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.

The President Didn't Lie

On July 19, 2005, MSNBC reported

President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration."

I guess we should have paid closer attention. The President didn't lie. Libby no longer does work in the administration. We didn't know that 'would not go to prison' was also part of this promise.

Time for Us All to Stand Up to Bush and Cheney

Attending and posting on the Anderson trial has kept me from addressing another important issue: the commuting of Scooter Libby's prison sentence. With so much to be said about this, how does one zero in on the truly important issues here? Let me try to articulate why I think this is such an important event.

Our nation is founded on the rule of law. The Constitution spells out the compact that Americans have. It outlines the procedures by which we will make decisions. It is this set of procedures and the laws made following those procedures that have made the US a special place in the world. We make decisions based on a set of rules we that all have a role in establishing and changing. We don't make decisions through the whim of a monarch or through violence. Not everyone follows those rules, and we may not always find 'truth' in the court, but even if there are mistakes, there are further procedures with which to correct those mistakes.

Thus obstruction of justice is not a minor crime, it is an assault against the foundations of the United States of America. Bush has now said, "Fuck the Rule of Law. Libby is one my friends and I don't want him to go to prison." [I almost never use "Fuck." Not because I'm a prude, but because if we use it all the time, it loses the power it has as a taboo word. I use here, then, with all the shock value it once had, to say, "This is serious."]

But he hasn't denounced the Special Prosecutor or the Judge. When Clinton was impeached, he faced a conservative Special Prosecutor and a Republican controlled Congress. But in Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and Judge Reggie Walton, Libby was facing people appointed by George W. Bush.


Essentially, this event should make clear to even the most obstinate Bush supporter that

• the rule in the administration is not the rule of law, but the protection of their own interests. But we knew that after the 2000 Florida voting theft.
  
• Criminals aren't people who break laws, they are people Bush and friends don't like. There is nothing wrong with five years at Guantanamo for people who have never been charged with a crime, but one night in prison is one too many for our close friends.
  

I'm convinced this is not just, or even, a gesture to a friend. I'm persuaded by Marcy Wheeler it is also a way to insure that Libby will not reveal what he knows about Cheney's and Bush's obstruction of justice in the Plame leak and who knows what all else. There isn't one single event that is the turning point in any trend, but this one shows that those who are guilty in Bush's campaign to dismantle the Constitution and establish a dynasty, will be taken care of and that American justice as we knew it (think Guantanamo, secret detention camps, firing US attorneys as well) no longer exists. If we don't stand up now to stop this assault, it will be much harder to stop things later on.

Even if you only say, "Commuting Libby's sentence is an outrage. I expect you as my (Representative/Senator) to do something immediately to get to the bottom of this" now is a good time to write to you legislators.

Other bloggers are all over this.

I've mentioned before a minor addiction to the Blog Next Hurrah and the key blogger there, Marcy Wheeler. She and her commenters mostly write with knowledge and insight. She sat through the Libby trial and blogged live from the Libby sentencing. She knows this as well as the attorneys involved almost.Here's what she has to say about commuting his sentence. Her take is that commuting Libby's sentence (and presumably the fat legal defense fund that was raised to help Libby will take care of the $250,000 fine) will ensure that Libby won't say what he knows about Bush and Cheney's involvement in obstructing justice. Here she is on MSNBC in the video.

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.

When is Innocent until Guilty the Rule?

Vic Kohring is just one of the politicians who have wanted to keep their elected positions despite being indicted.

Kohring said he couldn't answer specific questions about the case before it goes to trial.

"All I can say is that people have to remember that I am innocent until proven guilty," he said. (Anchorage Daily News)

John Havelock wrote a much needed commentary in the ADN yesterday, pointing out that "innocent until proven guilty" is the rule

When serving on a jury, empowered to deprive one of our fellow citizens of their freedom or even their life...

But that standard isn't the one we should or do use for other decisions.

No such principle should guide our judgment as individuals when we make decisions about who should we trust with our family or property, or who should be entrusted with public office. . .

Would you let your daughter go out with an accused rapist because, after all, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence?

And surely you wouldn't hire an accountant who had been indicted, but not yet proven guilty, of embezzlement. And elected officials are our employees in a sense. So when there are indicators of wrong doing, we have the right to explain themselves.

Appropriately, in business the employee exercising his legal right to remain silent may be fired if he does not offer, in short order, a persuasive counter to incriminating circumstances. This should also be true of the public officeholder, who can avoid criminally incriminating himself by speaking through a spokesman such as his lawyer. If he can't provide a reasonable explanation, then he should resign or be removed from office.

An indictment is not an offhand comment on talk radio or an anonymous post on the internet. As Havelock points out

A grand jury has found that evidence exists which, if believed, would establish guilt

Knowing when a rule applies and doesn't apply is important in life. Too often people throw out the rule of "Innocent until Proven Guilty" inappropriately. It is an important part of our legal rules, to prevent people from being deprived of life, liberty, or property by the state. And before indicted politicians are imprisoned or fined, that standard is important. But it isn't the standard on which to decide whether they should continue representing us in our government.

Cottonwood

Northern summer sun
Warms fragrant green cottonwoods
Soft snow covers ground

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.