SCO 1993 Series: The Alaska Department of Law meets with concerned citizens identifying official corruption
March 22, 2025
The Conservative Fem
Nothing great comes easily. Sometimes it takes decades of
false starts, speed bumps and disappointments. Many social movements fizzle out
just as quickly as they begin, because it can be emotionally and physically
exhausting when you feel like you are in a battle all alone.
The government designed to serve the people subjugated
Alaskans right under their noses. In November 2022, Alaska Supreme Court Order
1993 (SCO 1993) changed Criminal Rule 6 and 6.1’s grand jury rules to prevent
active complaints against the State reaching a “civil investigative grand
jury”.
These rule changes inspired Alaskans across the State to
attend protests and to speak before legislatures at the local levels. The
Alaska Grand Jurors Association was created by citizens to advocate for
solutions that would address judicial accountability and corruption.
Recent updates of this story have surrounded Alaskan David
Haeg and the Alaska Grand Jurors Association. On February 12, 2025, Haeg met
with the Alaska Department of Law to discuss judicial corruption and to ask
Governor Mike Dunleavy to establish a committee to investigate judicial
corruption.
Haeg’s criminal case was brought to the attention of a grand
jury due to Haeg’s personal experience with judicial corruption. When Haeg’s
evidence of corruption was prevented from being reviewed by a willing grand
jury, it led to the creation of the Alaska Grand Jurors Association.
This association is meant to inform grand jurors of the laws
regarding the duties and functions jurors play in civil grand jury
investigations. Its goal is to overturn SCO 1993. Also, to restore, or improve,
civil grand jury laws. That provided access for Alaskans to investigate the
government for being the risk to the “public safety and welfare”.
AGJA and multiple boroughs in Alaska officially supported a
review of the rules made in SCO 1993. This led to the governor of Alaska, Mike
Dunleavy, to have officials meet with Haeg to discuss how the Alaska Department
of Law and active citizens can create a process that is fair. Rule changes
affected the process that allowed complaints against the state. Historically,
in Alaska, it is only when an official is under the microscope does the State
of Alaska change the rules of the civil grand jury.
At the request of the Governor, the Feb 12 meeting with Haeg
was with the Department of Law. This meeting began with confusion. The
officials were not in agreement with Haeg as to what was the purpose of the
meeting. Haeg’s purpose and expectation for the meeting was to “discuss and
present evidence that would require the governor to appoint an independent
commission to publicly investigate judicial corruption.”
The meeting did not go as planned. Haeg was under the
impression that he would be able to present evidence of corruption to prove
there is a need for a civil grand jury. This did not happen, because there was
not an equal
Governor Mike Dunleavy tasked the Department of Law to
discuss the future of the grand jury with Haeg, among others. The officials present were:
Department of Law Deputy Attorney General Cori Mills and
Chief Assistant Attorney General Anne Helzer.
Cori Mills – Deputy Attorney General
Alaska Department of Law
1031 W. 4th Ave., Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907)269-51026
Anne Helzer - Chief Assistant Attorney General
Alaska Department of Law
1031 W. 4th Ave., Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
Anne.Helzer@alaska.gov
Concerned Alaskans in attendance:
Mat-Su Borough Mayor Edna DeVries; Kenai Peninsula Borough Mayor Pete
Micciche; Ric Davidge of the Alaska Roundtable; Funny River Board member Don
Fritz; and David Haeg of the Alaska Grand Jurors Association.
The officials began the meeting by explaining they would not
be able to go forward without speaking with their superiors and the governor.
Haeg felt the meeting’s purpose was clear based on the title of his letter to
the governor. He requested a commission to be formed to review evidence of
judicial corruption. Haeg expected to use his evidence to prove the need of the
corruption committee.
“Is there a reason why you can’t have the meeting the way
the governor requested? And we requested?” Haeg initially asked.
Mills explained she was, “[T]asked to take on the
investigative grand jury process. And how we can improve the grand jury
process. And how we can improve that. Based on, unfortunately, the rules that
were handed down by the Alaska Supreme Court, you might not agree with, but
we’re trying to do our best.”
