You are on page 1of 3

May 10, 2005

Mr. Andrew Weismann

Director, Enron task Force
U.S. Dept. of Justice
1400 New York Avenue, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005 Via Facsimile # 202-353-3165

Dear Mr. Weismann:

Bill Dolan was kind enough to forward me an email wherein you

suggested I had violated the confidences of my client, Ken Rice. As a
threshold matter, any such "concerns" (I will discuss the merits below)
should be addressed to me. Do not contact Mr. Dolan, my mother, my
son's1 third grade teacher at Summerwood Elementary School (Ms. Seay) or
anyone else. If you have any future concerns about me; contact me. My
contacts are:

Dan Cogdell
402 Main, 2nd Floor
Houston, TX 77002
713-426-2244 (Office)
713-426-2255 (Fax)
713-806-7060 (Cell)
281-458-1533 (Home) (Office email)

Your email suggests that I have "conferred frequently" with

Daniel Petrocelli, a lawyer for Jeff Skilling. You conclude, with
absolutely no basis whatsoever, that I have "violated client
confidences of Rice". Nothing could be further from the truth and any
suggestion is not only without merit it is nothing more than a
transparent attempt on your part to "disqualify" a lawyer whom you
dislike because of the result your task force suffered in the Barge
case. I will state what you lack the candor to put in writing--you do
not like me. Rest easy, the feeling is mutual.

Speaking of my son, Hunter, he is thinking of changing our dog’s (“Oakley”) name. I suggested “Brady”
and he is pondering that choice. Since you seem to be interested in the minutae of my life, perhaps you
want to weigh in. I am concerned that (since the Enron Task Force has taken the position that there is no
Brady material in any Enron case—despite millions of documents and thousands of witnesses) you might
be opposed. Let me know.
Mr. Andrew Weismann
May 10, 2005
Page Two

I will avoid commenting at length the literal hypocrisy of the

“Enron Task Force” raising ethical concerns. I avoid a lengthy
discussion of the ethical transgressions you and your team engaged in
during the Barge trial for one simple reason. That reason is Ben
Campbell. In more than fifty sessions that I am aware of wherein Ben
has met with Ken, I never observed or suspected anything other than
exemplary professionalism from him. I wish that were true Task Force
wide. He is a credit to the bar and an individual I have the highest
professional admiration for, although we sit on opposite sides, and we
differ wildly in our courtroom approaches.

For eight days, I was in the courtroom watching Ken Rice testify
on direct examination, cross examination, re-direct examination, re-
cross examination and final re-direct. At no time were you there.
Reports had you at (among other places) the arguments at the Supreme
Court on the Anderson matter. Apparently, the 1410.91 mile distance
between where you were and the courtroom I was in is not too great an
obstacle to preclude you from erroneously concluding I was somehow
"violating the Sixth Amendment".

It is true I exchanged pleasantries with Mr. Petrocelli. I also

spoke with several of the Court Reporters, the Marshals at the door,
the staff in the cafeteria, various FBI agents, the law clerk to Judge
Gilmore, a janitor in the bathroom (twice) and a friend of mine from
college (Wayne Dolcefino) who I ran into on the elevator. There are
undoubtedly others I have forgotten. In none of the above exchanges did
I violate any confidence of Mr. Rice.

Indeed, had you been in the room, you would have observed that on
every day I went to watch Ken unaccompanied by Dolan (except one) Mr.
Petrocelli was sitting on the left side of the courtroom and I on the
right. In fact, I sat on the right side of the Courtroom so that I was
not visible to Ken as I was behind a large screen used for the visual
presentation. I chose that seat to avoid a suggestion that had been
voiced in my earshot that I was "signaling Rice". It seems as though
various defense lawyers were suggesting that the level of damage Rice
was inflicting through some of his answers on direct "had to come"
through some covert coaching from me. Ironic, to say the least given
your "suggestions".

The conversations I had with Petrocelli on the one day

happenstance put us on the same pew include the pregnancy of his wife,
the rigors of travel, the location of his home in Los Angeles
(Brentwood) and the efforts to collect on the Simpson judgment
Mr. Andrew Weismann
May 10, 2005
Page Three

(apparently the Heisman trophy was auctioned off). We also discussed

my son, the fact I drive a truck, the University of Texas, and Lance
Armstrong. They did NOT include any client confidence. On that
specific day your friend (and mine) Mary Flood (the reporter for the
Houston Chronicle) sat directly (and in earshot) in front of us.
Perhaps you should discuss with her the "Sixth Amendment Violations" I
was engaging in.

The smartest lawyer around I am not. But even I can see that the
creation of the "conflict issue" is nothing more than an intentional
effort on your part to create conflict (where there is none) between
Mr. Rice and myself. It is truly disappointing to see them in play.

An objective observer would likely suggest you focus on problems

much greater than the non-existent one discussed herein. Solely in an
effort to allow you the ability to do just that and to keep me from
having to take the time to write letters such as this, I will not speak
to Mr. Petrocelli further during the pendency of the EBS trial(s) or

It is sincerely hoped that you can thereby move forward and focus
on items which are actually deserving of the expenditure of
prosecutorial resources and tax dollars. Hopefully, those would include
pursuing the appropriate resolutions of the matters you are charged
with handling and not creation of baseless "conflict" issues. I
sincerely hope that focus is specifically sharpened in the immediate

Yours very truly,

Dan Cogdell