You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Todd Palin’ category.
I’d like to believe you that you called me; however, after a thorough review of my cell phone log, I can find no evidence that you attempted to reach me. Perhaps you called the wrong number by mistake. 907-***-**** is the correct number.
Before discussing my property I need to correct a misstatement of yours: Anuradha Lawes, the person who picked up some of my property from APD is my mother, not my attorney. My attorney’s name is Kristen Foster. If you doubt Ms. Lawes is my mother or that she is not my attorney, I encourage you to call her to verify these facts.
The APD’s failure to return my property is as baffling as it is troubling. After speaking with various attorneys, officers, and others about this matter there seems to be no precedent, at least in the recent history of the APD, for the withholding of personal property in a dismissed misdemeanor case. Perhaps you can recall one.
To put things is their proper perspective a short review summary is perhaps in order. At a hearing on June 15, after it was shown that I had complied with all of the terms of my probation, my case was dismissed by Judge Pamela Washington. The return of my property was then discussed at some length. The judge ordered all of my property returned with the full consent of Municipal Prosecutor (MP) David Wallace. The sole exception was $209.00 in US currency. This agreement and order are in the public record.
Given the judge’s order, and the prosecutor having given his blessing, I anticipated a swift return of my property. I was sadly mistaken. David Wallace himself assured me that the return of my property would be expedited and told me to expect my property back within seven to ten business days. There ensued a frustrating two-month period of phone calls attempting to obtain the return of my property. During this time individuals at the APD attempted to stall by claiming that they were waiting for paperwork or authorization from the MP’s office. I subsequently learned this was not the case.
Someone named Matt at the MP’s office assured me that they had sent to APD all of the necessary paperwork and authorization they needed to release my property. I was both angered and disappointed to learn that the APD has not acted in an honest and forthright manner in dealing with my property.
As part of my efforts to obtain the return of my property I contacted Judge Washington’s clerk for assistance. Through a series of phone calls I learned that Judge Washington’s clerk had contacted both the MP’s office and the APD and had told both to comply with the judge’s order. The APD ignored her.
At length I was contacted regarding the return of property and arranged a Power of Attorney for my mother to act in my behalf to obtain my property. Some property was returned but not all of it. I am not going to itemize these items for you now because we both know you have these records in your possession. The items I am concerned about having returned to me are a credit card machine, a cell phone, and a computer.
The bottom line and undisputed fact is that the APD is continuing to withhold personal property of mine in defiance of a judge’s order and my constitutional rights. Furthermore it is clear from our correspondence that you have no intention of complying with the judge’s order and my continued pleas. This is unacceptable. The logical and obvious explanation for this is that the APD is protecting one or more persons whose names are contained in the property being withheld, apparently out of a fear that someone will be embarrassed or exposed in some way. The further proof of this is the bizarre issuance of a press release by you, discussed below.
I continue to demand the immediate return of ALL of my property, in accordance with Judge Washington’s order, the Anchorage Municipal Prosecutor, APD policy, and the United States Constitution. I furthermore put the Anchorage Police Department on notice to NOT attempt to destroy any of my personal property.
Regarding the press release, the most significant aspect of it is the multiple specific references to Todd Palin. It is these references that would lead the average observer to conclude that it is political in nature and that its issuance had absolutely nothing to do with my case except to discredit me. It is replete with fabrications and misstatements. Here are the major points:
You stated in the press release, “There’s not one scintilla of evidence that Todd Palin had anything to do with this.” However, you later admitted publicly that you had not examined all of the evidence that was confiscated from me; consequently, there is no way you could truthfully make this statement.
The press release cited “several errors” regarding the investigation and arrest as it was reported in the Enquirer article, stating that “None of the physical evidence examined by police showed any connection to Wasilla resident Todd Palin and his name did not appear in any of the records seized by APD.” Given that, again, the physical evidence was not fully examined (if at all), this statement is at best misleading and at worst a deliberate lie designed to achieve a political purpose.
The press release goes on to say, “The investigation of the prostitution operation was initiated by Anchorage Police Department’s Vice Unit responding to internet advertisements, not through information developed from any tips or other persons.” This statement is also untrue. A review of the police reports in the case reveals that the investigation was initiated when William Fortier, who formerly owned the building where I operated my business, lodged a complaint. So either the police report is incorrect or you were misinformed.
