Todd Palin thumbs his nose at the LAW

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-27-2008
Todd Palin thumbs his nose at the LAW
34
Fri, 09-19-2008 - 12:45pm

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 5:20pm
I just read something about the Alaskan Legislature isn't in Full session, that is why Todd Palin could ignore his subpeona.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 7:00pm

You might be interested in reading the email trail found in the Motion for Determination of No Probable Cause at

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-09/palin-response.pdf

It contains several emails detailing the manner in which the commissioner was working outside the chain of command and going over the heads of those responsible for dealing with the appropriations relating to his "potential" "possible" trip" "if he goes to Washington." {I'm not meaning to state the obvious, but if you read the email chain from bottom to top, last page to first, you will be able to follow the timeline and sequence of events}. You will also see how many times he was told (and it was discussed by the decisionmakers within the executive branch) that it was not in Palin's plan or budget, nor was it her intention, to make the appropriations request that Monagan made in Washington. You will see how many people above him in the administration were losing patience with his inappropriate tactics and continual breaches of his chain of command in discussing the matter. I even note that he may have issued an unauthorized press release contrary to Palin's policies and executive ideals. In any event, she appointed him, and she has the right to fire him if he is not operating within her plans as governor. She is entitled to appoint those who share her beliefs and intend to carry out her plans as Governor. That is why she has the RIGHT to appoint whomever she chooses, and for whatever reason she chooses.

Furthermore, the Alaska Code of Ethics specifically details that action on the part of an executive is not considered a violation of the code if the intention was to further the best interests of the State of Alaska. I find it PRECISELY within that section of the code for a governor to fire a police commissioner who will not remove from the force a state trooper who has been found repeatedly to have violated criminal code. In fact, it was stated in his reprimand letter that if he weren't a cop, the commissioner would have prosecuted him criminally for what he did. She should have fired the Commissioner long before she did.

Just thought you'd find it interesting.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 7:11pm
In that case, I would tend to agree.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 9:04pm

She is ASSUMED to have legitimately fired him until it is PROVEN that she hasn't. When the government brings an action against a citizen, the burden isn't on the citizen to assert and prove innocence. It's a basic foundation of our judicial system: the burden of proof isn't on the accused, it's on the accuser. In matters involving the government, a criminal is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, and the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE GOVERNMENT to show wrongdoing.

If our system ran the way you think it should, we would have a fully functioning tyranny. All the government would have to do to throw ANY of us in jail is to make an accusation, unfounded or legitimate. And the burden would be on the individual citizens to prove their innocence.

There is NO LEGAL BASIS for anyone to have to testify to prove their innocence. You may have the opinion the Palins should be "willing to clear their name" or "come clean with the truth so it doesn't look like a cover up," and you are certainly able to express your opinions anywhere you choose (God bless the USA), but legally what you are proposing is totally unconstitutional. If you were the Palin's attorney and advised them to testify, you would lose a malpractice suit if ANY exposure to legal liability came from their testimony (whether it was related to this case or not), and it would be a fat lawsuit if she could prove it cost her the election. If I were her lawyer, I wouldn't be taking any chances. And if you were that judge and you insisted that someone testify against their right to invoke a privilege or other legitimate right not to testify, you'd lose your job for violating your judicial ethics. Judges and lawyers must obey the laws and allow the legal process to unfold. You have a right not to like it, but understand that believing anything else is a belief that is contrary to the laws on which our country is founded.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-18-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 10:33pm

So, why won't her husband testify on her behalf, then if she legitimately fired him?


Because, apart from the fact that a spouse's favorable testimony wouldn't be terribly convincing or

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 11:01pm
Excellent
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-18-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 4:41pm
Why, thank you . . . I think.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 5:08pm

Nope...I calls 'em likes I sees 'em...credit where credit is due.

edited to add:...good analysis of the general facts, but I do disagree with some of the partisan slant concerning Palin and McCain's motives. ; )




Edited 9/22/2008 5:12 pm ET by dr.liviingston
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-18-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 5:12pm

Precisely what I was thinking.


Edited to add:

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 5:35pm
.