Uncovering the truth about Troopergate.

[szh]

I hope you're not serious. We all need to work within the law and none of us are above it.

Of course! What was done was perfectly within the law. They were legal filings ... can't ignore that fact. Too many? If it came to a child endangerment situation, there ain't no such thing. Tasing a child is unacceptable.

Yes, making those disparaging remarks to a child about a parent is pretty clearly child abuse in my book.

Where in the Newsweek article did you see that? Do you know that it occurred? Where you or Newsweek present? Please do not present unsubstantiated comments as facts here.

Z

[AZhitman]

As such, the judge was probably well versed in the law and the application of it.

Possibly family law, but certainly not Constitutional Law.

This isn't about her filing complaints (regardless of how "frivolous" you may THINK they were), but more about him issuing a "STFU order" that superceded his authority.

[rn79870]

Possibly family law, but certainly not Constitutional Law.

This isn't about her filing complaints (regardless of how "frivolous" you may THINK they were), but more about him issuing a "STFU order" that superceded his authority.

His STFU order was realted to conduct related to a matter properly within his jurisdiction. There is no conlaw issue with respect to free speech when it that speech abuses a child and as such, it is enjoined. This is well settled.

[AZhitman]

Really?

So, the First Amendment ends with "...except for..."?

If I tell my kid, "You're a retard", that's prohibited speech?

It's not well-settled. Blind faith in this judge in the clear face of abuse of power is unlike you.

I'm betting you wouldn't be so enamoured of his decision had the shoe been on the other foot.

[rn79870]

Really?

So, the First Amendment ends with "...except for..."?

Absolutely. And you know it. Try verbally threatening the president if you don't believe me..

If I tell my kid, "You're a retard", that's prohibited speech?

You know that's different than the issue we're talking about.

It's not well-settled. Blind faith in this judge in the clear face of abuse of power is unlike you.

The judge told the parties to STFU with respect to making disparaging remarks, to a child, about a party to an action he was adjudicating. Fair, reasonable, and necessary. Yes, I agree.

I'm betting you wouldn't be so enamoured of his decision had the shoe been on the other foot.

No, but I wouldn't have been stupid enough to be put in that position.

[AZhitman]

Absolutely. And you know it. Try verbally threatening the president if you don't believe me..

Point taken. Well-played.

You know that's different than the issue we're talking about.

Nope. It's actually MORE applicable as it directly disparages the child.

How about "Hey Little Frankie - Your Dad is a limp-wristed douchebag."

Protected? No?

The judge told the parties to STFU with respect to making disparaging remarks, to a child, about a party to an action he was adjudicating. Fair, reasonable, and necessary. Yes, I agree.

Still no documentation of said remarks.

Seems to me the judge was covering for the trooper. No surprise in that "good ol' boy" network.

Or are you of the opinion that everything up there in the tundra was "on the up and up"?

[rn79870]

Nope. It's actually MORE applicable as it directly disparages the child.

How about "Hey Little Frankie - Your Dad is a limp-wristed douchebag."

Protected? No?

When a court acquires jurisdiction over a matter, it also acquired jurisdiction over the collateral matters, like how the parties react with respect to the res of the case. In this case, the judge issued an order, rather verbal or written, that was binding on the parties. This is a matter of record and has been reported.

Still no documentation of said remarks.

Yes, the transcripts were quoted. It happened. Sorry, that duck don't fly.

Seems to me the judge was covering for the trooper. No surprise in that "good ol' boy" network.

Actually, the judge was protecting the minor child. That's the point of all this that everyone is still missing.

Or are you of the opinion that everything up there in the tundra was "on the up and up"?

I'm of the opinion that a judge is fully within his rights to insist that all parties to a family law action not abuse a child by making disparaging remarks against the parties to an action. The judge would have been within his rights to restrain the parents from allowing Palin to see the child had Palin not complied with the judge's order. Yes, it is an appropriate order.