If the appalling legislative effort to force Attorney General Paul Morrison (in photo) to prosecute abortion doctor George Tiller really is over, that’s a victory for the separation of powers and the rule of law. Some say the mandate fell victim to a procedural problem; others say it was only for show, timed to Tuesday’s anti-abortion rally at the Capitol. In any case, Morrison can now do his job as he sees fit, which is what voters overwhelmingly elected him to do. Lawmakers, if they were serious about doing their jobs, would repeal the 1879 provision allowing the House to direct the attorney general to proceed with a prosecution.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
60 Comments
Let’s say that two judges ruled there was probable cause that crimes were committed. Let’s say a county prosecutor, and possibly the state attorney general, just ignored this probable cause possibly influenced by a BIG money donor (and possible defendant) to their political party and certain non-profits — which indirectly helped in the election perhaps.
This sounds more and more like political corruption, but using McClatchy paper logic you blame the person trying to enforce existing laws, and suppress any fair explanation of the case. McClatchy paper logic apparently requires journalists to use name calling and sophomoric blog entries to confuse the issue.
When will the IRS complete their investigation of all the non-profit money used to elect Morrison? What research has the Eagle done about that abuse of non-profit money used for political purposes? Have you sent your request for information to the IRS in Ogden, UT yet? To get started with this research, fill out IRS form 4506-A (see http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506a.pdf) and request the public information about the non-profits. The IRS 990s might not be available for months, however. Oh, McClatchy papers don’t do research like that?
What about “checks and balances” in government? In case there is corruption in state government, the 1879 law serves as a check and balance on an elected official that may not be prosecuting someone. Did I say that two judges found probable cause that crimes were committed?
To be fair, we should let Morrison have his way and review the existing case. Morrison would only need to explain why he’s right and the judges were wrong if he does not prosecute. Only then would the legislature’s action be in order. Did I say that two judges found probable cause that crimes were committed?
Why are the Eagle and many others on the left so afraid of letting this case go to court? Why are you so afraid of the truth? Did I say that two judges found probable cause that crimes were committed?
Sounds like your looking into the conservative “Mystic – I know the future Globe”
Morrison says he will continue his investigation into the allegations and decide in a week or two what his office will do. Let him do his job.
You also can ask the non-ptofits for their public info records, and from what I remember when working for 2 NFP’s they have to provide the info within 24 hours. Many keep them handy for people to peruse — why should the Beagle do any research when they have you to do it for them — and besides they don’t do investigative reporting.
“The Irony of Women Rights” by RepublicanA Story of Rhoda Lavinia Goodell
Some years after the Civil War, a young woman in Wisconsin, Rhoda Lavinia Goodell had become the understudy of a Lawyer and studied Law with great enthusiasm. She gained knowledge of the subject and became quite proficient at it.
Lavinia want to try a case before the court but had not attended the Bar. She challenged the system and met unyielding opposition.
In 1870, Justice Edward Ryan, a descenting Supreme Court Judge outraged at Lavinia’s Petition, stated,
“[t]he peculiar qualities of womanhood, its gentle graces, its quick sensibility, its tender susceptibility, its parity . . . its emotional impulses, its subordination of hard reason to sympathetic feeling, are surely not qualifications for forensic strife.” The temperament of the day that women were psychologically unfit to gain admission to the Bar.
The Petition to try a case was denied in February 1876. Writing for the court, Chief Justice Edward G. Ryan expressed further outrage at the petition, describing Lavinia’s efforts as “a departure from the order of nature” and “treason against it.” He wrote: “Nature has tempered woman as little for the juridical conflicts of the court room, as for the physical conflicts of the battle field.”
Lavinia later persuaded the Wisconsin Legislature to remove the barrier the court had erected and on March 22, 1877, it passed a bill prohibiting denial of admission to the bar on the basis of gender. She applied again for admission to practice before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Her petition was granted on June 18, 1879.
On March 11, 1880, Lavinia learned that she had won a criminal case before the supreme court. She wrote in her diary: “I have beaten the Attorney General of the State and reversed Judge Conger’s decision. I had no assistance, so it was a pure woman’s victory!” She died three weeks later, just a month before her 41st birthday. Four years earlier Lavinia learned she had an ovarian tumor, ultimately resulting in her early death.
The irony of struggle for Women’s Rights is typified by Lavinia Goodell.
