Coleman isn’t named in the lawsuit (or in a similar suit pending in Delaware), but he is implicated by charges that Kazeminy ordered officers of a business he controlled, Houston-based Deep Marine Technology, to send $100,000 to Hays Companies, the St. Paul insurance firm where Coleman’s wife, Laurie, works.

The two former Deep Marine executives who brought the suit have given sworn testimony that although the payments were ostensibly for insurance advice, they don’t know of any such service being rendered. And, they claim, Kazeminy introduced his instructions by saying, “United States senators don’t make shit.”

Coleman charged that the lawsuit, filed shortly before last November’s election, was meant to damage his campaign. He blamed his political enemies, including Franken — a charge the Democrat denied.

The deposition was part of a civil lawsuit filed by Thomas and former Deep Marine CEO Paul McKim in Texas in October 2008. The suit implicates Minnesota businessman Nasser Kazeminy in a scheme to funnel funds to then-U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.

According to the allegations, an insurance-consulting contract required Kazeminy-controlled Deep Marine to pay the Hays Companies — the insurance firm  where Coleman’s wife, Laurie, works — $100,000, of which $75,000 was actually sent.

The deposition took place in Houston. The raw transcript text was uploaded to the St. Paul Pioneer Press’ Political Animal blog on Friday. The Minnesota Independent has excerpted two long passages that deal directly with the Hays Companies and the Colemans.

The excerpts appear below, reformatted for easier reading. The first excerpt contains questioning of Thomas by Deep Marine attorney K.B. Battaglini. In the second excerpt the questions are from Casey Wallace, attorney for Thomas’ co-plaintiff, McKim. Thomas’ own lawyer, Charley A. Davidson, also speaks. According to the original transcript, the deposition took place over a full work day at the offices of Davidson’s firm, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP.

Q. (BY MR. BATTAGLINI): …Now, before we leave the subject of insurance, did the company ever end up doing business with — did DMT or DMH ever end up doing business with the Hays Company?

A. Directly?

Q. Directly.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When was that?

A. That would have been in ’07.

Q. Okay. And what was the nature of the business that the company was doing with the Hays Company?

A. There was an insurance consulting agreement.

Q. Okay. And is that something that you had looked at and signed off on?

A. And it was something that was sent to us, and the direction from Mr. Kazeminy was that we would enter into that agreement and pay the Hays group.

Q. What was the nature of the arrangement, what was Hays supposed to be doing pursuant to this agreement?

A. Consulting work related to insurance.

Q. All right. Prior to that time was anybody doing consulting work for your insurance program?

A. No.

Q. You had not had a consultant?

A. Not an outside consultant, no.

Q. All right. Did you have a basic understanding of the services that are performed by an insurance consultant?

A. Basic, yes.

Q. Okay. What was your understanding at the time of what an insurance consultant would offer a company?

A. An outside consultant for insurance?

Q. Yes.

A. I — we never employed one. I didn’t investigate it. I apologize. I misunderstood the question. I understood what our broker was doing.

Q. Okay. Separate and apart from what your broker was doing, did you have an understanding of what an insurance broker — I mean, excuse me, an insurance consultant would offer?

A. No. Not really.

Q. Was it ever explained to you the services that would be provided under such an agreement?

A. No.

(Exhibit 17 marked)

Q. (BY MR. BATTAGLINI) I’m going to hand you — and this is slightly out of order — Exhibit 17. I’ll go back to 16 later. It’s several pieces of paper with a paper clip on it attaching them together. I merely attached them for convenience. And I’d like to kind of walk you through what this is. Have you seen many of these documents before?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Let’s take them in order. The one on the top is called a Disclosure of Service Fee. And it’s on Hays letterhead. And it’s dated March the 30th, 2007. It appears to be signed by Paul McKim. Do you recall having seen that page before?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. How did you come to have seen this page before? And I’m talking about back on or about March the 30th, 2007.

A. I believe it was e-mailed to me.

Q. All right. From the Hays Company?

A. I believe so, yeah.

Q. And did you have an understanding of what it was when you received it?

A. It was an agreement for consulting services.

Q. Okay. Well, the one page, at least, is a disclosure of a service fee, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. A fee was going to be assessed in exchange for services provided?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that your understanding?

