Does Tom Anderson Deserve A New Trial?

Tom Anderson was the first legislator to be convicted in the trials that eventually led to the conviction of US senator Ted Stevens (which was later voided over how the prosecutors handled evidence.)

His attorney was Paul Stockler.  Today's Alaska Dispatch News says Stockler faces possible jail time for not paying over $800,000 in back taxes.  His problems began in earnest in 2006.  He defended Tom Anderson in 2007.  It appears that he was severely distracted when he was defending Anderson.  From the ADN:

"Stockler said that in 2006, the first tax year at issue, he had a lot on his mind. He had been divorced the year before. He was sharing custody of his daughter. He was the lead lawyer in the federal weapons case and other big and complex cases. He was getting notices regarding his 2005 taxes and used that uncertainty as an excuse to delay filing in 2006, then missed one deadline after another, he said in a statement filed in court. 

“I was overwhelmed and felt helpless in dealing with my personal financial obligations beyond immediate living concerns,” he said in a statement filed in court for his sentencing. 

Late in 2006, things got worse when he had to pay back the $1 million through the bankruptcies of Avery and Avery’s Security Aviation company, he said. He didn’t have the money for that and his taxes, he said. “I was embarrassed to admit to anyone that, even though I was a successful attorney, I failed to manage my own life and timely file my tax returns,” Stockler wrote. Mostly, he said, he was disappointed in himself over the kind of example he set for his daughter."

Would Tom Anderson have knowingly hired an attorney who was so overwhelmed with his personal finaciancal problems, his divorce, and taking care of his kid?  Did he give Anderson the best legal defense possible under those circumstances?  (Should attorney's be required to disclose such distractions?  You know that isn't going to happen, and it would be hard to oversee, but when we go to restaurants, we get to see their health department ratings.}

I attended the Anderson trial in summer 2007.  It was my fist real blogging of a public news story.  Here's a post from near the end of the trial that gives some sense of things. Tom had been one of my students and I wanted to see for myself.  Tom made mistakes, but ultimately he was convicted of violating a law that neither he nor most other people even knew existed.  A law that the FBI knew well.  They constructed a sting operation that had all the elements required by the law - a public official, $10,000, and a few other details.   They had Frank Prewitt offer to take out $10,000 in ads in a public policy website Anderson and Bill Bobrick were planning to create.  It would have insider public policy info and people would subscribe to it.   The website never got set up and the prosecutors said it was just a ruse.  But defense convinced me that it was a serious idea, but that Bobrick and Anderson just never got to it, as they never got to other business ideas they had.  But the prosecutors argued the website was just a cover to get Tom $10,000,   The $10.000 is important because its the minimum the law requires for a conviction,  Tom also spoke at a public meeting without disclosing an interest he had in Prewitt's private prison company, though he spoke positively about its competitor as well.  Prewitt went after Anderson, a sitting legislator, trying to get him to do something they could get him on.  Then they wanted him to wear a wire to entrap his fellow legislators.  While Anderson at first agreed, when it came time to go down to Juneau, he didn't feel he could secretly spy on his fellow legislators.  And because he had the moral strength to not spend the session lying to his colleagues, he got the stiffest sentence of all.  That's pretty much what Tom Anderson was sentence to prison for five years over.  (He got off after three years.)

Now his attorney at the time, who, the ADN story tells us, used questionable money from a shady client (whose new trial on misusing $51 million of a trust he was overseeing, is happening right now) and squandered $3 million of it making online stock bets.  And then didn't pay his taxes.

Now, it's possible that Stockler did give Anderson a good defense.  It's what he does well and may have been his escape from all his other problems.  But surely, he would have done a better job if he wasn't distracted by all his person problems.  And he lost the case.

And now Stockler is facing up to two years in prison over $800,000 in back taxes, while Tom was convicted to five years for a $10,000 contribution, he never asked for, to a business that never got off the ground.  Really a technicality.  Many lawyers have told me since, that Tom's penalty was severe as a warning to the other indicted lawmakers so they would cooperate with the FBI and help them catch the bigger fish, Ted Stevens and his son Ben, who never went to trial.

And fellow lawyers are coming to Stockler's defense.  More from the ADN:

"Cabot Christianson, an Anchorage attorney, was on the other side in the Avery bankruptcy case. The settlement of $1.1 million “was an extraordinary sum for a solo practitioner,” Christianson wrote. “While Paul may be a victim of hubris, he is far, far away from being evil, greedy, malicious, or otherwise deserving of severe punishment,” Christianson wrote. Attorney Tim Petumenos said Stockler has been his adversary in court too, yet “his word is gold.” Stockler is hard on himself over his tax troubles and isn’t trying to evade the consequences, Petumenos wrote. Stockler often represents physicians facing medical malpractice complaints or licensing issues. One supporter called him a 'champion of doctors.'”

Lots of generally decent people commit stupid crimes.  They make mistakes, they were at the wrong place at the wrong time, they help friends they shouldn't even be friends with.  They are convicted for that crime, even though it's an aberration.  The Fairbanks Four were convicted that way for a crime they didn't even commit - they were nearby.  But even then, they were pressured into an agreement that would ignore all the misconduct by the court system that got them into prison. But they weren't rich and they weren't white.  Last year we heard story after story of young black men who were tried and convicted on the streets by white (and some non-white) police officers.  They weren't give a chance to have character witnesses speak out for them.  

This is not to say that anyone is better off by Stockler going to prison.  It might be much wiser to come up with sentences where he can use is legal talents to help indigent suspects.  Or to work on justice reforms so 'good' people who make mistakes are treated in ways that help them and society.  Or work for a social system that doesn't condemn some kids to awful childhoods where the odds of them running afoul of the law are very high.

And I doubt Anderson would want to go back to court and drag up all this again in a new trial.  He's served his time and moved on with his life.   But he sure would like his name cleared.

But I thought this was a good opportunity to remind people once again about the unfairness of our justice system.  We've been hearing about innocent people of color running tragically afoul of the law a lot.  This is a reminder of well off white men whose 'good character' an be seen by judges and it helps lessen their sentences.   We should be working for a better system overall which a) prevents kids from getting into crime in the first place and b) offers restorative justice options  c) find resolutions that are less costly to society and the families of victims and perpetrators, d) work to rehabilitate rather than punish criminals, and finally, doesn't throw the convicted into prisons where they are subject to more abuse by other prisoners and guards.  

I'd also note that Frank Prewitt, who made the $10,000 offer to Anderson and Boric, using FBI money, was  cooperating with the FBI because of his ties to the head of a private prison who himself was later convicted and sent to prison.  Stockler raised questions in court about a $30,000 loan to Prewitt, when he was the commissioner of corrections, by the private prison company, Allvest.  Money Prewitt never paid taxes on.  Now I understand why Stockler thought of that angle since he was figuring out how to pay taxes on money that appears not that much different from what Prewitt got.

Prewitt, despite denials at Anderson's trial, was paid $200,000 for his work as the prosecutor's witness.   Without Prewitt, Anderson never would have committed the crime he was convicted of, nor would have have been convicted.

Just thought it was a good idea to think about our justice system this morning.

Steve Heimel, Bill Weimar, Joe McKinnon, Paul Fuhs, and Cal Williams Talk About the Old Days - Monday Evening

Photo from 2007 at Federal Court Building

Looooooong time radio news man Steve Heimel will do a public oral history collection session

Monday (April 20) at the  KAKM studio, 

6:30-8 pm.

Subject will be the Ad Hoc movement of the early 1970's in Alaska

Participants:   Bill Weimar, Paul Fuhs, Joe McKinnon, Cal Williams.

The public is welcome.

Jack Roderick, former Anchorage Borough Mayor, writes about the ad hoc Democrats on page 359 in  his book Crude Dreams:

Now this is a particularly colorful group.   Bill Weimar later ran private prisons and halfway houses, and made a $30,000 loan to Frank Prewitt, who was commissioner of corrections at the time.  The FBI's stake out in the Baranof Hotel in Juneau that led to a string of convictions, started with interest in the private prisons.  Frank Prewitt decided to cooperate with the FBI and was a key witness in the trial that convicted Tom Anderson.

I remember in court when Anderson's attorney cross-examined Prewitt about that $30,000 loan from Weimar.  From my blog June 29, 2007: 

"When Stockler finally did get to start his cross examination of Prewitt at 3:45pm, he lit right into him and then he began to try to show Anderson's behavior in a more positive light. First he hit Prewitt with a series of incidents that he suggested he could have gone to prison for.

1. A $30,000 loan Prewitt, while Commissioner of Corrections, got from Allvest another firm that subcontracted with the Department of Corrections (I think that's what he said.) 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?"  [I've reformatted the Q&A to make it clearer.]

Here's Weimar's indictment from an August 11, 2008 post:

• Count 1

...William Weimar, Candidate A, Consultant A, and others known and unknown, did knowingly and unlawfully conspire . . . to deprive the the public of the honest services that Candidate A would provide as an Alaska State Legislator, through a scheme to disguise WEIMAR’s direct payment to CONSULTANT A of approximately $20,000 in expenses for CANDIDATE A’s campaign for the legislature, without reporting the payment as required by applicable Alaska law and regulations and without routing it for payment through CANDIDATE A’s campaign, and through the foreseeable use of the mails, interstate were communications, in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 1341, 1343, and 1346.

• Count 2

Weimar concealed the money through breaking the $20,000 into three payments to avoid the required reporting of transactions over $10,000.

And here's Michael Carey's  bio of pre-Alaska Bill Weimar.   [Monday, April 10, 10:30am  I've fixed this link]


I knew about Paul Fuhs as a fish guy.  He's been mayor of Dutch Harbor and commissioner of the Department of Commerce and Economic Development.  While looking for more on Fuhs I found this video on Youtube. 

"This performance by Steve Nelson (piano, vocals) and Paul Fuhs (vocals) with accompaniment by members of the Soviet Border Guard Military Band and their conductor was recorded in Vladivostok, Russia in May 1990 at the studio of the local state television station."  [The link gives a longer account of how this video came to be.]

I met attorney Joe McKinnon at the redistricting board meetings.  Actually I think I met him during the political trials - I think he was representing one of the witnesses.  This link goes to a brief video of Joe after one of the redistricting board meetings.


Finally, Cal Williams, who moved to Alaska in 1973 after working for civil rights in his home state of Louisiana.  He's been involved in Alaska politics since. 

This should be good stuff.


Tuesday, Steve's going to reading from a manuscript, "My First 50 Years in Broadcasting" at the UAA Bookstore."  4pm.

"the moment I said that to them . . .that was it. We owned them" Jack Abramoff

Here's what Jack Abramoff said to Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes Sunday:

“When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, ‘You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.’ Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ’em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do.”

In the Alaska corruption trials, both Pete Kott and Bruce Weyhrauch were offered possible future jobs by Bill Allen.  And both, as the FBI tapes showed, did his bidding on the House floor in Juneau.  Bill Allen even told Pete Kott, "I own your ass."  It seems Alaskans speak the same language they speak in DC.

I would note that Abramoff who made, according to the CBS video, $20,000,000 a year lobbying, and in his own words 'owned' 100 offices, got a four year sentence. 

Tom Anderson's crime, and I'm retelling this from memory you can get the precise charges here, was a vague scheme to have a lobbyist pay $10,000 to an Alaska public policy website which would pay Anderson for work he did on the site. He did get paid, and deposited it directly into his account.   In exchange, Anderson talked to a few people, including a commissioner and a community meeting, about the need for building facilities for kids in Alaska so they didn't get sent out of state.  He did this without revealing his relationship to the lobbyist.  Nor did he report the $10,000 to APOC. But he didn't write or change any legislation.  He got sentenced to five years compared to Abramoff's four years.  

Every politician I've ever talked to thinks he's being ethical.  And many if not most are. But even if they aren't they think they are. Here's Abramoff's take:

"Most Congressmen don't feel they're being bought.  Most Congressmen, in their own minds, can justify the system. . . by the way, we wanted, as lobbyists, for them to think that way."

You can watch the 14 minute segment here.

Abramoff's suggestion for fighting DC corruption is to ban anyone who works for Congress to ever become a lobbyist.  We might consider that here in Alaska.  Except guess who makes the laws?  Lobbyists, staffers, and legislators.  

He also talks about getting language put into bills that's absolutely precise but no one would every know what it was for.  Seems like that's precisely what Don Young did to fund that highway in Florida that the people in Florida didn't even want.

