Frank Prewitt's Last Bridge to Nowhere

[Dennis Zaki called me Wednesday afternoon saying he had an advance copy of a book about the trial, could he come by and drop a copy off for me. It had a little note to me written by the author. (He had two other books to deliver, one to Shannyn Moore and one to Philip Munger at Progressive Alaska. (Dennis had exclusive rights to talk about the book until Saturday when the book would be officially announced. I could post about it then. You can see Dennis’ Thursday and Friday posts already at AlaskaReport.com.)

Shortly thereafter, he pulled into our driveway and gave me a copy of Frank Prewitt’s new book Last Bridge to Nowhere. As an amateur journalist, I haven’t studied the protocol or ethics of exclusive stories. Obviously, I’m being used to promote this book. It seems that various people have been told that they have gotten first shot at the book so I guess Prewitt will have different outlets dealing with the book for a number of days in a row. Given that ABC, as I prepare this for a Saturday posting, is also sitting on an exclusive to promote Sarah Palin in as controlled a way as her handlers think they can get away with, I think the whole idea of exclusive stories would make an interesting post in the near future. So read this with a grain of salt. Prewitt knew that I, having sat through the three trials, wouldn’t be able to resist reading this. I did toy with the idea of just posting this intro and not going into the book. So my pay for shilling his book is one free copy. Here are my first impressions.]

Synopsis:

1. Brief Overview
2. Excerpt of what Prewitt expects to happen (there isn't that much new in the book, just more details, like adding color to the black and white)
3. Purpose of the book.
   
4. Will the real Frank Prewitt please stand up?
5. Self-publishing thoughts
6. Fact of Fiction?
7. Conclusions
   

1. Brief Overview

Think of this book as a work of historical fiction, based on real events and people, but with everything skewed slightly to make the author appear to be the person who ran the FBI’s corruption probe with the assistance of Special Agent Kepner who he pretended was in charge. (OK, I stretched the last part a bit to give you a sense of how things seem to be stretched in the book.) This impression comes from the first part of the book, which is heavy on unflattering descriptions of people. Toward the middle and end he gets more into moving the story along and the snark meter blips less frequently. At the very end, the tone changes completely as he quotes the bible and discusses his conversations with God. Basically, most of the things I knew about were accurate, but for someone who doesn't know the stories already, it would be hard to determine where Prewitt is embellishing.

To his credit, there are no pretensions about the book itself here. It's like you are in a bar with Prewitt drinking beers as he's telling you about his experiences as a confidential source for the FBI in Alaska's biggest political corruption case.

2. Excerpts. There's little that we don't already know about people under investigation. What he says about people is interesting if you like catty gossip, but nothing particularly important in terms of public policy. What is useful is the deadlines for when cases have to go to trial :

Crimes committed in 2003 and 2004 ... didn’t technically have to be charged until 2008 and 2009. (p. 136)

So, things need to be wrapped up by next year. So what's left? Here's his synopsis done a little while ago.

The way things were shaping up, I figured indictments or plea deals on John Cowdery and Jim Clark (former governor Murkowski’s chief of staff) were right around the corner, the shoe would probably drop on Senators father and son Stevens by mid-summer or fall and the case building against Congressman For All Alaska Don Young would slide past the August 2008 primary elections, and that was a big problem…

Then there were the cases sitting on federal ice for lack of immediate concern or stature. Alaska Senator Donny Olson, for example, was named in the Kott trial as the senator that John Cowdery could deliver for a mere twenty five thousand dollar contribution; investigations into former Alaska senator Jerry Ward and multimillionaire businessman Bill Weimar had been completed at least a year before; political cash handouts from Alaska fur-trading entrepreneur Perry Green were burning a hole in prosecutors’ pockets; former representative Bruce Weyhrauch’s trial was stalled on a procedural appeal; former representative Beverly Masek’s alleged quid pro quo relationship with Bill Allen and Perry Green was approaching the statue of limitations for prosecution; the lingering charges against the remaining VECO executives were simmering on a back burner; and a small handful of residual affiliations could prove up after the cooperators’ cooperation. (p. 135)

Presumably this is what's left. But he also said early on he had to be careful not to jeopardize ongoing operations, so possibly there are others. There's also a little bit on Palin, but nothing that hasn't already been picked through by the national media on when she decided she didn't like earmarks.

3. Purpose of the book

Why did Prewitt write this book?

• To clear his name - Prewitt tells us that as an undercover agent he was unable to respond to the various people who saw him as a slimeball lobbyist who made some deal with the FBI to escape jail.
  
  
• Revenge - Particularly the beginning of this book is full of acerbic comments about all sorts of people. I get the sense of the smart guy who has had to put up with fools, finally gets to say what's on his mind without concern for consequences. I can just see Prewitt relishing everyone rushing to the bookstore to read all the gossip about well known Alaskans. At one point he even writes,

  And the key to special friends in politics is money, and right about now a lot of Weimar’s former special friends are breathing deep sighs of relief as they read my generic passing reference to their special relationship with the big guy. (p. 49)
  

  
  
• To tell his part of this story - He writes in the Acknowledgement, "I sincerely hope this book serves as a foundation and catalyst for a more definitive work by a thoughtful, research-diligent, unbiased source.. A historic event of this stature deserves no less." And not many people could write this book. Though googling FBI Agent Memoir gives quite a few hits on books written by ex-agents.
  

4. Will the real Frank Prewitt please stand up?

My sense at the trial was that Prewitt was smarter than most of the people in the courtroom, that he'd made a fair amount of money, that there were probably some shady things in his background, and enough specific stuff that the FBI approached him and offered him a deal to help them. I didn't know this, but it was my supposition. The Anderson and Kohring defense attorneys cross examined him on these points. There was something about illegal campaign contributions and something else about a $30,000 loan from Allvest - a corrections contractor - while he was Commissioner of Corrections. I posted the exchange between Anderson attorney Stockler and Prewitt at the time:

Prewitt said he got the loan and paid it back. Stockler: Is there anything in writing? Isn't it true it was a bribe? [Prewitt:] No. [Stockler:] How did you pay it back? [Prewitt:]I worked for Allvest for four months - $7500 per month. [Stockler:] Did you pay taxes on the $30,000? [Prewitt:] No, it was a loan. [Stockler:] But you say you worked for it. [Prewitt:] No, I was paying him back. [Stockler:] So, all of us could avoid paying income taxes by having our employer loan us our pay before, and then we'd repay it by working and not have to pay taxes?

Prewitt said in court and in the book that his attorney told him the campaign contribution was past the statute of limits and the loan was not illegal and there were no issues and that he was cooperating voluntarily.

[My attorney] said they [the Feds] agreed there was no basis for federal charges against me and I was under no obligation to continue helping, but they sure hoped I would. (p. 31)

But on the very next page, he says his code name was Patient.

She never said whether the name was due to my status or long-suffering nature, but there was no confusion over the anatomy under her control, when she said to turn my head and cough, I did. (p. 32)

Why would Kepner have him by the balls if there was no basis for federal charges and he was there voluntarily?

In the last chapter, "Author's Retrospective," Prewitt tells us that he talks with God. He opens the bible - an interesting translation - and God talks back to him through the passages such as:

Mocking ballads will be sung of you and you yourselves will sing the blues...

Do chats with God demonstrate his reflective, religious nature? Or megalomania? Or are they there to convince us of his true ethical self? But a good Christian, in my understanding, wouldn't write all those mean spirited comments about all the people in the early chapters.

Prewitt was a lobbyist. He worked legislators all the time. When asked by Kepner whether he would normally attend a fund raiser at Bill Allen's house (so she could use him to wear a wire there),

I said I went to those things all the time, no problem.(p. 37)

How do we know he isn't working us the way he worked legislators?


4. Self-publishing

Self-publishing means you don't have to get your book accepted by a publisher. Nowadays, this no longer automatically dismisses the book from serious consideration. It also means you can often get it out faster. At one point he's talking about July 2008. The book has no index, but it has a list of characters (I would have added the judge, John Sedwick), and a glossary for non-Alaskans. I noticed one citation (Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board) and he has a few newspaper articles pasted into pages.

Sometimes events have dates, sometimes not.

An editor may have done something about the dark and stormy prose such as:

By 2003 this unusual compost of big oil, frontier ingenuity, and isolated lawmaking reached critical mass, seeping lethally into the cracks and crevices of Alaska public policy and under the door of FBI Special Agent Mary Beth Kepner. (p. 18)

There's a certain blog-like quality - impressions, casual language, different styles, an attempt to capture what happened in almost real time.


6. Fact or Fiction?

My take, as someone who blogged the three court cases, is that while he has taken poetic license with some of the stories and dialogues and some of the events are meshed together, the book gives a reasonably accurate overview of what happened and gives us some glimpses into the relationship between a source and the FBI agents.

The author's character is painted as a misunderstood, falsely accused, but publicly minded citizen selflessly helping to right wrongs. This may or may not be accurate. I've never talked to Frank Prewitt, I've only seen him testify in court, and I know what people who have known him say about him. (It's mixed.) So while you get the general picture, and most of the details are consistent with what I heard in court, some I don't know enough to be able to verify, and others have been revised to make for better reading. For example, Prewitt writes:

Next day Kott walks in, “Allen said he appreciated Kott’s work and handed him a thousand dollars in Cash. Kott stuffed the bills into his politically incorrect Carharts and Allen said, “There, that should keep you in broads and booze for a couple of days.” (p. 74)

That's a totally different impression than the court record. My notes have that the $1000 was a reimbursment for a $1000 campaign contribution that Pete Kott had made to the Murkowski campaign. This still is not legal, but it is not as brash as stuffing bills into his pocket for broads and booze.

And he also gives us details of events he didn't personally witness - such as Kepner and Joy's first discussion with Don Young for example. Other stories didn't seem right to me, but I had no way to check.

