Posted on 07/05/2011 10:44:26 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Attacking Palin()? How, by quoting the law? You need to get out more.
That’s actually a pretty good name for a rock band: mojo boogers.
It's pretty much akin to being a "Fourth generation native Kalifornian."
Keep fighting the good fight. :)
It’s not her movie. She isn’t asking for anything. It is volunteer supporters who are doing the asking.
She knows what she is doing.
Why thank you so much for checking out my profile...maybe one day I’ll be curious about you. But, please explain in detail exactly what my place of birth has to do with Alaska law.
You say that the law will not be applied but cannot point to any precedent that supports your claim.
So, what do you do? You ask me to find a precedent that dis-proves your supposition.
Excuse me if I rely on the word of the law itself rather than a theory that you cannot substantiate beyond speculation.
I don’t care for propoganda either. Someone thinks they can side-step the entire process and be handed the nomination without working for it, only in their universe where they are God, it’s not happening.
Thank you for providing a well stated account of the legal situation. Facts are what is needed.
But the really odd part about this is why you are not taking the easy road to destroying my thesis. All you need to come up with is a single case, from any US jurisdiction of your choice, just one case that shows a state officer being charged with an ethics violation that was not discovered until after his or her term expired, just one case where the relevant statute of limitation didnt start ticking until after the officer had left office. Just one. How hard can that be? But you not only won't do it, you rail at me for offering you this easy way to beat me. Why? It makes no sense, unless you already know there is no such case, and you just dont want me to keep going there.
So I cant tell who you are now. To get through law school, you have to take exams where the principle skill is issue spotting. If youve made it through three years of issue spotting you absolutely have to know that your novel hypothesis of infinite liability is the key issue, yet you dance around it like the proverbial elephant in the room, hoping no one notices you are not addressing it. Your answer so far, if its on an exam, gets an F for totally ignoring the main issue.
Furthermore, once youve actually studied any amount of statutory law, you must know that any statutory interpretation that results in some untenable, even insane policy, such as the one you suggest, and for which there isn't even any precedent, is never going to pass the laugh test, at least not without a serious and likely successful challenge as to its validity, on constitutional grounds at a minimum and possibly others. Your answer so far, if its on an exam, gets an F for failure to explore critical counterarguments to your position.
I honestly dont know how you got through law school.
My apologies. I just read your home page, and you make no claim to doing law school. I must have picked that up from someone else. I withdraw my diatribe about your hypothetical law exam performance. The rest stands.
Peace,
SR
-30-
You have nothing of substance to add...no surprise.
And, you are correct...facts are all that matter.
The fact that you assumed such an important thing in error and without any basis does not create a high level of confidence in your other assumptions.
Now, as to the law itself...
All I did was post the exact wording with a prediction about how it will be used against Palin().
At no time did I predict that the complaints would have merit or prove successful.
In fact I stated that the bar for an allegation is very low and that the complaints need not be substantive or successful in order to accomplish the goal, which would be to re-focus media and therefore voter attention on the previous ethics complaints which drove her to quit.
Should the opposition use the word of the law to file ethics complaints against GOP candidate Palin() it would not matter one bit if the Alaska AG were to accept them or reject them.
If he accepts them then Palin() must deal with them officially and the media will pounce.
If he rejects them as being un-founded or politically motivated then the opposition will cry foul and the media will pounce.
Either way, the past will be resurrected and her 2009 quitting will become the media focus.
What do you mean it’s not her movie? She is listed in the credits as a writer. You’d be naive beyond belief to think that there is no $$$ in this for the Trademark.
Usually, as between professionals, operating with good will, an admission of error is considered a good thing, as it ensures that self-checking is occurring. Yet you turn my desire for honesty and truth against me. You surprise me at every turn. But you must choose your own path on these matters.
All I did was post the exact wording with a prediction about how it will be used against Palin
And I can quote any two portions of Scripture to similar effect.
A) "Judas went and hanged himself."
B) "Go thou and do likewise."
Just an example, mind you. I am not advocating anything, just showing how utterly inadequate your simplistic approach to statutory interpretation really is, and how dangerous it would be if in fact you were a lawyer. I pity your would-be clients. You would steer them into endless errors. Come to think of it, if you were a lawyer, your manhandling of this statute would probably be grounds for malpractice to anyone who actually relied upon it and was harmed in the process.
Look, solve the problem, instead of continuing to avoid it, which I know you want desperately to do. I know you want people to believe your contrived misconstruction of the statute, but you have yet to justify your invention of this wholly new principle of indefinite (read "eternal") liability for state officers. All your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, you have shown nothing, either on the basis of reason, sound jurisprudence, or through use of a single example in the case law, which demonstrates your theory in action.
Bottom line, I stand by my challenge to you. Convince me I am wrong, not by insulting me for attempting to correct an error, or by shouting louder. Show me I am wrong by producing one case, from any US jurisdiction, where a state officer was charged with ethics violations that were not discovered until after their term in office.
Still crickets, chirping louder and louder ....
As I wrote before...all I did was quote the law.
You said that the law won't be applied.
It is up to you to prove that...not to me to disprove it.
Sarah Palin has no financial involvement in The Undefeated. She is credited as a writer because some of the movie's narration is her own reading of Going Rogue, which is used in the film with permission.
Unless you can prove she has a financial interest, well, to use your own words: "The fact that you assumed such an important thing in error and without any basis does not create a high level of confidence in your other assumptions."
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.