Monday, October 13, 2008

Should sanctions be brought against Inspector Branchflower

Now that Troopergate has come to a close, some interesting facts have come to light.

As I wrote before, I mentioned Inspector Branchflower's dilemma.

An interesting turn of events have taken place since the release of the Troopergate report. Inspector Branchflower's dilemma has emerged and in his report, his findings contradict previous comments made by him about Harbor Adjustment Service owner Murleen Wilkes.

Back on September 26, 2008 I stated the following:

Inspector Branchflower's Dilemma

Further in the article, Branchflower is stated to be investigating if the Palin administration had sought to put pressure on Harbour Adjustment to deny Wooten's claim.

According to Branchflower, he received a tip from a former employee of Harbour Adjustment that someone from the Palin administration had asked the former employee to deny Wooten's claim. But this information is contradicted by Wooten's own attorney Chancy Croft and Murlene Wilkes, owner of Harbor Adjustment Service.

The article points to a very biased suggestion by Branchflower when it is reported that "Branchflower told legislators that Wilkes might have had a financial motive to be 'not truthful' because of the state contract."

What Branchflower forgets is; if it is true that the Palin administration wanted Wooten's claim denied, then this "financial motive" that Branchflower suggests would have surfaced with an actual denial.

It looks as if Branchflower is indeed biased in his "feelings" on the truthfulness of Wilkes.

In Branchflower's report however, he makes the following findings:

Harbor Adjustment Service of Anchorage, and its owner Ms. Murleen Wilkes, handled Trooper Michael Wooten's workers' compensation claim properly and in the normal course of business likes any other claim processed by Harbor Adjustment Service and Ms. Wilkes. Further. Trooper Wooten received all workers' compensation benefits to which he was entitled.

How Branchflower's statements played out

The date of the article in which Branchflower's statement about the truthfulness of Wilkes was September 25, 2008.

In the article it seems Branchflower made the biased comments on September 12, 2008 when he went before the Senate Judiciary to obtain subpeonas. The Senate Judiciary Commitee is chaired by Senator Hollis French.

At the time of the published story on September 25, 2008, and going back to September 12, 2008, Inspector Branchflower had disposed Ms. Wilkes. So the question has to be asked, were Inspector Branchflower's comments a breach of ethics within the confines of the investigation. And how did his comments affect public discourse.

Well today, Ms. Wilkes sent out the following letter to certain parties like Alaska's Bad Boy Blogger Andrew Halcro:

I am Murlene Wilkes. I am going to issue a truthful comment to all of the bloggers who have lied over and over on these internet "web sites of sensationalism" as follows:

1) My deposition affirms that I do not know, nor have I ever had a conversation of any sort with Sarah or Todd Palin. I have never changed my testimony - "Flops like a Fish Out of Water" I THINK NOT!!!

2)No one has ever suggested or requested to anyone in my Company, nor to me, that Trooper Wooten's workers compensation claim should be denied. He received all statutory benefits and his claim was eventually settled.

3)The "tipster" with allegations of "feeling pressure to deny the Trooper's claim", was a former employee, disgruntled, insubordinate and not eligible for rehire when she terminated well over a year ago.

4) The Contract - my proposal was $240K more per year (not $300K as reported on these web sites). The increase was for benefits, raises, cost of living increases for the twelve (12) employees exclusively working on this account. The competitor protesting the selection of Harbor as the successful contractor, had only three employees (two of which were buying the competitor's business contingent upon the award of this contract) for the unconfirmed sum of $1.1 Million. THE CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED.

Therefore, please post your names and e-mail addresses with any continuing defaming and libel remarks so that you can be added as a defendant in the litigation contemplated for the future path these websites inspire.

Murlene J. Wilkes, President


Now getting back to the article published on September 25, 2008 in the Anchorage Daily News.

The ADN reported that Trooper Wooten's own attorney Chancy Croft stated the following: Wooten's workers' comp lawyer saw no intervention

A lawyer who represented embattled state Trooper Mike Wooten in his claim for workers' compensation benefits said he saw no evidence Gov. Sarah Palin's office interfered in the case.

The big question has to be asked of Inspector Branchflower, why was Chancy Croft never subpoenaed? It seems publicly he had no worry about lawyer-client privilege.

So why didn't Branchflower question him? And are sanctions against Inspector Branchflower valid?

No comments: