INVESTIGATION OBVIOUS PAYBACK

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-14-2008
INVESTIGATION OBVIOUS PAYBACK
105
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 12:22pm
NOTE: Alaska Sen. Hollis French is a Democrat and worked for two Oil companies, still works for one of them














"
updated 4:58 p.m. ET, Fri., Sept. 19, 2008


"ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The Alaska lawmaker directing an abuse-of-power investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin promised Friday the probe will be finished before the election, despite refusals by key witnesses to testify, including the governor's husband.


After waiting 35 minutes for Todd Palin and two state administrative employees to appear under subpoena before the state Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Hollis French condemned their refusal to testify and the attorney general's broken promise that seven other witnesses would testify who were not subpoenaed. "


As we know Palin went after the Oil Companies, took part of their huge profits and gave them back to the citizens of Alaska.  Since French works for the oil companies and is a democrat, it is painfully obvious why this investigation began and now that he promises to finish it before the election we can be positive they  hope to find a way to smear her before the election.  What started as revenge is now including a pitiful and obvious attempt at political sabatoge.  Amazing what depths Male politicians will stoop to when a woman succeeds in their world and takes their bosses to task.


Below is French's employment facts from the official Alaska Legislature site:


Co-owner, French Apartments, 1989-present; lead operator, ARCO, 1991-1992; production operator, ARCO, 1984-1990, Shell Oil Company, 1980-1984.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 5:40pm
Nikki you bowl me over!
NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 6:39pm

It takes a tremendous amount of integrity and courage to go after corruption in your own party. . .something both Palin and McCain have done.


Obama - on the other hand - worked within the Daley machine and took their tainted money for decades:

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 8:28pm

>>>"Is the committee going to do this without her testimony? Is that how it works from your legal experience?"

Well, at least that's what Senator Hollis French, the Democratic senator in charge of the investigation, has said to the media. He also said that the issue of the investigation, whether or not she had the right to fire him, turns not on her duties under ethics code but on the employment statutes: he was an at-will employee, and as such can be fired for any reason or no reason, and it is within the right and unchallengeable discretion of his employer (Palin). That's the definition of at-will in all 50 states, and most employees are at-will and subject to being fired without cause.

>>>"And if it is, how long will it take with the committee being stonewalled and all the legal maneuvering, again, from your experience?"

French said, even before the investigation started, that he would have a resolution by October 10, with or without the testimony of the subpoenaed witnesses. This is actually a reasonable grounds for the judicial authority to quash the subpoenas--they are clearly superfluous and not relevant, if the investigation can reach a full and fair conclusion without them. If someone can decide the issue without the testimony, the witness is usually not required to testify. According to French, that's exactly the case here.

Whatever happens, it seems the only thing to do is take the committee at face value--it's supposed to be bipartisan, it's actually been accused of being partisan, and it seems it is leaning toward a full exhoneration of Palin. I don't know what can be inferred from that other than she didn't actually do anything wrong.Perhaps it was just a formality, and media zealots are reporting it differently--there's no way we can know any of it, aside from the actual facts. Everything else is interpretation, and thereby unreliable.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 10:32pm

>>>"If you witness illegal behavior by your spouse AND it is not covered by spousal privilege (ie--it's not part of private conversations between you and your spouse) then yes, you can be compelled to testify against your spouse. An example would be if you are in the car when your spouse is driving and a causes an accident. You can be compelled to answer questions as to what you witnessed, but not compelled to answer any questions about what was being said in the car at the time of the accident."

It's an interesting privilege, so I wanted to elaborate on what you posted. There are two kinds of privilege: the first is what you are talking about, which applies only to confidential communications. The communication has to be private and not intended for others to hear. And if the wife is threatening to testify and reveal something against the husband, the privilege isn't hers to waive, it's his. He can say, "She can't testify because that's violating my privilege to keep undisclosed confidential communications with my spouse." There is a federal statute for federal courts, but state courts are governed by the state law, which varies.

The second is a testimonial privilege, which is also codified in federal law but also varies by state. This gives a witness (Todd Palin, in this example) the right to refuse to testify in a civil proceeding against his wife, AND gives Sarah Palin the right to block the testimony of her spouse in a civil proceeding against her, OR allows the judge to rule the testifying spouse incompetent to testify (all that means is that their testimony, because of the conflict of interest stemming from the marital relationship renders the testimony so unreliable that the witness is useless). However, in the case of criminal activity--your car accident example was a good one--you can be required to testify as to what you witnessed, other than the behavior, expressions, words or writings of your spouse (behavior, gestures, expressions are usually considered communications for the purpose of privilege laws). So you really can't testify as to anything that happened inside the car where you and your spouse were after the point of impact, but as far as the scene out side the car and the actions of other drivers and your spouse leading up to the accident, it's fair game. However, uncorroborated, it's not very reliable and usually suspicious if it conflicts with other eyewitness testimony. Just a little extra.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 10:55pm

THANKS!! But watch out--if you go to the Discipline Debate boards, they think I should be hanged from a yardarm at high noon because I'm so stupid!

I'll be around...my husband works nights so I have no one to debate at home!!!

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week

Pages