I found this video through Cliff Groh's Alaska Political Corruption blog.

Cliff Groh Has Lengthy Background Post on Nicholas Marsh

There was an internet problem here at my mom's last night through this morning and the sun is shining beautifully so I had to go run and I do have to talk to and do things with and for my mom while I'm here, so this is just a quick link to Cliff's post at the blog Alaska Political Corruption which fills in a lot more details on Nick Marsh based on various reports he gathered.

Here's the link:

Notes on the Life, Death, and Mental State of Nicholas Marsh

(Marsh is the young federal prosecutor in the Alaska corruption cases who committed suicide last week.)

Nicholas Marsh Takes His Own Life

 In 2007 I spent several weeks in the courtroom watching Nicholas Marsh, the totally focused young prosecutor in the Alaska corruption trials.  He was teamed up with Joe Bottini in the Tom Anderson trial and Jim Goeke in the Kott trial.  I heard one of the FBI agents at the time talking about how crazy smart Marsh was.  The news today of his suicide was a shock.

[UPDATE 9/28/10 2pm Alaska Time:  TPM offers more details about Marsh's recent situation.]

For the most part, he seemed to know every fact remotely related to the case and which documents they were in for verification.  During the trials I tried to get background information on the Prosecutors, but the DOJ had none to give.  So I found out, through googling, that Marsh had been a philosophy grad of Williams College, 1995, went on to Duke Law School, and then practiced law in New York before going to the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice.

Clearly, the Alaska corruption cases were the biggest cases in his career and he was going for the win.  His team won the three cases in Alaska and then the Ted Stevens case was tried in Washington DC.  It was then the problems began to come out.  There are a couple of internal investigations going on to determine the extent of the prosecutorial misconduct.

These were big cases, culminating in a conviction of the most senior Republican US Senator a conviction that was soon to be overturned for prosecutorial misconduct.  Marsh was working really hard on these cases.  Moving the case to DC led to changes in the leadership of the legal team.  On October 19, 2008 I speculated on "Why the Mistakes at the Stevens Trial?"  Clearly the prosecutors made some decisions which enraged the judge and led the Obama appointed Attorney General to throw out the verdict in the Stevens case and set up investigations of the attorneys involved.

I've lived long enough to not be too surprised by the differences between appearance and behavior, but I would be surprised if Marsh's involvement in prosecutorial misconduct was any worse than getting carried away in his zeal to convict what he saw as guilty defendants.  I would add that this is no small matter if one's focus blinds one to justice and during the trials already I was seeing signs of how much power the prosecutors had compared to the defendants.  Marsh was on a great career trajectory and it all came crashing down.  He found himself sitting on the other side of the investigatory equation.  I'm sure the pressure on him was enormous - but so was the pressure on those he prosecuted.  His suicide is a shocking and sad development.  My sincerest sympathy goes out to his family.

Below are a few observations I made of Marsh during the trials.  

I observed during the Anderson trial closing I wrote:

Marsh reminded me a little of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker persona. Kind of wonky, going through the evidence in a very methodical way, until I started to glaze over thinking, "Enough already, I get the point." He even looks a little like him.

Kott closing:

Then Marsh, calm, respectful to all, contradicted what Wendt had just said. His eyes were directed at the jury. A minimum of technical wizzardry. This was not the wonk who did the closing in the Anderson trial, but a sincere and convincing human being.

A post called Beyond the Headlines (July 7, 2007) tried to imagine the meaning of the trial in the lives of the various players.  Here's what I wrote about the prosecutors:

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.

Here's an APRN news report by Steve Heimel about the closing arguments in the Tom Anderson trial.  You can hear about 20 seconds of Nicholas Marsh speaking in the closing.

Obviously there is a lot of story here that is yet to be revealed.  No matter, this is a sad event.

UPDATE October 8:  Cliff Groh has a lengthy post on Marsh based on several sources.

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.

Frank Prewitt's Book Deal - Bridges to Nowhere

[Update: September 13, 2008. The book is out and I've reviewed it here.]

Someone tipped me off to this, but I forgot to ask permission to use a name. I'll add it later if it's ok.

Makes Prewitt sound like this great public servant doing all this work for the FBI as a great citizen protecting the public interest. It doesn't mention they came to him because of his shady reputation and that there was some sort of plea agreement involved. Doesn't mention the: [from my second post on these trials this summer]

$30,000 loan Prewitt, while Commissioner of Corrections, got from Allvest another firm that subcontracted with the Department of Corrections (I think that's what he said.) Prewitt said he got the loan and paid it back. Stockler: Is there anything in writing? Isn't it true it was a bribe? No. How did you pay it back? I worked for Allvest for four months - $7500 per month. Did you pay taxes on the $30,000? No, it was a loan. But you say you worked for it. No, I was paying him back. 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?

Nor does it mention that he asked to be paid for all the work he was doing for the FBI, but they turned him down. Was getting to write a book in lieu of pay?

Bridges to Nowhere			Nov. 11, 2007
		Author:		James "Frank" Prewitt
		Category:		Non-fiction: History/Politics/Current Affairs
		Description:		As you are reading this, one of the biggest cases of political corruption in U.S. history is unfolding – reaching from Alaska to the United States Congress in Washington, DC. At issue is the high stakes game of taxing and developing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Midwestern United States – and the spin-off, toxic culture of political waste. BRIDGES TO NOWHERE is written by the confidential source the FBI relied on to help uncover an intricate web of bribery, money laundering and criminal conspiracy – with more indictments of major political figures expected soon. The story begins in 2004, when the author finds himself a “person of interest” to a federal investigation. To clear his name, the author agrees to “cooperate” in exchange for leniency over crimes the federal government knew he didn't commit – but could have, if their theory had been correct. As CS-1 (Confidential Source One), the author teams with FBI Special Agent Kepner to expose a sobering and far-reaching network of political corruption. Wired for light and sound, CS-1 embarks on an incredible journey into the world of undercover surveillance and the corrupting influence of money, corporate power and politics. While the events invite serious reflection about our system of government, the actual conspiracies unfold more like a season of Desperate Housewives Go to Washington…political intrigue and provocative crime in a delicious wrap of irreverence. Senator Ted Stevens (Senate Appropriations Chair, President of Senate Pro Tempore) and Congressman Don Young (Resources and Transportation Chair, and 7th ranking member of the House of Representatives) play a pivotal role in this saga. Young, alone, has spent over $400,000 in attorney fees from his campaign funds preparing for the inevitable shoe of indictment to drop. Early '08 promises a season of indictments and scandal in Washington. BRIDGES TO NOWHERE is based on thousands of hours of interviews with “perps” and “persons of interest”, off and on-the-record conversations with agents and attorneys of the Department of Justice, confidential records, transcripts of secret recordings and first hand accounts. Incredibly, every person, every event, every dialogue is real. The author, James “Frank” Prewitt has a law degree from Seattle University School of Law. He is a 34 year resident of Alaska, and has served as the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Corrections, adjunct professor of Justice at the University of Alaska, Director of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute and an Alaska Assistant Attorney General. He currently has a Government Affairs consulting practice. In addition to working undercover investigations as a Confidential Source, Prewitt provided indispensable strategic consultation to the U.S. Department of Justice on the behind-the-scenes world of contemporary politics and the legislative process.
		Rights available:		All
		Contact:		Diane Nine Nine Speakers, Inc. ninespeakers@usa.net phone: 202-328-6861
		Item number:		5094

[Source: PublishersMarketplace]

Tom's First Night

If everything went as scheduled, Tom Anderson checked into Sheridan yesterday about noon and spent his first night in prison last night. And is today doing what prisoners do. Something to think about as you go about your day. (No, I'm not feeling sorry for him, just trying to give some perspective.)

To get a better sense of Tom's experience here's what Bill Bailey blogged about his arriving at prison last April:

The cabbie knew exactly where to go, having delivered 5 or 6 other inmates over the last year who were either returning from furlough or transferring from another prison. Twenty minutes and $30 later I arrived.

The time to enter the rabbit hole had arrived.

After checking my driver's license, the guard directed me to the control center.

Just inside the entrance of the main building hangs a sign: "Through these portals walk some of the finest correctional officers in the world." The clock read 11:58a.

A man sat behind the reception window. I introduced myself and he instructed me to take a seat and announced over the loudspeaker: "New commit self-reporting at the control center."

I knew my life was about to change but I was having a hard time getting worked up over it. The place was totally non-threatening. I felt like a freshman registering for college or perhaps entering a military prep school.

As I write this it is Sunday afternoon, April 1. I have actually written over 20 pages of notes on a variety of subjects and am going back over them to write the final drafts before mailing them to my wife.

I have had 48 hours to assimilate what is going on around me (and to me). It would take forever to recap it in one long narrative. Instead, I will simply recount different experiences as separate posts.

For more of Bailey's first days in federal prison you can go to Bailey's April posts.

Preparing to go into the Rabbit Hole

How does one prepare to go to federal prison? Monday, December 3, Tom Anderson reports to FCI (Federal Correctional Institute) Sheridan in Oregon. Tom suggested I read The Rabbit Hole, a blog written by another felon who entered a Florida FCI for three months last March. [Like all blogs it goes in reverse chronological order. Below is the beginning of the first post, thus it's at the bottom of the March Archives]

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Introduction and Background

On February 13, 2007, I was sentenced to 3 months confinement in a federal prison followed by 3 years supervised release with a special condition of 3 months home confinement with electronic monitoring.

In 6 days, I report to the Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola, FL. I must self-report by 2pm, however, the nice lady in the Receiving and Discharge department recommended I show up by noon or I risk not being able to purchase any necessary items from the commissary before the weekend (i.e. toothpaste, toothbrush, toilet paper, soap, shampoo, etc.). I am leaving Charlotte on a 9:40am (EST) flight, arriving in Pensacola at 10:27pm (CST). I will then take a cab to the prison 10 miles away. I will arrive with the clothes on my back, my wedding band (no stones), $1000 cash to place in my "account" for commisary and phone calls, reading glasses, and my driver's license (airline ID). It is my understanding I will be strip-searched and my clothes (and hopefully driver's license) returned to my wife by mail. By my calculations, I will be released on June 29, 2007. I have already purchased the return ticket so I hope I calculated correctly. I have 72 hours to get back to Charlotte and contact the probation department to begin my home confinement.

I have decided to share the thoughts of my prison experience because of the paucity of information available on the subject (nothwithstanding a handful of books and websites I have found). There are, I am sure, good reasons for this. For one, people who have been convicted of a crime are not usually interested in publishing details of a consequence that may be a source of shame or embarrassment. Fair enough. Additionally, the internet as we know it is only about 12 years old and blogging is an even newer phenomenon so the vast majority of current inmates lack experience with the entire concept of sharing their life in such a public manner. Finally, blogging requires a certain technical expertise and internet marketing savvy. None of these are constraints for me.

I am not normally comfortable with sharing my personal life in such a public manner. I sympathize with the fears of Winnie-the-Pooh:

"When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it. "

Nonetheless, there is value to me, and I hope to others, in documenting my experience.

I will not spend much time commenting on either the process or the substance of the government's prosecution of my case. The law is the law and the facts are the facts. Whether I agree or disagree at this point on this matter or that matter is really irrelevant. I entered a guilty plea, accepted responsibility, paid restitution, and received my sentence. It is what it is.

In addition, given that I am about to serve time in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons followed by 3 years under the supervision of the Federal Department of Probation, it is simply not prudent to be commenting on my case beyond what has been entered in the record, either in the form of documents submitted by my lawyers or statements made directly by me in court. Finally, the entire experience is still somewhat raw and it is common wisdom that one should avoid making comments on the record that one might later regret without adequate time for reflection.

Nonetheless, I know that the first question you are asking is, "What did this guy do to receive a federal prison sentence? How did he get to this point?"

The barest facts are as follows: On July 21, 2005, my home was raided by 7 FBI agents at 6am. . . .

[This excerpt came from here.]

Leslie A. Gallant, Executive Administrator, Alaska State Medical Board Says...

I spoke to Leslie A. Gallant, Executive Administrator of the Alaska State Medical Board today to find out how someone could prevent an applicant from getting a license to practice medicine in Alaska.

BACKGROUND

Doug Pope, Bill Bobrick's attorney, alleged in court today and again in an interview after court that Lesil McGuire had called his client's wife and threatened that if Bobrick testified against Tom Anderson (Lesil's husband) that Jessica (Bobrick's wife, who was in medical school) would never get licensed in Alaska to practice medicine. As I understand it, he was trying to use this as an example of risk that his client faced by cooperating with the government. If there was a great risk, then Bobrick might be able to lower the points used to determine the length of his sentence. From television courtroom trial shows I've seen, I'm guessing this was intended for organized crime or other cases where witnesses testify at great risk - even death. [This is all related to the Tom Anderson trial and other political corruption investigations going in Alaska.] And in the end, the judge said he didn't give much credit to this issue.

Aside from the fact that the phone call apparently was not recorded so we really don't know what was said, I began to wonder whether someone could actually derail a doctor's medical licensing. So I called the Executive Administrator of the State Medical Board, Leslie A. Gallant.

Basically, she said that a person's application goes before the eight member medical board and they have specific statutory requirements for approving or rejecting an applicant. If they reject someone, they have to cite the statutory reason for rejection. Lesil McGuire's father was on the board in the mid-1990's. Below is my summary of the whole telephone interview. It's close to verbatim, but since I didn't have it on tape, I've changed it from first person to third unless I use quotes. But essentially these are Gallant's words.


INTERVIEW

Leslie Gallant said that the State Medical Board grants and denies licenses. Anyone who submits the proper credentials and goes through the process is considered on their merits. They don’t consider who they know or who their dad is, they only consider the applicant.

Five doctors, one PA [physician assistant] and two Public Members sit on the board. Dr. David McGuire [Lesil McGuire's father] was appointed to the board in April 1992, but he resigned from board - she didn’t know the exact date - sometime in 1995, because they had a very public case with another doctor named McGuire. People were confusing the names of the two physicians, so he resigned so there would be no confusion that their action didn’t involve him.

Dr. David McGuire is one of the people that interviewed and hired Gallant in 1993. “He has never, never tried to influence a board decision, at least not through me.” [I understood that from her intonation that she was simply saying nothing she knew about, and not implying that he might have through someone else.]

When I asked how someone could affect whether someone got a license or not she said that she gets calls sometimes from legislators because some medical office or clinic is riled up because they are hiring a new doctor and complaining because we aren’t doing it fast enough. They call their legislator, that "we aren’t fast enough. 'What are you guys doing?' they ask. We aren’t licensing them because we have an issue with them. When we have an issue, we have to gather more information. I just explain what’s going on.”

Meetings of the board are open, public meetings. Disciplinary proceedings, everything is in the public domain. A few documents held confidential. AMA (American Medical Association) profile, National Physicians’ Data Bank (NPDB) report, and the exams scores when they got out of medical school. Those three documents are confidential, because the originating organizations require that they be held confidential. Later she added that health information about applicants is also confidential. They have an attorney general ruling saying that certain health information should be redacted. They ask this information to be sure that a doctor doesn’t have a health problem that could negatively impact their ability to practice - say a surgeon who has Parkinson's and has tremors. They can restrict their practice to certain things, like independent medical evaluations - for workers comps or personal injury lawsuits - but never procedures. They can restrict their practice making accommodations so they can still practice without endangering the public.

Everything else is open to the public. License from other states, application, etc.

"It’s never happened in my experience that someone has tried to prevent someone from being licensed." The Board is the entity of state government that grants or denies a license. They have to cite legal grounds for denial. They have to cite specific statute or regulations that the denial is based on. For example, a suspended license somewhere else is grounds for denial, because the law says that.

They are taking quasi-judicial actions when they deny or discipline. They have to cite their legal grounds for anything or everything they do. If the board tried to deny someone, and it happens sometimes - say there is a doctor with marginal exam scores, not glowing recommendations, maybe behavior problems, not the sharpest knife in the drawer. “But when those come before the board, I have to say, you might not like the application, but you don’t have the grounds to deny it.”

The person’s due process rights allow them to appeal the denial. It goes before an administrative law judge. Even a single medical board member would have to convince seven other board members. It wouldn’t happen. “I have no experience of anyone ever calling me asking me to deny an application. We have eight members, if they see no grounds, they can’t deny.”

I asked if the public files were available on line. She said no, they were all in Juneau, but that anyone can ask for a copy of a licensee file and they can get it.

End of interview, me talking again. I know that people can talk to people, not everyone is honest, and not everything is totally clear cut. But it seems that someone coming out of medical school, with passing grades, no disciplinary actions, or other negative marks on her record is certainly going to be very hard to turn down for a license, even if you had connections to the board members. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it sounds like it would be pretty hard to get away with. This would seem more clear cut than grading bar exams for example.


A couple notes. As I said in an earlier post, I have spoken with Tom Anderson. I think that I have covered the trials in a relatively objective manner so far. I think that my talking to Anderson or his wife [Lesil McGuire] rather than biasing me to slant things, makes me more sensitive to possible other views on things. I'll just leave this note here and let the reader decide. I think, for example, I would have had this question anyway. In fact, Leslie Gallant said that the ADN had already called her today. I don't know if that was LisaDemer's doing, but I suspect it was. You continue to impress me, Lisa.

Notes from Bobrick Sentencing

The court calendar for today was not up on the US District Court's webpage last night, so I guessed the sentencing would begin at 9am. This morning it was up - 8:30. I got to court around 8:50am and the guards at security told me the court was sealed. As I got up the stairs everyone was waiting outside the courtroom. Lucky me.

These are my notes from court today in the sentencing of Bill Bobrick. Actually, I don't even know what he was charged with since there wasn't a trial. He confesse, made an agreement with the government and has worn a wire for them. He testified in the Anderson trial. Judge Sedwick has been the judge for all the trials, so he has been able to see how the various defendants who are cooperating with the government have contributed to the evidence against those who have gone to court. Bobrick was the first of these cooperating defendants to be sentenced. Others that I know of are Bill Allen and Rick Smith of Veco and Frank Prewitt.

As always I offer a WARNING here. These are my court notes - as fast as my ears could hear, my brain could interpret, and my fingers could type. But a lot is missing. This is not a transcript, but a sketch of what was said.

9:05
Filing unsealed,
Bobrick wore a wire about people still under investigation.
[Based on his voice, it seems Judge Sedwick has a cold.]

Pope: First talk about Threat, document filed in public. Then argue for additional downward departure.

