Is There a Felony Conviction in Sarah's Future?

Where's the Coverage?

The ADN doesn't have it. Not a peep from C4P on the story, either. And there's no mention at Sarah Palin's Facebook page, although there's a new note today with a statement in which the crazy ex-governor lady praises Michele Bachmann. Yes, that Michele Bachmann, the even crazier (if that's possible) Minnesota congresswoman.

The Sarasites and Palinbots across the country went fairly flipping insane over Gryphen's revelatory blog post of Saturday, 1 August, 2009. The internets burned furiously for the next several days with made-up nonsense about the blogger. Sarah's private attorney even sat down on his day off to write a letter threatening a lawsuit, just because Gryphen said that his sources reported Sarah and Todd's marriage was on shaky ground. Well, okay, he said more than that but the potential break-up of this holy couple is what seemed to infuriate Sarah's faithful.

Yet on Monday this past week, 3 August 2009, a legal document was filed that alleges the crazy ex-governor lady attempted to commit bribery. Say what...! No word? No tweet? No statement on Facebook? No announcement or denouncement by Meg-the-mouth or Todd or Chuck or Van Flein or anyone? The silence on this is stunning.

Background

Here's the story as I know it. Back in March of this year, an African-American musician named Gregory Royal filed a Federal lawsuit in Washington,DC, against then-governor Palin(PDF) for failing to declare June 19th, 2007, as a day of celebration—you know, the kind of stuff governors do all the time. Juneteenth, as it is called, celebrates the end of slavery in the United States, and is recognized worldwide.

The Juneteenth proclamation is required by Alaska law. Each year the governor is supposed to make the declaration so that festivities may ensue with the government's blessings. On being reminded that then-governor Palin failed to meet this legal obligation, AK administration officials claimed it was a stenographic mistake. But given the opportunity to retroactively make the declaration, stubborn Sarah apparently shrugged it off and let things ride. The law suit alleges damages because vendors and others who were involved in preparing for and hosting events related to Juneteenth suffered from a lack of participation both from citizens and the governor's office.

Sarah Palin was the only Alaska governor who failed to issue the proclamation or appear at the festivities. She didn't even send a representative. She never apologized for failing to do her legal duty. And apparently, she refused to accept a summons from the process server and tried to have the suit dismissed claiming the court failed to properly serve the documents.

Attempted Bribery Charge

Kim Chatman, an Alaskan who believes in holding Sarah Palin accountable, joined the suit when it was transferred by U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton to the U.S. District Court of Alaska. Last Monday, plaintiffs Kim and Gregory filed another document with the court seeking to add to the original complaint. Alaska Report has a link to the document along with a story about this incendiary charge.

According to this new claim, Sarah Palin, then governor, attempted to bribe a third party with state funds and legislative support if s/he would convince the plaintiffs to drop the lawsuit. Hopefully someone with a good understanding of the law can clarify this for me, but I believe this additional charge escalates the lawsuit from a civil matter to a criminal matter, and if found guilty, that would make Sarah Palin, the crazy ex-governor lady, a felon. [Please see readers' contributions in the comments that clarify the felony issue.]

Why am I not surprised then that such a hoopla and circus was taking place over Gryphen's "Splitsville" blog post while this serious charge was being filed in Federal court? Could it be someone was trying to misdirect attention from what really matters to what doesn't?

AK Death Penalty and Abortion Bills, Oh My!

Isn't it Sarah Palin who says government should be put back in the hands of the people?  Isn't she all about keeping government small and getting it out of the way?  Hasn't she repeatedly said that government is not the answer?

Government makes laws, and yet no matter how hard government tries, every law has the potential of doing some harm in spite of the good it intends.

There is a death penalty bill and an abortion law working their way through the Alaska legislature.  Both laws have the potential to do great harm.  Both laws have Sarah Palin's support.

Instituting the Death Penalty
(Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski, sponsor)

Granted, some people have been guilty of committing horrible crimes. But there are also plenty of people who have been found guilty of horrible crimes yet they were innocent.  Innocent people have been executed in states that support the death penalty.  What greater harm could the state do?

What I don't understand is how a person can be adamantly "pro-life" and at the same time believe the state should kill people for their crimes.  Studies show that states without the death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates than states that do impose a death sentence. This tells me that the possibility of being put to death if caught does nothing to deter such crimes, which is the stated justification for the death penalty.

To strike a religious chord, the Christian Bible says that Jesus asked his heavenly father to forgive those who murdered him, "for they know not what they do."  (Luke 23:34)  I doubt Jesus would have supported the death penalty.






Parental Consent for Teen Abortions
(Alaska HB 35 and SB 6)

  On the surface, a law that requires caregivers to obtain the consent from parents of girls under 17 who seek an abortion sounds almost reasonable.  What harm could come of such a law? 

It is unrealistic to think that the only teens who get pregnant are delinquent, rebellious tramps with intact, loving, supportive, well-off families capable of providing everything a young mother and her baby needs.

Incest is real.  Rape happens.  Parents can be impoverished, or abusive, or addicts, or just single and struggling.  Some parents may believe the choice they make for their pregnant daughter, based on their own religious beliefs, is the right one.  They may be blind to the ramifications for their daughter's future.

Can a law force families to be whole, supportive, loving? Can a law insure that every child in every home has access to sex education and contraceptives in case abstinence doesn't work?  Can a law prevent incest or rape from happening?  Will the law insure that the special needs of a teenage mom and the child she may be forced to bear be met, during and after pregancy?  What about continuing support for the child as it grows up?  Or will the law provide free counseling for the teen mom if she has to put the baby up for adoption?

The main problem I see with the proposed consent law is that it is one-sided. The law does nothing to protect children, not the teen mother and not her child. The law only serves to cover for parents who failed to raise their children in an environment that made real communication between those parents and their children the norm.  

If a teenage daughter is unable, for whatever reason, to come to her parents when she discovers she is pregnant, that is not something the state can solve.

I think a law that prescribes penalties for parents who allow their children to procreate as teenagers makes at least as much sense.  But I doubt that Sarah would support that, now would she?

[Edited to add image credits, fair use claimed:
Hangman's Noose
In the Name of God (Pregnant Teenager)]