Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Sarah Palin blessed with large, loving family - The sequel

Today is the day Sarah Palin has to pay the state the $10,000 for her children's travel because she's TOTALLY ethical and innocent, according to her Personnel Board.

The (frivilous?) complaint over children's travel was filed by Frank Gwartney, a retired electrical power lineman from Anchorage, in October 2008.

Sarah Palin's argument was:

"This is a big state, and I am obligated to -- and intend to -- keep Alaskans informed and meet with them as much as I can, from Barrow to Marshall to Ketchikan," Palin said in a written statement. "At the same time, I am blessed to have a large and loving family, and the discharge of my duties should not prevent me from spending time with them."

A settlement was signed by Sarah Palin Palin and Anchorage lawyer Tim Petumenos, who was hired by the state Personnel Board to investigate the complaint.

Petumenos evaluated the children's travel in terms of whether it "serves an important state interest."

Palin offered acceptable justification for the vast majority of trips that included the children, Petumenos said. In all, he said he examined more than 40 trips, some of which involved several legs.

But for nine trips, the personal benefit outweighed the public benefit, he found. For some, only a portion of the children's expenses will be repaid because parts of the trip were determined to be legitimate, according to the agreement.

Could somebody explain to me how the presence of Sarah Palin's children at any event "serves an important state interest"? Sarah Palin herself said that the discharge of her duties shouldn't prevent her from spending time with her children.

What's the state interest in that?

The outcome of this ethics complaint shows us the complaints are not frivolous or malicious. Sarah Palin's responses to them are. Will she pay the bill out of her own pocket or will her trusted trustee find a way to use money from the begathon?

Original "Sarah Palin blessed with large, loving family" post


Anonymous said...

The State needs to enact new laws on paying for travel by family members of Governor.

Only trips that have mandatory requirements for family members to be there or trips where family member benefits the State should be paid for.

Sarah should never be allowed to make the choice of taking her family members on trips. She should never be the “decider”.

Nor should a invite request from an event sponsors be reason enough to pay for family members to travel. Currently if an event sponsor “invites” children or dude, then Sarah feels that is adequate justification to charge the State for their travel.

Sarah has used these trips to take children on free mini vacations (to Philly zoo, NYC etc.) and had the taxpayers of Alaska pick up the tab.

Paying back the $10,000 is proof that Sarah stole State money.

CC from far away said...

Governer Grifter ... plain and simple. The hubris is unbelievable.

I could go on but we all know anyway.

I think McCain should be recalled. At the very least, I certainly hope he is not re-elected to his senate seat because what he has done to this country (and world) by unleashing this monster is unforgivable AND dangerous.

Sorry for the rant...

C---who is a little cranky today, evidently.

The Kenosha Kid said...

Piper Palin was lobbying for a natural gas pipeline. Those are legitimate travel expenses!

Anonymous said...

I think she needs an air purifier in her office; she has a cloud of moron dust in there.

teal said...

...I am blessed to have been elected Govenor, spending time with my large and loving family should not prevent me from the discharge of my duties...

...when pigs fly...

[by the way - nice pigs regina]

Ennealogic said...

Maybe the 'important state interest' is in keeping Sarah's children under Sarah's watchful eye so they don't get into trouble again and embarrass her further.

I've never understood how she tried to rationalize this.

Oh, and I'm sad that I can't see my comments right away, but I guess sometimes it becomes necessary to moderate the flow.

Anonymous said...

I love that picture! It really shows the tantrum throwing toddler that Alaska is really dealing with.

(Any chance of us learning some background story of what provoked that unguarded expression?)

I bet she will easily pay the $10,000 today from the results of the Beg-a-Thon. God forbid she take any personal or financial responsibility for her actions. (sarcasm)

CorningNY said...

The money certainly won't be coming out of her pocket; it will be paid by the Alaska Fund Trust, because the way it's set up, the money can be spent on almost anyone or anything approved by the administrator, Kristan Cole. So again, no real consequences for SP.

crystalwolf aka caligrl said...

Reg...Ah ha, the "picture" !
My fave GINO pic,lol!
She actually asks now on the SOA webpage "is first family invited?"
I really don't think family or dud should have anything to do whether or not she shows up somewhere and she should foot the bill for them. In any kind of business, if you have a expense account, you might be covered but not your spouse or family. What makes her different??? She is a grifter, and her statement on father's day that her father taught her, "you don't get nothing for free" should of included, "unless your a grifter", maybe she accidentally left that part off?
She will probably have money from the begathon for her SLUSH fund pay out. Afterall it is basically a ATM fund for her.
Or will she whine, and stomp her naughty monkey's for a extension?

midnightcajun said...

I'll never understand why there wasn't a huge outcry in Alaska over this. This woman's arrogance and hubris knows no bounds. I keep waiting for her to bring herself down, but I'm beginning to despair. Alaska seems to have a strange governmental system that really does allow the governor to run it like a dictatorship. I wonder if she has anyone minding the shop while she spends her time tanning and getting pedicures and twittering and giving interviews to Ziegler and Van Suckup, or if everything is just sorta falling apart around her?

Sorry you had to go to moderated comments. Maybe after the troll gets discouraged we could go back to a more free flow.

Ivyfree said...

The question should be: would a male governor attend this event? Would he bring his children? If the answer is no- then the state shouldn't pay for Sarah's.

Lisabeth said...

That photo is my favorite bececause it is how I see Palin every day! I knew a girl in high school just like Palin. She was not someone you would EVER have wanted in any political office! And Regina, I love the new pigs!

Of course Palin will use the money from the beg-a-thon. Isn't that what it is for???

MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel said...

Crikey, if Mr. Biscuitbarrel insisted on taking me and our kids along every time he had to travel, at his firm's expense, to demonstrate that he's blessed with a "loving family," his employers would have something very brief and very rude to say about that.

Granted, kids do love ordering from room service, but it's especially galling to see the Palins doing so on the public dime. Not to mention the per diems for living at home!

And yes, the fact that GINO had to repay $10K for the children's travel demonstrates that she's a crook. The only question that remains is, how much of a crook...?

EyeOnYou said...

Here's the deal: A state law specifically exempts the governor and lieutenant governor from state personnel laws for things like hours, leave and travel.

"The governor is taken out of the entire personnel act, upon which all those handbooks and all those prescriptions are based," Petumenos said.


This was the ADN write up from last Feb on this situation. So explain to me if the Gov is exempt from the personnel law that everyone else is expected to follow, how is she able to claim Per Diem and Travel expenses, as those are based on the Personnel laws put in place...correct?

The link to the "state law" listed in the above quote.

The link to the kids travel forms.

The state travel rules that Palin is supposed to be exempt from

Here are the state travel expenses for the year 2008.

Now based on:
AS 39.20.050. Exclusive Compensation
The compensation fixed by law for the governor and lieutenant governor is in full for all services rendered by each of them in any official capacity or employment whatsoever during their respective terms of office, and shall be paid throughout their respective terms of office unless the office becomes vacant.


AS 39.20.060. Exclusion of Governor and Lieutenant Governor From Personnel Laws.

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the governor and lieutenant governor are not considered employees of the state for the purpose of state personnel laws relating to hours of employment, annual leave, sick leave, overtime, compensatory time, and travel allowances. This section does not deprive the governor and lieutenant governor of the right to participate in the state retirement system or in state group insurance plans.


FEDUP!!! said...

Good for you, Regina! I like this system of 'moderated with moderation'! ;)

I have wondered ever since they came up with the ruling about the 10 trips: What kind of 'state business' are those kids doing? Piper was 5 or 6 years old when ScaraCuda became Grifter-in-chief, and ever since the first day of office, her whole brood, but especially Piper, has been grifting from the State of Alaska - seemingly with the full approval of the citizens of Alaska...

O/T: Someone mentioned that GINO owns an airplane, which we all 'kinda' know about, but never really checked into... Anyone know how to get info on the flight plans filed during the 'pregnancy' time of ScaraCuda?

ProChoiceGrandma said...

But isn't it considered state business to have little Piper travel EVERYWHERE with the Gov. in order to keep state secrets, i.e. so Piper would not see her big sister Bristol when she was pregnant with Trig? And also, too, therefore, to stand in front of the Gov. in all the photo ops when the Gov. was faking the pregnancy with Trig? Doesn't that qualify as official state business??

BuffaloGal said...

Y'know.... I started responding 4 different times but couldn't get past the feeling of AAAARRRGGGHH!!!

What public benefit is inherent in her children tagging along on a state business trip ? Her family has nothing to do with running Alaska. If she wants to bring them along, pay for them. And you don't get to work from home! That's what the official gubernatorial office is for. BUSINESS! It's not an envelope stuffing job that you can do from your den. And lordy lordy would I like to know exactly how low the bar is for whatever "acceptable justification" Palin offered for the "vast majority of the trips that included the children". The trips that didn't make the bar had to be doozies!

I know I'm just taking up space with this posting because anything I vent is simply a repeat of what everyone else is feeling but.... my GAWD ! *** sigh ****

EyeOnYou said...

My feelings are that she makes the claim that doing her job should not means she has to make a choice between her job and her family and that the state knew she had children when they elected her, but she also must have known that by running for and accepting a job of this magnitude that you would be forced to spend less time with your children.

She made the choice to run for the office of Governor, so if she wants her family with her, then it is up to her to pay for that expense. ALL OF IT!

Anne Whitney said...

SP doesn't seem to have any clue about ethical behavior from flying her kids around on the state's bill or making herself and her children into human billboards.

It is as if she needs to go to Governor school to learn how it is supposed to be done. Clearly, no one around her knows or is able to get through to her.

Isn't there a summer camp on this topic the Alaskan Legislature could ship her off to for a quick how-to workshop?

EyeOnYou said...

Here is a question I would like to see her answer.

If while you were running for Governor, you told the people that by electing you they would also be electing your husband to sit in on meetings, attend trips with or without you at state expense, and that you would expect the state to foot the bill for your children to attend events with you.., that you would spend more time at your own home than in the Gov.'s mansion and do it at the states expense, well, do you think you still would have been elected?

mdlw56 said...

Great post, Regina...

How arrogant of GINO to expect taxpayers to shell out money because she decided her kids should travel with her while on the job! How self-centered of her to use spending time with her children as the excuse for spending taxpayers' money for such travel. How selfish of her to frivolously spend taxpayers' money on a whim, while some taxpayers work long hours for low wages, struggle to pay for child care, and will never have extra money to treat their own children to a family vacation.

A servant's heart...what a joke. GINO should have been made to pay back all of the travel expenses incurred by her children. Period.

It would be a disgrace if voters establish their decision on a candidate’s reproductive achievements.

Anonymous said...

On the Mudflats site I see a great, funny addition to the "gates" Colegate !

FEDUP!!! said...

mdlw56 said...
"... How arrogant of GINO to expect taxpayers to shell out money because she decided her kids should travel with her while on the job!..."

To which *I* say: Well, but somehow the citizens of Alaska do not seem to mind paying for them, because they have not complained (except very, very few people!)..

Susan said...

This has to be one of the most egregious complaints about Palin's grifting I think I've heard (so close behind are the per diems for staying at home and the Arctic Cat bennies). I know that I'll be doing a search of whether or not there are any other Gov's in this U.S. who also charge the state when their spouses or children accompany them (and what those circumstances are). My guess, and I could be wrong, is there is NO rationalization - for the Office of the Governor - to require them to bring their family (esp. on the State's dime!) Now, is it generous for them to come, maybe warm and fuzzy, makes the candidate look good, well maybe. But that does not come close to qualifying for the state to pay!

As a feminist it is so egregious for me to hear this "I have a large and loving family" argument. Although I will say, this is making her the laughing stock of all the good ol' boys, both in the corporate and political world. Next thing you know, we'll have the electorate stating, "well, I didn't vote for HER because she has children and I don't think we should grow the government in order to cover private family needs." OH SNAPS!!! Did I just say that....lol :) Sweet.

Once again she is doing more harm than good when it comes to equalizing rights for all in this country. What is the one thing we hear in response to the "picking on Palin?" Cries of sexism right? As in, they're just pickin' on her cause she's a woman? (oh yeah a strong, accomplished, literate...insert yer own fantasy here...) I hear people say, "what male governor or other elected official would get away with this?" And honestly, I doubt any have. This would be where we move the laser pointer to the part of the slide the indicates "special privileges." Damn, that is not good here people! Not a good precedent at all.

I think that except for a small percentage most of politics stinks to high heaven and I'm sorry to say, Alaska may have one of the highest odoriferous olfactory rates (sorry, but I don't get to use those $5 words many places..hehe).

Let's think about that fact that on a National level she may be sending messages about female politicians that, after so many years of struggle, are terribly damaging the "brand!" Men and woman alike should be "rising up" against that, to use Palin's own words.

It's such a disgrace. I seriously hope that disgrace does NOT become the norm :(

Wv = resednu ( i dunno, sounds like word salad to me ... lol)

Susan in MD

crystalwolf aka caligrl said...

Susan-Great Post, lol, especially ♥ the $5 words :)
Everyone who posted here has brought up extremely valid points! And I am puzzled too why this behavior doesn't bother more people in Alaska.
Not so long ago I read the book,"going to extremes"by Joe McGinnis (he wrote the excellent Portfolio article earlier this year) and one thing that stuck me about the book is Alaska has not developed any other resources except oil/mining and since the pipeline they had pretty much "sold their soul to the devil" and in those days leading to now its pretty much been wild,wild west.
Someone on Amazon had this comment which kind of sums up Alaskans:
In describing the residents of Alaska as thinking about Alaska all the time as if it was an entity onto itself in their lives, he states that this is a unique state of mind in that you would not, say, find people walking around Toledo contemplating the "Essence of Ohio".
If you get a change to read this book please do, Its very interesting how and why Alaska is what it is today.Also goes in detail about the beauty of Alaska.

Lilybart said...

prochoicegrandma: you got it!! Piper is the ulitmate pregnancy belly.

Anonymous said...

As a woman I feel she has hurt our "brand" in politics. She forces her kids on everyone everywhere and tarts herself up and we are supposed to think she is a feminist.

All we want is to have equal access to opportunity and we are just as professional as men. She wants MORE rights really. She thinks she should be able to look unprofessional and bring kids and that is equality.

Kids and family life can be accommodated, but she is way over the line.

And then she whines when someone mentions the kids. Keep them home then.

lynnrockets said...

Oh, I can feel a song parody coming on about this if the money is not repaid on time.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

I bet Piper has a LOT of frequent flyer miles. Perhaps she could donate them to someone in actual need. Like a make-a-wish. The grifters seem to think its take-a-wish. Give ALL of those family accrued miles to charity.

ProChoiceGrandma said...

sjk, good one! Take-a-wish indeed!

Is it time yet? Is it time yet? Is it time yet?

I feel like a little kid in the back seat repeatedly asking every two minutes "Are we there yet?"

What I would like to know, if anyone can tell me, how will we know that she actually pays the $10,000. And will we know if it actually came out of her own pocket or the Alaska Fund Trust? Inquiring minds want to know.

BuffaloGal said...

Susan - enjoyed your post. " highest odoriferous olfactory rates" I was imagining a sort of "nose" graphic that might track such a thing if the stats could be verified.

crystalwolf - thanks for the book suggestion. I've been negotiating with myself about ending the day reading books rather than online articles. I'm not sure which side of me is winning at the moment but I'm hoping for a reasonable agreement betwixt the two.

MidnightCajun - My guess as to why there hasn't been more of a public outcry is that most folks simply don't know. (and some simply might not care?) Daily life takes up so much time and focus that, when 9pm comes around and kids are in bed, Palin's underhanded ways are relegated to the "those damn politicians" mental folder.

I've typed so long that I'm not even sure I'm on topic anymore.

She's draining me, this woman is .

basheert said...

RE: TravelGate

We do a tremendous amount of traveling where hubs is an invited speaker. I go along frequently and we have also taken our grown daughters. If it is a large conference, I am often "comped" so I can attend but would never ask or expect this courtesy.
We pay MY airfare. Everyone always knows if I am with him and most often the hotel is fine with both of us being there.
When we are invited for dinners, he always offers to pay for mine.
We have never nor would we expect anyone to pay for "family" including me - at an invited event.
It is rude, arrogant and very tacky and just shows the utter lack of class she shows. It also indicates the very low level of respect she has for an organization that invites her when she expects them to pay for her family.

Very very trailer trashy.

basheert said...

Just to add one thing - we have traveled together for 22+ years, all over the world. Frequently organizations will cover me as a courtesy. We would never ask for this but since I am known to many of the people and companies he lectures for, they do extend it as a courtesy.
My or our children's airfares are always our responsibility.

Lisabeth said...

I used to work as a high level executive in a company. And I had ti travel pretty nonstop for work. There were 8 or so of us in the same position across the country just below CEO and CFO. No one brought their sposes or children on business trips! It was simply unheard of! Even the CEO and CFO did not bring their children or spouses. The only exception was when a supplier for ir company offered a special overseas trip as a gift. Even then you might be allowed to bring a spouse or partner, but childen? Never? Half of those in my position wew women and several had young children /babies. It was a CHOICE we made to have this career (separate from family) or be a mom! Some did both but not together!

Her expectation to bring the kids with her everywhere is insane! And to have them paid for?? I don't know other women executives with that benefit! She is a very poor example for working mothers. Just think about how many women would love to have their kids with them while they struggle to provide an income for their family? Many wome work 2 jobs to help their families. Why is she so special that she should have them with her and paid for??? I don't see other governors or senators doing this! Maybe occasionally, but for that many trips?

Sarah bugs me because she thinks she is so special and so unique , that the rules of basic business etiquette and the law do not apply to her. Her highness, Queen of Alaska is above all this ya know? God told her so!

onejrkitty said...

OT but I cannot resist: This is my response to another poster on another site re: Why Babygate IS important."

"Dr Johnson can't talk due to patient confidentiality. She would be slapped with a huge lawsuit. ?"

I am not so sure about that.
While there are very strict confidentiality rules in place, IF the doctor was NOT called from Texas, OR IF she was misquoted, she certainly has not only a right, but a responsibility to her own reputation to correct the situation.

IF she had told Palin it was ok to fly home under the circumstances, she is open to censure from her peers and possible loss of license, tho likely the license could only be revoked IF someone (most likely the patient) filed a complaint and of course, Palin is not going to do that.

I think there is much the doctor could and should say that would NOT breach patient/doctor/record confidentiality.

It is Palin she is afraid of and her ability to continue to practice medicine in Alaska or elsewhere after Palin treats her like she treated Wooten.

I had a bad time with a surgeon, complained to both a peer review board ( who wrote him a letter or reprimand) and the state licensing board who totally dismissed my complaint. Two weeks later, I read where Murkowski appointed this surgeon to the State Licensing Board.

Found out I am not the only one who had complained about this physician and I don't think he is allowed at Providence any more either.

I find this doctor's bowing to her fear of Palin to be unethical, immoral and cowardly. SHE KNOWS WHO TRIG'S REAL MOTHER IS AND IF PALIN IS LYING.


She doesn't have to stat e "so and so IS the mother." She only has to state Sarah Palin was NOT my patient with respect to the birth of Trig Palin."

What's legally wrong with that statement?

Daisydem said...

To Anne Whitney who posted above. Your idea of a "How to Govern" Summer Camp won't work. Remember, McCain's campaign sent her to a "summer camp to prepare for debate" in Arizona and that didn't work! Sorry.

basheert said...

HIPPA: If you aren't on the list, no hospital can even confirm you are an inpatient. No physician can even confirm you are a patient without a HIPPA release.
Anytime you visit dentist or physician, you sign a HIPPA release form.
It wreaks havoc with families - we have made sure that our kids physicians have us all listed in their charts so they can talk with us. Also the grandchildren's charts. Hubs is a physician so ends up talking to kids/grandkids doctors and dentists. But everyone has a HIPPA directive saying they can talk with him/us. Or they can't even confirm who's a patient.
Violations are up to $10-$250,000 PER incident. They ARE vigorously prosecuted.
In principle, it was a good idea. Making sure confidentiality is respected. But as all bureaucrats get involved, it went too far the other way and EXCLUDED even family members unless permission is obtained from the patient.

Virginia Voter said...

Basheert...huge difference here is that your husband is a private citizen, being paid by organizations and corporations, not the State or taxpayers. He and they can do whatever they want. If these companies want to schmooze you and your husband, they can and will, and no public money is used.

CC, I am with you...this is all McSame's fault...he unleashed the Wicked Witch of the North on us. Don't you winder why he has done so few interviews since the campaign?

Anne Whitney said...

Ooops! So true! I forgot all about that! I bet even a Super-Duper Extra Remedial Boot Camp Intensive on How To Be A Governor wouldn't stick.

The more I remember her offensive and ridiculous performance at that debate the more annoyed I get. Why, after the second or third time she refused to answer the question and wondered off in her own la-la land, didn't Gwen Ifill ask her to leave the stage?

Sorry, she completely failed. Not even close. And how the bulk of the MSM seemed to decide that she "passed" is just beyond me. Talk about being too cowed to say the emperor has no clothes. Grrr.

Now I've wondered far from the topic! The next time she has a big debate perhaps she'll bring the First Family of Alaska up on stage to perform their talents to distract from her inability to answer the questions.

Anonymous said...

Basheert -

Great points, except I do have to take exception with "Very very trailer trashy". I live in a trailer and even *I* am aware of common courtesy, proper etiquette, and most of all, ethical behavior!

SP is even further below typical trailer trashdom!

WV= const

as in constipation of moral and ethical behavior (among many many other things)

Ella said...

As maddening as travelgate (kids travel) and per diem gate are, my choice for MOST horrendous of all is religion gate. How on earth did GINO get away with giving $25,000 to an Evangelical/Fubdie church to
train the prayer warriors? Grrrr!
If there is anything to housegate, however, I think that will be the BIG one - because Feds will swoop in.

Ella said...

Just to clarify, the $25,000 to the Church came from the AK taxpayers, NOT from GINO's private funds (in which case it would be fine).

mlewis said...

I'll add my travel experiences to the others. My husband belongs to a professional association which has regular meetings for people in the same field. Most of the meetings are for members only, and it is a comment about Women in Industry that most of the members are men. A few women now work in the field, usually the daughter of a former member.

One time a year, there is a large, major meeting to which spouses are invited, meaning partners, "friends" or you-can-bring-a-guest. Furthermore, the company paying my husband's way paid mine as well, and it was considered a tax deductible expense, since many other members brought someone too.

Also, part of the meeting involved special tours, activities and meetings for the spouse/guest attendee. And, it was good for business; sometimes it was easier for me to strike up a conversation with someone's wife, and then bring in the husbands.

This is not the Sarah's case. Her husband and children contribute nothing. None of the other participants appear to bring their families. And, at my husband's meeting, children were not particularly welcomed. If a couple had no choice and had to bring the kids, the couple footed the bill.
The kids were not included in the activities or the cocktail parties/dinners; they were pretty much on their own.

We have seen countless pictures of Sarah using one child or another as window dressing, or her badge of "family values." The fact that Piper missed so much school is not a value. It's a shame.

ProChoiceGrandma said...

Ella, I totally agree! When I first saw the Pastor Muthee video, I began fact-checking everything and became very alarmed at the fanatical religious connections tied in with Palin.
And I wonder, REALLY LOUD, if Palin approved that $25,000 generous donation to the HUB Juneau Christian Teen Center with taxpayer funds as payment for services provided or for keeping their mouth shut about Bristol after she and Bristol were there on 10-5-07.

jo said...

If she wants to work after her term ends, other than Foe News, or a reality show, she is going to have a hard time getting a job. Employer: I see you have a hard time telling the truth, you have low intelligence, you take no responsibility for anything you do, you expect free gifts, handouts, and free vacations for you and your family at least four times a month, and you're an expert on killing, skinning, and cooking wildlife, but nothing else. I forgot pageant walking and waving. Your hired!

FEDUP!!! said...

OK. Seems she has paid the travel $, but only around $8100, and supposedly for NINETEEN(???) trips.

More here at http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=10583664

teal said...

...That picture was taken on election day - 2008, right after she found out that she lost her VPOTUS bid....[hahhaha]

ANY OTHER [joking] thoughts?

wv: truste...funny, real funny

onejrkitty said...

This is Bob Lynn, blog site.
Look at comments under the section titled: "PRESS RELEASE"

Ok, this is creeping me out a bit here.

Either we got a real nut case making some comments on a few blogs, OR we got someone who has a real case that is in the works against Palin and maybe involving more than one area i.e. IRS, DOJ, sex abuse ( YEAH !) and Harvard University (???)

My feeling is this is an older person i.e. over 55, who has suffered and/or has had guilt over something in the past and is now ready to "stand up on his /her hind legs" and regain their dignity and self-respect.

Hard to explain. Better to read this blog for yourself.

onejrkittyt said...

HIPPA: Yeah, I know, but does HIPPA apply if you are NOT a patient.

Can a doctor state you are NOT a patient 1) if you have never been seen by the doctor or 2) if you are NOT a patient with regard to the issue at hand.

Afraid, I am answering my own question here. Palin has been the doctor's patient in the past and thus would remain a patient under HIPPA so maybe NO comment could be made about the patient in any regard???

Not sure how this would work out. Certainly the doctor has a legal right to protect their own reputation if the patient makes public statements that are false and potentially damaging to the physician.

The law usually covers situation like this. It is not too far fetched to have considered such a situation when HIPPA was installed.

HIPPA would NOT tie the physician's hands from defending themselves against a lie.

FEDUP!!! said...

onejrkitty: re. the 'anonymous' post on that other blog: Sounds like it is our infamaous anon blogger that made similar insinuations here...

Basheert said...

I don't actually know the answer to that question although I believe any complaints would be handled through the medical licensing board of the State involved.
HIPPA is "federal" - and unfortunately as I said, when bureaucrats become involved in medical determinations re: what info can be said in public, you have a clusterf*ck (i.e. people in accidents and hospitals cannot confirm they are inhouse).
Physicians cannot even confirm a patient is a patient without a signed HIPPA release.
Of course among husbands and wives, who knows what "table talk" happens.
But HIPPA is extremely strict. A physician could protect his/her reputation but that would be civil and involve a board investigation and not be made public.
I hate to say the doc is correct, but without SP's say-so, she cannot confirm or deny anything and it must be a legal HIPPA release. And of course, SP will NEVER agree to this.
It is doubtful that anyone will ever know the truth of Babygate unless someone blabs because SP's physician won't say a word and if she did, the fine would be horrendous.
Again, this is Congress setting up rules for medical personnel.

RE: the travel
I am always invited to all of hubs talks- I would NEVER expect or insert myself into anything uninvited nor would I expect to have anything for me paid for. I have been extended many courtesies but none have been asked for - I would never expect to be part of his agreement with the companies. Most of the time I don't go because his travel schedule is HORRIBLE - his favorite is a coast to coast - in less than 24 hours doing a turn and burn....fly - do talk - stay over - do breakfast mtg - hit plane, head home....ICK!
He's trying to make it under 24 hours.

Basheert said...

Anonymous@1:24 - sorry about the trailer trash comment.
Our D-I-L is TRUE trailer trash - if you look it up in the dictionary, her picture is in the description. Her favorite pasttime is going to a bar and picking fights.
So from now on, I'll just use "trash" generically....

Not trying to offend.

Anonymous said...

I checked the link to Bob Lynn's blog and read the comments by the guy who says he has "initiated" several claims against Palin.

He sounds like the guy on this blog on the Sat. June 20 Open blog--that Regina linked to Anon.@ 2:31. Very interesting. Maybe he really has filed several claims.

I also looked into the trust fund issue that he mentions. I recall reading a story about a controvery over a trust fund involving Palin's father, Chuck Heath.

Sure enough, it looks like that in 1994 Sarah and Todd took out a mortgage from the Raymond Trust and Charles Heath (probably to secure a loan made to them). Then in 1996, the deed of trust securing the mortgage was assigned to Charles Heath. This means that the Palins then owed only Chuck Heath on the mortgage. [Dad, will you let us off the hook for the rest of the $140,000 loan? Thanks!]


Lisabeth said...

Onejrkitty, that man at the blog you posted at sounds very similar to the person who posted here.

I am the one who commented about about Dr Baldwin not being able to talk legally. I have to disagree with you. Due to HiPPA laws as well as ethics codes and state licensing laws of health professionals, Dr Cathy cannot make a public statement of any kind. You are simply wrong. I work in the health care field, and she could lose her license if she made any reference to Trig or Palins health care without written permission of Palin. It doesn't matter if her reputation is at risk. She simply can't do it without a written waiver from Gov Palin. Just ask any doctor.

Anonymous said...

I think the gagged doctor rhetoric is poppycock. Doctors can talk. They can't betray confidentiality. Discern.

onejrkitty said...

Health field, legal field. HIPPA is meant to scare the you know whatie out of all health care professionals. That does NOT mean doctors (legally) cannot say anything. And as far as asking a doctor, I would prefer to ask an attorney. THAT is who doctors ask :) ( I have years of experience working with attorney and for them.)

Re: Bob Lynn's blog.

I also wonder if the "trust fund" issue is the problem Palin had with PFD fund and the lost info. Sorry, real uninformed about this so readers need to review it for themselves. Just thinking "trust" and "fund" could be PFD as well.

Also, the reference to " my people", Statute of limitations in 2003 b eing changed and especially to Catholic Church make me wonder if it has anything to do with sexual abuse by priest of Catholic church--or is similar in nature to that issue.

Does anyone know if the "statute of limitations" for reporting sexual abuse was changed in 2003 and if Murkowski (father or daughter) had anything to do with it?

The BL blog post was coherent tho mysterious and cryptic as if wanting to give clues but not able to reveal real data. If very emotionally involved, and an older person ( I am one myself so I can talk here) maybe the urge to "talk" is overcoming the need to keep quiet and let the legalities proceed at the necessary speed. NOT WISE TO DISCUSS YOUR CASE OUT OF COURT ! NOT SMART TO "TELEGRAPH YOUR PUNCH" but wondering if the need for affirmation and justice is overcoming need to keep their mouth shut.

Lisabeth said...

Well I can tell there is no point in trying discuss anything with you . You and the other anon have made up your mind. But you are both wrong. She can't say anything nor will she and I don't blame her. As a doctor, I would do the same thing, and I am a doctor. It is unethical, against my particular state board laws (this may not be every state) and patient client confidentiality is in place because she has been Palins doctor for years. It is against HIPPA because she is Sarahs physician whether she delivered Trig or not. Sarah would sue her and she would win!! Plus her responsibility is to her patients period, not to politics. It's my last comment on this because I know you are convinced and what I say is of no importance to you. We can agree to disagree. It might be "poppycock"to you, but you would not want your physician revealing your secrets.HIPPA does apply, sorry. I wish shed talk to believe me, but she won't.

Lisabeth said...

Oh I missed your comment! You don't want another doctors opinion, you want an attorneys! I see! Well maybe you should go ask one then since you respect them so much and have worked with them so long. Good idea:)

Vaughn said...

Go to the Alaska Legislature site
and search for HB 210. This was passed in 2001.Next search for HB 2
that was passed in 2003.

Look in the upper right hand corner and type in the bill number.
On the left side of page you can
go as far back as 1993 on the
legislative sessions

onejrkitty said...

You also missed more than one comment I made.

I acknowledged that since Palin has been a past patient that she would remain a "current" patient and that would be a very important point.

However, while I do not bow to attorneys I also do not bow to doctors or health care professionals. I bow only to people I respect as invididuals no matter their profession or lack thereof.

Using the common sense the law usually includes, and the possible scenarios that are considered when laws are made ( ideally LOL ) no doctor or health care professional has to sit by and allow their own reputation to be smeared by someone else's lies.

IF Palin claims she called and the doctors said fly on and there was no such call because Palin was not even pregnant, then the doctor has no legal reason to not defend themselves.

Confidentiality is covered under HIPPA but it is not a "gag order."

Where your "patient" could concieveably become the leader of the power powerful nation in the world and you knew she was lying, are you telling me you would remain loyal "to your patient?"

If so, then I would have no respect for you. You thinking is shallow and your remarks are emotional.

NO ONE but you is pouting our what has been a civilized discussion.

And before you make the statement "HIPPA does apply, you should preface it with "in my opinion."

In my opinion I think there is a lot of legal and loyal and ethical "wiggle room" for Cathy Baldwin to do the right thing and step up to the plate IF she knows that Palin is NOT Trig's mother.

Pout if you like. I am too old --literally --for that and don't have the time to waste anymore.


Too bad you aren't loyal to the people Palin is hurting.

onejrkitty said...

Doctors practice medicine.

Attorneys practice law.

I did not go to an attorney when I broke my wrist in 4 places.

I do not go to a doctor when I want a legal opinion.

Besides, the doctor who did do a good job on my arm, was so threatening that his peer review board wrote a scathing letter of reprimand. The state licensing board dismissed my complaint but then, Frank Murkowski placed the same surgeon on the board two weeks later.

I respect people who deserve it.

I don't go by their profession either for or against.

Anonymous said...

Is this why you have been kicked off other forums Onejr? You are incredibly rude and disrespectful to people bordering on obnoxious. I think lisabeth knew you would have to have the last word and there you go. She already said she knew you would not agree and could you agree to disagree. But nope you had to come back twice and insult her after already insulting her earlier. She wasn't asking you to respect her just because she is a doctor. That is your own problem. You were rude as you are to others and people have told you this before here. She was more polite to you than I would have been. I would have said STFU!!

This is why I see many do not even engage in discussion with you. What for.

Anonymous said...

Onejrkitty, as others have said, please do not type in all caps to people as if you are screaming at them. Telling someone "too bad they aren't as loyal to the one Palin is hurting" is VERY out of line!!!!! I have seen Lusabeths posts here and elsewhere and she is not on Palins side nor was she pouting. That is real witchy.

You are always yelling at people and insisting your view is correct and others isn't. Please can't you be nice to others I am sure she knows the rules doctors live by more than you, don't ya think? She told you she wished Baldwin could talk.

I am sorry but your comments piss me off. You don't get to be a know it all witch (like Sarah I might add) just cuz you are old!

regina said...

Wow! I woke up this morning and found a very vigorous discussion going on here!

I'm not going into the merits of what's been said by various readers, but would like to make a comparison:

We all agree that Sarah Palin should go. We're passionate about it. Then there's that other site where everybody thinks Sarah Palin farts rainbows. They're passionate about it.

The difference between the two sets of passionate people is that one group is made up of independent thinkers who sometimes disagree very strongly among themselves and the other is a bunch of sycophants who agree about everything and pat each other on the back for trivial stuff.

I prefer the first group, even though we trade insults from time to time.

I remember some dinner parties where some controversial subjects came up and tempers flew, voices were raised and it looked like some people would never speak to each other again. But the same group continued to get together and those who had fallen out before would enthusiastically agree with each other about something else.

We're a bit like that here. We can't shout at each other, only type furiously. There's no food or wine to soften things a bit. But we still agree more than we disagree and feel comfortable enough to express our opinions openly.

At least we're not brainwashed and could never be called a cult!


onejrkitty said...

Part one: the Bill is in post #2

All highlighting has been added by onejrkitty, as has most of the underlining, but not all. All capitalization is original as found.

The important point of this bill is that it allows a child who was molested in the past to bring action within three years after they have reached the age of majority, no matter how long ago the offenses were committed.

Ok, I don't know if the person who posted the comment on Bob Lynn's blog under "press release" is a nut case wanting attention or someone whose need to speak out is greater than their ability to keep quiet until the legal processes can function.

If this person is a "nut case" they certainly have done some homework .

I got to sleep on this and think carefully about the "weird" feeling I am getting before I can give an perspective, but right now, I am thinking this person knows "something" whether actual investigation------by FBI, DOJ, IRS, Harvard (???) and whoever else ------is going on or not.

Has this person been damaged----by a Palin or just by their own relative---- and needs to speak out but maybe still too young to know how to do that properly. Is this person related to the Palin's, or just has a grudge and if so, is it legitimate or not. Is this person's information based on actual knowledge or just rumor, gossip, wishful thinking. Is this someone who just wants their own 15 minutes of fame.

If there was abuse, sexual or otherwise, who committed the acts? Do not necessarily assume it is a male. We have more than one or two registered sex offenders in Anchorage that are female.

Who are the "peoples" this person refused to sue in 2003 when this law became effective and therefore he/she could have sued? "I love my peoples..." "Proved in it 2003...." "Ask Frank about that..."

How is the Catholic church involved? Or are they not involved; it is just the similarity of sexual abuse.

Harvard University? Why and how would Harvard University be "watching" Palin at this person's request?

If this person is serious about filing an ethics complaint to end all ethics complaints, is he/she waiting for investigations to be finished, for more information to be provided to them so their complaint could not be dismissed?

Ok, my jury is out, way out, but something is definitely going on here. I just hope if there is, this person has done their "due diligence" and their accusations are accurate and substantiated.

onejrkitty said...

Part 2 of 3 (First part of the bill)


HB 2

08-20-2003 House Journal 2158

HB 2
A message dated June 5, 2003, was received stating the Governor has
signed the following bill and is transmitting the engrossed and enrolled
copies to the Lieutenant Governor's office for permanent filing:

CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 2(JUD)(title am)
"An Act relating to the statute of limitations for certain civil
actions relating to acts constituting sexual offenses; and providing
for an effective date."

Chapter No. 40, SLA 2003
Effective Date: See Chapter

onejrkitty said...

00 Enrolled HB 2
01 Relating to the statute of limitations for certain civil actions relating to acts constituting sexual
02 offenses; and providing for an effective date.
03 _______________
04 * Section 1. AS 09.10.065 is amended to read:
05 Sec. 09.10.065. Commencement of actions for acts constituting sexual
07 PROVISIONS IN THIS CHAPTER, A] person may bring an action at any time for
08 conduct that would have, at the time the conduct occurred, violated provisions of
09 any of the following offenses [ACTS]:
10 (1) felony sexual abuse of a minor; [OR]
11 (2) felony sexual assault; or
12 (3) unlawful exploitation of a minor.
13 * Sec. 2. AS 09.10.065 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
14 (b) Unless the action is commenced within three years of the accrual of the
15 claim for relief, a person may not bring an action for conduct that would have, at the
01 time the conduct occurred, violated the provisions of any of the following offenses:
02 (1) misdemeanor sexual abuse of a minor;
03 (2) misdemeanor sexual assault;
04 (3) incest; or
05 (4) felony indecent exposure.

onejrkitty said...

06 * Sec. 3. AS 09.10.140(b) is amended to read:
07 (b) An action based on a claim of sexual abuse under AS 09.55.650 that is
08 subject to AS 09.10.065(b) may be brought more than three years after the plaintiff
09 reaches the age of majority if it is brought under the following circumstances:
10 (1) if the claim asserts that the defendant committed one act of sexual
11 abuse on the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall commence the action within three years after
12 the plaintiff discovered or through use of reasonable diligence should have discovered
13 that the act caused the injury or condition;
14 (2) if the claim asserts that the defendant committed more than one act
15 of sexual abuse on the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall commence the action within three
16 years after the plaintiff discovered or through use of reasonable diligence should have
17 discovered the effect of the injury or condition attributable to the series of acts; a claim
18 based on an assertion of more than one act of sexual abuse is not limited to plaintiff's
19 first discovery of the relationship between any one of those acts and the injury or
20 condition, but may be based on plaintiff's discovery of the effect of the series of acts.
21 * Sec. 4. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
22 read:
23 RETROACTIVITY. To the extent permitted by the state and federal constitutions,
24 this Act is retroactive to October 1, 2001.
25 * Sec. 5. This Act takes effect immediately under AS

onejrkitty said...


"Anonymous said...
I think the gagged doctor rhetoric is poppycock. Doctors can talk. They can't betray confidentiality. Discern.

24 June 2009 06:34"

Please not this comment was NOT posted by me but by someone else who does not think HIPPA is a total gag order.

That makes 3 comments re: this HIPPA matter that you "missed."

Please read more carefully before attacking me.

onejrkitty said...

Harvard is "watching" Palin per our Bob Lynn Blog poster because there are many there who have done research into the damage caused later in life by sexual abuse AND how this damage is not "realized" by the plaintiff's till they are older.

This would relate to the change in statute of limitations that allows children to:

11 abuse on the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall commence the action within three years after
12 the plaintiff discovered or through use of reasonable diligence should have discovered
13 that the act caused the injury or condition;
14 (2) if the claim asserts that the defendant committed more than one act
15 of sexual abuse on the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall commence the action within three
16 years after the plaintiff discovered or through use of reasonable diligence should have
17 discovered the effect of the injury or condition attributable to the series of acts;

There have also been a couple of scandles at Harvard: Psychiatrist sued for having sex with patient ( he lost) and a pedatrician who abused boys in his care

"...Children's Hospital Boston did not win “charitable immunity” in a lawsuit filed against a former pediatrician who is accused of sexually abusing boys in his care, the Harvard Crimson reports.
The state Superior Court decision rejected the motion Wednesday in a lawsuit filed against Dr. Melvin D. Levine, former chief of ambulatory pediatrics at Children's and a Harvard Medical School professor, according to the paper. Levine, who left the hospital for North Carolina in 1985, has denied the accusations.

There is also a book by a Harvard author (relating the Catholic church to sexual abuse):

Mass Tort Litigation Blog: Sexual Abuse
Harvard Law School ... Holding Bishops Accountable: How Lawsuits Helped the Catholic Church Confront Clergy Sexual Abuse (Harvard University Press 2008). ...
lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort.../sexual_abuse/ - Cached - Similar -

AND,let's not forget the poster here who connected these dots with the "trust fund violation":

"...a trust fund involving Palin's father, Chuck Heath.

Sure enough, it looks like that in 1994 Sarah and Todd took out a mortgage from the Raymond Trust and Charles Heath (probably to secure a loan made to them). Then in 1996, the deed of trust securing the mortgage was assigned to Charles Heath. This means that the Palins then owed only Chuck Heath on the mortgage. [Dad, will you let us off the hook for the rest of the $140,000 loan? Thanks!]

http://dnr.alaska.gov/ssd/recoff/sag/NameDocs.cfm?SelectedName=HEATH%20CHARLES%20R&District=ALL "


crystalwolf aka caligrl said...

Anon@8:49 & 9:02 totally agree with you, especially the "She was more polite to you than I would have been. I would have said STFU!!"
Now Lisabeth, re: HIPPA law, if CJB was under oath, is she bound by HIPPA? And what of the "Medical" letter that was "released" by the RNC/McCain for GINO? There was a woman that said that is was a total "cut and paste" job, but re:they were asked to release medical records, yet they released a "letter" supposedly written by CJB. McCain was very cagey about his medical records only allowing some people to read them, and not actually releasing them, but it is my understanding they were actual "records" vs a one page "she's medically fine" letter. Could someone take that to court and force CJB to be more specific? I mean, What if? (shudder here!)they had won! That would of been the "medical record" of GINO! We all can see she is suffering some sort of mental disorder, possible rx drug abuse....?
How can "A letter" proclaim her fit for any office, including Governor?
I guess what I'm trying to say, re: Government officials, where do ethical lines stand for Dr. disclosing or not medical conditions?

Basheert said...

Caligirl: The ONLY way to get medical records is IF a patient signs a release (including a personal request) and under a subpoena. They (physicians) can also testify if they have reviewed medical records for a court case in which case the records are sent to them for review and shredded when the case is completed.

A physician can testify in a court of law (this happens often).

A physician cannot come out and just make a statement re: a patient without a signed legal release.

Medical records are considered legal documents. They cannot be altered or changed in any way.

Unless SP tells her it's ok, there is no way she will open her mouth or she can lose her licensing in Alaska.

basheert said...

Here is the Privacy Rule from HIPPA: (it's easier to read it than try to explain it)

Privacy Rule

The Privacy Rule took effect on April 14, 2003, with a one-year extension for certain "small plans". The HIPAA Privacy Rule regulates the use and disclosure of certain information held by "covered entities" (generally, health care clearinghouses, employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain transactions.) It establishes regulations for the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI). PHI is any information held by a covered entity which concerns health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to an individual.[10] This is interpreted rather broadly and includes any part of an individual's medical record or payment history.

Covered entities must disclose PHI to the individual within 30 days upon request.[11] They also must disclose PHI when required to do so by law, such as reporting suspected child abuse to state child welfare agencies.[12]

A covered entity may disclose PHI to facilitate treatment, payment, or health care operations,[13] or if the covered entity has obtained authorization from the individual.[14] However, when a covered entity discloses any PHI, it must make a reasonable effort to disclose only the minimum necessary information required to achieve its purpose.[15]

The Privacy Rule gives individuals the right to request that a covered entity correct any inaccurate PHI.[16] It also requires covered entities to take reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of communications with individuals.[17] For example, an individual can ask to be called at his or her work number, instead of home or cell phone number.

The Privacy Rule requires covered entities to notify individuals of uses of their PHI. Covered entities must also keep track of disclosures of PHI and document privacy policies and procedures.[18] They must appoint a Privacy Official and a contact person[19] responsible for receiving complaints and train all members of their workforce in procedures regarding PHI.[20]

An individual who believes that the Privacy Rule is not being upheld can file a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR).[21][22] However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the OCR has a long backlog and ignores most complaints. "Complaints of privacy violations have been piling up at the Department of Health and Human Services. Between April 2003 and Nov. 30, the agency fielded 23,896 complaints related to medical-privacy rules, but it has not yet taken any enforcement actions against hospitals, doctors, insurers or anyone else for rule violations. A spokesman for the agency says it has closed three-quarters of the complaints, typically because it found no violation or after it provided informal guidance to the parties involved."[23

Julie said...

Here's what SHE reimbursed:

Lisabeth said...

Wow I have not been on here since last night and am speechless at what happened after I left.

Thanks to anyone who defended me. Onejrkitty, I NEVER attacked you - I referred to the poppycock poster at the top of the message you are quoting. I said you and the other poster have made up your mind. You attacked me numerous times. Obviously based on other comments you do this to other people.

I don't work due to a chronic illness . I avoid all stress and conflict and have no desire or need to argue. In the future, I will not respond to your opinions for many reasons that I don't have the energy to type out.

Regina, back on track I really keep thinking about that poor man who was in prison that was raped and they made the case go away. I am going to do some research about him later. I have this feeling he is connected to our mystery poster.

To our mystery poster, it sounds like you have been through a lot. Good for you standing up for your rights. Hope you see this and that you will write here again.

Caligirl or basheert, are you on Twitter?

Lisabeth said...

Caligirl, sorry I did not answer you. The only reason IMO that Palin got away with that letter vs a medical report is because a) she did it at the very last second and b) Obama only released a single page. Really I think all candidates should havebto release all medical records and have a current physical and psychological evaluations completed by independent physicians. It really has always surprised me that they don't require that. I always wondered about McCains torture experience and whether he suffered from PTSD. How could he not.
You also asked if confidentality can be waived under oath right? I was never involved in any legal situations but I think it would depend what the court case was about. Let's say Sarah was sued or charged with embezzlement (I am making this up!!!!), then questions about Trig are not relevent. But let's pretend child services charged her with neglect, then Dr C might have to testify if she was any way involved. An attorney would no more. But it is common sense ethics that any physician would not talk about a patient without written permission. Two weeks ago I was at my own doctors and asked her how a person we both knew was doing with her cancer treatment. The doctor could not/would not really tell me anything even though we all know each other. A general statement like doing good yes

What do all of you think Palin would do if Dr C without her permission made a statement to a jounalist that she was not involved in Trigs delivery??? What would be the repercussions for Dr C. ?? I know what I think knowing Sarahs vindictiveness.

crystalwolf aka caligrl said...

Lizabeth-Sorry to hear about your illness, nowadays its very hard to keep stress at bay and talking about GINO definitely affects my adrenals, in a bad way :(
I am not on Twitter, but on Mudflats forum if you are there.
Yes I think all of them should have psych exams and complete medical exams, when they exam cops or firefighters they are more thorough and I do think McCains PTSD affects him, he is said to have "anger issues"
God forbid GINO would of won the election with that one page Medical hx!
Yes, to our mystery man! Yes you can! We hope you will!!!

crystalwolf aka caligrl said...

Lizabeth, sorry about your illness, its hard to bypass stress in this day and age :( And talking about GINO affects my adrenal's not in a good way, I'm afraid...!
I would like to see them screen politicians like they screen cops and firefighters, complete medical eval & psych eval.
I think McCain PTSD is a issue, he is supposed to have anger issues.
Its just REALLY scary, that GINO with her little one page cut and paste medical HX could of been a heartbeat away....!
Lizabeth I'm not on twitter but I am at the mudflats forum.
As for our anon poster...Yes you can!!! We hope you will!!!
We are waiting for GINO's big fall!

teal said...

...in cases when the KIDS are invited....why can't the event pay for their travel, [etc]....why bill Alaska for their trips...cause shes lying thats why!