Crime & Courts

The Alaska Supreme Court has ordered disgraced former U.S. District Court Judge Joshua Kindred to be disbarred, meaning he is no longer allowed to practice law in Alaska.

In an order published Friday, the three state Supreme Court justices deciding the case agreed with the Alaska Bar Association that Kindred – who resigned in 2024 from a lifetime appointment as a federal judge – should lose his license to practice law in Alaska. Two justices recused themselves.

Kindred did not participate in the formal proceedings, which began when the Bar Association filed a petition for disbarment in mid-September, according to the order and attached documents.

“I think the order itself, it speaks for itself,” said Phil Shanahan, counsel for the Bar Association. “Mr. Kindred didn’t participate, which probably made it a little bit faster than it would have been had a lawyer participated in the process.”

Mirroring a report from the federal 9th Circuit Judicial Council released days after Kindred’s resignation, the 67-page Alaska Supreme Court order includes information about Kindred’s inappropriate, sexualized relationships with two federal prosecutors, including a woman who had served as one of his law clerks. Other allegations included that Kindred created a hostile, sexualized work environment and that he lied to investigators about the relationships, which, in the case of one federal prosecutor, involved her sending him nude photos.

Kindred’s resignation and the unfolding scandal caused the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Alaska, where the two prosecutors worked, to review dozens of cases for potential conflicts of interest. At least two defendants have won new trials, after their attorneys argued inappropriate relationships among federal prosecutors and the judge resulted in their clients getting unfair treatment.

Every morning, Alaska’s court system publishes an updated list of new civil lawsuits filed across the state during the past week.

And every morning, that list is dominated by debt collection cases, newly filed by credit card companies, debt collection firms or businesses seeking repayment. On Tuesday, of the 115 listed cases, 84 were for debt collections.

In the first nine months of 2022, the court system saw 1,869 debt collection cases filed. Every year since then, the number has risen. Through the first nine months of this year, there were 3,447, almost double the figure filed in 2022.

“It’s pretty wild, the rise of them,” said attorney Stacey Stone, who practices in Alaska and is familiar with the issue.

Alaska isn’t alone in the upward trend — nationally, the number of collection lawsuits is rising after an ebb during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.

January Advisors, a national data consulting firm that noted the rising trend in August, concluded that multiple factors may be driving it.

During the COVID-19 emergency, many Americans received financial aid that helped them pay down debt and build savings. Those programs have now ended, and American consumer debt is now at record highs, according to figures published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The number of people who are behind on their credit card payments is also on the rise, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reported earlier this year, and the number of car repossessions is rising.

Automated software programs also are making it easier for companies to more easily file large numbers of debt collection cases.

In June, the National Center on State Courts concluded that easier access to generative AI software is likely to increase filings in contract cases, like debt collections.

Typically, a credit card company or medical provider will try first to get payment on an overdue bill directly. But if a bill still goes unpaid, many companies will deem the debt uncollectable. At that point, they sell the rights to the debt to a collections company.

The sale means the company with the unpaid bill will get at least some money, and then it becomes the collections company’s job to try to recoup the debt and earn money for itself.

Court filings in Alaska and elsewhere indicate that debt collection companies are filing more cases in an attempt to collect on the unpaid debts they’ve bought.

Two researchers with The Pew Charitable Trusts, in a September analysis, said that can have significant consequences for regular people.

People who are sued for consumer or medical debt rarely hire attorneys, they noted, and in many cases, people may not even be aware that they are being sued.

The Debt Collection Lab — a research group that includes Princeton University — found that in Oregon, private collection agencies filed the bulk of lawsuits on behalf of credit card companies, health care providers and utilities.

Only four percent of debt defendants responded to the cases filed against them, and as a result, Oregon courts awarded default judgments in favor of the debt collectors in almost seven of 10 debt cases filed between 2017 and 2023.

Data on the result of Alaska cases was not immediately available, but a preliminary examination of court dockets and filing patterns by the Alaska Beacon shows that the trends in Alaska are similar to those in other states.

A frequent filer in Alaska courts, a national debt-buying company called LVNV Funding, increased its filings by 350% in a handful of states between 2019 and 2024, January Advisors found.

In Connecticut, the top 10 most frequent filers in debt cases accounted for more than 80% of all debt cases filed in that state last year, January Advisors found, indicating that the most frequent filers are stepping up their aggressiveness.

“More people are defaulting on their debt right now because people are living paycheck to paycheck for various reasons, so I think you do have an organic process happening, but also there’s an aggressive process happening that’s uncharacteristic,” Stone said.

In Alaska, even a state representative has faced a debt-collection lawsuit whose details appear typical of the kinds of cases being filed here.

On Oct. 27, a debt collection firm known as Jefferson Capital Systems filed suit in Anchorage District Court against Rep. Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River.

According to the complaint, Allard took out a loan from Celtic Bank in 2023 and didn’t fully repay it. Celtic Bank subsequently transferred the debt — just $1,075 — to Jefferson Capital, which filed the lawsuit.

The attorney who filed the lawsuit didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Allard didn’t know about the suit until she was contacted by the Alaska Beacon, which was already writing this article.

“Oh my God; I had no idea what this was about,” she said.

Stone is Allard’s attorney and said cases like these seem to come out of left field. She said they tend to be filed in bulk, and as a result, they may be inaccurate, especially when a case is filed by a third-party firm that has purchased debt from another source.

Allard has an attorney; most Alaskans named as defendants in a debt-collection case don’t have that, according to a review of online court records.

Unlike in criminal cases, the state is not required to assign someone an attorney.

In most instances, that leaves the defendant to represent themselves or to seek help from a group like the Alaska Legal Services Corporation, a nonprofit that provides legal help to many Alaskans in civil lawsuits.

Maggie Humm, the corporation’s director, said it doesn’t have enough funding to take on every request for help that it receives, but it is seeing a surge in the number of requests for help on debt collection cases.

From 2022 through 2024, “there was a 61% increase in applications for all consumer protection matters,” which includes debt collections, said Humm.

Though the group hasn’t closed out this year, Humm said the number of people seeking help is about the same as last year.

If an Alaskan doesn’t respond to a debt collection lawsuit and a court issues a default judgment on behalf of a debt collection agency, a judge could order the garnishment of part of their income.

“Here in Alaska, we know that collectors file more cases because we have the Permanent Fund dividend … and they can garnish a percentage of it if they get a default judgment,” Humm said.

A court order also might allow a debt collector to go after someone’s checking account, other assets or — in the case of a member of the military — their military pay.

Humm said Alaskans who receive a legal complaint for debt collection should do their best to respond. She suggested they ask for help from the corporation, or get other help via online resources.

In September, the New York Times analyzed the surge of debt collection lawsuits and noted that part of the reason for the surge is that people don’t bother to defend themselves in court.

A court defense may make someone less attractive as a target, the Times found, and if more people defended themselves, debt collectors might begin seeing lawsuits as an unprofitable way to do business.

The five members of Alaska’s highest court heard arguments last Thursday in a long-running dispute between the operators of a Christian camp and the Fairbanks North Star Borough about whether or not the camp qualifies for an exemption from local property taxes.

Though the dispute involves only a single camp in Fairbanks, the justices’ ruling could redraw the limits that decide when religious groups’ operations qualify for tax exemptions in Alaska.

In court, an attorney representing the borough and one representing the camp’s operator, Victory Ministries of Alaska, said the key question is whether Camp Li-Wa was used exclusively for charitable purposes during 2021.

The borough and Victory Ministries disagree on other years’ taxes, but only one dispute was escalated to the Supreme Court.

The borough contends that because Victory Ministries operates a Christian Bible camp for only two months during the year, it should not be able to claim tax-exempt status for the remaining 10 months of the year, or on buildings not used by the camp.

In arguing its case, the borough submitted advertising material published by Victory Ministries that described the camp as “currently one of the finest retreat locations in the Interior of Alaska” and said it was advertised for vacations, recreation and other profitable purposes, not just charity.

The borough also submitted financial documents obtained from Camp Li-Wa, suggesting that the camp was used more for commercial, profitable purposes than charitable ones.

Victory Ministries fought back, saying that the camp operates at a deficit, and — among other arguments — that paying users are not required to be nonprofit groups, and that charity can involve self-care and pleasure.

In 2024, a Fairbanks Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the borough, causing the defendants to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In part, the operators of Camp Li-Wa argue that the borough and superior court “erred by improperly limiting what constitutes ‘charitable activity’ in violation of the state constitutional protections.”

Janella Kamai, attorney for Victory Ministries of Alaska, told the justices that while Camp Li-Wa may offer programs like horseback riding for a fee, “The fun activities, it’s just a sideline. The purpose is to provide the churches, the schools, with a place for them to host their own spiritual retreats and community events.”

She said the camp’s mission applies even if someone who isn’t religious comes to the camp. “You have to understand that Victory operates to both evangelize and proselytize. Evangelism means they’re going to bring people onto the campus so that they can introduce them to the concepts of Christian camping, introduce them to Camp Li-Wa, so if they want to know more, they can,” Kamai said.

In many cases, the camp is being used as a religious retreat, she said.

Ehren Lohse, the attorney representing the Fairbanks North Star Borough, said that under the borough’s definitions, a retreat isn’t a charitable activity.

“A retreat, by definition, is time away from your other work. So they may be doing charitable and religious work at their normal places,” he said of camp users, “but when they’re having a retreat, that can happen anywhere.”

Justice Dario Borghesan said that raises a problem for the justices: There’s no way to know whether camp users were engaging in religious activity or taking a break.

“I’m just not sure how ultimately this gets resolved,” he said.

The court took the case under consideration at the end of Thursday’s hearing and will issue a written order at a future date.

On Wednesday, the Alaska Supreme Court heard arguments in a legal case that will determine whether or not the state of Alaska may restrict abortion care to licensed physicians.

Since 2019, attorneys representing Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky, have been challenging a state law setting out that restriction. They argue that advanced practice clinicians should be permitted to provide abortion care, even though they are not licensed physicians.

The law, enacted in 1970, has been partially suspended since 2021, which has allowed advanced practice clinicians to perform abortions. In 2024, Alaska Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, continuing the suspension.

The state of Alaska, which opposes Planned Parenthood’s interpretation of the law, appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court in hopes of restoring the law’s effectiveness.

The deciding issue may be whether strict scrutiny applies in the case. Under strict scrutiny, the government bears the burden of proving that a law is constitutional.

In 2024, Alaska Superior Court Judge Josie Garton ruled that strict scrutiny does apply, which contributed to her determination that limiting abortion services to state-licensed physicians violates the Alaska Constitution.

In written briefs to the Supreme Court this year, attorneys representing the state have argued that Garton’s ruling was mistaken; attorneys representing Planned Parenthood have argued in favor of the strict scrutiny determination.

If Garton’s decision on strict scrutiny is overturned, the rest of her decision could follow, and advanced practice clinicians would no longer be legally able to provide abortion care in Alaska.

In Alaska, abortion rights have generally been protected since 1997 by the Alaska Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state’s constitutional right to privacy.

Since then, subsequent editions of the court have repeatedly held that abortion care is health care and thus protected by the right of Alaskans to keep medical decisions private.

Attorney Laura Wolff, representing the Alaska Department of Law, argued Wednesday that the physician-only abortion law doesn’t violate the constitutional right to privacy because few people have been affected.

“The privacy clause analysis requires a significant impairment,” she told the justices. “Not a modest, not a medium, a moderate, a significant impairment, in order to even trigger the privacy clause.”

Attorney Camila Vega, arguing for Planned Parenthood, said some of the group’s clients have been able to access care more often because they no longer have to wait for a doctor to be available.

She said that it would be a mistake for the Supreme Court to require that a minimum number of patients be affected in order to violate the constitution.

“This court has never before required evidence about a threshold number of individual patients to strike down a law, and we would urge the court not to do so here,” she said. “The evidence … shows that since the injunction in this case, patients have been better able to access medication and aspiration abortion. They’ve been doing so for the last four years, and so we respectfully request that the court affirm the order.”

National and local groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Planned Parenthood. Standing Together Against Rape, an Alaska group, argued that restricting access to abortion care would harm abuse victims and survivors of sexual assault.

The national groups argued that advanced practice clinicians are able to provide safe and effective abortion care, and there’s no difference in outcomes between their care and care provided by doctors.

Planned Parenthood has also argued that even if the Alaska Constitution’s privacy amendment does not apply in this case, the abortion-doctor law would violate the constitution’s equal protection clause.

That clause states “that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights.”

Restricting abortion patients to doctor treatment alone deters them from getting treatment, Vega said.

“For example, if the state offered marriage appointments twice a week, but it said that for same-sex couples, you could only get a marriage appointment once a month, that is a clear equal protection violation,” she said.

The state argued in writing that it has a valid interest “in ensuring that these procedures ending fetal life are performed ethically, professionally, and under a uniform standard,” and because of that reason, the Alaska Legislature intended abortion to be regulated to a higher standard.

At the end of Wednesday’s arguments, Chief Justice Susan Carney said the case will be taken under consideration, with a written order to be published at a future date.

President Donald Trump plans to nominate Aaron Peterson, an attorney with the Alaska Department of Law’s natural resources division, for one of two open federal judgeships on the bench of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.

The president’s plans were confirmed by the news organization Reuters, which published a copy of a questionnaire Peterson submitted to the U.S. Senate’s judiciary committee.

Trump himself has not formally announced Peterson’s nomination, but state and federal officials confirmed the president’s plans with the Beacon.

Reuters reported that Trump is preparing to nominate two federal judges in other states as well as Peterson.

A message left on Peterson’s work phone was not returned Tuesday afternoon.

According to a copy of Peterson’s questionnaire, a member of Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s federal transition team encouraged him to apply to a committee formed by Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, to vet possible candidates for the federal judiciary.

According to state voter records, Peterson is a Republican. He identified himself in the questionnaire as a member of the Federalist Society, whose members generally follow Republican legal principles and support President Donald Trump.

Records published by the Federal Elections Commission and the Alaska Public Offices Commission do not list any political contributions by Peterson.

Attorney General-designee Stephen Cox served on the Sullivan committee. By email, he called Peterson an “outstanding choice.”

“He’s demonstrated a remarkable ability to navigate complex issues with fairness and integrity, including during his representation of the Board of Fisheries. His extensive understanding of both civil and criminal law, honed through his experience as a prosecutor, makes him uniquely qualified for this position. Alaska needs judges who are equipped to handle the complex cases before them and the realities of our state, and I am confident that Aaron will be an excellent addition to the bench,” Cox wrote.

Alaska has three federal judgeships but only one sitting federal judge. Judge Timothy Burgess retired at the end of 2021, and Judge Joshua Kindred resigned in disgrace in 2024 amid a sexual scandal.

Since then, Alaska’s two U.S. senators have been divided about who to pick as replacements and how to pick those replacements. Under longstanding Senate tradition, judge picks normally advance only with the assent of both home state senators.

As a result of the senators’ disagreements and Sullivan’s decision to not attempt to fill a vacancy under President Joe Biden, the judgeship vacated by Burgess is now the fifth-oldest vacancy among 50 in the federal court system.

Sullivan has not disclosed the names of judicial candidates that he examined through a special committee designed to serve as an alternative to the Alaska Bar Association’s traditional review process.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, disclosed the names of applicants she received and solicited opinions from the Bar Association. Peterson’s application was not among those initially received by Murkowski.

Through a spokesperson, Murkowski said she learned about Peterson’s nomination from the White House.

“After speaking extensively with him last week about his many qualifications, I informed the White House that I would support his nomination. Alaska’s District Court has had two vacancies for far too long, and I hope the White House will soon announce a second qualified nominee whom I can support to fill out the bench,” Murkowski said.

According to Peterson’s questionnaire, he met with Murkowski on Oct. 23, seven months after being interviewed by Sullivan and four months after his initial interview by the White House Counsel’s Office. Since September, according to the questionnaire, he has been in regular contact with White House and Department of Justice officials.

By email, Sullivan said Peterson has “extensive legal experience.”

“Throughout his career, which includes military service, Aaron has demonstrated a commitment to the rule of law and federalism. He also understands the principle that the job of a federal judge is to interpret the law, not to make policy,” Sullivan said. “I’d like to thank each of the members of the Alaska Federal Judiciary Council, who worked with me to fully vet a number of well-qualified Alaska nominees, including Aaron. The council’s diligent work and input are invaluable in ensuring Alaskans are represented by jurists and citizens of the highest caliber. I also want to thank President Trump and his team for working closely with my office on identifying outstanding judges who will serve Alaska and our country well.”

According to the information Peterson submitted to the U.S. Senate’s judiciary committee, he was born in Anchorage in 1981 and served in the U.S. Air Force from 2000 to 2003 before attending the University of Alaska Anchorage, graduating in 2007. He attended Gonzaga University School of Law and graduated in 2010.

After graduation, he returned to Alaska, serving first as a clerk to Justice Michael Spaan of the Alaska Supreme Court, then as a prosecutor with the Municipality of Anchorage.

The Alaska Bar Association’s directory says he was admitted to the state bar on Nov. 16, 2010.

Peterson worked in the Anchorage District Attorney’s office starting in 2012, including on violent felonies, such as murder and sexual assault. He moved to the Department of Law’s office of special prosecutions in 2015 before beginning work with the Department of Law’s natural resources section in 2019.

Since joining that section, he’s prosecuted high-profile criminal cases, including a 2018 incident in which two Matanuska-Susitna Borough men illegally killed a black bear and her two squealing cubs within their den.

More recently, Peterson has represented the state in an ongoing case that challenges the state’s current two-tier system of subsistence fishing management. He also represented the state in a lawsuit that challenged salmon fishery management in Cook Inlet.

“If confirmed,” Peterson said in his questionnaire, “I will recuse myself from any case where I have ever played a role. Further, I will evaluate any potential conflict or issue that could give rise to the appearance of a conflict, on a case-by-case basis and determine appropriate action, including recusal where necessary.”

The former Juneau Police Department officer who slammed a man to the ground during an arrest this summer will not face criminal charges.

The state’s Office of Special Prosecutions cleared former JPD Officer Brandon LeBlanc for his use of force during the arrest. The July incident, which was recorded by a witness, circulated widely online and prompted a public outcry.

The man arrested during the incident, whose family has publicly identified him as Christopher Williams, Jr., appeared to lie unconscious for the remainder of the video. He was later medevaced out of town. 

Tuesday’s statement from the Office of Special Prosecutions says after a review of the evidence and an independent investigation conducted by the Alaska State Troopers’ Alaska Bureau of Investigation, the office determined “it would not criminally charge Officer LeBlanc for the incident.”

Following the July incident, Leblanc was placed on paid administrative leave. He later resigned from his position just a day before JPD released the body-worn camera footage of the arrest. 

In a legal summary of the incident from Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox, the office chastised the city for releasing the footage before the investigation was complete, saying it “indicates a lack of serious intent to allow for an independent review of the potential criminal charges.” 

The office urged the city to reconsider its policy mandating that the Juneau Police Department release body-worn camera footage no more than 30 days after an incident. 

In the letter, it stated that LeBlanc said he feared for his own safety during the incident and that he had been taught the “takedown maneuver” as part of training prior to his time in Alaska. He also told investigators that he thought he had learned a variation during a Department of Public Safety recertification training in 2024. But OSP says the technique was not taught during the training he attended.

Earlier this month, Juneau Police Chief Derek Bos said the department is taking action to reform its policies after conducting an internal investigation of the incident. He defended the department’s hiring of LeBlanc during a presentation to the Juneau Assembly in late September, saying he firmly believes that LeBlanc is “a good officer who made a very bad mistake.” 

A man previously sued LeBlanc for excessive force and battery while he served as an officer in Louisiana. A jury found LeBlanc not guilty.