Colberg's subpoena side step

Our founding fathers created a government of 3 branches for checks and balances on each other. Out state governments are based on the same principals. The legislature has an obligation to the people to keep tabs on the executive branch and visa versa no matter what political party you subscribe to. The people own this government...not the lawyers. I am from the lower 48 (Colorado) but am very troubled with the possibility of Palin being one step away from Running this country. This is akin to a waitress being selected to pilot the space shuttle...and cramming for the job in a week. The risk this country would be put in would be immeasurable. It sounds like the subpoena’s cannot be upheld by the council but the senate could compel them. Come on Alaska people unite for the truth...call your senators, ask for a special session, don't wait for January, get to the bottom of this now before the election so the people can make informed decisions about their future leadership. If Palin and her associates have broken the law or abused her position, or if she is completely innocent we deserve to know before we vote. The stakes are way to high. Hang in and don’t give up…you have much support from the lower 48.

So what do we as Alaskans do? I've already emailed legislators thanking them for their efforts. I've emailed online sites and news programs to come look at THIS blog for their information. I'm not an organizer type, or I'd do it - but would someone out there be willing to organize a demonstration or whatever you want to call it? A coming together of Alaskan citizens to emphasize that we want the TRUTH, without Outside influence. Regardless of which side of this debate you fall on, isn't that what we ALL want? Andrew - what do YOU suggest we do?

From TPM: Moore reported that the Truth Squad was not always entirely truthful itself. He noted that Stapleton had said in a Friday press conference that it was Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, who had pulled one name, that of former Palin chief of staff Mike Tibbles, off the list of witnesses to receive subpoenas. Stapleton had pointed to this as an inappropriate political maneuver by French. But in fact, Moore reported, it was GOP Rep. Jay Ramras, a McCain supporter, who took Tibbles' name off the list. Moore quoted Ramras saying so. From TownHall.com: 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.” “I put the list together with, talking to Mr. French,” Branchflower added. Sen. Gene Therriault (R.) told Branchflower, “I don’t understand why you would have to defer that question to Sen. French. If it’s your list you’re in complete control of the list, then why can’t you answer the question?” Branchflower had no explanation. He only offered, “I’m not sure why his name was removed. My initial request was to have him on the list.” At that point, French interjected. “It appeared to me there wasn’t the political will to subpoena Tibbles.” “Something’s fishy here,” Therriault replied. “I mean either Mr. Branchflower conducts his investigation without direction, and now we know he’s been directed on the date and changing what he’s doing and how he’s doing it because of the time pressure he is feeling. And now we’re hearing that people that he’s trying to get information from, there’s direction going on on that, too.” The text is here: http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/13/obama_partisan_tampers_with_palin_subpoena_list The audio is here: http://media.townhall.com/special/JointJudiciaryCommittees.mp3 Either Ramras is lying or French is lying. Or both. The question is why. And maybe this helps explain why Palin and her associates aren't willing to cooperate with Mr. French.

This is an outrage. Sarah Palin is asking me to believe she has the integrity and transparency to be the President. But she will not have her husband honor a bipartisan subpoena from the legislature. Frankly, the legislature should fine him and throw him in jail. Throw the A.G. in there while you are at it, for instructing state employees to break the law. Unbelievable. No honor. No integrity. No Palin.

The Research 2000 daily tracking poll (that ranks as one of the most accurate in the field) Palin's favorability rating has been steadily declining since Sept. 11, when it peaked at 52 percent favorable / 35 percent unfavorable (+17). On Monday, Palin's positives and negatives evened out; by this morning more respondents disapproved (46 percent) than approved (42 percent) of the Republican vice-presidential nominee. The latest survey from CBS News and the New York Times shows a similar trend: from a 44-22 favorable-unfavorable rating on Sept. 8 to a 40-30 split today. That's the exact same net swing of -12 points found in the Diageo/Hotline poll. Palin is on her way out already. Whether her slippage affects McCain's bid remains to be seen. But to deny that she's slipping is no longer a reality-based proposition.

Sarah Palin's hypocrisy knows no bounds. If she is a champion of Reform and Open and Transparent government, why is she trying to stop an investigation that she already agreed to? Her tactics ARE NEARLY IDENTICAL to the ones that are happening now in Washington. D.C. with the current Bush Administration. Palin cannot bring change to Washington if she is doing EXACTLY what Washington is already doing.