A. That’s my understanding.

Q. Okay. Would you prefer to get that back in front of you?

A. Yes, please.

Q. All right.

(Pause in proceedings)

A. Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BATTAGLINI) Okay. And the amount of the service fee reflected on this first page of the exhibit is $100,000, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. What was your understanding at the time of what the $100,000 was to pay for?

A. That was to pay for Hays doing some consulting services.

Q. All right. And who was Hays going to consult with?

A. That is not particularly clear.

Q. It’s not clear from this page that we’re looking at or –

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Did you have an understanding at the time of who Hays was going to consult with?

A. My best guess at the time was that they were going to be consulting with Mr. Kazeminy.

Q. Is that because under an oversight agreement that insurance discussions like that were going to be had with Mr. Kazeminy rather than with the people at DMT in Houston?

A. Mr. Kazeminy was quite capable of setting the degree of, his degree of involvement on any of those things.

Q. Okay. Prior to your receipt of this disclosure of service fee, who had the insurance company or the insurance broker, Aon, been dealing with on a regular basis in terms of the placement of insurance?

A. Merely myself as well as Paul McKim.

Q. Okay. Once this service fee document was signed by Mr. McKim, did you have any communications with Hays regarding insurance coverage?

A. I’m not sure as to the last time I would have had dinner with Mike Prinz, if it was subsequent to this or not.

Q. Okay. Do you know if Hays Company was having communications with someone in Minnesota working for Mr. Kazeminy, for example, regarding the placement of insurance coverage and consulting services in conjunction with that?

A. Do not know.

Q. Okay. If it did happen, it wasn’t reported to you?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you communicate with anyone in Minnesota working with Mr. Kazeminy’s companies for the purpose of discussing insurance?

A. Yes. The previous year we had gone through a quite a bit of analysis regarding where we were placing our, where we were placing our Jones Act coverage. And there was a, a new underwriter on the market that was offering some extremely low rates.

Q. Uh-huh. And who did you discuss that with?

A. Paul, myself, John Ellingboe, and Nasser were involved in that conversation.

Q. All right. On a routine basis, did you consult with people from time to time in Minnesota?

A. Regularly.

Q. Okay. And who did you normally consult with on administrative matters including insurance?

A. John Ellingboe and Dan Erickson.

Q. All right. Do you know whether or not Ellingboe or Erickson talked with the Hays Company about the insurance that was contemplated by this disclosure of service fee?

A. I have no — no. I don’t know.

Q. It’s possible; you just don’t know?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Okay. Now, it says here, for coverages, all property, executive risk, casualty and marine coverages associated with the operation known as Deep Marine Technology. Is that a fair summary of the types of coverages that you would expect to see on your business?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. It didn’t exclude anything in particular?

A. Not that I’m aware of.

Q. Now, if you’ll go to the fourth, starting at the fourth page and carrying on to the fifth page, there is an insurance summary for DMT. Is that something that you prepared or had prepared for you?

A. This is something the Aon would have prepared for us.

Q. All right. That’s reflective of Aon’s coverage for 2006 to 2007?

A. Yes.

Q. And was this something that Hays wanted to see so that they could consult with the company about coverage?

A. I — you know, I believe they probably requested it. This was something that we received from Aon as just a normal course of their providing coverage.

Q. Okay. Now, following that, following the pages that we just looked at, there are some invoices, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And let’s look at the first invoice. This is the Invoice No. 119056 dated April the 24th, 2007 from Hays Company to DMT. In fact, to your attention.

A. Yes.

Q. And it’s a quarterly installment in the amount of $25,000 designated as a service fee on the invoice. I see Paul McKim’s signature on there. Do you see that
in the middle of the page?

A. Yes.

Q. Why would his signature appear on an invoice like this?

A. To approve it.

Q. Would he normally approve something like this?

A. Yes or no. It depends.

Q. Would it first have to go by you in order to be approved by Mr. McKim?

A. No. It could have gone straight. You know, it wasn’t required to go to me before it went to Paul McKim.

Q. Okay. Do you recall having discussed this particular invoice, I’m talking about 119056, with Paul McKim?

A. I remember discussing it.

Q. Okay. What was the nature of the discussion, do you know?

A. The discussion was related to the invoice coming in and the related service agreement.

Q. Okay. Was there a discussion about whether or not it should be paid or anything of that nature?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that discussion about?

A. The discussion was about the contract with Hays and the question of what we were getting for it and did we, that this was something that Nasser wanted and so we needed to proceed along.

Q. Did you participate in any telephone call or meeting with Nasser Kazeminy or anyone else working from Minnesota having to do with this particular invoice where the nature of the call was why do we need to pay this invoice?

A. No.

Q. Did you take it upon yourself as CFO to look into this to see whether or not it should be paid?

A. No. We were already directed to enter into the agreement.

Q. Directed by whom?

A. Mr. Kazeminy.

Q. And what specifically do you remember by way of a direction to enter into this agreement? Did you participate in a phone call?

A. Mr. Kazeminy called me. We discussed. He indicated that this was a, he was going to work something like this out and, you know, that was to be expected.

Q. Did he explain to you on the telephone during this call why it was necessary to engage Hays for this service fee?

A. Mr. Kazeminy said he wanted to use Hays.

Q. Did he say for what purpose?

A. You know, there was a discussion about, about Hays and who was at Hays and that was somebody he wanted to use. And this — so this was, this was where things were going.

Q. Did you have an understanding following the phone call with Mr. Kazeminy of why DMT was paying $25,000 a quarter of a service fee to Hays?

A. Because Mr. Kazeminy wanted to. And he had an oversight agreement, and he was an over-50-percent shareholder. And this was something he wanted to do.

Q. Okay. But other than the fact that this was something that he wanted to do — and you’ve been clear about that — did you have an understanding of what the purpose was, the actual purpose?

A. I was not necessarily very clear on it. I was aware and convinced that Mr. Kazeminy wanted to do it and honestly believed that he had the authority to request it.

Q. Okay. Was there anytime when you said to Mr. Kazeminy or anyone else that the company should not pay $25,000 a quarter for this service fee?

A. Mr. McKim and I discussed the payment, the arrangement and payment to Hays and questioned what we, we were getting from it. And that was as far as we went.

Q. Okay. So you had no communication, direct communication with Mr. Kazeminy or anyone else in Minnesota where you said to the person on the other end of the phone, we’re not going to pay this amount?

A. I did not, no.

Q. Do you know if anyone else had such a conversation? Did you observe, did you hear anybody else have such a conversation?

A. No.

Q. Now, there were — if we keep flipping through the pages, there are a total of three invoices, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And it’s your understanding that all three of those were paid?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you part of the approval process on any of these three?

A. Yes. I signed off on the last one, and then Paul signed off on it.

Q. Okay. So in conjunction with the approval and payment of these three invoices that are attached to this exhibit, was there any follow-up communication or disagreement or dispute that you recall regarding the payment of these invoices?

A. I was not involved in that. No.

MR. DAVIDSON: Take a brief break?

MR. BATTAGLINI: Sure.

(Break from 2:04 to 2:15)

Q. (BY MR. BATTAGLINI) Mr. Thomas, let me ask you one more question about Exhibit 17 before we turn to Exhibit 16. Exhibit 17 is the grouping of the documents that we were just talking about about the insurance payments to Hays.

A. Yes.

Q. Is there any document on there that, that was signed off by you or Mr. McKim that was falsified?

A. No. Not that I’m aware of.

Q. In other words, it appears to be consistent with your internal procedures for approving invoices and the payment of invoices?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. WALLACE): … Do you recall your testimony with Mr. Battaglini with respect to the consulting services provided by Hays that are referenced in Thomas Exhibit No. 17?

A. Parts of it.

Q. Okay. You were asked that, about the fact that that represents Hays was to provide consulting services to DMT from April 1st, 2007 to April 1st, 2008, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it was for consulting services, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. To your knowledge did DMT ever receive any consulting services from Hays?

