Judge Warned Palin To Stop Talking About Trooper Wooten
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Alaska, Ethics, Law, Palin
Another interesting twist in the TrooperGate investigation.
Apparently Palin and her family were talking publicly about Mike Wooten so much that a judge essentially put a gag on them. And this was before she was Governor.
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.
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.”
As many of you know by now, after Palin became Governor the subject of Trooper Wooten’s employment was brought to Chief of Police Walt Monegan’s attention again and again through aides and personal emails sent by Palin herself. However, since Wooten had been punished by the department, Monegan apparently didn’t see any reason to question why he was employed. And then Monegan lost his job and this whole mess started.
Say what you will about Trooper Wooten’s actions, but he had been punished for what he did well before Palin took office. In fact, he had been punished while he was still married to her sister. It was only after the divorce that Palin started to really step up the “Why is this guy still around?” talk.
And frankly, the more and more I look at this case, the more I think that this timeline does not favor a good outcome for Palin. Perhaps some other information about Wooten doing something atrocious will come out, but I’m pretty sure we would have heard about that by now.
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 10th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Alaska, Ethics, Law, Palin. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:00 am
There’s fire here, folks. IMO, her lack of good judgement is indicative of someone who is newly appointed into a powerful position, and who could not see the conflicts of interest inherent in her actions. I think her lack of experience compelled her to behave like a self-rightoues “hocky-mom” instead of a like prudent Governor.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Could not disagree more. It needs to be shown that:
• Palin didn’t have the right to fire the folks fired
• the folks fired didn’t deserve it
If these are not shown, this continues to wither on the vine.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Go get ‘er, Justin! I think that the suspicion approach will start working any day now….
September 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Justin, you had me going there for a minute, but when you wrote:
“In fact, he had been punished while he was still married to her sister.”
- you exposed yourself man. Unless you can provide the facts, we’ll chalk this article up in the BOGUS column.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I’m not Palin supporter even though I lived in Alaska for ten years (I’m a Libertarian) but this troopergate criticism is WRONG! Trooper Wooten should have been fired and any supervisor who refused to fire him should have been fired. Here’s why…
The accusations are detailed in two thick binders, the result of a nearly yearlong investigation by troopers.
“The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession,” Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, letter suspending Wooten for 10 days. After the union protested it, the suspension was reduced to five days. (Prima facie evidence of how hard it is to fire bad government employees and therefore why we should have less government –a lot less).
http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html
•Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.
• He illegally shot a moose.
• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.
• He told others his father-in-law would “eat a f’ing lead bullet” if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2073154/posts
September 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
ExiledIndependent, do we know all of the facts about this case? No, then why not report what we do know and continue to investigate? By your logic, since we only have credible suspicions there is no case and we should stop discussion and reporting. Additionally, this has really only been scrutinized for 2 weeks, would you expect more than just leads to come out now?
If there is nothing here then these stories won’t matter as kritter points out, but if there is (as you seem to be afraid of…”stop looking!”) then it was worth the effort to uncover.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Here’s the real reason to oppose Palin, not the troopergate where she is right.
The Road to Nowhere
Posted on September 10, 2008, 2:09pm | Radley Balko
“I missed this when it came out a couple of weeks ago. From an Anchorage Daily News article on the “Bridge to Nowhere†flap:
Meanwhile, Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone — because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government.
So not only did Palin support the BtN before she opposed it, not only did she accept the money for it anyway then divert it to other projects, she also then went ahead and took federal funding for a road that was to connect the bridge, even though the bridge wouldn’t be built, rendering the road useless, because unlike the bridge she–ahem–courageously opposed, she couldn’t divert the road money to other projects.
Quite the profile in political courage.”
http://www.reason.com/blog/
September 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
What are the facts? I thought she was still married to him. Provide evidence that they weren’t and I’ll change it.
Regardless, he was punished BEFORE Palin was in office, so the basic point still stands, does it not?
Also, I think there’s a reason that a bi-partisan panel launched this ethics investigation. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but it was bi-partisan.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
This is a boring, inconsequential, Tony Rezko – like scandal.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
and the plot thickens. I might have to reconsider who I was going to vote for. The McCain campaign fabricating and distorting lately is really disheartening… and now this.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:52 am
As an independent who had moved back into the McCain camp with Sarah’s selection, this revelation along with the Bridge to Nowhere lie, the lie about Barry’s support on the bill protecting kids against sexual predators have me back in the Obama camp.
If this campaign is about personality, not issues, it’s become clear that John McCain is ready to lie his way into office. And it’s becoming clear that Sarah is a bit too vindictive to hold this office.
I’m also impressed with the way Barry has been handling this. There are plenty of ways he could joined them in the mud, but he’s held back and been strong yet civilized. That’s in strong contrast to what we see in this revelation about Sarah.