« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

To what extent does Palin have to pay those legal bills herself?

By: smagar (Diary)  |  July 4th, 2009 at 01:41 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

From what I can tell, Palin’s legal bills stemming from this incessant stream of ethics charges are over half a million dollars. If she has to pay those bills herself, instead of the state of Alaska, IMO that’s reason enough to quit.

So, in the interest of helping to focus the discussion, what’s the answer to this question: Is Sarah Palin personally responsible for seeing that those bills get paid?

Here are some thoughts on the subject:

1. So what if she has a lucrative book deal?

Where does anyone get off saying that Palin should be expected to spend huge amounts of her money from a book deal on lawyers? It is HER money. Same goes for her earnings on the speaking trail.

2. Does anyone think this string of endless ethics complaints is going to end anytime soon?

I’m confident that Alaska Dems have a string of complaintants lined up, all ready to go. Funding those complaints isn’t an issue—I’ll bet Soros has a branch office in Juneau by now. The Alaskan government and press—all loyal Democrats first, Alaskans last I’ll bet—aren’t going to put a stop to this. If I were her, I wouldn’t want to sit still for another 18 months and have all the life sucked out of me by these Soros-funded leeches.

3. Why should we EXPECT her to rely on a Legal Defense Fund?

Some commentators make the idea of a Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund sound so simple: Open up the fund and waves of cash will come flooding in!!! Is it really that simple? Does Palin have people who can run such a fund full-time? Does she have lawyers and staff who can fight off the inevitable lawsuits/ethics allegations/legal challenges the Dems will mount, in an effort to throw a monkey wrench in the legal fund’s gears? Can she be sure she’ll earn enough money to pay her current legal bills, plus the extra ones the Dems will certainly run up? If there aren’t easy enough answers for this, I can’t blame her for leaving office early.

4. Can she count on the Alaskan government and MSM giving her relief?

I’ll answer that question—NO! It’s been apparent for several months not that Palin’s political opponents are using the ethics charges process to harass and potentially bankrupt her. Has the legislature stepped in? Has the Alaskan MSM spoken up forcefully? Apparently, no and no. Apparently a fair number of Alaskans feel that Sarah should just stay silent and pay. Well, I think that exceeds the duty requirements of any public servant.

If Alaskans won’t back Sarah, then I don’t blame her for moving on.

The floor is open, fellow Redstaters….what are your thoughts?

Happy Fourth of July
smagar

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Achance

    when her Administration threatened me with Ethics Act charges.

    The two that really matter are the cases associated with the Monegan/Wooten matter, the so-called “Troopergate,” and the email controversy which is currently in court. They constitute the bulk of the true legal work and since they constitute the bulk of the State’s expenses presumably also are the cause of most of her expenses.

    When the Legislature convened the Wooten-Monegan investigation, I would have written directly to the Attorney General setting out what I had done and asking him directly if my actions were within the scope of my duties as an officer of the State. If he determined that they were, I would have asked him to either defend and indemnify me or substitute the Executive Branch of the State of Alaska as the defendant in the matter. If he refused and I disagreed, I would go to the Superior Court and ask the court to make the determination. I would have to have private counsel to do that, but Alaska provides for attorney cost recovery, so I would have asked for it. As far as I know, she never did any of those things. I’m confident that the then-AG didn’t move to defy the subpoenae on his own volition, so that must have either come from the Office of the Governor or have been OK’d by the OOTG. As I’ve said before here, I’d have done that too; I or my staff would have appeared in response to a Legislative subpoena when I ran out of courts to appeal to. In any event, had there been a formal determination by the AG that her actions were within the scope of her duties and authority, the State’s Department of Law would have provided legal counsel for her and because it was the Governor, they would have contracted with private counsel to do it rather than doing it in house. She wouldn’t have really had free choice of the outside counsel, but they would have gone out of their way to find somebody she was comfortable with.

    By going to the P-Board, she made it more complicated but even with that, she could have written the AG, specifically the Ethics Attorney, and asked for a determination if her actions were consistent with the Executive Branch Ethics Act; appointees and former appointees do this all the time if they are going to take outside employment or after they leave State employment. The detemination of the Ethics Attorney can be relied upon as your defense in the same way that an AG’s formal opinion can. And even if you’re sued and the opinion was wrong, the State has the legal bills and the liability, not you.

    For the others that were brought directly to the AG and the P-Board, she could have followed the same process. If she trusted the Department of Law and was willing to tell them everything truthfully, the only way she would have actually needed private counsel is if they and the Superior Court had ruled that what she did was either illegal or outside the scope of her job and authority. Now, you figure out why she went for expensive private counsel.

