Life Beyond the Court House

The jury's inside here working out its decisions. I've decided not to sit and wait since I'm skeptical that they'll be done today and I'm off to Seattle for a couple days tomorrow to visit with my son.






But, just a reminder of why I live in Anchorage - here are some pictures riding back from the Court House Friday afternoon on the bike trail.








































We ran into our friend Yakob at Goose Lake (along with his wife Lisa).

Anderson Trial - What does the Jury Have to Decide?

I've been attending this trial as a member of the public. I'm not a lawyer. What I'm going to try to do here is look at the jury instructions - as best as I could take notes on them as they were being read - and see what questions and problems I would have in reaching a decision as the jury is required to do. The jury has the advantage of having a copy of the written instructions, each other to help fill in what any individual missed, all the exhibits (except they don't have the CD's of the taped conversations, though they can ask to hear specific parts) and they can send a note to the judge to get answers to their questions. Any attorneys reading this are invited to jump in and make any necessary corrections.


I do have a Summary of Charges from one of the court documents available on line.
Anderson is charged in the Indictment with the following offenses:
I've taken the counts verbatim from DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING GOVERNMENT’S TRIAL EXHIBITS

The jury instructions are a little sketchier - they are from my notes. Marsh highlighted some of the points in his closing argument and then the judge went through them quickly at the end. But at least this will give you a better idea of what the jury has to determine.

Count 1 - Conspiracy - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
The Instructions to the jury were (again as best as I can pull out of my notes - anyone who can correct anything here, please jump in and do so):

1. Beginning about July 2004 there has to be an agreement to commit at least one crime, at least one covert act.
2. The have to have knowledge of the agreement and that it is unlawful.

Marsh said in his closing that it is not like an agreement to buy a car. There doesn't have to be a written agreement, it can be something that is understood by the parties. It is not necessary that they discuss every detail.

As I write this, I have questions about which of the things discussed in the trial would fit here, and so if I'm having trouble, perhaps the jury will too. Though the jury has the written jury instructions and that may make figuring this out easier.
Does setting up the electronic publishing company to conceal the payments constitute a crime?
Do the various functions Anderson did for Prewitt - writing the letter to Antrim on his own House of Representatives stationery, getting other legislators to sign a letter about the Certificate of Need, lobbying Commissioner Gilbertson, etc. - constitute crimes because he was being covertly paid to do these things by Prewitt?
If I were on the jury I guess I'd want to get some instructions on this from the judge.
The next problem will be to determine if Anderson knew they were illegal. The defense attorney argued throughout that what he did was no different from what other legislators who got campaign contributions did. What is the difference he asked again and again. And the Prosecutors said the difference was that he was being paid directly, not through a campaign contribution, to do the unlawful legislative acts. I'm guessing that some of the alleged crimes will serve double duty for different counts. And as I write this, I'm thinking of the power of the jury. They are the ones who can change an alleged crime into a crime.


Counts 2 & 7- Interference with Commerce by Extortion Induced Under Color of Official Right - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and § 2
In each case (counts 2 and 7) according to the jury instructions, they have to prove

1. The person is a public official
   
2. He got money he was not entitled to
3. He took an official act
4. There was interstate commerce

#1 is clear. Anderson was an elected official, a state representative.
#2 In the closing, Marsh said this was for the $24,000 Anderson was paid by Prewitt through Bobrick for Count 2. Count 7 was for the extra $2000 check that Prewitt gave directly to Anderson when Anderson complained that Bobrick was taking half the money. We saw copies of the checks from Prewitt and the checks from Bobrick to Anderson, signed and cashed by Anderson. And also a copy of the check directly from Prewitt to Anderson. I don't recall that anyone denied that Anderson got the money, though Stockler argued that Bobrick was taking half of the money himself. The Prosecutors later came up with checks that Bobrick wrote from his own account that got Anderson to the full $24,000. So, the question the jury has to wrestle with here is whether he was entitled to this money. Was he getting paid to work on the website or for his legislative duties? The first draft of the website made it onto the web. But there was no evidence that Anderson wrote any articles or that any ads were solicited. And it was pretty clear there never was a functioning website newsletter business. So, he wasn't being paid for the website. So, was he being paid for doing legislative acts? The jury will have to decide.
#3 Did he take an official act? The jury was presented with a number of situations where Anderson did things that Prewitt asked him to do. He got appointed to the Corrections and HSS committees as well as the budget subcommittees that dealt with the issues Cornell was concerned with. He lobbied fellow legislators including Lesil McGuire. He lobbied two different commissioners to make changes in the Certificate of Need process and in the budget as asked to do by Prewitt. And he went to a public hearing, as a legislator, not a private citizen to argue on behalf of Cornell. So I think the jury has a lot of choices here.
#4 Marsh, as he talked about the jury instructions, pointed out that Cornell was a company based in Houston, Texas, which made this an interstate commerce issue. But, the money wasn't coming from Cornell, it was coming from the FBI. Does the FBI count as commerce? Does it matter that the money isn't coming from Cornell? Or since Prewitt was being paid by Cornell, it counts as interstate commerce? I guess they have to ask the judge on that.

Count 3 - Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds - Violation of 18 U.S.C. §666(a)(1)(B) and § 2
The jury instructions for count 3 include:

1. Was there an elected official in Alaska?
   
2. In the time period from 2004 to March 2005 did he accept/receive something of value?
3. Was the something of value over $5000?
4. Did the Alaska program receive over $10,000 in federal funding?

Again, #1 is easy. Anderson was an elected official in Alaska. No dispute here.
#2 - Marsh pointed to the $24,000 he received.
#3 - During the trial I didn't understand the relevance of asking if the payment was over $5000 and if the State program received more than $10,000 in federal grants and aid. I'd missed the opening of the trial and so these questions only began to have meaning when I heard this part of the jury instructions. The $24,000 is over $5000, so that would fit. But if the jury wants to split hairs, they may argue that the individual checks were under $5000. Though I'd have to go back through my notes to be sure there wasn't one payment that was over $5000. The jury has the exhibits, they can check.
#4 - Both Commissioners Gilbertson and Antrim assured the Prosecutor that the state received significantly more than $10,000 in federal funding.