Clear that Bobrick told so many people he’d committed a crime, his wife in 3rd year in medical school. Tom Anderson and wife, had socialized in 2004-6 time period, When clear that he was cooperating, Bobrick got phone call from Lesil that she would take steps to prevent Jessica’s medical license in AK. She got Jessica’s phone number.

Then Bobrick called Bottini, understood Lesils calls to be threats, as state senator and daughter of Dr. McGuire. FBI interviewed them and phone message, and contacted Stockler [Anderson attorney] this was violation of condition of release. These threats were credible (Bobrick’s belief). We think govt will agree. Govt took contact seriously. Bobrick was when he continued cooperating against Anderson, was subject to significant danger threat to his family income.

Other cases, don’t go into details those threats. [referred to other cases that took into consideration threats to witnesses] We believe this was a credible threat that should be considered and we don’t know whether it will be carried out. Jessica Bury (Bobrick) Is in 3rd year of medical school and and LM is still a State Senator.

In our view, essentially what the govt. has suggested is four level departure, under the circumstances, we believe a 6-8 level departure is warranted. No questions Bobrick’s cooperation was significant and useful. Using the Washington case a two level departure is warranted.

Govt. Could take the position that Bobrick’s testimony was not instrumental, but it was certainly useful and highly …… The evidence that Tom Anderson received $23,000 out of $24,000 came late and came from Bobrick. No question that govt would agree here, no dispute, the FBI considered Bobrick to be truthful, reliable, trustworthy. Washington court found that to be important that trustworthiness held by both govt. And fbi.

Mr. B was more than debriefed, active cooperation, wearing a wire, testified in court. My belief, when Joe Bottini did redirect of Bobrick, that is what sank TA. Anderson received over $23 of the 24K paid to Pacific Publishing.

The credible threat made by Lesill McGuire. Personally, I thought she was tampering with the witness and she should have been indicted your honor. Whether that threat is realized remains to be seen. His cooperation was timely, in our office the afternoon he was contacted, and he’d signed the agreement. I could argue for a ten level departure downward is warranted, but realistically, I’m arguing for 6-8 level departure. It would not put court or government in awkward position when it comes to sentencing Smith or Allen.


Bottini - first the communication from Lesil McGuire. It can be conceived as a threat, New Years Day this year. Tried to track down Stockler. The following day told him if that happened again we would seek the end of Anderson’s release on bond.

J: Was this recorded? [I think]

B: Asked Bobrick for his wife’s phone number in Minnesota. Was not captured in recording, but I don’t doubt Bobrick’s recollection of what she said. I have no doubt it was a veiled threat about her ability to get a medical license in AK. They knew he was cooperative at that time. For the purpose of trying to rattle his cage, which she succeeded in doing.

It’s a real shame people are saying things about you, this could affect your getting a license in AK. I think that was the purpose of Ms. McGuire saying this, she didn’t come out and say, If your husband testifies, you won’t practice medicine in the state, but it was a veiled threat and we believe that was the intent.

What should he receive. We recommended a four level downward departure. One year and a day. You saw the evidence and saw how the plan, scheme developed. Bobrick was the source of this scheme with Prewitt. He was cooperative and did everything we asked. But tempered by what he did in this. We think we could have convicted TA without him, but he did help. We think a four level departure is reasonable. One year and a day.


J: I’m wrestling now with the extent of downward departure.
First, all the requirements of ??? Are clearly met. The extent of the downward departure. The matter is a close one. Part of the reason we are here is Bobrick’s part in the case. However, I do think a departure of 5 levels is appropriate. His assistance was of high value. A question whether his testimony was - he painted a very unflattering picture of his own conduct and assisting in other investigation, his cooperation about as much as the Govt could hope to get from anybody.

About threat from TA’s wife I can’t give too much credibility, I question, in the objective sense, I doubt it very credible. But from Bobrick’s view, it could have been serious and it could have affected his cooperation, But to B.’s credit, he cooperated as much as you could ask.

The 6-8 level is clearly too much. Even the government’s 4 level departure cuts his sentence in half. Consider a level 12 instead of 16. Rather than 24-30 months applicable. $3,000 to $300000, Qualifies for split sentence, part in prison, part in half way house. But under guideline, half would have to be served in incarceration.

Pope on appropriate sentence.

First, recognizing that guidelines do recognize that half to be served in prison, but the guidelines are advisory and urge the judge order that less than half or none of the time served be in incarceration and consistent with other cases. Will proceed

If court is going to adhere to the guidelines without going out any way, that the minimum sentence - ten months, I don’t think the govt will dispute. We believe the low end is warranted. Would like to address issue we raised in memorandum

Mr. Bobrick, I’ve been doing this a long time, the court knows that, referring to old case with your honor as private attorney, so court knows I’ve been doing this along time, I’ve been trying criminal cases for 30 years, I have never seen a person charged with a crime who is better suited for a sentence focused on rehabilitation. The many letters were not pleas for mercy, but to show the court what kind of person B is and what he could do in the future for the community. If he were in a halfway house, he would have opportunity to atone for the crimes.

Whatever his sentence, even if half of the sentence in imprisonment, then five months in home confinement or half-way house. Our recommendation is 5 and 5 so he can start the process of

Our position is this an appropriate situation where Mr. B serve all in ½ way house or half in halfway house and half in imprisonment.

J. You siad you think this is a perfect candidate for home confinement and doesn’t need structure of halfway house.

Pope: He is prepared for whatever. He will atone, STAR (Stand Together Against Rape] would allow him to work on the hotline. If home confinement would allow him to go out into the community so during the day he could do a 40-60 hour a week atoning for his crime, that would be his preference. Not clear whether home confinement would be able to stay or leave home…

J: He could do whatever the conditions the court imposes.

P. Then we believe he should be allowed to leave .

J: Thank you sir.

Bottini: I sort of jumped the gun about our ultimate

It’s been a long time since I worked with a white collar criminal who was so remorseful and I think that is significant. He never batted an eyelash about his own conduct. Immediately admitted he’d done wrong and was remorseful.

10-16 months falls in there. If you fashion a sentence…… The govt. Wont’ be upset.