    I was on the receiving end of a very ominous letter from the Ethics Attorney early in the Palin Administration because of some work I’d taken on for a client. Yeah, they like to file them, they just don’t like to have them filed against them. I’m used to both writing and receiving threatening legalistic letters so they don’t have the same intimidating effect on me that they might have on someone else. I wrote back about ten pages of stuff related to Ethics Act violations that I’d just love to discuss in a formal public hearing or before a court, copied the AG, the Commissioner of Administration, and the Governor with it. Funny, never heard anything from them again formally though they did continue to threaten both me and my clients with it, going so far as to make all sorts of on the record statements about my potential Ethics Act conflicts to arbitrators and administrative hearing officers. That stuff is really good for your standing before people like that as well as being just great for your clients to hear.. But, of course, that sort of stuff is OK unless it is being done to Governor Palin.

    • smagar

      1) She didn’t need to hire private counsel for the invesitgations against her.
      2) She has at least some wrongdoing to cover up.
      3) She’s more ruthless than most people realize.

      OK—fair enough. You directly answered my primary question—thanks. Might you entertain some followup? I’d appreciate it, as you know Sarah Palin much better than I.

      1) In your opinion, is she a truly bad person? Someone we wouldn’t want to see in higher office? IIRC, you’ve criticized her from presenting herself as a squeakky-clean politician, when in fact she does have bit of a less savory side.

      Fine. But, many good politicians are ruthless at times. I remember Bush 41 firing the SOUTHCOM commander prior to Operation Just Cause (Panama), and refusing to explain to him why. I also remember Bush 43 pitching Peter Pace under the bus, as a sacrifice to Carl Levin.

      Is she really nefarious? Someone who shouldn’t lead? Or, is she just someone who can throw a low blow when she needs to?

      2) Do other Alaska governors get nearly as many legal complaints as Palin has?

      3) Wouldn’t it take a significant amount of time for the governor to respond to all these ethics charges, even if she isn’t the one actually doing the legal legwork? Wouldn’t she have to attend depositions? Wouldn’t those depositions, and all the endless follow-ups, be wonderful opportunities for the Dems to spring perjury traps?

      • Achance

        “1) In your opinion, is she a truly bad person? Someone we wouldn?t want to see in higher office? IIRC, you?ve criticized her from presenting herself as a squeakky-clean politician, when in fact she does have bit of a less savory side.” What’s a bad person? I think she is totally self-serving, something that doesn’t distinguish her among politicians. I would call her hypocritical except that I think she really believes herself when she says she’s squeaky clean and then deflects or claims to be a victim, e.g, all her “open and transparent” stuff over the Monegan-Wooten Matter or, especially, her catastrophizing the stuff with Greg Renkes and Randy Ruedrich back when she was in the Murkowski Administration.

        “Fine. But, many good politicians are ruthless at times. I remember Bush 41 firing the SOUTHCOM commander prior to Operation Just Cause (Panama), and refusing to explain to him why. I also remember Bush 43 pitching Peter Pace under the bus, as a sacrifice to Carl Levin.

        Is she really nefarious? Someone who shouldn?t lead? Or, is she just someone who can throw a low blow when she needs to?” I’d choose self-interested, petty, and spiteful over “ruthless.”

        2) “Do other Alaska governors get nearly as many legal complaints as Palin has?” Not usually, but Gov. Sheffield did get impeached though not convicted over giving an office building lease to one of his old union buddies and contributors. Gov. Hickel got some of the same treatment by the Left and he let them enjoy that stuff too much by reacting to it, often by folding his tent. Murkowski handled the Lefties pretty well but once Palin unloaded on him in concert with the Anchorage Daily News, she was the ADN and the Democrats’ favorite Republican, he never recovered.

        3) “Wouldn?t it take a significant amount of time for the governor to respond to all these ethics charges, even if she isn?t the one actually doing the legal legwork? Wouldn?t she have to attend depositions? Wouldn?t those depositions, and all the endless follow-ups, be wonderful opportunities for the Dems to spring perjury traps?”

        The only thing that has gone to court is the email question. The other stuff, I know I wouldn’t have taken very seriously and would have probably done everything myself, but that sort of thing is the world I’ve lived in most of my working life. Assuming she couldn’t effectively represent herself, she has a big staff and the Department of Law. She set the trap for herself on “Troopergate” by rather fliply inviting scrutiny and then, when she found there were things that migh not look so good, going back on all the “open and transparent” stuff. If you set yourself up as Polly Pureheart, you’d best be Polly Pureheart. When, and I said when, not if, all the suppressed emails come out, people will get another view of Polly Pureheart and the First Dude. She’s never been subject to any real criminal charges and even if she were, it is very unlikely that the Alaska DAs would do the perjury trap thing; that’s a fed specialty. The FBI denies that there is any investigation of her at all so who knows? She’s made most of the ethics complaints into a much bigger deal than they actually ever were just as she totally catastrophized what Greg Renkes and Randy Ruedrich were doing when she made herself into the Democrats’ favorite Republican by attacking them. Well, I guess it worked for her; she’s got a $10 Million book deal as the result of loudly screaming that everyone around her was corrupt and then telling the Nation how she cleaned it all up. Those of us that she pronounced corrupt and who she claims to have cleaned up have a very different view of all that.

        • smagar

          You’ve given me quite a bit to think about.

  • mbecker908
    • Achance
      • smagar
    • smagar
      • mbecker908

        and put up probably 50+ postings and several diaries. The last time I checked, he’d made maybe one post that didn’t involve Governor Palin. I suspect he’s gone away, he got beaten to a pulp the last time he put up one of his 1000 word diaries on the Governor.

        Josh is absolutely here. He’s posted at least one diary on the front page, if not two. He’s been avoiding me on this very subject for a couple of months. I’ve challenged him in every one of his diaries, except for today, and he ignores me.

        • smagar
          • mbecker908

            I don’t have any problems with Palin that are worth discussing. I have huge problem with the Palin Cult members, of whom Josh is king (although he at least makes a run at logical, rational arguments) and idiots like Gary are the foot soldiers. I have a huge problem with people of any stripe who follow personalities (except for us Franz supporters) and ignore issues.

            Example: in the primaries each of our contenders had “issues” that some folks didn’t like. There are three ways to argue those points:

            1. Deny it’s an issue by lying about the candidate.
            2. Ignore the discussion.
            3. Frame an argument based on the candidate’s stance on this or other issues, argue priorities, etc.

            The ‘bots do either one or two. In the last primary, the ‘bots rallied around Huckabee – remember the Huckabots? If you provided evidence that he wasn’t a fiscal conservative they’d stomp their feet and holler “Yes he is!” and refuse to address his performance. About the only person I could get to actually discuss Huck’s positions on issues was AceinTX and he ended up dropping Huck like a hot potatoe. (“Potatoe” in memory of fellow Arizonian Dan Quayle.)

            The folks on the other side of the coin, people like Fredheads or Rudy’s supporters would argue their guy’s performance on issues or the weight something should be given. For instance, Fred’s law firm did some work for NARAL. People tried to brand him as pro-abortion. His supporters argued that he didn’t pick the clients, he billed a handful of hours relative to a side issue and his voting record in the Senate is 100% pro-life. Rudy’s folks argued that he had committed to keep all administrative restrictions on abortion in place and had a judicial advisory committee made up of solid conservatives and pro-life people.

            Bottom line with Governor Palin, I don’t have much problem with her right now because frankly, I don’t care. We have the current session of Congress to survive and she’s not going to have any input in how that goes, one way or the other. Neither is any other Governor who’s been mentioned as a possible candidate. After this session, we’ve got a Congressional election to wage and her only real ability to contribute – as with every other Governor – is simply to draw some crowds and raise money and she could do that. After 2010 has been put to bed, we can discuss who might be our Presidential candidate in ’12. But until then, I really don’t care much about any of the possible candidates beyond watching their competence in governing their state or doing the job they were elected to do.

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

            bots came in several different sizes and shapes…

            …and like you, I am SO SICK AND TIRED of people talking about 2012, when with ACORN counting bodies and THE ADMINISTRATION redistricting — we might not even have an election in 2012.

            [yes that last was hyperbole...sorta]

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth
          • smagar
      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        And I think he is a commenter here too. I somehow doubt they are the same Gary, but I like the mental picture.

  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    I just came from contributing to Sarah Palin?s Legal Defense Fund at http://www.thealaskafundtrust.com after doing a little investigation and I?ll make this a mini-FAQ to set forth and answer some of the many posts and comments I have seen here.

    First, to answer the question if there is a legal defense fund for Palin the answer is yes, and the official one appears to be at http://www.thealaskafundtrust.com

    Sarah?s official (SarahPAC), semi-official, and fan sites all seem to link to this site. It does declare that it is the official site.

    By googling ?Palin Legal Defense Fund? I discovered not only the fund web site itself but also news reports stating that the fund has already raised over $100,000 in one week.

    Note that anybody can set up a trust anywhere and declare that the purpose of the trust is to pay Palin?s (or anybody else?s) legal fees. Or for any other legal purpose. But the purpose we are discussing is a legal defense fund for Palin and an official one does exist. The Alaska Fund Trust was organized and filed as a legal entity in the state of Alaska, curiously enough. Sarah Palin (not ?the Governor of Alaska?) is explicitly named as a ?Covered Individual? who can benefit from the trust. Other ?Covered Individuals? may benefit from the trust, too, at the trustee?s discretion. No others are named in the original document however. Note that Sarah could throw a screaming fit against this idea, but it would not prevent such a trust from being organized. Trust organizers, after all, have civil rights, too.

    The sole trustee and settlor in the trust document is declared to be Kristan Cole who is a real estate broker in Wasilla. She appears to be a business and community leader in the area if you google her name. She appears to have done all the legal organization of the trust on her own (besides the attys and witnesses, notaries, etc. needed to make the trust instrument fully legal). I would have found a couple of extra trustees to serve with me, but I have no argument against a single trustee.

    As I note above, anybody can set up a trust for any legal purpose and even if Palin wanted to, she could not prevent friends or even strangers from setting up a trust to raise funds for her benefit. It is currently, ?somewhat? of a free country, although we see that rapidly diminishing!

    Examining the trust document available on the web site, I did not delve too deeply into it, but simply satisfied myself that Palin herself is not one of the trustees. She is not. There is only one trustee and that is Cole.

    I?d also note at this point that unless Palin was foresighted enough to include such a provision in her agreement to retain legal the services that the State of Alaska cannot provide for her, her counsel probably has the option to accept payments on her behalf against her legal bills at their own option. I know I would be pleased to do so if I were representing her. They would then render her a credit on her next bill and her legal fee balance owing would be reduced accordingly. I would not be at all surprised if this turns out to be the eventual case for most of the firms representing her (there may be more than one, as there are so many ethics complaints).

    One very nice feature of the AFT web site is that the visitor is given the opportunity to compare the Alaska Fund Trust with the trusts creating the legal defense funds of Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Stevens, DeLay and Gephardt. According to the web site?s claim, no other legal defense fund compared has more restrictions on who can contribute, or how much, than AFT does, and the presented comparison does indeed seem to be accurate.

    I highly recommend reading the list of restrictions on contributing to AFT. It is obviously intended to be a grassroots effort and is so structured.

    The contribution limit is $150.00 and contributions are accepted ONLY from individuals, not companies, PACs, unions or other entities.

    Why should we expect her to have to rely on a legal defense fund?
    Because if she establishes a record of paying the lion?s share of the legal fees herself, then the liberal exploding heads will shout with glee and file even more trivial ethics complaints and eventually bankrupt her. Everybody else uses legal defense funds, and so should she.

    Why isn?t the State of Alaska paying her legal bills?
    Because that would produce even more ethics complaints against her. No sense in inviting more trouble. Politicians must defend themselves from most ethics complaints, and you can bet that the complaints actually filed are designed to be ones that the State of Alaska is legally prevented from defending her from.

    After all, if you were Soros or one of his clever minions, would you not prefer to file ethics complaints where Alaska law says defendants cannot be defended with public funds? If you were the attorney filing such a complaint would you expect to get such work again if you chose a complaint that could be defended with public funds? Would you be considered worthy of your fee if you did not advise your liberal exploding head client that the proposed complaint could be defended with public monies before the complaint was actually filed?

    C?mon folks, think! The other guys obviously are. I think those atty types call this due diligence.

    Why does she need outside counsel?
    Because defending against ethics charges is a process of law, and you need your own attorneys to investigate the facts, gather testimony, investigate the opposition, discover documents that relate to the defense, and refute documents that incline towards the opposition. You can?t use phone bank volunteers to do this, you must have attorneys to file answers in court for you. In most states, only ‘officers of the court’ are allowed to make official filings with any measure of credibility.

    As stated above, trying to get the State of Alaska to defend her would result in even more ethics complaints and would be a good example of a self-licking ice cream cone.

    In a final google search to determine if there were any counterfeit sites claiming falsely to be the official Palin defense fund site, I did not discover any apparent imposters, but I did discover a report on the Huffington Post that an ethics complaint had been filed in Alaska against Gov. Sarah Palin that her legal defense fund is in itself an ethics violation (it is not ? if Clinton, Clinton, Rangel, Dodd, Kerry and all the others can have legal defense funds accepting $10,000 – $15,000 a pop from anyone including corporations, unions and so forth, then Sarah can have one accepting $150 from individuals only. Besides, Sarah could not have prevented organization of this trust even if she had wanted to!!) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/palin-legal-fund-challeng_n_192044.html).

    This complaint shows just how far the opposition will go to try to paralyze the Palin administration. I think she was wise to resign, whatever her ambitions for service or privacy may be in the future.

    Alaska can back to the enjoyable task of being Alaska now.

    I think we would be very wise to contribute to her defense fund if we would like to see her in public life in the future.

    Ron Robinson