PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

passes muster under substantive due process because equal protection
scrutiny is stricter. Id. at 1124-25. Alaska’s statute will probably pass muster
because there is a reasonable relationship between the goal of limiting violence
committed by young people with ATV’s and prohibiting those young people
from possessing the ATV’s.
(Haeg never received any hearing, either pre or postseizure, after the seizure of his property –
and the troopers, in their own report, documented that Haeg asked “When I can I get my plane
back because I have clients coming in tomorrow and have to set up bear camp.” The troopers
responded “Never.” Brent Cole, Haeg’s first attorney, testified under oath at Bar Fee Arbitration
that the law did not allow a hearing. Haeg’s property, including airplane, was forfeited and
afterward the state argued they had authority to do so under the same forfeiture statutes as Waiste
v. State – as they failed to ever place a forfeiture notice in any charging document – as required.
After Haeg’s property was forfeited the state prosecutor, Scot Leaders, stated in a certified
document that Haeg had no right to a postseizure hearing.)
299