“It seems to us, like, you’ll never meet about an
independent commission to investigate corruption in public. Is that true? I
mean will you ever agree to discuss that and the evidence?” Haeg calmly asked.
“So, what, that’s, I, I take, I take my orders. You know, I
take my directions. So, what I can tell you is that I will take this back. And
I will, I will talk about it and bring that request up. I, I cannot make that
decision. That is not in my authority,” said Mills.
“OK, whose authority is it in?” asked Haeg.
“Well, again, we, we, work with the Attorney General and the
Governor’s office on what we should do.”
Anne chimed in, “The investigative grand jury, if we can
refine it, would be an appropriate forum for your concern about judicial
corruption. So, if we can get this kind of straightened out, and nailed down
into a way that you think would be acceptable, um, to the public, or to better
the public interest, I think everyone wins.”
“I have been tasked, among other things, to look at the
investigative grand jury process, and to see how it can be improved, if it can
be improved,” said Mills.
And there it is. The veil has slipped. The State plans to
side with a legal movement to abolish the grand jury to go directly to trials.
I covered this topic in my article named The Alaska Grand Jury: The State’s“Need for Process” Scam.
This meeting was a reminder of the complexities of due
process, and how it prevented the officials from discussing evidence of alleged
crimes. Due process is a right for all citizens, government or judiciary
officers included, and would prevent a public flogging of an official.
This proves the need for an independent investigative body
to identify judicial corruption for the public interest. Civil investigative
grand juries are not the same as the kind we see in criminal dramas on TV.
Historically, until SCO 1993, a civil investigative grand jury had the
independence to publish investigative reports, make recommendations, issue
subpoenas and make indictments.
Some evidence in Haeg’s possession related to a criminal
case against Judge Margaret Murphy. She was charged with perjury for allegedly
lying about her time as the judge over Haeg’s penalty phase of this trial. Her
charges were dismissed because the grand jury that ordered the indictment were
told by prosecutors that they could have their vote without a full jury.
One juror went missing before the vote could be held. The
indictment went forward, but the above technicality led to her case being
dismissed. Haeg and Ric Davidge were not allowed to address this blatant
disregard for the law. They showed concern for the juror that went missing. We
cannot ask serious questions because the DOL must worry about due process
violations and the liability of slander. If an official is affected by the
disclosures, the official may make a claim of privacy violations, harassment, and
wrongful terminations.
“I, I understand that the public, I, I, get that and I
completely agree with you on, on, a point. And I, I, personally said this a
number of times. We need trust in our court system. We need trust in our
criminal justice system. I, I, am with you 100% on that. I just, I want to keep
this meeting to what it is only because I don’t feel comfortable,” said Mills.
“I don’t feel like I’m the person to evaluate what, what, whether this is…
Before the meeting, The AG’s Agenda explained, “The parties
agree that the Department of Law will not consider discussion of any persons,
circumstances, situations or evidence presented…in support of any past or
present claim of systemic corruption or “judicial corruption” at this meeting.”
Haeg wished to provide examples of corruption to convince
the Governor and the Department of Law to establish a committee to investigate
judicial corruption. How does a person explain the need, and solutions, to make
corrections to the system without explaining the action that was in question?
In a follow-up letter to the Governor, Haeg explained,
“After we provided the Department of Health with our agenda [], it emailed back
and stated that unless we agreed to their agenda, they would cancel the
meeting,” wrote Haeg.
Regardless of the impasse between both parties during the
meeting, Haeg felt the publicized meeting would enlighten the people of the
difficulties AGJA has been facing. Haeg explained, “I feel positive about the
meeting because everybody agrees that it positively shows the Department of Law
cannot discuss the evidence because it implicates the Department of Law
corruption and cover-up.”
This was an excellent exercise for “We the People” to watch on social media. The officials showed an inability to answer questions and denied looking at evidence. It displayed the conflict-of-interest the Department of Law has when it can prevent the petitioning of a civil grand jury investigation into the government.
What is the Alaska Grand Jurors Association?