Andrew - Watch out it sounds like the McCain Palin Truth Squad that lies all the time may be trying to invade your blog. Keep up the good work. Again - if she has nothing to hide what is the big deal if the investigation moves forward. We deserve an answer.

Hey Andrew, I'm not sure if you have heard of the website called Newsvine but I think it would be a fantastic idea to put this blog into an article format and submit it to newsvine. It's immediate. You must sign up and it's free and then write your article and submit. Check it out.

Alaskasourdough has it WRONG. What's up with that "backroom" nonsense? AS 24.25.010. Issuance and Form of Subpoena spells it all out. More about the penalties... AS 24.25.030. Disobeying Subpoena or Refusing to Testify. If a witness neglects or refuses to obey a subpoena, or neglects or refuses to testify or to produce upon reasonable notice any material and proper books, papers, or documents in the possession or under the control of the witness, the senate or house of representatives may by resolution entered on its journal commit the witness for contempt. If contempt is committed before a committee, the committee shall report the contempt to the senate or house of representatives, as the case may be, for such action as may be considered necessary. AS 24.25.040. Arrest For Disobedience to Subpoena. A witness who neglects or refuses to attend in obedience to subpoena may be arrested by the sergeant-at-arms and brought before the senate or house of representatives, as the case may be. The only warrant or authority necessary authorizing arrest is a copy of a resolution of the senate or house of representatives signed by the president of the senate or speaker of the house of representatives, as the case may be, and countersigned by the secretary of the senate or the clerk of the house of representatives, as the case may be. AS 24.25.080. Punishment For Disobedience to Subpoena or Refusal to Testify. A person subpoenaed as provided in this chapter who fails, neglects, or refuses to attend at the time and place where the person's presence is required, or fails, neglects, or refuses to produce the books, papers, or instruments or other evidence designated in the subpoena, or who having attended in response to the subpoena, or having appeared voluntarily, refuses to testify as to any material and proper matter within the power of the senate, house of representatives, or a committee to investigate, upon conviction, is punishable by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500, or by imprisonment for not less than 30 days nor more than six months.

When Colberg was first appointed, I had a heated discussion with some of my friends who are assistant AG's. I told them the AG job isn't too hard, because you have assistant AG's who are the experts, do all the work, write the memos, and all the AG has to do is sit thought a lot of meetings and 1) make sure the assistants he relies on are qualified and 2) pick the most legally sound road that is consistent with what the governor wants. I thought most competent lawyers could handle the AG job. Obviously, Colberg is not competent. Who knew then that the reform, open and transparent governor would urge a path that was bent on cover-up at all costs? Who knew that we'd have an AG who would disregard the law completely, advise state employees to do the same, and put his personal loyalty to his boss ahead of his ethical duties as a state employee and lawyer? It's disgraceful.

Yes, it is possible for anyone to file a Grievance against Colberg. Here is the info with a link to the form: http://www.alaskabar.org/index.cfm?id=6486 You can select, "I am Another party with knowledge of attorney's conduct" on #3 the form. If enough people send in the form they will definitely have to do look into Colberg's professional conduct. All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. --Thomas Jefferson

The following statute clarifies the limited subpoena power of the Judiciary Council, and does NOT include authority to hand out freely to a private party for closed door back room depositions under threats of prosecution. Sec. 24.25.010. Issuance and form of subpoena. (a) A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness before either house of the legislature may be issued by the president or the speaker. (b) A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness before a standing or special committee of the legislature may be issued by the chairman of a committee when authorized to do so by a majority of the membership of the committee and with the concurrence of the president or the speaker, or with the concurrence of the house or the senate. (c) A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness before an interim committee established by either house of the legislature, or by both, may be issued by the chairman of a committee when authorized to do so by a majority of the membership of the committee and with the concurrence of the president or the speaker. (d) The subpoena is sufficient if (1) it states before whom the proceeding is held; (2) it is addressed to the witness; (3) it requires the attendance of the witness at a time and place certain; (4) it is signed (A) by the president or the speaker under (a) of this section, or (B) by the committee chairman with the concurrence of the president or the speaker under (b) and (c) of this section. (e) This section does not apply to the legislative council or to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. A Bar Complaint against the AG for upholding the law AS 24.25.010 would be frivolous.