for solicitation of perjury or obstruction of justice in covering up the sex crimes).

2. Death. The tragic suicide of Nicholas Marsh, one of the former prosecutors who played a critical role in the POLAR PEN probe, appears to have both reflected the length of the probes into the prosecutors and further extended them. His friends cited Marsh’s anguish over how long the investigations had run on as a factor in the attorney’s decision to take his life last September. Now that he is dead, there may be a substantial temptation for various other prosecutors involved in the Ted Stevens case in particular to try to dump it all on the dead guy.

3. Fingerpointing. Attempts to blame Marsh now that he can no longer defend himself appear to be a subset of substantial efforts among the lawyers involved in the POLAR PEN probe to deflect responsibility for the failures to share evidence to defendants in the cases that arose from that probe. When the fingerpointing runs out, there may even be negotiations going on regarding the possibility of one or more lawyers accepting certain punishments to escape the possibility of more serious penalties.

4. The extensive facts in the POLAR PEN cases and the new court rulings. Now we get to the reasons that the Justice Department would give itself if that famously tightlipped agency ever offered an official comment about OPR’s long-running internal ethics probe, and special counsel Henry Schuelke would probably tell the press the same thing about the criminal investigation if he ever talked. The POLAR PEN cases—particularly the case against Ted Stevens—generated many, many boxes of evidence, and it takes a while to go through all them and question the prosecutors and FBI and IRS agents who worked on the original federal investigation into Alaska public corruption.

There were also also three court decisions issued last month that the feds might say that they were reviewing to assess any effects those decisions should have on the investigations, the findings, and any decision by the special counsel to prosecute anyone. Those first two of those three are the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions reversing the convictions of former State Reps. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) and Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River) based on prosecutorial misconduct. The third is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case arising in New Orleans in which the high court restricted the ability of criminal defendants to sue prosecutors for civil rights violations based on the government’s failure to provide (or “discover”) evidence to a criminal defendant. (Hat tip to Anchorage attorney Mark Regan for the thought on the U.S. Supreme Court case, plus additional sharpening of my thinking on this post.)

(Notice: I’ll be out of town for a week, so reactions may come more slowly to new developments in the subjects covered by this blog.)

More Details on Bruce Weyhrauch's Seeking of Fees from the Feds

2011-04-17T21:23:00.005-08:00

Anchorage-- Rich Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News covered angles that I didn't regarding the request of ex-State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau) that the court order the federal government to pay more than $600,000 in fees for his defense. You can find that story from yesterday's newspaper here.

Bruce Weyhrauch's Lawyers Seek More than $600,000 in Fees From the Feds

2011-04-14T17:03:00.009-08:00

Anchorage-- Lawyers for former State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau) have filed a motion asking the court to award litigation costs against the federal government in the wake of the dismissal of the federal charges against the former legislator. The motion cites two examples of the prosecution eliciting grand jury testimony that the defense alleges was false. Weyhrauch's lawyers seek an award of more than $600,000 in litigation costs, with about two-thirds of that amount representing attorney time and about a third paralegal time. The case initially involved charges of public corruption, and ran for almost four years before the Department of Justice agreed to its dismissal last month in conjunction with Weyhrauch pleading guilty to the very odd state misdemeanor of dealing with unregistered lobbyists. As I repeatedly disclosed, I have known Bruce Weyhrauch for about 30 years, although he has never discussed this case with me. More later, as I am on a deadline on another project.

Bill Weimar Profile in Anchorage Daily News Details His Early Life

2011-04-11T19:08:00.006-08:00

Anchorage-- Michael Carey has an excellent piece on Bill Weimar, the one-time Democratic Party strategist, influence peddler, and corrections kingpin who became a convicted felon as a result of the "POLAR PEN" federal probe into Alaska public corruption. Weimar appeared to be the investigation's first target. Michael Carey's article appears to be the first of a series on the man, and you can find it here. (Hat tip to Mark Regan.)

Pete Kott's Lawyer Sheds New Light on What the Feds Allegedly Hid About Bill Allen's Alleged Sex Crimes

2011-04-08T14:08:00.005-08:00

Anchorage-- The lawyer for former State Rep. Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River) has asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to send his case to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing about whether the case should be dismissed, not a retrial. The filing contains sordid details about key witness Bill Allen's alleged sexual crimes with minors and the Justice Department's treatment of the evidence of those crimes. The filing is here.

The filing strengthens my belief that the Justice Department will drop the case against Kott and former co-felon and former State Rep. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla), as the feds would do almost anything rather than allow such an evidentiary hearing. The evidence that the filing offers makes the feds look so bad that revulsion at the way the Department of Justice handled Bill Allen may also help explain the vehemence of the dissent of Circuit Court Judge Betty Fletcher's dissents in the cases of Kott and Kohring.

Judge Grants Permission for Bruce Weyhrauch's Lawyers to Forward Evidence of Prosecutorial Misconduct to Alaska Bar Association

2011-04-07T14:38:00.005-08:00

Anchorage-- The Court has granted the motion discussed here.

Prediction: The Feds Are Not Going to Re-Try Vic Kohring and Pete Kott, as the Department of Justice Will Turn Mother's Picture to the Wall

2011-04-03T21:45:00.010-08:00

Anchorage-- Since the reversals last month of the corruption-related convictions of former State Reps. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) and Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River), Alaskans have asked whether the U.S. Department of Justice will put them on trial again. I don't think so.

I have explained this to people by recalling a scene from a classic Western. In the 1960 film "The Magnificent Seven," seven hired American gunmen undertake to go to Mexico to protect a village terrorized by a gang of bandits. The task turns out to be tougher than they thought. The gunmen talk about what to do and about whether it would be wrong to take a contract to protect the villagers and then leave the helpless to their fate. The most mercenary of the gunmen urges the others to give up in the face of the long odds against them. The character says "There comes a time to turn Mother's picture to the wall and get out!"

And that's what I think the feds are going to do. Despite all the evidence against Kohring and Kott--including iconic video footage of Kohring taking cash from convicted briber Bill Allen--the prosecution is going to turn Mother's picture to the wall and dismiss the cases against the two former legislators. This decision would leave Kohring and Kott disgraced but no longer felons.

The feds have all kinds of reasons to make this decision, which are similar to the factors identified by NPR's Nina Totenberg as influencing the Attorney General's choice to drop the case against U.S. Ted Stevens in 2009:

1. Shut the door on the ugly. Re-trying Kohring and Kott would create two more forums for dragging out unfortunate facts about the investigation and prosecution of the cases arising out of the "POLAR PEN" federal probe into public corruption in Alaska.

2. Kohring and Kott have already been penalized. The two former legislators have already served months in prison before being released in the wake of disclosures of the prosecution's failures to provide evidence to the defense lawyers before trial.

3. These two are already out of public office, and it's unlikely that they would ever be elected again to any public office.

4. It's a teachable moment. Some Alaskans might be unhappy with a decision to drop the cases against Kohring and Kott now. The Department of Justice, however, might be more inclined to send a message to federal prosecutors to avoid the kinds of failures to disclose evidence that got their heads handed to them in the cases of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, Kohring, and Kott and apparently contributed to the feds' embarrassing retreat in the case of former State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau). The feds might also think--like the most mercenary gunman in the movie said about the village the Americans came to help--that Alaska will be "no worse off than it was before we came." In fact, Justice Department officials in Washington, D.C. might be thinking "We came to Alaska. We did a lot to clean it up. Now's the time to cut our losses and depart."

So that's my prediction: The Department of Justice will not re-try Kohring and Kott, and will instead arrange to drop the cases against them.

Then again, this comes from the same blogger who told you that Ted Stevens would never testify in his own defense at his trial.

(Thanks to Mark Regan for sharpening my thinking on this post.)

(This post has been improved with more links and better formatting since its original posting earlier this evening.)

