Sarah Palin - The Art of Grifting and Scamming

Sarah Palin must have this fridge magnet...

Con artists have a way of appearing to have something to sell, with crippling expenses to address.

Sarah Palin is a classic example of a person who makes exaggerated claims in order to move her supporters to reach for their wallets.

She claimed to have enormous attorney bills and had a "legal" fund started by her chum Kristan Cole. Another ally promoted appeals for money: Rebecca Mansour and her barbarians on C4P massaged Sarah Palin's record as governor of Alaska, making her look promising but wronged, urging their readers to donate with abandon. Their creative accounting made their webathon, which was for a limited time, look far more successful than it really was. They asked people to disclose past donations and added them to the webathon total...




When the original trust fund was found to be unethical, another one was formed. Sarah Palin, as usual, claimed that nothing illegal or unethical had occurred. Meg Stapleton wrote on Sarah Palin's Facebook page:

"First off, let’s keep in mind that this is about a legal defense fund. According to the Summary of Findings in the decision released today by the Alaska Personnel Board, nothing illegal and nothing unethical occurred because not a penny has been distributed. Governor Palin did nothing wrong. And in fact, everyone is in agreement that Governor Palin acted in good faith."


Sarah Pac works on more or less the same lines. It's a vehicle for Sarah Palin to blow her own trumpet, to show how worthy she is. What better way to show appreciation than sending some nice green notes her way? Again, the accounting for Sarah Pac is very creative and money is "spent" on some elusive consultants, whose offices don't really exist.



Token donations to candidates and some charities make her appear generous and thoughtful.

A scam is a scam, but some people are blind to the mechanisms of fleecing the innocent.

Sarah Palin quit her job to dedicate herself to a greater cause. Now she has a job of sorts and makes a lot of money. She earned enough in the past two years to be able live very comfortably, but taking other people's money must be addictive.


Her followers believe in the illusion of Sarah Palin as a politician, city manager, ethics champion, journalist... They bought the myth. They fail to see the reality behind the veneer, they fail to see how she formed alliances with her unsuspecting victims, just to discard or badmouth them in her book. She's ruthless, singleminded. I expect some of her former allies chose to distance themselves from her when they realized she wasn't what they believed her to be. Some came out of the shadows and exposed a few facts, others stayed in silence, either too frightened or perhaps thankful to have a peaceful life, away from all the ugliness.


The ingredients that make her schemes work are lies, distortion, misrepresentation, a big ego, some victimhood and a good dose of confidence. Some clever PR to disseminate her brilliance, with touches of how she is wronged by others, complete the scenario.

Her targets are naive, they believe she's working for them. Sarah Palin has worked hard since she quit her job. Her schedule is punishing at times, and that makes her even more attractive to her deluded followers. So they continue to open their wallets to help her with her cause and reward her efforts.

Looking from the outside, it seems amazing that people don't have suspicions when a person with a large income keeps begging for more money. The websites that support Sarah Palin celebrate her cleverness, her ability to raise money this way. They love the fact that she's rich and encourage their readers to keep sending her their own hard earned money.

Well, good scammers are cunning, they know how to manipulate people and avoid putting their hands in their own pockets.

Sarah Palin is not the first con artist in the world and won't be the last. But sometimes they're found out and their fall is spectacular. The people they used as stepping stones may feel vindicated, but those who invested their money in the scam will never recover from their disappointment. Some scammers are never found out, but in Sarah Palin's case there's some hope that her day of shame will come.

It's not going to be pretty...

Sarah Palin's ethics

The list of "The Palingates" is long, but one gate has many, may posts: Ethics. There are 68 posts dedicated to the topic! (69 when this one is included)

It would be impossible to go into this topic in depth and look at each of the ethics complaints against Sarah Palin in a single post, so I'll make list and focus on the most important of the lot.

1) 7/28/08 filed by Alaska Legislature - Abuse of Power re: firing Walt Monegan (aka Troopergate).
10/10/08 Sarah Palin found guilty of abuse of power for permitting husband and staff to harangue Monegan about the trooper.

2) 8/06/08 filed by Andree McLeod (AK resident) - Undue influence exerted by Palin and staff to get a job for a Palin supporter.
Palin staff member advised to take ethics training.

