Uncovering the truth about Troopergate.

[rn79870]

More interesting facts. This one on record at an Alaskan court. Judge cautions Palin on "Child Abuse"

Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. "Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

The barracuda just doesn't like obeying the law dies she?

It's from Newsweek folks, and it's in depth coverage of the whole troopergate affair. Odds are now being offered on her candidacy not surviving the investigation and pending ethics violation hearing. (Yes there is such a hearing, it was filed by the union representing the Alaska State troopers for her misuse of gubernatorial powers.)I think the Republicans little red corvette isn't going to go all that fast after all.

[wingFeather]

Quote »I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway.[/quote]She is definitely a good spokesperson for the Democratic party

[wingFeather]

It's from Newsweek

Link for this off-topic rant?

[szh]

Bob, your post has NOTHING to do with the original point of this thread. What is your reason for putting it in here?

Z

[szh]

Reading the OP typically has much to do with the thread. Was that your question?

My OP had to do with the swing of Democrat supporters to the McCain-Palin camp. Nothing to do with "Troopergate".

Z

[srellim234]

I'll date myself. We always called it "rabble-rousing."

[HashiriyaS14]

Bob, your post has NOTHING to do with the original point of this thread. What is your reason for putting it in here?

Z

He put it here because I'm telling people not to start NEW threads for every silly little news article.

It's related enough. Anything Palin-related can go into any thread that is at least vaguely Palin-related, and this one is, IMO.

We should really just have ONE thread for criticisms/defenses of Palin.

[audtatious]

My OP had to do with the swing of Democrat supporters to the McCain-Palin camp. Nothing to do with "Troopergate".

Z

If you want more troopergate viewpoints I just posted up a interview with X-Alaska Dem Senator Gravel in the Palin Vol1 thread. Worth the 9 minutes.

[AZhitman]

More interesting facts. This one on record at an Alaskan court. Judge cautions Palin on "Child Abuse"

Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. "Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

The barracuda just doesn't like obeying the law dies she?

It's from Newsweek folks, and it's in depth coverage of the whole troopergate affair. Odds are now being offered on her candidacy not surviving the investigation and pending ethics violation hearing. (Yes there is such a hearing, it was filed by the union representing the Alaska State troopers for her misuse of gubernatorial powers.)I think the Republicans little red corvette isn't going to go all that fast after all.

So, how do you know this judge knows his head from his butthole?

I'll help you here: This judge took it upon himself to prohibit the filing of grievances with the government of Alaska. WAY out of his league, and WAY beyond the scope of his authority.

THIS from a LIBERAL source, read it for yourself:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/10/85326/8403

I'm disappointed that you don't research things like this a little better...

Took me a few minutes on Google and a quick crack-open of my ConLaw book from freshman year.

[AZhitman]

I'd split this one out - From Bob's "More interesting facts" post on down.

Title it, "Family Court Judge Fails Miserably In Interpreting the First Amendment."

[wingFeather]

We should really just have ONE thread for criticisms/defenses of Palin.

We do...

[rn79870]

Bob, your post has NOTHING to do with the original point of this thread. What is your reason for putting it in here?

Z

Whoops, Z, I thought it was in the other thread. My Bad.

[rn79870]

Link for this off-topic rant?

N*E*W*S*W*E*E*K It was in my post.

[AZhitman]

While we're here, are we SURE this is "The Truth About Troopergate"?

Seems there's a family court judge in AK looking REAL stupid right now.

[rn79870]

So, how do you know this judge knows his head from his butthole?

I'll help you here: This judge took it upon himself to prohibit the filing of grievances with the government of Alaska. WAY out of his league, and WAY beyond the scope of his authority.

THIS from a LIBERAL source, read it for yourself:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/10/85326/8403

I'm disappointed that you don't research things like this a little better...

Took me a few minutes on Google and a quick crack-open of my ConLaw book from freshman year.

It was from Newsweek, as quoted in what is not the OP.

[rn79870]

More on the coverup...

Another accusation that gets mentioned frequently is that Wooten was drinking beer in his squad car. This charge was investigated by an independent investigator who found the charge to be “unsustained”. However, Colonel Julia Grimes, who reviewed the investigation, decided to change the finding of the report to “sustained”. She changed the report on her own and gave no reason. When John Cyr, who, in 30 years, had never seen a member of the command staff change the report asked her why she did it. She replied, “Are you willing to call Sarah Palin a liar?” He said, “yes”. She didn’t respond, and the report stayed changed.

the barracuda doesn't seem to want truth and justice does she.