The Feds Are Not Going to Re-Try Vic Kohring and Pete Kott: The Department of Justice Will Turn Mother's Picture to the Wall

2011-04-03T18:40:00.009-08:00

Anchorage— Since the reversals last month of the corruption-related convictions of former State Reps. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) and Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River), Alaskans have asked whether the U.S. Department of Justice will put them on trial again. I don’t think so. I have explained this to people by recalling a scene from a classic Western. In the 1960 film “The Magnificent Seven,” seven hired American gunmen undertake to go to Mexico to protect a village being terrorized by a gang of bandits. The task turns out to be tougher than they thought. The gunmen talk about what to do and about whether it would be wrong to take a contract to protect the villagers and then leave the helpless to their fate. The most mercenary of the gunmen urges the others to give up in the face of the long odds against them. The character says “There comes a time to turn Mother's picture to the wall and get out!” And that’s what I think the feds are going to do. Despite all the evidence against Kohring and Kott—including iconic video footage of Kohring taking cash from convicted briber Bill Allen—the prosecution is going to turn Mother’s picture to the wall and dismiss the cases against the two former legislators. The feds have all kinds of reasons to make this decision: 1. Shut a door on the ugly. Re-trying Kohring and Kott would create two more forums for dragging out unfortunate facts about the investigation and prosecution of the cases arising out of the “POLAR PEN” federal probe into public corruption in Alaska. 2. Kohring and Kott have already been penalized. The two former legislators have already served months in prison before being released in the wake of disclosures of the prosecution’s failures to provide evidence to their lawyers. 3. These two are already out of public office, and it’s unlikely that they would ever be elected again to any public office. 4. It’s a teachable moment. Some Alaskans might be unhappy with a decision to drop the cases against Kohring and Kott now. The Department of Justice, however, might be more inclined to send a message to federal prosecutors to avoid the kinds of failures to disclose evidence that got their heads handed to them in the cases of Ted Stevens, Kohring, and Kott and apparently contributed to the embarrassing retreat in the case of former State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau). The feds might also think—like the most mercenary gunman in the movie said about the village the Americans came to help—that Alaska will be “no worse off than it was before we came.” In fact, Department of Justice officials in Washington, D.C. might be thinking “We came to Alaska. We did a lot to clean it up. Now’s the time to cut our losses and depart.” So that’s my prediction: The Department of Justice will not re-try Kohring and Kott, and will instead arrange to drop the cases against them. Then again, this comes from the same blogger who told you that U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens would never testify in his own defense at his trial. (Thanks to Mark Regan for sharpening my thinking on this post.)

Bruce Weyhrauch Seeks Permission to Give Evidence to Alaska Bar Association Allegedly Showing Prosecutorial Misconduct

2011-03-31T15:11:00.013-08:00

Anchorage-- Attorneys for ex-State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau), a lawyer and former defendant in the federal government's "POLAR PEN" probe into Alaska public corruption, have asked the federal trial court for permission to give material to the Alaska Bar Association that allegedly reflect prosecutorial misconduct. The lawyers for Weyhrauch allege that the material--currently under seal--"refers to evidence of serious misconduct by government prosecutors appearing before the grand jury, including subordination of perjury...." The pleadings filed today cite a professional obligation by Weyhrauch and his lawyers to report serious misconduct to the body that oversees the practice of law in Alaska. The pleadings do not allege that any particular prosecutor committed misconduct. A footnote in today's papers, however, names the four prosecutors who entered appearances in Weyhrauch's case: Nicholas Marsh and Edward Sullivan, then Trial Attorneys for the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section; and Joseph Bottini and James Goeke, Assistant U.S. Attorneys then based in Alaska. All four were active in other "POLAR PEN" cases, including the prosecution of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens that has produced two separate investigations into prosecutors' conduct. As of next month, both of those probes will have run at least two years.

Another Joke from a Tyke

2011-03-26T17:57:00.003-08:00

Anchorage--

An offering from a five-year-old threatening to surpass his uncle as the family's funniest member:

Question: What did the ocean say to the shore?

Answer: Nothing. It just waved.

Kott Shoe Drops--Appellate Court Vacates Pete Kott's Convictions and Remands for a New Trial

2011-03-24T11:36:00.003-08:00

Anchorage--

As expected, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the convictions of ex-State Rep. Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River) and granted the former Speaker of the House a new trial. This time it's a four-page unpublished disposition. The appellate court cites the withholding of evidence that key prosecution witness Bill Allen sexually exploited minors and attempted to solicit perjury to cover it up. The three-judge panel also points to newly disclosed evidence of numerous prior inconsistent statements about the amounts of money Kott got and the reasons for such payments.

(Thanks once again to the eagle-eyed Mark Regan.)

The Bare Record of the Federal Probe into Alaska Public Corruption--REVISED

2011-03-23T15:31:00.005-08:00

Anchorage--

A reader of this blog has passed the word to me that he considers to be incorrect my characterization of the activities associated with the convictions of former State Rep. Tom Anderson (R.-Anchorage). I stated that Anderson was convicted of "crimes associated with corruption regarding private prisons." The reader has stated that the case dealt instead with a narrower entity: a proposed residential psychiatric treatment center for youths that a corrections company wanted to operate.

The Anderson trial was the only one of the four trials arising out of the federal investigation that I did not attend. I followed media coverage of the trial, however, and I have again reviewed some of that media coverage as well as court pleadings filed regarding the trial. In the indictment, the grand jury charged Anderson with crimes relating to the state legislator providing legislative assistance to a corrections company regarding a proposed residential psychiatric youth treatment center, halfway houses, and a potential private prison. The trial jury convicted Anderson on all seven counts charged.

The lawmaker's work regarding the residential psychiatric treatment center for youths might be seen as the most significant, as he participated in a hearing regarding a permit for that facilty. The evidence presented at trial showed, however, that Anderson also wrote a letter to and met with the Commissioner of Corrections regarding halfway houses operated by Cornell, the corrections company the lawmaker thought was getting paid by (although the money was actually coming from the FBI). Additionally, the indictment alleged that Anderson told Frank Prewitt, a lobbyist for the corrections company, that he would prod the Corrections Commissioner about a feasibility study for a potential private prison.

I have revised the graphic to show that Anderson was convicted of "crimes associated with corruption regarding private corrections facilities."

Here's the revised graphic showing the current status of the cases:

Individual / Role / Crimes charged / Sentence of custody after resolution of case / Legal status as of 23 March 2011

Ted Stevens / U.S. Sen. / Deliberate failure to report on Senate disclosure forms gifts and/or liabilities, primarily associated with VECO and/or its long-time CEO Bill Allen / Never sentenced after jury verdicts of guilty set aside following revelations of prosecutorial misconduct / Free until death in August of 2010

Pete Kott / State Rep. / Crimes associated with corruption regarding Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) oil tax legislation in 2006 / Six years after jury verdicts of guilty / Free while courts sort out allegations of prosecutorial misconduct (case currently in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Vic Kohring / State Rep. / Crimes associated with corruption regarding Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) oil tax legislation in 2006 / 3.5 years after jury verdicts of guilty / Convictions overturned by Ninth Circuit based on prosecutors' failures to turn over evidence to the defense; no decision announced by Department of Justice on re-trial

Tom Anderson / State Rep. / Crimes associated with corruption regarding private corrections facilities / Five years after jury verdicts of guilty / Released from prison to halfway house in February of 2011

Beverly Masek / State Rep. / Conspiracy to take bribes from Bill Allen and a relative regarding oil tax legislation / Six months in prison after guilty plea / Out of prison

Bruce Weyhrauch / State Rep. / Crimes associated with corruption regarding Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) oil tax legislation in 2006 / Three-month suspended sentence following guilty plea to state misdemeanor of knowingly dealing with unregistered lobbyists in return for dismissal of felony charges / Free on probation

John Cowdery / State Sen. / Conspiracy with Bill Allen to bribe another legislator regarding PPT oil tax legislation / Six months of home confinement pursuant to guilty plea / Free after end of sentence

Jim Clark / Chief of Staff to Governor Frank Murkowski / Conspiracy to commit honest services fraud by taking illegal campaign contribution from VECO for Frank Murkowski’s gubernatorial re-election campaign / Allowed to withdraw guilty plea to charge after U.S. Supreme Court cut back on scope of statute making honest services fraud a crime / Free

Bill Allen / Chairman (former CEO) of VECO and Power Broker / Crimes associated with corruption regarding Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) oil tax legislation in 2006 as well as tax violations / Three years after guilty pleas / In prison

Rick Smith / Vice President of VECO and Political Lieutenant of Bill Allen / Crimes associated with corruption regarding Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) oil tax legislation in 2006 as well as tax violations / 21 months after guilty pleas / In prison

Bill Weimar / Power Broker and Private Corrections Magnate / Conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and structuring transactions regarding campaign contribution to legislative candidate whom Weimar believed would support Weimar's efforts regarding private prisons / Six months in prison and six months of home confinement after guilty pleas / Discharged from this sentence, but now charged with felony child sexual abuse in Florida

Bill Bobrick / Lobbyist / Conspiracy to commit extortion, bribery, and money laundering in conjunction with efforts regarding private corrections facilities / Five months in prison and five months in home confinement after guilty pleas / Free after serving sentence

Why Did the Department of Justice and Bruce Weyhrauch Agree to a Deal?

2011-03-21T15:36:00.015-08:00

Anchorage--

After almost four years of litigation over four felony charges alleging public corruption, federal prosecutors and former State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau) agreed to a settlement of the case. The deal that was executed last week allowed the former legislator to plead guilty to a single state misdemeanor of knowingly allowing two unregistered lobbyists to lobby him when Weyhrauch was aware of a substantial probability that they were not registered. For this offense, a judge sentenced Weyhrauch Tuesday to a three-month suspended jail sentence and a $1,000 fine, and put him on a year of probation.

Weyhrauch’s case was the last of the cases arising out of the federal government’s POLAR PEN investigation into Alaska public corruption to be resolved at the trial court level. Why did the two sides come to this deal now?

Know right up front, dear reader, that Bruce Weyhrauch is the defendant in the POLAR PEN cases that I know the best. I have known him for about 30 years, and I have had numerous personal and professional contacts with him during that time. He and I have never spoken about this case, however, or had a conversation since his indictment in 2007. More on my experiences with Bruce Weyhrauch here.

Before this plea arrangement was announced and executed, I was planning to write a post on the things each side had going for it as the trial approached. That post now morphs into an analysis of the factors affecting the sides’ decision to make a deal. I’ll start with the background of the case before I discuss items favoring the prosecution, lay out what was good for the defense, set out the factors pressing each side for a pre-trial settlement, and end with some comments.

BACKGROUND

On May 3, 2007, the federal government filed a grand jury indictment of former State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau). The indictment charged Weyhrauch with four felonies: extortion, bribery, honest services fraud, and conspiracy to commit those other three crimes.

The context for the charges was the Alaska Legislature’s consideration of the Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) legislation in 2006, legislation that was heavily lobbied by Bill Allen and Rick Smith, executives of the giant oil-services corporation VECO. That company made substantial amounts of money through contracts with Alaska’s major oil producers, who would pay any higher taxes imposed by the State of Alaska.

The indictment alleged that Weyhrauch, an attorney and legislator first elected in 2002, agreed to help the VECO executives try to get their preferred version of oil tax legislation adopted in 2006 in return for a promise of future contract legal work.

Although it was originally scheduled to go to trial in September of 2007, the federal government delayed the case while making a pre-trial appeal of an evidentiary ruling from the trial court. The prosecution had announced that it wanted to argue that Weyhrauch was required to disclose his solicitation and discussions with VECO under a state statute providing that “A legislator may not…unless required by the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, take…official action or exert official influence that could substantially benefit…the financial interest of another person with whom the legislator is negotiating for employment.” Under the prosecution’s theory, Weyhrauch was guilty of honest services fraud because he failed to disclose those discussions in violation of this law.

U.S. District Judge John Sedwick ruled that this law—AS 24.60.030(e)(3)—did not require disclosure, and prohibited the prosecution from presenting evidence or arguing to the jury that the law required the lawmaker to disclose his discussions with VECO executives about future contract work before taking official action regarding PPT legislation.

The Department of Justice apparently thought that this evidence was so important to its case against Weyhrauch that the prosecution held up the trial against him to pursue the appeal.

The case then sat on hold for almost three years as it wended its way through the courts. Bruce Weyhrauch’s name was then enshrined forever in the lawbooks when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in his case and two others in June of 2010. The Supreme Court ruled that the honest services fraud statute did not cover the kind of undisclosed self-dealing that the prosecution alleged Weyhrauch engaged in.

After a series of other delays, the case was scheduled to go to trial starting May 9, 2011 in Juneau. Both sides made moves to prepare for the trial.

Then on Friday, March 11, documents were filed in state court in Juneau showing that the parties had agreed to end the case by having Weyhrauch plead guilty to the very substantially reduced—and unprecedented—misdemeanor offense of “participating in, aiding, or abetting a lobbyist engaging in activity as a lobbyist without being registered.”

Weyhrauch pleaded guilty on Monday and was sentenced on Tuesday morning. Weyhrauch’s lawyer Doug Pope said despite the government’s “pathetically weak case,” the prosecution had put Weyhrauch and his family “through a special kind of living hell.” At the sentencing hearing, Weyhrauch’s attorney Ray Brown said that his client had “spent over $300,000 in defense cost.” State District Court Judge Keith Levy stressed the importance of being faithful to the public trust as a legislator in denying the defense request for a suspended imposition of sentence, an outcome that would have allowed Weyhrauch to get the conviction wiped off his record if he successfully completed probation.

As he left the courthouse, Weyhrauch told reporters that "No citizen of this country should have gone through what I've gone through -- what the federal government, they've done to me, they can do to anyone.” He added that "I look forward to a bright tomorrow and spending time with my family."

THINGS THE PROSECUTION HAD GOING FOR IT

1. Undisclosed angling for work from VECO. Bruce Weyrhauch solicited VECO for contract legal work and discussed with VECO executives possibilities for that work while he was a state legislator working on PPT legislation in 2006, and never disclosed the solicitation or the discussions.

2. Working with VECO on oil tax legislation in ways that are arguably suspicious. Weyhrauch also communicated with Allen and Smith in ways that helped those executives in the legislative process on the PPT bill. The ways that Weyhrauch apparently helped the VECO executives allegedly included switching his vote on an amendment to the legislation after the government said he received “instructions” to do so from Allen and State Rep. Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River), a legislator working closely with Allen.

3. Crooked-appearing associates. Some of the people that Weyhrauch dealt with on the VECO legislation—including Allen, Smith, and Kott—look criminal and tawdry on tapes (including some videotapes) that the FBI made during its investigation into Alaska public corruption.

4. Other people’s comments suggesting Weyhrauch sold his office. In a telephone conversation captured by the FBI, Allen and State Senate President Ben Stevens (R.-Anchorage) agreed that Weyhrauch came to support VECO’s preferred version of the PPT bill because Allen had told Weyhrauch that VECO would give him contract legal work in the future. In other conversations away from Weyhrauch, Allen and Smith also made other comments that explicitly or implicitly linked Weyhrauch’s support for the VECO-supported version of the legislation to Weyhrauch’s expectation of future legal work from VECO.

5. Weyhrauch’s tough financial situation. It was widely known in the Capitol that the lawmaker was pressed for money in 2006, as the solo practitioner struggled to support three children in a house that had been renovated. The indictment alleges that while meeting with Allen and Smith to discuss future legal work, Weyhrauch told Allen that he "was not doing well financially."

6. Bad optics over “This is our floor” speech. During legislative consideration of the PPT bill, Rep. Ethan Berkowitz (D.-Anchorage), the House Minority Leader, angrily denounced outside pressures on the process. “This is our floor. Our floor,” Berkowitz said in a clip that was widely replayed. “No telephone call is supposed to change what we’re doing. No lobbyist is supposed to peer over the ruling and tell us to change our mind.” Weyhrauch got up to object and assert that Berkowitz’s characterization was incorrect. Regardless of the reason(s) that Berkowitz made that speech, the prosecution might have suggested that Weyhrauch’s hasty objection represented consciousness of guilt.

______________________________________________________

The line above represents a division between things the prosecution could clearly have gotten before the jury (the points above that line) and things the government’s lawyers would have hoped they could get into evidence (the points below the line).

7. Alleged chiseling on per diem payments. The prosecution claimed that the lawmaker had repeatedly submitted “fraudulent” requests for payment for some legislative work compensated on a basis of time worked, apparently alleging that Weyhrauch had a pattern of seeking payment for work he did not perform. The trial judge prohibited the prosecution from introducing this evidence, but the government announced in pre-trial pleadings that it would be looking for other ways to get these allegations before the jury during the trial.

8. Other behavior in the legal arena that was arguably inappropriate. Weyhrauch took a fee from a company to seek executive clemency (often called a “pardon”) for a company that had been convicted of criminally negligent homicide. This representation for the firm Whitewater Engineering had Weyhrauch ask Governor Frank Murkowski to give this unusual relief, which Murkowski granted in the waning days of his administration. Although not prohibited by laws and rules then in effect regarding the conduct of lawyers and legislators, Weyhrauch’s conduct could be portrayed as evidence of poor judgment and a conflict of interest, as the Governor would clearly want Weyhrauch’s legislative assistance on other matters. Weyhrauch donated his legal fee from the company to a charity, apparently after the FBI’s search of the lawmaker’s office pursuant to a search warrant signaled that Weyhrauch was a target of the POLAR PEN federal investigation into Alaska public corruption.

9. Evidence suggesting that Weyhrauch should have known better. Before he became a legislator, Weyhrauch had been on the board of the Alaska Bar Association and had served as its President, positions in which he had participated in decisions about the imposition of professional discipline on other attorneys. Additionally, Weyhrauch—like Ben Stevens—served on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics in 2005-2006.

THINGS THE DEFENSE HAD GOING FOR IT

1. No money changed hands. Weyhrauch got no money from VECO, and the government seemed to have no evidence that he linked any legislative assistance regarding VECO’s preferred version of the PPT bill to any future contract legal work from VECO.

2. Innocent explanations for Weyhrauch’s actions on oil tax legislation. The defense was prepared to present witnesses that Weyhrauch’s thinking about the PPT bill evolved for legitimate and non-corrupt reasons during 2006. Although the prosecution would have argued that a legislator can help a cause in ways other than voting on the floor—such as gathering intelligence and lobbying other lawmakers—the defense would have picked through the many votes legislators took on PPT bills during the regular session and two special sessions and pointed to at least one instance in which Weyhrauch had voted that year against VECO’s preferred position on the legislation.

