Palin's Team Urges Big Crowds at The Undefeated

US News and World Report ^ | July 5, 2011 | Paul Bedard

[2ndDivisionVet]

Big crowds are being urged to flood the openings of The Undefeated, the movie about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's political rise, the latest indication that the 2008 vice presidential nominee is still looking for a signal from the public that it wants her to run for president.

In a blast email, "Team Sarah" asked supporters to start buying tickets to premiers in cities like Indianapolis, Orlando and Phoenix. "You can be the spark that becomes a grassroots revolution helping to ignite, solidify, inform, and unify Americans around the values that Sarah Palin represents, and, frankly, it isn't that terribly hard!," said the email. "Team Sarah wants to see "The Undefeated" become a BIG success and we are treating this like OPENING DAY in a long battle to promote the VALUES we see that Sarah Palin represents! But, we need to ACT! Please don't waste time."

Palin has been showing the movie in Iowa and a few other places, but supporters feel that having a successful opening will prove that she remains politically relevant and influence her decision to run for the White House.

A message to all members of Team Sarah:

Team,

You can be the spark that becomes a grassroots revolution helping to ignite, solidify, inform, and unify Americans around the values that Sarah Palin represents, and, frankly, it isn't that terribly hard!.

Team Sarah wants to see The Undefeated become a BIG success and we are treating this like OPENING DAY in a long battle to promote the VALUES we see that Sarah Palin represents!

But, we need to ACT!

Please don't waste time.

Click on the link below and start purchasing your tickets for Opening Weekend July 15, 16, and 17:

We need to SELL OUT the evening shows on July 15th and 16th if you BELIEVE IN THE MESSAGING and VALUES OF THIS FILM. if you believe in Sarah Palin and the values she represents in the country today, now is YOUR CHANCE to stand up and make a HUGE IMPACT with what amounts to only a little effort.

The Undefeated needs strong attendance to roll out across the country in subsequent weeks. Your fellow Americans DESERVE to see this movie just like you did. Strong attendance, we believe, will also send a strong message to the liberal media elites and their political cronies- that Americans are hungry for REAL leaders who can navigate tough storms instead of sound-biting their way along to pander for votes or media support.

As one of Sarah Palin's supporters, only YOU can help make this happen!!!

Watch what Gov. Palin Says about the film.

Together we can make this happen, and it starts by getting people in to see this movie. Please click on the link now and purchase your first chunk of tickets to take family, friends, co-workers and others to see the movie July 15, 16, and 17.

Encourage other Sarah Palin supporters to purchase a minimum of 5 tickets to the first nights Friday evening performances.

Team Sarah Groups for The Undefeated

If you can commit to reserving 5 seats for The Undefeated on the OPENING NIGHT in one of the 10 first cities, JOIN the appropriate group and post a message there letting others know that you will be coming and bringing 4 friends!

ARIZONA

Phoenix AZ

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedphoenixaz

CALIFORNIA

Orange CA

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedorangeca

COLORADO

Highland Ranch CO

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedhighlandsranchco

FLORIDA

Orlando FL

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedorlandofl

GEORGIA

Kennesaw GA

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedkennesawga

INDIANA

Indianapolis IN

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedindianapolisin

MISSOURI

Impendence MO

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedindependencemo

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma City OK

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedoklahomacityok

TEXAS

Grapevine TX

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedgrapevinetx

Houston TX

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedhoustontx

Thanks for ALL you do!

The Tiny Team Behind the Team!

Visit Team Sarah at: http://teamsarah.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

[trisham]

Very nice!

Sarah is Patriotic

Please Click the Pic to Donate!

[wtc911]

Attacking Palin(™)? How, by quoting the law? You need to get out more.

[LS]

That’s actually a pretty good name for a rock band: mojo boogers.

[harpu]

You know, being a "Fourth generation native New Yorker.", doesn't much for one's intelligence.

It's pretty much akin to being a "Fourth generation native Kalifornian."

[gov_bean_ counter]

Keep fighting the good fight. :)

[curth]

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.

[wtc911]

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.

[wtc911]

I posted the law, which is very clear in it's wording.

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.

[rodeo-mamma]

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.

[BlackVeil]

Thank you for providing a well stated account of the legal situation. Facts are what is needed.

[Springfield Reformer]

FRiend, you are truly jumping the shark. I never said the discovery rule would not be applied, only that it will be applied in proper context to the general statutory framework and to the extant understanding of jurisdiction, not in the surreal vacuum you propose. You are contending for a phenomena that never, ever occurs in this type of case, eternal liability. You are hoping that those here on FR not trained in the law nor practitioners of the law will buy your context-free caricature of an interpretation because it suits your political agenda, not because it even remotely resembles normal statutory construction as practiced by real attorneys and judges doing law on a daily basis.

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 didn’t 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 don’t want me to keep going there.

So I can’t tell who you are now. To get through law school, you have to take exams where the principle skill is issue spotting. If you’ve 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 it’s on an exam, gets an F for totally ignoring the main issue.

Furthermore, once you’ve 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 it’s on an exam, gets an F for failure to explore critical counterarguments to your position.

I honestly don’t know how you got through law school.

[Springfield Reformer]

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

[harpu]

-30-

[wtc911]

You have nothing of substance to add...no surprise.

[wtc911]

Thank you for taking the time to notice.

And, you are correct...facts are all that matter.

[wtc911]

I have no idea where you got the notion that I attended law school. I never said I did or even intimated that I did and no other poster did either (at least in any posts to me).

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.

[wtc911]

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.

[Springfield Reformer]

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.

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 ....

[wtc911]

Convince you that you're wrong? Why? Because you can't find facts to support your theory? That's rich.

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.

[kevkrom]

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.

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."