Contributed by Josh Fryfogle
Recently David Eastman finally got a trial, a year or so after he was already found guilty and his sentence was executed.
He was accused, and convicted, by the Legislative Ethics Committee of revealing confidential information that they had never given to him. (Note: Finding a legislator guilty and sentencing them before trial is, itself, a black and white violation of Alaska state law, and one of many indiscretions in this rush to remove Eastman from the Ethics Committee). The whole story stinks, so I’ve spent some time digging into my Representative’s situation, and I feel a strong sense of personal obligation to make my fellow District 10 neighbors aware of how our representation in Juneau is undermined by this episode.
Here’s the gist.
Back in January of 2017, David Eastman was a newly-elected Representative, and was elected unanimously by the House of Representatives to serve on the Legislative Ethics Committee.
(That committee is tasked with making sure that our legislators and employees toe the line, ethically speaking - and that line is specifically defined in the Legislative Ethics Act - found here: http://ethics.akleg.gov/documents/ethics_code.pdf)
There were no meetings of the Ethics Committee until August 2017, but Eastman is accused of leaking that someone had filed an ethics complaint in April of 2017 - information that by statute could only have been revealed to him at an Ethics Committee meeting that didn’t happen until August of 2017.
If Eastman could only obtain this information through a confidential meeting that wouldn’t even occur until 4-5 months later, on August 16th, how exactly could he have leaked it to someone else in April?
And more strangeness... It was at his very first meeting of the Ethics Committee that Eastman was effectively found guilty of revealing the very information that the Ethics Committee had just given to him and the other legislator on the committee. Very strange.
The Ethics Committee speculates (emphasis on speculates) that Eastman might have heard about it through other means, specifically, from Steve Strait, who had filed the Ethics complaint in question. However, Steve Strait was present at the so-called ‘trial’ on July 17, 2018, and testified under oath that he does not personally know Eastman, and did not tell anyone about the complaint. I was actually there all day, at the ‘trial’, and I heard Strait’s testimony. Eastman also testified under oath that he did not personally know Steve Strait and both of them made it clear that they had never communicated with one another about the complaint, or anything else for that matter. Eastman's legislative staff was also investigated, and corroborated this.
(Translation: They have no proof)
Why wouldn’t Steve Strait tell anyone about this complaint? Good question.
Because these complaints are confidential, and if they are made public, then the person who the complaint is made against is automatically vindicated! The complaint goes away, if the confidentiality of the complaint is compromised.
Stop. Think about that for a moment.
The next and obvious question, who was this complaint against? Rep. Gabrielle Ledoux, that’s who. This whole episode has undone Steve Strait’s complaint against Ledoux - the Ethics Committee will not be able to investigate Strait’s complaint.
Convenient, if you are Ledoux, who was the only legislator who actually did receive a copy of the complaint back in April. Still, considering the anomalies of the situation, it’s worth taking note of - if you are concerned, as I am, that the Ethics Committee is perhaps being used for unethical purposes.
Speaking of strange anomalies, the only witness against Eastman was a reporter for the Alaska Journal of Commerce, who says that Eastman told her about this complaint (which would be illegal for him to do), and that he then told her to go tell on him - by telling the Ethics Committee that he had just broken the law.
Seriously, that’s the story.
Naomi Klouda is her name, and she no longer works for the Journal. The night before this ‘trial’, she called in sick. Seriously, fifteen months later, after an investigation that was started based on her word alone, at the last moment, she tells everyone she can’t be there to testify or to be cross-examined.
Another strange anomaly.
At this ‘trial’ - which only reaffirmed what the committee had already decided without a trial (or anything resembling due process) more than a year earlier - I discovered several things that cause me to seriously question the ethics of our state Ethics Committee. These are things that would cause any reasonable, unbiased person to question if it were even possible that Eastman had access to the information that he is accused of leaking. I will get into those details - and attempt to make sense of this nonsense - in future installments of this story.
However, one thing that really stands out, that should cause pause and concern among all Alaskans, is that the Ethics Committee, without their only witness, and with absolutely no proof that Eastman could have possibly known about this ethics complaint, much less leaked it, found him guilty. Again.
And what is their basis for this, their second ruling against Eastman?
They stated in their written ruling that they found no reason why Naomi Klouda would lie. Talk about strange!
Naomi Klouda was not accused, Eastman was. The committee cites no actual evidence, except the statement of a witness for the prosecution who failed to appear, while completely ignoring the statements of all four of the remaining witnesses who were in a position to know, each of whom confirmed that Representative Eastman and Steve Strait did not know each other and had not met or communicated with one another at any time in 2017. Did Steve Strait have a reason to lie?
It’s irrational, illogical, and reeks of unethical activity, but not on Eastman’s part.
I’m going to be writing about this in the coming months, because this all started in April 2017 when Eastman first blew the whistle on Gabrielle LeDoux's own unethical activity towards other legislators. A lot has happened since then. All of this confusion serves as a convenient foil to any rational consideration of this case.
I requested, in writing, all public information about this case - a Freedom of Information request - from the Legislative Ethics Committee, on July 19, three weeks ago. The committee has failed to give me the file. They have yet to give me anything. I have made a second request, also in writing.
I’ve also made similar requests with the FBI and Alaska Attorney General’s office, but only more recently, so I expect that they will respond shortly. Steve Strait testified that he also filed similar complaints with these two agencies as well, in regards to Ledoux.
There is so much more to this story, and as a District 10 constituent, I am going to continue to dig into it, and share more and more information about this developing story that the corporate media has decided not to report. This media blackout on the facts of the case is another strange anomaly, considering how the corporate media has honed in on Eastman in the past. Yet, for some reason, they remain silent on any of the obvious inconsistencies that are sitting on the surface of this situation.
Not one single member of the corporate media even made an appearance at this so-called 'trial'. Not one. Talk about strange anomalies!