On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 4:43 PM, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vox Itar was correct in his/her post above. Apparently there never was > a "court order" issued by the judge, just a warning. You can not be in > contempt for a warning. Further, since no action was reflected in the > final divorce settlement one can assume the family ceased the activity > to the satisfaction of the judge. Further, you've now turned this into > Palin vs the court issue but in truth it was Palin's sister and > family. I'm not able to find any evidence the judge ever directed > anything towards Palin herself, and since she wasn't the plaintiff, > this is not really about Sarah Palin at all. > > Point being, you're attempting to fabricate a major issue against > Palin where none exists while you actively try to defend the actions > of a trooper who has already been found guilty of the actions the > Palin family was complaining about. That makes you not only > disingenuous but transparent as well. > > EXACTLY, Frank. And again, if you read through the entire Newsweek article, only the Newsweek author uses the word "stop" in describing the Judges admonitions to the parties about disparaging remarks. The Judge never does. The author, and the smear merchants like PA, are trying to insinuate that the run-of-the-mill standard warnings given to ANYONE involved in a divorce and custody battle somehow mean that Sarah was directly involved in "disparaging" Wooten. There is not a SHRED of evidence she ever disparaged him. And until there is, it's just another smear.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
