Guest Post by Vic Kohring

The other day, I asked longtime friend and Vic Kohring advocate Fred Brown to either write a guest post for Progressive Alaska on Vic's current situation, or to ask Vic to write one himself. Today, Vic called me. We talked a bit, and I urged him to finish an essay he had already been polishing. I told him I'd be happy to print it, as I received it. He sent it this evening, appending the essay with his closing remarks from last Thursday's sentencing:

The media as a whole, with a few exceptions, has been a lynch mob and will not be satisfied until I'm in prison. My innocence matters little to them. Some folks have tried to be open minded and look at things objectively, for which I'm grateful, because in reality our government had no interest in seeking truth and justice. The prosecutors goal was to nail a politician and get another notch on their belt. They were aided by Judge John Sedwick who made numerous rulings, all against me, making it impossible for the jury to have complete information which would have cleared my name. I was warned right after last fall's trial began that Sedwick has a reputation for being pro government and pro prosecutor, and his conduct in court certainly reflected that. As a judge, he is tasked with running a fair and open trial so that justice is done, not constantly impeding the process. It was a real eye opener and very frustrating as I naively believed judges were honest. What a rude awakening.

One of Sedwick's most egregious decisions was to preside over my trial. He had a blatant conflict of interest because of the battles I fought with his wife. As much as the media has downplayed the matter, twisted the facts and omitted crucial information in their typical way, there was real animosity between Deborah Sedwick and myself occurring over a two year period. Judge Sedwick turned down my motion a few weeks ago (the latest among a substantial number of motions I filed since last year) asking for a new trial because of his conflict. He glossed over the requirement by federal law to remove himself from a case if a "reasonable person" could possibly perceive a conflict. Instead, his response addressed irrelevant issues that distracted the reader from the fact that he violated federal law. His words were misleading. I sponsored legislation that eliminated his wife's job and cut literally millions of dollars from her budget while she was Commissioner of the Department of Commerce, to her strenuous objection. I was chairman of the budget subcommittee which authorized funding for her department. She was appointed to a new position after my bill became law, but did not know she would be appointed to the newly merged department until mid 1999. Before then, all she knew was that I was working hard to eliminate her prestige and power and job as the highest salaried commissioner in state government (over $110,000.00/year in salary and benefits). In fact, she was subjected to the stress of her job being eliminated for the 1-1/2 years I worked on my bill and opposed me every step of the way. Yet Judge Sedwick says he has no knowledge of these significant and dramatic events and never discussed with his wife her difficulties encountered because of me. That's unrealistic. Spouses naturally discuss their problems with each other, particularly when one's job is being threatened. The Anchorage Daily News and Channel 2 News purposely omits this information to keep me from appearing credible. In addition, Judge Sedwick lives directly across the street from Bill Allen, the government's primary witness relied on heavily to convict me. They have lived next to each other for about six years according to records with the State Division of Elections. Their houses are 65 feet apart. If any one of the jurors admitted to similar connections, they would have immediately been removed from the case. The judge was very clear in his set of instructions during the jury selection process. Yet he himself did not follow his own rules. As mentioned, he is required by federal law to excuse himself from a trial simply if a perception or appearance of a conflict exists. That's all. The standard is low and precise. Sedwick went far beyond perception or appearance as there was an actual conflict--and a substantial one as I documented in my motion. Deborah Sedwick and I were major political and philosophical opponents for years which evolved into personal animosity. My evidence documenting this includes affidavits from three people (filed with the court with my motion) who personally witnessed the antagonism. There are other witnesses too who've since stepped forth.

During the trial, I reached the point where I sensed I had no chance to win because of the judge's hostile, angry attitude and multitude of rulings against me. He made it impossible to succeed by literally controlling the entire proceedings to his benefit. I now realize he was trying to protect himself, not create an environment that would allow my innocence to be proven. He ruled against me on change of venue, habit evidence, suppression of evidence, FBI interference, closed hearing and many more. I've been informed it was highly unusual for a judge to reject every single request, especially considering all were reasonable and solidly backed up with case law. Sedwick's rulings eventually caused me to wonder if he had something personal against me. I concluded it was because I am a conservative Republican and a long-time vocal advocate of less government. I could think of nothing else at the time. I've also been told my philosophy likely made me an automatic target of the government and motivated them to focus on me. Then I learned after the trial that Sedwick is married to one of my biggest political and personal opponents. I wouldn't have learned of this had not Deborah Sedwick showed up at the end of the trial. If she had stayed away, I probably would not have known to this day. My initial reaction was to ask, why is one of my biggest enemies at my trial? Was she there to gloat? It was astonishing.