Twelve days later in 1879 Kansas the Legislature passed a law that could affect the outcome of Women’s rights in regards to Abortion Rights for Women. Instead of a lone female Petitioner, it was the State Legislature pressing its power.
A law which could be used to test a case not yet tried but documents filed and the Petitioner denied by Kansas Courts. The Petitioner was denied the right to be heard. According to the charges made in the documents, some patients achieved late term abortions because of psychological unfitness to bear a child.
As you may remember from the story Judge Ryan of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and others declared that women were psychologically unfit to gain admission to the Bar denying her rights as a Woman.
Evidently, there is no need for conflict in the court room according to Attorney General Paul Morrison. Is this just a paradoxical entity of Judge Ryan’s denying rights to a woman because they are psychologically unfit? Or is the paradox laying heavy on Attorney General Paul Morrison’s shoulders as he is defending the rights of women in their “psychologically unfitness” to qualify for late term abortion.
It is ironic, that an early Attorney, Laticia Goodell died childless. She said before her death, “I have beaten the Attorney General of the State and reversed Judge Conger’s decision. I had no assistance, so it was a pure woman’s victory!”
What victory for Women’s rights shall we celebrate if Attorney General Morrison succeeds? That women have the right to remain childless?
Perhaps the victory will be that the mother will have the choice to remain childless, keeping their Women’s Rights because of their “psychological unfitness” to bear children.
The paradox of time has held in the past that the absence of consequence was used to deny Women’s Rights for opportunity. Now, in juxtaposition of that standard of Rights, the case before Attorney Paul Morrison is that opportunity was and must be afforded for Women’s Right because of “psychological unfitness” and further that by denying a petitioner of the Court said rights to uphold the absence of consequence in Roe V. Wade.
I find the situation ironic and how Courts can use paradox to support or deny rights.
“…others say it was only for show, timed to Tuesday’s anti-abortion rally…”
And just who would these mysterious “others” be, rhonda?Maybe YOU?
“…the 1879 provision allowing the House to direct the attorney general to proceed with a prosecution.”
This was all legal to boot.
Prosecution by mob rule. Just perfect. The end result will be anarchy and chaos in our legal system, and ultimately, tyranny.
If you don’t like the Attorney General, vote him out in four years. Otherwise, let him do his job.
“…anarchy and chaos in our legal system, and ultimately, tyranny.”
Houston, we have trifecta.EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Asstampon, at least you actually quoted me this time, instead of making things up for me to say. I appreciate that.
You still miss the point, however. Your unwillingness or inability to address the issue with anything but insult and mockery shows you have little to contribute to any rational discussion.
That’s very sad.
“…anarchy and chaos in our legal system, and ultimately, tyranny.”
If the point is overstatement, crisis and doom behind every tree, I get it.
The point is this: There was an angry mob of anti-choice protestors at the Capitol, demanding that the Legislature “do something” to compel the Attorney General to file charges, warranted or not. The House Federal and State Affairs Committee had a “hearing” that sent a “bill” to the House floor that would have triggered charges under the 1879 statute.
There’s a reason I use quotes around “hearing” and “bill.” Read carefully: An extremist minority of the House broke its own rules, which are established as law by the *whole* House, in order to compel the AG to take a specific action. Not only is there a legal process followed by the AG’s office, there’s a legal process that’s supposed to be followed by the Legislature. This violation is exactly why the Speaker ultimately withdrew the illegal bill.
This is very simple: An extremist minority in the House responded to an angry mob, and tried to compel charges where none may be warranted. Is this how we want our state and country run? Prosecution by mob rule?
What happened to the vaunted “law and order” philosophy the Republicans used to have?
I’m back.
I’ve been reading I never stopped. It was quite comical to watch you all pat yourselves on the back over and over and over and over again. And over again. Even if it wasn’t about you.
Republicon, are you seriously going to try to equate the right of a woman to choose to practice law with the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body?
It’s not like Tiller forced women who were emotionally unstable to abort you know, they came to him for help.
I’m rather incensed that you would try to use a feminist victory to try to influence a feminist defeat of control of her own decisions. Which it would be for all women.
And Meadowlark always neglects to tell the entire story, the story he knows. That it’s over PAPERWORK! Paperwork that was done, but not to the liking of the former AG, who was SOUNDLY defeated. No matter how much money you think Tiller bought off Morrison with, he didn’t buy the votes of all the Kansans.