Finally, the press release stated, “No rolodex was seized and taken into evidence.” While no ‘paper’ Rolodex was seized, officers never searched my computers, which contained electronic address books, and in several of the officers’ reports references were made to ‘client lists’ that were seized.
I will note also that you are on record as publicly admitting (in telephone conversations with blogger/attorney Malia Litman) that you issued the press release at the request of John Tiemessen, Sarah Palin’s attorney of record.
This highly unorthodox behavior cannot be explained or justified in the context of any normal APD practice or procedure. On the contrary, it leads one to the inescapable conclusion that this was done for purely political purposes to aid Sarah Palin, with whom you are known to be allied politically as well as through church affiliation. In short, you placed political and religious allegiance before your duty as a sworn peace officer.
It is also telling that this press release was issued after normal business hours and does not appear on the APD website, along with APD’s other press releases, as if you were instructed not to do so, embarrassed to place it there due to its content, and/or because it was not authorized by higher authority and you did not wish it to be known that you had issued it.
You can rest assured that I will not let this issue rest until I have received a full accounting of why the press release was issued and on whose authority it was released. I am sending a detailed letter to APD Internal Affairs outlining the unusual and unethical behavior of its officers, including the issuance of the press release as detailed above. In addition, I am sending a copy of this correspondence to the ombudsman for the Municipality of Anchorage Ombudsman requesting that she investigate this matter, forwarding copies to the Municipal Prosecutor’s Office and to Judge Washington.
It gives me no pleasure to take these actions but I am sick of being misled by the APD after I acted in good faith. There is clearly something amiss in the APD. I am happy to speak or correspond with you if it leads to the return of my property.
It was the middle of the night in Dallas, Texas. I am sound asleep, as I should be. The phone rings, and I am worried something bad has happened to one of my kids, or a family member. As I skeptically reached for the phone, and worked to wake myself, I was relieved to hear that it was only Officer McKinnon of the Anchorage Police Department. He was returning my call from earlier in the week. Officer McKinnon works the night shift in Anchorage, so it seemed perfectly normal for him to call during the night, as he was calling regarding a police matter. I was surprised that he returned my call and that he was so polite. In an effort to make full disclosure, I explained that I had talked to Officer Parker, and had written various posts on this blog regarding the Shailey Tripp arrest, the National Enquirer stories, and the failure of the APD to examine the “evidence seized.” I took notes to be sure that I reported the conversation accurately. When I hung up the phone at 3:16 a.m., it was ironic that this was a call at 3:00 o’clock in the morning.
Here is a summary of the information provided by Officer McKinnon of the Anchorage Police Department:
1. He did remember a phone call from me that was made months ago. He remembered that I had highlighted the importance of the “evidence seized” in the Shailey Tripp and Kashawn Thomas arrests. He explained that after that call he personally went to the Evidence Department of the APD and advised them to be extra careful about not losing the evidence, including the cell phones and lap top confiscated in this arrest. He told them to be extra careful because there might be a lot of controversy regarding this evidence.
2. Officer McKinnon explained that he had issued the paperwork necessary to allow the release of ALL the “evidence seized” in the Shailey Tripp matter, so he assumed the lap top and cell phone had been released.
3. Officer McKinnon confirmed that the APD keep records in the form of lists of any evidence seized during an arrest, and additional lists of evidence returned. While I was on the phone he attempted to check his computer to find those lists, and he could find nothing on his computer reflecting the list of evidence seized or the itemized list of evidence returned in the Shailey Tripp matter. I asked him to check to determine what happened to those lists, and he explained that I would have to get that information from Dave Parker. As of this posting, I have asked Dave Parker to notify me of the disposition of the cell phone and lap top seized during the arrest of Shailey Tripp, and he has not provided that information. While I might not normally expect a police department to provide this type of information to a reporter, because the APD chose to issue the press release to the National Enquirer regarding the Shailey Tripp arrest, and the content of the evidence “examined,” I thought that, at a minimum, they would disclose the disposition of the evidence that was seized. They were not.
4. He indicated that in a prostitution matter the normal procedure of the APD was to only make an arrest if a police officer himself was propositioned by a person to provide sexual services for money. In the matter of Shailey Tripp they didn’t simply rely upon a tip from a caller, but they had a police officer go to her place of business and pretend to be a customer. I asked him what would be done to attempt to identify customers and make arrests of them, and he indicated that this was “only a misdemeanor” and that the police had more important matters to investigate than attempting to identify the people who had taken advantage of the services of Shailey Tripp and/or Kashawn Thomas.
5. He explained that the police could not arrest anyone unless they had “probable cause” to believe that a crime had been committed. I specifically asked him if Shailey Tripp’s statement that she was paid by Todd Palin for sexual services would be sufficient evidence to give him “probable cause” to arrest Todd Palin, or at a minimum to warrant further investigation. He said “NO”. I asked him to assume that in addition to the report of Shailey Tripp that another person reported that they had seen Todd Palin come and go from the building used as the “house of prostitution.” Assuming those facts, I asked if he would feel that they had probable cause to arrest Todd Palin or to further investigate. He responded by saying he wouldn’t care. He said they would have “no reason” to investigate anything. He said he had not even called Todd Palin to ask about his relationship with Shailey Tripp.
If the information provided by Officer McKinnon, and Shailey Tripp is all true then we can conclude that (1) the “evidence seized” by the APD when making the arrest of Shailey Tripp included a cell phone and lap top, (2) the cell phone and/or lap top had something on them that tied Shailey Tripp to Todd Palin, (3) the cell phone and lap top should have been listed on the property log when Shailey Tripp was originally arrested, (4) Officer McKinnon alerted the Property Department to the importance of this evidence when it was initially confiscated, (5) the police computer would normally have a list of all property confiscated in any particular case, (6) the police computer would normally have a list of all property returned, (7) there was no list on the APD computer, as of 3:00 a.m. on 10-31-11 listing either the property confiscated or returned in the arrest of Shailey Tripp, and (8) the APD has made no attempt to investigate the allegation that Todd Palin paid Shailey Tripp for sexual services. The fact that the cell phone and lap top have not been returned to Shailey Tripp, as ordered by the court, and that there is currently no record of the property returned, suggests a police cover-up. The implication of a cover-up by the APD seems even more likely given the willingness of the APD to issue a press release at the request of Sarah Palin’s attorney that was contrary to their own records, and their unwillingness to issue a retraction or modification of the statement after their error was brought to their attention. The inability or unwillingness to return the property confiscated as ordered by the Court, in the condition it was in when confiscated is unforgivable. The conduct of the APD in issuing a press release to the National Enquirer regarding evidence in their possession that pertained to a pending case was wrong. To attempt to vindicate Todd Palin, without investigating the matter was wrong. If the APD does not as a matter of practice attempt to identify and prosecute the men who take advantage of services provided by prostitutes, that might seem inappropriate, but it would be harder to prove. However to issue a statement regarding any possible connection between Todd Palin and Shailey Tripp without even asking Todd Palin if the allegations were true is unforgivable. To provide false information regarding the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Shailey Tripp, which served to discredit her statement, was also wrong. The Anchorage Police Department was wrong to issue the press release to the National Enquirer. Dave Parker was wrong to give a statement to the N.Y. Daily News. Failure to return Shailey Tripp’s property was wrong simply because it was her property which a judge ordered to be returned. Failure to return evidence that could have proved the allegations made by Shailey Tripp against Todd Palin in spite of a court order could only be described as corrupt.
To: Todd Palin and the Anchorage Police Department
From: Malia Litman
Re: Vanity License Plate “TRIPP”
I am inviting Todd Palin, any member of the APD, Officer Dave Parker of the APD, and any citizen of Alaska that has personal knowledge of the Department of Motor Vehicles Records, to respond to allegations that Todd Palin obtained a vanity license plate in March of 2008 bearing the name “TRIPP.” It has come to my attention that there is a rumor in Alaska that Todd Palin obtained a license plate through the Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles bearing the name “TRIPP,” and that this occurred in March of 2008. As of this moment I have not been able to confirm this information through an independent source.