Mrs. Sedwick was reluctant to shake my hand when I extended it while attempting to greet her during a break in the trial. She was speaking with two other people ten feet from the courtroom doors at the time. She glared at me as if she wanted to grab me by the throat. She clearly was still angry after all these years. I felt like telling her to "Get over it. Get a life," but stayed silent. Judge Sedwick said nothing of his marriage to Deborah during the trial, despite being required by the Judicial Code of Conduct to declare any conflicts including those involving family members and spouses. Of all people, he should know of this law better than anyone as he is the Chief Judge of the entire U.S. District Court in Alaska. The law is very clear. In addition, three federal judges reviewed my conflict of interest motion and concluded that without a doubt, Sedwick should have removed himself from the case and granted me a new trial. Instead of insisting another judge do so, he himself ruled on my motion a few weeks ago requesting his removal and a new trial. Despite his substantial conflict, Judge Sedwick ruled himself blameless. It was unbelievable. Then he himself administered my sentence this week. I honestly thought he would have another judge do so given his conflicts of interest. By not removing himself, I was then left to wonder if his sentence reflected the antagonistic relationship between his wife and myself. I will wonder for the rest of my life if my years in prison is pay back.

Yet another of Sedwick's numerous rejected motions occurred this week. He ruled against my motion to allow a juror to be questioned in court by my lawyer. As it turned out, the jury gave no credence to the government's many false allegations including my nephew's summer internship, request for a personal loan (never received) and request to borrow a pick up truck (never received) as they were not proven. The jury only considered the thousand dollars in gifts for my daughter. Nothing more. Everything boiled down to this one item. I was told that even this one was shaky as it was based on a video taped comment by Bill Allen while in a drunken state. The sentence therefore should have been based on the one item (daughter gifts) as opposed to the sum total of everything. The judge's decision on my motion blocked this crucial information from being presented in court and he consequently based his sentence on the fictitious larger number instead of the thousand. Of course the media ignores this despite my reference to it in my sentencing remarks (see below) and my press conference.

Instead of a sentence which should have involved no time, I'm going to prison for years. Note how former Fairbanks Mayor Jim Hayes received five and a half years by the same judge (Sedwick) last week involving the theft of $450,000.00, versus my three and a half years for a thousand dollars in gifts for my daughter, a tiny fraction of money in comparison and no bribes involved. It's an incredible double standard.

In addition, the liberal media savaged me throughout my years in the legislature. I became a constant target because I bucked the trend to increase government. They obviously picked up the pace when my office was raided by five armed FBI agents in 2006 and did their best to try and convict me before my trial even began, regardless of the truth. They behaved like blood thirsty jackals. There were 14 months of non-stop hostile reporting which I'm certain tainted the jury pool. If I could sue these people for slander I would. Yet the judge rejected my request to have the trial moved outside Alaska. It was a very reasonable request. I presented Sedwick with a mountain of evidence (hundreds of photo copies) demonstrating the media bias. He didn't even explain his decision other than to say I can get a fair trial and "sees no problem." His lack of concern was astounding. In another case in Alaska, Joshua Wade was granted a change of venue by a same U.S. District Court judge despite far less media coverage. Judge Sedwick's colleague on the bench ruled that the change was vital as the media prevented Wade from getting a fair trial here. Yet Sedwick denied my request despite ten times the coverage. Another double standard.

I remain optimistic I will prevail on appeal. I truly believe if I can get a trial in a different location where the jury pool hasn't been tainted and a judge with no personal ax to grind, I would easily be exonerated. I was told the jury last fall initially voted 10 to 2 to find me innocent on all charges despite the judge working overtime against me instead of being open-minded and trying to facilitate a fair process. They ended up being swayed by a very vocal and opinionated jury foreman who is a federal government retiree, the type of people who nearly always opposed me.

