[wtc911]

And, according to my new attorney friend in Alaska, who deals with cases directly relevant to the question at hand, there is indeed a de facto jurisdictional limitation, such that the discovery rule would be tied to the term of office. If a new charge were raised, say, three years from now, the argument would be made that jurisdiction for discovery of new violation ended on expiration of the Governor’s term, with the result that the discovery rule and the two year interval after her resignation would be treated as coextensive. Bottom line, July 26, 2011, remains a date of interest, although the attorney did mention there is no known case where such charges were ever brought after a term expired.

_______________________________________________________

Two questions...

1) If there has been no precedent to test the law then how can there be a de facto application of it in place?

I2) If there were in place a precedent for a de facto application of the law would that automatically prevent any person with standing from requesting that the law be applied de jure?

[Springfield Reformer]

Question 1: I never said there was an affirmative application of a De Facto standard, only an understanding of the operating environment and the history that suggests one would be found if probed. This is really just saying that to this point no one has put an ethics charge under any version of the law to a former executive officer beyond their term of service. It is a long history of inaction based on a high probability of a lack of jurisdiction.

However, there is a reasonable inference that a standard does exist, because the code contains a carve out to extend jurisdiction to the post-term period as a mechanism for a former officer to have standing for an advisory opinion. Arguably, no such carve out would be necessary if said long period of inaction had no palpability whatsoever.

Question 2: As inferred above, I’m not sure there’s a meaningful conflict between the De Facto and the De Jure standards. The problem is one of statutory construction. One of the things I need for my supplement is to clarify this very issue, by scouring the broader code for applicability standards that support the current operational understanding. Assuming no general rule of applicability is explicitly stated elsewhere, it is conceivable a case might be brought, but A) the court would be most unlikely to overturn that long history of inaction by wading into a messy, one of a kind case with no roots but politics, and B) to avoid such a quagmire, the court would likely look to persuasive authority available in other jurisdictions with similar scenarios and choose the least controversial path, denial of standing for lack of jurisdiction.

So, as you can see, I have my work cut out for me, and as I said before I do not ask you to accept this as authoritative. But I do have a good sense of how the courtroom works, and indefinite liability of this kind, as an attempt to get virtually eternal standing for blatantly political purposes, would find many a judge willing to knock it down as offensive to justice, and would do so by whatever means necessary, up to and including treating the negative De Facto as the positive De Jure.

But ultimately, true enough, we live in times where common sense and good judgment are in short supply, and it would have to be tested to be certain. But if I were Palin and believed it would be tested against me, as a matter of strategy, I would optimize my chances of success by minimizing my exposure until the conditions of my theory were true, namely, wait till after July 26, 2011.