You can clog the site with as many words as you like but the only ones that matter are those that prove what you want folks to believe, that the Alaska AG will not enforce the law.
Those are the words that you can't find, the rest is just smoke...you know, the kind lawyers get paid for.
Any state AG can bring erroneous criminal charges against any of our potential candidates. What's your point?
Poor wtc, always missing the forest for the trees. I am sorry you cannot see that under the right conditions even “negative proof” is pretty good, if not from the standpoint of pure logic, at least from the standpoint of probabilistic analysis. This is especially true in the law, where if you really want to do something, you had dang well better find someone else somewhere who did it before you if you want the judge to buy it. It’s called “stare decisis.” Google it. Not making it up, Friend.
By contrast, you predict the spontaneous emergence of a new doctrine, for which there are no examples, in any jurisdiction: Infinite, life-long liability to a public officer, even if they only held office for a day. Your rule, put short, is “once an officer, always liable.” If you’re right, then Solomon was wrong. There is something new under the sun.
My rule is much less glamorous, a dusty old notion that the system will keep producing what it has always produced, liability limited to bad acts discovered during the term, with a little time after the term to actually file the complaint.
However, if I cannot convince you by reason and the law that your novel doctrine of infinite liability is bogus, so be it. To you it is “just words.” Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Alas, you can lead a horse to water, splash the water in his face, try to insert an IV, but if he really, really doesn’t want that water, not much left to do. (sigh).
Though I do want you stop misrepresenting my position. It’s just the classy thing to do, “sweetie.” Of course the AG will enforce the law. I never said otherwise and you know it. Your pal the AG just won’t enforce your bizarre misinterpretation of the law. He will look at applicability as it relates to discovery, even if you won’t. If you don’t believe me, talk to the AK AG yourself. Get you an advisory opinion, my brother FReeper. And don’t complain to me you don’t qualify for such an opinion. You don’t believe in the applicability rules. You are above them. For you 39.52.910 just doesn’t exist. So just barge on in there and ask. If you need the phone number, I can help.