And Tom, you rock man. I’m ever so happy you joined the board. We’ve met :D.
“This violation is exactly why the Speaker ultimately withdrew the illegal bill.”
Law and order worked. Not exactly,”…anarchy and chaos in our legal system, and ultimately, tyranny.”
The Speaker withdrew the bill *not* because he’s Mr. Law and Order. He pulled the bill because his bullying of the House didn’t work, and he was facing a revolt by the moderates. My point stands: You’re arguing for use of a statute that would turn the Kansas system of justice into rule by whichever pressure group could put the biggest, angriest mob in the Rotunda.
Of course the decision whether to prosecute should be left to the AG. But Morrison should be held to making a decision and not letting the matter slide.
And if he decides not to prosecute, he should fully explain the rationale for his decision. Did KSMeadowlark mention that that two judges found probable cause that crimes were committed?
Outlander, I’m with you right up to “KSMeadlowlark says”. He says lots of things, many that make my eyes roll.
I know Yost found “probably cause,” which is unsurprising given that Kline venue-shopped and Yost is well-known for his anti-choice views.
However, I can’t find the name of the second judge who found probable cause, and I’ve looked on several sites, including Operation Rescue and CWA. They both mention two judges, but only Yost is named. Who is the second judge, and what was the date of the hearing and ruling?
If Morrison is truly about supporting the “law and only the law” then why has he not prosecuted the title loan company he says illegally kept someone’s money? He said that a title loan company here in Kansas repossessed a car after the owner defaulted on the loan. The company then sold the car and got more money than was owed on the loan and he said the loan company kept the money instead of giving the excess back to the owner of the car.
He said this was illegal in the newspaper and at a committee hearing in Topeka about payday loan companies but he has yet to file any charges. Why not?
sts, this is against the relevant provisions of the UCC and UCCC; not necessarily, at this point, a violation of any penal statute. Thus, the borrower should file a civil suit to recover the apparently wrongfully withheld funds.
VT – thanks counselor. What I would love to see is a couple of the large law firms take some cases pro bono and take these sleazes to the cleaners. Maybe even a contingency with punitive damages.
BTW – back to the thread. How often does the AG prosecute MISDEMEANORS?
On the repo matter sts posted above: I forgot to add “and, after hearing the public pronouncements of Mr. Morrison, the loan company might have made disbursement of the excess proceeds to the borrower, thus ending the matter” after “penal statute”. My apologies for the omission.
Ben, as I recall, not looking at the relevant statutes to ascertain, there is a potential of recovery of attorney fees for certain violations thereof, especially the UCCC.
It’s the Starr Principle- spend enough public money and hijack enough investigations and misinterpret enough evidence, and you’ll no doubt find something you can leverage into a prosecution of your intended target.
The speaker pulled the bill because he didn’t have the votes to pass it and he didn’t want to see the far right get the spanking they would have deserved.
The law was designed to allow the legislature to “order” the AG to sue – think civil action – on behalf of the state. It was never intended to usurp independent legal analysis and the rule of law in a criminal prosecution.
Hi Political Mom,
Wasn’t trying to do anything other than pointing out the irony of decisions sometimes made in law.
That is, that the psychologically unfitness of Women was used against Women’s Right and was employed again for Women’s rights.
“No matter how much money you think Tiller bought off Morrison with, he didn’t buy the votes of all the Kansans.”Posted by Pmom
Pmom welcome, I would say back, but as you say you never left.
I would refer you to another topic out today about a republican mailout. The amount of money donated by the nonprofs would be very relevant. Not only did they have groups that put out pro Morrison ads but also anti Kline ads. This very much could have influenced many voters.
At the least I think the AG should tell us why he doesn’t think the opinion of these two judges merit at least a lookover by him.
This really isn’t about the availability of abortion on demand, it is about whether Tiller and other abortion providers are above the reporting laws other doctors are under.
I think it’s wrong to assume voters are quite so easily bought. Remember, the default logic in Kansas is to be more conservative. Nobody liked Kline, especially the moderates. His whole entire job was focused on Tiller, which was NOT his job. When the news came out that Tiller had not broken the law by reporting the minors, that’s where Kline lost most of his credibility.
Like Barnett in the previous thread, he rolled his dice thinking he had a slam dunk, and lost.
This is where OR, Kansans for Life, and Kline all go wrong. They’ve beat the prosecution drum for so long trying to demonize Tiller as this evil man who skirts the law at every turn to kill babies, but that isn’t how Tiller does. And at every turn when they investigate endlessly and Tiller is proven innocent, they lose more and more credibility every time.
The religious right in the House quit because they knew Morrison would not fold and he would stand up to them. Look folks, the religious right did NOT have the votes to try to force Morrison to act against Tiller. They are not a majority in the House and only advance their adgenda because too many House members are afraid of them. Now, those cowardly ones are realizing that the religious right does not have the power to win these abortion arguements. The rule by which politicians work is, if you can’t win don’t force the issue. The religious right of Neufeld, Merrick, Dahl, Kinzer, and Kelsey did not force the issue. So……
Publican,You might want to work on your reasoning skills and maybe learn to edit. I hate to have to go through such longwinded posts only to find that the conclusions don’t begin to fit the text. You could have been just as wrong in only 1/10th the space.
rightwingwatch.org/
Schlafly: Married Women Can’t Be Raped By HusbandsAs the Washington Post reported yesterday, there is a new push afoot to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which “faltered a quarter-century ago when the measure did not gain the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures.”
That being the case, we will probably start hearing a lot from the Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, who ironically established her reputation and career as a right-wing powerhouse by single-mindedly setting out to fight the ERA.
For nearly two hours, she belittled the feminist movement as “teaching women to be victims,” decried intellectual men as “liberal slobs” and argued that feminism “is incompatible with marriage and motherhood.”
…
One came when Schlafly asserted women should not be permitted to do jobs traditionally held by men, such as firefighter, soldier or construction worker, because of their “inherent physical inferiority.”
“Women in combat are a hazard to other people around them,” she said. “They aren’t tall enough to see out of the trucks, they’re not strong enough to carry their buddy off the battlefield if he’s wounded, and they can’t bark out orders loudly enough for everyone to hear.”
At one point, Schlafly also contended that married women cannot be sexually assaulted by their husbands.
“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape,” she said.
It’s all about paperwork? No, it’s about the evidence of crimes.
Medicare fraud is often prosecuted and it usually only involves paperwork — and medical records. I guess you think that it is unreasonable to prosecute such paperwork crimes. Most securities fraud cases are only about paperwork. Are white collar crimes only about paperwork not really crimes? Abuse of non-profit money for use in political mailings is just a paperwork crime.
Did I say that two judges found probable cause that crimes were committed? One Democrat and one Republican.
FRAUD is way different than this! You’re so chomping at the bit to end abortion you’ll use ANY tiny little thing to try to wedge yourself in the door of conviction, and again, you’ll fall flat on your face.
You can’t sway the will of the people to keep abortion legal, so you’ll try run all the doctors out. I’m so thankful we have doctors like Tiller who will NOT be terrorized into surrending.
The paperwork was done. It wasn’t altered, he didn’t send in false papers to get payment. He isn’t conning women out of money, he’s LEGAL. And you just can’t stand that.
I don’t care what your activist judges say. There is reason why Kline had to go judge shopping.
Now doesn’t Shawnee Co. Richard Anderson feel really silly now.
If they go forward with this prosecution, and when Tiller is found not guilty….I think he should get to turn around and sue every one of you.
I predicted that PMom would be back before the end of the month…
As usual, I was right.
Political Mama: The legal case had two parts, both of which you choose to ignore: You choose to protect child predators. You choose to look the other way as viable babies are extinguished.
Women seeking “normal” abortions were never the target of investigations, yet the press never explains that.
You say viable babies are never aborted in Kansas? KDHE just reported that 233 viable babies were aborted in 2006: http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/06itop1.pdf (See question 15a on p. 8).
Abortion of a perfectly viable child … this is barbaric. This is gruesome. This is awful, yet you feel nothing when viable babies are extinguished like this? Human life has no value?
At recent Town Hall meetings, Kline was asked questions about all of this. Kline gave detailed explanations, which the press doesn’t seem to be able to investigate or report. The press is mostly interested in reporting that Kline can never run for political office again.