I generally do not rely on unsubstantiated rumor or hearsay in a blog post. However after this came to my attention yesterday, I called the Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles to try to confirm the rumor. Asking for a supervisor, I was connected to “Linda” who identified herself as a “Lead Supervisor.” While Linda explained that she was not allowed to identify the name of the person who owned a license plate bearing the name “TRIPP”, she was able to confirm that if I wanted to use that name on an Alaska license plate, I would be unable to do so, as the name “TRIPP” was already taken. Linda further confirmed that any member of the police department would be able to access the Department of Motor Vehicles’ records to determine the identity of the owner of any particular license plate. Thus every member of the Anchorage Police Department, and Officer Dave Parker in particular, could determine whether the license plate “TRIPP” is owned by Todd Palin. If it is NOT, I invite Officer Parker, Police Chief Mew, and Todd Palin himself, to confirm that Todd Palin does not own the plate, and did not own it in the past. If the Anchorage Police Department was willing and able to issue a press release to the National Enquirer commenting on evidence in their possession, relating to a pending case, saying there was NO evidence in their possession, that they had examined, to connect Todd Palin to Shailey Tripp, then they should likewise be able to issue a statement that there was not a connection between Todd Palin and a license plate bearing the name “TRIPP” at any time in the past. They issued a press release at the request of Sarah Palin’s attorney. I’m asking for a press release regarding something as simple as a license plate, that doesn’t relate to any pending case, as a concerned citizen, in search of the truth, regarding the husband of the Half-Term, ‘Ex-Governor of Alaska. If Todd Palin did not own such a license plate, please correct this rumor.
The Anchorage Police Department previously ignored the statement given by Shailey Tripp, that she had been paid for sex by Todd Palin. Officer Parker said it was “just guilt by innuendo.” Of course the person with knowledge of such a sexual relationship giving a sworn statement is the opposite of innuendo. It would be direct, specific, evidence of a crime. It would be subject to question if there were contrary testimony from someone else who had personal knowledge. In this case Todd Palin would be the person with personal knowledge. He has not denied the claim, under oath or otherwise. I specifically asked. Eight months later, no response has been given.
If there was a license plate owned by Todd Palin from 2008, bearing the name “TRIPP” then that would be corroborating evidence of a connection between Shailey Tripp and Todd Palin. The fact that Bristol and Levi named their child “Tripp” in December of 2008, would be further corroborating evidence of a connection. If Todd Palin owned such a license plate, why hasn’t the Anchorage Police investigated Ms. Tripp’s story?
Dave Parker told me he reads this blog. He indicated he didn’t appreciate some of the things I reported. However, he did not accuse me of misstating anything.
Just in case he misses this post, I’m e-mailing a copy to him. I have confirmation that Conservatives4Palin follows this blog too, as they have identified me as the person having the worst case of PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) in the country.I’m inviting Conservatives4Palin to pass this invitation on to Todd Palin, and ask him to deny the allegations made by Shailey Tripp, and/or the indication that he had a license plate bearing the name “TRIPP”. If I receive a comment or denial from Todd Palin and/or anyone from the Anchorage Police Department I will publish it. Remember that I am not asking the APD to disclose the name of anyone who owns the license plate which bears the name “TRIPP.” I am simply asking that they confirm that the owner of the plate was NOT Todd Palin. There must be hundreds of residents of Alaska with access to this information. Between police officers, government officials, employees of the Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles, and Todd Palin himself, there should be someone who could deny the rumor if untrue that Todd Palin had a license plate bearing the name “TRIPP.”
Shailey Tripp has been waiting since March 2010 to have a cell phone and lap top computer returned by the Anchorage Police Department. They were confiscated when she was arrested and charged with running a house of prostitution. She pled no contest to the charges on June 13, 2010, and she was given a probated sentence. The Judge ordered that her property would be returned upon the completion of her probation. The date set to determine if she had fulfilled the terms of her probation was June 15, 2011. The case became famous when there was a story in the National Enquirer connecting Todd Palin and Shailey Tripp.
Any connection between Shailey Tripp and Todd Palin was thought to be unfounded when the Anchorage Police Department issued a press release indicating that none of the evidence in their possession, THAT THEY EXAMINED, connected Shailey and Todd. The APD said:
“None of the physical evidence examined by police showed any connection to Wasilla resident Todd Palin and his name did not appear in any of the records seized by the APD.”