3. Favorite arrow in prosecutor’s quiver blunted severely. The Supreme Court’s narrowing of the honest services fraud statute in 2010 took away a very important argument for the prosecution against Weyhrauch.

4. Shrunken government witness list. By 2011, the government’s witness list had gotten smaller, as the prosecution had indicated that it would not call Bill Allen to the stand. Additionally, the defense alleged that a lawyer for lead FBI agent Mary Beth Kepner had indicated that she would claim a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if called to testify at Weyhrauch’s trial.

5. Tape shortage. Tapes of incriminating behavior and statements had been critical in the conviction of a number of defendants in cases arising out of the federal investigation, and Weyhrauch doesn’t show up on truly damning tapes the way a number of other defendants have. Weyhrauch never went to Suite 604, the “Animal House” headquarters of Allen and Smith’s lobbying operation in Juneau’s Baranof Hotel that was the scene of tapes that made a number of defendants look both guilty and crude.

6. Shaky law on disclosure. The government never alleged that Weyhrauch’s solicitation of legal work from VECO violated the ethical rules applying to Alaska lawyers, and Weyhrauch and his defense claimed that he was acting within the letter and intent of state law and legislative guidelines when he solicited work from companies with business before the legislature without disclosing it. Weyhrauch had told other legislators that he had sent out numerous letters seeking work from potential clients, and he told the Anchorage Daily News that other companies he solicited had business before the legislature.

7. The Department of Justice in full retreat. Disclosures of failures in meeting responsibilities to provide evidence to the defense have led to the meltdown of the prosecution against U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and the release of former State Reps. Kott and Vic Kohring put the government’s investigation in a bad odor. Two probes into the prosecutors and the investigators in POLAR PEN have been going on for close to two years. Although touching on this sad and emotional subject could have been dangerous, the defense might have been looking for some way to get before the jury the suicide of former Department of Justice attorney and POLAR PEN point man Nicholas Marsh in an attempt to argue that he was trying to escape the consequences of his actions.

Weyhrauch’s defense attorneys had already filed a sealed document in federal court alleging “misconduct before the grand jury” that indicted him. Although we don’t know what would have come of that effort, the Department of Justice might have seen the continuation of litigation in the Weyhrauch case as another way unpleasant facts might have surfaced regarding the POLAR PEN prosecution.

With all these problems and concerns, the feds were looking to fold their tent. Letting Weyhrauch plead to a misdemeanor in state court was as close as the prosecutors could come to dumping the case without actually dismissing it. On the other hand, Weyhrauch’s plea to that misdemeanor stopped the meter running on his attorney bills, already over $300,000.

8. Home court advantage. By 2011, Weyhrauch’s lawyers had succeeded in getting the trial moved from Anchorage to Juneau, where at least some in the jury pool may have been exposed to positive information from the defendant’s political campaigns and extensive community service.

9. Minnow among the whales. One of the people the indictment alleges that Weyhrauch conspired with is former State Senate President Ben Stevens, who remains uncharged despite the federal government’s allegation that Bill Allen arranged to have VECO pay him more than $243,250 over five years for “giving advice, lobbying colleagues, and taking official acts in matters before the legislature.” Along with “Where’s Bill?,” another defense theme at a trial could be “Where’s Ben?”

10. Family man with good family. As his lawyers recognized, a jury might be affected by Weyhrauch’s three attractive children and his particularly nice wife.

An additional background factor playing into each side’s handling of the trial, particularly before a Juneau jury, would have been a mishap Weyhrauch experienced in his hometown nine days before he was indicted and arrested. Back in April of 2007, Weyhrauch was reported missing while alone in his small boat in the waters off of Juneau. He was found 17 hours later on an island with signs of hypothermia.

This unusual incident would likely only have come out openly in the trial if Weyhrauch had testified in his own defense. If he had taken the stand, he likely would have said the same things about the case that he told Richard Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News after the sentencing. In the rules that govern Alaska’s citizen legislature, there is no duty to disclose solicitation of work from a company like VECO, Weyhrauch said. “Once you represent somebody you disclose it.” He also said that his busy schedule of work and family responsibilities kept him from learning that Allen and Smith were corrupt. He said that the grueling schedule had led him not to run for re-election in 2006, a decision his lawyers have said that he made before he solicited work from VECO.

EVALUATION

Some of Bruce Weyhrauch’s conduct as revealed in this case was troublesome, but that doesn’t mean that it merited criminal punishment under the law. In the words of close observer Mark Regan, the charges against this former legislator “have been disproportionate to the gravity of his alleged wrongdoing.” (If an instance of questionable judgment was grounds for prosecution if it disappointed an old friend, it’s not clear when I would ever get out of prison.)

Given the large number of lawmakers who dealt in 2006 with Bill Allen and Rick Smith, it is of course odd that Bruce Weyhrauch stands as almost certainly the only Alaska legislator who will ever be convicted of the crime the Associated Press characterized as "letting unregistered lobbyists peddle their ideas to him." A good lawyer like Weyhrauch of course knows that being odd does not mean illegal and that selective prosecution is definitely common in American law.

On a personal level, it was nice to see LuAnn Weyhrauch smile on the video the Anchorage Daily News posted showing her and her husband leaving the courthouse after the sentencing. Bruce Weyhrauch has a lot of things going for him as he puts this terrible experience behind him, as he is smart, hardworking, and fiercely loyal to his family and friends. There is of course a terrible irony in that it was Bruce Weyhrauch’s search for income to support his family that has led to a case that has cost him at least $300,000 as well as a long walk through hell. You have to wonder how much he regrets running in 2004 for his second term in the legislature, and you have to wonder how much he would paid some higher power in 2006 to avoid going through the ordeal of the last four years.

The Bare Record of the Federal Probe into Alaska Public Corruption

2011-03-19T19:21:00.007-08:00

Anchorage--

With the substantial misinformation on this topic floating around the Internet, it seems useful to lay out the record on the federal investigation into public corruption in Alaska. Twelve people have been charged--nine for crimes associated with the defunct multinational oilfield-services corporation VECO, and three for crimes associated with efforts regarding private corrections facilities.

Of the nine people charged with crimes associated with VECO, six people stand convicted today while three other cases ran off the rails. The convictions against one of those six--ex-State Rep. Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River)--looks shaky on appeal, however, and the conviction of another of the six--ex-State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau)--was for a unique state misdemeanor instead of the four felony charges that the federal government originally laid against him.

Of the three people charged with crimes associated with private prisons, all three cases resulted in federal felony convictions that will stay in place.

Here's a graphic showing the current status of the cases, in this blog's characteristically unflashy style:

Individual / Role / Crimes charged / Sentence of custody after resolution of case / Legal status as of 19 March 2011

Ted Stevens / U.S. Sen. / Deliberate failure to report on Senate disclosure forms gifts and/or liabilities, primarily associated with VECO and/or its long-time CEO Bill Allen / Never sentenced after jury verdicts of guilty set aside following revelations of prosecutorial misconduct / Free until death in August of 2010

Pete Kott / State Rep. / Crimes associated with corruption regarding Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) oil tax legislation in 2006 / Six years after jury verdicts of guilty / Free while courts sort out allegations of prosecutorial misconduct (case currently in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Vic Kohring / State Rep. / Crimes associated with corruption regarding Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) oil tax legislation in 2006 / 3.5 years after jury verdicts of guilty / Convictions overturned by Ninth Circuit based on prosecutors' failures to turn over evidence to the defense; no decision announced by Department of Justice on re-trial

Tom Anderson / State Rep. / Crimes associated with corruption regarding private prisons / Five years after jury verdicts of guilty / Released from prison to halfway house in February of 2011

Beverly Masek / State Rep. / Conspiracy to take bribes from Bill Allen and a relative regarding oil tax legislation / Six months in prison after guilty plea / Out of prison

Bruce Weyhrauch / State Rep. / Crimes associated with corruption regarding Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) oil tax legislation in 2006 / Three-month suspended sentence following guilty plea to state misdemeanor of knowingly dealing with unregistered lobbyists in return for dismissal of felony charges / Free on probation

John Cowdery / State Sen. / Conspiracy with Bill Allen to bribe another legislator regarding PPT oil tax legislation / Six months of home confinement pursuant to guilty plea / Free after end of sentence

Jim Clark / Chief of Staff to Governor Frank Murkowski / Conspiracy to commit honest services fraud by taking illegal campaign contribution from VECO for Frank Murkowski’s gubernatorial re-election campaign / Allowed to withdraw guilty plea to charge after U.S. Supreme Court cut back on scope of statute making honest services fraud a crime / Free