Last, I readily admit it wasn't a good idea for me to accept gifts from a long time friend of 14 years--at least one who I thought was a friend until he stabbed me in the back with his lies on the stand. But gifts are not illegal and there were absolutely no bribes involved and no intent to commit a crime whatsoever. I wouldn't even know how to commit such a crime if I wanted to. This situation never should have risen to the level of a crime and no charges should have been filed. I've had to fight the prosecution's manipulations, the lying of witnesses, a biased judge with a huge personal conflict and a probation office that wrote an erroneous pre-sentence report full of unproven allegations (which the judge used to further justify his sentence). This entire scenario made it impossible to win. It was a true witch hunt. However I go to prison with my chin up and a clear conscience, so I'm going to be fine, especially with the knowledge that I have a strong case for appeal. If I have to defend myself from a prison cell, so be it. I look forward to being cleared and serving my community once again.

Vic Kohring
May 13, 2008


Sentencing remarks

Honorable Judge Sedwick,

I stand before you not to plead for mercy as others have done before me. Instead, I'm here to proclaim my innocence. I don't believe I received a fair trial last fall which is why I did not prevail in this court room.

I was stunned when I learned after the trial you are married to one of my biggest personal and political enemies from my years as a legislator, who showed up at this very court at the end of my trial. Federal law and the Judicial Code of Conduct required you to excuse yourself from my case even if a perception of a conflict existed and to avoid the appearance of partiality that might reasonably be questioned. You judged yourself blameless despite a mountain of evidence documenting the antagonistic relationship between your wife and myself occurring over a two-year period. Furthermore, you live directly across the street from the government’s star witness who was heavily relied upon to convict me. Your houses are just 65 feet apart. You did not speak one word of these conflicts and I knew nothing of them until after the trial. I’m so disappointed that the very person who now holds my fate in his hands--you--is married to the person who’s job I eliminated and who’s budget I cut millions of dollars from and developed personal animosity. There’s no way this could not be viewed as a conflict by any reasonable person. I now stand before you waiting to be sentenced to prison and will forever wonder if your sentence will be because of the battles I fought with your wife. That is incredibly unfair.

There is something I will admit. I exercised poor judgment when accepting cash gifts for my daughter form a longtime friend--or at least someone I genuinely believed was a friend until he betrayed and turned against me. I will also admit I did not live up to my personal standards and expectations of my community. So I apologize to all who expected me to set a higher ethical standard. It may not have been right, but in no way were bribes involved. There were no criminal acts and I absolutely had no intention to commit any crime whatsoever.

My words, “Let me know what I can do to help; my door is always open to you; feel free to give me a call anytime” was my mantra as a legislator, words I spoke thousands of times in the course of doing my job. It’s ironic that these very words have now been used against me by the government to erroneously claim they represented a bribe. My words and frequent offer of help were genuine and heartfelt and intended simply to be a good representative--not anything corrupt. Unfortunately, your ruling on Habit Evidence prevented my supporters from testifying on this issue. I had a list of 82 people willing to testify on my behalf who were turned away.

The resulting conviction has destroyed me. I am bankrupt and penniless, my house is in foreclosure, I’ve lost my job and career, my wife is divorcing me and I’m losing my family. The total cost to me including lost wages is approaching a half million dollars. But my spirit is not broken and I remain strong.

My attorney and I attempted to conduct ourselves during the trial with integrity. There was no lying, manipulation or taking things out of context as was done against me--just an honest presentation of the facts. I do not lie to anyone at any time. I used to believe in my government. I swore to uphold and protect the principles of our country and constitution as a legislator, but do not respect those who manipulated it.

I must follow my conscience and stand up for my rights even if I have to pay a price. I refuse to cower before you in hopes of receiving a lighter sentence, and I know I’m risking retribution by standing my ground as I’m subjecting myself to this court’s wrath. But I shouldn't have to fear retribution by defending myself. I simply can’t in good conscience express remorse for something I did not do. I intend to continue vigorously fighting for my rights and eventually prove my innocence, but will only be exonerated if I receive a fair trial with a fair judge. The truth will only be revealed if my case is heard before jurors untainted by bias and if all evidence is provided the jury.

I want to thank the jury and sincerely appreciate their efforts but wish to let them know they did not have all the relevant informant needed to determine my innocence. I must continue defending myself and go through the appeal process, even if it means doing so from a prison cell. I beseech everyone in this state who believes in truth and justice to join me in insisting that our government treats its citizens with honor and decency. I for one shall not rest until justice prevails.

If I had committed wrong doing, I would admit it and accept punishment. But my conscience is clear. I did nothing criminal. I was a little naive, I will admit to that. I must assert my innocence as I owe it to my family and friends and the thousands of people who elected me to the Alaska Legislature, all of whom I sincerely thank for their support. All I ask for is to be treated fairly and be given an opportunity for a fully open and fair trial which I’m convinced would result in my exoneration.

Thank You.

Vic Kohring
May 8, 2008

cross-posted at Progressive Alaska

image of Vic Kohring by Dennis Zaki

Two Reasons That Alaska is the Most In-Flux Political Environment in the USA

After former Alaska State Representative Vic Kohring (R - Lesser Wasilla) was sentenced to 42 months in Federal prison this morning, the reporters initially flocked around Kohring and his flamboyantly expensive, if otherwise useless attorney, John Henry Browne. Kohring's defiant statement at the close of sentencing presentations probably surprised some in the courtroom more than it did me. As the post below, and the blog USA vs Victor H. Kohring explain, I've been following Vic's trajectory since launch.

Anchorage media coverage of the sentencing was full-court press. When Judge Sedwick stated "42 months," you almost had to hold on to your hat, as reporters left the room to file, by one means or another. I stuck around, because I didn't have to file, and I wanted to hear and see how the issues of Kohring's tentative appeal and reporting date turned out. Kohring, whose spinal problems have become chronic, needs more disc surgery, and has to find a way to get it, in his current impecunious condition. Sedwick gave him until the last Monday in June to deal with this. Then he has to go join the GOP Veco caucus in Oregon.

I sat between longtime friend Dewey Taylor and recent friend Ray Metcalfe at the trial. Dewey is one of the most effective grassroots community activists in the Mat-Su Valley, bringing people from all across the political spectrum together to build recycling consciousness and infrastructure to maturity in the Valley's core area. His wife, Gini King-Taylor, ran against Lyda Green four years ago.

Ray needs no introduction, although I was able to introduce him to Dewey after the event, outside the courthouse. Ray, who yesterday took an APRN reporter on a newer, more extended version of the Anchorage real estate tour he gave me earlier in the spring, was interviewed by a few news reporters on things like "what happens next?" and "did you make a difference in these prosecutions?"

In short, he did make a difference, and probably knows no more than me what will happen next. It was interesting watching various press folks engage Ray, either for interviews, or because they've come to know and respect him over the years. His demeanor was so different from Kohring's in so many ways.

Ray gets lambasted for being "Disco Ray," or a "showboater." Most recently, in respect to his allegations and distributed documents about Anchorage mayor and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Begich's relationship with powerful Anchorage developers, I've heard that "there's no 'there' there." I can say that Ray is about to release more material he says support his Quixotic quest against Mark.

KUDO talk personality Shannyn Moore was at the sentencing. She and I laughed out loud at some of the banter between Sedwick and Browne. Afterward, outside the building, as she kidded Ray about people confusing him with Jake Metcalfe this past week, I was laughing so hard I forgot to tell Shannyn how powerful her tape of the Talk Radio Panel session at the Alaska Press Club conference is. I've listened to it twice now, and was there, participating in it. Unfortunately, it appears to have been recently removed from KUDO's public archive.

Shannyn is the most dynamic and perceptive person to enter the talk radio format in recent years in Anchorage. She and I have argued and disagreed on several issues over the past eight months, but she sees the connection of what is happening in Alaska politics to how important the current political change dynamic is nationwide better than anyone else here, either on the air or in print. She doesn't hesitate to bring national figures - live, onto her program for up to an hour. People like Thom Hartmann, Greg Palast, Brad Friedman and Jeff Cohen Shannyn's hoping to interview Sibel Edmonds.

