Palin PING!
Anyone on or off the Palin ping, write me.
Posted on 07/30/2009 1:18:08 PM PDT by Al B.
Having created The Alaska Fund Trust, I can tell you that the suggestions of illegality referenced in various Associated Press stories (which were then repeated on various cable news stories) are absolutely untrue. The truth of the matter is that the trust, which was created to help pay and defray the legal expenses associated with endless frivolous attacks against former Gov. Sarah Palin, was specifically patterned after a number of well recognized legal expense fund trusts of prior Presidential candidates as well as other high profile public servants - both Democratic and Republican.
As with the other trusts (which were subject to intense media scrutiny as well as scrutiny by well-financed political opponents and experienced lawyers of both parties), there is and was no impropriety in the creation or operation of the trust and any suggestion to the contrary is candidly absurd.
So, as Paul Harvey would have put it - here is the rest of the story.
The Alaska Fund Trust, was drafted and created to mirror the language used by the John Kerry Trust fund (named the "Fund for Truth and Honor"). This was by design (although the name "The Alaska Fund Trust" was not as clever). The idea was that if it was good enough for the leading Democratic candidate for President of the United States, then it should be good enough for the Republican Vice Presidential candidate.
Here is what the media does not report. The John Kerry Trust Fund was drafted and created by a very well respected international law firm named Perkins Coie, a huge presence in Washington, D.C. Indeed, Perkins Coie is the lead counsel for the Democratic National Committee, President Obama, and many other national Democratic leaders. Its website touts its reach and expertise in political law matters on behalf of a virtual who's who of Democratic politics.
Given its expertise, when an outside firm was selected to spearhead the investigation of The Alaska Fund Trust, it was not surprising that Perkins Coie's Alaska office would be selected. Aside from the political implications of having President Obama's and the Democratic National Committee's law firm review a trust aimed at helping with the legal expenses associated with defending the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, the Perkins Coie firm seemed like a reasonable choice. (Of course, this is like saying, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?)
Then came the surprise. On July 14, 2009, eleven (11) days after Palin announced that she would resign, the Alaska Perkins Coie attorney submitted his conclusions about the Alaska Fund Trust. In a "CONFIDENTIAL" report (that was promptly leaked to the media in violation of Alaska law), the Alaska Perkins Coie attorney found that the trust fund document (which it had drafted for John Kerry) was in fact ILLEGAL.
Make no mistake, the Alaska Fund Trust is the exact same structure and fund created for and used by President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State and former Presidential candidate (then Senator) Hillary Clinton, former Presidential candidate (then House Minority Leader) Richard Gephardt (also represented by Perkins Coie), Senator Ted Stephens, and many, many others - from both political parties. (At the time of its creation, the Alaska Fund Trust posted all of these trust fund documents on the Alaska Fund Trust website for easy comparison and validation.)
So how could President Obama's law firm conclude that the trust fund it drafted was illegal? Well, the gist of the "CONFIDENTIAL REPORT" is that any payment of legal fees incurred defending against frivolous complaints necessarily involved an illegal personal benefit. Of course, no explanation is given why such funds were not illegal for John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Richard Gephardt, Ted Stephens (from Alaska), and so on.
Significantly, NO ONE with any experience in legal expense trust funds (including the Perkins Coie attorneys experienced in this area) has ever contended (or even suggested) that the trust fund as set up (following the Perkins Coie model for legal expense fund trusts - indeed the gold standard for legal expense trust funds) violates any law - Alaska, IRS, or federal.
The fact is that, as evidenced by the detailed legal memorandum released by the trust, the numerous trust agreements (including those prepared by Perkins Coie itself), the legal writings on the subject, and the positions of every governmental agency to consider such trusts, the Alaska Fund Trust is not only legal, but it is the most restrictive and transparent trust of any well-known public servant in history.
In the end, the only illegality in the matters surrounding the Alaska Fund Trust is the illegal leak of the 'CONFIDENTIAL REPORT" in direct violation of Alaska law, not anything to do with the trust itself.
But then, no one reports on that. Welcome to the world of Sarah Palin.
(Evans is a columnist for this paper and a longtime Georgia attorney with strong ties to the Republican Party)
These needs a big Palin PING!
Already done.
BTTT
Sounds like the Palin family has grounds for a lawsuit against Perkins Coie for lack of fiduciary responsibility and lack of professional competence to draft a “legal” Legal Defense fund for its client.
Sounds like a good lawsuit for refund of all fees billed for the “legally defective” trust, plus damages for further legal expenses by the client, damages for loss of contributors due to the lawsuit ..... etc etc etc etc
Go, Team Sarah, Smart move to use democrat law firms like Perkins Coie to do your business, even if you do need to shower everytime you deal with them.
All of whom are governed by federal election/ethics laws. Palin is (was) governed by Alaska state ethics laws (which she herself championed). The fact is that she is being held to different standards-because Alaska laws and federal laws are different. Her supporters need to get off of this ridiculous "why is it okay for them but not for Palin" whine. They need to use the applicable Alaska law to explain why she is in the right-if they can.
She hired a big name legal firm, adept at setting up legal trust funds for political clients.....with an office in Alaska.
As a client she is entitled to presume if they had an Alaska office and accepted the assignment- they knew the State and Federal Laws well enough to execute a viable “legal” Legal Defense Fund.
I hope she sues Perkins Coie for damages.
Democrat skanks now suing each other. I hoep they make her rich.
Beyond suing, go to the local bar ethics committee and file a complaint against the lawyer who wrote/leaked the confidential memo and the firm itself. I would imagine the firm ‘owns’ the local bar (and courts) but at least a complaint will have been issued and publcized.
Sec. 39.52.130. Improper gifts.It's a judgment call (i.e. -- politics will dictate this outcome). The question is whether a series of $5, $10..up to $150 is "unreasonable influence".(a) A public officer may not solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a gift, whether in the form of money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, employment, promise, or in any other form, that is a benefit to the officer's personal or financial interests, under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the gift is intended to influence the performance of official duties, actions, or judgment. A gift from a person required to register as a lobbyist under AS 24.45.041 to a public officer or a public officer’s immediate family member is presumed to be intended to influence the performance of official duties, actions, or judgment unless the giver is an immediate family member of the person receiving the gift.
I know what I think...the continued political lynching of Sarah Palin using Obama's own law firm.
The only LAW that is being violated here, as Randy Evans says, is the outrageous violation of confidentiality in the leaking of this report. It should be dismissed on that basis alone. We'll see what the Personnel Board says. I personally expect the ruling to go against her.
The maximum individual donation to the fund is set at $150. There was a reason for that even though no other legal defense fund in the U.S to my knowledge has a donation restriction like that.
Don Young (of Alaska) accepted gifts for his legal fund of $5,000.
Her lawyer will have to argue the applicable Alaska laws and regulations.
Its not whining for the rest of us to point out that her fund is modeled on the funds used by every other politician who has one. And the company doing the “investigating” is the very company that set up those funds.
And last I heard she had not yet received any money from the fund. Not sure where that stands now.
Al, this is all moot now that she has resigned.
She is no longer a public official, so she can not reap an illegal benefit by definition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.