Counts 4 - 6 Money Laundering - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) and § 2

I'm least certain about the jury instructions for these counts. As best as I can tell they have to use the criteria from either the first or second bullet:

• Conduct a financial transaction

1. There is a financial transaction using the proceeds of the bribe in count 2
2. The person knows it (not sure what they know - I guess he knows the money source is being concealed)
3. The person acted with intent of carrying out the unlawful act in count 2
   

The Prosecutor said that the financial transaction here was simply cashing the check - and we saw copies of at least three checks (one for each count) that Anderson cashed. Perhaps the fourth check - the one from Prewitt directly - doesn't count here because it wasn't laundered. #2 then would be that the person knows the money is isn't what it appears to be. And I guess #3 is related to the intent to commit the official act.

• Laundering the Money

1. There was a transaction of the proceeds of the bribe in count 2.
2. The person knows that source of the money is being concealed
   
3. There is a transaction to conceal or disguise the source of the money
   

#s 1 and 2 would be the same as above. #3 would be the setting up of the sham company to conceal that the money was coming from Cornell (again I should point out that in actuality Cornell knew nothing about this because Prewitt was using FBI money and did not tell Cornell, though I wonder how many people, at the end of this, will be under the impression that Cornell was trying to bribe Anderson.)

As I understand this, the jury has to find all three of the first bullet points or all three of the second bullet points to be true to find him guilty of these charges. I think it generally means that you are hiding the source of illegal proceeds. If I were on the jury, I'd have to have more clarification of this.



Count 7 - Interference with Commerce by Extortion Induced Under Color of Official Right - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and § 2

This was covered with count 2.

Friday afternoon, I was pretty sure the jury wouldn't be able to make a decision that day because it would take them the rest of the afternoon to decipher the jury instructions and how they relate specifically to the case. After going through this exercise myself, I'm guessing that with 12 people having to understand and agree on what these mean, it might be a while before a verdict comes in. After all once they understand what they have to decide, then they have to decide and agree on all of the counts.

Again, any attorneys out there who can correct and/or clarify, please jump in and leave a comment.

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.

Thomas Anderson Case Closing Arguments Audio

Here's a link to Steve Heimel's Friday APRN report on the case. He knew enough to order the CD of yesterday and got it in time for the news. There are only snippets, but you can hear Nicholas Marsh, the Prosecutor, and Paul Stockler, the Defense Attorney.

USA vs Tom Anderson Day 9

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Friday, July 6, 2007


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


Nicolas Marsh was already into his closing argument as I walked into the 75% full courtroom at 9:15 this morning. Having apparently listened closely to the defense these last couple of days, he was hammering hard on the idea that Anderson didn't believe the Prewitt money was going for legislative acts. He played tapes of Anderson that sure looked like he knew what was going on. (My quotes will be as close as I could get taking notes during the trial. The exact words my not be right, but the meaning should be correct.)

Anderson: "Frank [Prewitt] is my employer through Bill [Bobrick]"

Anderson: "Quit the bullshit on the banner thing." [That Cornell was buying banner ads on the website] Then talking about ads at an Anchorage Aces Hockey game, "Who's gonna buy a prison from the audience?"

Anderson: "Put together a strategy and I'll be the Lieutenant. You get me the script and I'll walk it."

Anderson: "I'm not a fucking idiot, you're not just doing it [paying Pacific Publications] to help me."

Anderson: Talking about Bobrick's plan to set up a Website Journal Company and have Prewitt pay for banner ads on the website and have that money go to Anderson "It's perfect. The best idea he's [Bobrick] come up with and it looks like it's working."

Anderson: "APOC [Alaska Public Offices Commission] only needs to know Bill [Bobrick] pays me, then we're always safe."

Then Marsh shows slides of checks paid to Anderson.

It went on like that as he picked out tapes or documents that showed many of the points Defense Attorney Stockler had tried to make sound ambiguous or totally non-existent. (He'd said things like, "You can't show me a single instance where Anderson ..." and Marsh was showing instance after instance.
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.

Although the judge had said he would go over the Jury Instructions, Marsh did some of that himself. He particularly, I think, wanted to make the point that it doesn't matter if the person being bribed would have done those actions anyway as part of his job. This is an important point because Stockler has made this a big part of his argument - that Tom Anderson helped people out and would have done all this stuff [at other points Stockler said he didn't do anything] without the payments. And despite the jury instructions, this was still a big part of Stockler's closing statement.

Finally Marsh attacked Stockler's argument that Anderson had concealed the source of the money purely for political reasons, not because the deal was illegal. Basically, Stockler had argued in the trial that Anderson didn't want people from the prison unions to know he was getting money from Cornell. (Isn't one reason for disclosure so that voters know where you stand on issues?) Marsh had a list of 11 situations when or people to whom Anderson could have disclosed this relationship. The last one was Lesil McGuire, whom Marsh identified as Anderson's romantic interest. (She was a fellow legislator and is now his wife.) "He didn't tell Lesil," said Marsh, "because he knew she would have said, 'What are you doing? This is illegal. You can't do this.'" I was sitting right behind Lesil in the courtroom. She sat very still during this, but I couldn't help imagining what might possible be going through her mind? And here Marsh ended his closing argument.

Stockler presented quite a contrast. While Marsh looks like he hasn't been outside in years, Stockler looks like he just got back from a beach vacation. Marsh has those clean cut Tobey Mcquire looks, Stockler's head is shaved and he looks like someone who breaks your knees if you don't pay your debts. It struck me yesterday when he was putting on the defense's case, when he had to go out of the courtroom to escort in the defense's witnesses, that he is the Lone Ranger here on this case. In contrast, two attorneys and FBI Agent Kepner have been sitting at the Prosecutor's table, two technicians sit behind them running all the fancy video and audio equipment that made the tapes and transcripts as easy to follow as possible - given the bad sound quality of much of it. Plus there are four or five other people who back them up, including the woman who has been escorting in the Prosecution's witnesses into court. Today that contrast came out again after Marsh used his high tech audio/visual replaying of the tapes to punctuate his closing argument and Stockler stood there with his wooden easel and poster board charts. But Stockler started out looking into the eyes of the jurors and his presentation was much more a story than the prosecutor's methodical, logical exercise. But he couldn't pull it off for the whole hour. He too had a book that he went back and referred to. But Stockler appeared to be talking from the heart while Marsh was talking from the head.

