Replies

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.

I remember and iirc, you posited, without a fact based explanation, that a de facto application of the law will be utilized even though there is no precedence for it.

Now you seem to be making the argument that because the law has never been applied to a former governor or after the term has expired that it never will be. Of course one would not expect it to have been tried since it was enacted only 12 years ago, in 1999. How many 'former' governors has Alaska had since then, two, including Palin?

And, your notion that it is not intended for former officials might make sense except for this pesky little line...

"(b) A person may file a complaint with the attorney general regarding the conduct of a current or former public officer."

Highlight "former".

You suggest that the law would not apply to persons, "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.

Asbestos makers? Undying legal entities? Completely alien to individual human persons? --- the law is specific to "current or former public officer(s)", which would all be "individual human persons".

You do seem to trip over a truth here...

"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."

Why in God's name do you think they devoted all those man hours digging through 24,000 pages of e-mails?

All it would take would be a handful of complaints and the news cycle would jump-start and run for weeks, regardless of the outcome.

Not only would any new complaints be fodder for the opposition but they would serve up a perfectly "legitimate" excuse for re-hashing the old ones...the ones that, according to many here, forced her to quit....which would, of course, shine a new light on that little bit of theater.