Wednesday, 22 July 2009

$arah Palin, legal defense fund, contradictions...

The report about $arah Palin's official legal defense fund is all over the news sites and blogs. I noticed the following passage:

I would note here that the state hired outside counsel to represent Governor Palin in her official capacity with respect to the Legislative Council investigation concerning the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Monegan. The governor's counsel later advised he was terminating the contract because his efforts relating to claims against the governor in her official capacity could not be separated from those alleging personal misconduct. The attorney general advised that it expected to be billed for representation of the governor in her official capacity, but the attorney general has not received a billing from the governor's private attorney.

...because his efforts relating to claims against the governor in her official capacity could not be separated from those alleging personal misconduct.

How could they have been separated? Personal misconduct allegations were only relevant BECAUSE she was the governor. If $arah Palin had been a private citizen, she could have pursued her vendetta against Wooten until she was blue in the face and there would have been no repercussions whatsoever. $he wouldn't have been in a position to fire Monegan, she wouldn't have had the staff to pester Monegan, her husband wouldn't have received copies of state e-mails. The Branchflower investigation would not have been necessary.The way I see it, her official capacity CANNOT be separated from her personal capacity. It appears to me the lawyer in question offered that excuse when his services were no longer required because the RNC advised $arah Palin to seek private counsel in order to benefit from client/attorney confidentiality.

The last sentence in the passage indicates that there was no personal liability for $arah Palin regarding her legal fees. Which would make the legal fund a big con.


The Personnel Board, created under the Personnel Act (AS 39.25.060), is composed of three members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature meeting in joint session.

Powers and duties of the board:

* approve/disapprove amendments to the personnel rules as provided in AS 39.25.140;
* consider and act upon recommendations for the extension of the partially-exempt service and the classified service as provided in AS 39.25.130;
* hear and determine appeals by employees in the classified service as provided in AS 39.25.170;
* carry out powers and duties under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS 39.52).


Debra English
Director, Workforce Development at Alaska Communications Systems

Laura Plenert
Works in some capacity at the Ted Ferry Civic Center

Alfred L. Tamagni, Sr
Involved in Alaska Labor Relations Agency as far back as 1995.

It looks like none of them are lawyers and would have to be guided by the opinions of the independent investigators they hire. All the reports on ethics complaints investigated by counsel hired by this board have included some kind of get-out clause for the governor. When $arah had to reimburse the state for her children's travel, Petumenos gave her a deal, so there's was no evidence of wrongdoing. The Daniel's report offers the same "remedies" and goes further, suggesting the state reimburses the governor's legal fees when complaints are deemed to be unfounded. It's a catch-22 endless loop. The Personnel Board has never considered ANYTHING the governor does as unethical and will not find anything unethical in this case...

Daniel's remedies would remove the governor's financial liability for legal fees regarding ethics complaints, rendering the legal fund even more of a con.

[Thomas Daniel is the same independent investigator who found it perfectly OK for $arah Palin to wear the Arctic Cat jacket.]

Until Alaska has an independent Personnel Board with members who have some grounding in ethics, the citizens of Alaska can file complaints ad infinitum and the outcome will always be the same.


ProChoiceGrandma said...

Regina, do you know if there are any transcripts of the TN trial?
I think Palin’s resignation has to do with the 6/30/09 hearing in the Tennessee case of the University of Tennessee student, David C. Kernell, who got into Palin’s personal Yahoo email accounts last fall. The dates fit like an Isatoner glove:
6/29/09 Palin makes 2 tweets sounding mighty cocky about the trial the next day.
6/30/09 the hearing did not go forward as a trial, discovery matters were argued.
7/1/09 in the evening she tells Parnell she is going to resign.
7/2/09 Todd has to leave his fishing to return to Wasilla.
7/3/09 She puts out a notice at 9am that there will be a press conference at 11am.
At press conference she was noticeably shaken and hyperventilating and announces she is resigning effective 7/26/09. That’s an odd day. Why?
7/27/09 is the next hearing in the Tennessee case when the judge will rule on all the emails that she will be required to produce. THE DAY AFTER HER RESIGNATION.
From the 7/17/09 “At a hearing Thursday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Clifford Shirley asked Davies how "recent developments" might have an impact on his request, a reference to Palin's abrupt announcement earlier this month that she was stepping down from the governor's post. "It heightens (the sense of urgency)," Davies responded.”

Anonymous said...

In addition to the Personnel Board never finding anything wrong, the Attorney General for the State of Alaska is equally impotent. He is appointed by the Governor, subject to approval by the Legislature. He is not independent, owing his job to the Governor.

In our state, the Attorney General is elected by the people, independent from other state offices and is therefore in a better position to investigate other politicians for wrongdoing.

To Pro Choice: I agree that the timing in regard to the TN trial looks very suspicious. And, I think that alot of other issues were also coming to a head. For example, the ethics violation charge regarding the Alaska Fund Trust.

John Coale, who set it up, claimed to have told Margaret Carlson that a substantial amount of $arah's legal fees had been paid by the fund. Yet, an ethics complaint was filed in April, freezing the fund. My personal feeling is that she was told by a friend on the inside that she would be required to pay back the money in order to step away from the investigation and keep her job. I think that $arah was either unwilling, or more than likely, could not repay the money.
In fact, with all of those money making offers just waiting until the end of her term, I think, with the pressure mounting, she decided to ca$h in now. Just a gue$$, but that's how $arah looks to me.

midnightcajun said...

Before this latest story broke, my wise husband said to me, "Those funds are going to be the death of her. With her demonstrated tendencies, she's never going to be able to keep her hands out of the till."

The interesting thing about this finding is that we would never have known about it if someone hadn't leaked the report. So what do we actually know about how the earlier cases were decided? We only have $arah's word, and we know what that's worth.

Obviously someone knew the same thing was liable to happen here. Someone who probably knows a lot more dirt.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

go on, take the money and run...whooo whooo whooo...

Dianne said...

I would really be interested in seeing the other reports by the independent investigator, especially the Arctic Cat report. I have a suspicion that the reports and the findings of the personnel board may not have a lot in common.

basheert said...

The problem AK has is that they don't seem to care that the GINO violates Ethics laws all the time and her personnel board (self appointed) gives her cover. They OWE their JOBS to her. So she benefits from them doing what she tells them to do.

Transparency in Government?

Since I haven't followed the gritty details of this story can you guys bring me up to date on a couple things please?

1. How much $$ has the AlaskaTrustFund actually claimed to have raised (are the funds listed)?

2. Have any of these funds been distributed on behalf of GINO? If so, how much and to whom?

3. Have any of these funds been given to GINO family members including the GINO? (For example, instead of "paying her lawyer direct"?)

4. How are the funds being tracked (i.e. in/out?) and WHO is tracking these funds to what reporting agency?

5. What about all the gifts/boxes that she has stored and hasn't opened yet so she doesn't have to report the stuff as gifts?

You're right. She is utterly incapable of keeping her filthy little hands out of that cookie jar. $P is all about MONEY. It's first and always with her.

But she took an oath of office and if she's violated her oath, she must be held to some type of standard.

Sorry, just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

It makes sense why the cee4pee is so confident that she is "ethical" and will never be exposed. They are assured it is all in the bag. They same goes for Levi. They know they have him where they want him. He'll make some money but it will not be all he could expose.

basheert said...

I disagree about Levi - I don't think he's anyone's puppy.

He has a son (well....he acts like a guy trying to be a good dad) - and $P has put up all sorts of roadblocks.

However, like any human being, he's going to get really tired of being a $arah Patsy. Everyone has a limit. We all will do things to keep peace, up to a point.

If he truly does what he says, and writes a tell-all book, and exposes just "what" $arah "is" - then more power to him.

What he may not recognize is that if he's in the right, he will never be wrong and if he tells the truth, she can never hurt him. It only hurts when you lie - you have to try and remember what you've said to everyone.

I think Levi will be fine and $P will be history. I like to think positive and he seems like a person who is trying to be responsible. Unfortunately he is a young immature man trying to deal with a manic psychotic raving loon as a potential M-I-L.

Poor guy...and poor Bristol too. I'm very surprised that Bristol has stayed in the home. My daughter would have not taken this treatment.