Maybe it was because the facts weren't in Stockler's favor. He started with probably the most compelling argument, that Prewitt was the man under investigation and that Anderson's name just happened to come up while the FBI was investigating Prewitt. Prewitt was hoping that bagging a legislator would reduce whatever penalties he faced. Stockler belittled Prewitt's claim that anything the FBI had on him was either too old to prosecute or it was minor. Then he went after Bobrick. Though the way he characterized Bobrick's answers didn't completely square with what I heard. He said that when he asked Bobrick if the Website business was real, Bobrick answered yes. Well, I heard Bobrick qualify that by saying for a while it was, but part of me knew it wasn't. Bobrick had said several times he was in denial about what he was doing. I can't help but imagine that a few of the jurors might have heard it that way too and how this might affect their opinion of Stockler. While I thought the evidence was there to show that Anderson knew what was going on, there is no question in my mind that he also was in some ways a victim of Prewitt's cunning and Bobrick's fantasies. Stockler again mentioned that neither Prewitt nor Bobrick told Anderson that "yes, we're paying you to use your legislative position for our client" when Anderson asked things like "this is ok right?" But Anderson is 41 years old, has a law degree, was a lawmaker, and is responsible for his own actions, isn't he? People involved in bribery and extortion don't usually write out detailed contracts spelling it all out. And the judge's instructions to the jury said that these things need not be explicitly spelled out. I guess Stockler was hoping at least some of the jurors would emotionally respond to the idea of poor Tom Anderson being used by these older crooks and ignore the judge's instructions and perhaps prevent some or all of the charges from sticking.

Bottini got to do a follow up to Stockler. I hadn't realized that he could. And he forefully pointed out that Anderson was not Prewitt's victim and repeated Marsh's closing point about Anderson not telling even Lesil McGuire, because he knew it was bad.

Stockler didn't follow that. I'm not sure if he chose not to or that's not part of the rules.

Then the judge gave the jury instructions. They got too complicated for me to write down and I've mentioned some of the key points already. If I can find something that gives the details I'll do another post.

The four alternate jurors were dismissed and the average age of the jurors fell by 10 or 15 years. Within minutes the jurors had asked for a copy of the stipulations. And then another note came out asking when they could have a smoke break. It seemed pretty unlikely that they would have a verdict today. There are seven charges and each has specific standards. It will take up the whole afternoon just sorting that out. And then there are the smoking breaks.

But the show wasn't quite over. Bottini had a point to make. In an interview reported on Channel 2 yesterday, Paul Stockler was quoted as saying that FBI Agent Kepner had lied in her testimony. Bottini argued that if Stockler really said this it would be a violation of some code of standards that I didn't catch. The judge appeared outraged - he had just thanked attorneys for both sides for doing a very good of arguing their cases. He asked Stockler, who paused a long time and then said that the reporter must have misquoted him. (Since it was done inside the courtroom the reporter wouldn't have recorded it.) The judge said, "I won't tolerate this sort of behavior. I'll accept your statement, but I'm not making a conclusion.. . I'll leave it open for another setting."

Then Stockler stood up and stated that yesterday's witness Ms. Bradley had been harassed by the FBI after she testified. Her cell phone kept ringing at security, and they went to her restaurant and confronter her employees. Bottini stood up to say that yesterday she had given a date for a payment made to Tom Anderson that would have been during the legislative session. If that was true it would have been an illegal payment. They were trying to check to see if she had mistaken the date.

And then all rose as the judge left. I've got to run so I don't have time to proof this. Pictures from after the trial are in the previous post.

Tom Anderson - Post Trial Photos

The jury got the case right around noon. They have seven counts to consider. While I'm working on my post of the end of the trial today, let me post a couple of pictures of after the trial. Cameras aren't allowed inside the Court House, but here are a few shots afterward. Here are five members of the jury taking a smoking break about 2:45pm.
















Alaska Public Radio Network Reporter Steve Heimel outside the courthouse.





An AP camera man waiting for some pictures talking to a reporter (?) who was taking lots of notes in the courthouse.

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.

USA v Anderson - Day 7 (Final Version)

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Tuesday, July 3, 2007

9:00 AM	3:06-CR-00099-JWS	Judge Sedwick	Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. THOMAS ANDERSON TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 7

---

The Prosecution finished presenting its case today. Things began with Mr. Bottini going through tapes with Mr. Bobrick until 10:19am. Then a withering cross examination by Anderson attorney Paul Stockler that was interrupted for lunch. Bobrick was finally excused at 2:17pm. I'll add more to this later. The other witnesses were relatively brief and I'll try to highlight them and then add to this later tonight.

[Bobrick comments added at the end]

Ken D. Erickson was the next witness. He was the person hired to design the website for the Pacific Publications through which the payments were supposed to channeled from Cornell (though actually from the FBI) to Anderson. He said he set up the website, was paid $1000 of the $2000 he was supposed to be paid. (Stockler later asked him about a check that sounded like it was $4000 but that wasn't clear to me at all what that was.) He also said there were never any articles put up on the site or any advertisements.

Former Health and Human Services Commissioner Joel Gilbertson testified about the Certificate of Need Process, basically saying that when the legislature added requirements for C of N for Imaging Centers and Residential Psychiatric Treatment Centers (RPTC), that the state then had to develop standards for evaluating them. Thus, even though everyone supported the Bring the Kids Home program, they couldn't certify and RPTCs until they had standards.

Karen Fink from National Bank of Alaska testified that a check had been cashed by Tom Anderson, not deposited in his account on Dec. 31, 2004.

David Pierce, the Certificate of Need Coordinator for the State testified that at an Anchorage public hearing on RPTCs in Anchorage, Rep. Thomas Anderson signed in the roster and wrote 'self' in the box labeled 'representing.' He also read a transcript of Anderson's public comment where he said, (and I don't have the exact words here) something like "I'm particularly interested in Cornell's proposal...I don't have a particular interest, except interest in kids...not here on behalf of any group... Northstar looks good, but I've met with Cornell and toured their proposed site." This was all when money was being funnelled from Cornell's lobbyist Frank Prewitt to another Cornell lobbyist's (Bobrick) non-existent website and then paid to Anderson, who was asked to talk at this public hearing by the Cornell representatives.


I'll revise this post later tonight and add more on Bobrick's testimony. After the jury was dismissed for the day, Stockler was asked about his witnesses. He did say he still had to decide whether Anderson would testify. He'd decide that tomorrow (July 4).

Bobrick Testimony

As I wrote yesterday, Bobrick walked slowly, like a very tired man going somewhere he didn't want to be. And with good reason. He was going to testify against someone he'd described as a good friend and future business partner. And he was described by someone as a mentor and adviser to Tom Anderson. Much of the testimony went over tapes and quotes that had been reviewed during the Frank Prewitt testimony. His memory wasn't too good, especially when being cross examined by Stockler. We heard "I don't remember" frequently, particularly when asked what day something happened. Early on when asked if he knew Frank Prewitt was recording him, he answered, "No, I wouldn't have said as many stupid things as I said."

Bottini seemed to be trying to establish

1. That for Bobrick's clients Anderson's best qualification was that he was a legislator. He could lobby the executive branch.
   
1. Q: "as a private citizen or as a legislator?"
2. A: "You can't shed that you're a legislator"
3. What was Tom Anderson paid for? Being a legislator. Understood by You? Yes. Understood by Prewitt? Yes. Understood by Tom Anderson? I think so also, because there was no work, no newsletter, etc. [these are not exact quotes, but the best I could catch]
   
2. That Anderson and he knew that it wouldn't look good if people knew that he was getting paid by Cornell.
3. That the internet publishing business - Pacific Publications (sometimes Publishing) - was not a real business, but merely set up to pass money from Cornell to Anderson without it being visible.
   
4. That Bobrick used the money from Prewitt to write checks totaling nearly $23,000, and the money wasn't for banner ads on the website, but for furthering Cornell's business interests as requested. The extra money was used to hire Ken Erickson to set up the website. But Bobrick said while the site got made, no one wrote any articles for it or sold any ads. Another check went to Josh Appleby who did some research on Alaska village governments that was for finding stringers around the state for the website.
5. That the FBI had contacted Bobrick in Nov. 2006 and that Bobrick had pleaded guilty of conspriacy to commit money laundering, bribery, and extortion. [Take that with a grain of salt, not sure from my notes how many of those charges he pleaded to.] In exchange for "telling the truth" the Prosecutors might file a motion to ask the judge to take his cooperation into considering when sentencing.
   

It seemed to me that a number of times Bobrick's answers to Botinni had the rising intonation of a question, as if he were asking whether he'd given the right answer. He kept saying he'd done stupid things that have ruined his life and he's terribly sorry and testifying was one way to make things right. It sounded a little like a kid who is being forced to apologize for hitting his younger brother. He had to do it, but I wasn't totally sure his heart was in it. Another interpretation might be that he felt so defeated that his heart wasn't in anything. I've never met or seen Bobrick before to my knowledge, but he didn't seem like he was in the best mental health condition.


When Stockler started the cross examination, Bobrick was like a boxer who'd been knocked down but kept getting back up. Stockler hammered and hammered Bobrick over three things:

1. Trying to get Bobrick to agree that he was getting a great deal from the FBI for testifying. He kept responding that they made no promises, only possibilities. He finally said, "I've been convicted of a felony, I've lost my business of 20 years, my reputation in the community [something important for a lobbyist] has been destroyed, and I'm probably going to prison, I'm wrecked." Based on what's already happened to me, I don't expect anything good is going to happen to me." He acknowledged he'd made stupid mistakes, he's sorry, and he's paying for it and trying to make up for it as best as he can.

2. That Tom Anderson was looking for real, legitimate work and that he didn't want a sham job.. Anderson never asked for money when he did legislative work.

3. That the internet publishing company Pacific Publications that Bobrick was setting up was a real legitimate business, it was not a sham. This exchange got painful to watch. Bobrick said, that he wanted it to be real, he'd hoped it was real, but that he had been in denial. Half of him hoped it was real, half of him knew it was a sham. Stockler pressed hard. When did you stop thinking it was real? I don't know. On date X? Date Y? "THIS WAS A REAL BUSINESS WASN'T IT?!" And Bobrick would return to the refrain, "At the end of the day, it was set up to funnel money from Prewitt to Anderson. In this exchange, it seemed that Bobrick had lots of business ideas - sell bottled Eklutna water to the Chinese, a Vodka distillery, a shooting range, buy half-way houses from Cornell , but none of them came to fruition. He even said something like, Ok, you've established I'm a lousy entrepreneur.

This will give you one view of what happened, but I'm pretty tired. Check out the Anchorage Daily News for Lisa Demer's report too.

USA vs. Thomas Anderson Day 6 (my day 3)

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Monday, July 2, 2007
Current as of 07/02/2007 at 10:00 PM


9:00 AM 3:06-CR-00099-JWS Judge Sedwick Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. THOMAS ANDERSON
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 6

You can see my posts on Day 4 and Day 5.

