Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein to join Paul Gosar's staff

"Rep. Gosar is getting a wise, experienced and principled hand..."
*
Palin family attorney Thomas Van Flein will be leaving the governor's inner circle to go to work for Congressman-elect Dr. Paul Gosar, whom Gov. Palin had endorsed as a candidate this year. CNN's Political Ticker confirmed the move -- first reported in an Anchorage newspaper gossip column Monday and then picked up by Politico -- with Gosar's office:

"I am pleased to have Tom Van Flein, with his experience and background, help me in D.C. with my District issues and the issues facing our country," said Gosar. "As one of my trusted advisers, I look forward to working with him in Washington and ensuring that we listen to the American people and work to uphold the principles that make this country great."

Van Flein is among only a handful of advisers with regular access to Palin, having served as both a legal, political, and media adviser to the former Alaska governor as she has navigated the political waters since her debut on the national stage in 2008. His is certain to leave a big hole in Palin's circle, especially as the former vice presidential nominee considers gearing up for a presidential election bid.

"Rep. Gosar is getting a wise, experienced and principled hand that will help him hit the ground running. Along with millions of Americans, I will be watching the new freshman class shake up D.C." Palin said in a statement.

[More]

- JP

Thomas Van Flein: The Uncommon Law – Reality and Common Sense

*
More frivolous "ethics" complaints filed against Gov. Palin as part of a well-organized attack by political operatives have been thrown out after being thoroughly examined by the courts. Palin family lawyer Thomas Van Flein explains on Sarah Palin's Facebook Notes page:

The Uncommon Law – Reality and Common Sense

As most people know, Sarah Palin is relentlessly attacked by those who elevate the state over the individual and by those who lack faith in any higher power except the regulatory power of Washington, D.C. Many of these people use – and abuse – the law, and in the case of Sarah Palin, they have abused our state ethics laws by repeatedly, remorselessly, and routinely filing false and malicious claims against her. So too, they have resorted to our courts, where several civil suits were filed against Sarah Palin. To date, these civil suits have been rejected by the courts as baseless. But we know the toll this caused the Palins. Almost a year ago, Governor Palin pointed out the many groundless complaints, records requests and suits filed against her, and explained that:

“…it hasn’t been cheap – the State has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to ‘opposition research’ – that’s money not going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the ‘politics of personal destruction’… Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game…. Some Alaskans don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time. I do. I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor.”

The past year has confirmed that Governor Palin was right. The number of false claims, records requests, mendacious accusations and ridiculous posturing by the left and street corner ethicists dropped dramatically – at least as applied to the mechanics of state government.

But it did not all go away when she stepped aside – some claims and suits are pending and are getting resolved in time. A judge in Anchorage recently issued a ruling throwing out a baseless claim against Governor Palin – and indirectly involving Todd Palin. In this civil claim, Todd Palin was being attacked because he was a close and trusted advisor to his wife, the Governor. That he was should surprise no one. The claimant asserted that because Todd Palin was not being paid by the State of Alaska, any emails copied to him could not be protected by the standard law of deliberative process privilege – a privilege that essentially protects the decision making process in government in order to allow the decision makers the freedom to honestly discuss policy and process and promote the open exchange of ideas. The claimant demanded the right to see emails that were sent to Todd Palin.

In a well reasoned opinion, the judge explored state law, federal law (including an historical discussion on First Lady Sarah Polk, wife of President James K. Polk), and invoked a too rarely used legal principle – common sense – to throw out this lawsuit. In so doing, the court concluded that Todd Palin, as the First Gentleman, though unpaid, was in essence a privileged consultant to the Office of the Governor, and the court compared Todd Palin’s privileged consultations to First Lady Hillary Clinton, in which a federal court determined that the chief executive’s spouse “acts as the functional equivalent of an assistant to the President.” And, with state government employees assisting the first spouse, Todd Palin had a clear and obvious privileged consultative function and is analogous to a de facto state officer.