For starters, she knows who these people are. Other than Hartmann, even a majority of Alaska liberals and progressives might not recognize the other three names, or why they are important figures. I loved it, earlier in the week, when she jumped Matt Zencey's well-hidden column on local talk radio, saying something like "Matt Zencey is an asshole," or whatever she knew she could get away with short of an FCC fine.

Ray Metcalfe and Shannyn Moore are pressing the envelope on what Alaskans can digest, in their own unique ways. They know, more than most, how important it is for citizens to regain control of our political machinery.

And to conclude - the most thoughtful coverage of Vic Kohring's sentencing.

And He Stilled The Drumming

Vic Kohring came in with the 1994 Newt Gingrich tide. Four Mat-Su Valley lawmakers rode in on that that wave - Lyda Green, Vic Kohring, Bev Masek, and Scott Ogan. All but one are now beach debris. Lyda Green is proving to be as tenacious as a barnacle. Kohring, looks more and more like an expiring puffer fish, trapped in one of the outgoing tide's draining pools. He's been left behind, which is a scary term in his evangelical world and its Darwin-swallowing fishes.

Back in 1996, Vic and I got into dueling op-eds for a while in the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman. In the late spring of '96, Vic wrote an op-ed that blamed Alaska's artists for the unfortunate deaths on the Denali Highway in mid-winter, of a family whose car became trapped in a snow drift. He suggested that if the government had spent money used for the Alaska State Council on the Arts on communication equipment for the Alaska State Troopers instead, the family would be alive.

I wrote a reply, in which I humanized Alaska's artists as vibrant members of our communities around the state, not the parasitic sea lice Kohring seemed to be imagining them to be. I wanted to say more than what could be said in an op-ed, though, so I wrote And He Stilled The Drumming for symphonic band. When I conducted the Mat-Su College Community Band in the work's premiere - it was the middle movement of my 4th Symphony - Vic had the strangely bewildering grace to introduce the work.

Here are the program notes to And He Stilled the Drumming:

This piece is dedicated to State Representative Vic Kohring, who has been working hard to end state funding for the arts, and even harder to foster hostile attitudes toward artists. I imagine a young man involved in the Native drumming renaissance. State funding which assisted his drumming group ends, and it folds. In his disappointment he turns to drugs. He's arrested by one of the police hired by funding taken from the state arts council. He then is sent to one of the privately owned prisons championed by Representative Kohring. As the young man beats a mournful pounding on the thick wall of his cell, the piece ends.

As Vic's close friend Doug Bartko told me at the time, sort of objecting to my treatment of Kohring, "Dumping on Vic is like kicking your puppy."

Fred James on the John Henry Browne February 1 US Court Filing

Fred James writes on last Friday's filing by Jonh Henry Browne on behalf of former Alaska Representative Vic Kohring:

Well the day I've been waiting for has happened. The press has the JHB Motion and already at least one rag is spinning it shamefully against Vic...BUT FAILING to do so.

Have you read the stupid article by Brendan Kelley on ? It has Wev Shea maintaining that JHB should have known in advance that Sedwick was married to Vic's political opponent, Sedwick's own wife! And calls it last minute showmanship! But Shea never admits that FEDERAL LAW DEMANDS that any judge declare even an APPEARANCE of a conflict and Sedwick did not!!

We wondered why virtually all the motions JHB made were summarily dismissed by Sedwick, the change of venue, the "habit testimony," (Remember why I was there? Sedwick disallowed Leza and me and a legion of others to speak!!!), the opening of 'closed' hearings, no matter what the defense asked for, Sedwick vetoed. Now we have a reasonable explanation. It was payback time and Sedgwick thought he could get away with it! And if Sedwick claims he did not KNOW that Vic was his wife's major opponent, then he should be disbared for sheer stupidity!! It was a MAJOR hit on her career and salary!!! It was in all the newspaper and on TV. She fought tooth and nail with Vic and Leza and I witnessed it during the '98 Session Leza and I spent down in Juneau.

For the last two months Vic and I have been wondering just how the statist press would wiggle and spin this motion. It's clear, once you understand what happened and the law, that Vic has Sedwick by the balls. If Sedwick sentences Vic without dealing with the motion, then an immediate appeal can note THAT vengeance to all the other charges. And when Sedwick comes before the judicial review his refusal to recuse himself will look all the worse. Plus private citizens can make charges against unfair judges. There will be a firestorm of them! And each one will CC the press. And I'll lead it if necessary if Sedwick doesn't recuse himself immediately.