[wingFeather]

the barracuda doesn't seem to want truth and justice does she.

IMHO she does.

[szh]

I think this says it all - love the accuracy of this comment on another site:

Quote »The Newsweek article is long on speculation, but short on presentation of raw fact and connecting the dots. The general proposition of protecting the children from falsely accusatory invective against either of their feuding parents is fine - not sure how far a judge can go other than removal of the children from the environment.

But the extension of that general proposition to a conclusion that Sarah Palin was personally injecting invective in front of the Wooten children may well be the product of partisan imagination.

In fact, I dare say it is the product of imagination, because if it was true, Newsweek would have quoted the parts of the record that recite that sort of accusation. Newsweek didn't, it is simply setting the stage for readers to make the leap themselves. [/quote]Z

[srellim234]

Troopergate- I'm willing to let the bipartisan judiciary committe complete its investigation up there in Alaska before I pass judgement. I want to see the evidence THEY present. I'm certain they have access to a lot of official facts and documents that we don't.

The findings are scheduled to come out before the election. Why are you all in such a hurry to pass judgement one way or the other right now?

It just demonstrates that there are a bunch of closed minded "party line toters" not interested in the real truth. Let ALL the evidence come out before you decide.

[szh]

More interesting commentary from that other site that you posted, Greg. I like the fact that this site goes into a good analysis of the situation.

Here is what the Newsweek article reports:

Court records obtained by NEWSWEEK show that during the course of divorce hearings three years ago, Judge John Suddock heard testimony from an official of the Alaska State Troopers' union about how Sarah Palin—then a private citizen—and members of her family, including her father and daughter, lodged up to a dozen complaints against Wooten with the state police. The union official told the judge that he had never before been asked to appear as a divorce-case witness, that the union believed family complaints against Wooten were "not job-related," and that Wooten was being "harassed" by Palin and other family members.

(Emphasis supplied.) Let's consider what is wrong with this picture. A UNION official testified to a family court judge about the complaints to the government by PRIVATE citizens against a state employee. These were not complaints about statements being made to the children - but about statements being made to the government. The First Amendment clearly states that the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" shall not be abridged. And yet this Alaska family court judge was considering such abridgement. And indeed, appears to have written an order abridging such constitutional rights:

Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. "Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

I am no family lawyer, but I can read the Constitution as well as the next person. Judge Suddock apparently took it upon himself to prohibit the filing of grievances by the Palin family, beyond the litigant, Palin's sister, with the government of Alaska. This seems incredible to me. An abuse of power, if you will.

I think that the most important points to be made here are:

1. Palin was a private citizen at the time she made the initial complaints. Private citizens can file grievances to the courts.

2. The complaints were not that something had been said to the children, but to the government! How does this equate to "child-abuse"?

Newsweek had a real stretch here in its "reporting" of the facts.

Z

[AZhitman]

So, where's the "revelation" we were expecting on this matter?

Thus far, all I've learned is that Ms. Palin knew Con Law better than the family court judge, and that she has grounds to have his job ion the basis of incompetence.

The barracuda just doesn't like obeying the law dies she?

Seems she not only obeys it, but she also knows a little more about it than the guy in the robe.

[rn79870]

I am no family lawyer, but I can read the Constitution as well as the next person. Judge Suddock apparently took it upon himself to prohibit the filing of grievances by the Palin family, beyond the litigant, Palin's sister, with the government of Alaska. This seems incredible to me. An abuse of power, if you will.

It's not a matter of "reading" the constitution as it is a matter of reading through volumes of books that have defined the constitution over the last two centuries.

I think that the most important points to be made here are:

1. Palin was a private citizen at the time she made the initial complaints. Private citizens can file grievances to the courts.

It's called abuse of process. Courts have and will enjoin individuals from presenting their grievances when they abuse the system. A prisoner was denied the right to redress for his case charging the department of correction with unlawfully serving him a broken cookie. Clearly abusive.

After several allegations, they court made a judgment that Palin's complaints were without merit and not worthy of hearing. We need to assume that the judge knew what he was doing in his courtroom.

Being a private citizen has no bearing on the topic, anymore than it would if, as a private citizen, she robbed a bank.

2. The complaints were not that something had been said to the children, but to the government! How does this equate to "child-abuse"?

Disparaging comments re: a parent in a divorce proceeding are not uncommon. Parents are often enjoined from such behavior as well as allowing a straw man type attack from a relative.

[rn79870]

So, where's the "revelation" we were expecting on this matter?

Thus far, all I've learned is that Ms. Palin knew Con Law better than the family court judge, and that she has grounds to have his job ion the basis of incompetence.

Seems she not only obeys it, but she also knows a little more about it than the guy in the robe.

I can tell when you post stuff that even you don't believe.

[AZhitman]

We need to assume that the judge knew what he was doing in his courtroom.

We do?

Do we need to assume the POTUS knows what he is doing in the Oval Office?

After several allegations, they court made a judgment that Palin's complaints were without merit and not worthy of hearing.

That's NOT the point being made - The point is, he unlawfully prohibited "disparaging". The complaints appeared to have been valid, and even if they weren't it's outside his scope of authority to issue a directive on them - He's the decider of custodial matters.

The good news is, with all this stretching in pursuit of "dirt" on Gov. Palin, you won't pull a hamstring running for the border when she's elected.

[szh]

Clearly abusive.

Not at all clear yet. In her shoes, if I felt that the government process was not working properly, and fast enough, I would have done the same thing.

More importantly, you have to admit it was not "child abuse" like this Judge claimed?

We need to assume that the judge knew what he was doing in his courtroom.

Quite the contrary, Judges can, and DO, make mistakes (plenty of examples of that ... easy to google those if you want). Among other reasons, that is why we have Appellate Courts, etc.

Being a private citizen has no bearing on the topic, anymore than it would if, as a private citizen, she robbed a bank.

My point was that she was NOT abusing any public position she held in office or anything like that. So, if she got a little emphatic about a person who apparently thinks it is okay to tase an 11 year-old (now there is the real child abuse!), so what? I am glad she made the strong effort ... I would too!

I think the Republicans little red corvette isn't going to go all that fast after all.

The Republican "little red corvette" is speeding up!

Z

[rn79870]

Not at all clear yet. In her shoes, if I felt that the government process was not working properly, and fast enough, I would have done the same thing.

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

More importantly, you have to admit it was not "child abuse" like this Judge claimed?

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

Quite the contrary, Judges can, and DO, make mistakes (plenty of examples of that ... easy to google those if you want). Among other reasons, that is why we have Appellate Courts, etc.

That is exactly why we have Appellate Courts. And that was the proper venue to address those issues. You'll find your google results of judicial error limited to available error, that is errors of law, not "errors" of judgment. If she has legal precedent for filing frivolous claims, then let her present them.

My point was that she was NOT abusing any public position she held in office or anything like that. So, if she got a little emphatic about a person who apparently thinks it is okay to tase an 11 year-old (now there is the real child abuse!), so what? I am glad she made the strong effort ... I would too!

She may not have abused her position, (as she didn't have one) but she did, according to the judge, participate in what he called abuse of the children. That admonisition is a matter of public record.

The Republican "little red corvette" is speeding up! Z

I'm afraid it's about to get stopped for speeding. I hope it's her trooper ex-bro in-law who stops her. (a remarkable double entrendre right there)

[wingFeather]

according to the judge, participate in what he called abuse of the children.

So he said such a thing... big deal. Was she tried & convicted of child abuse? Nope.

Do judges always speak the truth, logically, from a level headed place? Not 100%

Show me where she has been tried & convicted as a child abuser. THEN you have a thread. Until then...

[rn79870]

- He's the decider of custodial matters.

It may be a bit of a surprise but the Family Courts also are also responsible for child protective orders and other protective orders. As such, the judge was probably well versed in the law and the application of it.

[rn79870]

So he said such a thing... big deal. Was she tried & convicted of child abuse? Nope.

Do judges always speak the truth, logically, from a level headed place? Not 100%

Show me where she has been tried & convicted as a child abuser. THEN you have a thread. Until then...

Read the thread. The judge made a ruling on facts before him. Then the judge issued an order. His order is a matter of public record, so, as a matter of law, she was found to have abused the child and she was ordered to cease and desist from doing it. I have a thread.

[AZhitman]

making those disparaging remarks to a child about a parent

I hope it's her trooper ex-bro in-law who stops her. (a remarkable double entrendre right there)

What remarks?

Tacky. The guy made physical threats of violence.