The court ultimately concluded that “common sense and Federal law” compel the conclusion that “Todd Palin could properly… act[] as an advisor to the Governor” and therefore he was appropriately involved in policy discussions, emails, and deliberative discussions, all of which are protected from disclosure.

It is refreshing to see a court resort to common sense and historical precedent. Further, as more and more women get elected to high office (What are they called now? – “Mama Grizzlies”?), it is notable that challenges such as this, which were based on sexist notions and demeaning attitudes towards women, are being rejected. This suit challenged Todd Palin’s role as a first spouse and was implicitly premised on the idea that a male spouse must somehow exert too much influence over a female chief executive. Hence the demand to “see those emails” from Todd Palin; but contrast this with decades of silence relative to communications to prior executive spouses – female spouses. That dismissive and contemptuous posture towards the new brand of feminist leaders was appropriately condemned by the court as lacking a basis in reality.

There are, of course, some remaining issues to address. The attacks against Sarah Palin will continue. They are distractions meant to keep her off message. There will be times when Sarah Palin will have to take one for the team in order to continue on with her message to the country and simply resolve matters without having to incur crushing personal debt. That is the cost, unfortunately, of public life today. When that happens, read the details closely – like the details in this court opinion. Every time you do you will see that Sarah Palin has always acted with honest intent. You will see that again soon. Today’s ruling is a positive step not just for Sarah and Todd Palin, but for all female chief executives currently in office – and waiting to take office in November.

- Thomas Van Flein, Attorney for Sarah Palin

- JP

Thomas Van Flein: Why Sarah Palin Resigned As Governor Of Alaska

*
Sarah Palin's personal attorney Thomas Van Flein, in a posting on the governor's Facebook Notes page, announces the dismissal of yet another bogus "ethics" complaint against her. Mr VanFlein also explains how the dismissal of all 26 of these baseless complaints no longer pending demonstrate that she did not leave office to amass a personal fortune, which is the latest made-up media meme about Gov. Palin :

Swing and a miss

Yesterday we learned that another “ethics” complaint that was filed against Governor Palin was dismissed as baseless. (If you are counting, the Governor is 26-0-1 regarding such complaints or suits, with one still pending). Only this complaint was actually filed after she left office, and alleged that the mere existence of the Alaska Fund Trust (the legal defense fund set up for her to help defray the costs incurred during the Troopergate fiasco and related machinations that followed in its wake) was violative of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act as well as its solicitation or receipt of contributions. The raison d’être of the legal defense fund was inexorably linked to Governor Palin’s nomination as the Republican candidate for Vice President and the post-nomination political tactics arising therefrom; thus making the nomination sine quo non for the fund. In a detailed opinion, the complaint was dismissed as lacking a factual or legal basis. Last June, upon learning that a complaint against the Governor’s Anchorage Office Director was dismissed as baseless, Governor Palin’s then Chief of Staff Mike Nizich said, “This is not about holding the governor or state employees accountable. This is pure harassment.” That still rings true today.

When I discussed this with Governor Palin, she had an interesting take: “My reaction upon reading the opinion in this matter was not what I expected. Though I’m always pleased with the results of these investigations that prove the false allegations wrong, and I appreciate the detailed reasoning set forth in this recent opinion, I was primarily disappointed that the State of Alaska, the Attorney General’s office, and others, still have to spend time and resources addressing the abusive onslaught of frivolous complaints directed against me—even after I left office.”

At times (indeed, as recently as Sunday in a magazine cover story) people allege that the “real” reason Governor Palin stepped down was to “make money” (citing primarily her best selling book). As this most current complaint again emphasizes, Governor Palin stepped down for the right reasons—she did not want to see her state government continue to get bogged down with inane “ethics” complaints that were transparently political, plainly partisan, and diverting state resources. The voluntary relinquishment of power for the greater good is normally praised as an example of true leadership—just review any biography of George Washington—and it should be in this case as well. But for those who seek power for the sake of power, a selfless act is confusing, so a new narrative is created, such as the “profit” motive now being asserted with renewed vigor. Rest assured Sarah Palin had obtained approval to write her memoir while still in office without running into any conflict with the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Her financial future from her best selling book, though unknown then, would not have altered much whether she stayed in office or resigned, except the number of “ethics” complaints did dramatically decrease, so any legal fees associated with such complaints decreased concomitantly.