Comments oh great political and LEGAL dude? Before you do I highly recommend reading the motion for yourself.

posted by Fred James

photo of Fred James with Ron Paul last week in Washington state

In Defense of Steve Aufrecht's Humanity

Philip Munger: I've posted an essay about the the talk radio conversations today in Anchorage about Kohring trial blogs at my new site.

What Next?

With the conviction of Vic Kohring in Anchorage Federal court last Thursday, speculation about new indictments ratcheted back up to pre-Kohring trial levels. Pete Weyrauch's trial date hasn't been set yet, but will probably be sometime in late Spring, 2008.

Ex-Veco top executives and top GOP pump primers, Bill Allen and Rick Smith have testified they pled guilty to bribing State Senator John Cowdery, former State Senator Ben Stevens, and - it appears - U.S. Senator Ted Stevens. The Ben Stevens and John Cowdery indictments are probably due any day now.

A name which kept coming up in the Kohring trial was that of Frank Murkowski's ex-Chief of Staff, Jim Clark. This appears to be chiefly due to Clark's role as liaison between Veco, the major producers, and the administration of ex-Governor Frank Murkowski, during the 2006 special sessions of the Alaska Legislature. And Murkowski himself has been suggested as a possible target of the next layer of indictments.

Anecdotes about Vic Kohring as mooch keep on surfacing. Michael Carey's video summation of his trial impressions is available at the Anchorage Daily News web site's video niche. I'll be on Steve Heimel's Talk of Alaska program Tuesday at 10:00 a.m., with Steve Aufrecht, talking about aspects of the trial's coverage.

Fred puts down some more thoughts on the verdict

Fred James: Aloha! I’m STILL in Anchorage trying to get out on Delta. I’ve tried twice but both times the plane was filled to the brim. In the meantime:

The question “Why did that jury convict Big Innocent Vic of three of the four charges? This iniquity has been warping around my tiny brain ever since I heard the court clerk read out the verdict.

Last night I tossed and turned thinking many thoughts. Certainly, like any HUMAN enterprise, there were probably many reasons they capitulated to the State.
Here are a few:

a) The jury lived in Alaska like everyone else for 14 months absorbing the Anchorage Daily New’s downright evil reportage on Vic, day after day repeating the supposed felonies he was alleged to have done. Channel Two in Anchorage was probably worse because moving images are much more dramatic.

b) The anti-government climate (Which on the whole is a good thing!) was exasperated by a flurry of corrupt politicians being caught in this giant FBI sting and FOUND GUILTY. Vic was lumped into this mess.

c) The government lawyers exaggerated and spoke about allegations as facts over and over despite John Henry Browne’s careful questions that demolished important aspects of most of them. e.g., getting BOTH Smith and Allen to admit that there was No loan, No job, No truck and that Rick Smith had come up with the idea of giving a job to Vic’s nephew, NOT VIC!!

d) The judge DENIED the defense motion for change of venue so that Vic’s jury would be RELATIVELY unbiased.

e) We could have pulled out twelve years of Vic’s public writings that were published in many of the major newspapers in Alaska. We could have shown that he believes in private enterprise and would VOTE for private enterprise...ALL private enterprises and AGAINST taxation. Then we could have matched his voting record against what he wrote! It would be IDENTICAL!!!!!

f) The judge also DENIED JHB’s major tool to show the government’s basic thrust in this farce was totally wrong. What was that? The government had a video of Vic talking to Bill Allen in a hotel in Juneau. At this time Allen gave Vic some money which Allen ADMITED under cross to be a present for Vic’s daughter which is EXACTLY WHAT VIC HAD MAINTAINED FROM THE START. The grainy black & white video was widely condemned as PROOF Vic was on the take. Vic told him at the time politely: “Thank you. If there is anything I can do to help you, let me know.” THAT line the government was convinced was proof Vic was VECO”S bought and paid for tool. Also the government came up with the fact that Vic was friendly with and voted for most VECO desired bills.