7. Conclusions

This is a short book - 150 pages - so it's pretty easy to get through. As someone who's followed the trials closely, I knew who all the players were and the book filled in some of the gaps in my knowledge. What we learn about the FBI's working the case is also interesting. Again, we have to be careful about buying into all the details, but overall we get more information on how things work. I suspect the book would be interesting to someone who doesn't know as much, but it will be more difficult to sense where he's stretching things and where he's sticking close to the original script. With so much national attention on Alaska right now, people may be interested in this sordid little tale.

I don't think it tells us very much about Prewitt's thinking. I'd guess that the beginning is a flip facade that he may have developed over the years. The final chapter probably gives us a glimpse of Prewitt that isn't seen in public, though it's only a glimpse.

OK, I know this is ending rather abruptly. I only had the book for two days and I'm trying to get this out. I may come back and edit when I look at it later.

Alaska Democratic Convention - Leftovers

I've mentioned that the Alaska bloggers and media have been very helpful and cooperative of one another. While I think that covering how the media cover stories is important, sometimes I wonder if this doesn't get a little incestuous. I just want to raise this point now and maybe when I've been able to sift through my thoughts on this I'll do a longer post on it.

Meanwhile, here are some leftovers from yesterday at the convention - filling in some details, and odds and ends. First, the delegates:

The Democratic Party Website explains how many delegates there will be and how they were to be selected. I should have read that before I went to the convention yesterday. Things would have made more sense.

Here's a peek at the list of candidates the Obama delegates had to vote from.

Alaska Report has a list of the people who were selected as delegates and the Barack Obama video address to the convention yesterday.




Representative Gruenberg explained to me the precise purpose of the legislative special session starting June 3.



I got to meet Celtic (pronounced Keltic) Diva, who is the blogger chosen to be the official Alaska blogger at the Democratic National Convention in August. I should have recognized her without someone having to tell me - she's hiding in plain sight on the header picture picture on her blog. Her coverage of this weekend's convention will probably be the most insightful, she's left it to the rest of us to post while driving, so to speak. She's putting her notes in the garage for a few days to figure out what happened and how to write about it.
[Later: I also met Matt Browner Hamlin who was introduced as the blogger honcho who is here to run Mark Begich's campaign website. He seemed decent enough in our short hat. He has posted his observations of the convention on Daily Kos and the Mark Begich blog.]

Like a rare bird among birders, Mary Beth Kepner's appearance attracted a lot of attention among the bloggers and reporters (Alaskareport, ADN, Progressive Alaska, who covered the political corruption trials last year. Kepner is the FBI agent who initiated and ran the whole investigation into Alaska's political corruption. She sat next to the prosecution throughout the trials, but inside security at the courtroom, no cameras were allowed. (Computers and cellphones were allowed for the Kott and Kohring trials for attorneys and members of the press and no one that I know of violated the no camera rule by using their cell phone or computer to take pictures inside security.) And Kepner must have taken back ways through the building back to her office since I never saw a picture of her. So, everyone had their cameras out for this rare sighting. As everyone else has reported, she said she's an independent and was only at the convention to hear John Dean speak. This wikipedia excerpt shows why an FBI agent might be interested in seeing Dean.

As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).^[1] He was convicted of multiple felonies as a result of Watergate, and went on to become a key witness for the prosecution, resulting in a reduction of his time in jail.

For the record, he said last night that he knew nothing before the burglary and that he had thwarted another Liddy plan to firebomb the Brookings Institute. If I recall right, this was when he was signing books, not in the speech, but it's all kind of a blur.

And Kepner breaks all one's stereotypes about FBI agents. So, will seeing her picture and hearing us report she's a real person, change people's stereotypes about what women can do or about the FBI? Just a little? Or just convince you that bloggers are overly gullible?

Disclosures

My first trial blog was June 28, 2007. My first words were:

Disclosure First: Tom was a student of mine a while ago. I don't remember when I talked to him last. However, I have been disturbed by this case since the beginning. I haven't blogged about this, in part, because I can't talk about anything I learned about Tom through our student/teacher relationship which is the only relationship I've had with him. I decided I should go to court and hear the evidence for myself. What I say here is strictly reporting what I saw in court, stuff anyone who went could have seen.

We nodded to each other in the courtroom and shook hands a couple of times, but said nothing more than pleasantries. But I did want to talk to him before he leaves for his incarceration and so I emailed about a week ago. We talked on the phone for a couple of hours and Monday he came over for lunch.

When I started blogging, the separation between my life and my blog was ambiguous, but it really didn’t matter because I wasn’t writing about public topics and hardly anyone was reading the blog. That changed when I started blogging the trials.

At this point, since I have been writing about public events, I do think I need to be open about relationships I have with people I write about. On the other hand, my interest in talking to Tom was not about getting material for the blog. He was my student and that relationship takes precedence over the blog. There may come a time when we both feel that it is appropriate to post something about Tom here. At this point I simply want to be open about the fact that someone I have blogged about extensively and I are having conversations, even though they will not appear in the blog.

With Tom’s permission I’ll just say that I’m convinced that Tom clearly understands that he has broken the law and violated the public trust. He’s still going back through all the things he could have done differently at every step of the way - from saying “No” to Bobrick and flat out rejecting Prewitt, to whether he should have continued to work with the agreement to help the prosecutors. And he’s still frustrated in the disparity in time different players are likely to spend in prison. I think this is probably normal for someone who has screwed up and is now trying to move on. There's stuff you have to work through. I've already commented in several posts at the obvious imbalance of power in court between the resources of the government and those of the defendants. My conversation with Tom makes it clear that even those of us who sat through all three trials only saw a small portion of what all went on before everyone got to court. Perhaps more than the tip of the iceberg, but not all that much more.

As Tom looks to the future, he makes me think of the old Peace Corps ads that went something like: "Optimists see a glass of water as half-full. Pessimists see a glass of water as half-empty. Peace Corps volunteers see a glass of water and say, 'I can take a bath with that.'" In terms of optimism and seeing a positive spin on things, Tom would qualify for the Peace Corps. But I think that his ability to see the good and block out the bad is partly what got him into trouble.

Second disclosure: I've also mentioned very briefly here that I have three UAA honor students who are doing a directed studies class with me. We've been meeting, generally over dinner, with people from different academic fields and different professions to find out how their fields deal with the idea of truth. What meaning(s) does truth have in their fields? What criteria do they use to measure it? How do they know it when they see it? We have a couple of justice students in the small group and so last night our guest was Mary Beth Kepner, the FBI agent who has coordinated the Alaska political corruptions investigations and who has been at the prosecutors' table at all the trials. I had a chance to talk to her during a break in the trial and asked if she'd come to class. What she said last night was focused on the concept of truth more than the cases. We both were clear that whatever she said was not going to the blog. But as I said above with Tom, since I have been writing about the trials and am still writing about topics that arose at the trials, I feel that I need to disclose when I meet with people involved in the trials. Even if I that's all I can put on the blog.

Kohring Trial Day 1 - Jury Selection and the Defense Attorney

9:00 AM

3:07-CR-00055-JWS

Judge Sedwick

Anchorage Courtroom 3

USA vs. VICTOR H. KOHRING
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 1

Today was devoted to jury selection. Judge Sedwick used the same process he used in the Kott and Anderson trials. The first part already happened - the elimination of potential jurists based on their questionnaires. From what I understand, those who expressed bias about the case there, have been eliminated. When I walked into court today, about 9:15 am, the gallery was packed by people with little blue stickers on their chests that said "Juror."

I missed the first part, but I imagine it was the same as the Kott trial - jurors were introduced to the various parties, told the charges, given instructions about their job and restrictions about talking to others or viewing news about the case. Another court observer told me that one of the potential witnesses, Fred James, was given permission to be in the courtroom for the jury selection process. He's one of the two writers of the USA v. Victor H. Kohring blog I mentioned yesterday. What I hadn't realized was that the two writers have different views on the defendant and the blog will reflect this. James, I was told, is a long time, good friend of Kohring's.

Anyway, the jury was sent out and then they were brought back in, one-at-a-time to answer questions about their awareness of the case, the people involved in the case, and whether they could be fair and unbiased. The basic questions the judge asked were:
1. Where do you get your news?
2. Do you remember anything from the news about Kohring or Veco, Bill Allen, Rick Smith?
If they did, then
3. What do you know, have you formed an opinion, could you give a fair hearing. One question he asked along these lines to one or two jurors was, "If you were the defendant, would you want someone like you on the jury?"

Most of the jurors said they don't pay much attention to politics and don't know much or anything about the case. My sense this time round - I stayed for the first 29 jurors and the lunch break - was that even when they said they knew nothing, they tended not to be as oblivious as that suggested. When pressed they often knew something

Two jurors, while I was there, were dismissed. One because she had a back problem and sitting for long times caused her pain. Another, a full time student who works full time hadn't asked to be dismissed. The judge asked if this would affect his studies. He said he'd miss some midterms. The judge asked why he hadn't asked to get out. "Several people told me it wouldn't do any good." The judge said, "Well this court is a little friendlier. A two day trial would be ok, but a two week trial would really affect your studies. I'm going to excuse you."

One juror met Rick Smith, a likely witness, smoking outside Reilly's Bar several times. Another juror who works at Cal Worthington Ford, met Bill Allen there. A third juror had been at meetings of his Community Council when Vic Kohring attended. Alaska is a small place.

Jury Composition

The jury looked different from the Anderson and Kott jury pools. The most striking difference was the relative balance of genders. The Kott trial ended up with ten women and two men. But today, in the first 29 jurors questioned, 15 were men, 14 were women. There were two African Americans, a person from Bethel and one from Unalaska, if I understood right. The ages of the jurors seemed more evenly distributed than the prior two jurors - the Anderson jury being particularly young looking. And there was even one gentleman who had on a tie!

John Henry Browne

For me the big unknown was the defense attorney. When I walked in, I saw him from behind and thought he was younger until he turned and faced the gallery. He was wearing what looked like an expensive light grey suit with just a touch of green. His shirt was just barely pink. The prosecutors, in comparison, were in dark, dark grey to black suits with white shirts, except for Mr. Goeke who had a beige shirt. Even Agent Mary Beth Kepner [Thanks, Steve, I was getting tired when I did that] had on a grey suit. And Mr. Browne's hair also looked expensive - basically brown with what would have been called surfer blond streaks where I grew up near Venice Beach. OK, I know what some of you are thinking. But this is not intended as a fashion evaluation of the attorneys. I do think, however, that the dress does tell us something about people. Browne very definitely pays attention to how he looks. He also has trouble talking without moving. If his arms aren't moving, or his hands, then his fingers are moving. A few times I could even see the muscles in his back moving through his jacket. And this was just very low key questions to the jury.

His voice is radio quality deep and his intonation is precise, more articulated than most American speakers naturally talk. Perhaps he's done some acting or had other voice coaching.

When he asked questions of the jurors, or even when he didn't, he would say, "Good morning" in the same exact tone which sounded warm and interested the first time, but after hearing it repeated precisely many times, it began to sound canned. For two jurors, he said something like, "Your comments were much more extensive than the other jurors" which I thought sounded like calculated flattery, and which caused Prosecutor Botinni to object to the "unnecessary editorial comments" about juror performance. The judge concurred.

He also addressed the court twice, between jurors, with two questions that I thought seemed inappropriate. The first time he wanted to know about jurors who came from outside of Anchorage - who paid for them? (The court pays their airfare and hotel, but they don't go back for weekends the judge replied.) The second question was whether the jurors came from all of Alaska. The judge explained that they only came from the Anchorage district, which was a large district, stretching from Cordova to the Aleutians. It just seemed to me that these were curiosity items, that I would have written down and checked on later. Or, as the Outside defense attorney, I would have found out before the trial. And being an Outside attorney - the local attorney Wayne Anthony Ross was not there today - he wouldn't understand the implications of what local talk show hosts the jurors said they listened to.

Overall, his behavior reinforced the impression I've gotten in the pretrial press coverage. This is the Seattle attorney who is coming to the boondocks to try a case. If that really is the way he's thinking, I suspect he's in for a big surprise. Judge Sedwick has run very tight, but fair, trials. His excusing of the full time student today is an example of his practical understanding of what makes sense and what doesn't. The prosecution has done an overwhelming amount of work and have been extremely well prepared. The teams at the previous two trials were one local attorney and one from the DC based Public Integrity Section. These guys do their homework. The pairing for this trial is Joe Botinni, whose been in the Anchorage US Attorney Office for many years, and Edward P. Sullivan from DC. On the other hand, it does seem that the taped evidence is likely to be not as damaging as in the other cases, and that Kohring might appear to have been less calculating than Kott or Anderson in working out ways to get paid. We will see.

Beyond the Headline

When most people read the headlines next week - "Anderson [--------]" - they'll maybe make a comment or two and by the time they read the celebrity gossip on page two of the Anchorage Daily News they will have forgotten all about Anderson. Well, for this trial there's a little more widespread interest, but still for most, it's print on the page that will be in the garbage or recycling bin before long.

But as I sat in the trial I realized how many people's lives were directly affected by this case. Some changed forever, others impacted for the two weeks of the trial or less. This isn't just a story in the newspaper - real people lived this story.

Tom Anderson - For Bobrick's 'rising star' nothing will ever be the same. No matter the outcome, his name will be linked to Alaska scandal for a long time. If he has a felony conviction, his work prospects will be severely restricted. This doesn't mean that he can't learn from all this and redeem himself some way, but life has suddenly gotten much more difficult than it has been. No one, not even the prosecutors suggested that he wasn't the enthusiastic politician who wanted to help people. Or that we wasn't a likable guy.

Lesil McGuire[Anderson's wife and a state senator] - What was she thinking through all this? I would imagine that up to now things have been pretty one sided for the family. Probably the attorney, their friends, mostly said supportive things. "You were framed by Prewitt and the FBI" and "you didn't do anything wrong, everyone does this, you were just Prewitt's ticket to avoid prison." I would guess that sitting in the courtroom was the first time she heard the whole case against Tom spelled out. What could she be thinking in there? Especially at the end when the Prosecutors ended both the Closing Argument and the rebuttal* to the Defense Attorney's closing argument with, "Why didn't he tell Lesil? Because he knew she would say, "You can't do this; this stinks." Can she disagree with this positive characterization of herself - in her heart of hearts? Especially knowing that it led to this whole trial? Or maybe she's still unconvinced by what the Prosecutors presented. It isn't unreasonable to believe that Tom was entrapped. Without Prewitt, there would be no money funneled to Pacific Publications. Without Prewitt, there would be no tapes.
[*In a previous post I questioned why the Prosecutor got to rebut the Defense Attorney's closing argument, but the Defense Attorney didn't get the same chance. An attorney told me that it was because the burden to prove guilt is on the Prosecutor, so he gets a chance to rebut.]

The rest of Anderson's family. His mother and mother-in-law were there. Other relatives and friends were there, though I don't know who was who. Lisa Demer in her ADN article today wrote, "Anderson said his dad is busy building a home in Wasilla but wanted to come." I'll leave that one alone.

FBI Agent Mary Beth Kepner has been working on this and presumably other related cases since at least 2003 and this is just the first trial. This is her job so it isn't something out of the ordinary the way it is for the Andersons or the jurors. But this is a very intensive, and I would imagine, high stress job. The outcome of this and other trials will surely affect how well her career progresses. The same can be said for the Prosecuting Attorneys Marsh and Bottini. While the outcome of this trial could have some effect on their careers, especially if the outcome is seen as particularly good or particularly bad by their bosses, they do work in a bureaucracy, and there will be plenty of other work ahead. Possibly a brilliant 'win' could mean a lucrative job in the private sector if that was something they wanted. For Defense Attorney Stockler, a private attorney, the outcome of this case could have a much larger impact on his law practice and income. A result of not guilty on all charges could raise his rates quickly.

The witnesses: Bobrick potentially could have his sentence reduced based on how he 'performed' as a witness and the outcome of the trial. But it was clear that testifying was close to the bottom of the list of things he wanted to do this week. I think being abducted by aliens would have been higher. His time on the witness stand was humiliating and the best one could wish for was that maybe it was cathartic to just get it all out and over with. Things can only get better for him the way he described his life. Prison might be worse, but he seemed to already be in a kind of personal hell already. It isn't clear from the testimony whether Prewitt faces any charges or not. He claimed to be confident that he didn't, not because he'd made a deal with the FBI, but because any charges against him were either too old or too minor. But it appears that for the last couple of years Prewitt has begun a new career as an unpaid undercover agent, though after this trial, wearing a wire probably won't be too productive. But he's got all the trials of the other people he's gathered information on.

The jurors are suddenly drawn into some fictional newspaper world they've read about, or not. They are the focus of scrutiny at the beginning. Those not dismissed then have a special status. Everyone has to rise when they enter and leave the court. On some things they are left in the dark while the attorneys and the judge work out procedurally details. But when they come into court they get the best seats. The are first observers and then participants. If this jury is anything like the juries I've been on, most will take this job very seriously, as they weigh the evidence that will so drastically affect Tom Anderson's future. And it will also affect the futures of the family and the attorneys, though to a much lesser degree. Now the jury is the center of attention. Once they give their verdict there will be a short time when they will be sought to give the attorneys and the public an understanding of how they reached their conclusions. Then, they'll slip back into their normal lives. Presumably when they read about future trials, they will have much greater understanding.

As with the attorneys, this is part of the reporters' job. It's the normal job, just two weeks of different scenery. And it adds to the collection of facts about people and politics and justice in Alaska, and ideally some of the 'missing pieces' help them make more sense of the bigger picture.

I also talked to one of the artists who was in the courtroom using some sort of felt pen that created waterpainting-like images of the judge, attorneys, and witnesses. There is something satisfying about how the ban on recording equipment and cameras creates an opening for an artist to get paid some extra money. And there is something about having to study the people carefully so that you can capture their essence in your painting. Sure, a great photographer does the same, but it is so much easier to point the camera and shoot the picture. The artist has to take her time, get a sense of the person and has to 'see' each detail. There was something in her paintings that was very different from what you see in the coldly real photos.

And then there are the other people - the bailiffs, clerks, security guards, transcriber, technicians, etc. - without whom the trial, as we know it, couldn't function.

For all of these people, the trial is part of their real lives, not just ink on the newsprint in the orange plastic bag on the doorstep each morning.


An interesting final point on this case. Unlike many sorts of crimes where the victim is an individual human being who, like the accused, would have friends and family in court with him, we didn't have that dynamic here.

USA vs. Thomas Anderson Day 8 (Final Version)

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Thursday, July 5, 2007
Current as of 07/05/2007 at 5:30 PM

9:00 AM 3:06-CR-00099-JWS Judge Sedwick Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. THOMAS ANDERSON
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 8



Highlights -

• Anderson did not testify
• I didn't see anything too significant in today's testimony - the Defense attorney was trying to establish that Anderson did paid work as consultant for other organizations - Anchorage CHARR and Alaska Telephone Association - but did not vote for things they wanted. It seemed to me that this had mixed results, particularly the ATA testimony seemed to be negated in the cross examination.
• Tried to establish that the committee work was not particularly important, so all the testimony about getting Anderson onto Corrections and HESS committees wasn't as significant as it was made out to be. Again, this either backfired or was a wash. Not sure
• Witnesses:
• Joshua Michael Appleby - Anderson's legislative chief of staff who also got contract to do work for the website business with Bobrick.
• Bernadette Bradly - President of the Board of Anchorage CHARR (Cabaret, Hotels, And Restaurants and Retailers Association)
• James Rowe - Executive Director of the Alaska Telephone Association
• Mary Beth Kepner - FBI Agent
• Robert "Bob" Roses - Alaska State Representative who was elected to Anderson's seat when Anderson left the Legislature
• Jury was dismissed for the day at 2pm
  
• Judge and attorneys were to meet in judge's chambers to agree on jury instructions
• Tomorrow morning will be final arguments and the case will be given to the jury
  

It looks pretty certain that tomorrow the case goes to jury. I got there at 9:30 this morning and the jury was still out while the attorneys were wrangling over procedural matters. As we got there it sounded like the judge was saying to Defense Attorney Stockler that

1. he wouldn't be able to raise an entrapment defense, I think this is what the judge said, because it hadn't been raised in the beginning. [According to Lisa Demer's article in today's ADN, the judge ruled he could use this defense. I got there just as they were discussing this so I certainly defer to her take on this.] Stockler objected that things were revealed during the case that he hadn't been informed about - such as Commissioner Antrim getting called by the FBI in advance to let him know he would be getting a letter from Anderson, written by Prewitt. My understanding was that this was denied.
   
2. The Prosecutors also challenged some of the witnesses Stockler wanted to present.
   
1. He wanted to call FBI Agent Kepner, who has been involved in this case from the beginning and who has been in the courtroom throughout the case at the Prosecutor's table. Asking her about the number of hours of taped Anderson conversation - so he could show that there had been hours and hours of conversation and only in a few did Anderson say anything stupid. The judge responded that it was like asking for all the surveillance tape at the bank to show that the robber had come in many times and not robbed the bank. The other tapes didn't matter. He wanted to document that the FBI had a boat the followed Prewitt's boat on Prince William Sound five our bonding trip. And he wanted to follow up on the point that Anderson was originally called to the FBI office on the pretext that he'd won an award. The judge allowed the second two reasons.
2. He also wanted to call Mr. Fuhs and Mr. Roses as expert witnesses. The Prosecutors challenged the need for expert witnesses. Stockler said they'd had expert witnesses discussing how the legislature works. They countered that these were participants in meetings with Anderson and their discussion of the legislature was to give context to their discussion. In the end Roses was allowed, not Fuhs.
3. The Judge considered Defense's argument for Rule 29 Motion on each charge. When I googled it, I got the Cornell Law School website. That seemed appropriate. It said:
   

Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal

1. (a) Before Submission to the Jury.

   1. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

The Rule 29 motions were rejected for all counts.

I've got to run now. I didn't catch anything too significant, but I'll try to fill in some more details of the defense witnesses later tonight.

Added from the Draft Version:

It appeared to me that Defense was using its witnesses to prove:
1. That the website was a real business, not a sham business. (Joshua Appleby)
2. That Anderson had worked as a consultant for other companies before and being paid by them didn't prevent him from voting against their preferences. (Bernadette Bradley, James Rowe)
3. The FBI was trying to entrap (was careful to not use this word in front of the jury) his client. (Mary Beth Kepner)
4. Committee assignments - the Prosecution had shown that Anderson had worked to get on those committees of most interest to Cornell - weren't really all that important. (Appleby,Bob Roses)

I'm not sure that the points came across the way the defense intended and additional information came out that seemed to be of questionable value to the defense. In contrast to the Prosecution's witness Bobrick's account of a smart, hard-working, gung-ho, politics junkie, who followed through on things he started, the defense witnesses portrayed Anderson as "extremely hyper," loses focus unless you followed up with him; brilliant mind, but hard to keep it focused; sent staff to the key committee because it was at 7am and Anderson didn't function well that early. Stockler even asked a witness if he was ADD.

Item 1: Appleby, who was Anderson's chief of staff and who was recommended to Bobrick for a contract to develop a list of local government officials around the state who could be writers for the electronic journal, said he believed it was a real business venture. But after March 2003, he needed instructions to go further and he asked Anderson "about 20 times and was told 'let me think about it.'

Item 2: Bradly and Rowe were there to show that Tom didn't vote for former clients issues if he didn't agree with them. Bradly said Tom had been the first executive director of CHARR. Later when a rep, he had a contract to increase membership and help the new ED. He was paid either $1500 or $2500 in September 2003 and another $5000 in April 2004. Despite this relationship, he voted against CHARR's position on several issues. They were against lowering the blood alochol level for DUI from .10 to .08, against mandatory seat belts, increasing limits on brew pub sales, and a law relating to establishments with strippers. Anderson voted for all of them. Rowe's organization which represents local phone companies across the state hired Anderson for $5000 a month September 1, 2003 to do legal research for them. He was paid for four months for a total of $20,000. But Rowe testified under examination by Stockler, the Defense attorney, that Anderson voted against their key bill. On cross examination, it came out that the Alaska Telephone Association had two law firms they regularly used for legal advice; that Anderson's contract had no product required ; and that his 'research' involved studying HB 211 on telephone regulation as well as the State Regulations. When asked what the purpose of this study was, Rowe said, to educate Anderson on issues of importance to our rural Alaska customers.

Item 3: Stockler was limited by the judge on what he could ask Agent Kepler.
Q: Did you call Anderson and tell him he one an award and had to pick it up at the FBI headquarters on June 15, 2005?
A: No he was asked to give advice nominate someone for an award.
Q: Did he come into a room with a wall full of pictures of fishing trip on Prewitt's boat and played recordings of his conversations?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he told to stop working on the website?
A: No.
Q: Why use deception to get him to the office?
A: We wanted to get his cooperation and keep covert the nature of the investigation.

Item 4: Appleby said that as long as there was a quorum of four, he could go in Anderson's place to the Corrections Budget Subcommittee and did for the last two meetings.
Roses barely touched on committee assignments except to say he himself probably sat on more committees than any other representative. His testimony ranged from character witness (Anderson's family move in across the street from Roses when Anderson was a kid, so he knew him a long time), talking about what various legislators did for a living. When asked in cross examination if legislators have a responsibility to report sources of income, Roses essentially agreed this was the expectation, but it doesn't reflect what all happens.


Crucial tomorrow morning will be the instructions to the jury. What exactly has to be proven for each count against Anderson. From what we've seen it appears that the Prosecution wants to prove:

1. That Pacific Publications was set up to channel money from Prewitt (and Bobrick and Anderson assumed the money was from his employer Cornell, though it was from the FBI) to Anderson.
2. Although there may have been a belief that this was a real company in the beginning, all parties, including Anderson, knew the main purpose was to hide the fact that Anderson was being paid by Cornell.
   
3. The money was paid so that Cornell could ask Anderson to do various things for them - get onto committees that would impact relevant legislation and could give him a legitimate reason to ask administrators to testify on Corrections issues, lobby his legislative colleagues, and meet with administrative officials, and even testify at public meetings.
4. If Anderson had not known there was something wrong with the arrangement with Cornell, he wouldn't have agreed to the hiding of the source of the funding, he wouldn't have hidden the deal from his then girlfriend (and legislative colleague) and now wife.
5. Of course, Bobrick, Prewitt, and Anderson attempted to make Pacific Publications into as real a company as they could. This would give them cover in case there was an investigation. The more legitimate it was, more they could deny it was a sham organization to hide the real source of funds.
   

The Defense is going to try to demonstrate that:

1. Anderson was an eager, conscientious legislator whose door was open to anyone, and that he was eager to please would assist people simply because that was how he was
2. Anderson believed that Pacific Publications was a real company and that it was not related to assisting Cornell's interests. Since those interests were consistent with his philosophy, he had no conflict.
   
3. He wasn't hiding the source of income because it was illegal, but because he didn't want to lose the votes of union constituents who were opposed to the private prison.
4. [Anderson was entrapped by the FBI] The criminals here are Prewitt who when confronted by the FBI with illegal acts and likely prison, agreed to catch a legislator, and worked hard to get Anderson to do and say the things that would reduce Prewitt's criminal liability. Then Bobrick was confronted by the FBI and he agreed to help too. The did everything they could to get Anderson to say he was performing legislative acts in exchange for specific payments, but he always said that the payments and the actions were not related.
   

Googling around, I found a list of the specific charges. I don't know enough about the specifics of each charge to know how the evidence fits. I'm sure this will be in the instructions to the jury tomorrow (well, later today.) But here are the charges.

Summary of Charges
Anderson is charged in the Indictment with the following offenses:
Count - Offense Charged

1 - Conspiracy - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
2 - Interference with Commerce by Extortion Induced Under Color of Official Right - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and § 2
3 - Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds - Violation of 18 U.S.C. §666(a)(1)(B) and § 2
4 - 6 Money Laundering - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) and § 2
7 - Interference with Commerce by Extortion Induced Under Color of Official Right - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and § 2
Source: DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING GOVERNMENT’S TRIAL
EXHIBITS



Interesting quotes:
Appleby on what a day is like during the legislative session - "mind-numbingly slow to hair-pullingly crazy"
The judge, while the jury was out, discussing with the two opposing attorneys new witnesses and information that had come out because witnesses had volunteered without being asked, "Bobrick was a peculiar witness."
Roses "Tom is two different people: The first cares about people and compassion; The second is a hyperactive kid - the energy needs to be funneled." (Quote is approximate)


Finally, just a comment on the role of the FBI here, since apparently the defendant, and the two key witnesses for the prosecution all were, at some time cooperating with the FBI and wearing wires.
Frank Prewitt began wearing a wire with Bobrick and then Anderson in Spring 2003. Prewitt claimed that 'mistakes' he'd made were either past the statute of limitations or very minor and that he was cooperating with the FBI voluntarily, not to get any reduction in sentence or charges dropped. He said he was involved with 6-8 other investigations.
Bill Bobrick began cooperating with the FBI in late September or early October 2006. He quickly pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with the FBI. It's not clear whether he is cooperating in other investigations. The only promise made to him was that if things went well, they might write a letter to the judge asking for leniency in sentencing.
Tom Anderson was called into the FBI in November 2006 [June 14, 2005]. Anderson, obviously, has not pleaded guilty, but apparently has cooperated with the FBI and worn a wire.

So this case is most likely the tip of the iceberg. We know of three more legislators who have been indicted and two more who have been investigated, but not indicted.