Bobrick: Your honor, I’d like to address my remarks to court and people of the state of Alaska. I’ve had a long time to think about this day, but I don’t really have words to convey the depths of my shame and remorse. Not just the disappointed I’ve caused to family friends, and community, but the knowledge I played a part in contributing to the idea that our political system in Alaska is corrupt. I’ll carry that scar with me the rest of my life. No matter what sentence is imposed on me today. I’ll spend the next 30 years if I live so long, making up for what I’ve done and to pay back the people who have stood by me by continuing to undue the damage I’ve done. The only thing I can do is apologize again to all the people I’ve damaged. My wife plans on practicing medicine here, I’m not going anywhere. I plan to work to regain the trust of my community.


J:
Factors: Nature and circumstances of offense - serious, as B has just said, and I agree. There are politicians who are corrupt. TA is one who was convicted and there are others. It seems as there is not a great difference between our system of government and those other corrupt systems around the world. Corruption has a way of corroding democracy. Considering he has not considered [committed?] another crime. It appears to me Mr. B is probably the most remorseful defendant that has ever walked in the courtroom. In a sense he stands in for all of us. An example of what we ought not to do, but also what we are capable of doing. I could do pure probationary. Consider any special assistance - whether medical or other. Has no such problems his needs could be adequately met.

Has to be fair for crime committed. A sentence that was purely probationary would not be sufficient. It must also deter others.

Required to consider what is likely to protect public from Bobrick. He is the least likely to come before this court again.

Required to consider the guidelines - they are only advisory, and consider disparities. The best way to do that is to stay within guidelines that judges around the country must consider in sentencing.

I think a sentence that includes a short period of incarceration followed by short period of home confinement is acceptable.
Ten months - five in incarceration, five in home confinement.

Probation of two years. Some risk of substance abuse, must be regularly tested for substance abuse.
Conditions: home confinement five months supervised
Monitored electronically, and defendant pay, free to leave for employment, medical, religious, and community service.
In addition to substance abuse testing, andy substance abuse programs.
3. Submit to search of person on reasonable suspicion of contraband.
6. No fire arm
7. 800 hours of community service, directs probation officer to consider my do this through Star, but not limited to this.

Defendant does has ability to pay modest fine - $3000
$100 to court. $50/month or ten% of his income.

Appeal - must be taken up in ten days.

Bobrick Sentenced to Ten Months

Bill Bobrick was sentenced this morning to ten months - five months incarceration and five months home confinement. The court was sealed for the first half hour or so. The Government asked for a five [four] step downward departure for sentencing and the defense asked for 8-10 step departure. The defense argued, the government and the judge agreed, that if there was ever a defendant who had shown contrition and had cooperated fully with the government, it was Bobrick.

In the end the judge gave a five step departure. Bobrick's cooperation and contrition clearly played a significant role in the sentencing. Somewhat in contrast to this image, after all the parties had left the court building, one of the Channel 2 camera people was complaining - and the other camera people were supporting her - that Bobrick had shoved ("not bumped") her on his way out. Bobrick did not stop to talk to the press - though his attorney did. I personally think the cameras are rather obnoxious and I only take pictures from afar or when someone is clearly willing to be photographed [but I don't have an editor expecting me to take pictures] but it seems to me the contrition and remorse he mentioned in court should include accepting the press as part of the atonement he talked about.

Defense attorney Pope began by arguing that New Years Day phone calls by Tom Anderson's wife, State Senator Liesel McGuire, were evidence of a significant threat to his client's financial well being. He said that she called Bobrick to ask for Bobrick's wife's phone number at medical school in Minnesota. Pope said that Bobrick did not give her that number, but she managed to call Bobrick's wife, Jessica, and 'in a veiled threat" suggested that if Bobrick testified against Tom Anderson that she would never get her medical license in Alaska. He mentioned that in addition to her role as a State Senator, her father is a prominent doctor so that the threat was credible, and seriously disturbed Bobrick. Pope said he notified the FBI immediately and that Anderson attorney Stockler was notified that this was a violation of Anderson's conditions of release. Prosecutor Bottini's take on this was that there was no voice message, but that it was clearly intended to influence Bobrick's testimony. It seems to me that due process is the right for someone to face her accusers and have her say. Since McGuire isn't facing charges here, perhaps due process is not the issue. But to have such allegations considered without McGuire's ability to challenge them seems a little questionable.

In the end, judge did not seem to give much weight to this threat in the sentencing, though he acknowledged that it might have had an affect on Bobrick at the time, he continued to cooperate fully.

Top Photo: Press surrounding Bobrick as he walks out of the courtroom.
Bottom Photo: Lisa Demer (ADN) and David Shurtleff (APRN) interviewing Bobrick attorney Doug Pope outside the courtroom.

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.

Will Putting Individuals in Prison Change the System?

I'm still sorting through my thoughts on the corruption trials. I did talk to Rep. Sharon Cissna about it a couple of weeks ago. I asked her the question I'd like to ask all our legislators - "You must have known something was going on. Why didn't you do something about it? Ethan Berkowitz did, but what about the rest of you?"

She said that she and other Democrats did do things. They worked hard to keep the worst stuff out of various bills. But they were pretty much cut out of things. The Republican caucus would go off and meet and make all their decisions privately and the Dems would sit in the chambers because the Republicans would come suddenly and call for a vote. At the ending weeks of the session things work quickly and if the Minority are not right there, they lose what small power they have.

She said that there were many times when they spoke up and she even sent me a list of times to look up on the audio recordings of the session. But my Mac couldn't read what she'd sent and I got distracted. My fault. But rather than hold off, I decided to put this up now, especially after reading Saturday's ADN editorial about Tom Anderson's sentence.

Convicted former legislator Tom Anderson was a relatively small fish in Alaska's corruption scandal. He didn't deserve the harshest possible prison sentence. But his post-conviction display of contrition, and the long roster of support letters he produced, didn't justify the shortest possible sentence, either.

Given the range of prison time Anderson faced, federal Judge John Sedwick's sentence of five years is about right. It sends a strong message that those who get caught violating the public trust are going to pay a serious personal price.

Rep. Cissna's comment was that the system itself is the major problem. When she arrived, if I remember her right, her husband had just recently died. She showed up in Juneau and was surrounded by lobbyists fawning all over her. But given her husband recent death, she rejected their efforts to give her attention. The lobbyists very quickly left her alone. Besides, she was a Democrat without much power anyway.

But, she said, anyone who came to Juneau with ego issues was an easy target for the lobbyists. And with most people living away from home and often without their families, they didn't go back to their families at night, but rather were out for dinner and then the bars, often with lobbyists right there to pick up the tab.

