Paul Anderson and his wife Floydeen
By Edward Snook
Snohomish County, Washington – On October 15, 2006, then 56-year-old Paul Anderson of Snohomish County was arrested by Sheriff Deputies and charged with Assault in the 4th-Degree DV (Domestic Violence).
Shortly after returning home from a Gun Show in Puyallup WA., Paul Anderson and his wife Floydeen were then confronted with their out of control daughter Elizabeth, who was under the dangerous influence of Methamphetamine (Meth).
Elizabeth had suffered from a Bipolar condition for a number of years. She substituted her medication with Meth and for months prior to this encounter, she had been on a downward spiral.
Anderson was a model citizen, with no criminal history. He possessed a Federal Firearms License - a license obtained only after extensive law-enforcement scrutiny - he didn’t even have a traffic infraction on his perfect record.
Anderson was literally shocked when his daughter attacked him in front of his home that night, falsely accusing him of past sex abuse. After assaulting her father, Elizabeth called 911 and claimed that her father had assaulted her and had threatened her with a weapon.
Sheriff’s deputies appeared at the Anderson home shortly after the 911 call and without much discussion with Anderson; they handcuffed him, placing him under arrest. Anderson was taken to jail for the first time in his life.
Like most people, Paul Anderson rushed to an attorney, paid him a retainer and was assured that everything would turn out good. After no meaningful investigation whatsoever, Anderson’s attorney Rene Cespedes of Bellevue, WA led Paul to trial in front of Snohomish County District Court Judge Patricia L. Lyon.
“I Felt Horrible and Dark Inside ... I Needed to Take It Out on Somebody”
-- Elizabeth Anderson
Snohomish County Prosecutor Andrew Alsdorf chose to prosecute Anderson even though Anderson’s daughter had recanted prior to trial. Even though Elizabeth had stopped taking Meth and had faced the deceptive world she had created, Alsdorf was not willing to investigate her claims, much less listen to her attempts to tell the truth.
Elizabeth had falsely accused her father of prior sex abuse and before starting the trial Alsdorf wanted to use the term past sex abuse in front of the jury. Judge Lyon ruled that he could use past abuse, but not past sex abuse, as it would be too prejudicial to Anderson. Her ruling was not only wrong, it verged on insanity and without question, it mirrored rulings made by the Star Chamber courts of England from 1487-1641.
Many times during the trial Alsdorf mentioned past abuse in front of the jury and in closing arguments he used the term a total of six times. In my thirty-years of court experience I have never encountered worse corruption in any trial. A naïve jury sat for a short six-hours and heard about Anderson’s past abuse of his daughter – Alsdorf never stated what the abuse was or when or where it occurred. The fact is, there was never any prior abuse, but yet the jury had to have believed that the defendant in the case they were listening to was a cruel and dangerous person – He was exactly the opposite.
Even in light of the unfair and corrupt trial, this jury deliberated for nine-hours before rendering their guilty verdict. Honestly, what option did they have, given the Star Chamber trial they witnessed and the fact that they were an “uninformed jury,” meaning that like most juries of today, they had no idea what the true rights of a jury are.
According to Anderson, upon being convicted he received the routine response from his attorney, “I can’t believe this. We will win this on appeal.” So, Anderson rushed out to an appellate attorney, hands them $7,000.00 and waits for a corrupted Superior Court’s decision. The Superior Court ruled against Paul Anderson and then a longtime Commissioner of the Court of Appeals did the same. This distraught man gave up at that point, until he hears from a friend that there is an organization called the US~Observer that might be able to help him.
Paul was successful in obtaining the assistance of the US~Observer and we have conducted a thorough investigation of his case – concluding that Paul Anderson is innocent, that he didn’t receive a fair trial and that the system that attacked him, did so in an extremely prejudice and unfair manner.
Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe is Now Responsible
Prosecutor Mark Roe didn’t prosecute Anderson and he wasn’t the elected prosecutor at the time of Anderson’s conviction, but he is now solely responsible because he is the elected official that can reverse Paul Anderson’s unwarranted tragedy. Above all else, Roe’s job is to seek justice, something most prosecutors forget as they conduct their duties of protecting the public from dangerous criminals.
The US~Observer has discovered new evidence in this case, which we fully intend to use to vindicate Anderson, however Paul Anderson should not have to pay any more attorneys in order to have his conviction vacated - period.
On March 3, 2011, I called Roe’s office and was informed by his clerk that he would return my call. I didn’t receive the call. On March 8, 2011 I mailed Prosecutor Roe a letter, requesting that he call me and discuss new evidence as well as the unfair trial. On March 21, 2011 I received a letter from Roe explaining that he had a deputy prosecutor “look into the matter.” Roe’s facts regarding procedure were right on point, however truth was absent…
Given Mr. Roe’s stance of being tough on crime, I believe that he and I would get along just fine. His unwillingness to discuss the truth regarding the Anderson false conviction is apparently placing us at odds.
It is the practice of the US~Observer to give public officials we encounter in any given case a chance to do the right thing before we take our issues public. Prosecutor Roe was given the opportunity to contact us. Prosecutor Roe chose to not discuss this matter or even inquire as to what evidence we have obtained that proves Paul Anderson’s innocence. The US~Observer will now take this case into the “Court of Public Opinion.”
In this case no one can blame the jury, because they heard very little truth – they did however, hear false and damaging charges without any basis whatsoever.
Prosecutor Mark Roe would be wise and better serve justice if he would take the time to look into how the US~Observer’s Court of Public Opinion works. He simply needs to Google Deschutes County, Oregon District Attorney Michael Dugan or Nye County, Nevada Prosecutor Robert Beckett to read the results.
Don’t miss our next edition wherein we will provide a more detailed account of Paul Anderson’s false prosecution and subsequent conviction. Anyone with information about Prosecutor Mark Roe, Deputy Prosecutor Andrew Alsdorf and Judge Patricia Lyon is urged to contact Edward Snook at 541-474-7885.
All information is deemed strictly confidential.
Edward Snook’s Note: On the positive side – Elizabeth Anderson is turning out to be a productive, quality person and has turned her life completely around, due in great part to her father’s love. How ironic – while most men would have disowned a daughter for what transpired, Paul Anderson and his wife Floydeen realized their daughter needed help and they committed themselves to helping her - it worked…