Peter J. Smith

Phill Kline ethics trial adjourns for now: battle has cost him $200,000 says Kline

Peter J. Smith
Peter J. Smith

TOPEKA, Kansas, March 2, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The eight-day ethics trial against Phill Kline, the former Kansas attorney general and the only U.S. prosecutor to file criminal charges against Planned Parenthood, came to a conclusion this afternoon – but not before testimony detailed how the judicial system had been reworked against Kline in favor of the abortion clinics that he had targeted as part of a broad criminal investigation.

However, Wednesday only marked the end of part one of the Kline ethics trial. Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, reporting to LifeSiteNews.com from Topeka, said the second part will begin in several months. She said that while the case for Count I against Kline is over, the hearing for Count II will begin on July 19. Disciplinary Administrator Stan Hazlett will argue that Kline acted prejudiced in the administration of justice (Count II).

Each side will have a day and a half to argue their case, with closing arguments on the fourth day.

Motion to dismiss ethics charges

Stanek said that Kline’s attorneys filed a 148-page motion to dismiss the charges against him Tuesday afternoon. Hazlett will have until April 4 to respond to that motion. Kline’s attorneys will then have until April 18 to reply to Hazlett’s response.

The disciplinary panel will then make a judgment whether to dismiss the charges or continue proceeding with the trial.

Expert witness affirms Kline’s investigative tactics, delay of abortion file transfer

Although Kline was given less than a day to make a positive defense against Hazlett’s Count I charges of ethical misconduct, Stanek said he had enough time to call to the stand an expert witness who affirmed that the tactics Kline used throughout the investigation of Planned Parenthood and George Tiller were sound and routine in law enforcement investigations.

Tom Stanton, an investigator and ethics professor at Kansas University, testified that all of Phill Kline and his AG office’s actions in obtaining information from Social and Rehabilitative Services were ethical. He emphasized that Kline’s omitting to tell state agencies the full scope of his investigation was not a lie. But even so, Stanton added that it is entirely ethical for investigators to deceive, because the goal is not to let the target know what is going on.

“Police can actually lie to suspects, and not share the nature of the investigation with anyone,” Stanton said, as reported by Stanek.

Kline also faces charges of ethics violations in part because files relating to his criminal investigation of the abortion clinics were stored at an apartment for a month, until February 2007. However, Stanton testified on the stand that he agreed with the assessment of Tom Williams, Kline’s chief investigator, that the Johnson County District Attorney’s office was not secured. Williams had later moved the files after he deemed the office secure enough to safely store the files in the evidence room.

Stanton said conversations with Linda Carter, AG Paul Morrison’s former secretary and paramour at the DA’s office, confirmed the view that the office was not secure when Kline transitioned into Morrison’s former job.  He said Morrison had so poisoned the Johnson County DA’s office that attorneys were branded as “traitors” simply for working with Kline.

Illustrating the one-sidedness of the hostility, however, Stanton recounted that Kline had made overtures of good will to Morrison, and sent him a letter giving him information Morrison had requested and offering to help. Stanton said Morrison’s response to Kline’s letter was “thanks, but no thanks.”

Supreme Court order may have put key information in abortion clinics’ hands

On the final day of the proceedings Kline also testified that the Kansas Supreme Court had compelled him to hand everything and anything his criminal investigation gathered on abortion clinics to his successor as attorney general, Paul Morrison.

But according to Kline the information then may have then been handed over to Planned Parenthood and abortionist George Tiller. “I’ve been told all that information was then turned over to attorneys for abortion clinics,” Kline testified.

He also testified that the Kansas Supreme Court order did not stop at the targets of Kline’s investigation, i.e. Comprehensive Health Planned Parenthood (CHPP) in Johnson County and Tiller’s Women’s Health Care Services clinic in Wichita.

Stanek told LifeSiteNews.com that the high court’s order was so broad in scope, Kline had to hand over to Morrison prosecutors’ evidence given him that pertained to other abortion clinics under investigation. This included personal information, civil cases by child rape victims against Planned Parenthood in Ohio (for their failure to report child rape), and even information from Planned Parenthood employees, who had come forward from other clinics around the country.

Morrison had declared in May 2007 that he was clearing Planned Parenthood of criminal wrongdoing. However, when Kline took over Morrison’s position as DA of Johnson County, he continued his criminal investigation into Planned Parenthood’s failure to report child rape and conspiracy to commit illegal late-term abortions.