She even commented on the ethics training that was mandatory for all legislators last January. What surprised her was how the workshop caused her to realize how she herself had been affected by the Juneau atmosphere. She heard grumbling made by some around her and comparing it to the ethics expert thought, "Yeah, I knew that was wrong, but I've been here long enough that my own standards of right and wrong have been blurred." She said other legislators felt that the consultant didn't really understand how things worked. (Michael Josephson specializes in state legislative ethics having studied the issue throughout the US, and he charged around $30,000 for the one day workshop.)

So I think the ADN is right. Tom Anderson was a small fish. We know that he wasn't even a target at first. But Bobrick and Prewitt, who had agreed to cooperate with the Prosecution in order to lessen their own sentences snagged him. Mind you, Anderson had had consulting stints with Veco where he got paid for not doing much at all, and at the Alaska Telephone Association where he was paid to read legislation about rural telephone service and do analysis on it, but had no work product at the end. Even his own attorney on the final day said that Tom Anderson really shouldn't have been a legislator - he needed money and the pay of a legislator wasn't going to meet those needs.

So, Tom Anderson will go to jail. Will that make a difference? Sure, in the short run people will be careful. But it won't last long if the system stays the same. Apparently the main part of the new ethics law that is having any effect is the limit of $15 meals someone can spend on a legislator.

And without the massive investigation including the video recording for nearly six months at the Baranof Hotel and the tens of thousands of phone calls monitored, there would be precious little evidence and we would probably know nothing.

The trials have revealed a lot and as I sort it out in my own head I'll post more.

Tom Anderson Sentencing - Five Years

Tom Anderson was sentenced to five years in prison today, but a lot more happened in court this morning than that. I'm still sorting through it all. When I wrote my first post on the Anderson trial I said there might be problems because I knew Tom. He'd been my student. In the field of public administration. He'd had ethics in some of my classes. But because of this I couldn't say things that I'd learned in our student-teacher relationship. So I've only written stuff here that has come from other sources - mainly the trial.

It's been difficult acting here in two different roles - one as an amateur journalist, the other as the observer of my former student. It became clear early on that he was guilty and given that, I wondered why did he insist on going to trial? Why didn't he work out a deal like the others? We even learned that he had worn a wire for a while, but not what happened.

Today we got some answers to those questions.


He'd been offered a deaL Basically:
1. He had to plead guilty to one felony charge.
2. There were no guarantees on penalties.
3. He had to do what the government told him to do.

Through testimony from two attorneys who preceded Stockler as Anderson's attorney - Jeff Feldman and Craig Howard - we learned about the deal and the conditions (listed above.) Several things were happening in his life.
1. His girlfriend - and now wife - was pregnant and they wanted to get married.
2. The legislative session was going to begin and the government wanted him to wear a wire in Juneau.

He was getting very stressed working for the FBI. Secretly taping others was uncomfortable. He had been allowed to tell his father (former head of the state troopers) what he was doing but it was difficult lying to his fiance about where he was going all the time. Feldman said that in the summer of 2005, Tom's only job was working (without pay, of course) for the government. The government wanted him to go to Juneau for the session and continue taping people. Feldman said that Tom felt his job as representative was to do the legislative work of his constituents and he couldn't do that if he were working full time as an undercover agent.

You can be skeptical of some of that, particularly in light of his working for what he thought was Cornell instead of his constituents. Yet I think that humans have an ability to delude themselves into believing that what they are doing is ok. I don't think it is far fetched that Tom really did believe that since he agreed ideologically with what he was being asked to do, that it was really ok. Obviously he knew it didn't look good - or they wouldn't have had to launder the payments. As his teacher, these are the points that are haunting me. It wasn't pleasant seeing him sentenced even though it was the correct thing to do.

That doesn't excuse it - as he acknowledged today - but it may help explain it. His choice was to take a single felony - and his first two attorneys said when they saw the tapes they knew he was in trouble - or risk being convicted of what turned out to be seven felonies. He let the first attorney go. It wasn't clear why Feldman did not continue to represent Anderson. The ADN in December 2006 reported Feldman said there was a conflict in schedules. In any case, it appears that Craig Howard was let go because of the requirement to accept one felony. It's not clear what happened with Feldman. Feldman said, not only was the agreement the investigators wanted Anderson to sign unique among the many he'd seen, he also had never seen a client turn down the chance to reduce the charges like this.

Paul Stockler, was a gentler, kinder version of the attorney we saw at the trial. He'd learned a lot from this trial he said. He tried to strike a balance between admitting that Anderson had been guilty of serious crimes and deserved to be punished and advocating for leniency in the sentencing.

Thanks to the Alaska Public Radio Network, who posted the court recording on their website, below is Tom Anderson's statement to the court. You can judge it for yourself.

Tom Anderson's Statement to the Court imported by AKRaven

There's lots more to write about, but I'm trying to sort it out. As you can see from this post, I've got a ways to go.

Anderson Response

From ADN Politics blog:

"I'm devastated," Anderson said after the verdict was announced. He said he'd appeal.

"The prosecution has criminalized being a legislator over this past year. And I think I fell victim to that," he said.

Sentencing was scheduled for Oct. 2.

His family, including his wife, state Sen. Lesil McGuire, who was not accused of wrongdoing, were not present for the verdict. Anderson said they couldn't get to the downtown Anchorage courthouse in time after it was announced the jury had reached a verdict.

Steve Heimel's had some audio report with quotes from Anderson is this evening, but it's not yet up on the APRN site. But you can check and see if it's up. It says pretty much the same that Lisa Demer's ADN pieces above says.

Anderson Trial - Guilty on All Counts

I didn't go in today, not really expecting a verdict this soon. Only if they all agreed on guilty for all counts would it be done today. So when I heard just now on KSKA there was a verdict, I was sure it was all counts. The seven counts of the indictment are listed below along with a discussion of what the jury would have to figure out.

The ADN website says this:

A federal court jury today convicted Tom Anderson, a former member of the Alaska House of Representatives, of conspiracy and bribery. The jury returned a verdict shortly before 2 p.m. that found Anderson, 39, guilty of all seven charges against him.

The charges include conspiracy to commit extortion, bribery and money laundering and stemmed from claims he took money to do the bidding of a private prison firm. 4:02 p.m. AKST