Posts

Who Told the TrooperGate Witnesses to Ignore the Subpoenas?

/in /by

Here’s an interesting question. Who told the Palin-friendly TrooperGate witnesses not to show up? It’s relevant, you see, because two Democrats are thinking of asking the police to investigate whether there was any witness tampering in the case. It seems they’re not focusing on the more incendiary possibility that Murlene Wilkes’ financial incentive persuaded her to lie to Stephen Branchflower about being pressured to deny a Wooten workers comp claim. Rather, these lawmakers are considering whether the mere act of instructing witnesses to ignore a subpoena constitutes witness tampering.

Separately, two Alaska Democrats said they are considering asking state police to investigate why subpoenaed witnesses, including Palin’s husband, did not testify before the legislative committee last week. The lawmakers, Rep. Les Gara and Sen. Bill Wielechowski, said state law bars witness tampering, but that they did not have enough information to file a formal complaint in the case.

In other words, the people who told Todd Palin and about seven state employees to blow off a valid subpoena may be on the dock for witness tampering.

I don’t know whether that argument withstands legal scrutiny (bmaz?). But the McCain team is taking no chances. They say they didn’t tell witnesses not to show.

Griffin said the campaign has not advised any witnesses on how to respond to subpoenas.

Which makes me wonder whether this is one of the reasons why Palin’s lawyer, Tom Van Flein, is lying about having terminated his contract with the state.

Last week, Governor Palin’s lawyer Tom Van Flein was quoted in the Anchorage Daily News as saying that his "firm last Friday terminated its state contract, worth up to $95,000, to represent the governor’s office."

Not true. The contract wasn’t canceled.

Van Flein has a written contract with the State of Alaska. Like all such contracts with the State, it has provisions governing termination. Termination requires notice to the State, typically in writing.

According to my sources, Van Flein did not provide notice of termination to the state, either in writing or orally.

See, back when I was trying to count all the conflicts of interest among Palin’s legal teams in Alaska, I speculated that maybe Van Flein had terminated his contract because it made it possible for him to represent both Sarah and Todd Palin, getting around the fact that 1) the state shouldn’t pay legal fees for a non-state employee, and Read more →

TrooperGate: Count the Conflicts of Interest

/in /by

Wow. In addition to the McPalin campaign’s decision to have a terrorism prosecutor cover up their corruption problem in Alaska, they’ve been shuffling the legal talent in some mighty confusing–and conflicted–ways.

As a reminder, a few days ago we thought the following was the state of the lawyering: Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg, who had spoken to Monegan at Todd Palin’s request before she fired him, had recused himself from the issue. Since Colberg couldn’t represent the Governor, she asked Tom Van Flein to represent her, at state expense. There were reports that Todd Palin had a separate lawyer, which made sense since he and Sarah were involved individually in the case. 

But that’s not how things curently stand. Here’s an update.

First, it appears that Van Flein is still representing both the Palins–though he is no longer employed by the state. Someone else (perhaps McCain’s Sugar Momma?) is paying his fees.

Tom Van Flein, an Anchorage attorney representing the Palins, said a decision could be made by early this afternoon on whether Todd Palin will testify.

[snip]

Van Flein said his firm last Friday terminated its state contract, worth up to $95,000, to represent the governor’s office.

Now, Van Flein said, his firm is representing Todd and Sarah Palin personally and no bills will be sent to the state.

The reason for the change is because Gov. Palin is now part of a national political campaign, and there is a need to avoid any appearance that the state is paying for anything that might benefit a political candidate, Van Flein said.

Asked whether the McCain campaign will help defray legal bills for the Palins, Van Flein replied: "I don’t know the answer to that." [my emphasis]

Now, having the Palins pay Van Flein for their apparent joint defense makes some sense. But it appears that the whole point of having Van Flein there has now been mooted, since Colberg–after having been interviewed in the case–has reinserted himself into the legal decisions here and then reneged on common understanding about who had to testify in response to the subpoenas.

In a Wednesday letter to Colberg, [Kim] Elton said he agreed with Colberg’s staff on certain points of law as a precondition for the attorney general agreeing to allow several state employees to honor the legislative subpoenas to testify.

But on Tuesday, Elton said, Colberg reneged on the deal.

Read more →