Bill Allen / Chairman (former CEO) of VECO and Power Broker / Crimes associated with corruption regarding Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) oil tax legislation in 2006 as well as tax violations / Three years after guilty pleas / In prison

Rick Smith / Vice President of VECO and Political Lieutenant of Bill Allen / Crimes associated with corruption regarding Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) oil tax legislation in 2006 as well as tax violations / 21 months after guilty pleas / In prison

Bill Weimar / Power Broker and Private Corrections Magnate / Conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and structuring transactions regarding campaign contribution to legislative candidate whom Weimar believed would support Weimar's efforts regarding private prisons / Six months in prison and six months of home confinement after guilty pleas / Discharged from this sentence, but now charged with felony child sexual abuse in Florida

Bill Bobrick / Lobbyist / Conspiracy to commit extortion, bribery, and money laundering in conjunction with efforts regarding private corrections facilities / Five months in prison and five months in home confinement after guilty pleas / Free after serving sentence

Comprehensive Coverage of Weyhrauch Sentencing in Alaska's Largest Newspaper

2011-03-15T17:33:00.005-08:00

Anchorage--

The Anchorage Daily News has a solid story and video in its coverage of the Bruce Weyhrauch sentencing on a misdemeanor today. The newspaper is to be commended for arranging to have Richard Mauer in Juneau for what will almost certainly be the last sentencing in a case arising from the federal government's POLAR PEN probe into Alaska federal prosecution.

Bruce Weyhrauch Gets Suspended Sentence of Three Months in Jail and $1,000 Fine for Misdemeanor of Dealing with Unregistered Lobbyists

2011-03-15T12:06:00.004-08:00

Anchorage--

The Associated Press reports that former State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau) has this morning received a suspended sentence of three months in jail and a $1,000 fine on a guilty plea to a state misdemeanor charge the wire service characterized as "letting unregistered lobbyists peddle their ideas to him." Much more to come later.

Associated Press Reports that Judge Has Accepted Bruce Weyhrauch's Misdemeanor Plea and Schedules Sentencing at 9 a.m. Tomorrow

2011-03-14T14:42:00.004-08:00

Anchorage--

The Associated Press reports that a judge in Alaska state court in Juneau has accepted former State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch's plea of guilty to the misdemeanor of "Participating in, aiding, or abetting a lobbyist engaging in activity without being registered." The court set sentencing for 9 a.m. tomorrow.

I have reviewed the documents filed Friday, which contrary to my earlier post were filed in state court and not in federal court. I'll have a lot more to say about this case later this week, but what strikes me this afternoon is that it is highly unusual--if not unique--to see a five-page factual basis for plea in a misdemeanor case in Alaska state court. That's what happens when lawyers for both sides negotiate and insist on putting the versions of each side in one document.

(Disclosure: I have had numerous personal and professional contacts with Bruce Weyhrauch between 1981 and 2005, but he and I have never discussed his case or spoken since his indictment in 2007.)

Feds Blink and Give Bruce Weyhrauch a Misdemeanor in Plea Deal, Anchorage Daily News Reports

2011-03-14T07:14:00.009-08:00

Anchorage--

Richard Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News has the scoop: The federal government has agreed to drop four felony counts--including bribery, extortion, and conspiracy--against ex-State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau) in return for the former lawmaker pleading guilty in state court to dealing with VECO executives Bill Allen and Rick Smith when Weyhrauch should have known they were unregistered lobbyists.

I'll have more when this agreement when it appears on the official federal court Website (apparently later today), but there are some important points now:

1. This is a major climb-down by the Department of Justice. Weyhrauch faces a maximum sentence of a year in prison and a $1,000 fine under the misdemeanor conviction, and he will almost certainly avoid jailtime and keep his license to practice law.

2. The feds' retreat appears to be close to total in the POLAR PEN probe into Alaska public corruption. Mauer notes that the document was signed and filed in federal court Friday, the same day that a federal appeals court threw out the convictions of former State Rep. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) and ordered a new trial.

3. By dropping the felony case against Weyhrauch and agreeing to give him a misdemeanor, the Department of Justice is closing the door on more discovery into ugly matters likely to be embarrassing to the federal government. As of this moment, the last document filed on the federal courts' website in this case is a court order directing the prosecution to respond to a broad defense request for more information, including copies of any law enforcement reports of Bill Allen invoking his Fifth Amendment rights not to answer questions about Allen's involvement in "sex with underage women or sex trafficking."

4. In response to Mauer's question regarding whether the State of Alaska will now investigate any of the many other legislators who were actively lobbied by unregistered lobbyists Bill Allen and Rick Smith on oil tax legislation in 2006, all signs point to "No."

(Disclosure: I have had numerous personal and professional contacts with Bruce Weyhrauch between 1981 and 2005, but he and I have never discussed his case or spoken since his indictment in 2007.)

Why Wasn't the Tape Enough to Convict Vic Kohring?

2011-03-13T20:20:00.003-08:00

Anchorage—

A commenter made the same point that I heard repeatedly Friday.

Why wasn’t the tape alone enough to convict Vic Kohring?

I deleted the comment because it included an obscenity (let’s keep it clean on this family site), but I want to answer the question.

The tape in question is a videotape the FBI made in the infamous Suite 604 of Juneau’s Baranof Hotel on March 30, 2006. It shows then-State Rep. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) with long-time VECO CEO Bill Allen and his political lieutenant Rick Smith.

U.S. District Judge John Sedwick thought the tape alone was enough to convict Kohring, and a number of other Alaskans do as well. As the former legislator’s hometown newspaper editorialized about what is shown on the tape, “If that’s not a bribe, we need to redefine the term.”

You can look at the tape here—it’s less than 21 minutes long. It does make Vic Kohring look bad.

In the tape, the legislator is sitting in the hotel suite Allen and Smith are using as the
headquarters for their lobbying campaign on the oil tax legislation known as the Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) bill. Kohring asks Allen and Smith for help paying off a delinquent $17,000 credit card bill. Near the tape’s end, Kohring takes some cash from Allen—ostensibly so that Kohring can put it in a gift to his daughter with Easter eggs—and then almost immediately asks how he, the legislator, can help the oil-services tycoon get the Legislature to pass Allen’s preferred version of the oil tax bill.

Judge Sedwick said back in August that in his analysis the only conduct the jury convicted Kohring of was the solicitation of Allen for help in paying off the lawmaker’s credit card bill while the Alaska Legislature was considering the oil tax legislation that Allen was lobbying so heavily on. After seeing the tape during the trial in 2007 and reviewing it again during the appeal, Judge Sedwick concluded that the tape alone was enough to convict Kohring of a corrupt solicitation.

The key sentence in Judge Sedwick’s decision was this: “The court cannot bend or warp its understanding of the videotape into a shape that raises any reasonable probability that Kohring would not have been convicted on [the count that charged him with attempted extortion] by any jury which saw the videotape and contemplated what it saw in the context of Allen’s mission in Juneau and the inescapable inference from the evidence as a whole that Kohring understood and was willing to help with Allen’s corrupt mission.”

Essentially, Judge Sedwick was conducting a thought experiment. He was saying that even if you imagine that Bill Allen did not testify, looking at that videotape in conjunction with other evidence presented by the prosecution left “Guilty” as the only verdict on the attempted extortion charge and two other related charges.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals looked at it differently, however, in the decision issued Friday reversing Judge Sedwick and ordering a new trial for Kohring. The Court of Appeals announced that the jury might have convicted Kohring based on the several cash payments Allen made to the legislator and noted that Allen did in fact testify at the trial. Based on its analysis, the Court of Appeals declared that evidence about Allen’s views of the purposes and effect of those payments and evidence that could shed light on Allen’s motivations for testifying as he did both became highly relevant. Thus both kinds of evidence, said the Court of Appeals, should have been turned over to the defense by the prosecution before trial. Since that didn’t happen, the convictions were reversed and Kohring would get a new trial.

Evidence that was particularly important to be disclosed to the defense, according to the Court of Appeals, was evidence of Allen’s “past conduct” in terms of alleged sexual relations with minors. The defense was entitled to present to the jury evidence that Allen might be tempted to shade his testimony to help him escape prosecution for sexual offenses, said the Court of Appeals, as well as use that evidence to question him in ways that would suggest that Allen was a liar. As the Court of Appeals noted, “Evidence that Allen attempted to suborn perjurious testimony from one of the minors and attempted to make another unavailable for a trial would have been highly probative of his ‘character for truthfulness.’”

The Court of Appeals stated that “Indeed, if the evidence of Allen’s past conduct had been disclosed, there is a reasonable probability that the withheld evidence would have altered at least one juror’s assessment regarding Allen’s testimony against Kohring.” (Internal quotation marks are omitted.) The Court of Appeals is suggesting here that if the prosecution had provided the defense the evidence regarding Allen’s past conduct, the result would have been a hung jury instead of a conviction.

