THANK YOU FOR coming in,” Loughman said, as he sized up the prosecutor from Honolulu. Word had it that Lowell Oxley was an arrogant son of a bitch.

     “Like I had a choice,” Oxley said, almost under his breath. He sat across from Loughman with his arms folded across his chest, head held high, glaring defiantly at him.

     “You’re here of your own free will,” Loughman said, with just a hint of a smile forming at the edge of his mouth. He thought it might be interesting to see how this prosecutor liked sitting in the hot seat for a change.

     “Should I have my lawyer present?” If Oxley was uneasy, he wasn’t showing it

     “That’s entirely up to you. You’re not being charged with anything at this point.” Loughman dropped his gaze from Oxley’s fixed stare, scanning the top page of his stack of notes.

     “Then exactly why am I here?” Oxley decided to take the offensive.

     “We’d like to ask you a few questions,” Loughman said, as he donned a pair of half-height, black-rimmed reading glasses

     “Who’s behind the mirror?” Oxley shifted his gaze from Loughman to the large one-way mirror that featured prominently across most of one wall.

     “Mr. Oxley, you were the lead prosecutor in the United States v. David Ruskjer case at the end of last year, is that correct?” Loughman asked.

     Oxley’s face showed both surprise and relief at this question. “Is that what this is about?”

     “If you’d please just answer the question.” Loughman was going to play it strictly by the book.

     “Yes,” Oxley said. “However, I fail to see how that could possibly be of any impact on national security.”

     Loughman removed his glasses and looked directly at Oxley. “Sir, we’ll all get through this a whole lot faster if you’ll confine your answers to the questions that are being asked. You successfully prosecuted Ruskjer on forty-one of forty-two counts of fraud, did you not?”

     Oxley interrupted him. “I would have got him on all forty-two if some jerk -- that’s short for junior clerk -- had written down the correct date from that check.”

     “Did you, personally, feel that Ruskjer was guilty as charged?” Loughman asked, like it was a routine everyday question.

     “What kind of question is that?” Oxley asked. “I don’t get paid to feel. I get paid to convict criminals and that’s what I did.”

     “We’re not in a courtroom now,” Loughman said, “and you’re not being paid to do anything other than to answer my questions. I’m asking you, do you think Ruskjer is truly guilty of lying to the people who gave him money?”

     “Of course he’s guilty,” Oxley bristled. “You think I go around trumping up charges just for the fun of it?”

     Loughman put his glasses back on and looked down at his notes as he said, almost in passing, “Well, do you?”

     Oxley looked truly indignant as he straightened his seventy-three-year-old shoulders and blustered, “I’m not going to dignify that with a response.”

     “You stated in your opening remarks,” Loughman said without reacting to Oxley’s theatrics, “that he planned this scheme from the very beginning to bilk his investors -- starting with his mother. -- Is that what you still believe?”

     “OK,” Oxley said, having recovered from his outburst. “You wanna know what I believe? I believe that originally, he prob’ly thought he was onto something,. I think he thought he had a winner. But if he ever bothered to look at the very first statement from Ameritrade, after trading for only one or two days, he would have had to have known that it wasn’t working. And yet he continued for fifty more months. So yes, at least after he got his first statement, I believe he knew he was losing his shirt, but he continued to tell people that he was making money. I believe he knew he was lying when he told them that.”

     “So, if I’m hearing you correctly, what you believe is that Ruskjer did not design this scheme from the very beginning to bilk his investors.” Loughman was making notes as he talked, which slowed both processes considerably.

     “According to what you just said,” Loughman continued, “he believed his strategy would work, and then, based on information from Ameritrade’s first statement, he should have known that it wasn’t. After that point, you believe he started lying to people about his strategy’s performance.” He looked up at Oxley. “Would that be an accurate paraphrase?”

     “I’d agree with that,” Oxley said, nodding in approval.

     “Ultimately,” Loughman said, “this case really boils down to lying, doesn’t it, Mr Oxley? Your job was to make Ruskjer out to be a pathological liar, and you apparently succeeded.”

     “He is, and I did,” Oxley said proudly.

     Loughman took his glasses off again. He seemed to be concentrating on something being said to him through his earpiece.

     “I’m going to level with you, Mr. Oxley. We’re here today to take a closer look at those lies. If we determine that they, in point of fact, are not lies, I’m going to have to recommend to the president of the United States that he grant Ruskjer a full and unconditional pardon. 

     "I’m not at liberty, at this time, to address the issue of national security. But take it as a given: that issue is real and related.”

     “Well, thank you for being up front with me, Mr Loughman,” Oxley said. “I couldn’t begin to imagine why the government would want to fly me first class all the way from Hawaii. I can assure you that you’ll come to the same conclusions the jury did.”

     “That, Mr. Oxley, has yet to be determined,” Loughman said.

     “Now, if we can get back to your last statement about Ameritrade’s first statement to Ruskjer. There seems to be some question as to the proper interpretation of that statement.”

     “You might say that,” Oxley said. “Ameritrade and the government -- as well as all the Fortune 500 companies and the vast majority of CPAs -- see it one way. Ruskjer sees it another.”

     “According to the trial transcript,” Loughman said, as he studied the document, “Ruskjer maintains that he made $3,305 on his first $10,000 deposit, selling 14 AGIX calls on his first day of trading. You and your experts say he lost $5,400 for a net loss of roughly $2,100.”

     “Well,” Oxley said, smiling, “at least you got that right.”

     “Mr. Oxley, I have here Ameritrade’s Daily Activity Report,” Loughman said, as he handed him a copy. “Are you familiar with it?”

     “I’ve seen it,” Oxley replied, “but we prefer to use Ameritrade’s monthly statement as the source for our information.”

     “Would you agree,” Loughman asked, “that the activity report shows every transaction that ever occurred in Ruskjer’s account?”

     “I wouldn’t know,” Oxley said as he looked down at the report. “I’m not a CPA.”

     “Neither is Ruskjer,” Loughman commented, as he passed another document across the solid-oak conference table. “Here’s a copy of Ameritrade’s first statement to Ruskjer. Do you recognize this?”

     “Yes,” Oxley said. “That’s where the negative $5,400 comes from.”

     “OK,” Loughman acknowledged. “Since the only transactions that occurred during this statement’s period involved AGIX stock and calls, can I safely assume that the $5,400 also refers to these same calls?”

     That would be my understanding,” Oxley agreed.

     “And this $5,400 is, as your Ameritrade witness explained, the amount of money that it would take for Ruskjer to buy back the fourteen calls he sold during this statement’s period, on the last day covered by this statement?” Loughman asked.

     “Yes,” is all Oxley said.

     “So,” Loughman said, staring at Oxley above the rim of his glasses, “my question to you, Mr. Oxley, is: where, in the Daily Activity Report, can you find these calls being bought back by Ruskjer for $5,400 or for any price, for that matter?”

     “Well, I wouldn’t know,” Oxley responded casually. it’s not my assertion that they ever were. As I said before, we take all of our numbers from the statement, which, I’m sure you must know, is a summary of all of the information in the activity report.”

     “No, Mr. Oxley, that’s not something that I must know, in spite of your being sure,” Loughman said, a bit sarcastically,. “What I am sure of is this: the two documents do not reflect the same information. Would you agree to that statement, Mr. Oxley?”

     “I’m personally not in a position to agree or disagree,” Oxley said. “I have people who make those determinations. I don’t do that myself.”

     “I believe you’re referring to a Mr. Wong, if I’m not mistaken,” Loughman said, as he shuffled through his notes. 

     “He happens to be here in Washington -- at our expense -- even as we speak. Would you like me to call him in to provide these answers?”

     “Yes,” Oxley said, in a more subdued tone, “I believe I would.”

     “Then,” Loughman said, as he pocketed his glasses, “we’ll reconvene at one o’clock this afternoon.”