[Mata Musing: Naked Emperor is one upping themselves here, as they were also responsible for digging up all of Obama's historic statements on what he *really* wants for America's health care... a single payer system.]

Naked Emperor posted their “EthicsGate” YouTube link, and the Alaskan Bloggers again ganged up to get it removed from YouTube. This would be the same group that whined when Palin fingered them, and are now circling the wagons around the “divorce rumor” source; outed kindergarten/elementary school assistant teacher with a penchant for vicious gossip, Jesse Griffin… aka Gryphen.

There’s a notice/disclaimer on their site:

Well, it may be a “national story” anyway. Because a renegade poster – underbird – put the video back up. To protect Curt and Flopping Aces from any impropriety, I’m merely going to provide the link to the YouTube for now…. which may or may not be working.

I’ll leave it up to Curt if he wants to replace it with an embedded version. I suggest you click on the link quick… as those portrayed are most certainly not happy at being outed.

[Mata Musing: welll, I guess Curt wanted it embedded afterall! LOL]

Just as a reminder … the players in the ethics complaints also appearing in the video. You’ll find them recurring over and over. Refresh your memories by reading the Alinsky Perfected series.

Troopergate’s Legislative Investigation, led by Kim Elton, Alaska Dem Senator… close friends with Obama Sr. advisor, Pete Rouse. Plus former Gov. Tony Knowles, forming a neat political triangle.

Linda Kellen Biegel, Deputy Treasurer of Alaskans for Truth

Kim Chatman, “independent concerned Alaskan”…

Valerie Henning (wife of Zane Henning, who filed a complaint)

Sondra Thompkins, “independent concerned Alaskan”…

And the blogger/radio media cheerleaders who gave them face and air time, Shannyn Moore; Jeanne “Mudflats” Devon (big supporter of Andree McLeod); and Camille Conte (aka CC), chairman of the Alaskans for Truth and host of “Demo Memo” radio show where they discussed revenge strategy on air, trumped up stories together about rape stats that did not reflect the truth.

UPDATE: Aug 3rd, PM

Jeanne “Mudflats” Devon has taken to her own Alinsky brand of ammo for damage control in response to Naked Emperor’s video… by embedding the video herself as bold “proof” the “cabal” fears not it’s public view.

I found it particularly Interesting she uses a player that does not allow that same video to be shared, or allow the user to pick up the embed code. Was that deliberate, in order to keep the video confined to her own adoring following? Or was she unaware that YouTube has a share-friendly version? Who knows… much more important, who cares. But it was a notable observation that belies her “here it is, I’m not afraid!” attempt.

Ms. Mudflats weaves a rather listless and condescending tale – which she calls a parable – of good guy “village scribes” (aka the Alaskan progressive blogging cabal) and “those guys” from the hills.

You know the ones. Every once in a while, one of them wanders through town, all disheveled and wide-eyed and muttering something about how the Ruler of the Land is illegitimate because he was actually born on some other planet, and how his alien socialist kin are going to take over the world, and turn us all into mindless drones, and how we’re all either too stupid to see the real truth, or we’re in cahoots with the aliens on the mother ship. THOSE guys.

I think you get who plays the bad guy here… I suppose the fact escapes her that most conservatives critical of their gutteral “reporting” are just as critical of the on-the-edge birthers. But that wouldn’t make for as interesting of an already long and boring tale, would it?

To make a lengthy “parable without a moral” story shorter (and thereby considerably more palatable), Mudflats uses the classic Alinsky “ridicule” tack as her defense. That boils down to something like this… and I paraphrase her three paragraphs… “sure we know each other… duh”.

Knowing each other was never the issue. What was the issue was orchestration, aiding and abetting to waste Alaskan taxpayers tax dollars to “… be a pain in her [Palin's] butt” (that’s somewhere around the 10 minute mark, I believe…).

It was also uplifting to hear their elected officials encourage the cabal to play dirty – especially considering the irony that is was the cabal who first began to play in the dirt with leaks and smut during the Legislative Investigation. That would be the investigation headed by a guy who just happened to end up in the Obama admin.

Then of course, there’s all that back and forth between the “independent” Kim Chatman with Celtic Diva (aka Linda Kellen Biegel, with already one failed complaint to her name). And how CD – not too bright a light bulb evidently – documents her research on the legal defense fund, passes the data on to Chatman who files the complaint, and then “breaks” the news. All unethically with the confidentiality rules, of course.

Naw… no orchestration there.

It’s a small town. One expects those of like mind to know each other, and be active in the same political organizations.

By the same token, it’s just as large an expectation to assume these same political comrades coordinate their political attacks and agenda. And *therein* lies the story the above video tells.

Now that we have the bottom feeders inextricably linked, the next question is did that obvious local coordination for peevish and expensive complaints get as high as Pete Rouse, David Axelrod and Obama?

I say “inconclusive conclusion” because, as Branchwater was quoted in the ADN today:

Branchflower writes that his investigation did not take into account late-arriving statements from several administration officials who, on the advice of Attorney General Talis Colberg, resisted subpoenas. They agreed to provide written statements this week, however, after a state judge upheld the subpoenas. Information from those statements was provided to the Legislative Council separately.

In fact, there were 10 witnesses not included in Branchwater’s investigation. Branchwater promises a separate report. Oh goodie.

I say nebulous since the only count from which they can extract a semblence of a scandalous headline is by Branchwater’s (legally erroneous) determination that Sarah Palin abused her power, in violation of the Executive Branch Ethics Act. How? By *not* telling her husband, Todd, to stop talking, or asking, about Trooper Wooten.

Huh? Okay… lemme ’splain.

Personally, I’d rather just recant Theresa C’s comment from another thread, and quit there. Dang… the girl nailed it in 14 words!

Governor Palin abused her power because she didn’t put a leash on her spouse??

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. But of course, to get away with such a short quip, and not be accused of “drinking the kool-aid”, or some other sophomoric hep expression, one has to show how Branchwater managed to turn something so absurd into a headline that screams “Palin Abused Power” in the Anchorage Daily News.

BTW.. here’s the two biggies for reading. I’ll get the hotlinks out of the way now. Go to the source material, and ignore the reporters behind the curtain…

From the beginning. Remember, this was all about supposedly Palin firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan because he refused to fire Trooper Mike Wooten… Palin’s ex brother in law. (gawd, I’m bored already…) So keep in mind, this is where it all started. Or refresh your memory by REVIEWING ALL TROOPER’GATE POSTS HERE

UPDATE: To those of you who have rightfully commented below that Monegan was not fired, but had quit after refusing reassignment to the ABC division… yes, I know that. I am, however, carrying on with the oft repeated ADN headlines… i.e. Subpoenas expected in Monegan firing case. Since the Alaskans call this a “firing”, and call the affair “Troopergate”, I stick with their language for consistency. End UPDATE

Note: These PDFs do not allow highlighting text for cut and paste.. thus the jpgs. Saves a boatload of typing

FROM PG 8

Okay… Count 1 is about whether Palin abused her power under the Executive Branch Ethics Law by she, or her administrative staff, pressuring Monegan and/or other government officials to fire Wooten. This is not to be confused with Count 2… which addresses whether the actual “firing” (or actually, offered reassignment) of Monegan was yet another abuse of power…

Confused already? Hey… hang in there. This cost Alaskan taxpayers $100K, plus more that we don’t know about yet. Might as well give this fodder it’s due, yes?

And frankly, we only have to address Count 1. So let’s clear out the other counts here in advance….

On Count 2: Branchflower found that Monegan’s reassignment/termination was “a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.” As for Wooten INRE this charge, he stated that altho “Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired”, Branchwater said it was “likely” a contributing factor.

For more of those reasons why Palin had a problem with Monegan, read Randy Ruaro’s affidavit.

Woof… strong language by Branchflower there. There was other reasons, but Wooten was “likely” a contributing factor to Monegan’s reassignment?? Shall we ask for the chair? Lethal injection now? zzzzzzzz

Count 3: Hey… this was the one most the Obamabots were hanging onto… did Palin or anyone in her administration violate Wooten’s medical records? Certainly the most serious of charges, IMHO.

So sorry to disappoint. Nope. Nothing improper. Apparently an ex-employee, Johanna Grasso did a “she said” routine – alleging Murleen Wilkers (owner of the Harbor Adjustment Service Co) mentioned the Governor’s or her office had called and asked Wooten’s claim be denied.

Only problem is, Wilkes’ testimony revealed she had frequent contact with the usual representative in the Governor’s office that she does on all claims. And she was not directed to do anything differently, or unusual with Wooten’s claim.

FROM PG 72

This lack of impropriety was confirmed by former Alaskan AG, Joe Cooper (who represented the State in the Wooten workman’s comp case), Cooper’s former supervisor, Chief Asst AG Gail Voigtlander, and Wooten’s own Anchorage attorney in his workman’s comp case, Chancy Croft.

…. so much for that charge.

The last Count 4 appears to have nothing to do with Palin herself, but with the AG’s office. Apparently, Branchwater’s a bit miffed about the delay in the AG’s office providing him with the emails and data he demanded… er, requested… for his witchhunt… er, investigation.

The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in “official action” by her inaction [emphasis added] if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation].

Uh… which is it? “If not” her participation or “evidence of her active participation”??

She knowingly, as that term is defined in the above cited statutes, permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor’s office and the resources of the Governor’s office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired. Her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act. That statute provides that:

“the legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust”.

Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired. She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act.

Or, as Theresa C said, she didn’t keep Todd on a leash… :0)

The problem with Branchflower’s interpretation of the Ethics Law is his overly broad vision of “benefit” and “personal interest” in the statute…. not to mention his lack of regard for precedents that clarify vague legalese. What he constitutes as “abuse” fails to meet the standards required by the Ethics Act. However Branchflower references no precedents. He merely creates his own interpretation of what meets the level of scrutiny.

As Thomas Van Flein states in his five page response (linked above), the Ethics Law “addresses financial conflicts of interest”, as precedents have defined.

FROM RESPONSE PG 2

Other precedents have also clarified “only substantial and material conflicts” violate the ethics law, and distinguishes between minor and inconsequential conflicts of interest that do not. Certainly, not asking Todd Palin to stop asking officials about Wooten classifies as the latter. And since any perceived interest Sarah Palin had in Wooten played little or no (i.e. “likely contributed) role in Monegan’s reassignment/termination, Palin is exonerated.

FROM RESPONSE PG 3

Since Branchwater goes on for pages with multiple events about conversations Todd Palin had with officials in his report, it’s even more interesting that Branchwater finds the First Dude is not in violation of anything… and therefore he makes no finding as to Todd Palin’s conduct. This is because Todd Palin is not an employee of the executive branch.

