"Allen was a sitting duck" and other thoughts about the sentencing hearing
I've posted my very unofficial and rough transcript of the sentencing hearing and one with just Allen's statement to the court. So let me now write down some of my reactions to what I saw.
He was a sitting duck . . . He was vulnerable.
Defense attorney Bundy tried to portray Allen as the victim of greedy legislators who took advantage of his zeal for the PPT (variously called the Petroleum Profits Tax and Petroleum Production Tax) and his generosity.
Why didn't they mention the deal to not pursue Allen's kids?
Sentencing is based on guidelines and then factors that might kick you to a higher level or down to a lower level. According to criminaldefenselawyer:
But what wasn't mentioned was the agreement that was discussed in the press and at the Kott and Kohring trials, that part of his agreement to cooperate included immunity to prosecution for his children. Given that he thought they needed such immunity, I'd say this was a big benefit that he'd already gotten for his cooperation. It would seem to me that it should have been factored in. Perhaps in the agreement it was also not supposed to affect the figuring of what level he deserved. It just seemed like a glaring omission to me. Perhaps an attorney can comment and explain why it wasn't mentioned.
Comparing sentences of others to insure fairness
The judge mentioned that the public will compare Allen's sentencing with the sentencing of the others involved - Pete Kott and Vic Kohring. He said this was not an appropriate comparison because neither of them admitted their guilt, showed any remorse, or cooperated with the prosecution.
Not mentioned was Tom Anderson. Tom's case didn't directly involve Allen, though Tom had been employed by VECO during one out of session period, his case didn't involve the PPT tax or money from Allen. However, it was the first case to go to trial from this whole investigation. He got five years - two more than Allen. (Though his fine was minimal and Allen's was the maximum.)
People I've talked to agree that Anderson's sentence was high. People believe that, in hopes of sending a message to the others under investigation or indicted to cooperate, Anderson got a pretty stiff sentence. And Anderson, in his statement to the court at sentencing DID admit his guilt and remorse. And Anderson DID cooperate with the FBI for several months. Now he did stop that cooperation, but his conduct was very different from Kott and Kohring. It just seems that his sentence should also have been compared as well as Kott and Kohring's.
Bribes versus Gratuities
This was raised by Judge Sedwick because bribes raise the sentencing by 12 levels and illegal gratuities would only raise it by 9 levels. He distinguished between the two by saying (this is a rough quote) "series of large payments made to State Sen. B - over extended period to insure in general in long run, not for performance of specific acts. Illegal gratuities, not bribes." Later he said a bribe was more of a payment for a specific act, a quid pro quo.
Prosecutor Trusty reminded the judge that Allen pleaded guilty to bribery, not to illegal gratuities.
There was also more discussion about the amount in illegal gratuities to Sen B was far greater than the relatively small amounts in bribes to Kott and Kohring but if these got mixed and then separated later, it would have little impact on the sentence.
In my fuzzy understanding of all this, this seems to have some implications - others can help clarify this perhaps. First, it reminds us what came out in the Kott trial, that Allen pleaded guilty to bribing State Sen. B, who is understood to be Sen. Ben Stevens. While the damage done by the prosecutors' mishandling of the Ted Stevens evidence has raised questions about whether the rest of the investigation will indeed proceed, it should be clear that if Allen pleaded guilty to bribing Sen. B, then probably Sen. B might well be guilty of receiving bribes.
(On the other hand, if Allen pleaded guilty to bribing Senator B because the Feds also had information on his alleged carrying on with a 15 year old girl and they would ignore that to focus on the political corruption - this was the Public Integrity Section of the FBI and not a vice squad - then maybe it's not that strong a case on Sen. B.)
It also raises the question of whether Sedwick thinks state legislators who are hired by companies that have a strong interest in specific legislation are receiving illegal gratuities, something the State of Alaska has denied, if I have my fact straight.
This will have to do it for now. This is all speculation so if I'm headed in the wrong direction, please explain why and get me in the right direction.
He was a sitting duck . . . He was vulnerable.
Defense attorney Bundy tried to portray Allen as the victim of greedy legislators who took advantage of his zeal for the PPT (variously called the Petroleum Profits Tax and Petroleum Production Tax) and his generosity.
Bundy: There was no organizing, strategy to talk to legislators to agree on one side, that was the strategy, lobbyists do that all the time, spending billions of dollars on health in DC now, What happened in this situation, because of Mr. Allen’s obvious desire to have PPT passed, he bellied that was the right way. and they knew his history of generosity, he was a sitting duck for these people. They came to him. Mr. Kohring had to approach, Mr. Kott had to approach.I had to restrain myself so I didn't burst out laughing at this characterization. The judge wasn't buying it either.
Sedwick: What about 7 years of payments to Sen. B. Doesn’t that give us insight to what was in Allen’s mind?
