Replies

Alaska law 39.52.310, sec H states...

"(h) A violation of this chapter may be investigated within two years after discovery of the alleged violation."

"WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DISCOVERY OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION."

IOW...The two year anniversery of the day she quit has nothing to do with the statute of limitations on ethics complaints.

There is a reason why the opposition went through the trouble of getting the 24,000 pages of Palin(™) e-mails. If they find (discover) any reason to file a complaint of "alleged" ethics violations then the two year clock starts ticking at that point.

The law (easy to research for one with so much free time - 2ID) also states that the accused must reply in writing within twenty days of the acceptance of the complaint or must file a written request for an extension. It also states that (F) that...

"Failure to answer within the prescribed time, or within any additional time period that may be granted in writing by the attorney general, may be considered an admission of the allegations in the complaint."

A dozen or two complaints, based on a very low standard, rolled out over a few crucial weeks could cripple a campaign in September or October 2012.

Here you go DA. This is the part you don't know so all your other cut and paste crap isn't worth a tinker's damn.

Sec. 39.52.250. Advice to former public officers.

(a) A former public officer may request, in writing, an opinion from the attorney general interpreting this chapter. The attorney general shall give advice in accordance with AS 39.52.240(a) or (b) and publish opinions in accordance with AS 39.52.240(h).

(b) A former public officer is not liable under this chapter for any action carried out in accordance with the advice of the attorney general issued under this section, if the public officer fully disclosed all relevant facts reasonably necessary to the issuance of the advice.

Give it up.

You found NOTHING.

You expected to find something, because you project your own corruption onto everybody else.

You know how sleazy you are, and you simply can't believe that other people aren't sleazy too.

wtc, We've discussed this before. Your interpretation of the statute does not account for the "indefinite liability" problem. Please explain to the good people here that this rule, applied the way you're interpreting it, could be used against her for the next 100 years, should she live so long. When in fact, no "former governor" of Alaska has ever been sued for ethics violations "discovered" after the expiration of their term, under this or any previous version of said rule. And as a rule, in the law, what has never happened before is very unlikely to happen in the future.

As to what will happen, my belief is quite different from yours. Based on how things actually work in Alaska, per my direct conversation with Alaskan attorneys in a position to know, the De Facto jurisdiction for such discovery is the active term of service. This is confirmed by the carve-out in 39.52.250 for extending jurisdiction past the end of term to allow a former officer to seek an advisory opinion. No such care-out would be necessary if jurisdiction, i.e., the ability to grant standing, extended beyond the end of the term.

However, the rule you cite does allow for filing within a two year period after discovery. The proper structure, for those who would attempt to attack Palin one more time by this novel route, would be to find new evidence, in the email dump or elsewhere, that they could then relate to something the could prove they "discovered" during the term. It would still be a risky proposition, because the law was revised in 2009 (November, I think) to inhibit politically motivated filings, and there would be a fight over whether to use the older or the newer version, especially if the new evidence came after the new version of the law was passed.

Bottom line, the practical reality is that July 26th remains a date of genuine interest, although it is difficult to see exactly how it would play out, because it would be the first time in Alaska's history such a charge would be brought after a term is complete, and if the general temperament of the law is any indicator, indefinite, or in this case virtually eternal, liability would not be given the time of day. Why? Because while it might apply comfortably to undying legal entities such as asbestos makers, it is completely alien to individual human persons who once were officers of a government, and for exellent reasons. Who would ever run for office, even briefly, if they were forever thereafter subject to massively expensive lawsuits? Not gonna happen. Nor have I yet found any such instance in the case law. If I have missed a such case in Alaska or another parallel jurisdiction, I would be grateful if you would point it out to me. I am open to your input.

But the reality? I don't think she's in till mid to late September, at the earliest. My rational? I like the fall. Don’t complain. My rational is at least as good as yours or anyone else's around here. Only God really knows. Sarah and Bristol only think they know. God knows.