Uh… but isn’t he supposedly the culprit doing the dastardly deeds, while Sarah is guilty of just not stopping him??

Branchwater doesn’t explain how the six events of the 18 that involved Todd Palin (after she took office) are, as he said, use [of] the Governor’s office and the resources of the Governor’s office, including access to state employees. Frankly, I’m not even sure how six conversations over two and a half years even gets classified as serious pressure. But breaking it down, five of those were phone conversations. One was a conversation with Glass in a government building. However Palin did not bring the subject of Wooten up… Glass did.

There was only one conversation with Walt Monegan in the Governor’s office in all these events. However, if you will remember, Todd Palin was ordered to speak with Monegan by Special Agent Bob Cockrell INRE threats to the first family. Where did that meeting take place? In, perhaps, the governor’s office? And does this single meeting constitute abuse of government resources?

And one more thing that had “access to state employees” charge … is Todd Palin not allowed to speak to elected and administrative officials? Are these officials not available to the public at large?

So why did Todd Palin keep pursuing Wooten?

You’ll remember that the Palins filed a complaint against Trooper Wooten. The Administrative Investigation of that complaint ended March 1, 2006… over nine months prior to Palin taking the Governor’s office. Wooten appealed his meted out discipline with the help of the PSEA, his union. They settled the appeal on Sept 5th, 2006… reducing his 10 days suspension to 5 days. This is still four months before Palin takes office.

The problem here is the AST wouldn’t give the Palin’s any information as to whether the investigation had occurred, ended or if there was any discipline rendered. Alaskan State law prohibits feedback about status and outcome of any complaint against peace officers.

According to Frank Bailey’s affidavit on Aug 27th, 2008 with Thomas Van Flein, the Palins did not find out about Wooten’s complaint investigation, and the reduced suspension, until the summer of 2008… just shy of two years after the complaint was finalized in appeal, and three years after it was originally filed. They learned the results after Wooten’s personnel file was made public in the media.

Throughout that time, all they knew was that Trooper Wooten was still running around as an Alaskan State Trooper. His uninterrupted status lent the impression that nothing had been done. A five day sojourn (the suspension) could have been interpreted as a week’s vacation, for all they knew.

This is also confirmed via a 21 page legal analysis of the Branchwater report, available on the McCain campaign site. I am unaware of the author of this brief, and possibly a member of McCain’s legal team. It is, however, substantive to note that the Palins were unaware of any action on their complaint years ago.

Todd Palin was not aware of the Grimes Report until July 2008, after Monegan left the government. The DPS never informed the Palins that Wooten had been disciplined. All the Palins knew is that Trooper Wooten would repeatedly tell Ms. McCann that no one would ever punish him because he was a trooper, and that Trooper Wooten continued to be assigned to patrol the Palins’ neighborhood, even after he had threatened to kill Sarah Palin’s father.

After the expenditure of $100k of Alaskan taxpayers cash, Branchwater made two recommendations. One, to amend the request for medical and rehabilitation records by any government agency require a relationship be established between the request for the records, and the purpose for obtaining the records.

And second? That those who file complaints against peace officers to receive status and outcome of those complaints. As Branchwater himself said in his report, the Palins’ frustration was genuine, and their skepticism that an investigation or discipline had ever occured was warranted.

Gives a new perspective on all that talking Todd Palin was doing, eh?

FROM PG 80

So what about that impeachment Sen. Hollis French so readily bandied about in the press? Or at least one of the $5000 maximum fines for such serious crimes and misdemeanors as not reining in a hubby, attempting to find out what’s going on with the Trooper who threatened his family members?

Again, from today’s ADN:

The chairman of the Legislative Council, Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau, said he agreed with Branchflower’s findings but wasn’t ready to suggest there should be any consequences for the governor.

“We don’t charge people, we don’t try people as legislators,” Elton said. Any further action or disciplinary measures, he said, would be up to Palin’s executive branch, the attorney general or the state Personnel Board.

So here we are – $100,000 later – back to the Personnel Board investigation. Right where the dang thing belonged to begin with….

The Alaskan Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s Motion to Dismiss… on Oct 8th. I was waiting to get the Supreme decision. However none is available as of yet. If the brief I linked above is correct, a decision should follow. (Which I’m actually quite curious on a legal intellectually level to see. Mostly about the Legislative Council appropriating funds without the approval of the entire body.)

In the context of all that still goes on… the Legislative Council witch hunt continues, most or all are responding to subpoenas. And the Personnel Board investigation and investigator are still in action.

Dat’s all folks…. I am so bored with this. After I found out a “guilty” is a $5000 fine, who the heck cares? The Alaskan Legislative Council is spending 20x the amount of the fine just to investigate…. no wonder Palin’s had to rip thru these guys in her gubernatorial term. They most certainly know how to waste the taxpayers’ cash.

But this entire story was meant only to damage Palin as a running mate from the beginning. Were this a story that genuinely lent credible threat to a “criminal” serving as a Veep, none of this would be slipping under the radar. But… like I said… a $5000 fine for a guilty charge??

But… if you need bathroom reading material, or need something to read to fall asleep to…. here’s the quick link to the entire Trooper’gate series.

Well, the slow hand of justice is still at work… the Anchorage Superior Court judge dismissed the suit… as he should. This is too large an issue for any court less than the Alaskan Supreme Court to decide. And no judge in their right mind will create such a precedence of ruling about state lawmakers budgeting, and constitutional rights of citizens.

So while this is “a story”… it’s actually just notice that the next step of appeal has commenced. Now what really would have been a story is if the Anchorage judge took it upon himself to decide such issues… that would be one ballsy guy in robes….

Pretty self-explanatory here. If you’ve been reading the Trooper’gate series here, you’ll be familiar with the points made in the statement.

Two new developments… First, there is an independent investigator working on the Personnel Board inquiry. Haven’t caught his name clearly yet, and unlike Sen French and Steve Branchwater, he’s not out there making public comments… as is appropriate for the process.

Second, there’s a couple of Alaskan Senators ready to launch a lawsuit against the McCain campaign for what they feel is interference in the Legislative Council’s witch hunt. Will try to grab this if and when it happens.

In other news on the same subject, Senate President and Palin nemesis, Lyda Green, is “absolutely disgusted, embarrassed, and ashamed” by the “intervention” into the biased legislative investigation, and what she describes as “disheartening” attack on Walt Monegan.

As I said in a previous Trooper’gate post… Palin went the extra mile to avoid bringing her internal battles with Monegan into the public eye. However, with his persistent charges that he was terminated for not firing Wooten, she was forced into a corner. He brung it on himself…

And where’s the outrage for their unabashed smearing of Palin? Funny… must have missed that.

I swear, I’m not sure why I’m wasting my time, or yours, with this post. Took about 24 hours off to be with my granddaughter, and re’entered the news world to find the media and Palin hater dogs are off, chasing a new bone of contention on the Trooper’gate/Monegan angle.

First, let me say this in no uncertain terms. I don’t care if Sarah Palin didn’t like which side of his head Monegan parted his hair… she had a right to terminate him for any reason she wished because he served at will.

Now, is this a scandal that she fired him for some personal vendetta, or not? And apparently, it’s becoming more than clear that it’s not. So now the media is off on another entrapment tangent, trying to play the “gotcha” game as to even her legitimate reasons for firing an appointee for sundry differences.

Case in point, Justin Rood at ABC news, whining over Monegan’s planned lobbying endeavor to the beltway to secure funds for an anti-sexual violence program. ABC triumphantly lauds it as “new doubt”…

And what’s the new bru ha ha? Is it related to Wooten? But no….

Instead it is questioning one of Palin’s reasons – citing an event that happened 4 days before she fired him, and his refusal to take another position.

Palin called it an “unauthorized lobbying trip”, and the liberal/progressives, desperately seeking anything to tank Palin’s numbers, point to a travel authorization signed by one of Palin’s staff, Mike Nizich. The authorization states the purpose of the trip is “to attend meeting with Senator Lisa Murkowski.”

Now all you “gotcha” types out there, I wouldn’t get too excited. Let’s follow once again the timeline.

The Palin campaign released many emails… and one of them, dated July 7th (pre’Veep era), from the Governor’s Special Counsel, John Katz, cited two great reasons why the lobbying trip in question would not have been approved by Gov. Palin:

In a July 7 e-mail, John Katz, the governor’s special counsel, noted two problems with the trip: the governor hadn’t agreed the money should be sought, and the request “is out of sequence with our other appropriations requests and could put a strain on the evolving relationship between the Governor and Sen. Stevens.”

The travel authorization is dated June 19th, and a noted purpose only to meet Sen. Murkowski… Monegan had to have known Palin was not seeking the money, nor sanctioned a lobbying trip for that purpose.

It appears that Monegan may have been trying to pull a fast one to advance a pet project, over Palin’s objections.

17 days later the General Counsel sent the email recommending *against* any lobbying trip, (this is still pre’Palin Veep). Obviously written after they found out Monegan’s purpose for the travel was more than stated on the authorization.

What was it Palin said? “Mr. Monegan persisted in planning to make the unauthorized lobbying trip to D.C.” Certainly appears that, despite the Palin’s lack of support for a lobbying trip, Monegan “persisted” in putting in a travel authorization request anyway with a vaguely stated purpose. Hummm… so far, looks like she was right.

The plot thickens in that this was an attempt by Monegan to mask his true intent for the beltway visit… as Hot Air’s Allahpundit points out, the date of Nizich’s signature is June 18th. But the travel authorization is actually dated a day later… June 19th.

Either Nizich did not know what day it was, or he signed a blank authorization document for what he believed was a standard visitation to an Alaskan Senator. So why would he do that? Apparently, the purpose of meeting Murkowski was not made clear on the authorization (if he just dated it wrong), or the verbal intent gave him the impression it would be a generally authorized trip.

According to Ruaro, Monegan asked for — and received — approval for the travel without telling Palin’s staff his reason for going. “As a matter of routine, the travel was approved by Mike Nizich … weeks before the actual purpose was made clear by former Commissioner Monegan,” Ruaro wrote.

“When you receive permission to travel, it does not mean that you receive blanket authorization to discuss or do whatever you would like on that trip,” he added.

BTW, Nizich is one of those on the Legislative Council’s…. er Steve Branchwater’s… list of witnesses. And he is also one of those who will be cooperating with a Personnel Board investigation, and enjoying the Alaskan AG’s office advice that showing up (for the Legislative inquisition) is not mandatory…

In fact, with these released emails, Thomas Van Flein has used them as further evidence in his plea to the Personnel Board to find “no probable cause” for further investigation. Per an AP/Google article:

The e-mails made clear that some Palin staffers believed Monegan and the Department of Public Safety worked outside normal channels. One was written in May by Randy Ruaro, then a special assistant to Palin, to the governor’s budget director, and concerned efforts to pay for and build a crime lab.

