Please Click the Pic
Posted on 07/05/2011 10:44:26 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I am deeply flattered that you read my posts closely enough to quote them.
I never said the law will not be applied, only that it will be applied in context, which does not include your fanciful notion of indefinite liability under the AK Ethics Act. Please stop misrepresenting my position.
And I’m sorry if you don’t get that the burden of proof is on you, but it is. You are the one who came in here reading a statute out of context and proposing a kind of liability which makes no rational sense and for which you cannot or will not offer proof that it exists in the real practice of law, and we are supposed to accept on faith that this wild invention of yours is valid law?
If it is real, why can you not find just one case with which to shut me up? I’m really not asking for much. Just one case ….
waiting ..... waiting .... holding my breath now …..
Actually, I'm quite enjoying the smackdown you're getting from Springfield Reformer. Pointing out your own hypocrisy is just my minor contribution to the show.
AS 39.52.910. Applicability.
(a) Except as specifically provided, this chapter applies to all public officers within executive-branch agencies, including members of boards or commissions. This chapter does not apply to
(1) a former public officer of an executive-branch agency unless a provision specifically states that it so applies;
(2) legislators covered by AS 24.60; or
(3) the University of Alaska and an employee of the University of Alaska as to activities or employment under a contract between the employee and the university described in AS 14.40.210 (a)(4).
(b) The provisions of this chapter supersede the common law on conflicts of interests that may apply to a public officer of an executive-branch agency and any personnel rules relating to conflicts of interests, excluding nepotism, adopted under AS 39.25. However, nothing in this chapter precludes a prosecution under an applicable criminal statute nor prevents enforcement of any other state law that imposes a stricter standard of ethical conduct on public officers.
(c) The provisions of this chapter are not subject to negotiation by collective bargaining under AS 23.40.
(d) Nothing in this chapter
(1) supersedes AS 39.90.020 [see below**]; or
(2) precludes an immediate family member of a public employee from employment in the same agency or administrative unit as that public employee, so long as the public employee does not have authority to take or withhold official action affecting the terms or conditions of the immediate family member’s employment in a manner that violates state law.
**AS 39.90.020. Nepotism Prohibited.
It is unlawful for a person who is the spouse of or is related by blood within and including the second degree of kindred to the executive head of a principal state department or agency to be employed in that department or agency.
I am glad you are enjoying the show. :)
You guys are adorable.
I am also puzzled that you don’t seem to recognize the value in a name trademark from a defamation point of view. Palin, and rightly so, has no vested interest in financing those who would defame her by using her name in defamatory contexts. But as a public figure, she is hobbled on direct defamation claims. However, when her rights in her name are violated by her detractors, although their aim may be defamation, she now has a cause of action to use as an incentive to stop the defamation. Famous people do that, and it is smart, and is no predictor of pecuniary motive. It only shows that a person has an interest in protecting their own good name and reputation. For evidence of other, more sinister motives, you would need a crystal ball.
You’re a liar. Its a documentary, dumbass. There are no “writing” credits. It was inspired by her book. Which she wrote. She had nothing to do with the production of the movie.
"This is my theory. It contradicts the written law. I can't prove it with precedence, so it's up to you to prove me wrong."
This impresses you? Well, I guess it would.
Mail.
________________________________
Gee but you're classy, aren't you?
You are also wrong...all documentaries are written by somebody.
This particular one has two writers credited...Steve Bannon and Sarah Palin(™).
Keep it classy Deb, you are an inspiration to us all.
You'll have to provide a link to anything that shows her as the "writer". And save your lectures. Or cram them...whatever.
The law is clear in its wording. It was enacted 12 years ago. There have been only two former governors in that time.
You want freepers to believe that since there have been no ethics complaints filed against those two ex-governors after they left office that the law is without meaning.
You can't prove it and you know it. So you seek back-handed negation.
Is this how you practice, by making un-supported claims then demanding that they be dis-proved or else they must be accepted as truth? Is that really the way you operate?
Don't worry...you will impress a few here...not me but a few.
You need more than a lecture on class...you need one on honesty.
Have a nice day Deb.
I can only think of only one reason why so many “conservatives” hate Palin so much they jump on every Palin thread, and throw out their crap....care to guess?
Please Click the Pic
The Falcon Party?
I didn’t say docs have no writing credits. I said Sarah did not write “Undefeated” and has no writing credit. Post a link. You are still a liar. And a dumbass.
Many hate her because she is an unashamed Evangelical Christian. The hate includes many (not saying all) Atheists, Catholics and Jews
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.