Morrison then joined with Planned Parenthood in a legal action against Kline to deprive him (as well as Judge Richard Anderson) of redacted copies of the medical records. That evidence formed the basis of the 107 criminal counts (including 23 felonies), which CHPP still faces today.  While Morrison did not succeed in stopping Kline from filing the case, the legal action created a delay that ensured that Kline was not able to prosecute the case before leaving office in January 2009.

Only two years later, has the criminal case against CHPP begun to move forward again.

Phill Kline: Legal battles have cost me $200,000

Stanek said that at the end of the day Kline resumed the stand, and testified that Morrison had denied him legal representation, even though he was being sued by abortion clinics for his actions in his public capacity as AG.

Kline said that he was forced to obtain private counsel, which has cost him $200,000 in legal fees. He said these legal costs have never been reimbursed by the state.

LifeSiteNews.com spoke with Kline at the conclusion of the day, and asked what he hoped would be the outcome of his trial.

“My hope and prayer is that the truth, which I believe was revealed in that hearing panel, comes out,” said Kline.

Kline also said that he hoped the Kansas legislature would take a renewed look at his investigation into the victims of child rape, unreported by abortion providers, “and that those in the executive branch of government might be willing to take a look and determine what needs to be done to ensure that appropriate investigations like ours move forward without undue interference.”

See the complete list of LSN stories by Peter Smith on the Kline trial:

* 107-count criminal case begins against Planned Parenthood in Kansas
* Phill Kline ethics trial: Day 1 – Live update
* Kansas abortionists failed to report 166 potential cases of child rape: Phill Kline trial day 2
* Phill Kline attorney makes witness sweat in Planned Parenthood ethics complaint case
* DA’s diary snatching brings new twist to Phill Kline ethics trial, potential crime
* Kansas Travesty: 249 child-age abortions over 3 years, just four sex abuse reports: Kline Hearings
* Kansas judge testifies ‘probable cause’ existed to investigate criminal PP activity: Kline Hearings
* Kline did not violate judge’s order in secret Planned Parenthood case: judge’s legal counsel
* Planned Parenthood gambit: beat Phill Kline charges, defeat Live Action?
* Former Tiller attorney combed CD of sensitive records from Kline investigation 
* The Phill Kline saga: Planned Parenthood protected, children forgotten, the prosecutor prosecuted
* Day 6 trial: Kline protected sexual assault victim privacy, Tiller compromised patient privacy
* Video: Kline says ‘those in power’ blocked Planned Parenthood, Tiller investigation
* Witness: Phill Kline didn’t need/want adult patient names
* Prosecutor tells investigator: we don’t have to accept report clearing Phill Kline
* UPDATE: Kline tells ethics panel, ‘You are violating my due process rights!’
* ‘It is wrong!’: Phill Kline blocked from presenting full defense, calling all witnesses
* Phill Kline: Kansas Supreme Court ‘obstructed’ child rape investigation to save Planned Parenthood

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent

Belgium approves euthanasia for rapist serving life sentence

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

Belgium’s Minister of Justice approved a euthanasia request Monday from a convicted rapist serving a life sentence.

The Brussels court of appeal will review the case September 29, but Belgian media report it is expected simply to record the existence of the agreement between the man and the government.

This would not be the first euthanasia of a Belgian prisoner – a terminally ill man who had already spent 27 years in jail was legally killed two years ago – but in the case of Frank Van Den Bleeken, the euthanasia request is being linked to the conditions of his imprisonment.

Van Den Bleeken, 50, has spent close to 30 years in prison. He was sentenced to life-long imprisonment for several counts of rape, one of them followed by murder. He has been declared irresponsible for these acts because of psychiatric disorders and does not want to be released from prison, considering himself to be “a danger for society.” Despite having repeatedly asked for psychiatric treatment, none has been forthcoming in the absence of any Belgian institution prepared to take up this sort of patient.

The convicted rapist says his psychological suffering is “intolerable” and it is on these grounds that three doctors decided last May that Van Den Bleeken should be entitled to euthanasia – even though he has also asked for a transfer to a Dutch institution where psychiatrically ill criminals receive adequate treatment and care.

He presented both demands to the minister of Justice via an emergency procedure. The Brussels appeal court decided that the minister, Maggie De Block, was not competent to order a transfer to the Netherlands but that she could decide to grant his request for euthanasia. The decision is being called a purely “medical” one by the minister who told the press that she confined herself to following the doctors’ opinion.

