Replies

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.

I see you are still unprepared to deal with my very simple question of infinite liability. It just doesn’t happen to individuals. Except perhaps for murder. You chide me for lack of precedent but you offer none of your own. Show me one officer of a state, anywhere in the union, who was held to account for an ethics violation that wasn’t discovered till after they left office.

Crickets ….

As for this passage,

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

…you seem not to be paying attention to the gist of my argument. Were you like this in law school? Of course a filing can happen after the term. That is the point of the two year discovery rule. A discovery of alleged wrongdoing may not immediately turn up all the evidence necessary, or other factors may interfere with the timely filing, such as finding an attorney with the right experience, etc.

But that has nothing to do with the jurisdiction question. If discovery happens within the term, all is well. If discovery happens after the term, that is what there is no precedent for, and that is what is mitigated against by the carve-out of 39.52.250, which you have also refused to address. Jurisdiction is not a triviality. Courts will not presume to have jurisdiction unless it is clearly spelled out that they do have it. 39.52.250 is the very act of spelling out an extension of jurisdiction for former officers seeking advisory opinions, implying the normal terminus of said jurisdiction occurs at the end of a term. The exception proves the rule.

As for why dig through all those emails, the question has already been asked and answered, but I am not above repeating myself if it will help you. A claim of discovery of a wrong does not require that all evidence that can be brought at trial be instantly available at the moment of initial “discovery.” The whole point of initiating a claim is that it allows for the further discovery of supporting evidence by locking in the jurisdiction. And after the jurisdiction is locked in, new evidence can be dredged up at any point between the initial recognition of a problem to the moment of filing. The email dump fills that bill very nicely. But jurisdiction, after it has lapsed, cannot be extended, and that is what your discovery rule does, and all it does, extend existing jurisdiction. Really, I am quite surprised you do not know all this. Civ Pro bro.

Furthermore, didn't the "crowd-sourcing" get your attention? Why accelerate the process to hyper-drive by enlisting thousands of extra eyes in the search? Could it be they know, as I know, and as my colleagues in Alaska know, they don't have the "forever" you are positing? Hmmmm?

Trust me. I am interested in your theory. I really am. I am also interested in better evidence than what you have provided. Much better evidence. I am really very surprised you do not seem to sense how weak your scheme of statutory construction is. Nobody I know in the legal profession would make the assumption of infinite liability you are making. No one. But when I do complete my research, which cannot begin in earnest for a number of weeks, I will be sure to let you know what I find out. I’m sure that will put both our minds to rest.