Let this latest dismissed complaint serve as a reminder for one of the real—and stated—reasons for her voluntary relinquishment of office, an office she campaigned for diligently, tirelessly and effectively. It stands as a marker that occasionally, every so often, there are public servants who can recognize the difference between self-interest and public interest. Sarah Palin is one such public servant.

- Thomas Van Flein, personal attorney for Sarah Palin

- JP

Thomas Van Flein: The Ethos of Ethics

Sarah Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, posted the following on the former governor's Facebook Notes page Thursday night, Alaska time:

The Ethos of Ethics

When the Governor announced her decision to resign on July 3, she pointed out the then 15 frivolous ethics complaints that had been filed against her and dismissed. It was intended to explain, in part, her decision to resign as well to educate the public about the abuse of the Alaska Ethics Act through a repetitive stream of baseless partisan accusations, each one seemingly more pointless and frivolous than the next. The Governor’s message was not intended as an invitation to run off half-cocked and file more baseless ethics complaints, but not everyone understood that message—or wanted to understand. In August 2009, largely in response to the abuse of Alaska’s Ethics Act by partisan shills and low level lackeys, the Attorney General issued an opinion recommending changes to the Ethics Act ”to prevent another potential harm—abuse of the process. Some Alaskans have argued that the Ethics Act has been used inappropriately in some circumstances to politically damage the subject of the complaint.” (August 5, 2009 Attorney General Opinion). That argument was asserted by the Anchorage Daily News. “Our View: Abuse of Ethics Complaints Turns Good Law Into Bad Politics,” Anchorage Daily News, May 3, 2009. The Attorney General further recommended “another safeguard to discourage habitual complaint filers who use the Ethics Act process to harass executive branch employees. Statutory amendments could provide authority to the personnel board to decline to process further complaints filed by a person who has abused the Act in this way.” Though it is encouraging to see an impartial evaluation of the problem, it is ultimately up to the Legislature to implement any of these recommended changes. Governor Palin has been subjected to 24 ethics complaints, several lawsuits, and dozens and dozens of public information act requests, few of which raised even a scintilla of a good faith issue, and most of which were simply done to garner a headline or promote opposition research for political gain.

Recently we learned that two more ethics complaints against Governor Palin have been dismissed—complaints that were filed after the Governor announced her plans to step down. One complaint asserted that it was unethical for the state to follow its own per diem regulations and pay per diem to the Governor as set forth by law. Of course, the complainant conveniently overlooked that the Governor and her family received less per diem than they were entitled to under State law—why let such details stand in the way of an ethics complaint? The other complaint that was dismissed asserted that the Governor, through me, supposedly violated the constitution because we informed a person who falsely implied that the Governor was “under investigation” by the FBI, that such statements are defamatory. It is notable to watch those who agitate on all things Palin—locally and even across the Atlantic—as they Huff and puff falsehoods about Sarah Palin under the guise of free speech, which brings us to a teachable moment. All too often we hear about constitutional rights—as we should—but many forget about constitutional responsibilities. As citizens we have both rights and responsibilities. Though we have the right to exercise free speech, we have the responsibility to exercise that right without defaming people. I like the way our Alaska Constitution describes it: “Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.” Ak. Const. Art. I, Sec. 5. The irony of filing an ethics complaint because of a reminder about the constitutional parameters of free speech is no doubt lost on those consumed by irrationality when it comes to Sarah Palin; but one does not need an ethics law to know that positive political discourse depends on a robust debate about facts and the policy implications stemming from such facts. The nation is not helped by calumnious ad hominem attacks against Sarah Palin, matrilineal conspiracy theories, and aberrant notions of ethics.

- Thomas Van Flein, Personal Attorney for Sarah Palin

- JP