I didn't make to court til 10am when Stockler (Anderson's attorney) was still cross examining Frank Prewitt, the FBI's main wire in the case. Basically Stockler was going back over the transcripts, plus adding in some that apparently his office had made of tapes the FBI didn't make transcripts of, trying to get Prewitt to admit to some different interpretations of what was said:

1. That basically Anderson was a guy totally into politics who was eager to help, eager to please any constituent or even anyone coming in. Thus he helped out Prewitt, not for pay but because that is the kind of guy he is.
1. He did this by trying to show that Anderson helped Prewitt out before money was involved and going through the transcripts to show that Anderson hadn't asked for money.
   Prewitt's response was that Bobrick had asked for the money so Anderson didn't have to
2. That the things Anderson did for Prewitt were consistent with Anderson's values (supporting private enterprise, for example) and they were the kind of things that legislators do for lobbyists all the time.
1. He used Rep. Mike Hawker as a regular example - if you had written talking points or a letter to sign as though it were his own would you think there was something wrong?
   If you make a campaign contribution to someone you could ask him do these things and there would be nothing wrong?
2. So, what's the difference then between what Anderson was doing and these others?
   
3. Stockler asked Prewitt whether the work Anderson did to try to change the staffing levels at half-way houses wasn't just good government. Even though they didn't have the number of residents they were designed for, they had to continue full staffing which made no economic sense. But Commissioner Antrim was being bureaucratic and wouldn't budge or give a good reason for his position. [Antrim was a witness in the afternoon. I got the impression he was added to respond to this characterization.]
   Prewitt's response each time was: The difference is that he was working for me. Or I was paying him to do these things. [I would also note that the campaign contributions are reported to the Alaska Public Offices Commission, but these were secret even from Anderson's then girlfriend Rep. McGuire.
3. Anderson never asked for money, that he never considered the payments related to the work he was doing for Prewitt (see 1 and 2 above) and while he asked Prewitt at various times whether there was such a connection or there was a conflict, Prewitt never said yes. If he had, Anderson would have ended it there and Prewitt wouldn't have gotten what the FBI wanted. He challenged Prewitt to show where in the transcripts Anderson had asked for money.
1. Prewitt said he couldn't recall the specifics and would have to go through the transcripts, but that it was clear Anderson knew there was a relationship between the money and the work. And it wasn't his job as a lobbyist to give Anderson legal advice
2. Stockler also repeatedly asked Prewitt what the FBI told him to do or not do.
1. Prewitt: I was there to listen, ask questions.
3. Anderson didn't ask for money, because Bobrick was taking care of that and Anderson knew Cornell (the prison company Prewitt was a lobbyist for) really didn't care about the ads in the sham internet company that Bobrick set up to hide the source of the payments to Anderson.
4. He also tried to get Prewitt to say that Anderson didn't want it known he was working for Cornell because it would be politically damaging, not because it was illegal. He had some union support that he could lose if they knew he was working for Cornell. [Of course that is one of the purposes of disclosure laws, so voters know the potential conflicts of interest of the candidate.]
   
5. At another point, Stockler was trying to show that there was nothing in Anderson's past that would indicate that he was unethical and would accept illegal money. That caused the Prosecuter, Mr. Marsh, after the jurors left for the morning break, to say that since Stockler had raised this, an excluded part of the transcript which showed that Anderson had worked for Veco on contract "for doing nothing" (according to Bobrick) should now be brought in to show that there was something to indicate this. Marsh was allowed to bring this back in when he did the redirect with Prewitt later on.
6. Finally, Stockler worked to clear Lesil McGuire's name by getting Prewitt to say he had no reason to believe she knew anything about the arrangement Tom Anderson had with him and Cornell.

And then it was lunch break at noon.
Back in court at 1:30. Stockler finished the cross examination at 1:47 pm.
Marsh was up right away. I have to say, I've been impressed had how quickly the transitions go from one attorney to the next. Marsh worked to get Prewitt to reinterpret what had been said in the morning. It was clear that Prewitt is a witness for the prosecution. He did not let Stockler push him into anything he wasn't ready to accede. He would say, "I have to read the transcripts again before I can say that." He would disagree with Stockler's characterization. But for (Prosecutor) Marsh he was always supportive.

Marsh started by asking what his instructions from the FBI were. Did they set rules, parameters?

1. They identified specific persons of interest
2. He was not allowed to propose something illegal, just carry out my business as a lobbyist
3. He was instructed not to shut down any illegal proposals that came up. "It would have a chilling effect"
4. He was never told "you have to bag a legislator."

All this seemed to go to answer Stockler's point that he was proposing the illegal activity and that if he had told Anderson it wasn't legal, Anderson would have stopped right then.

They went on to:

1. Highlight times when Anderson did, in fact,
   
1. show he knew that the Internet Journal ads were not the reason Cornell was paying him (Anderson said, "Quit the BS on the banner [ads] thing.") and that in fact that Prewitt never saw any articles that Anderson or anyone else had written for it and he's pretty sure it never came to be
2. show places in the transcripts where Anderson did ask for money - particularly, the Nov. 16, 2004 meeting where Anderson came to Prewitt to complain that Bobrick was taking a big cut out of his money for himself and that he really needed money. Prewitt said rather than cut out Bobrick, he make an extra payment for Anderson. Another was where Anderson was asking if he should get out of the legislature (because the pay is so low) and work for Prewitt. Anderson answers his own question, "No, you want votes in the legislature."
   

Then Stockler asked another 15 minutes worth of questions of Prewitt.

At 3:25pm Mark Antrim, former Commissioner of Corrections was the witness. After giving a brief biography - first job after getting a BA in Justice at UAF, was as a Corrections Officer II for the State of Alaska in the 1980s and appointed as Commissioner by Gov. Murkowski. Palin asked him to resign and he is now back as a Corrections Officer II until retirement soon.

He gave a totally different view of the logic of the Half way house staffing levels. Stockler had argued and Prewitt hadn't argued[disagreed], that what Anderson did on this was simply good government to stop a blatant inefficiency of forcing the contractors to keep full staff when they had only a few residents. It was an example of how the work Anderson did was stuff any good legislator would do.

But Antrim's picture was much different. There was increased pressure to fill the halfway houses and so more prisoners who normally would be classed at a higher risk level were being sent to halfway houses and the number of 'walkaways' or prisoners who escaped [was going up fast]. A corrections employee had been sent out to audit all the privately run halfway houses [and] found that most had only one staff when they should have had three. The halfway house contractors - Cornell and two others - were told to get back to contract mandated staffing levels. One complied right away, but Cornell and another gave a lot of 'pushback.'

Although Anderson and Antrim had had good relations before, things were a little tense this time. Anderson wanted Antrim to make a supplemental budget request to increase funding for the halfway houses. Antrim said no. The head of OMB would laugh at him. Why would he ask for more money for something they already were paying for based on the contract with Cornell?

Stockler, in the cross examination, raised the question about Antrim and Hawker being like oil and water. Antrim thought that was a fair assessment, but added that before he left his appointment he told Hawker that in hindsight he was grateful for his close oversight - it had helped him run the Department better.

Finally, at 4:04 - Bill Bobrick began his stint as a witness. We'd heard a lot of about Bobrick to this point so it was interesting to see the actual person. I thought he walked in rather slowly, not at all eagerly. He was a lobbyist who lobbied the Municipality of Anchorage. He'd started construction work in Alaska after his third year of college, gotten into union work, executive director for the Democratic Party of Alaska, became a legislative staffer, and eventually realized that people would pay him to help them deal with the Anchorage Municipal Assembly. He's been doing that for 20 years. He met Anderson around 2001 when Anderson was on the school board and both worked as lobbyists for clients needing to deal with the Municipality of Anchorage. They hit it off and they saw a future lobbying business together after Anderson was out of the legislature. Anderson, a Republican would work in Juneau and Bobrick, known as a Democrat (though he's now registered Independent) would stay in Anchorage. [All this background on Bobrick was stuff he said when asked to give his background.]

And soon it was 4:30 and adjournment. It's late, and while I should proof this, I'm too tired to do it. So I'll post as is. I'd love to add some pictures, but you can't bring your camera into the court side of the Federal Building. There was an artist doing great drawings for Channel 4 in court in the morning.

Lisa Demer's Great Coverage of the Anderson Trial

There's a lot of criticism of the press and always has been. Many people only realize how bad news coverage can be when they see the reporting on something they were involved in and see big differences between what they saw and what was reported. Some of that can be seen as people seeing different things. Some because the news media had a predetermined story line.

So it's important to acknowledge when the press is doing a great job. I've been at the Anderson trial for the last two afternoons, and her coverage was both accurate and hit all the main points as I saw them. In fact in Saturday's paper she covered a significant point that I somehow didn't hear - that Prewitt responded to Anderson's attorney's cross examination suggesting that he wouldn't have been wearing a wire for the government if he weren't guilty, by saying that Tom Anderson also wore a wire, so did that make him guilty?

And in today's paper she reported that Don Stolworthy (I spelled his name wrong in the previous post) who Prewitt had said had asked him for a job if he got fired and even asked him for money, clearly illegal things to do, was working "as a cooperating witness" for the FBI, and that FBI spokesperson Eric Gonzalez said he was "squeaky clean."

So, did Anderson wear a wire expecting not to go to trial? Did he think he was innocent and was helping the FBI catch criminals?

Also, the Alaska Ear had some tidbits on who some of the other spectators were in court.

USA v. Thomas Anderson Day 5 (only day 2 for me)

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Friday, June 29, 2007
Current as of 06/29/20http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif07 at 8:00 PM


9:00 AM 3:06-CR-00099-JWS Judge Sedwick Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. THOMAS ANDERSON
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 5

[For those who aren't going to read all this - most of you I imagine - I'll just slip in what I found most interesting today. When Prewitt was being cross examined and he denied that doing this work for the government was in exchange for dropping other charges (he claimed there was nothing out there that could stick), Stockler (Anderson's attorney) asked, "How many other cases are you volunteering to assist? The Prosecutor objected, but the judge allowed it, and Stockler told him not to reveal any names. Prewitt said, six or seven. Let's see, we know of four indicted legislators, that leaves two or three more cases. Ben Stevens? John Cowdery? Who might seven be?]

I got there just after the afternoon session began. Prewitt was still on the witness stand, the Prosecutor was still showing tapes and transcripts, and asking Prewitt to interpret what was said in the tapes. At one point the judge addressed the government's attorney as Mr. Marsh, so my assumption yesterday that Bottini was the attorney was wrong. I'm guessing Mr. Bottini was the older (Mr. Marsh appears to be in his mid 30s or less) gentleman sitting at the government table. There were around 20-30 people in the observer section of the court this afternoon.

From what I could tell, the prosecutor was trying to establish

1. Anderson's eagerness to help Prewitt and Cornell with whatever they needed in the legislator. There's video tape of Rep. McQuire (now Anderson's wife) explaining how she to pressed Commissioner of Health and Social Services Joel Gilbertson to split the Certificate of Need process for imaging services from the process for Juvenile facilities (I think that was it) because they'd been lumped together and the whole process was being delayed because of problems in the imaging situation, not the juvenile facilities situation. Anderson also whispered to Prewitt while McQuire was talking to someone else that he hadn't told her about their arrangement. Of course, one could ask why he wouldn't tell her if he thought it was all on the up and up. And if he had told her, might she have stopped him? We'll never know.

Anderson was also asked to assist in getting a bill to change the requirement that the State Troopers had to do the transporting of prisoners, because they didn't want to and had 'subcontracted' that to Corrections who also didn't want to. In Anchorage Corrections subcontracted transport of Municipal Prisoners to the Anchorage Police Department, who also didn't want to do it. So Bobrick after talking to Mayor Begich came up with the idea to start a company to transport prisoners, but that would need legislation to allow the Troopers to subcontract that task. And Tom agreed to make that happen. No word about whether he did.


2. Anderson's need for additional money from Prewitt (He asked for and got another $2000 in addition to the money that was being passed on through Bobrick's Pacific Communications (I think that was the final name) Company. We saw photocopies of two checks he handed to Anderson, one directly to Anderson, the other to Bobrick. There was a long discussion that seemed to be initiated by Tom, that if he got money from a company that didn't have a lobbyist and it was less than $5000 he wouldn't have to report to to the Alaska Public Offices Commission. So he wanted to be sure this money came from a subsidiary of Cornell that didn't have a lobbyist. Prewitt, Cornell's lobbyist offered to write a personal check, Anderson said no, and Prewitt gave him the $2000 cashier's check. The video showed Anderson, hands out in front of him at the restaurant table making two mock bows to Prewitt after he gave him the check and saying, "I love it." At another point, Anderson says something like, I have no trouble raising campaign money, but what I really need is a job.