So for the Court of Appeals, the tape didn’t trump—the fear of prosecution over sexual offenses and the alleged attempted cover-ups did. But we may get a chance to see Judge Sedwick’s apparent thought experiment of “Imagine if Bill Allen never testified at Vic Kohring’s trial” become a reality. Now that the convictions have been overturned in what one defense attorney has labeled “the Vic Kohring Catastrophe,” the federal government needs to decide whether it will re-try the former lawmaker. In a trial of Kohring’s former colleague ex-State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau) on corruption charges involving the oil tax debate in 2006—a trial set to start May 9—the prosecution has announced it does not plan to call Allen, now imprisoned on convictions for bribery, conspiracy, and tax violations. Will the Department of Justice take the same “No Bill on the stand” approach in a re-trial of Vic Kohring?

(Disclosure: I have had both personal and professional contacts with Bruce Weyhrauch, but I have never discussed this case with him and we have not had a conversation since his indictment in 2007.)

Get Ready to Donate for Earthquake Relief

2011-03-11T16:17:00.003-09:00

Anchorage--

As someone who survived the Good Friday quake in Anchorage in 1964, I am sympathetic to people who suffer when the ground shakes real hard. This one looks bad, and it could get even worse.

On a less cosmic note, I'll be on Anchorage's KTUU Channel 2 tonight talking about Vic Kohring's good day in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rhonda McBride interviewed me, and I understand that the segment will play big on the 6 p.m. news and in smaller portions at 5 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Vic Kohring Gets His Conviction Reversed and a New Trial

2011-03-11T10:52:00.005-09:00

Anchorage—

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today overturned the conviction of former State Rep. Vic Kohring (R.-Wasilla) and granted him a new trial.

The appellate panel ruled that the prosecution’s failure to disclose certain information to the defense before trial violated Kohring’s rights. The 33-page decision focuses on evidence in two areas of evidence not provided to the defense before the trial:

(1) the investigation into Bill Allen’s alleged sexual misconduct with minors, particularly his alleged attempt to suborn perjury from one of those underaged girls to hide his crimes; and

(2) the poor memory and confusion exhibited by former VECO CEO Allen and his one-time political lieutenant Rick Smith about the amounts of cash paid to Kohring.

The opinion also notes that the prosecution also failed to disclose evidence that Allen told federal agents that he had never asked Kohring to do anything in exchange for the cash the VECO tycoon paid the needy lawmaker.

The panel was unanimous in vacating the conviction, but split 2-1 on what should happen now. The majority stuck with the normal rule that the remedy for prosecutors’ violations of its obligations to disclose (“discover”) evidence is to give the defendant a new trial.

A sharply worded dissent argued, however, that the court should have gone further and thrown out the case altogether by dismissing the indictment against Kohring.

Dissenting Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher characterized the prosecution’s conduct in the discovery failures as “flagrant, willful bad-faith misbehavior” and “an affront to the integrity of our system of justice.” The dissent said that “The prosecution failed to disclose thousands of pages of material documents—including FBI reports, memoranda, and police reports—until after Kohring’s conviction.” (Emphasis in original.) Calling the government’s current attitude “unrepentant,” the dissent urged a dismissal of the indictment both to deter future prosecution misconduct and as a way “to release Kohring from further anguish and uncertainty.”

In an unusual footnote to the majority opinion, the majority’s two judges responded to the dissent’s argument based on the defendant’s “anguish and uncertainty” by observing that relying on such a basis to dismiss an indictment would be unprecedented. Although it overturned District Judge John Sedwick’s decision upholding the former lawmaker’s conviction, the majority also noted the trial judge’s analysis that the suppressed evidence would not have affected the verdict even if the jury had heard it and also cited the position of public trust Kohring held.

The decision is marred by some errors. The most serious is the repeated references to Kohring’s trial testimony, which does not exist as the former legislator never took the witness stand. The court’s references to Kohring’s trial testimony must be to his interview with the FBI.

The decision also raises the question of whether the federal government will choose to re-try Kohring, given the substantial problems it faces in putting Bill Allen and Rick Smith on the witness stand now and the generally bad odor the federal probe into public corruption has gotten in the last two years. (The government could theoretically appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would take the case.) As Mark Regan has pointed out, however, the government’s decision to go ahead with the trial of former Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch (R.-Juneau)—a case that appears to a number of observers to be much weaker than the case against Kohring—suggests that the Department of Justice might proceed with a new trial against Kohring. (Disclosure: As I have repeatedly said, I have known Bruce Weyhrauch for years, but he and I have never discussed this case.)
Former State Rep. Pete Kott (R.-Eagle River) has also got to be smiling today, as this decision in Kohring’s case bodes well for the appeal of former Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives. Like Kohring, Kott was also convicted of several charges arising out of the federal probe into Alaska public corruption, and—like Kohring—Kott was released from prison while the courts sorted out the issues flowing out of the disclosures of important evidence not turned over to the defense.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski Spars with Attorney General over Failure to Prosecute Bill Allen for Sexual Crimes with Minors

2011-03-10T16:00:00.007-09:00

Anchorage—

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R.-Alaska) pressed Attorney General Eric Holder this morning at a Senate hearing about why the federal government has not prosecuted former VECO CEO Bill Allen for having sex with underage girls.

Holder stated that neither “political connections” nor Allen’s cooperation with the Department of Justice in the federal probe into Alaska public corruption were the reasons that the convicted briber escaped prosecution for sexual crimes involving teenagers.

Holder said that the decisions on charging Allen “were made only on the basis of the facts, the law, and the principles that we have to apply.” According to Erika Bolstad's article in the Anchorage Daily News, Holder also said that "But the decisions had nothing to do with political connections, whether somebody's cooperated in a case or something like that."

Sen. Murkowski continued to express unhappiness over the failure to bring sex-related charges against Allen, who is serving a three-year prison sentence for bribery; conspiracy to commit extortion, bribery, and honest-services fraud; and conspiracy to commit tax violations.

Now a politically radioactive pariah perceived as a demon and a pervert, less than five years ago Allen was a multimillionaire tycoon and political titan who palled around with powerful Alaskans very familiar to Lisa Murkowski. Allen is in prison in part for his illegal lobbying of legislators to support an oil-tax plan pushed by then-Gov. Frank Murkowski, Lisa Murkowski’s father and the man who appointed her to the U.S. Senate. Pursuant to an agreement with federal prosecutors, Allen testified against two state lawmakers and then-U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, a Last Frontier icon who served as Lisa Murkowski’s mentor on Capitol Hill. Allen frequently took one-on-one vacations with Ted Stevens in the desert, trips both men called “Boot Camps.”

"This is something that has so troubled Alaskans to the core," the Anchorage Daily News quoted Murkowski as telling Holder this morning. "You have an extremely high-profile political figure, extraordinarily wealthy, truly abusing in a very terrible way a 15-year-old girl over a period of years. The assumption just is that the wealthy politician--or the wealthy guy with the political connections--is able to get away with a level of criminality that simply would not be accepted elsewhere."

Bolstad’s story says that Murkowski stated this morning that the U.S. Senator was considering asking the Justice Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to examine the handing of the child abuse allegations against Allen. The colloquy between Senator Murkowski and General Holder occurred at a hearing held by a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, according to the Website www.mainjustice.com.

There is substantial evidence that Bill Allen violated laws—both state and federal--regarding sex, as shown in multiple reports by Tony Hopfinger and Amanda Coyne of the Website www.alaskadispatch.com and Richard Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News.

Two points and two questions arise based on this blogger’s experiences. As an assistant district attorney for the Alaska Department of Law, I spent a lot of time prosecuting people for committing sexual offenses against minors. I also spent years working in and around the Alaska State Legislature, and I recognize that public corruption is bad for our people, our government, and our society. As I have watched the progress of the federal government’s POLAR PEN probe into Alaska public corruption, I have been bothered by the crimes and seamy behavior of various Alaska powerbrokers and by the mistakes made by various federal investigators and prosecutors in examining those crimes.

The first point is that I don’t believe that Allen’s decision to cooperate with federal authorities in the POLAR PEN public corruption probe played no role in the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute him. It’s frequently true that cooperating witnesses get concessions in charges and sentences based on their cooperation with prosecutors. The second point is that “the facts” and “the principles that we have to apply” that Holder referenced might be interpreted to include the value of the information and cooperation that cooperating witnesses have to offer.

My questions are for Sen. Murkowski:

1. Is it rich for you complain about excessively soft treatment for a “wealthy guy with the political connections” when Bill Allen’s biggest political connection by far was with Ted Stevens?

2. When will you start pressing the Attorney General to explain why the federal government has not prosecuted Ben Stevens, the former President of the Alaska State Senate whom Bill Allen pleaded guilty to bribing?

