Court Opinion

ID: 9539464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:04:43.909486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:50.699317
License: Public Domain

RABINO WITZ, Chief Justice,
with whom MATTHEWS, J., joins, dissenting in part and concurring with the result.
I dissent from the court’s affirmance of the DOR’s ruling that Handley’s application was intentionally deceptive and therefore was appropriately rejected. More particularly, my review of the record persuades me that there is an absence of substantial evidence to support the majority’s conclusion that the information contained in Handley’s application was “false information provided with the intention that DOR be deceived.”
As the majority correctly notes in regard to Handley’s original application he "... printed the name ‘Harry Davis D.A.’ and signed in cursive the name ‘Judge Warren Taylor’ in the boxes requesting the signature of ‘Spouse, Relative or Friend.’ Under each of these, in boxes requesting the printed name of the person ‘Who Signed Above,’ Handley wrote ‘Fbx’.”9 In my opinion the following features of the questioned application information are significant. Although the signatures are in different handwriting from each other, they are not in different handwriting from the remainder of the application. Both were obviously written by Handley. The printed name matches thé printing on the application and the cursive name matches Hand-ley’s own verifying signature. Moreover, the listing of the address as “Fbx” cannot be considered substantial evidence of intentional deception.
In addition to the above, I think Hand-ley’s explanations carry the day. At one point in the record Handley writes:
I realize that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for anything. But, I honestly didn’t believe that I was doing wrong, by putting the Judge’s and the District Attorneys names on the application. Specially after I had did it so many times & no problems. For who would better know that I am a resident of Alaska & will be for many years.
(Emphasis provided.)10
For the reasons stated above, I conclude that DOR’s rejection of Handley’s 1987 permanent fund dividend application cannot be sustained on the basis that the information submitted in the original application was deceptive.11

. The record is uncontradicted that from 1982 to 1986 DOR approved Handley’s permanent fund dividend applications all of which were completed in the same manner as the now questioned 1987 application.

. This theme is reiterated throughout the record. For instance, at another point in the record Handley states: “I honestly thought that I was'filling out the forms correctly. For who would better know that I am in prison and have been since September 17, 1977, than the judge who had sentenced me, and the District Attorney who had prosecuted me?”

.I am of the view that rejection of Handley’s application is supportable on the basis that Handley lacked the intent to reside in Alaska throughout the period in question.