JHB was not ALLOWED by the judge to counter this with all important testimony. Let’s suppose for a minute that the judge had said, “Sure bring on as many witnesses as you like to make your point.” We had a list of over 30 people who were willing to testify that Vic’s mantra, a statement he said to everyone was, and had been for over twelve years, “Thank you. If there is anything I can do to help you, let me know.” Vic had said this line in his radio ads, his print ads, his newsletters and to many, many people over the years. In fact he not only SAID this line frequently we could have proved he said it SINCERELY, followed by deeds. I had a man ready to tell the tale of how he was doing some plaster work in his home when Vic turned up in a shirt and tie at his door campaigning. Here’s my friend, all covered with plaster and paint, a tool belt on, opening the door to a 6’7” giant stranger looking down on him. Vic went through his pitch about free markets, less government and no new taxes and finished with his almost patented line about offering help. Then Vic said “I know a lot about this kind of work. Can I help you?” He then took off his coat and spent two hours helping my friend finish the interior work. My friend was absolutely astounded. He had found an honest politician who did what he promised! He told me he would vote for him and then did, over and over again.

Now this kind of story is no exception. When calling down that list of Vic supporters I bumped into human after human who had identical or like stories about Vic. How he always finished most conversations with is his line, “Thank you. If there is anything I can do to help you, let me know.”

We could have waltzed in at least 30 witnesses to say these things most sincerely. We hoped to the point where the government would have stipulated that this was indeed his constant line and followed through with it. It would also have placed the image of Vic into the jury’s minds as one whale of a nice human being.

Then we could have brought in government records of his voting statistics. They would prove that he consistently voted AGAINST any new taxes and favored ALL PRIVATE enterprise, not Big Oil alone. We would have paraded in man after man who would have said more or less, “I called up Vic who took the time to understand my small private business’s problems with government and he offered to help me any way he could, just like his line in his ads. Then he followed through and GAVE ME THE HELP. Then Leza who had flown up here to Anchorage at her own expense to testify would have said something like: “I worked for him one session in Juneau. He helped EVERYONE, Even people OUTSIDE his district because he regarded his role of lawmaker more as ombudsman that creator of new taxes and bureaucracies. She could have told the jury, “I saw him with my own eyes, time after time say goodbye to people with his “I’ll help you as much as I can.” line. I witnessed this too.

Now suppose we could have been ALLOWED to demonstrate this realty to the jury. Then they would have had the KNOWLEDGE that Vic’s line to VECO head Bill Allen in that video was once again the same line he gave everyone. AND THAT VECO WAS JUST ONE OF MANY PEOPLE IN BUSIINESS HE SAID THAT TOO.....AND MEANT!!!! We could have demonstrated this easily with MANY, many witnesses.

Then the jury would have debated the alleged offenses in a far different light!
But JHB, though no fault of his own, was denied this by one Judge John Sedwick.

These are the reasons Vic was found guilty of three of the four counts. I think he did make a mistake; he foolishly allowed thug Bill Allen to convince him he was an actual friend and that the gifts he gave him were sincere. Since the government showed no direct, hard evidence that VIC ACTUALLY DID anything in return for that gift, all we have is the word of a Bill Allen.

The substance of my criticism is that the jury was not allowed the FULL CONTEXT of the situation. Suppose for example that you were a person on a jury. You are on a murder case. The prosecution has several witnesses who say they saw the defendant pull out a pistol and shoot the deceased twice in the chest, “cool and easy as if he were taking a cold drink of lemonade on a warm sunny day.” You learn that the defendant did not even know the murdered guy. The defendant admits to shooting the man. The government suggests that the defendant is a hit man. The defense lawyer asks for permission to put on witnesses and is denied.

You vote guilty. Only later do you read on blogs that the defendant was an Army trained marksman, that he was in a crime infested area of a large city when his car broke down and the deceased was coming at him with a very large knife with a crazed look and scream. All the defendant did was draw his .45 and ably defend himself and his wife and two kids in the car!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh Oh! Too late! The government has already put him to death!

I believe Vic has ample grounds for a serious appeal. I have just given you SOME of them. I hope he will.

Aloha Nui Loa

IL Fettucinni