Bill Weimar Extradited to Florida

2011-03-03T17:31:00.003-09:00

Anchorage--

Richard Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News continues a run of strong work on the troubling story of Bill Weimar, who went from private corrections magnate on the Last Frontier to convicted felon to fugitive on a child sexual abuse warrant. A multimillionaire retiree, Weimar had moved to Florida following the end of his imprisonment following convictions arising out of the federal probe into Alaska public corruption. Weimar left the Sunshine State for Cuba after he was questioned by a sheriff's detective about an allegation that he sexually molested a six-year-old child he was caring for. You can find another interesting article by Mauer on Weimar's travels and ultimate arrest in Mexico here.

Judge Orders Bruce Weyhrauch's Trial Moved to Juneau

2011-02-25T20:55:00.002-09:00

Anchorage—

The court has granted former State Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch’s request to move his trial from Anchorage to Juneau. The trial of the ex-lawmaker is now scheduled to start on Monday morning, May 9, in Alaska’s capital city.

Weyhrauch has lived in Juneau for more than 20 years, and he represented a State House district in the Juneau suburbs for four years. Weyhrauch was elected as a Republican in 2002 and 2004, and he chose not to seek re-election in 2006.

Weyhrauch is charged with bribery, extortion, honest-services fraud, and conspiracy to commit the other crimes listed. The indictment alleges that Weyhrauch took actions as a legislator favorable to the defunct oil-services corporation VECO regarding oil-tax legislation on the understanding that VECO would in the future give him contract legal work. Weyhrauch’s case is the last still left hanging of the 12 brought by the federal government in the “POLAR PEN” probe into Alaska public corruption.

I must say I was surprised by the decision by U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick. The judge had already denied this motion back in 2007 when the case was first supposed to go to trial back in 2007. As a practical matter, it’s not so fun for the judge to travel more than 500 miles to Juneau for a week for a trial when he has the discretion to decide to leave the trial in his hometown. The defense did a good job, however, on the renewed motion to move the trial (a change of venue, in legal lingo). Continuing the recent retreat into passivity shown by the feds in POLAR PEN, the prosecution did not even respond to the motion.

I add my standard disclosure that I have known Bruce Weyhrauch for about 20 years and have spent more time with him than any of the POLAR PEN defendants. We have not spoken since before his indictment, however, and he has never discussed this case with me.

Next up: What does the defense’s 16-page change of venue motion tell us about the upcoming trial?

CORRECTED--I'm Speaking Friday About What I Write About on this Blog

2011-02-15T22:42:00.004-09:00

Anchorage--

I will be giving a lecture in Anchorage on Friday, February 18, at 12 noon on recent developments regarding the federal investigation into Alaska public corruption. It's being offered under the auspices of the program called OLE (Opportunities for Lifelong Education), and if you want to attend you could make arrangements by calling that organization at 907-272-9434. (Corrected to fix the telephone number--my apologies.)

Bill Weimar Captured in Cancun

2011-02-13T22:37:00.003-09:00

Anchorage--

In the category of I can't make it up, the Anchorage Daily News reports that the Mexican Navy has grabbed Bill Weimar on his 60-foot yacht and sent him back to the United States. The former halfway house king from Alaska was a fugitive from a Florida warrant for child sexual battery. Rich Mauer's article states that U.S. government authorities had tracked Weimar to Havana (!) before the convicted felon headed to the Mexican resort city of Cancun. Mexican officials arrested him in Cancun on his cabin cruiser, where he was hosting his girlfriend and her brother. Weimar had moved to Florida after serving a sentence for two crimes uncovered in the federal investigation into public corruption in Alaska, where Weimar had become a multimillionaire in the private corrections industry.

Former Don Young Aide Frasier Verrusio Found Guilty in Public Corruption Case

2011-02-10T09:44:00.003-09:00

Anchorage--

The Anchorage Daily News has Web-published an Associated Press story that a jury has returned guilty verdicts against Frasier Verrusio, a former aide to U.S. Rep. Don Young, R.-Alaska. The case centered on Verrusio's lobbyist-financed junket to a 2003 World Series game in New York City that included a stop at a strip joint. According to the AP, the jury has found Verrusio guilty of conspiracy, accepting an illegal gratuity, and making a false statement for failing to report the trip on his Congressional financial disclosure form. More to come.

Tom Anderson Released from Prison into Halfway House

2011-02-02T16:33:00.004-09:00

Anchorage--

Tom Anderson, a former legislator whose involvement in a "Love Caucus" indirectly contributed to the length of his imprisonment, has been released from a federal prison to a halfway house in the Seattle area, reports the Anchorage Daily News. Anderson had been serving a five-year sentence after a jury convicted him in 2007 of conspiracy, bribery, extortion, and money-laundering. The convictions were for his role in a scheme to funnel him money ostensibly for articles he was to write, but the money was really to be compensation for his legislative assistance to a private prisons company. When the FBI confronted Anderson with evidence of his crimes, he agreed to become a cooperating witness for the feds and wired up on others as part of their investigation into Alaska public corruption. Anderson pulled out of that arrangement, however, apparently on the advice of his then-girlfriend (and future wife), fellow legislator Lesil McGuire. Anderson's sentence was probably more severe because of his withdrawal from his cooperation. McGuire is still a state legislator (although she is now in the State Senate) and she filed for divorce last year while Anderson was in prison.

Anderson is scheduled to be released from custody in July, reports the Daily News, but he could move from the halfway house to home confinement sooner than that.

Sordid New Details Alleged Against Bill Weimar in Florida Child Abuse Case

2011-02-01T14:20:00.003-09:00

Anchorage--

Richard Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News has additional ugly details that are alleged--and I emphasize alleged--in a child sexual abuse case against former Alaska corrections kingpin Bill Weimar. Charging documents accusing Weimar of child sexual battery in Florida allege that he committed the crime at a time that Mauer notes that Weimar was under probation supervision for felony convictions in 2008 arising out of the federal investigation into Alaska public corruption. The documents also allege that Weimar molested a six-year-old girl while caring for her during her mother's trip to the airport.

Weimar is still at large.

Bill Weimar Wanted on Florida Child Sexual Battery Warrant

2011-01-28T19:54:00.003-09:00

Anchorage--

The Anchorage Daily News is reporting tonight that Bill Weimar is being sought on a Florida warrant for child sexual battery against a victim alleged to be under 12 years old. Weimar was convicted in 2008 and served time as one of the defendants in the federal investigation into Alaska public corruption, but he appears to be facing much bigger problems now.

Watchdog Group Seeks Files on Probe into Don Young, and One of Young's Former Aides Goes on Trial in Corruption Case

2011-01-27T05:12:00.008-09:00

Anchorage--

A Washington, D.C-based ethics watchdog organization has asked the Department of Justice to hand over its files in at least two closed federal investigations into corruption allegations against U.S. Rep. Don Young, R.-Alaska, reports the Anchorage Daily News.

Rich Mauer's article says that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has sent a letter asking the government to release the information under the Freedom of Information Act. His story notes that Young faced a probe regarding alleged illegal contributions and gifts from the former oil patch giant VECO and its long-time CEO (and current inmate) Bill Allen as well as an investigation into the Congressman for all Alaska's role in the "Coconut Road" earmark for a Florida interchange project benefiting a developer who had donated to his campaign.

After the federal government had investigated him for at least four years, Young announced in August that the Justice Department had advised his attorneys that it was ending the probes and that he would not be indicted.

CREW acknowledged that the Justice Department will likely claim that FOIA exempts the government's investigation files from disclosure, and the group that Mauer describes as "a liberal-leaning non-profit" has said it will sue if the feds don't let go of the files. In addition to Young's files, CREW is also asking for the release of investigative files regarding other probes into alleged corruption involving Congress.

In other news related to Don Young's service on Capitol Hill, a jury has heard opening statements in a corruption-related trial of a former aide to Alaska's sole Member of the House.

You can read the Associated Press story at the Website of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. (A shorter version is on the Website of the Anchorage Daily News.)

Get past the "high life" details about Fraser Verrusio's trip to a 2003 World Series game involving a chauffeured Cadillac, dinner at a steakhouse, and a strip joint called "Privilege." The best tidbits come at the end of the AP story, and they have to do with the federal investigation into Young himself.

Verrusio's defense attorney told the jury yesterday that the former policy director for Young at the House Transportation Committee thought FBI agents who came to his house two years ago regarding what he's now charged with were there for another purpose: Verrusio thought they wanted to talk to him about what Verrusio knew about Young's connections to Allen. The defense lawyer said that when the agents arrived in December of 2008, Verrusio had been "meeting with an agent for over a year to provide background information on his boss but rejected persistent requests to wear a wire and secretly record their conversations."