“Bloggers have had no access to the evidence seized so their linking of evidence in police custody to any other person in incorrect.”
To date Todd Palin has never denied the allegations of Shailey Tripp. It was only AFTER the statement of the APD that Sarah Palin denied the allegation that Todd had paid for sex with Shailey Tripp. What she really said was that all we had to do was ask Todd, “Hey Todd you been hanging out with hookers lately?” I asked. I’ve gotten no response.
Shailey Tripp agreed to give an interview, so we talked last February. While she confirmed in that interview that she had been paid for sex by Todd Palin, she was careful about the extent of information she would provide, for many reasons, not the least of which was that she was still on probation.
On Monday, Oct. 24, I received an e-mail from Shailey which reported the following:
“So here is an outline of what has happened.
June 15, 2011 my court date, I complied with the terms of the plea, and my case was dismissed.
also the judge did say i could have all my possessions returned to me.
June 17, 2011 I phoned the city prosecutor’s office and left a message
June 17, 2011 my call was returned and the y left me a message stating that they would try to expedite returning my property to me
The following week I followed up and spoke person to person and was told the same thing, they would try to expedite it.
This goes on for 2 months. In the meantime I make calls to APD evidence, they place everything on the fact they need paperwork from city prosecutor. Finally at the 2 month mark city prosecutor tells me that APD has had the paperwork for sometime and that this is an APD issues. I confronted the APD, yes they do have the correct paperwork but there is a problem. They will not tell me the problem.
Finally after a few more weeks, someone tells me that Det. McKinnon has been put in charge of my property.
I leave a message for Det. Mckinnon. Finally he returns my call and lets me know that 4 months ago his superiors made him aware that my property was problem for the APD and needed to be handled with care and that there may be some incriminating information on it against “other” people. He then asked me that the APD has never gone through my cell phones or computer. He assured me all my property would be returned to me . I signed over power of attorney to my mother. My mother made an appointment to retrieve my property. the APD then sent me a letter showing what items would be returned. Many things were not returned. I handed the matter over to my attorney.”
This report by Ms. Tripp was consistent with what I knew, including the court date of June 15, 2011, which was reported by the NY Daily News last January. Given the willingness of the APD to help the Palins by issuing a press release to the National Enquirer, it wasn’t too surprising that the “evidence seized” had not been returned. However in an attempt to give the APD an opportunity to “refudiate” this report, I contacted the APD. Initially I left two messages for Officer McKinnon. They were never returned. I left several messages with the Anchorage Police Department Evidence Department, but those calls were not returned. When I finally reached someone after repeated calls, I was instructed that Officer Dave Parker, the officer I spoke with last February, would be the one with whom I should speak.
Officer Parker indicated he did not appreciate the fact that I had been reporting information on this blog, and asked that I communicate by e-mail. The following is the e-mail exchange we have had:
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:43 PM
To: Parker, David
Subject: Evidence in Shay Tripp matter
I am confirming that I would like a list of the items seized when Shailey Tripp was arrested and pled guilty of running a house of prostitution, what evidence was returned to her or her representative at any time, including on 9-12-11, and a list of items that you indicated that were “obviously” not returned, and why. I would also appreciate confirmation as to who currently has possession of the items that were NOT returned. In particular, it is my understanding that a cell phone and lap top were seized but not returned. Thank you.
From: Parker, David <DParker@muni.org
Wed, Oct 26, 2011 9:45 am
Subject: RE: Evidence in Shay Tripp matter
I checked with Capt. Kris Miller of the Detective Division. We do not release lists of items seized which you have requested. I can however tell you that the property belonging to Ms. Tripp was returned to her attorney-in-fact, Ms. Lawes on 9-12-11 according to the Property Section disposition form. If Ms. Tripp would like further clarification regarding her case or the property returned she may contact me and I will direct her to the person who can assist her.
The property which was not returned to Ms. Tripp either belonged to the other defendant in the case or they were disposable items such as condoms.
Lt. Dave Parker
Anchorage Police Department
Public Information Officer
4501 Elmore Road Desk (907) 786-8724
Anchorage, AK 99507 Cell (907) 351-1949
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:49 PM
To: Parker, David
Subject: Re: Evidence in Shay Tripp matter
It is my understanding that a cell phone and a laptop computer were among the “items seized” and that was reflected in the APD records. Ms. Tripp has advised me that those items were NOT returned. I would like clarification is you are saying they were not among the “items seized” or are you taking the position that they were in fact returned? Malia Litman
From: Parker, David <DParker@muni.org>
Wed, Oct 26, 2011 2:58 pm
Subject: RE: Evidence in Shay Tripp matter
As I wrote previously, if Ms. Tripp needs assistance please have her contact me and I will direct her to the person who can assist her. We do not have any document listing you as her legal representative.
To: DParker <DParker@muni.org>
Sent: Wed, Oct 26, 2011 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: Evidence in Shay Tripp matter
I am not Ms. Tripp’s legal representative, and I have never indicated to you that I was . I simply thought that because the Anchorage Police Department chose to issue a statement to the National Enquirer, that you were obviously willing to release information regarding the Shailey Tripp arrest. Because the APD , and you in particular, indicated to the NY Daily News that there was not “one scintilla” of evidence connecting Todd Palin to Shailey Tripp, it seems reasonable that you could, at a minimum, answer a simple question regarding a cell phone and lap top computer that were confiscated, according to your own records, and which Ms. Tripp has indicated to me were not released to her. Ms. Tripp has further indicated to me that Det. McKinnon told her that ” 4 months ago his superiors made him aware that her property was a problem for the APD and that the items seized needed to be handled with care, and that there may be some incriminating information on it against other people.” Ms. Tripp has indicated she has repeatedly tried to obtain these items and the APD has not returned them. I am giving the APD, and you in particular, an opportunity to respond before I publish the story. Where are the cell phone and lap top computer of Ms. Tripp? Are you going to return them to her in the condition that they were in when the APD confiscated them? Malia Litman
Dear Officer Parker,
In reviewing records this morning, I draw your attention to my letter last February 22nd, of this year. I specifically put you on notice that the “items seized” had taken on even greater importance to the public because the APD commented on the evidence in your possession regarding Todd Palin. Here is the excerpt:
Given the “office documents, computers, office machines, calendars and books and photographs” that were seized, I am assuming the APD made additional arrests based on this evidence. I assume these arrests would also be a matter of public record, so you would not be disclosing confidential information. Please identify who was arrested based upon this evidence seized. I assume you still have the “evidence seized” in your possession and I hereby put the APD on notice that because the APD has issued the statement that “none of the physical evidence examined by police showed any connection to Wasilla resident Todd Palin and his name did not appear on any of the records seized by APD” it is important in the interest of full disclosure for the public to know exactly what evidence that you seized was “examined.” If his name was not on the list, who’s name was , and what if any arrests have been made or charges filed?
Shailey Tripp has indicated in more than one statement that there was evidence of Todd Palin’s meetings with her that existed in the evidence seized by the Anchorage Police Department. Even if his name did not appear in the evidence examined, perhaps his name appeared in evidence that was seized but not “examined.” Because cell phones were seized, did the police check all the phone records to determine the identity of callers to Ms. Thomas and to Ms. Tripp?
It is because the APD interjected itself into this controversy that it is important that the APD be accountable for identifying what items were returned to Shailey Tripp. If the item was not returned, or if its condition was altered, the public is entitled to know why.
it is not surprising that she fails to understand the importance of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution for someone who is her adversary. Shailey Tripp may have broken the law, and she has paid the price for her transgressions. However any person who paid Ms. Tripp for sex also broke the law, and should be treated equally under the law. The men who paid for her services should have also been prosecuted. No arrests were made. Because the APD never “examined” the lap top and cell phone of Shailey Tripp, the APD was selectively enforcing the law. By commenting on the evidence to the National Enquirer and to the NY Dailey News, the Anchorage Police Department has violated the constitutional rights of Shailey Tripp, and indicated their willingness to be guided by corruption. By failing to return her property in the condition it was in when it was seized, the police have further violated her rights. At least if the property had been returned in its original condition, we would know what evidence there was of a connection between Todd Palin and Shailey Tripp.
When Sarah Palin paid thousands of dollars to have “We the People” painted on her bus, what she really meant “Me, the Half-Term Ex-Governor.”