The Alaska Grand Jurors Association is a grassroots group
with a mission that centers on advocating for a judicial system that is
transparent and accountable to the citizens. The fight for justice in Alaska
has taken center stage as the Alaska Grand Jurors Association champions a cause
that resonates deeply with those concerned about government corruption and
court integrity.
AGJA began with a small group of unsatisfied Alaskans. It
has now garnered the attention of thousands of Alaskans. The injustices these
citizens saw the government and courts doing to its citizens only lit a fire
within the citizens of the AGJA. With every article published, one more
informed citizen becomes kindling for their fires. And, like a frog in a
boiling pot, the judges and officials are brewing and need to find the exit.
What are the lessons and solutions ascertained from this meeting?
A key lesson learned in law is that most legal issues have
precedence, and do not require writing laws from scratch. Currently, only
California and Nevada continue to have civil grand juries used as “Watchdogs”
of government corruption. Alaskan writers of future legislation may draft their
own version in accordance with the laws of Alaska. Unlike when the government
hastily passed SCO 1993’s rules, the Rules Committee shall be given
“reasonable” time to review the new legislation before a vote on the bill is
made on the House floor.
I will join anyone that is ready to research and write our
own version of the grand jury rules in Alaska. In the next meeting with the
government to discuss SCO 1993, we should provide a legitimate alternative to
the rules SCO 1993 established.
If we use the laws of California, we might request a separation of the grand jury statutes to reflect the differences between a criminal and civil investigative grand jury. The processes for the two grand juries would be described separately. This may take repealing of CR 6 and 6.1, and implementing the language used by California or Nevada’s grand jury laws. California’s grand jury process provides an example of the "process" Alaska may establish in accordance with Alaska laws.
California's Grand Jury Laws have been developed by decades of Californians advocating for government accountability. Click Here for the California Grand Jury laws.
Also, AGJA has advocated for the governor to establish a commission to investigate corruption within the State and its courts. Changing the rules created under the new CR 6 and 6.1 is a difficult feat. As it requires the collaboration of multiple agencies.
On the other hand, Governor Dunleavy has the authority to establish a commission to investigate corruption. According to the
Alaska Constitution, Article 3, Section 16, Governor’s Authority:
“The governor shall be responsible for the faithful
execution of the laws. He may, by appropriate court action or proceeding
brought in the name of the State, enforce compliance with any constitutional or
legislative power, duty, or right by an officer, department, or agency of the
State or any of its political subdivisions. The authority shall not be
construed to authorize any action or proceeding against the legislature.”
Also, Article 3, Section 26, Boards and Commissions, states:
“When a board or commission is at the head of a principal
department or a regulatory or quasi-judicial agency, its members shall be
appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members
of the legislature in joint session and may be removed as provided by law.
They shall be citizens of the United States. The board or commission may
appoint a principal executive officer when authorized by law, but the
appointment shall be subject to the approval of the governor.”
The concern of using a commission to address corruption is
the level of transparency compared to the secrecy of a grand jury. An accused
official may claim the denial of their due process if exposed. This is a
similar argument used when civil investigative grand juries publish reports
without issuing an indictment.
The civil grand jury is done in secrecy, and it is not a
sure thing the jury will publish a report. The grand jury protections afforded
to an accused official may be preferable than the use of a commission to
investigate official wrongdoing.
The purpose of a civil grand jury is meant to avoid the
conflicts-of-interest at play during this recent meeting. Even behind closed
doors, these officials would not likely discuss their employees with citizens
proving corruption.
It appears the only avenue for citizens to claim the State
is a risk to public safety and welfare is by having an independent body led by
a “special prosecutor”. An attorney that is not employed by the State would be appointed
to be prosecutor in a complaint. Although, new rules made by SCO 1993 essentially
made this role Ineffective and with no true independence.
Alaskans should be asking their political officials to take
a thorough look into the rules made by SCO 1993. We must educate ourselves to
be an informed citizenry. We must maintain our stamina, because this kind of
battle isn’t a sprint. It’s a marathon.
Comments
Post a Comment