How a Broader Interpretation of the "Speech or Debate" Clause Helped Don Young Escape Prosecution on "Coconut Road"

2011-01-16T21:03:00.013-09:00

Anchorage--

The Washington Post has an article saying that the Department of Justice's concerns over the newly broad interpretation of the "speech or debate" clause in the U.S. Constitution has led to the spiking of a number of investigations of Members of Congress, including one involving U.S. Rep. Don Young (R.-Alaska). Young was being probed for his role in the change of language in a bill passed by Congress that benefited a highway project in Florida backed by one of his campaign contributors. According to the article, that investigation was dropped along with others involving Members of Congress out of a fear of violating the constitutional provision shielding the work of legislators from interference from the executive branch.

Concerns over the "speech or debate" clause may also have contributed to federal prosecutors' decisions in the Ted Stevens trial to limit the evidence the government introduced regarding the amount of legislative assistance the Senator had given Bill Allen and VECO, the multinational oil-services corporation he ran for decades. The Los Angeles Times, for example, alleged much juicier help regarding the Pakistani government's payment for a $70 million pipeline than anything the prosecution brought up as assistance for VECO in Congress provided by Ted Stevens.

The Ted Stevens Case and the Death of Nicholas Marsh: A Belated Link to the New Yorker Article

2011-01-04T15:14:00.007-09:00

Seattle--

I'm back in the country and can now belatedly direct you to Jeffrey Toobin's New Yorker article on the relationship between the Ted Stevens case, the investigation of the Senator's prosecutors, and the suicide of Nicholas Marsh, one of those prosecutors. I'm still travelling and will comment later on Toobin's conclusions.

The press release from the New Yorker announcing the piece is below. At the bottom is a link to the article itself, which is behind a paywall.

The Justice Department Clearly Wronged Senator Ted Stevens. Did It Also Wrong One of His Prosecutors?

In the January 3, 2011, issue of The New Yorker, in “Casualties of Justice” (p. 38), Jeffrey Toobin looks at the trial of Senator Ted Stevens and the subsequent suicide of Nicholas Marsh, who was one of the prosecutors on the case. Stevens was serving his sixth full term in Alaska when, in 2008, he was indicted on charges of failing to report gifts. Marsh, who was a relatively junior lawyer in the Justice Department and was working out of the élite Public Integrity Section, “built the case against Stevens, and, working with F.B.I. agents and local prosecutors, coördinated a massive investigation of corruption in the state’s politics,” Toobin writes. In many respects, “Marsh’s most important task was negotiating a deal with Bill Allen, whose bribes fuelled so much corruption in the state.” Allen, who was the chief executive of a major oil-services firm, pleaded guilty in 2007 to charges of bribery and conspiracy stemming from his dealings with four state legislators, and was going to be the key witness against Stevens. His firm, Veco, provided the “things of value” that Stevens failed to disclose. Initially, owing in large part to Allen’s testimony, Stevens was convicted on all counts, but “Marsh and his colleagues did not have long to enjoy their triumph.” Allegations that the prosecutors failed to disclose critical exculpatory evidence to the defense—a fundamental breach of prosecutorial ethics—surfaced, and the judge was “outraged,” Toobin writes. “The prosecution was a shambles, and Stevens hadn’t even been sentenced yet. Superiors in the Justice Department decided to bring in a whole new team to try to salvage the conviction. After four years of work, Marsh had been thrown off the case of his life.” The next month, the new prosecutorial team found something that had not been disclosed before: an undocumented interview with Bill Allen that shed serious doubts on what had been the most important evidence in the trial. Soon afterward, the case against Stevens was dropped, and the judge excoriated Marsh and his colleagues. “In nearly twenty-five years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case,” the judge said. Marsh found himself the subject of a criminal inquiry rather than the leader of one. Toobin writes, “Marsh had to start answering questions he was used to asking: What did he know, and when did he know it? This was difficult—practically and psychologically.” The inquiry dragged on for months, and “Nick was very frustrated by the pace of the investigation,” Marsh’s friend Josh Waxman tells Toobin. “Someone like him, who had done everything on the straight and narrow, ethical to a T—to have to wait and sit back to hope that his name would be cleared, that really wore on him.” After a full year went by without results of the investigations, Marsh’s “impatience gave way to despair,” Toobin writes. He committed suicide on September 26th, at the age of thirty-seven. Navis Bermudez, Marsh’s wife, tells Toobin, “I don’t think I understood the depths of how the allegations affected him. . . . Even thinking that his career would be over was just too much for him. The idea that someone thought he did something wrong was just too much to bear.” Please see this link: http://nyr.kr/fnAf3D

Bungling the Ted Stevens Case Didn't Make the Feds Gun-Shy, Justice Department Says

2010-12-20T22:43:00.006-09:00

Ontario, Calif.--

Critics are complaining that the melt-down of the prosecution of the late U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens has led the Justice Department to be "gun-shy" in going after Members of Congress, resulting in a number of federal legislators--including U.S. Rep. Don Young (R.-Alaska)--getting off the hook. The Department of Justice has denied that federal prosecutors have lost any of their nerve in bringing charges against Members of Congress. You can read all about it here in the article by Charlie Savage in the New York Times.

Fresh from Dodging an Electoral Bullet, Sen. Lisa Murkowski Again Seeks Explanation of How Bill Allen Escaped Sex Charges

2010-12-11T22:34:00.003-09:00

Anchorage--

Rich Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News has a story out about Sen. Lisa Murkowski's renewal of her demand for a fuller explanation of why convicted and imprisoned briber Bill Allen has not been prosecuted for having sex with underage girls. The article also discusses why local police thought federal charges were more appropriate than charges under Alaska state law. You should read it.

Waiting for Henry Schuelke and the Office of Professional Responsibility

2010-12-10T19:32:00.005-09:00

Anchorage--

As we await the release of reports on prosecution failures in the government's case against Ted Stevens, you can look at two related items. The first is the report of USA Today yesterday detailing the Department of Justice's light-handed response to misconduct by federal prosecutors. The second is the pushback by Attorney General, covered here in a piece in the Website http://www.mainjustice.com/ (registration required).

Don Young and Charlie Rangel

2010-12-03T12:31:00.005-09:00

Anchorage--

U.S. Rep. Don Young was one of only two Republicans who voted against the censure of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D.-N.Y.), which passed 333-79. The other Republican was Peter King, like Rangel a veteran member of the House delegation from New York City’s metropolitan area.

You could think of three reasons for Young to vote “No” on the censure of Rangel, who faced allegations involving failures to report income and improper charitable fund-raising.

The first would be the one offered by Young himself: He has never voted to censure a fellow Member of the House, preferring to let the voters decide on the consequences of a Member’s ethical violations.

A second factor would be fellow feeling arising from all their years of service together. You might think that it would hard to find two guys more dissimilar than the moose-hunting former riverboat captain and the long-time clubhouse pol from Harlem, but the two have had decades to build bonds. Both Young and Rangel have been in the U.S. House more than 35 years, and Rangel is one of only eight Members of Congress who have served on Capitol Hill longer than Young.

A third reason would be a different kind of solidarity between the pair, one that Erika Bolstad highlighted in the Anchorage Daily News: Young knows what it’s like to be under ethical scrutiny. “The Congressman for all Alaska” was under federal criminal investigation for a number of years on multiple fronts, including his receipt of gifts and campaign contributions from VECO executives Bill Allen and Rick Smith--now in federal prison. The House and Senate also voted in 2008 to ask the Department of Justice to investigate how the language in the "Coconut Road" earmark changed after the legislation passed both houses. This earmark for a Florida interchange project appeared in a transportation bill championed by Young shortly after a real estate developer who would benefit from the earmark raised $40,000 in campaign contributions for the Congressman.

Young announced less than four months ago that the Department of Justice had told him that the federal government had ended the federal criminal probe of him. Young, like Rangel, was re-elected to another term in the House last month.

Another Reading Recommendation

2010-11-25T09:07:00.006-09:00

Anchorage--

Happy Thanksgiving. And be thankful you aren't in the situation described well in an article in the Washington Post called "The Waiting."

The piece is about the experiences of the survivors and the rescuers in the aftermath of a plane crash last August in a remote part of southwest Alaska. That accident killed former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R.-Alaska) and four others: Dana Tindall, of Anchorage, a telecommunications executive; Tindall's daughter, Corey, a high school student; Washington, D.C., lobbyist Bill Phillips, a former chief of staff for Stevens; and the pilot, Terry Smith, of Eagle River, a retired Alaska Airlines chief pilot.

The crash left four other people alive--former NASA Administrator and ex-Stevens staff member Sean O’Keefe; O’Keefe’s son Kevin, a student; Washington, D.C.-area lobbyist Jim Morhard; and Phillips’ son Willy, a student.

The four survivors were in desperate trouble, not knowing if help would arrive. Even after it did, it took agonizing hours to get the survivors off the mountainside and into hospitals. The story is scary and affecting.