Paul Stockler, Anderson's attorney, was getting antsy, and after the jury left for the afternoon 15 minute break he addressed the judge about the schedule and when he would get to start cross examining Prewitt. He clearly didn't want the jury going home for the weekend without ever hearing anything from the other side. He was offered an hour today. His manner was much more aggressive than Marsh's, who is very deferential, but articulate. However, Marsh was clearly losing focus a bit this afternoon - having to go back to cover a tape or document he'd skipped over, and at one point someone walked into the courtroom and he turned to look over his shoulder to see who had come in. Stockler even addressed the judge as "Judge" at one point. I don't spend much time in courtrooms, but Marsh's "Your Honors" sound a lot more respectful to me.

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? 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?

2. Something about getting a job for a Mr. [DonStahlworthy (sp?) Stolworthy] who in 2004 was Deputy Commissioner of Corrections. Prewitt promised him a job when STahlworthy[Stolworthy] was fired.
I couldn't follow the specific details here. It was getting late and it appeared Stockler wanted to leave the jury with some questions about Prewitt before the weekend. [See Sunday, July 1 post post.
for update on Stolworthy.

3. Funneling $30,000 in campaign contributions from Cornell, a Houston based company,
to Alaskan legislative candidates who were friendly to private prisons. This was illegal because there was a limit on how much money candidates could get from contributors from Outside (of Alaska), so he would give it to them as an Alaskan.

4. Then raised questions about what deal he made with the Government so that he was now in the witness stand instead of the defendant's seat. Prewitt said that after working closely with the FBI for a month, and consulting with his attorney, he realized that he wasn't going to be subject to prosecution because of statute of limitations issues and I'm not sure why about the funneling contributions. And that he had volunteered to work for the government; he didn't have to. And it has been at great cost to his reputation and future employment to have all this publicly aired. Stockler kept challenging his claim there was no deal and said he needn't have volunteered and he would have spared himself all the humiliation.

5. An interesting bit of information emerged when he was asked how many other investigations was he cooperating on. Stockler told him not to mention any names. Marsh objected, but the judge allowed it. After a pause, Prewitt said, six or seven.

6. Established Prewitt was making $150,000 a year from Cornell to lobby, then asked whether Prewitt told Cornell he was working for the government. No. You didn't let them know you were in criminal trouble? I wasn't. You mean when the FBI knocked on your door, you didn't think you were in trouble? I don't think this was a good line of questioning since Stockler's client also had the FBI knocking at his door. If he's suggesting the FBI doesn't knock until they have something, then he could be hurting his own client. He also asked if Prewitt asked the government to pay him. He said yes, but they wouldn't.

Then Stockler focused on changing the jury's image of Anderson.

1. He wanted to show that Anderson was friendly and eager to please, not because Prewitt was paying him, but because that's his natural style. He asked Prewitt questions about an early meeting with Anderson before they knew each other at all, where Anderson called him FP (suggesting this was very familiar even though they didn't know each other well) and offered him assistance. And he didn't do that for money, but because he was that kind of guy and the issues were consistent with his principles. He didn't know Prewitt, hadn't gotten campaign contributions from him, and hadn't asked him for anything. Even though Bobrick had raised the notion of a campaign contribution, and Prewitt had said something like Tom shouldn't raise that now (because it is illegal for legislators to solicit campaign funding during the legislative session), Tom never asked you for a campaign contribution? Again, I don't think this was a good way to go, since Tom had earlier said that he didn't need campaign money, he needed a job. Prewitt's response was, that while he hadn't done anything for Tom, Bobrick, who was also a Cornell lobbyist, had done stuff for Tom and he was the one that introduced them here. (They'd had one prior meeting where Tom couldn't help Prewitt because he was supported by the prison employee's union that was opposed to private prisons. But when they split from the larger union, it was no longer a problem for him.)

2. He tried to portray the problem as Prewitt entrapping (he never used that term)Anderson. You and Bobrick concocted the sham company to funnel the money, Tom didn't. And he kept asking you to confirm that this money wasn't being paid him to do the legislative work. Stockler to Prewitt, "You could have said, Yes, the money is for you to fix my problems, and then Tom would have refused, and you wouldn't have had to humiliate yourself with all the publicity of this trial." The gist was, Tom was pushed into this by these older, more experienced mentors, at least one of whom is going to go scott free. But earlier they had established that Tom had a masters degree and law degree. In my opinion, a legislator should know better than asking lobbyists for legal advice.

And then it was 4:38 on the courtroom digital clock. The jury seemed much more interested in what was going on than they had been while the government painstakingly went through all the hard to hear and see tapes and transcripts.

Stockler asked for all of Monday to cross examine Prewitt. And then the Prosecutor will bring Bobrick to the witness stand.

[NOTE: YOU MAY HAVE TO HIT "OLDER POSTS" BELOW RIGHT TO GET THE FIRST ANDERSON POST - JUNE 28, 2007]

USA v. Thomas Anderson

9:00 AM 3:06-CR-00099-JWS Judge Sedwick Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. THOMAS ANDERSON
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 4


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.




First, walking up to the court building, I saw someone being interviewed. I found out in court it was Tom Anderson's attorney, Paul Stockler. Inside, security took my camera, along with everyone's cell phones, until I got out. The courtroom had seating for about 120. I got there after the lunch recess and there were about 40 people in the audience, including a German couple whose Anchorage friend brought them. It was down to about 30 when the court was adjourned at 4:30.