Seehttp://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2007/03-10/index.htm
Section 4. Late-Term Abortion / Child Predators (I’ll spare you posting that whole section here)
As part of a response to a question at the Zenith Boosters Club several weeks ago, Kline even speculated that if charges are filed, a conviction is not likely. However, the case will shed some light on the barbarism allowed in Kansas, which would shock many people.
What are the grounds for Tiller to sue me, or others? I investigate and report political money stories and other items often ignored by the Kansas press. Is it illegal to report news being suppressed by the Kansas press?
Someone in Ohio started this sitehttp://chargetiller.com and so far 3311, many from Kansas, have asked to “Charge Tiller” for violation of Kansas statutes. Is Tiller to sue all these folks because they don’t have free speech rights?
Why is it so wrong to promote the value of human life, and a Culture of Life in our society? Why is it “radical” to promote human life? Why is it somehow “normal” to promote a Culture of Death?
Did I say that two judges found probable cause that crimes were committed?
You lie and distort. I never said viable babies weren’t aborted. I questioned when viable was, compared to what you think viable is. And you said babies aborted the day before birth. I proved to you that simply does not happen. But as usual, look here, you change my words around and fit them to meet what you wanted me to say.
Viable or not, that baby is STILL inside that woman’s body. And I will err on the side of the woman’s right to know what’s best for her every time.
Please show where sexual predators were protected! You know full well the investigation showed that Tiller did report just as he should have. Just like I told you would happen.
We may disagree, but that doesn’t show I have ever intentionally lied or distorted anything. I try to use facts and logic, but politics isn’t a perfect process. We likely cannot even agree on what may be “facts” in this matter.
I agree that I cannot prove that abortions were performed the day before birth. Because I don’t have the evidence, doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable to speculate it can happen given the other late-term abortions. But, once viable, isn’t every day a possible day before birth for an unborn child? My arguments and logic were plausible.
Very late term abortions are ghastly and barbaric, and the majority of people think they’re not happening at all. You think that barbarism doesn’t creep into other facets of our culture? I’m only arguing to try to respect human life whenever possible. Your arguments always allow for a Culture of Death, and ignore state law when it’s convenient.
I have tried to explain how sexual predators are being protected when the “evidence” is destroyed by an abortion. You choose to ignore the facts and logic about this. There are consquences for lack of action to get these predators. You don’t like the logic I’m using, but in the final analysis, the sexual predators are being protected by the lack of action against them.
While we don’t know much about the cases, there are hints, e.g., Tiller reported legal reasons for medical procedures. Does your doctor cite legal reasons for medical actions? Tiller’s paperwork says “I followed the law” but didn’t provide the necessary medical reasons for the actions taken to comply with state law. You are saying Tiller can put anything on those forms and is above any review, or anyone challenging his decision. I am only saying Kansas Law should be followed.
Why not let a jury decide? Did I say that two judges found probable cause that crimes were committed?
KSMeadowlark wrote:”I agree that I cannot prove that abortions were performed the day before birth. Because I don’t have the evidence, doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable to speculate…”
Uhm, no. Speculation without evidence is, pure and simple, bullsh*t.
I can speculate that evangelical preachers routinely drown cute fuzzy kitties in baptismal fonts. But that’s hardly the stuff worthy of a political movement. Unless, of course, I were to borrow tactics from Operation Rescue and other radical Womens’ Rights opponents.
I could draw cute fluffy cartoon kitties being drowned in Baptist churches and claim that many people don’t like cats, some of them might be Baptists (the people, not the kitties), and Baptists have a big ol’ tank of water right there in the church suitable for drowning kittens!
Just because I have no evidence doesn’t mean I can’t “speculate,” right?
But I did cite evidence: the 233 late term abortions from just last year. My observations were about what that evidence likely means.
Where did drowning cats in baptismal fonts come from? Why are you more concerned with kittens than babies and human life? Why is promoting the Culture of Life so radical?
Did I say that two judges found probable cause that crimes were committed?
Let’s take this one step further. It’s the ol’ FAUX Noise Channel tactic of, “Some people say….”
You’ve got a totally bogus issue — that, say, John Edwards should drop out of the presidential race due to Elizabeth’s cancer. The Foxy’s were all over the air before the Edwards’ announcement that he *would* withdraw, and Steevy Doocy muttered something along the lines of, “How could he deal with a *real* crisis if he doesn’t have the stuff to transcend personal crises and deal with the nation’s problems?” Then the *real* announcement came and FAUX Noise Channel was all over the Edwards for being so crass as to put politics above her medical challenge.
So here it is:
“It’s been said that Evangelicals routinely drown adorable kittens in their baptismal fonts! How can you defend that?!”
Now *I’m* not accusing them. It was “Save the Kitties” who said it, on an official forum of a mid-major American newspaper! Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, after all. I remember when I was a kid someone found a drowned mouse in a baptismal font. I figured it was just some poor mouse that fell in, but now I wonder. Have the evangelicals moved up from mice to cute cuddly kitties?! This is mere speculation on my part, but according to KSMeadowlark, I don’t need evidence to speculate and attack. I demand the Kansas Attorney General launch a full-frontal attack against evangelicals and make them *PROVE* they don’t drown kittens in their baptismal fonts!
There’s obviously no other explanation why Paul Morrison hasn’t led an investigation into evangelical kitten-drowners! He’s been bought off!
It’s been reported that evangelicals routinely drown adorable fuzzy kittens in their baptismal fonts. How do they get away with it? Just speculating here, but did you know there is no law in Kansas requiring churches to report how many kitties they drown in their baptismal fonts every year? Obviously (again, just speculating) the kitten-drowners are hiding behind the law.
Certainly there’s a cat-loving judge somewhere who can find Probable Cause and spur the Legistlature to act, forcing kitty-drowner-loving Morrison to face this horrible travesty!
I propose an immediate bill banning evangelicals from drowning poor hapless kitties! If you don’t support the motion, you must support Kitty drowning!
kitty drowner you make a very good point. There IS no law requiring evangelicals to report how many kitties they are drowning in their baptismal tanks.
However there are very stringent laws that structure the type of reporting required of George Tiller and any other abortion provider. If as meadowlark has pointed out once or twice, there were two judges, one democrat and one republican, that thought the case against Tiller was strong enough to bring charges, then Morrison should as least give this more that the abrupt dismissal he did after taking office.
By the way I bet we will see a law against drowning cats by evangelicals before we see Morrison go after Tiller.
With our activist legislatures that would protect us against porn in the classroom laws, you can count on it. Watch for ‘Tabby’s Law’ coming to a State House near you.
Purrrr.
Glug glug.
Meew.
Glug glug.
Purrr.
Glug glug.
Meew.
Glug glug.
Purrr.
Glug…
“Ye MUST be born again!”
Not, “again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again!”
Those little 9-Lives Heathens, sleeping during the day and prowling at night… if they had a chance they’d attack Mickey Mouse, toy with him, torture him, and still expect tuna at suppertime!
Sloth and gluttony! Thy name is kitties! Two out of seven deadly sins is good enough for me!
God bless all those evangelicals who drown kittens in their baptismal fonts!
Those legislators now preparing to ram through “Tabby’s Law” are obviously the tools of Satan!
I keep reading about these “two judges.” I know Yost was one – who was the other? When was the probable cause hearing?
Where are all the press reports of this? This was harder to find than I thought it would be.
Richard D Anderson, Topeka (D)
October 5, 2006http://www.cjonline.com/stories/100506/leg_agrace.shtml
“In the subpoena, which started the debate about Kline’s efforts to obtain medical records, Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson says he had found ‘probable cause exists to believe that evidence of a crime or crimes may be located in the medical records.’”
“Kline noted the judge only needed to have ‘reasonable suspicion’ to issue subpoenas during such investigations. Probable cause is a higher standard.”
Read the whole article and note a bit of arrogance by political candidate Morrison:
“But Morrison cast doubt on whether Kline really had achieved probable cause. And he called reasonable suspicion ‘a very, very low standard’ that could be abused by a prosecutor who wasn’t being honest with a judge.”
“He said the probable cause standard was ‘a lot higher.’”
“Morrison said he didn’t know why Anderson allowed the probable cause language in the document.”
“‘Assuming he read it,’ Morrison said.”
Morrison hates Kline so much he impugned the character of a district judge because the judge ruled Kline’s way? Morrison had not read it but doubts a district judge had?
For now, I’ll give Morrison the benefit of the doubt until he finishes his review and explains what he plans to do.
Remember, none of the court rulings about this case relate to the actual merits of the case. Why is that evidence to be ignored because of procedural rulings?
Why doesn’t the Kansas press report that that two judges (one Democrat, one Republican) found probable cause that crimes may have been committed?
Why doesn’t the Kansas press report that that two judges (one Democrat, one Republican) found probable cause that crimes may have been committed?
Posted by: KS Meadowlark | March 31, 2007 at 11:28 PM
You say that right below an article that covers exactly what you’re saying the press doesn’t cover…
Orwell would be proud.
Wrong again Tom. She said press reports were hard to find, not non-existent.
Reading Rainbow would be disappointed. :)
A. KS Meadowlark is a he, not a she.
B. He said “Why doesn’t the Kansas press report” not “Why are articles hard to find”
Oh my.
This reminds me of when I was in nursing school. I had charted something like this:
“The catheter is patent, draining clear, yellow urine, and the bag is hanging from the bedframe.”
My instructor took issue with my wording and said that I should have written “hanging from THE SIDE of the bedframe”.
Well, duh.
There are all sorts of details that you could chart about, petty little insignificant details that would force you to write an entire book on your patient.
“the patient has a wrinkle on her forehead”….”the patient had 32 freckles on her upper left arm”
But in reality, that’s not what happens in the real world. Most of the time, you have a piece of paper that says “Urinary assessment”: none, catheter, blah blah blah and you circle the appropriate thing. No detail, but if there is an exception to normal, there is a place you can write it in, a tiny little space.
So you can see why ‘hanging from the side of the bedframe’ was a little ridiculous.
You can ALWAYS find something wrong with anything. Even with the best of documentation. This is exactly what Kline’s little fiasco is about. Tiller didn’t write “from the side of the bedframe”.
Sounds like it’s all a smokescreen to distract us from the kitty drownings.
“Where are all the press reports of this? This was harder to find than I thought it would be.”
The topic starts out like this, Tom.
Oh dear.
Perhaps you missed the part where I directly quoted Meadowlark’s post, including pasting in the time and date stamp of the post I was quoting from. Just so there’d be no confusion, you know.
Bird,”Did I say that two judges found probable cause that crimes were committed? One Democrat and one Republican.”You’ve said it several times now, and we’re still waiting for the names and dates and cases to back up said statement. Put up or shut up!
I think Yost and Anderson were the two Judges involved in Kline’s petition. The other Judge, Clark was the one who turned down the petition at the behest of District Attorney Foulston.
Yost ruled on the last-second charges Kline tried to bring against Tiller after he got his ass kicked in the election. We know Yost’s personal views, and we can safely assume he was venue-shopped.
Anderson issued the original 2004 subpoenas in the “fishing expedition.” There was never any hearing that found probable cause; instead, Anderson took Kline at his word on the “probable cause” claim and signed off on the subpoenas. Anderson was later chided by the Kansas Supreme Court on that subject: “The standard governing a district court’s review of the attorney general’s allegations before issuing inquisition subpoenas is reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause.”
In other words, no matter how much the radicals scream “two judges have found probable cause,” it’s an exaggeration at best. It’s two different cases – one that ruled on the ability of the AG to conduct an inquisition and was shot down, the other on the ability of the AG to overstep his jurisdiction, also shot down.
The fact that it’s two separate cases involving different legal questions explains why Meadlowlark had a hard time finding press reports. It wasn’t because there wasn’t any press coverage. It was covered *extensively.* I think what we have here are people repeating Troy Newman’s talking points until they actually believe them.
Since I have no idea who Troy Newman is, I don’t think I can repeat his talking points. Who is Troy Newman?
I personally agree with some aspects of abortion up to a point. It shouldn’t be used as a substitute for birth control, any physician will tell you that repetitive abortions can cause many problems.
I still have my own convictions on what life is, but I can’t prove it and even if I could, I would have an uphill road convincing the Justice system that my definition of life would over rule Women’s Rights or should I say a pregnant mother’s rights…
…kind of oxymoronic “mother’s rights” for someone who wants an abortion…er nm. :)
Troy Newman is the oversized mouth behind Operation Rescue West.
He’s also the baffoon who dressed up like a cockroach at the Sebelius/ Barnett debate at the state fair.
That was a costume??? It looked so…natural.
Ha!
I’ve run into Troy Newman on various occasions. He’s a typical bullshit salesman, doing the least possible work necessary to hold on to his cushy job at ORW.