Bundy: It is not illegal to pay a legislator to give advice. Nothing - Sen B was on the payroll before he became a Senator. To say Mr. Allen was an organizer way overstates his role. There was no secret he wanted to the PPT passed. The illegal solicitation was made by others. He didn’t solicit anyone. They came to him. He was vulnerable. They came to him.
Why didn't they mention the deal to not pursue Allen's kids?
Sentencing is based on guidelines and then factors that might kick you to a higher level or down to a lower level. According to criminaldefenselawyer:
How the Sentencing Guidelines WorkIn this case there was a lot of discussion about how Allen had agreed to cooperate immediately when he was taken in to the FBI headquarters and shown some of the tapes of him in his Baranof Hotel suite; about how much work he did for the prosecution; how he was important in getting the various convictions this investigation has gotten. So all this cooperation meant that he ended up getting more than the normal lowering of levels. OK, sort of.
The court sentencing guidelines take into account both the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s criminal history, as well as mandatory sentencing guidelines, including federal criminal sentencing guidelines and federal prison sentencing guidelines for federal cases.
OFFENSE SERIOUSNESS
The sentencing guidelines provide 43 levels of offense seriousness— the more serious the crime, the higher the offense level.
BASE OFFENSE LEVEL
Each type of crime is assigned a base offense level, which is the starting point for determining the seriousness of a particular offense. More serious types of crime have higher base offense levels (for example, a trespass has a base offense level of 4, while kidnapping has a base offense level of 32).[There's more details at the link.]
But what wasn't mentioned was the agreement that was discussed in the press and at the Kott and Kohring trials, that part of his agreement to cooperate included immunity to prosecution for his children. Given that he thought they needed such immunity, I'd say this was a big benefit that he'd already gotten for his cooperation. It would seem to me that it should have been factored in. Perhaps in the agreement it was also not supposed to affect the figuring of what level he deserved. It just seemed like a glaring omission to me. Perhaps an attorney can comment and explain why it wasn't mentioned.
Comparing sentences of others to insure fairness
The judge mentioned that the public will compare Allen's sentencing with the sentencing of the others involved - Pete Kott and Vic Kohring. He said this was not an appropriate comparison because neither of them admitted their guilt, showed any remorse, or cooperated with the prosecution.
Not mentioned was Tom Anderson. Tom's case didn't directly involve Allen, though Tom had been employed by VECO during one out of session period, his case didn't involve the PPT tax or money from Allen. However, it was the first case to go to trial from this whole investigation. He got five years - two more than Allen. (Though his fine was minimal and Allen's was the maximum.)
People I've talked to agree that Anderson's sentence was high. People believe that, in hopes of sending a message to the others under investigation or indicted to cooperate, Anderson got a pretty stiff sentence. And Anderson, in his statement to the court at sentencing DID admit his guilt and remorse. And Anderson DID cooperate with the FBI for several months. Now he did stop that cooperation, but his conduct was very different from Kott and Kohring. It just seems that his sentence should also have been compared as well as Kott and Kohring's.
Bribes versus Gratuities
This was raised by Judge Sedwick because bribes raise the sentencing by 12 levels and illegal gratuities would only raise it by 9 levels. He distinguished between the two by saying (this is a rough quote) "series of large payments made to State Sen. B - over extended period to insure in general in long run, not for performance of specific acts. Illegal gratuities, not bribes." Later he said a bribe was more of a payment for a specific act, a quid pro quo.
Prosecutor Trusty reminded the judge that Allen pleaded guilty to bribery, not to illegal gratuities.
There was also more discussion about the amount in illegal gratuities to Sen B was far greater than the relatively small amounts in bribes to Kott and Kohring but if these got mixed and then separated later, it would have little impact on the sentence.
In my fuzzy understanding of all this, this seems to have some implications - others can help clarify this perhaps. First, it reminds us what came out in the Kott trial, that Allen pleaded guilty to bribing State Sen. B, who is understood to be Sen. Ben Stevens. While the damage done by the prosecutors' mishandling of the Ted Stevens evidence has raised questions about whether the rest of the investigation will indeed proceed, it should be clear that if Allen pleaded guilty to bribing Sen. B, then probably Sen. B might well be guilty of receiving bribes.
(On the other hand, if Allen pleaded guilty to bribing Senator B because the Feds also had information on his alleged carrying on with a 15 year old girl and they would ignore that to focus on the political corruption - this was the Public Integrity Section of the FBI and not a vice squad - then maybe it's not that strong a case on Sen. B.)
It also raises the question of whether Sedwick thinks state legislators who are hired by companies that have a strong interest in specific legislation are receiving illegal gratuities, something the State of Alaska has denied, if I have my fact straight.
This will have to do it for now. This is all speculation so if I'm headed in the wrong direction, please explain why and get me in the right direction.