“I FEEL YOUR PAIN! DPS is constantly going off the reservation,” he wrote.

In February, Monegan signed a public letter of support for a $3.6 million project designed to keep troubled teens off the street in Anchorage — even though the governor had vetoed the project last year and hadn’t included money for it in her budget this year.

“I am stunned and amazed — do you know anything about this?” budget director Karen Rehfeld wrote to two other high-level staffers when she learned of the letter.

“Think about that:one of the governor’s own cabinet members publicly contradicting her veto decision,” Stapleton said.

Monegan acknowledged he shouldn’t have signed the letter, because it put the governor in the awkward position of defending her veto decision. But he said he thought of the letter as simply making another run at getting funding for a worthy project.

Uh… now how was it Palin described Monegan? “rogue mentality” and “outright insubordination”. Apparently, quite fitting a description.

This latest media nonsense, suggesting Palin lied about her reasons for firing Monegan is nothing more than a bait and switch – parsing words to muddy the scandal’s origins. Remember, this whole mucky muck started with Monegan publicly complaining (with Andrew Halcro’s dutiful aid) about being fired because of retaining Trooper Wooten, Palin’s ex-brother in law. This despite being on the record, under oath, plus in other media reports stating:

“For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor.
Not Todd. Not any of the other staff….”

former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan
Anchorage Daily News, Aug 30, 2008

Let me also remind you that it is Monegan and Halcro who have been smearing Palin since day one on this supposed personal vendetta. Yet battles over policy and budget between Monegan and Palin are not new emergences of info. In fact, even her staunchest critics have pointed to the battles between Monegan and Palin, prior to her Veep pick.

One criticism is that Gov. Palin had not been more explicit in her reasons for firing Monegan upfront. As I’ve mentioned before, on Aug 13th (again, pre’Veep pick) Alaskan Pride, most definitely no fan of Palin, said:

Palin has been under heavy criticism since firing former Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. However, she also disclosed three reasons why she fired Monegan (I listened to the press conference in part on KFQD and specifically took down this information).

- He was not making headway on achieving key goals such as resolving the trooper shortfall.

- He was not making satisfactory progress on resolving alcohol issues.

- He was not a team player in regards to budget issues.

But recognizing his previous experience in dealing with alcohol issues, particularly in Bush Alaska, Governor Palin did not want to remove Monegan from the administration altogether, but to place him in charge of the Alcoholic Beverage Control board, where he could combine his rural expertise with a full-time focus on alcohol issues. Nevertheless, Monegan elected not to accept the post, and left the administration instead. Monegan continues to maintain he was pressured by Palin’s family and the administration to fire Trooper Wooten. You can view all previous posts on Monegan’s firing HERE.

~~~

Opinion: Sarah Palin could have saved herself a lot of grief if she had simply told us why she canned Walt Monegan last month instead of serving up some New Age Oprah-style drivel about “new energy” and “new direction”. There seems to be a disturbing aura of New Age influence within the Palin Administration.

Even Palin’s most vocal critic, Andrew Halcro, documented the the budget battles between Monegan and the Governor back on July 18th, prior to Palin’s pick as Veep.

Walt Monegan got fired for all of the wrong reasons. Walt Monegan got fired because he had the audacity to tell Governor Palin no, when apparently nobody is allowed to say no to Governor Palin.

Monegan said no, he couldn’t cut his budget because his State Troopers were already being stretched to the limit and public safety suffering. He said no, he couldn’t cut his budget because fuel costs for planes, boats and patrol vehicles soaring, while crime in rural Alaska was putting more demands on the Troopers transportation system.

~~~

When Walt Monegan was appointed, he realized the deep problems at DPS including low morale, understaffed detachments and the lack of a funding commitment to a long term vision.

He also recognized, that along with the strategic plan his department developed and introduced just months ago, there needed to be a commitment of resources to follow through on the public safety needs for Alaskans.

“We want out employees to know that help is on the way; that we are planning to grow our staff to provide both the needed services for this vast state, and the appropriate training necessary to do it”, Monegan wrote in his 2008-17 Strategic Plan.

But the Palin administration wanted Monegan to go in another direction. They wanted him to cut corners on a budget that had already fallen behind over the last decade. Under Former Governor Murkwoski there was significant investment made to try and catch up with growing costs but Palin’s budgets have again started to starve the agency.

To make matters worse, the change to the state’s retirement benefit program adopted by the legislature in 2004 has had a negative effect on the departments ability to recruit new Troopers.

Since there’s ample documentation by even the most ardent nemesis of Palin, why did all this end up resting on Wooten? Politics… plain and simple. But they all forget that the Info Age leaves a trail of evidence. And there is ample evidence that Monegan and Palin were battling on far more important issues than a years ago divorced brother in law.

After tossing all this sheeeeet toward the fan, it’s hard to fathom why Monegan is “dismayed” about this assault on his performance. Alaskan Pride… again an anti-Palin outlet, but actually reasonably balanced in much of his coverage, described Monegan’s reaction:

Reached Monday at his Chugiak home, Monegan said he was dismayed at the attack on his record as Palin’s public safety commissioner. “In my mind, I’ve always been a team player,” he said. Monegan also said that the papers the governor’s lawyer filed are selective and he’s provided other documentation to the legislative investigator, Steve Branchflower, that will provide a more balanced portrayal of his time as commissioner.

Perhaps he should have thought about that before he started dragging Palin thru the mud -teaming up with Halcro to publicly accuse Palin of abuse of power by terminating him. If he went up against Palin’s governance even once, he was worthy of firing. But fact is, it matters not that they may have worked together 20 times… there is documented insubordination for more than one incident. Does he think those other times wipe out his behavior on these?

And oh, by the way… what does all this have to do with it being all about Trooper Wooten?? Isn’t that supposed to be the scandal? Evidently not, if we’re now having media arguments about Monegan’s performance.

Frankly, considering the sequence of events, and the length of time before Palin released emails highlighting the specifics of the Palin/Monegan internal battles, it appears the Governor went to great lengths to *avoid* dragging Monegan’s public record thru the mud.

Instead she was forced into publicizing all their policy, budget and enforcement disagreements… in self defense. Monegan begged for this… by his stubborn refusal to accept his termination, or the other position offered, with grace.

Over at AJ’s The Stratasphere, another commenter is researching the PSEA’s (trooper union) relationship with Palin’s nemesis, Andrew Halcro. While it’s interesting, I already have no doubts that Halcro is actually the one with the vendetta. And I truly have no desires to intentionally engage in smearing the AST’s union.

Without a doubt, with Palin shaving back the State budget, I’m quite sure that the PSEA was far from happy with Palin. But do I believe these disagreements would trigger them to engage in a Palin smear campaign? No… I don’t. In fact, strikes me as it would behoove them to see that Palin moves on to the Veep offices in the beltway.

Additionally, to the PSEA’s credit, they went the legal ethics complaint route by filing the paperwork with the AG for official review by the Personnel Board. So I personally don’t think there is some hidden conspiracy lurking.

I could be wrong… but I still say this is a local battle of the disgruntled (Halcro, Monegan, French, Elton and Lyda Green) against Palin. It is French who is determined to carry on with the witch hunt. And it is Halcro who continues to feed media scandal headlines with his theories.

But time will tell all…. a Personnel Board decision of probable cause, plus some incomplete Legislative Investigation that does nothing but muddy the political waters…. and that’s all it was ever intended to do.

It’s official that Todd Palin will refuse to respond to the Legislative Council’s subpoena to appear. And, of course, the other expected event in tandem with that was Attorney Thomas Van Flein sent a letter yesterday to Indy Counsel Steve Branchflower letting him know just that.

For those of you who have kept up on the Trooper’gate saga via my posts, his reasons for Todd Palin’s refusal to appear are already familiar. i.e. no authority, unConstitutionally vague in what they want him to bring in for documentation, a violation of Constitutional due process, etal. You can read the three page letter in the link above for the specifics. But it’s a familiar shopping list already. The new addition to the list? It’s “unduly burdersome” for Palin to appear…. Todd’s a pretty busy “First Dude” at the moment, campaigning with wife Sarah.

But this really isn’t news… just the anticpated steps that would ensue considering the legal stance the AG’s office has adopted. But, I got politely called on the carpet for being not up to date by a disappointed reader on the side… LOL. So Donald? This one’s for you!

As I pointed out in my Sept 15th post on Trooper’gate, Senior Asst. AG Michael Barnhill was promising to fight the Legislative Councils subpoenas unless they agreed to accept his interpretation of the Personnel Board Act.

So all in all.. the only thing that’s new is that, as predicted, there will be many that will refuse to appear before the Legislative Council…. and Todd’s the most prominent on the list to say “no way, Jose” to French and company.

And right now, the AG’s office has their back for ignoring the subpoenas.

This, of course, has Andrew Halcro, the lead Legislative Investigator cheerleader, being driven up the wall. His latest posting is a rant, accusing Senior AG Talis Colberg of being in over his head… alluding to him as incompetent by saying: “Plucked from the relative obscurity of drawing up wills in Palmer to managing one of the biggest legal staffs in the state, Colberg’s latest actions show he is certainly not ready for prime time.

Perhaps Halcro might want to check further… in that the AG representative taking the lead is not Colberg, but Michael Barnhill. Instead, Halcro demonstrates amazing chutzpah, attempting to dictate to the AG’s office the law. He cites the Alaskan statute on subpoenas… never comprehending that these issues, combined with the AG’s vow to fight subpoenas, and combined with two lawsuits questioning the legality of the French/Branchwater witch hunt in Superior Court, can most definitely delay any testimony with plenty of legal authority.

Halcro’s out of his expertise. His bio via his website:

Occupation:
Director of Business Development, Avis Alaska 2007-present
Candidate for Governor 2006
President, Avis/Alaska (Statewide Family business owned and operated since 1955) 2002-2006
Director of Marketing, Avis Alaska, 1990-2002
Fleet Manager, Avis Alaska, 1985-1990
Administrative Assistant, Avis Alaska, 1984-1985
Airport Rental Agent, Avis Alaska, 1982-1984
Car Wash Manager, Avis Alaska, 1980-1982

Hummm…. I’m missing him being a member of the Alaskan Bar in there….

Now.. the news I *am* waiting for?

1: Who French will pick to represent himself, Kim Elton, Branchwater, the Legislative Council, etal in their lawsuit that was filed by the GOP lawmakers in Alaska Superior Court this week.

