The lawyer Palin hired is a local yokel, not even a partner in his firm

[yourguide]

Apparently he's represented the Alaskan Dental Society, I'm sure he'll be able to defend the Governor with that extensive experience :rofl:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/palin_hires_lawyer_for_trooper.php

Seems to me that if the rethugs were sticking with Palin, they would lawyer her up like nobody's business. They are leaving her out to hang out to dry with some schmuck.

She's out.

[Olney Blue]

1. The lawyer wants to take a bite out of crime.

[yellowcanine]

9. Good one.

[yellowcanine]

10. He will conclude that Sarah's only fault is failure to floss frequently.

[livetohike]

2. Are they related? Probably n/t

[KittyWampus]

3. kick

[LynneSin]

4. Was the guy that represents the Alaskan Arabian Horse Society busy

Oh I just had to go there!

[yellowcanine]

11. You went girl! Good one. Heckava job, Sarah!

[Occam Bandage]

5. Nah. Republicans just love picking incompetent cronies for important jobs.

[tomg]

6. He might be, but there is a bigger story here.

I posted on it earlier and the post sank like a stone. Seems to be a heavy duty states rights person, at least based on his article ( he is also editor) in the Alaska Law Review. He cites the AIP website as a source in his law review article.

Just a choice bit: "At times, the Alaska courts have clearly -- if not boldly -- departed from federal constitutional standards, developing a truly independent state constitutional doctrine. Other times, however, the Alaska courts have missed opportunities for developing Alaska constitutional law in favor of unnecessary deference to federal constitutional standards."

Original post at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6877727&mesg_id=6877727

[BlooInBloo]

7. Maybe they're going to challenge US jurisdiction!

:rofl:

[tomg]

8. Actually, the case where he

represented the Alaska Dental Society was an attempt to stop Native Americans from using dental assistants in place of regular dentists when they had no other recourse. Duke University Law had a debate on it.

It is called the Baker doctrine, and think of it in terms of Native American Rights, environmental legislation, a whole host of issues, and then throw something like this ( a lot more than filling cavities), and the Supreme Court reinstitutes an extreme form of states rights.

typo:

[yourguide]

12. The Alaska Daily News describes his experience differently

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/512842.html


Van Flein didn't immediately return a call. He handles employment cases and has defended clients against dental, legal and medical malpractice claims. He is with the firm Clapp Peterson Van Flein Tiemessen & Thorsness, which has offices in Anchorage and Fairbanks.

[tomg]

13. That was why I checked around and

found a copy of the article that he wrote. All I was curious about was his credentials, no more. Then the whole AIP thing starts to take off. This is a link to the Alaska Law Review. The case is dated 2004. It just struck me as heavy duty states rights stuff. I'm not a lawyer.

Here's the link to his article on the Baker doctrine: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?21+Alaska+L.+Rev.+227

Also the link to the debate in the Alaska Law Journal on the Dental court case in 2007
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?24+Alaska+L.+Rev.+105

and a summary of the Dental case in 2007 from the U.S. Government's Indian Health Services:
http://www.ihs.gov/medicalprograms/doh/documents/dental%20groups%20to%20settle%20lawsuit.doc

It just seems a bit strange. The guy actually cites the AIP in his law review article. I'm probably just getting a little weird about this. But he's no yokel.