The Situation. The Prosecutor Joe Bottini (I assume, since I got there after introductions, but I'm going by today's ADN story on yesterday's opening statements) [correction: it was Nicholas Marsh] spent the afternoon presenting audio and (one) video tapes. On the screen on the wall were the transcripts of what was being said, a yellow highlight following along, sort of a courtroom karaoke. Most were hard to understand and read along. One juror said it was too hard to hear. The judge reminded the jury several times that the actual audio, not the transcript, was the evidence.
On the witness stand was Frank Prewitt, former Corrections Commissioner who became a lobbyist for Cornell Companies, a Houston based private prison corporation. A bit of tape would be played. Then the Prosecutor would ask Prewitt what it meant. Prewitt was an articulate witness explaining it clearly. A couple of times Stockler objected that Prewitt couldn't know what Tom Anderson or Bill Bobrick (a key person on the tape) meant. The judge agreed he could say what he understood it to mean.

The People on the Tape:
1. Prewitt was, according to the ADN story, already being investigated. He was the man with the wire. He was a lobbyist for Cornell.
2. Bill Bobrick was the main lobbyist working with the Anchorage Assembly, a good friend apparently of the Mayor, and generally a supporter of liberal politicians. He was also portrayed today as a trusted mentor and adviser to Tom Anderson.
3. Tom Anderson was a Republican legislator, in his early 40s (The other two 15-25 years older I'd guess.) As it came out in today's tapes and Prewitt's comments, he was in financial trouble, needing $2000-2500 per month just for child support.


The Line of Argument

1. Cornell Companies needed four things:
A. A certificate of need for a new prison
B. A feasibility study saying they could provide comparable prison 'service' at less cost than the State of Alaska.
C. A positive review of the Whittier Procurement (Something - can't read my notes) for a joint venture with Cornell to build the prison. Apparently some legislators had questions about the process.
D. Get the private prison money that goes to the Department of Corrections back into its own BRU. Prewitt explained that a BRU is a Budget Review Unit. Money can be moved around within a BRU by a department, but not from one BRU to another. Private prison money had been in a separate BRU, but Gov. Murkowski had changed that and Corrections then had moved money originally allocated to private prisons to other accounts. They wanted the separate BRU again so private prison funds would stay for private prison stuff and couldn't be switched to other Corrections Department needs.


2. Bobrick was proposing to Prewitt on the tape, that Tom Anderson would be a good candidate for helping get Cornell's needs met.
A. He was a legislator, in the majority party, and could get appointed to the key committees relevant to the Cornell's needs.
B. He needed money.
[Today the prosecutor was trying to build the case against Anderson and we only heard from Prewitt. What was Bobrick's motive? He wasn't going to get any money out of this based on today's testimony - though the newspapers said a while ago that he kept a chunk of the payments for himself. The evidence today suggested that this was a way for him to get Tom badly needed funds, and that Tom was a rising star and in the future he would remember who helped him.]
C. Tom was 'a closer' and would finish what he started, he could be counted on.

The Scheme: Bobrick was setting up a quarterly electronic public policy newsletter that Tom among others (Brian Rogers was mentioned) would write for. It would be bi-partisan and they would sell advertising. Cornell would buy $24,000 worth of banner ads. Prewitt, on the tape, made it clear to Bobrick that Cornell didn't advertise because they got contracts from government. Thus they had no reason to spend money on advertisements. They didn't care about the newsletter, they cared about Tom helping them in the legislature. The prosecutor asked several times - did Bobrick think this was a real venture? And the answer was, "Yes, he thought he could make money off it." But from today's testimony it seemed clear that while they might set up a newsletter, the real purpose was to channel money from Cornell to Anderson. It would go to the Newsletter company (that had different names throughout the testimony) and the company would pay Anderson. No one mentioned yet whether there eventually was such an electronic journal, and if there was, whether Tom wrote any articles. The question about whether they thought there would be a real journal might be leading up to the fact that there was no such journal in the end and which would make the payments seem even shadier. But I'm speculating now.

Anderson's Rationale On the video tape of the breakfast at the Whale's Tail at the Captain Cook Hotel - all you could see were Tom's hands - Tom was saying something like, I don't see any problem here because I'm doing these things because they are the right things to do, not because of the contract. He gave an example of working against a tax on RV Rentals. I didn't say, I'm against this because my mom rents RVs (which she did), but because I had the facts and the figures to show it was a bad idea.

Many politicians have argued that the money they get in campaign donations isn't a bribe. People donate because they want to support someone who believes the same things they believe. And there is validity to that argument. The problem here, at least with the testimony given so far, is that money is passing hands, and there are some specific deliverables - the four items listed above at (1). And the creation of a company so the money couldn't be easily traced. And no one was planning to tell anyone else that Anderson was getting paid by Cornell. I can imagine that the promise of an answer to his financial problems helped Tom rationalize that he was doing nothing wrong. Of course, that is the whole point of conflict of interest - our perceptions get colored by the conflict. Which is why telling others allows less biased minds to weigh in on the matter.

That covers the key points I got in court this afternoon. There was one more interesting tidbit that is totally irrelevant to the case. When Bobrick and Prewitt were at breakfast without Tom as part of the banter, Bobrick said about Ben Stevens (US Senator Ted Stevens' son), "He's got his father's worst qualities, but not his brains." Oh, my what we say when we don't know the other guy is taping the conversation.

Actually, there may be some relevance to Ben Stevens here. Trying to prove to the jury that Anderson's consulting contract was just a cover to pay him to do Cornell's business may be practice for the anticipated Ben Stevens trial. (Though he hasn't even been indicted yet.)

And one more comment. It must have been even more bizarre to Tom than it was to me to watch these two men, one of whom purportedly was his trusted mentor, talking about him and setting him up to do this. Does he feel betrayed? Or does he look on Bobrick as looking out for him, helping him get much needed cash? And if the evidence eventually shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Tom is guilty, what about these other two, older, much more experienced men, who set Tom up? Why do they get to bargain with the FBI? Just because Tom is the legislator? It seems what they were doing was as bad or worse. But, not all the cards have been played, so let's hold off on a conclusion.




When I walked out, the TV truck was still there across the street.

Go to next day post.