2: Who will pay for that legal representative for the above… the taxpayers? And does the Legislative Council have the authority to allocate funding for that?

3: Will the Superior Court put a halt to the legislative investigation?

4: Will the Personnel Board choose to throw out both Palin’s and PSEA/John Cyr’s ethics complaints? Or appoint an investigator?

Now *that’s* news….

Well, I also said I’d do a mea culpa if warranted. And here it is… TWO mea culpas, in fact. The first is that I was wrong, and there are two lawsuits.

The second mea culpa is that, not knowing the names of all the Alaskan legislators, I have the two briefs backwards. The 14 page brief in the first Trooper’gate post is the filing from the five Fairbanks citizens against Steve Branchwater…. not the GOP lawmakers I had read about first. So many names in this story…. boggles a girl’s mind sometimes! sigh….

Today I found what I needed… the 27 page brief filed by the GOP lawmakers, Representatives Wes Keller, Mike Kelly and Bob Lynn, and Senators Tom Wagoner and Fred Dyson.

Named defendants in this suit are Senators Hollis French and Kim Elton, investigator/counsel Steve Branchwater and the entire Legislative Council.

In this brief, there are far more quotes from Hollis French to various media documenting his pre’judgment of Gov. Palin’s guilt than I was aware of. He’s been a very busy media mouthpiece…

There are more specifics on the illegal actions of the Legislative Council… acting without authority on the commencement and funding of the investigation is more clearly delineated, including Sen. French’s interference in the investigation specifics itself. Also touched on was it’s method of conduct, violating Constitutional due process rights of Gov. Palin and all involved. This includes everything from using a biased investigative process and counsel to McCarthy’esque tactics as “tip lines”, and subpoenas for private citizens in secret depositions, testifying to hearsay and rumors.

Another was the mention of subpoening Todd Palin – a private citizen – requiring him to produce records.

The lawsuit suggests the Legislative Council is also violating the Separation of Powers, as they are not authorized to investigate in arenas that are not related to advancing legislation. (this mirrors federal Constitutional powers as well) Nor was impeachment discussed… or the procedure for seeking impeachment properly followed.

Van Flein is now being bolstered by some of McCain’s bigwigs now, acting as consultants to the Anchorage attorney in the high profile action. Naturally the Newsweek article presents it in such a way that it looks like Palin is trying to avoid any scrutiny by ignoring the legality of the Personnel Board complaints authorized to investigate ethics charges against the Executive Branch, as per Alaskan law. But coming from Michael Isikoff, I can’t be too surprised. One day these guys will get a clue….

So mea culpa…. just straightening out the record. I promised I would. And wanted to do it johnny-on-the-spot.

Senator Elton, the Council chairman, responded to the lawsuits via an email yesterday afternoon:

The Judiciary, the third branch of government, is now part of the drama surrounding the Legislative Council’s investigation into “the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch.”

Five legislators now are asking the courts to stop an investigation unanimously endorsed by the Legislative Council several weeks before Gov. Sarah Palin was elevated to the Republican national ticket as a vice presidential nominee.

The suit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Alaska seeks “declaratory and injunctive relief in the investigation,” according to the attorney hired by Reps. Wes Keller, Mike Kelly, and Bob Lynn along with Sens. Tom Wagoner and Fred Dyson. Named in the suit in addition to the Council were: Sens. Kim Elton, chair of the Council; Hollis French, project director for the investigation; and Steven Branchflower, the investigator hired by the Council.

“While the suit is a distraction,” Sen. Elton said today, “I’m comfortable with the notion that the court will review the substance of the suit and find the Council acted properly and that the decisions made during the course of the investigation so far are appropriate and well within the mandate of the Council.” He added the investigation will continue pending a ruling from the court.

“The silver lining in this action initiated by the five lawmakers,” Elton said, “is that some of that debate now has been kicked to the judicial branch which, unlike the legislature and the governor’s office, is more insulated from the red-hot passion of presidential politics.”

Elton also noted that an attorney will be hired to represent himself, French, Branchwater and the Legislative Council – all the named defendants. Wonder if they have the right to appropriate those funds too….

See all previous Trooper’gate posts here

The mudslinging battles in the two investigations of Sarah Palin just got even muddier… Per the Portland Examiner today, five GOP lawmakers have decided to take legal action in the attempt to halt Sen. Hollis French’s legislative witch hunt.

The Personnel Board investigation will go on as planned.

JUNEAU, Alaska (Map, News) – Five Republican state lawmakers filed suit Tuesday to end the bipartisan investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s firing of the public safety commissioner even though the vice presidential candidate once said she welcomed the probe into allegations of abuse of power.

The lawsuit called the investigation “unlawful, biased, partial and partisan.” None of the lawmakers who filed the suit in Anchorage Superior Court serves on the bipartisan Legislative Council that unanimously approved the investigation.

Continue reading Steve Quinn’s AP article here

Per an ADN (Anchorage Daily News) article today, Kevin Clarkson, Anchorage attorney for the five GOP lawmakers, sent an email to ADN, giving notice on his filed brief. [Clarkson was interviewed on Mark Levin's talk radio show this afternoon]

But first, I might say I disagree with Ms. Carpenter that there are two filed complaints. I believe there is only one. Reading the link to the brief, it appears the plaintiffs are the five GOP Senators – Robert Bettisworth, James Dodson, Seth Church, David Eichler, Thomas Temple and Alan Simmons – and filed *as* citizens of Alaska, being nailed for expenditures that are illegally appropriated. (None of which, I will add, are members of the Joint Legislative Council)

Now I can’t be sure as I have not seen any additional filed briefs. But who has the standing to file the lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of Alaska – and if any could, it would be their elected officials. And if I’m wrong, I’ll be the first to issue a public “mea culpa”…. LOL

But my first inclination is that the brief is covering the lawmakers, and the lawmakers as citizens…. not two separate complaints asking for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Reasons cited for this action are not a surprise to me… unconstitutional via Alaska’s Constitution under procedure for possible impeachment (under Article II of the Constitutions), jurisdiction and due process.

Again, read the brief link provided above. But there’s a highlight that make me roar…

First, Clarkson alleges Steve Branchflower was not licensed to practice law in Alaska until August 5th. He apparently has some dual residency specifics as both SC and AK. Branchflower, of course, was appointed by Hollis and his merry band, the Legislative Council officially on the 31st of July, and in the news August 1st. ooops….

Back to some other more mundane, but pertinent issues now.

I mentioned in the most recent Trooper’gate post that this particular Alaskan legislative investigation was blazing some new procedural trails. The lawmakers appointed Branchflower (prematurely to his legal practice possibly), and are guiding his investigation by voting on witnesses. Other traditional legislative investigations – per federal law – are only pertinent if they are in connection with legislative development, and the lawmakers are not involved in the process.

Evidently, reading Clarkson’s brief, Alaska is no different.

Secondly, as also mentioned in some previous Trooper’gate posts, this investigation will cost the Alaskan taxpayers $100K. Well, guess what… the Legislative Council has no budget appropriations power to allocate these funds for the investigation. These funds must be appropriated thru the standard procedural legislative process before the full body.

… another oops

Clarkson’s brief goes on to state that the priority jurisdiction belongs to the Personnel Board, per Alaskan law. And if you’re a regular reader of this Trooper’gate series, you’re way ahead of the western MSM on these facts. Clarkson states in his brief:

The parallel investigation of the underlying facts by a partisan legislator serves no purpose other than to highlight the inquiry as a poorly disguised political attack.

Amen to that…

Something else I’ve mentioned several times is that this legislative process may violate Palin’s (and others they plan to investigate) Due Process, per the Alaskan Constitution. And Alaska, on the heels of the McCarthy witch hunts, was very specific in naming legislative investigations in their Declaration of Rights – Due Process in Article I.

Per Clarkson’s brief:

Legislatures are properly and inherently biased and therefore not well suited to serve as neutral adjuticative bodies. Delineating the Constitutional rights of Alaska’s citizens in the shadow of the McCarthy era, the State founders were acutely aware of the dangers of allowing partisan legislators to sit in judgment of their fellow citizens or political adversaries. To insure against that possibility, the Constitution itself guarantees that “the right of all citizens to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations shall not be infringed”. [Alaska Const Article I, Sect. 7]

The same basic concern over the abuse of legislative power inspired the Alaskan Legislature to act again, 50 years hence, to create the Alaskan Personnel Board as the neutral adjuticative body to resolve government ethics disputes, including disputes involving the Governor, in a fair and unbiased fashion. The Personnel Board, not the thinly-veiled “independent” adjuticated inquiry spearheaded by Senator French is the proper forum to conduct a neutral review.

Can I get another *Amen* here! I’ve been shouting this since the onset of this nonsense. Now if those of us that are informed can catch the media up on reality….

For the “declaratory relief”:

The plaintiffs want the courts to rule that the Branchflower investigation is beyond the statutory power of the Legislative Council, and thereby unConstitutional.

For “Due Process” declaratory relief violations, Clarkson points out that Sen French has not only retained control over the investigative process, but is not conducting the process in an unbiased fashion based on his press statements. This, of course, violates Palins due process rights as it is not being handled with “fair and just treatment”, as the Constitution states.

For the injunctive relief”:

Stop Branchflower from spending State money that was appropriated outside the means of the standard procedure, there therefore not within the Legislative Council’s statutory authority. In other words… “freeze”! Funds already spent are outside of any lawful remedy. (Could Branchflower be eating his legal fees already???) The are asking for a temporary restraining order against Branchflower incurring any further costs.

And oh, BTW, the plantiffs are asking for Branchflower to pay for the legal costs incurred for this lawsuit… kewl.

…. okay, added afterthought here. I don’t want to blame Branchflower for Hollis French’s vendetta and lack of legal authority. He’s just a guy accepting a job… even if he is a Monegan buddy. So I’ll be more benevolent, and recant the above as an instinctive evil “heh heh”… and hope that Branchflower sues the begeezus out of French to recoup his legal fees.

It’s been a slow whirlwind of activity on the dual (and dueling) investigations of Sarah Palin, known as Trooper’gate. So I’ll catch you up on both the legislation investigation (aka, the “witchhunt”) and the Personnel Board investigation (aka the authority via Alaskan State law to hear complaints under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.)

The brief version so many like to have? (which I never recommend, since you should read and form your own opinions…) The legislative investigation has piled on yet one more event in their process that has the AG eyeing them and their methods of investigation warily. So he’s threatening to block their subpoenas unless they change their ways. In the meantime, the PSEA complaint filed with the Personnel Board may have a long row to hoe if they want to tie their medical records “leak” to Palin. And was it a “leak” at all, or merely common knowledge?