A previous euthanasia request made by Van Den Bleeken three years ago was rejected on the grounds that all had not been done to ensure that he would suffer less and that other options than death were available.

Now, even though it is clear that the prisoner would find more humane conditions of detention in nearby Holland, that he is conscious of the gravity of the acts he commits under the pressure of his mental illness, and that he is in need of medical care, the decision to make him die reads as a further trivialization of euthanasia in a country where an ever-increasing amount of psychological motives are being accepted to justify “mercy-killing.”

As in all the states of the European Union, the death penalty does not exist; it was abolished in Belgium in 1996. Rapists and murderers can find themselves sentenced to life-long sentences with no hope at all of ever being freed, a perspective which some find worse than death.

Since Van Den Bleeken’s story received media coverage, including a televised interview at the end of 2013, fifteen other prisoners have contacted the “UL-Team,” an information center for end-of-life questions, euthanasia expert Wim Distelmans told the media this Tuesday. He said those numbers are expected to rise. Distelmans is known for his support and active participation in cases of euthanasia for psychological reasons.

No date has been fixed for Van Den Bleeken’s death but his family has indicated that a doctor willing to perform the act has been found. Once the appeals court has given its ruling the prisoner will be allowed to leave the Turnhout prison where he is interned at present, and will be transferred to an unnamed hospital where he will be able to say goodbye to his family before receiving a lethal injection.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Sen. Rob Portman, R-OH http://portman.senate.gov
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

First GOP senator to back marriage redefinition may run for president in 2016

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

The first Republican U.S. senator to support same-sex “marriage” is considering running for president in 2016 – if he is re-elected this year.

Sen. Rob Portman, the junior senator from Ohio, told reporters he would decide about campaigning for the GOP presidential nod during a recent visit to New Hampshire, home of the first in the nation primary.

“I’m focused, as you can tell, on 2014 and on doing my job as a senator,” he said, according to The Daily Caller. “After the election, I'll take a look at it.”

Portman became the first Republican senator to support same-sex “marriage” last March, citing a two-year “evolution” that took place after he learned his son, Will, is homosexual. He announced his change of heart shortly after he “held a dozen meetings with big New York donors” who did not believe the GOP sufficiently championed the cause of redefining marriage, in his capacity as vice chairman of finance for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), according to Politico.

That provoked a backlash from pro-family leaders in the state, who warned Portman's move – which is at odds with the Republican Party platform – would splinter the Republican Party.”

That splintering could be seen on the pages of Ohio newspapers this month.

Lori Viars, vice president of Warren County Right to Life, wrote a column entitled, “Why Conservatives Are Dumping Portman.” She recounted asking then-Congressman Rob Portman if he would vote for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the 1990s.

“I thought he'd give me a quick yes and that I'd be on my way in search of air conditioning. But Portman would not answer my question. I pressed him, and again he deflected,” she wrote. “On my third (more emphatic) try, he got angry with me. He clearly did not want to take a position on DOMA. At the time, his son would have been in preschool.”

“Whatever his reason, Portman's flip-flop puts his presidential ambition at a disadvantage,” Viars wrote.

That garnered a ripping riposte from Mike Gonidakis of Ohio Right to Life, which was published as a letter to the editor. He accused Viars of “recklessly question[ing] Sen. Rob Portman's commitment to the pro-life cause.” Portman has a zero percent vote rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America and, while representing his conservative southwestern Ohio district voted against taxpayer funding for abortion at home and overseas, in favor of the partial birth abortion ban and protecting babies who are born alive during botched abortions, and against human cloning.

Still, Viars is not alone in distancing herself from the senator. Ohio's social conservative group, Citizens for Community Values, now lists Portman as an "unacceptable candidate."

In August 2013, Cleveland Right to Life criticized Rob Portman's stance. National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) President Carol Tobias sent a letter to CRTL, saying it had chosen to “disaffiliate” itself with NRLC because it had “issued public criticisms of and implicit political threats against a U.S. Senator who has supported the right-to-life position on every vote that has come before the Senate, and who is a sponsor of major NRLC-backed bills – because the chapter disagrees with his position on a non-right-to-life issue.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Aside from his stint in the U.S. Senate, the 58-year-old served 12 years in the House of Representatives and acted as U.S. Trade Representative and Director of Management and Budget under the George W. Bush administration, holding each office for one year, respectively. He largely favored free trade and voted for the 2002 authorization for the use of force against Iraq.

He has prepared presidential and vice presidential candidates for debates and has twice been considered for the vice presidential nomination, in 2008 and 2012.

Polls show Portman a virtual lock for re-election to the Senate. But the largely unknown, not especially charismatic senator does not register in polls for the presidential nomination of a party that is still committed to the traditional concept of marriage and family. 

Advertisement
Featured Image
A topless activist with Femen attacks Belgian Archbishop Andrè-Joseph Leonard, who is known for his strong pro-life and pro-family stance.
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Why are pro-abortion protesters always taking their clothes off?

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

I’ve seen a lot of bizarre responses to pro-life activism. There’s the crude picket signs, the illiterate chants, the flashes of violence, the incoherent threats that so often seem to involve used tampons, and even activists dressed up like giant genitalia.

But there is one phenomenon that never ceases to stagger me with its counterproductive stupidity and moral blindness: The increasing prevalence of “feminist” protestors, almost exclusively women, stripping down to “protest” something—usually protection for the pre-born or some other dissent from the totalitarian death cult of the Sexual Revolution.

When people ask me what the weirdest response to pro-life work is and I try to explain this phenomenon, they find it hard to believe. So do I. But yet it happens, time and time again.

The suicidal tendencies of modern-day feminism would be almost laughable if they were not so depressing.

One student stripped down and sat on a folding chair in front of our pro-life display at the University of British Columbia. A few protestors decided to protest the launch of our 2012 national tour by going topless. Then, at a presentation in London, Ontario, a bunch of pro-abortion protesters showed up at a counter-protest organized by the Canadian Auto Worker’s Union, sans clothing. And of course, at last year’s March for Life a topless Femen protestor flung herself at a remarkably composed Catholic bishop as he spoke to the crowd, shrieking “F*** your morals!”

You’d think such behaviour would attract ire rather than admiration. But this is 2014 and most of our municipal governments use our taxpayer’s cash basically to fund a day dedicated to that type of behaviour when the Pride Parade rolls around.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Instead, these women are now generally referred to as “brave.” Even the popular, but tiresomely far-left website Upworthy recently pushed a video with a street activist protesting harassment by misogynist pigs by standing on the street in her lingerie. (Little tip: Protesting the fact that some misogynists define you by your body by voluntarily showing them what they wanted to see in the first place isn't defiance, it's acquiescence. Protesting the fact that these guys aren't treating you with dignity by acting like you have none is counter-productive. “That guy crudely suggested he wants to see me naked! Well, I’ll show him! By showing him exactly what he wants to see! Wait…”)

A bit of research into the infamous nude activist group Femen (“Our mission is protest, our weapon is bare breasts”) shows just how exploitative (inadvertent though it may sometimes be) this entire phenomenon is. In recent documentary the group’s leader, Viktor Svyatski, admitted that he had perhaps started the group to “get girls,” and that he carefully selected only the most attractive girls for his group. The documentary also revealed that Svyatski had described the Femen girls as “weak,” and was often verbally abusive with them.

Again, the suicidal tendencies of modern-day feminism would be almost laughable if they were not so depressing.

But the phenomenon of public nudity is also more than just incoherent protest—it is a way of forcing people to accept any and all manifestations of the Sexual Revolution. As I noted some time ago:  The public is now regularly subjected to crude and wildly exhibitionist “Gay Pride Parades” and “Slut Walks.” These are not considered to be optional festivals hosted by tiny minority groups. No, politicians who refuse to attend are labelled as heretics by the high priests of the New Moral Order, which is of course not an order at all, but a proud lack thereof.

Liberal activists don’t want the State to be outside the bedroom anymore, they want the State in the bedroom—loudly applauding the acts they see taking place, refraining from any judgment but one of approval, and paying for pills and bits of rubber to ensure that such acts do not go awry and result in reproduction or infection.

Your prayers are not welcome in public, but your privates are. The Emperor has no clothes, and is quite enjoying it—so long as the chilly breezes of moral truth don’t leak out of drafty cathedrals to cause discomfort.  

There may be hope on the horizon, as indicated by the wild popularity of such books as Wendy ShaIit’s A Return to Modesty, as well as increasing disinterest in topless beaches in places like France. Some “feminists” have responded to such trends with irritation, grumbling that all the hard-won ground they had fought for is being spurned by the ungrateful brats of today. But perhaps, instead, many women are realizing that allowing men to freely objectify them in public is not all it’s cracked up to be.

Perhaps people have begun to rediscover a human value that was once enormously prized, but now almost forgotten: Dignity.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook