Operation Rescue staff

Research attorney suspended for nasty tweets about Phill Kline: Report

Operation Rescue staff
By Operation Rescue staff
Image

TOPEKA, November 16, 2012, (Operation Rescue) - The Associated Press is now reporting that the research attorney who tweeted nasty and disparaging comments about Phill Kline - Sarah Peterson Herr - was suspended Friday morning,  pending an investigation.

The decision came just hours after Operation Rescue broke the story, which was posted on LifeSiteNews.com.

Phill Kline stood before a seven-member panel at the Kansas Supreme Court yesterday. Together with his attorney Tom Condit, he made a final defense against a politically motivated ethics case against him that has spanned six years.

The Supreme Court consisted of only two sitting members of the Court, Justices Dan Biles and Nancy Moritz. The other five members recused themselves and were replaced by two Appellate Court Judges—Karen Arnold-Burger, and Henry W. Green Jr.—and three District Court Judges, Edward E. Bouker, Bruce T. Gatterman, and Michael J. Malone.

Disciplinary Administrator Stan Hazlett began the 90-minute proceeding by attempting to mitigate allegations that he was biased against Kline. He then went on to make arguments that contradicted that claim.

Hazlett disregarded the recommendation of indefinite license suspension made earlier by a disciplinary panel that had heard the longest ethics case in the history of Kansas. Instead, Hazlett recommended permanent license revocation, the harshest action possible.

Hazlett claimed that he would prosecute any attorney who lied professionally or in his private life, and made of point of asserting that investigators that withhold the identities of the target of a criminal investigation from third party witnesses is unethical. The most vocal of the Judges, Biles and Moritz, appeared not to buy that argument based on their aggressive questioning on that point.

Hazlett also accused Kline of “heightening the condemnation of [abortionist George] Tiller” by appearing on the Fox News program The O’Reilly Factor in an attempt to taint the “potential” jury pool for a case that was not filed for another 46 days. Kline’s defense contends that he made no inappropriate comments and was wrongfully charged under an ethics rule that was not in effect at the time of the conduct.

Also at issue was an Excel file on a CD that mysteriously appeared on the courtroom desk of Tiller attorney Dan Monet during one of Tiller’s criminal hearings in Wichita.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

The file was generated by a low-level employee of the Attorney General’s office and listed the names of late-term abortion patients of Tiller’s who had stayed at the La Quinta Inn during their multi-day abortions. Kline had sought records from the La Quinta Inn in order to identify minor girls who had abortions so he could determine if they were safe and whether suspected child abuse had been reported.

Kline has always maintained that he never sought the identities of adult abortion patients of Tiller’s or any other abortion clinic.

Kline insists he never ordered the spreadsheet to be made and had no knowledge of it at all until he learned of it through news reports. Nevertheless, Kline was accused of plotting to use the names of adult patients for nefarious reasons.

When an attorney for the Disciplinary Administrator’s office was questioned how he knew Kline had prior knowledge of the contents of the disc and of his alleged intentions, the attorney responded that it was all implied by the fact that a copy was found among files after Kline vacated the District Attorney’s office. That argument did not appear to impress the panel of judges.

The most contentious exchange came regarding Kline’s attempt to enforce a Grand Jury subpoena for records from Planned Parenthood. The Grand Jury had requested to review any filings made on behalf of the Grand Jury. Hazlett accused Kline of improperly disregarding the Grand Jury’s instructions. However Kline noted that the Grand Jury had asked to review, not approve all filings done in their behalf. Kline further argued that in any case, the motion he made was not filed in behalf of the Grand Jury. Instead, he filed the motion in his independent capacity as District Attorney, which he had full authority to do.

Condit told the Court that the case against Kline was one based on cherry-picking over 30,000 pages of documents and making inferences about statements in an attempt to attack Kline’s honesty.

“No one could withstand the withering attack over five years,” said Condit. “Every attorney should be frightened of this Disciplinary Attorney’s office.”

After the hearing, Condit was asked by reporters if Kline’s ethics case was all about abortion. He responded, “Let me tell you something, folks. It’s always about abortion. It’s always about abortion.”

Display Boards used in Kline’s defense highlighted errors in the ten findings made against him. Each of the ten findings had at least one error, and some as many as four. Errors in the ethics case against Kline include:

- Applying non-existent rules in three cases
- Allegations that contradict previous Supreme Court findings in one case
- Improper use of Rule 8.4 in five cases
- Failing to find “materiality” four cases
- Failing to find that Kline had “knowledge” in four cases
- Allegations contradict Judges Anderson, Owens, King, or the DeFries report in five cases
- Misstates the record in six cases.

Concerns about the biased culture that exists at the Kansas Supreme Court building surfaced after crude and prejudicial postings to Twitter were made during Kline’s hearing by a research attorney for an Appellate Court judge. The tweets, made by Sarah Patterson Herr, were mocking of Kline and sometimes crude, but more seriously appeared to show she had some prior knowledge of how the justices would rule.

“There can be no doubt that this case is a politically motivated one meant to destroy the prosecutor who had the nerve to criminally charge abortion clinics that were breaking the law,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation, who attended the hearings. “They wanted to make an example out of him so no other prosecutor would dare to take on the abortion cartel. If they are successful at revoking Kline’s law license, they will only succeed at putting women at further risk of harm from abortionists who will believe more than ever that they are above the law.”

The Court gave no indication on when it might rule. Possible outcomes range from complete exoneration to permanent revocation of Kline’s Kansas law license.

Source documents and more information msy be found at KlineCaseFile.com.

Reprinted from Operation Rescue.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook