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: 08-02-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 6:20pm

Once again, you don't get it.

He may actually have a LEGAL RIGHT to "defy" the subpoena. And if he does, then the CONSTITUTION grants him that right, whether he has something to hide or not. And furthermore, anyone in a position to render judgment is LEGALLY NOT PERMITTED to make ANY negative inferences from his refusal to testify, INCLUDING the inference of guilt or that he "has something to hide."

Even when everything is on the up-and-up, innocent people refuse to testify. See these examples:

I refused to testify at my husband's child custody hearing. I lawfully subpoenaed on the day of the trial upon entering the courtroom. I objected on the following grounds: (1) As the co-counsel on the case, it would have caused an unreasonable delay and hardship for me to get my own attorney so I could testify; and (2) the judge had already sequestered the witnesses (no one subpoenaed to testify was permitted to hear any of the trial before they testified), and that would take me off the case until I was called, and leave the defendant in the case without an attorney. I didn't have to file a motion, only an objection right there in the courtroom. It was a perfectly legal subpoena. I had nothing to hide. The subject matter listed in the subpoena was not protected either by spousal immunity nor attorney-client privilege. They wanted me to testify about my student loan amounts, my billing records, and a few private conversations I had with my husband's ex and my stepdaughter, none of which is privileged. The subpoena was properly served, and I had no "rights" to avoid it. Legally, I HAD to testify. However, the judge has the authority to rule anyway, even if the only objection is, "This isn't convenient." He ruled from the bench in one second, and he said to the opposing counsel: "Sorry. This is nothing more than an ambush. If you knew you wanted to hear from her as a witness, you've had 18 months to subpoena her. I'm quashing it." Nothing illegal about an ambush like that. But it's not exactly in the spirit of the discovery process. Judges have some latitude to make rulings like that.

Another example: in divorce cases, when the issue of money is at stake, usually federal tax returns are in evidence. Most attorneys instruct their clients to invoke the 5th amendment on the witness stand, because the document speaks for itself and any statements a person makes under oath about their tax returns in ANY court are subject to scrutiny by the IRS. It is a violation of an attorney's ethics to subject his client to unnecessary IRS scrutiny when it is not necessary. An attorney who does so can be sued for malpractice, and will lose the suit.

Which brings me to the Todd Palin situation. If his attorney DID NOT instruct him to invoke his marital privilege, his attorney can be sued for malpractice if his testimony results in his being charged with a crime. Even if he is guilty, it is his attorney's OATH and ETHICAL OBLIGATION to limit his client's exposure to unnecessary legal scrutiny.

I hope your attorney, should you ever need one, upholds his/her oath to provide zealous representation to the best of his/her ability, and doesn't just tell you, "Oh, if you have nothing to hide, it'll all be just fine." I believe it is in the spirit of the process to permit those who have nothing to hide to CHOOSE whether or not they want to be subjected to the experience.

It is unconstitutional and unAmerican to believe that law abiding citizens with "nothing to hide" must be expected to willingly subject themselves and their entire families to the inconvenience, the physical stress, the cost and the emotional strain of being forced to participate in the judicial process. Please recognize that the rules of discovery and the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments are in place to protect the law abiding citizens with nothing to hide from rogue prosecutors and overzealous attorneys who serve a subpoena on anything with a heartbeat. Those protections are the rights of every citizen, not just the ones you think should have them.

And I restate my deepest hopes that you never sit on a jury, and add that I am thankful you are not a lawyer--or at least MY lawyer.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 6:29pm

The best thing that Palin could do is get this resolved quickly. Geraldine Ferraro learned that expensive lesson when she and her husband dragged their feet about releasing financial records which (shockingly!) revealed they'd really done nothing wrong.


But the scandal associated with that foot-dragging led to a negative view of Ferraro that extended into the poll booth and hurt Mondale. (Not that I supported him, but his running mate's problems did drag down his campaign.) McCain's people are giving Palin bad advice if they're telling her not to cooperate. If she's done nothing wrong, getting this done and over with quickly will be better for McCain. If she drags her feet, it makes her LOOK guilty, and that's all the press needs to sniff a scandal.

The 3 Day

Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 6:36pm

I see that you did a little investigation about subpoenas, and what you posted is exactly right."

Yes, my investigation included 3 1/2 years of law school, an 5 1/2 years of practice, which included drafting and answering probably well over 1000 subpoenas.

"Perhaps you should ask yourself why someone would go through all this trouble with motions and the like. Is her excuse that she is running for VP? Goodness, can't have whoever is running for public office answer any questions about whether they were involved in unethical behavior - the horror!"

It is not the witness who goes through the trouble with motions and the like. It is her attorney, who would lose a malpractice suit for breech of ethics for failure to zealously represent a client to the best of his or her abilities. There is always a risk of exposure when a person testifies, and if there is ANY legitimate grounds upon which to avoid a subpoena or avoid a discovery request, EVERY attorney who values his or her license MUST attempt to avoid it.

>>>"Well, if the lady won't appear after being subpoenaed, how will you find "the facts" that you'll be waiting for."

If the presiding judicial authority rules that she is not required to testify, it is probably because the facts to which she will testify are either not relevant to the investigation, or because the Motion for Determination of No Probable Cause (found at http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-09/palin-response.pdf) is granted and the entire investigation is thrown out. In any event, the facts will be released at the end of the investigation, and if she doesn't testify, it will be because she was legally excused, not because she ran off to Russia or Canada crying, "NANNY NANNY BOO BOO YOU CAN'T CATCH ME!"

What "results" will there be unless the facts as Palin sees them and testifies about them are known?

>>>"I would never call a "real American" a fool."

First of all, never say never. Well, you do what you want. At least that's my rule.

Second, it is difficult to imagine how you might have misinterpreted my statements, which specifically reference my personal preference regarding myself and my choices to reserve judgment:

"I prefer to wait for the results and be thought a fool than to prejudge and find out I actually am a fool."

I didn't call anyone a fool--except myself, in the event that I prejudge wrongly. In fact, there is no pronoun other than "I" in that entire last paragraph of my message. I guess it takes a certain kind of reader to read a personal attack or namecalling into something when it clearly isn't there.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 6:39pm
LOL - I ain't no fool - not an elite lawyer
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 6:49pm

Don't be so quick to assume. It's pretty hard to get thrown in jail for just not showing up for a subpoena, especially since subpoenas can be for producing documents and answering questions. It's costly to file a motion to compel testimony, and in small cases and most civil cases, if the deponent isn't vital, they just let it go anyway. When people say "subpoena," they are imagining some really formal document with a whole lot of power. It's not any more powerful than the notice on the mattress, unless the failure to appear is pursued and not legitimate.

If every time someone slept through their red light hearing, they got thrown in the clink, the jails would be overflowing--it's a subpoena to be scheduled for a traffic hearing, and if you don't know how many times someone can FTA before they ACTUALLY issue a warrant, I've seen it up to 6 times with no warrant issued.

The Omnipotent Subpoena isn't really all it's made out to be, and most of the time is disputed before it's obeyed.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
Avatar for undefeated
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 6:54pm

"If the presiding judicial authority rules that she is not required to testify, it is probably because the facts to which she will testify are either not relevant to the investigation, or because the Motion for Determination of No Probable Cause (found at http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-09/palin-response.pdf) is granted and the entire investigation is thrown out. In any event, the facts will be released at the end of the investigation, and if she doesn't testify, it will be because she was legally excused, not because she ran off to Russia or Canada crying, "NANNY NANNY BOO BOO YOU CAN'T CATCH ME!""


Cute, but this is not some child custody case.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 7:00pm

>>>"However, it seems if you are a Republican politician or even just a republican, you just say, no, I'm not going to do it. And until Congress and the Courts start arresting some of these people, they are just going to continue doing it."

Congress has no powers of arrest. Congress just writes the law.

The courts have no powers of arrest. They just interpret the law.

The executive branch has the powers of arrest. And if they don't properly exercise their powers of arrest, the legislature will appeal to the judiciary to force them to do so. In this case, if Palin and her people are in violation of the law, and are not arrested or properly and legally dealt with, the legislature (who is handling the investigation) is in the position to pursue a remedy in the form of a Motion to Compel (which will most likely come complete with a Motion for Sanctions). The judge would rule on it. And if you don't think Palin and her "clan" would be snatched up like wolves by aerial hunters (sorry, couldn't resist) if they unlawfully refused to appear and testify, then you need to read more about this case, starting with French's history in this whole situation.

As public as this investigation is, if there were any lawful basis to start pitching people in jail, Palin would be on the front page in handcuffs. I mean, so many other more realistic explanations are much more likely--it's even possible that all discovery is suspended pending a ruling on the Motion for Determination of No Probable Cause, filed by Palin's Attorney, found at

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

I'm sure there are all sorts of conspiracy theories just bursting to come out if the motion is granted. I suppose we'll have to hear that it is only a legitimate execution of due process if it goes against Palin, otherwise I anticipate a littering of claims that the entire thing was a grave miscarriage of justice. How convenient.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 7:01pm
It's obviously part of a partisan smear campaign. But this was discussed on O'Reilly with several attorneys who saw the evidence and all stated that it's a frivolous issue...and that it was VERY obvious that Palin would be quickly vindicated. That said, I don't know why Palin doesn't take this head on...except that maybe she, and McCain, know that once in the ring you're opening yourself up to other attacks, that while unfounded, can still have a negative effect on the campaign. I know it's a smear job, but I'm going to support Palin/McCain on their strategy to handle it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 7:09pm

Cute, but this is not some child custody case. This is an investigation into possible unethical behavior of a person who could conceivably be the next VP of the U.S. Motions, appeals and other legal maneuvering by attorneys could take who knows how long. The election is less than two months away.

Well, unfortunately, the witnesses in this case cannot have their constitutional rights to due process and to competent counsel (derived from the 5th and 6th amendments) abridged just because "we wanna know now." We cannot circumvent the constitution and interfere with the lawful due process of legally executed proceedings just because we don't like the fact that it will slow things down. And if you think that it is EVER the case where only one side is "maneuvering," you haven't been involved in the legal process nearly enough. Maneuvering is in the eye of the opposing counsel.

I've said it a few times, an attorney loses their license for malpractice if he or she doesn't invoke every legally available means to limit or eliminate the exposure of his or her client. And in a case like this, where the risk of unnecessary exposure is high and the cost to the client is steep, the attorney has a duty to protect his client by any legal means necessary--no matter how long it takes. It may serve to stall the process, but by not doing it, the attorney is open to a malpractice suit, which will likely be a losing one for the lawyer.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 7:32pm
Legal right...yeah....anything some high-priced lawyer can cook up.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

Pages