Officer Parker sent this e-mail on Thursday Oct 27th at 11:37 Dallas time.
As I have already explained, Ms. Tripp’s items were returned to her attorney-in-fact, Ms. Lawes on 9-12-11 according to the Property Section disposition form. If Ms. Tripp would like further clarification regarding her case or the property returned she may contact me and I will direct her to the person who can assist her. Obviously that would apply to anyone she appoints as her legal representative as well.
Obviously there is NO reference to the cell phone or lap top computer which Shailey Tripp explains have not been returned.
“Innuendo” is an indirect or subtle reference to something. Someone who is relying on innuendo is suggesting something by insinuation.Todd, Sarah Palin, and their attorneys have adopted “innuendo” as their mantra. Unfortunately the word “innuendo” has become the victim of misuse and abuse. Whenever the Palin family or their lawyers (which includes the APD) seek to deny a direct attack by a named source, the suggestion is that there is no direct statement, but only “innuendo” that something unfavorable to the image of the Palins actually happened. For example, when Shailey Tripp said that Shailey Tripp had sex with Todd, the Anchorage Police said it was “just guilt by innuendo.” The quote from January of this year was:
“It was just guilt by innuendo, nothing else,” Lt. Dave Parker told the Daily News on Wednesday. “There’s not one scintilla of evidence that Todd Palin had anything to do with this.”
The only “scintilla of evidence” was the statement given by the sexual partner of Todd Palin, while taking a lie detector test, that she had sex with Todd. The only “innuendo” involved was the statement by Sarah, not Todd, when she insinuated that Todd had not had sex with Shailey Tripp. When Sarah said, just ask Todd, “hey Todd, you been hanging out with hookers lately, he’lll tell you the truth.” The “innuendo” was that Todd had not had a sexual relationship with Shailey Tripp, but of course we know he did.
Back in November of 2009, when Going Rogue hit the shelves, the LA Times commented on a passage that was “unusual for a political memoir.” They reported:
“Amid rumors that Palin and her husband Todd, known as Alaska’s “First Dude,” were getting a divorce, the governor recounts this moment in her odyssey. If it reads like a Harlequin novel, viewer discretion advised.
“That day in sunny Texas when the divorce rumors were rampant in the tabloids, I watched Todd, tanned and shirtless, take the baby from my arms and walk him back to the ranch house so Trig could nap while I made calls,” she writes in “Going Rogue,” the much-publicized memoir out Tuesday. “Seeing Todd’s blue eyes smiling, I chuckled. ‘Dang,’ I thought. ‘Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?’”
Thus Sarah Palin created the image of a happy marriage by “innuendo”. She suggested that if she found Todd to be sexually attractive, then the couple had a happy marriage. However now we know from Joe McGinnis’s book, that marriage is not a prerequisite to a sexual encounter with Sarah Palin, especially if the man is an athlete with great hands!
The National Enquirer reports this morning that Sarah and Todd Palin are, once again, headed for a divorce.
Whether Todd and Sarah actually divorce is inconsequential. The relevant story is that Sarah Palin has intentionally misled the American electorate about the importance of family. When Vanity Fair reported that “there wasn’t much parenting” going on in the Palin household, we were sympathetic to this kids, but hoped it wasn’t true. When Vanity Fair reported a year later that the Palin refrigerator carried dents substantiating the claims of battle done between Todd and Sarah with cans of food, we laughed and thought it might be true. Now that McGinnis’ book has been released and he has further documentation of pre-marital and post-marital affairs of Sarah and Todd Palin, we realized that the history of marital problems for the Palins was likely accurate.
Now that the National Enquirer is reporting that the marriage is over, it seems that this was a “marriage by innuendo.” It is always tragic when divorce is the best option for a marriage. It is even more tragic when politicians deceive the electorate regarding their values. The offense to the public is not the fact of a divorce, but the deception of a happy marriage.
If the Palins ever had a happy marriage and a tight-knit family it was long before Sarah Palin became a celebrity. To portray herself as a dedicated mother and wife is clearly not true. To suggest that abstinence education is effective is insulting to our intelligence. Let’s hope that any political future of Sarah Palin is the result of “innuendo” and “nothing else.”