Ignore A Subpoena & Goto Jail!

pvolcko wrote:That said, I believe he will appear if and when the time comes that he is legally compelled to do so. It is also proper for him to do so. It does no one any good to be held in contempt, be fined, or even be sent to jail for a couple months.

Well....You're wrong Paul.........He's thumbing his nose at the law! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26794836
In commenting on your views about him appearing you say :" It is also proper for him to do so. "......
Now that he's refused to show up....What do you think would be proper for Alaska law enforcement to do? Smile & say...."Never Mind?"

pvolcko wrote:I don't know the law on this, but I suspect there is legal recourse available to get out of a subpoena. Both spousal privilege (depending on the questions that would have been asked) and potentially executive privilege come into play here.

Well...I do know the law here .......& both those defenses can be used in court to defend your reasons for refusing to testify in court.....But you at least must show up for the court session & argue/explain these defenses!
The only people who feel they are above the law & not required to even show up when subpoenaed are/were: Richard Nixon, George Bush, Dick Cheney & now Sarah Palin's husband.
These people are in a higher class than we are Paul. They should not be bound by the same laws that we..."The Great Unwashed Public" are. We are scum to them!
Makes me sick!

Well....You're wrong Paul.........He's thumbing his nose at the law! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26794836
In commenting on your views about him appearing you say :" It is also proper for him to do so. "......
Now that he's refused to show up....What do you think would be proper for Alaska law enforcement to do? Smile & say...."Never Mind?"

Alaska law enforcement shouldn't do anything until he's held in contempt of the state legislature.

If it gets that far and they do find him in contempt, then it is up to a judge to determine his punishment. Up to a $500 fine and up to 6 months in jail, if my research is accurate. I doubt it will get that far. Arrangements for his testimony will be made or the subpoena will get quashed, one of the two.

I'm not going to get into a legal argument on the enforceability of the subpoena in question here. This is not an admission that there isn't an argument to be made, only that I am not adequate to the task. I humbly suggest that despite your LEO background and familiarity with court issued subpoenas that you aren't either. These aren't court issued subpoenas and one branch requiring a member (or pseudo-member in the case of Todd Palin) to appear is a more complicated thing than a court requiring the average citizen to appear. That doesn't mean he or any government member is above the law, only that the law is more complicated and there are constitutional and legal issues at play not normally so with a subpoena for a citizen.

I note that a number of others subpoenaed along with Palin didn't appear either, them by advice of the AG I believe.

I don't like all this legal maneuvering. I detest lawyers and how complicated they make things. I have at best a marginal opinion of the part of the court system I've been exposed to. I'm with you in spirit, if asked show up and if you have an argument make it respectfully and then leave. Or at least make a motion in a court to quash the subpoena. Or something besides just not show up. But the law is the law and it has become a nasty, convoluted, bastard set of laws. They believe they have a valid legal argument to not show up, I'll hold final judgement until then. But my opinion of how the Palins and the McCain campaign are handling this is going down by the day.

pvolcko wrote:But my opinion of how the Palins and the McCain campaign are handling this is going down by the day.

Think of it this way Paul: McCain/Palin are on their best behavior right now..... while running for office. If they are willing to defy the law right now, can you imagine what they'll be like if they get elected??

(well of course we can imagine that....They'll be just like Bush! )

Devil, pay attention, they don't have to appear until the legislature is in full session. That is the law, it was in the link I posted.

coaledsweat wrote:Devil, pay attention, they don't have to appear until the legislature is in full session. That is the law, it was in the link I posted.

Mr. Palin does have to appear at the date, place & time noted on the subpoena itself. What you are confusing is that the penalty for his failure to appear (Contempt Citation) cannot be adjudicated until the Alaska legislature is in session. Big difference!


Here's a passage from your link that I suggest you "Pay Attention" too!

"Witnesses who refuse to testify can be found in contempt under Alaska law. But the full Legislature must be in session, which won't happen until January. That means witnesses can stonewall without penalty beyond the Nov. 4 election, lawmakers said."

"That means witnesses can stonewall without penalty beyond the Nov. 4 election, lawmakers said"

I suppose you missed this?

coaledsweat wrote:I suppose you missed this?

You are misunderstanding that phrase.......It means that even though Palin has already committed an illegal act by failing to appear, that he will not be formally charged , nor will his penalty be assessed until after the 11/4 elections.
(he has already violated the law, that violation can't be prosecuted until the Alaska legislature is in session)


Example:

The moment you rob a bank, you have violated the law. It may take some time to bring you before a judge & formally charge you, but you have still already committed the illegal act.

The crime here is French and his witch hunt. Take off the coal colored glasses, if those two pieces of crap were troopers here in the northeast, they would have been drawn and quartered for their bull and you know it.

Do all you lawyers go on a feeding frenzy when you smell a bogus case? Win, lose or draw, you make money, even it is pointless and wasteful and a violation of the public trust. It's all about the profit right?

Oh that's right, it's all about the supeona.

coaledsweat wrote:The crime here is French and his witch hunt. Take off the coal colored glasses, if those two pieces of crap were troopers here in the northeast, they would have been drawn and quartered for their bull and you know it.

While I enjoyed the smoke screen you are attempting to hide behind by changing the subject........

Are you conceding that you were wrong in saying: "they don't have to appear until the legislature is in full session".....?


Edit: & I'm not a lawyer, btw.

No, the subject is two pieces of crap that should have not been police officers, you and French have changed the subject and are obviously delighted in doing so.

Yes, you are a lawyer now.

coaledsweat wrote:No, the subject is two pieces of crap that should have not been police officers, you and French have changed the subject and are obviously delighted in doing so.

Ok....I accept your concession!

coaledsweat wrote:Yes, you are a lawyer now.

?????

Easy guys...

pvolcko wrote:Easy guys...

Just a little good natured here Paul. (CoaledSweat thinks he knows about this stuff, but he really is clueless when it comes to politics & coal heating! )