Now, the more indepth version with links…

As a brief recap (see more in depth in previous posts… the category linked above), a Personnel Board investigation can’t begin until they receive formal complaints. And as the Head Witch Hunter, Hollis French pointed out on Sept 1st, there were no complaints and therefore the Personnel Board was a moot point. Therefore, he believed the legislative investigation held priority standing.

It was, however, almost simultaneous with his statement that Palin’s Anchorage attorney, Thomas Van Flein, was filing her ethics disclosure/complaint with the AG’s office… thus kickstarting the procedure as per the Ethics Act. Palin’s disclosure dealt with the charges that she set her administration on Monegan, pressuring him to fire Trooper Wooten.

Sept 3rd, John Cyr – Executive Director of the PSAE (the AST union who negotiated Wooten’s suspension reduced from 10 days to 5 days with Col. Julia Grimes) – filed a separate complaint with the AGs office, also to appear before the Personnel Board. The PSEA complaint focuses on what they consider to be an invasion of privacy of Wooten’s personnel file, specifically his workman’s compensation claim. This, Cyr claims, is a violation of AS 39.25.080 in the Alaska State Personnel Act.

Both these complaints/disclosures – tho not briefs – present their case to the AG stating points of law and discussing evidence they have that makes them believe there is a case. The three-person Personnel Board deliberates if the evidence is sufficient to warrant the appointment of an independent counsel/investigator to pursue further…. much like a Grand Jury.

They can also take the facts at hand, and dismiss the charges.

Reading the six page complaint by the PSEA is, of course, recommended. And bear with me here as it’s not a cut/paste friendly document, so this will be summarizing. In my prior posts, I only mentioned it was forthcoming, but had not been yet made available to the public.

The PSEA complaint names as their subjects of investigation Frank Bailey (Palin’s special asst, and now on paid administrative leave for acting without authority), Brad Thompson (Director in the Risk Management in the Dept of Administration), Mike Monagle (brace yourself for a mouthful here… the Administrator for the Fisherman’s Fund Advisory and Appeals Council and the Second Injury Fund sections of the Dept of Workman’s Comp division…. whew…)…. and/or the Governor.

BTW, each violation (assuming one is found guilty of more than one) carries a fine of up to and no more than $5000, and disciplinary action. Heavy duty crime here, eh?

The heart of the complaint lies with the Frank Bailey recorded phone call with Lt. Dial that Cyr suggests would only be known from Wooten’s workman’s compensation file. BTW, in an old WaPo article from Aug 30th, the Alaskan AG had already been doing a review of these charges and found that in all, this phone call was the only one that was determined to be improper.

In July, Palin’s chief of staff told Monegan he was being fired because the governor wanted to “go in a different direction,” Monegan said.

Monegan went public, alleging that his firing was connected to his failure to remove Wooten. The state legislature launched its investigation, and the governor asked the attorney general’s office to conduct an internal investigation.

Barnhill said the review, made public two weeks ago, found that half a dozen officials had made about two dozen phone calls regarding Wooten. But only one call was determined to be improper, a tape-recorded conversation between Palin’s chief of boards and commissions, Frank Bailey, to a police lieutenant.

The others named in Cyr’s PSEA complaint are those that seemed to be in the chain that presumably gave Bailey this information. However note, the Governor is the last (least?) named. From any routing slips for Workman’s Comp files with the filing, evidently Palin is not named as the source requesting the file (or this would be an easier charge to believe, right?)

Instead, this is a complaint to see if Bailey’s personal conversation in question can be linked back to Palin. Todd Palin … who is not an elected official… is not the subject of an Executive Branch Ethics investigation. It must also be noted that Bailey is on record, under oath, that he did not act on any authority of the Governor, nor was requested to act on her behalf. Rather makes linking the two somewhat moot, yes?

So what’s up with a workman’s comp file? Remember, that on Feb 7th, 2008, Wooten signed a release of his entire employment file, including complaints and personnel records, that expired May 1, 2008. Also, the Governor’s office provided a disclosure that Palin had nothing to do with the litigation, and that all records involved with that litigation were procured per state law on discovery procedures.

So how does this all fit in with accusations against both Sarah and Todd Palin? In April of 2007 (approx 4 months after Sarah took office), Todd Palin said he had met with Wooten’s boss one time only, to give her pictures taken of Wooten, out on a snowmobile, when he was supposed to be out on workman’s compensation leave. Whether this was an avid snowmobiler, Todd Palin, having a chance run in with Wooten in the woods, or other methods of obtaining these photos, is not stated. The private investigation of Wooten by the Palins was done years earlier, during the heat of the original complaints mid 2005.

But would it really require scrutiny of a personnel file for the family members, friends and acquaintances to know Wooten was off regular duty on a workman’s comp claim? Or could it be something as simple as “hey Mike, how come you’re not working?” in passing conversation, and thereby commonly known? It’s not necessarily something most strive to keep private. Perhaps the nature of the injury, yes? But collecting a claim?

Now, remember one of the several reasons Gov. Palin’s gave for firing Walt Monegan was over AST recruitment, and that bad behavior by any could reflect on the department as a whole. It remains the task of the Personnel Board to determine if this, combined with an abuse of a workman’s comp claim by an AST, is related and sans violation. But some of those named in the PSEA complaint are part of both the Workman’s Comp division *and* the Admin Dept’s Risk Management department.

An obvious question comes to mind… is an Alaskan trooper, found in violation of collecting workman’s compensation funds under false pretenses, fair game for investigation by these departments? And when an administration discovers these violations and/or corruption, should they be bound to report them to the proper division? Or, because of the past relationship with Wooten, should they have turned a blind eye?

Senior Assistant Attorney General Michael Barnhill had comments on Sept 11th about communications between the Governor’s administration, and Wooten’s superiors on what may be a violation of Wooten’s workman’s compensation claim… and even more importantly, how they fall in context for the Personnel Act that Cyr quotes in his PSEA ethics complaint.

Barnhill took exception to statements made by Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. French was quoted early this month as saying that if the governor’s office obtained confidential information from Wooten’s personnel file “it would be a violation of state law.”

Under state law, personnel records of state employees are confidential except for names, titles, dates of employment and compensation. Under standard operating procedures set out by the Department of Administration, which maintains many personnel records, routine access to confidential documents “is limited to those employees who must use state personnel records in order to perform their regular ongoing assigned job duties.”

But nothing in those regulations prevents the governor from assigning staff members to review personnel files, Barnhill said.

It is, in fact, French’s unethical prosecution of his legislative investigation that had Barnhill threatening to block the legislature’s subpoenas bac on Sept 11th. [Note: same article as linked above]

In a letter made public Thursday, Senior Assistant Attorney General Michael Barnhill promised to go to court to block the subpoenas “unless the current manner of pursuing the investigation changes.”

At the same time, Barnhill outlined a potential compromise: If lawmakers agree that the governor has legal authority to designate staff to review confidential personnel files, the staff members will voluntarily speak with the Legislature’s investigator _ no subpoenas necessary.

~~~

“Conducting these depositions under an improper threat of potential prosecution is unfair,” Barnhill wrote.

If the lawmakers agree in writing with his interpretation of the Personnel Act, he said, the attorney general’s office “will drop its objections and the depositions may proceed without subpoenas.”

Sen. Kim Elton, who chairs the Legislative Council, was on a plane and could not be reached for comment Thursday. An aide, Jesse Kiehl, said: “He’s read the letter. I don’t believe that we have written back.”

Barnhill acknowledged that if any administration officials improperly disclosed information from Wooten’s personnel file, that could violate the law. But, he said, he knows of no evidence any did so.

As of the Anchorage Daily News today, however, there are some administrative members that have agreed to testify anyway. But after reading the details of the reasons of why the AG’s office wanted to block the subpoenas, the ADN prefer to lead their readership’s opinion by using the language instead that “the Palin administration was threatening to quash the subpoenas.

Troopergate showdown may be avoided. The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog reported Sunday that at least two of the witnesses who received subpoenas Friday plan to testify. This word came after news last week that the Palin administration was threatening to quash the subpoenas.

On Sunday, Annette Kreitzer, Gov. Palin’s commissioner of administration, said in a telephone interview that she has agreed to testify, probably as soon as this coming week. “My understanding (is) it’s not just me but everyone,” Ms. Kreitzer said, clarifying that by “everyone” she meant the four witnesses who worked directly in her unit at the Department of Administration.

Nicki Neal, another witness on the to-be-subpoenaed list, also agreed to speak to investigators without a subpoena.

And speaking of those subpoenas, just who’s in charge of this witch hunt anyway? Is Steve Branchflower an “independent” counsel, or merely a puppet of French and the Alaskan lawmakers? And how does this process compare to what we know of other legislative investigations at the federal or state level?

As for who’s in charge, we should have had a heads up when on Friday we read that the legislators “voted” to subpoena Todd Palin and twelve other witnesses.

Well, one smart cookie at Townhall, Amanda Carpenter, picked up on that bizarre event and started putting two and two together within the next 24 hours.

Investigator Steven Branchflower admitted he had ceded control of his subpoena list to Sen. Hollis French (D.) during Alaska’s Joint Judiciary Committee September 12 hearing that was scheduled to approve subpoena requests. French is a partisan who has endorsed Palin’s Democratic presidential ticket rival Barack Obama for president and is actively supporting his candidacy.

Lawmakers approved 13 of Branchflower’s subpoena requests that day, which included one for Palin’s husband, Todd. Four other subpoenas were approved for aides Branchflower believes participated in a meeting called by Palin’s former chief of staff Mike Tibbles where Wooten’s firing was allegedly discussed.

Rep. David Guttenberg (D.) asked Branchflower why he was requesting subpoenas for only those people attending the meeting and not Tibbles himself.

Branchflower said he would “have to defer that question to Mr. French.”

Have a listen to the complete audio exchange yourself…

What’s so danged bizarre about this is that most federal and/or state legislative investigations have independent investigator/counsels that are appointed either by the Atty General’s office, or some Board that answers to the AG’s office (as in Alaska’s situation). It was in the wake of the expiration of the Independent Counsel’s Act (June 1999) where both sides of the aisle felt that the law perpetuated unfair and biased witch hunts. Even Ken Starr himself came out in favor of sunsetting the law when due for expiration.

Even at that, in other federal and/or state legislative investigations, which were appointed by the AG, the legislators were not involved in the investigation itself… not the witness lists, not nada… nothing.

So how is it French and company pick the indy counsel, then tell the indy counsel who to interview, who not to interview, and remain so involved in the process? And why is it a letter from Palin’s attorney to the independent counselor, requesting witness lists disclosures etal, is responded to by Sen. Hollis French, and not the independent counsel himself?

As Dem Rep. David Guttenberg says in the audio… “something’s fishy here”.

It is, for these reasons, that the legislative investigation has been revealed to be a politically motivated witch hunt from early on. And while lawmakers do have the right to investigate as part of their oversight responsibilities, they are also required by the Alaskan State Constitution not to deny fair due process to those under investigation, as stated in their Declaration of Rights.

Then there is the matter of their efficiency, which makes this being political in nature even more suspect. Despite the appointment of Steve Branchflower as independent counsel back on Aug 1st, they had yet to interview any of those central to the investigation even a month later. In that time, French himself has been quoted in the media as it being tandamount to possible impeachment, and “very damaging”… all without interviews.

Yet the media still only focuses on the legislative investigation, and ignores the Personnel Board process. Gee… wonder why?

The Alaskan legislation investigation of Palin’s “Trooper’gate” has been underway for about six weeks… but when it comes to efficiency, they pale by comparison to the expediency of Gov. Palin’s Anchorage attorney, Thomas Van Flein.

As of five days ago, Van Flein had already interviewed two witnesses that were at the heart of the damaging accusations. Frank Bailey is central to both charges… exerting pressure on Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire AST Mike Wooten, plus accusations he leaked private medical information from Wooten’s fire. Bailey’s recorded statements remain the same as previously accounted… that the Governor, nor her family or administration, never asked him to pressure Monegan or interfere in the process. Bailey remains on paid administrative leave.

The other interviewee? Michael Monagle of the Labor Dept’s Workers’ Compensation Division, and the keeper of Wooten’s medical file.

Monagle said that in regard to the controversy, there were rumors on the Internet that the governor or her office had requested Wooten’s workers’ compensation file.

“Absolutely not” true, said Monagle, who said that the file is “in my office in a locked file cabinet” for safekeeping.

Despite the hefty headstart for the legislative investigation, Indy Counsel Steve Branchflower has yet to interview even Mike Wooten himself. Since it was only Sept 1st that Van Flein stepped in as Palin’s Counsel and filed Ethics Disclosures to open the Personnel Board procedure, one can only marvel at the legislative investigation’s lack of speed. They had ample time to obtain the interviews prior to Sept 1st.

Per the Mike Quinn AP article appearing in The Frontiersman, Wooten says the tabloids are hot on his trail with cash offers for “the story”.

Speaking cautiously and in measured tones, Wooten said he refuses to “throw stones” at the Palin family or his ex-wife, Molly. He said he’s turned down cash offers, well into the tens of thousands, from tabloid newspapers for interviews.

“I’m not going to tell them story they want. I’m going to tell the truth,” he said.

Wooten, who is in his eighth year with the state troopers, said he’s learned from a 2005 investigation that led to his five-day suspension and has not had a complaint filed against him since. He works as a field training officer.

Wooten has been making the circuit in a lower profile, and represents himself as a redeemed man from past mistakes. He may very well be. We all have to remenber that the heat of the times was four years ago. Add to that the accusations that Palin was abusing her power as Governor commenced approx three years after those events, and Monegan’s termination – supposedly for not firing Wooten – did not happen until she was a year and a half into her term. Not exactly the sign of a woman on a quest.

Still today, liberal/progressive media and Obama activist talking points focus on the legislative investigation, while ignoring the process of dealing with ethics violations against the administrative branch per Alaskan law. Their argument? The Personnel Board is appointed by the Governor, and they believe the Personnel Board’s investigation is biased.

Again the anti-Palin activists remain clueless. The existing Board members are all originally appointed by the Murkowski administration, prior to Palin’s term. Only Debra English’s term came up for renewal in Jan 2008, and was reappointed by Palin. However all are picks of a Governor and administration fraught with charges of corruption… and no friend of Sarah Palin’s.

But let’s look at that “unfair” Board investigation and see the duality of their arguments. Just what happens in Alaska if an ethics complaint is lodged against a sitting or former lawmaker?

Per the Alaska Legislature’s site on complaint procedures for ethics:

WHO HEARS THE COMPLAINT?

The House Subcommittee hears complaints against representatives, former representatives, and employees of representatives and committees of the House, chaired by representatives. The Senate Subcommittee hears complaints against senators, former senators and employees of senators and committees of the Senate, chaired by senators. The full Ethics Committee considers complaints against employees of legislative agencies, joint committees and the public members and employees of the Ethics Committee.

My my… lookie there. When a House or Senate representative faces ethics changes, they are judged and penalized by the same legislative body. Surely isn’t this what they complain of with the Personnel Board? The ol’ coyote guarding the hen house syndrome?

Where is the outrage there? The hypocritical argument is breathtaking. When Coghill sent a letter to Elton requesting that French be replaced for his pre’determination of Palin’s guilt to the press, Obama supporter Elton refused, stating confidence French will be politically unbiased. Tho Coghill may make another appeal to Elton, it’s unlikely to result in any other decision.

Imagine if one wanted to file an ethics charge against Elton or French… look who would be the judge.

With the two main charges being pressure on Monegan, and the leak of Wooten’s private medical information, Van Flein’s testimony by both Bailey and Monagle on record represent more than a serious speedbump to the legislative process. He’s performed brillantly in demanding the Personnel Board process as the primary… and should be the sole… investigation, as per Alaskan law.

Van Flein wants the state personnel board to conduct the probe, not the legislature. The board members are gubernatorial appointees. Van Flein said he has already provided the board the depositions of two witnesses he has questioned, leaving the legislature in the dark.

The legal tactic of pre-emptive questioning gives the governor a distinct advantage in the controversy because it means that she already knows at the outset the detailed accounts of potential witnesses against her. The procedure also locks important witnesses into the accounts they give. If the witnesses provide statements now that are favorable to Palin, the witnesses’ credibility could be called into question if they make statements in the future that are unfavorable to her.

Recap? The conveniently sluggish six week legislation investigation… and the controversy surrounding Sen. Hollis French’s media statements (condemning Palin prior to the investigation’s completion) shows their process is a politically motivated witch hunt. A process they appear to purposely drag out to dominate a highly charged election cycle with rumours and damaging press.

And they weren’t even efficient at covering up their political motivation.

Sarah Palin is being investigated by the Alaska Legislative Counsel for any improper action she may have taken in firing the State’s public safety commissioner or any pressure Palin may have put on him regarding her brother in law: a State Trooper known for being violent towards members of his family and threatening to kill Palin’s father.

Mata Harley has the whole story covered in detail.

Questions about the partisan nature of the investigation arose after State Senator Hollis French (D), project manager for the investigation, promised the findings would be an “October surprise.”

Further questions regarding the objectivity of this investigation are raised by the following photograph which shows some Democrat members of the Alaska Legislative Counsel and State Sen. French, at an Obama event July 30, 2008. From the official Obama web site:

Members of the investigative panel who also support Obama:

Chairman: Sen. Kim Elton, Juneau
Sen. Hollis French, Anchorage
Sen. Bettye Davis, Anchorage
Sen. Lyman Hoffman, Bethel
Rep. David Guttenberg, Fairbanks

Will any of us be “surprised” in October when their report comes out?

UPDATE 9-8-08: Per today’s Juneau Empire, Coghill’s letter of French’s obvious bias in the media fell on the deaf ears of the Alaskan Legislative Council. “Democratic Sen. Kim Elton responded that he is sure that partisan politics can be kept out of the probe.” To make a long story short… The Dem council member leader has assured Coghill that French’s belief that Palin is guilty, as he’s stated oft time in the media, will not affect his leadership of the witch hunt.

END UPDATE

A Republican lawmaker wants the Democrat overseeing an investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin’s dismissal of her public safety commissioner removed because he seems intent on damaging her vice presidential candidacy.

Democratic state Sen. Hollis French “appears to be steering the direction of the investigation, its conclusion and its timing in a manner that will have maximum partisan political impact on the national and state elections,” state Rep. John Coghill said in a letter dated Friday.

Coghill, from North Pole, is on the Alaska Legislature’s Legislative Council, the body that appointed French to oversee the investigation. The letter was sent to the council chairman, Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau, whom Coghill asks to convene a meeting to discuss whether French should be replaced.

Coghill said the council instructed French, an Anchorage Democrat, to keep politics out of the investigation.

“He just failed that, in my view,” Coghill told The Associated Press Saturday.

Elton did not immediately return a message left at his office.

~~~

Coghill wrote in the letter that French was quoted in media reports that the results of the probe were going to be an “October surprise” that is “likely to be damaging to the administration.” The comments lead Coghill to believe the investigation is lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process, he wrote.

Coghill said he was not approached by the McCain-Palin campaign to draft the letter, but that he called the campaign to “apprise” them of the letter.

“I’m on my own in this one,” he said.

It sure has taken a long time for anyone to notice the obvious political quest driving this joke of an investigation. Especially since Alaskans are paying $100K for this witch hunt.

In the meantime, the genuine (and, IMHO, preferred) legal procedure for investigating ethics violations under The Ethics Act thru the Personnel Board is also commencing.

Believe it or not, Daily KOs is waking up, however belated, to the fact there are two investigations ongoing. And, to their credit, they have also noted that Palin specifically waived all confidentiality that is normally applied to Board ethics investigatons INRE her complaint. So they are scratching their heads as to why the advertised Board meeting is confidential.

Since there are two complaints… Palin’s INRE the termination of Walt Monegan, and John Cyr of the PSEA (Wooten’s Trooper union, who helped get his suspension reduced) INRE Wooten’s medical records, it could be that the meeting may be dealing with both. Although Palin is on record for the proceedings to be open, we have not seen the complaint from Wooten’s union. We do not know if they have waived confidentiality as well. Since the Board may be dealing with both simultaneously, this may be one reason. However, according to the Daily KOs post, they were not sure how the waiver of confidentiality applied to Board meetings.

However, per AS 39.52.340, the subject of the investigation can waive confidentiality protection in writing, as Palin has done. In the case of the 2nd complaint, Palin is not likely to be the only subject of the complaint.

While we’re on the Personnel Board… I wanted to find out how they worked, as they are the legal procedure authorized for ethics complaints against public officials. I ran across a Dec 2005 decision of the Board INRE a complaint against a public official involved in negotiations with the gas line, and his personal investments constituting a conflict of interest. While the case itself has nothing to do with Palin, there is some interesting backgroun information on the Ethics Act incorporated that I thought I would share.

II. The Ethics Act

The Legislature created the Ethics Act to provide standards of appropriate behavior for public officials and a way for citizens to enforce those standards. [Emphasis mine] In order to avoid unnecessary interference with legitimate governmental decision-making, the Ethics Act distinguishes between minor and inconsequential conflicts of interest, which do not violate the Act, and material and substantial conflicts of interest, which do.8

After reading the above, it’s plain that that this process was designed to have citizens… not lawmakers… investigate and enforce the Ethics Act. It also tells me they were quite mindful of not having their lawmakers being tied up in the business of prosecution, and ignoring their stated tasks.

This thought is confirmed in the ensuing section from the same Board decision above.

III. The Role of Independent Counsel in Determining Whether and How to Investigate an Ethics Complaint

The Personnel Board, Attorney General’s office, and designated ethics supervisors generally are responsible for applying the Ethics Act. When an ethics complaint is filed against the governor, lieutenant governor or attorney general, the complaint is referred to the Personnel Board, which retains Independent Counsel to perform the duties ordinarily performed by the attorney general.11 Independent Counsel reviews the complaint to determine whether it contains factual allegations which, if true, would constitute a violation of the Act.12 If so, Independent Counsel is charged with investigating the complaint to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a violation of the chapter has occurred.13

The Act does not specify how an investigation is to be conducted or whether all complaints must or should be investigated in the same manner. Independent Counsel must exercise independent judgment to determine whether an investigation should be opened and, if so, how to investigate. In making this decision, Independent Counsel must carefully balance the obligation to enforce the Act with the need to evaluate complaints in a manner that does not unnecessarily interfere with ongoing government business.

Since this is the State’s mandated way of handling ethic complaints, just what is the purpose of this legislative investigation? And if they were interested in the truth, why didn’t they file the complaints and start this process in the proper fashion from the onset?

Again, to quote directly from Alaska’s Constitution in Article I: Declaration of Rights on Due Process:

§ 7. Due Process

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The right of all persons to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations shall not be infringed.

Considering that French refused Palin’s attorney, Thomas Van Flein, any reasonable discovery, such as witness lists, etal… and add to that they were planning to ignore the State’s legal process to determine if Palin engage in violations of ethics, was French violating Palin’s Constitutional rights of due process?

I’m no attorney, but it sure looks like French is going the extra mile to avoid the Board investigation… Had Palin’s attorney not gotten wise, Palin could be tried by a body that’s had more than it’s fair share of corruption investigation from the feds… how ironic.

Perhaps the best reason for following State procedures was stated in the above reference final Board decision of the public official, being investigated for his negotiations while simultaneously being vested in the companies involved.

On one hand, it seems wholly appropriate to read complaints broadly to effectuate the purposes of the Ethics Act and investigate complaints which may state a claim, even if the claim appears unlikely to succeed. On the other hand, those responsible for interpreting and applying the Ethics Act should guard against frivolous complaints and attempts to use the Act as a political or strategic tool to attack policy decisions with which they disagree, but which are not unethical. This is especially so at the highest levels of government. If not administered carefully, the Ethics Act could create a system that harms the public by distracting government officials from their public duties in order to respond to complaints and investigations.

Considering the nature of the complaints, and the man at the heart of the complaints, Mike Wooten, any investigation appears to be nothing but political. Having the Alaskan lawmakers instead of the Personnel Board make that call is anything but fair and just due process.

Additionally, there was a second ethics charge to be filed from PSEA’s John Cyr out of Wasilla INRE the leaking of Mike Wooten’s medial records. Cyr is the executive director of the Public Safety Employees Association…. that would be the union that represents the Alaska State Troopers. The same union, I might add, that was responsible for getting Grimes to issue a reduced suspension of Wooten after being investigated for his abuse of authority.

They are accusing Palin and her office to have had unauthorized acccess to Wooten’s medical files and employment data. And Cyr accuses Palin of dogging the AST ever since she took office.

“This administration has had a full on attack against the Department of Public Safety and the Alaska State Troopers,” Cyr said. “I think Trooper Wooten has been demonized and the governor has used her bully pulpit to hurt Trooper Wooten.”

However the man central to the medical records charge is Frank Bailey – a man who is already on record, under oath, stating he took no action at the direction of Gov. Palin.

Van Flein interviewed Bailey Aug. 28 based on Palin’s complaint.

In the interview, Van Flein said, “There’s an allegation that you improperly accessed confidential personnel files or confidential worker’s compensation files pertaining to Mr.Wooten. Can you tell me if there’s any truth to that?”

“There is no truth to that,” Bailey responded.

The governor’s attorney then asked, “You weren’t doing it because the Department of Administration had asked you to?”

“That is correct,” Bailey said.

Bailey went on to say that he agreed that he overstepped his boundaries.

So how did Bailey have so much information about Trooper Wooten?

“He did not say he had any information other than it was hearsay,” Van Flein said. “You have to put this into context that there was a divorce where much of this information was disclosed and was part of a court proceeding.”

Considering that Bailey states Palin did not instruct him to intervene, then combine that with Wooten’s own waiver in the divorce settlement, authorizing the release of his personnel file, “including but not limited to any and all disciplinary actions and or complaints, and personnel records and actual shift and date worked records.”… it’s a long shot to try and pin the medical records charges on Palin herself. Yet the AST union’s persistence in going after Palin, and not focusing on Bailey, indicates the rift between the two.

Palin’s own Ethics Disclosure was to move the investigation of ethics violations out of the control of Sen. Hollis French, and into the proper legal venue for reviewing ethics charges, per Alaska law. This is done by a three man Personnel Board, who investigates the charges first for probable cause. Under normal circumstances, this “grand jury” type or pre’investigation is kept confidential. However in Palin’s Ethics Disclosure, she waived all rights to confidentiality, and welcomed open scrutiny.

Since Palin’s Ethics Disclosure only dealt with the charge of Public Safety Commission Walt Monegan’s termination, the second ethics charge, filed by Cyr, now addresses those charges. And both these filed complaints triggered the Board’s jurisdiction as legal procedure for the investigation of these charges – and per Alaskan law, they are the only legal authority endowed with that power.

Palin’s attorney told French Palin would cooperate – in the proper venue (see his letter to Branchwater, Aug 31st in previous post linked above). Within 24 hours, Frank Bailey – the man at the center of the medical records charge – also obtained a lawyer when he learned Palin was moving the investigation to the more unbiased and neutral Personnel Board. He too will cooperate… but in the proper venue.

To dissuade the expected charge of loading the Board with Palin devotees, you need to know the Board members are three appointees by Palin’s predecessor, Murkowski.

Sen. French told Palin’s Anchorage attorney, Thomas Van Flein, that he intended to not only continue his legislative investigation, but would convene the Judicial Committee and issue supoenas to get the interviews with those who do not cooperate.

Caught up now? Good. Because French is going to be true to his word.

Alaska state legislators are preparing to issue subpoenas as part of an investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin’s handling of the “troopergate” affair, but Palin herself won’t be hit with one.

State Sen. Hollis French, the Anchorage Democrat who is managing the probe into Palin’s firing of her former public safety commissioner, said legislators decided not to subpoena Palin as a gesture to calm what has become a tense standoff between the Legislature and the newly minted Republican vice presidential nominee.

“We’re trying to de-escalate the situation. We just want the truth, clear the air,” French said.

However, legislators still want their investigator to interview Palin.

The Alaskan legislators are telling the media they want to move up the investigation results from the original Oct 31st schedule release to Oct 10th. Yet they already know they will experience delays for supoenas, and that this is most likely an unattainable goal.

French and crew are countering their obvious appearance of political game playing…. releasing what French has already told the media that the investigation could be “damaging”, and at worst case, result in impeachment proceedings. French, an Obama supporter, can’t help but miss the benefit to the DNC ticket by trashing Palin in the days or weeks prior to the election.

So here we are – the legislators saying all the right and reasoned words. They suggest to the world they are just seeking “the truth,” and they don’t want it to affect the election. Yet their original release date, combined with French’s public pre’judgement of Palin as guilty belie their stated intents today.

This is, IMHO, nothing more than a set up… a media trap carefully set for Sarah Palin. French is going to present himself and his investigation as the high moral road. Since he already knows that Palin and others French is investigating are planning on cooperating with the Board, and refused the legislative interviews, he laying the groundwork to accuse Palin and others in her administration of a cover up.

Expect headlines when supoenas are issued, and fought, that insinuate Palin and others are uncooperative because they are trying to hide something.

The already proven biased media, salivating with the tidbits and hints of Palin scandals, will not cast light on the legal procedure of the Board, per Alaskan law. Instead, they will dutifully fuel the suggestion of uncooperation, and provide French with a megaphone to spread the mistruths.

In the meantime, according to an article in today’s Telegraph, Obama’s campaign has been in touch with Wooten.

Barack Obama’s campaign has been in touch with Mr Wooten, according to CNN which interviewed him on Friday night. The trooper acknowledged making mistakes but said he had been punished and learned from them. He said he did not wish his former in-laws “any ill-will” and described the governor’s nomination as “wonderful” for Alaska.

Interesting… why? Are they waiting for a good moment to bring him into the official campaign talking points? Then again, it can be said that Wooten, compared to Ayers, Khalid and a host of other nefarious Obama associations, looks pure as the driven snow.

Yes.. this is speculation and a prediction on my part. But I believe I will be proven correct.

In fact, Andrew Halcro’s blog also reported the news of the supoenas. Yesterday, a 6:40pm Pacific time, and 5:40 Alaskan time, I posted the below comment to Halcro’s blog.

Submitted by MataHarley (not verified) on Fri, 2008-09-05 16:36.

But the game is obvious. And I say “foul”. And if you’re in doubt, check your handbook to the Alaskan Constitution, and the delegates’ expressed concern about “legislative investigations” when laying out Constitutional rules about “due process”. Hint… Article I, Section 7, and pg 33 of the PDF.

My comment went into moderation…. and has not been posted since. I’ll certainly keep my eyes open to see if Mr. Halcro posts a dissenting position. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Below, the screen shots of my comment going into moderation to document my post attempt.

As the Obama supporters blanket the Internet with bits and pieces of suggested scandal to combat America’s enthusiams for Sarah Palin, the fuel is Trooper’gate for the most misinformation and, more importantly, mischaracterizations.

The accusers were off and running on a legislative investigation with endlessly morphing charges in the media, and an undetermined, unnamed group of suspects. They had witness interviews scheduled, and a planned date for the release of their findings… Oct 31, … four days before the Presidential election. Obviously a target date with deliberate political ramifications.

But the players in the game may have increased. On the defendents’ side, we have the already known Palin and special assistant, Frank Bailey. But some new names who may come on to the ice from the penalty box: Ivy Frye, another special assistant to Palin, Todd Palin himself, Commissioner of Labor Click Bishop, Administration Commissioner Annette Krietzer and Kris Perry (the last name haven’t ID’d yet, but assumed to be part of the PSEA).

The accusers are Dem Sen. Hollis French, ex Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, and spurred on by “also ran” gubernatorial loser, Andrew Halcro. Their sights are trained on Sarah Palin, and all remain targets to just that aim.

Every one of these charges are traced back to one man – Mike Wooten… Sarah Palin’s ex-brother in law, and the “trooper” of Trooper’gate.

This is truly ironic when you consider Wooten as the central “wounded” figure… by all accounts, a man who should never be an armed law enforcement officer. One can’t help but get a bit queasy about this odd political witch hunt when you know he is the fourth man waging open season on the Palins. He is also the man passing information to Halcro.

Wooten, according to Palin’s recently leaked emails to Monegan, has stated he would bring Sarah and her family down”.

[Note: The above article discusses the leaked Palin emails to Monegan. They mention the questionable character of Wooten as an AST when, I believe, Alaska was entertaining a bill INRE gun ownership and mental disabilities. However none seem to reveal any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten. The full text of the emails have not been made available, to my knowledge. They are a moot point, IMHO...]

While all under suspicion have intentions of cooperating, Palin – fearing a less than impartial review – launched an investigation thru Alaska’ AG, Talis Colberg early August.

And she had good reason.

First, Sen. French selected independent counsel Steve Branchwater, with his too-close-for-comfort ties to Walt Monegan. Then French was publicly suggesting impeachment to the media.

Colberg said his office’s review began after state Sen. Hollis French was quoted in The Wall Street Journal about two weeks ago saying the governor could be impeached as a result of the probe. That raised questions about how impartial the Legislature’s investigation was going to be, according to the governor’s office.

“The governor, I think, was looking for what this meant when Sen. French was making the statements he did,” Colberg said Tuesday. “And we were trying to give her a better idea of what this could possibly mean. So we’re just trying to do a prudent inquiry to cover her options.”

Even today, Sen French is quoted saying, “It’s likely to be damaging to the Governor’s administration.”

By all appearances, Palin’s suspicions of a less than fair and impartial investigation are warranted. The “bi-partisan” legislators are not necessarily those pleased with the Governor’s crack down on spending and corruption.

Since the outcome has already been publicly pre’determined by Sen. French, and the sense of an impartial review seemed to diminish with each day, bringing more slanderous charges in headlines world wide, Palin decided to legally fight for the neutral battleground that governs investigations into ethics violations in Alaska… the three man Personnel Board.

And I, for one, don’t blame her one bit. In her stilettos, I’d do exactly the same.

On August 29th, 2008, Thomas Van Flein sent a letter to Independent Counsel for Sen. French, Steve Branchwater introducing himself as Palin’s legal counsel. Sen. French was not CC’d on this letter.

On Sept 1st, a letter came in response… not from Branchwater, but from Sen. French, himself. French’s letter was directly to Van Flein, CC’d to no one… not even his own legal counsel, Branchwater.

Certainly, you should read the correspondence yourself, but I’ll summarize the back and forths here, using blockquotes not for accurate lift/paste, but for visual ease.

PALIN: COUNSEL TO BRANCHWATER: Van Flein, as Palin’s legal representative, is writing relative to the “Legislative Council’s investigation into the termination of Mr. Monegan, the alleged Executive Branch Ethics violation, and the alleged Personnel Act violation.” He promises Palin will cooperate with a fair inquiry, and that statutes places such investigations under the personnel board. He suggests that since this is state law, he assumes Branchwater will have no objection.

SEN FRENCH: French says the Dept of Law did not advise him/them that Palin appointed legal counsel. And given the “nature of your letter”, French felt he should reply instead of Branchwater. (no legal reasons why given….)

French then says he doesn’t agree with the jurisdiction, as there would have to be a “complaint” before the Board could have jurisdiction… and there is no complaint. If there were a complaint, the Board is confidential until they can determine there is a finding of probable cause.

French then says the Legislature has it’s own authority to investigate potential violations of law by members of the Executive Branch. He then suggests Palin appears to be challenging the Legislature’s authority.

PALIN COUNSEL TO BRANCHWATER: Van Flein is asking for discovery… ala evidence in the possession of Branchwater INRE the charges… as there is an informal agreement to share all independently obtained data with all parties. He assures Branchwater he will do the same.

He states the AG is forwarding info already collected and shared by Branchwater, and requests copies of all other evidence (i.e. witness statements, complaints, witness lists, etal). Van Flein also points out that Branchwater’s communication with Sen. French were not expected, as they were confidential under attorney/client privilege.

Van Flein wants to set up a meeting with Branchwater to review legal calendars (it is, afterall, coming into hunting season and witnesses may be unavailable… :0). He states that Branchwater should have no ex parte communications with members of the Governor’s office, and that they will not make any attempts to contact Branchwater’s client, Sen. French.

SEN FRENCH: … refuses Van Flein any evidence saying I think you would agree it would be highly unusual for an investigator to share information with one of the targets of the investigation. I am unaware of any precedent for such an arrangement.” [Mata Musing... how about Gitmo? Oh, right... even terrorists have access to information...]

He then states that since the AG is conducting his own investigation, Van Flein will be limited to that information only.

In addition, French said he will instruct Branchwater to continue on his schedule for witness interview as planned. And I quote, It is very important that the interview take place as previously arranged by Mr. Branchwater. Delays in witness interview will jeopardize the timely conclusion of this investigation.”

French then threatens to convene the Judicial Committee and demand supoenas if Van Flein attempts any delay.

Well, French may be determined to run his legislative witch hunt, but he cannot avoid the Board involvement now. So he’d better get busy on those supoenas if he wants to keep his release date, picked to smear Palin right before voters go to the ballot.

The very day French responded, Van Flein was filing Palin’s “Ethic Disclosure” with the AG, effectively opening the door to review under Alaska’s ethics violation laws, with oversight by the Personnel Board. Additionally, in that Disclosure, Palin waived the confidential review of the complaint, and requested it be open to scrutiny.

The Board is now a new battlefield for the investigation – and one that can operate on a shorter schedule to determine if there is anything to the charges. And just to make French’s life more complicated, Frank Bailey has also backed out of his scheduled interviews after learning that Palin was moving the fight to the legal battleground for ethics charges.

Palin’s disclosure was specific to Monegan’s termination… the most commonly known charge circulating the Internet. As the Anchorage Daily News reported yesterday:

The 13-page document gives Palin’s view of a controversy that’s dogged her for weeks in Alaska. Questions about whether she or others in her family or administration pressured Monegan to fire her ex-brother-in-law, state Trooper Mike Wooten, are now getting intense national attention with her newfound prominence on the national stage. Republican Sen. John McCain announced Friday that she’s his pick to be vice president.

Under state law, the board must hire an independent counsel for complaints against the governor to determine whether evidence of a violation of the state ethics act exists.

“Governor Palin believes it will find no conceivable violation of the Ethics Act,” her complaint says. She wants the investigation “to put these matters to rest.”

Now another development. The California Chronicle reports a second ethics complaint will be lodged against Palin by end of day, Sept 4th, 2008.

New ethic´s complaint is being filed against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin today before the end of the business day. The complaint outlines misconduct by the Gov. and her office staff alleging records where improperly made public.

John Cyr of Wasilla, Alaska the Executive Director of Public Safety Employees (PSEA) told the Laguna Journal that “our attorney Steve Sorenson of Juneau Alaska will file the compliant before the end of the business day today.” The grievances will include the illegal release of records of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten the former brother-in-law of the governor, according to Mr. Cyr.

The Chronicle’s article recycles the usual Halcro charges, as if they were already true. But it was this one paragraph I found interesting… a new direction for the charge. And this is, I believe, because it was nigh on impossible to nail Palin for terminating Monegan. The Commissioner himself admitted she had never pressured him to fire Wooten. (see previous Trooper’gate posts for links).

If Palin has all the charges the legislature wants to address lodged in front of the Board, they can make a clean sweep of it all at once – halting all the mud being slung by French and company more expeditiously.

These latest charges are related to what is alleged as unauthorized release of confidential information from Wooten’s medical files. The man who is at the center of that information leak is Frank Bailey… already on administrative leave by Palin for his unauthorized actions. Bailey is already on record, under oath, that Palin never instructed him to act on her behalf INRE Wooten when speaking with Commissioner Monegan. So why do they believe they can tie Palin to these medical records?

Again, we come back to Halcro. He points directly to Bailey as the leak of Wooten’s medical information, and weaves a convoluted (and I quote) theory as to just how Bailey came into possession of that file.

Workers compensation files are kept in the Department of Labor. Workers condition and treatment information is confidential and is protected by federal privacy laws called HIPAA. Bailey should have never seen that file let alone be talking about the files contents to another employee.

So again, if the files are confidential and are kept in the Department of Labor, how would that information be released to Frank Bailey?

The Commissioner of the Department of Labor is Click Bishop. He was appointed by Governor Palin in 2007 after serving as an administrator for the Alaska Operating Engineers/Employers Training Trust and he has a close relationship with Todd Palin.

According to state travel documents, Todd and Click have made several state paid trips together to promote work force development. Do you think the issue of Wooten’s workers compensation file could have come up?

After all, phone logs show Todd Palin made three calls to Ivy Frye just hours before Bailey’s phone call to Trooper Dial and then was included in the flurry of emails that followed.

I’m beginning to think this guy spent too many eves reading Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible”….

Halcro’s accusations have now widened to include Todd Palin as a primary player in his carefully woven, political thriller. A novel of his construct that has as it’s hero, Mike Wooten.

To base such a theory on phone calls by Todd to Palin’s assistant strikes me as odd. Don’t they have regular communications on everything from the family to schedule? So why would these conversations be unusual?

Another day may bring more information. But one thing is certain. When Alaska’s convention delegates created their Constitution, one of their biggest concerns in their Declaration of Rights was specifically named…. legislative investigations.

From Article I, Section 7, on Due Process:

“Due process” demands justice and fair play at the hands of authority. The Alaska Supreme Court has said: “The term ‘due process of law’ is not susceptible to a precise definition or reduction to a mathematical formula. But in the course of judicial decisions it has come to express a basic concept of justice under law” (Bachner v. Pearson, 479 P.2d 319, 1970).

~~~

The second sentence in this section appears only in Alaska’s constitution. The convention delegates wanted the principle of due process extended explicitly to legislative proceedings. This was done in reaction to the blustering anticommunist investigations of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the mid-1950s that violated basic principles of fair treatment which are well-established in judicial proceedings.