On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:44 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read the actual findings somewhat differently. She *was* justified > at her firing of Monegan (the head of the AK state police) but that > the "abuse of power" came from her trying to get her former > brother-in-law fired. In addition, no legal charges can stem from the > findings of the probe so she has been cleared of any legal > wrong-doing.
I'm confused here. We all agree that she was legally authorized to fire Monegan without cause. Thus far I have not seen anyone argue otherwise. Then you label what the abuse of power was, pressuring Monegan to fire the ex brother in law. Also, trying to deny that brother in law workmans compensation claims. I also agree with that. So the part that I don't understand is your last bit. How do you get the no legal charges bit? The investigator specifically laid out the Alaskan Statute that he believes she violated. Statutes are laws. Violating a Statute is breaking the law. That is the opposite of clearing of legal wrong doing. The investigation results have been forwarded on to prosecutors so they can decide whether to file charges. Could you clarify your point? Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:274153 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