3) 8/20/08 filed by Brian Kraft (AK resident) - Breaking election law by taking public position on ballot initiative concerning Pebble Mine.
05/08/09 Complaint rejected by APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission).

4) 9/02/08 filed by Sarah Palin (AK resident) - Self-disclosure filing with AK Personnel Board (re: Troopergate).
11/03/08 Personnel Board found no abuse of power for Sarah Palin letting aides and husband hassle Monegan, but also, no investigation of who committed perjury in their contradictory sworn statements, Palin or Monegan.

5) 9/03/08 filed by PSEA (AK Public Safety Employees Association) - Improper disclosure of the trooper's personnel records and amended to include allegation of harassment (bundled with charge #4)
11/03/08 Dismissed together with #4 by AK Personnel Board.

6) 10/13/08 Filed by Walt Monegan (AK resident) - Request by filer for a hearing to clear his name (it had been sullied by Palin and staff).
11/03/08 AK Personnel Board said there was no legal basis or jurisdiction for a hearing on this matter.

7) 10/23/08 filed by CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics) - Expensive wardrobe purchased for Sarah Palin with donor money violates FEC regulations.
05/19/09 FEC ruled "party money" is not covered in ban.

8) 10/24/08 unnamed filer - Abuse of power for charging AK for children's travel.
02/23/09 AK Personnel Board negotiated settlement wherein Sarah Palin paid $10,000 to reimburse for costs.

9) 11/14/08 Filed by Zane Henning (AK resident) - Alleged abuse of office by doing "post-election damage control" in interviews from Governor's office.
03/23/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

10) 12/02/08 filed by Anthony Martin (AK resident) - Sarah Palin violated ethics by campaigning for Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
03/23/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

11) 12/18/08 unnamed filer - Alleged misuse of funds by allowing her picture to be used to promote Alaska seafood in national publications while also promoting her national political ambitions.
01/12/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

12) 01/12/09 filed by Edna Birch - Interference in job hiring.
02/20/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board because filer failed to use a real name.

13) 01/26/09 filed by Andree McLeod (AK resident) - Palin aide Bill McAllister worked on state time to benefit Palin's extra-AK political interests. PENDING

14) 01/26/09 filed by Andree McLeod (AK resident) - Palin aide Kris Perry worked on state time to benefit Palin's extra-AK political interests.
06/05/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

15) 03/18/09 filed by Andree McLeod (AK resident) - Improper use of state resources for partisan political purposes.
05/27/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

16) 03/24/09 filed by Linda Kellen Biegel (AK resident) - Conflict of interest by advertising for husband's sponsor by wearing Arctic Cat gear during official duties.
06/02/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

17) 04/22/09 filed by Sondra Tompkins (AK resident) - SarahPAC constitutes ethics violation by misusing official position and accepting outside employment.
05/08/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

18) 04/27/09 filed by Kim Chatman (AK resident) - Alaska Fund Trust (AFT) violates ethics rules by funneling improper gifts to Sarah Palin.
06/24/2010 PALIN SETTLES - has to return $386,000 because AFT declared illegal.

19) 07/06/09 filed by Zane Henning (AK resident) - Illegal continuation of per diem collection when Sarah Palin's home is less than 50 miles from Anchorage office. PENDING

20) 07/10/09 filed by Ray Ward (AK resident) - Illegal compensation collected by Sarah Palin for giving radio and television interviews since '08 campaign ended.
07/15/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board (in part for not being properly notarized).

21) 07/14/09 filed by Andree McCleod (AK resident) - Failure to transfer power to Lt. Gov during '08 campaign, while collecting salary during "off duty" status.
07/24/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board as legally flawed.

22) 07/20/09 filed by Andree McCleod (AK resident) - Failure to disclose gifts within 30 days of receipt. PENDING

I suspect the complaints marked as PENDING were resolved in Sarah Palin's favour. I tried to find up-to-date information, but the trail went cold. One possibility is that the state is holding back, waiting for the two years after her resignation to expire so she would no longer be held accountable.

Most of these complaints have something in common, in that they were investigated and resolved by a personnel board appointed by the governor. The other thing they all have in common is the blurring of boundaries, a useful smokescreen to conceal unethical practices.

Linda Kellen Biegel (complaint #16) wrote about how Sarah Palin's chief of staff Mike Nizich encouraged a backlash against Alaska citizens who challenged the governor's unethical behaviour. Sarah Palin regularly bragged about each dismissed complaint in press releases on her governor's website.

The most interesting complaints are the ones where Sarah Palin was found to be at fault (in her book that means exonerated).

Troopergate may come to the forefront yet again. Sarah Palin was found guilty in an independent, bi-partisan report and not guilty by her Personnel Board. Now a major player in the fiasco, Frank Bailey, is prepared to disclose a ton of evidence that confirms that there was indeed abuse of power and a great deal of harassement of some people by the Palins. Alaska Dispatch has already disclosed some passages (you will need to register to read it) from Bailey's manuscript and it appears there's a sequel to the original Troopergate, this time involving a "hiring" instead of a "firing," indicating another instance of abuse of power. It seems Judge Morgan Christen was appointed to the Supreme Court as a reward for siding with Sarah Palin's sister Molly in the custody battle with Mike Wooten.

Complaint # 18 is another interesting one. We don't have a way of finding out if the money was indeed returned to the donors. As they're what we call "palinbots," I don't think they would come forward to say they have not been reimbursed. The new Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund website doesn't publish any financial disclosures or reports, so it's impossible to tell how well the fund is doing.

The original Alaska Fund Trust, with Kristan Cole as the sole trustee, failed to publish a detailed account of donations as she had promised, so we can't tell if the $386,000 figure quoted above is in any way accurate. Is it possible that a lot more was collected and the balance is nowhere to be found? When it comes to Sarah Palin and Kristan Cole, we can't be blamed for having suspicious minds...

The outcome of complaint #19 is unclear. It was filed three days after her first quitter speech on Lake Lucille and I couldn't find any resolution, for or against Sarah Palin (see above). In February 2009 she was told to pay back taxes on at least $17,000 per diem.

We discussed complaint #8 already and it raised a few questions, as usual.

Sarah Palin invited the citizens of Alaska to hold her accountable. She ran her campaign for governor on a platform of transparency and accountability, as an ethics champion. Then she found it impossible to govern Alaska because too many citizens took her at her word. She quit.

Uh?


The Branchflower report on Troopergate may be downloaded from the sidebar.

Looking at $arah Palin's legal fund from a criminal law perspective

I received a very interesting e-mail regarding the Alaska Fund Trust website, the AFT agreement and how the two together may have implications in Alaska criminal law.

The AFT website, which exists to solicit donations to the fund, states in the FAQs page:

9. Can the funds be used for personal purposes?

No. Donations can only be used for legal expenses incurred by counsel on behalf of the Governor, her family, and staff as approved by the Trustee.

13. Why is this fund being created?

The Trust Fund is being created to assist the Governor, her family, and staff in paying legal expenses and costs incurred from previous investigations as well as future complaints filed. Her staff is similarly being targeted by these complaints and has also incurred and is incurring significant costs.

As we have previously seen, the agreement fails to state that the purpose of the trust fund is to pay legal expenses, saying instead that its exclusive purpose is to provide a proper means for the acceptance of money, property, and services, including, if necessary, pro bono legal services, to provide for all reasonable, necessary, and appropriate fees or charges incurred by (i) SARAH PALIN as a result of the fact that she is Governor of the State of Alaska or as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor of the State of Alaska; and (ii) Covered Individuals, that may be selected or designated by the Trustee as provided herein, as a result of or arising out of their association or relationship with or employment by SARAH PALIN, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Alaska.

Further, it includes a clause regarding rights of withdrawal up to the maximum yearly amount to fall within the Federal Gift Tax exclusion. It applies to each beneficiary and shall be exercisable only by written notice to Trustee of the amount Donee wishes to withdraw, but no purpose for said withdrawal need be shown.

I'm sorry if I keep quoting the text of the agreement in so many posts, but bear with me, here comes the juicy bit:

Alaska Statutes 11.46.100 defines an assortment of theft crimes, including alternative means of committing theft which include a person who: "(1) with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property of another to oneself or a third person, . . .obtains the property of another; (2) the person commits theft of lost or mislaid property under AS 11.46.160; (3) the person commits theft by deception under AS 11.46.180; (4) the person commits theft by receiving under AS 11.46.190; (5) the person commits theft of services under AS 11.46.200; [or] (6) the person commits theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received or held under AS 11.46.210."

In turn, for example, theft by deception (false pretenses) is defined in Alaska Statutes11.46.180: "(a) A person commits theft by deception if, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property of another to oneself or a third person, the person obtains the property of another by deception."

"Deception," in turn, is defined in Alaska Statutes 11.81.900(18); while it "does not include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance," is fairly broadly defined to include: "knowingly (A) creat[ing] or confirm[ing] another's false impression that the defendant does not believe to be true, including false impressions as to law or value and false impressions as to intention or other state of mind; (B) fail[ing] to correct another's false impression that the defendant previously has created or confirmed; (C) prevent[ing] another from acquiring information pertinent to the disposition of the property or service involved; (D) sell[ing] or otherwise transfer[ring] or encumber[ing] property and fail[ing] to disclose a lien, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property, whether or not that impediment is a matter of official record; or (E) promis[ing] performance that the defendant does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed."

Summing up: the website soliciting donations states that the money raised will be used only to pay certain legal expenses. The agreement says no such thing. The website states the money cannot be used for personal purposes. The agreement contains a clause that says otherwise.

Perhaps it would help clarify things if an Alaskan citizen or person from elsewhere who contributed to this fund would challenge the whole arrangement in a court of law--or if an impartial Alaskan prosecutor would investigate the matter under state criminal law.

An important point: the State of Alaska is obliged to prosecute any appropriate criminal action. The victims and witnesses in a criminal action should bear no costs whatsoever. Prosecuting authorities bring those cases not on "behalf of" a given victim but on behalf of all the people of the State of Alaska, against whom criminal activities are considered a transgression. A larceny is not viewed so much as an offense against the individual as against the community.

There's more.

A little more food for thought regarding official pronouncements from a certain governor's associates concerning the purposes of this "trust fund": it appears that where a "trust fund" has been set up expressly to counteract citizen requests for clarification of state ethics laws (including at least some number of them under pending investigation at the time) and to deter additional lawful citizen filings essentially by pre-judging every one of them as "frivolous" and unworthy of the Board's attention, attention should be paid under both federal civil rights laws and state law.

Where representatives of the subject of any such request for clarification expressly invites a "backlash" against citizens who exercise their rights to file such requests for clarification, it seems that there should be some consideration of whether other Alaska laws apply.

Under Alaska Statutes 11.56.510, interference with official proceedings is a class B felony:

"(a) A person commits the crime of interference with official proceedings if the person

(1) uses force on anyone, damages the property of anyone, or threatens anyone with intent to
(A) improperly influence a witness or otherwise influence the testimony of a witness;
(B) influence a juror's vote, opinion, decision, or other action as a juror;
(C) retaliate against a witness or juror because of participation by the witness or juror in an official proceeding; or (D) otherwise affect the outcome of an official proceeding; or

(2) confers, offers to confer, or agrees to confer a benefit
(A) upon a witness with intent to improperly influence that witness; or
(B) upon a juror with intent to influence the juror's vote, opinion, decision, or other action as a juror or otherwise affect the outcome of an official proceeding."

I have emphasized the relevant bits of the statutes that apply in this case and it appears the website presents the purpose of the trust fund as one thing while the trust fund agreement presents a very different one, thus at least arguably leading people to part with money, services or property under false pretenses.

The purpose of the fund, as stated on the website, together with several press releases from the governor's office, her twits, etc, may infringe the civil rights of the citizens of Alaska both under state law and federal law.

This post was possible thanks to invaluable input from a criminal prosecutor. Thanks SG, we owe you!
.

$arah Palin's "legal expense" fund compared to real legal expense funds

Celtic Diva posted an excellent analysis, by a qualified lawyer from the East Coast, of the wording used in the Alaska Fund Trust.

Funnily enough, when I wrote "$arah Palin's legal fund: questions, questions...", I was puzzled by the same passages explored by the lawyer in Diva's article.

I noticed that the purpose of the trust was for the payment of fees incurred as a result of $arah Palin being the governor of Alaska:

OK, the sole purpose of the fund is to provide for the payment of fees incurred by the governor, her family and other covered individuals, blah blah.

I omitted the word legal when referring to fees because I couldn't see the word in the text of the agreement. But the penny didn't drop until I read Diva's article.

They used the expression "legal fees" on the website, but NOT in the actual agreement. Obviously the website is not legally binding, but the trust agreement IS.

Read the purpose of the trust carefully:

The sole and exclusive purpose of this Trust is to provide a proper means for the acceptance of money, property, and services, including, if necessary, pro bono legal services, to provide for all reasonable, necessary, and appropriate fees or charges incurred by (i) SARAH PALIN as a result of the fact that she is Governor of the State of Alaska or as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor of the State of Alaska; and (ii) Covered Individuals, that may be selected or designated by the Trustee as provided herein, as a result of or arising out of their association or relationship with or employment by SARAH PALIN, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Alaska.

The main purpose is to provide a proper means for the acceptance of money, property, and services, including, if necessary, pro bono legal services (the the word legal appears here, but it's incidental), followed by: to provide for all reasonable, necessary, and appropriate fees or charges incurred by (i) SARAH PALIN as a result of the fact that she is Governor of the State of Alaska or as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor of the State of Alaska (no mention of legal fees), finally extending the benefit of all that lovely money to family and friends selected or designated by the trustee.

It continues in a rambling fashion and does mention legal representation, but only to specify their right to appoint attorneys, negotiate fees etc, for the above purpose, which they were careful to state as fees and charges incurred because $arah is the governor, not that the trust fund exists solely to pay legal expenses. The legal expenses are mentioned in an incidental manner...

In a nutshell: the purpose of the fund is to raise money for $arah Palin, her family and selected friends because she's the governor of Alaska. No strings attached.

We know very well that $arah doesn't like no pesky strings, no siree!

I had a closer look at the other trust agreements offered as examples on the AFT website.

ALL the trusts contain the expression legal expense in their title. $arah's is simply called The Alaska Fund Trust.

The purpose in all the other trusts is clearly specified: to pay legal expenses. In the cases of Stevens and Kerry, the purpose relates to specific proceedings, and in Kerry's case, a specific lawsuit: the Sherwood suit.

None of the other trusts has the Rights of Withdrawal bit:

Each of the beneficiaries of this trust, shall, in each calendar year, have an absolute and unrestricted power to withdraw from this Trust up to the lesser of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year or an amount in cash or other property equal the lesser of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year, divided equally among such beneficiaries, or an amount in cash or other property equal to the maximum amount which qualifies for the Federal Gift Tax exclusion (...) and shall be exercisable only by written notice to Trustee of the amount Donee wishes to withdraw, but no purpose for said withdrawal need be shown.

The most transparent and restrictive trust in the history of trusts has no clear purpose other than raise money, property, services, you name it, for $arah Palin, family and friends because she's the governor of Alaska, the name of the Trust doesn't reflect anything to do with legal expenses and provides a lovely way for each of the beneficiaries to access tax free money each year, no questions asked.

They did restrict the donations to a maximum of $150 per donor per year, which is, by sheer coincidence, the maximum value of any gifts before they need to be disclosed to APOC.

Most of the wording of $arah's trust was copied and pasted from some of the other examples, omitting some crucial words and introducing the get money for nothing described above.

I also noticed that $arah's and Clinton's trusts are the only ones that make provision for moving the trust to another jurisdiction. In $arah's case at the discretion of the trustee without notice to the beneficiaries...

The AFT website gives the fund the appearance of being transparent and restrictive, but the text of the actual agreement seems to tell a very different story.

It looks very neat , eh? I pity the poor suckers who sent money to this "legal expense" fund. I hope the handwritten thank you note "signed" by the governor is enough to keep each of them on cloud 9...
.

$uper$arah!

$arah Palin:

"I find the notion that I have taken any action pertaining to the legal defense trust fund misguided and factually in error... The fund itself was not created by me nor is it controlled by me... In short, I have not ‘acted' relative to the defense fund and it is misleading to say I have."

Kristan Cole:

"The first and only time I have spoken with the Governor about the Trust was yesterday to alert her that I was responding to this violation of the law and leak of preliminary and confidential materials from the complainant."

If Kristan Cole never spoke to $arah Palin about the Trust until yesterday, how did the governor obtain the names and addresses of donors so she could send them handwritten thank you notes?

Did somebody leak this information to $arah behind Kristan's back???

As there were no disbursements from the fund whatsoever, did the governor pay for the cards, envelopes and postage out of her own pocket? (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha)

Some grateful donors show off their good fortune on Sarah Web Brigade:

Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Alaska Fund Trust - Navy Vet Gets a Thank You

Navy veteran and Alaska citizen Mark Bowers (follow Mark on Twitter) received a pleasant surprise after he donated to the Alaska Fund Trust to preserve the integrity of the Governor's Office of the State of Alaska. His donation helps to cover the legal expenses of defending against the frivolous complaints filed against Governor Sarah Palin. She surprised him with a personally written thank you note from the governor herself.



2 comments:

Greg said...

I just picked up my mail, and sure enough, there I received a Thank YOu card, too. Several people at Team Sarah, and Conservatives4Palin are reporting that they too have gotten them. Gov. Palin sure has class, that's for sure. I can't remember getting anything from a politician before except a computer generated thank you, followed by a plea for more money.
May 26, 2009 7:49 PM

Ron Devito said...

I got one on May 26 for the donation and also for my work on a POTUS package. I'm still on cloud 9! I didn't blog about it yet, because I have a letter to the editor outstanding with the Frontiersman and I want that to hit first. But I will be posting about it soon.
May 28, 2009 8:05 PM



A few more on Texas4Palin:

Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Donation prompts hand-written Palin thank you

If you have not donated the maximum amount of $150 to the Alaska Fund Trust, I urge you to do so right now. You can make your contribution here.

Update: As our commenters have reported, Gov. Palin is apparently hand-writing thank-you notes to many, if not all, donors to the legal defense fund. All the more reason to make your $150 contribution now. Someday you can show your grandkids that the first woman to be elected president of the U.S. sent you a personal message "back when."

4 comments:

Becpt said...

I received a thank you note as well!
May 26, 2009 5:43 PM

Greg said...

I just went out and got my mail, and I received a Thank You card also. Numerous people at Team Sarah and Conservatives4Palin have reported receiving cards today.
May 26, 2009 7:54 PM

wisetrog said...

It's not just him, everyone is getting a personal signed letter.

It's very gracious of her, something that distinguihses the Gov. from the rest of the field but I am worried this might too much of her time. :)
May 26, 2009 7:58 PM

K. Carpenter said...

I got one also.
May 27, 2009 8:05 AM

Neat, eh? $uper$arah has some fantastic powers! The fund doesn't need an administrator. $arah has all the names, addresses and amounts given stored in her pretty head.

(H/T to Patrick & Kathleen and EyeOnYou)
.

$urprise! Who's doing stuff behind $arah Palin's back?

$arah Palin was shocked to find out that an official legal fund, called The Alaska Fund Trust, was launched to solicit donations to pay the governor's, her family's and her employees legal bills! $he knew nothing about it.

The trustee of the AFT, Kristan Cole, real estate professional, chair of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation (formerly known as the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund Board), member of the Royalty Gas and Development board, wife of Brad Cole, who's a member of the Real Estate Commission, former beauty queen and daughter of a convicted embezzler, broke the news to the governor yesterday:

"The first and only time I have spoken with the Governor about the Trust was yesterday to alert her that I was responding to this violation of the law and leak of preliminary and confidential materials from the complainant."

According to Meg Stapleton's statement to the Associated Press, $arah Palin must have had an inkling about the Trust:

"The continuing generosity of Alaskans and Americans is overwhelming as many reach out to assist Governor Sarah Palin and her family with their legal bills.

However, the official legal defense fund for Governor Sarah Palin has not been formed and the Governor cannot accept monies for those obligations from any other entity than the one in formation. Numerous federal and state laws to need to be abided by and the official legal defense fund will have very strict donation guidelines.

We thank everyone interested in helping the Governor. The best way to assist her will be through this official fund which will launch later this month."

Meghan Stapleton
Palin Family Spokesperson

Spokesperson means she speaks on behalf of $arah and her family, no? A mouthpiece, as if the governor or her family were uttering the words themselves...

SarahPac is authorized by $arah Palin. From the website:

Who is behind SarahPac?

Gov. Sarah Palin believes all Americans must work together for the future, regardless of their party affiliation. Gov. Palin is the honorary chair of SarahPac, and its supporters are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and those unaffiliated with any political party.

SarahPac solicits donations to the Alaska Fund Trust.


A legal document, the Alaska Fund Trust Agreement, has a whole paragraph regarding successor trustees, using $arah Palin's name in big capitals:

In the event that the original named Trustee herein shall desire at any time to be relieved of his duties herein, said Trustee may resign by written notice to SARAH PALIN, who may appoint a successor Trustee with the qualifications set forth in paragraph 4 above. In addition, SARAH PALIN shall have the same power to appoint a substitute Trustee in the event of the death, incapacity, or failure to act in accordance with the terms of this instrument of any Trustee. In the event of SARAH PALIN's inability to act as a result of incapacity or other reasonable cause, the proper legal representative of SARAH PALIN shall have the right and authority to seek the appointment of a substitute Trustee.

Wow! Kristan Cole put the governor's name in BIG CAPITALS in a legal document without any consultation with the governor???

So many things going on behind $arah Palin's back: the Trust, her spokesperson speaking, her SarahPac asking for money to be given to the official legal fund...



Bad, bad people!
.

$arah Palin's legal fund: questions, questions...

$arah Palin is protesting that neither she nor her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, have received any money from the Alaska Fund Trust.

I find the notion that I have taken any action pertaining to the legal defense trust fund misguided and factually in error. I am informed that this fund was created by experienced attorneys in DC and was modeled after other similar funds established for senators and others. The fund itself was not created by me nor is it controlled by me.

(The examples of other legal funds given on the AFT's website are all for federal officials and are all regulated according to federal laws. $arah's legal fund appears to fall outside the scope of any laws...)

Neither I nor my lawyer has received a penny from this fund, and I am informed the Trustee was withholding any action or payment pending final resolution with the Personnel Board. This is the hallmark of legal compliance and prudent conduct.

The "transparent" trust, run by Palin's long time friend Kristan Cole, aims at raising an undisclosed amount of money to pay $arah Palin's legal bills. Nobody really knows the total amount of these bills:

Palin's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, would not give a case-by-case accounting of how Palin has incurred so much legal debt, saying "that type of breakdown is protected by the attorney-client privilege."

The first listing of donors and the amounts given are due in August, although it's not a legal requirement to disclose anything, according to the Newsminer:

Palin's friends and supporters created the legal defense fund in April. It's not known how much it has raised. The trust has no oversight from the state or federal political watchdog agencies.

The Federal Election Commission said the defense fund is a state matter. The Alaska Public Offices Commission, which oversees campaign spending and financial disclosures of state elected officials, has no plan to get involved in regulating it, officials said.

Cole said there are no legal requirements for the trust to register with either agency or to disclose donors. However, Cole said she will list names of all donors and the amounts they gave on the legal defense fund's public Web site four times a year, with the first posting likely in early August.

Without any oversight, are we supposed to take Kristan Cole's word for the total raised to date?

I find the wording of the AFT agreement a bit confusing. Here are the passages I find puzzling:

This Trust Agreement is made in Wasilla, Alaska, as of the22nd day of April, 2009, by and between KRISTAN CHERYL COLE, as Settlor, and KRISTAN CHERYL COLE, as Trustee, establishes THE ALASKA FUND TRUST, a trust for the payment of expenses or amounts incurred, undertaken or paid in connection with claims, allegations, investigations, accusations, complaints, legal inquiries, requests, and proceedings, including the response and defense thereof, arising out of or by virtue of the activities of or performance of duties as, or on Governor Sarah Palin, in her capacity as (or as a result of her being) the Governor of Alaska. Alaska Trust Company shall serve as administrative and custodial manager of the Fund as provided herein below.

Trust Purpose

The sole and exclusive purpose of this Trust is to provide a proper means for the acceptance of money, property, and services, including, if necessary, pro bono legal services, to provide for all reasonable, necessary, and appropriate fees or charges incurred by (i) SARAH PALIN as a result of the fact that she is Governor of the State of Alaska or as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor of the State of Alaska; and (ii) Covered Individuals, that may be selected or designated by the Trustee as provided herein, as a result of or arising out of their association or relationship with or employment by SARAH PALIN, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Alaska.

Rights of Withdrawal

Each of the beneficiaries of this trust, shall, in each calendar year, have an absolute and unrestricted power to withdraw from this Trust up to the lesser of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year or an amount in cash or other property equal the lesser of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year, divided equally among such beneficiaries, or an amount in cash or other property equal to the maximum amount which qualifies for the Federal Gift Tax exclusion allowed by Section 2503(b) of the Code (currently $13,000 per donor, but such amount shall be adjusted to provide the maximum amount excludable). Except as otherwise provided herein, said power of withdrawal shall not be cumulative from year to year, must be exercised separately for each calendar year in which any such addition or additions are made, and shall be exercisable only by written notice to Trustee of the amount Donee wishes to withdraw, but no purpose for said withdrawal need be shown.

OK, the sole purpose of the fund is to provide for the payment of fees incurred by the governor, her family and other covered individuals, blah blah.

How come the beneficiaries can withdraw up to the maximum amount excludable from the Federal Gift Tax without stating the purpose for the withdrawals?

$arah Palin also protests that she doesn't have anything to do with the running of the trust, so how does she explain this:

Successor Trustees

In the event that the original named Trustee herein shall desire at any time to be relieved of his duties herein, said Trustee may resign by written notice to SARAH PALIN, who may appoint a successor Trustee with the qualifications set forth in paragraph 4 above. In addition, SARAH PALIN shall have the same power to appoint a substitute Trustee in the event of the death, incapacity, or failure to act in accordance with the terms of this instrument of any Trustee. In the event of SARAH PALIN's inability to act as a result of incapacity or other reasonable cause, the proper legal representative of SARAH PALIN shall have the right and authority to seek the appointment of a substitute Trustee.

Another interesting bit:

Trustee's Accounts

The Trustee shall keep (or, in the Trustee's sole and absolute discretion, shall cause others to keep) accurate written records and books of account of the Trustee Estate, showing the manner in which the Trust Estate is invested and all receipts, disbursements, and other transactions involving the Trust Estate. All such records and books of account shall be the property of the Trustee during the duration of this Trust and they, together with the Trust property and all reasonable evidence thereof, plus any accounts, shall not be made available during the Trust term except as hereinabove provided or as may be required by applicable law. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, in no event shall any Trustee at any time acting hereunder be required to make any current or final reports, inventories or accountings to any court.

It's quite obvious that I'm not a lawyer, but I can read English. The terms of this trust always seemed contradictory to me. Maybe a lawyer could guide us through the wording of this agreement and tell us how it makes sense? What are the applicable laws for disclosure of the accounts? The last sentence is particularly interesting: Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, in no event shall any Trustee at any time acting hereunder be required to make any current or final reports, inventories or accountings to any court.

All these points may be moot if the trust is deemed unethical as it may serve no purpose at all. What would happen to the money then? Do they have to give the money back to all the donors? Will they give it to charity? What's the legal status of the trust after July 26?

One more question: even though $arah Palin stated that she has not received any money from the trust, if the trustee made any disbursements for whatever reason, wouldn't it be a no-no? How is the Alaska Trust Company being paid to administer the trust? Are they a charity? If they're not being paid, is the money coming in without anybody keeping a log of the donations?

We know only of $130,000 collected so far, according to the totals published by the people who ran the legal fund begathon. If there's more money in the pot, as John Coale indicated, I would be very curious to know what the total really is and if there were any disbursements since the trust's inception, considering what $arah Palin said: "...and I am informed the Trustee was withholding any action or payment pending final resolution with the Personnel Board."

Will we see any figures and other details in early August? Will we be able to trust the trustee's accounts, if they're published at all? Kristan Cole promised to divulge a list of donors, but not much else...

So many questions...
.