A. Not that I’m aware of.

Q. But how much money was paid to Hays for those alleged consulting services?

A. Seventy –

Q. To your knowledge.

A. — five thousand while I was there.

Q. Okay. Okay. During your testimony with Mr. Battaglini, you said — and I’m going to quote you, quote: You know there was a discussion about, about Hays and who was at Hays and that somebody he wanted to use. And this — so this was, this was where things were going. Who was it and during — let me start over. You were having an exchange with Mr. Battaglini about conversations you had with Mr. Kazeminy and Hays, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall saying in your testimony with Mr. Battaglini, quote: You know, there was a discussion about, about Hays and who was at Hays and that somebody he wanted to use. And this — so this was, this was where things were going. Do you recall that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And when you say he wanted to use, who was he?

A. He being Nasser Kazeminy.

Q. And who was it that Nasser Kazeminy wanted to use at Hays?

A. Laurie Coleman.

Q. And who is Laurie Coleman? If you know.

A. She’s the wife of Senator Coleman.

Q. Okay. In March of 2007, did you have a telephone conversation with Mr. Kazeminy about you, about Senator Norm Coleman?

A. That — there was just that one conversation.

Q. Okay. Now, that services agreement that you have before you which is Exhibit No. 17; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It’s for services beginning in April of 2007?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And in March of 2007 you had a telephone conversation with Mr. Kazeminy about Senator Norm Coleman, right?

A. Well, it could have been in March.

Q. Okay. You’re not sure?

A. I’m not sure. It was sometime — if I’m going to put a timeline to it, I’m going to estimate sometime that first quarter of ’07.

Q. Okay. Fair enough. Sometime before the existence of the document that you have before you which is Exhibit No. 17?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. In that conversation that you had with Mr. Kazeminy, did he tell you, quote, United States senators don’t make shit, close quote? Or words to that effect?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you have any idea what he meant when telling you that by the context of the conversation you were having?

A. Other than the fact that senators don’t make a lot of money, not really. I’m not very good at reading more into it other than that.

Q. Fair enough. And I don’t want you to read anything into it that you can’t. Okay? Please don’t let me try to put words in your mouth. Can we have that agreement?

A. Sure.

Q. Okay. In this telephone conversation, it was specifically about Hays insurance, though, right? And about the use of Hays?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he introduces in that conversation the subject about United States senators don’t make shit, correct?

A. That’s how the conversation started.

Q. And who works at Hays? That you know of personally.

A. Mike Prinz. Laurie Coleman. Well, I — you know, look. I can’t say that I know personally. I have heard that.

Q. Fair enough.

A. Mike Prinz I know works at Hays.

Q. That’s a fair testimony. You don’t have any personal knowledge that Laurie Coleman works there, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Did you later approach Mr. McKim asking him whether it was appropriate to follow Mr. Kazeminy’s orders to use Hays?

A. We talked about this after the conversation.

Q. And what was Mr. McKim’s reaction?

A. Our first reaction for both of us was somewhat of a sense of relief in that the previous year we had gone through the discussions with the e-mail that I ultimately sent to Mr. Kazeminy relating to the use of Hays and an associated firm here in Houston to transfer our offshore insurance, or our insurance brokerage to. Neither one of us were very excited by that kind of move. We were very well taken care of by Aon. We were comfortable with the level of service and knew that the company was benefitting from the arrangement. We had ongoing use for Aon on a variety of issues and really did not want to change to an unknown entity that was significantly smaller in size.

Q. Okay. I’m a little bit confused by your response. Did you say at first you were relieved?

A. Yeah. We were relieved because this meant that we weren’t going to be getting our chops busted about changing to Hays. For doing — for, actually, the brokerage of our insurance and the ongoing, and the ongoing brokerage arrangement and who was going to be taking care of and servicing us.

Q. I see. Because all Hays was going to do was provide consulting services as opposed to providing insurance.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. But from the date of the conversation when he told you U.S. senators don’t make shit until the expiration of a year later, to your knowledge, DMT never got any consulting services from Hays?

A. No, sir. Not that I’m aware.

Q. But they were paid $75,000 of corporate money for that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Was there — did Mr. McKim later ever make an objection to any of the payments to Hays, to your knowledge?

A. Paul was very unhappy about making the payments and grumbled whenever, whenever one of the invoices came through.

Q. Did he grumble to Mr. Kazeminy about it?

A. I don’t know if he did or not.

Q. Did Mr. Kazeminy ever let it be known to you in some form of communication that this was his company and that you and Mr. McKim better just follow his orders in paying Hays?

A. He did not — I did not have that portion of a conversation with Nasser ever.

ATTORNEY: In this telephone conversation, it was specifically about Hays insurance, though, right? And about the use of Hays?
EX-CFO: Yes, sir.
ATTORNEY: And he introduces in that conversation the subject about United States senators don’t make shit, correct?
EX-CFO: That’s how the conversation started.

UPDATE: Complete Coleman-Kazeminy content from Thomas’ deposition after the jump.

Thomas gave sworn testimony during a March 19 oral deposition in Houston. His statement is part of a lawsuit Thomas filed last fall with Paul McKim, who formerly served as chief executive officer at Deep Marine Technology LLC.

The allegation that Kazeminy steered Deep Marine funds to Hays Companies is a side issue to the lawsuit, which does not name either Kazeminy or Coleman. But the charge is serious enough to trigger an FBI probe and calls for a Senate ethics investigation.

Both Kazeminy and Coleman have pledged to fight the suit’s claims and hired attorneys to help them. Neither, however, had representatives at the deposition, according to the transcript. Thomas was questioned about Deep Marine’s payments to Hays Companies first by K.B. Battaglini, attorney for Deep Marine, and then by McKim’s lawyer, Casey T. Wallace.

Both the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press obtained copies of the deposition. The Strib carried articles about it Friday and Saturday, while the PiPress’ blog Political Animal has a statement from Kazeminy and the complete court reporter’s transcript (pdf). The PiPress story is here.

The Minnesota Independent has excerpted two long passages of Thomas’ testimony that are directly related to the Colemans and the Hays Companies. They are taken from the original deposition transcript but reformatted for easier reading. You can find them here.

Financial ties between Laurie Coleman’s employer, Hays Companies, and a Coleman benefactor’s marine-exploration company led to charges of money-funneling that exploded in two civil lawsuits filed outside Minnesota shortly before Election Day.

A postponement in a Texas case has forestalled for now any further detonations there, while a motion to dismiss could snuff out a suit in Delaware. But a Coleman aide says the former Republican senator still wants to use campaign money to defuse the charges.

The suits allege that the St. Paul insurance company received money meant for Coleman disguised as payments from a Texas firm — Deep Marine Technology — controlled by Coleman friend and benefactor Nasser Kazeminy.

Coleman denied the charge and in December — after news leaked of an FBI inquiry into the allegations — said he’d ask for permission to spend campaign funds on lawyers and investigators to disprove it. An aide announced Coleman’s intention to request an OK from Federal Election Commission: “We will be seeking the necessary approvals at the proper time to ensure that this is done in strict accordance with all appropriate laws and rules,” the campaign said.

“The proper time” was apparently not during the Senate recount or election contest trial, which adjourned last week. (The three-judge panel is now deliberating whether Democrat Al Franken should retain his slim lead over Coleman.) Nothing from Coleman has surfaced among the Federal Election Commission’s official list of pending advisory opinion requests.

But a Coleman request is, indeed, still in the works. Says Coleman staffer Tom Erickson, as reported by MinnPost: “We’ve been in contact with FEC and are in the process of providing them with all of the detailed information they need, and require, to adequately address our request.”

The FEC already has the question before them. In December Alliance for a Better Minnesota filed a complaint asking the FEC to rule on Coleman’s stated intent to write checks from his campaign fund to cover legal costs of fending off the civil lawsuits. The Alliance tells the Minnesota Independent that the FEC has taken no action on the complaint.

How will the FEC handle Coleman’s request for an advisory opinion in light of the Alliance’s complaint already pending? FEC spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger told MnIndy it’s likely the commission would respond to Coleman first, since by law the commission must answer a candidate’s request within 60 days. (She said FEC policy is not to comment on requests until they become official, so she couldn’t confirm Erickson’s version of what’s going on.)

For those implicated in the lawsuits, the legal costs could be high. Coleman hired Douglas Kelley, a Minneapolis-based defense attorney. Kelley’s job is to “work cooperatively with authorities when such an investigation is conducted, and to quickly expose these allegations for what they are, and to hold those who made these false allegations against the Senator accountable,” a Coleman aide said.

Meanwhile, Laurie Coleman; her employer, Jim Hays; and Kazeminy also hired attorneys — “four of Minnesota’s biggest legal guns,” as news reports called them. Laurie Coleman retained Earl Gray, and Hays hired Doug Peterson. Kazeminy chose Joe Friedberg, who soon joined Norm Coleman’s legal team for his election contest trial.

But while Friedberg and Coleman have been busy with the election aftermath, Kelley’s been handling in his court-appointed role as receiver for accused Ponzi-schemer Tom Petters‘ business empire.

In a separate ruling today, the FEC told the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee it could set up a fundraising account to help Franken cover election contest expenses. The commission had “no opinion,” however on whether the Franken campaign could do the same.

Republican groups can take the opinion as applying to them as well — a welcome development for the Coleman campaign, whose own fundraising took a hit after a database-leak scandal erupted last week.

The lawsuit was filed by company founder Paul McKim. Coleman is not a party to the case, but the allegations upended his re-election bid in the final days of the campaign. A separate lawsuit filed in Delaware contains an almost identical description of Kazeminy’s attempts to provide money to Coleman.

McKim’s attorney, Casey Wallace, had argued that there was no need for a delay in the court case. “These are simple allegations,” he told MnIndy last month. “This is not an Enron-ish type case. They’ve had plenty of time to do their investigation.”

The lawsuit was brought by minority shareholders of Deep Marine Technology, a Houston-based firm that provides underwater services to oil companies. It alleges that Nasser Kazeminy utilized the firm to funnel $75,000 to the Republican senator through payments to his wife, Laurie Coleman, via the Minneapolis insurance company where she works.

Sen. Coleman has denied the allegation, calling it a “sleazy” political attack, and blaming the controversy on his Democratic opponent. Al Franken’s campaign has denied any connection to the lawsuit.

Paul McKim, the founder of Deep Marine Technology, who filed the initial lawsuit in Texas on Monday, insists that the dispute is not politically motivated. In fact, he claims to have never heard of Coleman prior to the dust-up with Kazeminy. “It’s just weird timing with Senator Coleman and all this,” McKim tells the Pioneer Press. “I know how it must look, but it’s really not political. I feel bad for him and his family. I don’t know the gentleman, and I’m not a political guy. I’m just an old deep-sea diver. And I’m a Republican.”

In a twist, McKim is actually named as a defendant in the second lawsuit.

The man at the heart of the lawsuit filed in Texas this week accusing Sen. Norm Coleman of fraudulently receiving $75,000 has kept a low political profile over the years. Deep Marine Technology founder Paul McKim has given at least $900 — primarily to Republican political candidate and causes since 2000, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Among the recipients: former Florida Rep. Katherine Harris ($200) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson ($250). The only donation to a non-GOP cause was $250 for the Sierra Club’s political action committee.

Other figures in the lawsuit are more prominent political patrons. Nasser Kazeminy, the Minnesota businessman at the center of the controversy, is a longtime friend and supporter of Coleman. Kazeminy has made nearly $800,000 in political contributions since 1990, primarily to Republican candidates. This includes just over $70,000 given to Coleman’s campaigns and political action committees, along with $36,265 provided to the Republican Party of Minnesota. Kazeminy has also supported the Senator by less orthodox means: He provided his private plane to the Coleman family for trips to the Bahamas and Paris, and is alleged to have footed the bill for the Senator’s suit purchases at Neiman Marcus. Now the lawsuit accuses the businessman of funneling $75,000 through Deep Marine Technology to Coleman via a job his wife, Laurie Coleman, holds with a Minnesota insurance firm.

The other primary player in the legal dispute is Otto Candies, Jr, an oil man from Des Allemands, Louisiana. According to the lawsuit, Candies bilked Deep Marine Technology out of millions of dollars with dodgy business practices. (Although McKim founded the Houston-based business — which provides underwater services to oil and gas companies — Candies and Kazeminy now hold controlling interests in the firm.) In the last two decades, Candies has given roughly $20,000 to an assortment of Republican and Democratic candidates, primarily in Louisiana. Among the recipients: Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and former Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin. Candies has not given any money to Coleman.