Death Panels: Court Orders Sick Toddler Killed Despite Parents’ Desperate Pleas

by Joshua Gill


A U.K. court upheld an earlier ruling Tuesday ordering a toddler to be taken off life support despite his parents’ desire to continue treating him.

London’s Court of Appeal denied the parents’ request to transfer their son, 21-month-old Alfie Evans, to the Vatican’s Bambino Gesu Pediatric Hospital. The appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling that sided with doctors at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, who say that continued treatment is “futile,” according to Crux Now.

Evans suffers from an unknown neurological degenerative condition that has reduced him to what the hospital has called a “semi-vegetable state,” but his parents argue that he is still responsive and say they will continue to fight for him to be treated.

“At this moment, Alfie’s not ready so we’re not ready to let go,” Tom Evans, the boy’s father, told the BBC.  Tom said that he would challenge the ruling before the U.K.’s Supreme Court.

The case bears similarities to the 2017 legal battle over treatment for Charlie Gard, who died at 11 months old after U.K. courts continually deliberated and denied him the option to receive treatment. Then as now, the hospital officials overseeing the treatment of the child have argued that attempting to treat him would be against the child’s best interest — a conclusion that Alfie’s parents contest.

“Our aim is always to try and reach an agreement with parents about the most appropriate care plan for their child. Unfortunately there are sometimes rare situations such as this where agreement cannot be reached and the treating team believe that continued active treatment is not in a child’s best interests,” Alder Hey Children’s Hospital said in a statement, according to Crux.

Justice Anthony Hayden of the U.K.’s High Court agreed in his Feb. 20 ruling with the hospital’s assessment that continuing to treat the Alfie was “unkind, unfair, and inhumane.”  Hayden praised the efforts of Alfie’s parents but ultimately denied them the chance to medically fight for their son’s life. He said that Tom’s urging to “fight on with Alfie’s army” was commendable but that the parents’ had no clear plan for their son’s betterment. Tom, incensed by the ruling, denounced it and vowed that he would continue the fight.

“My son has been sentenced to the death penalty. The system has worked against us. I’m not crying because I know how wrong they are, I know how strong my boy is doing. He is strong, he is comfortable. This isn’t the end. This is just the start. I’m going to take this NHS down. I’m not giving up, my son isn’t giving up. No-one, I repeat, no-one in this country, is taking my boy away from me. They are not violating his rights and they are violating my rights,” Tom said after Hayden’s ruling, according to the U.K. Daily Mail.

The three judges of the appeals court, however, echoed Hayden’s reasoning Tuesday and said that the hospital had given due consideration to the parents’ wishes.

They ruled hospital staff’s decision to remove Alfie from life support and deny his transfer to another hospital was justified since Alfie is, according to their assessment, comatose and unaware of his surroundings.

The parents argue that Alfie is still aware and can still respond to them, but hospital staff say that what the parents interpret as responses are actually seizures, according to the Daily Mail.

Barrister Stephen Knafler QC, who represents Alfie’s parents against the state, argued that, regardless of the hospital’s assessment, the courts’ rulings overstep their boundaries and interfere with “parental choice,” according to Crux.

Please like and share this story on Facebook if you think this court’s ruling is sickening.



Kentucky's 'Pay for Play' Legal System

by Allen Williams


Recently I was returning from a trip On US 64 which brought me through Louisville, Kentucky.  Just about a half to three quarters of a mile before the Shively 264 exit, I was bumped in my rented 2017 Chevy Impala by an individual in some sort of green sports car. I saw him swing in behind me from an angle consistant with someone entering the highway from an on ramp. 

It looked to be a guy with long hair who fell in behind me after the hit and slowed down.  I had expected him to pull in behind me after the bump event.  I signaled to pull to the shoulder where we could exchange insurance information.   I stopped on the shoulder about 100 yards from the Shively 264 exit.   Instead of pulling directly in behind me, the guy sped away on the 264 exit just as traffic began to back up at the Shively exit.  However, I got his license number '840 CAL' before he fled the scene.  Looking at the rental vehicle right side damage, the collision was consistant with an onramp entry and appeared to be more that $500.

Two Louisberg police officers showed up about a minute or so after the individual sped away. I thought they might have witnessed the accident but instead they began clearing debris off the Shively exit to free up traffic. Lacking a working cell phone I was unable to contact the police.  One female officer at the scene I attempted to talk with said they were 'super busy' and that another patrol car would be coming.  At that point, she and an accompanying officer jumped into their cars and left the scene. I waited 30 minutes at the Shively exit for the promised patrol car but it never showed.  I then left and continued my journey home.  The next day, I filed a Kentucky Civilian Traffic Collision Report with the state police.

The civilian traffic collision report I filed is a joke.  It gets no identifying number after it's filed; nobody appears to do anything with the report. It's likely a convenient archive that allows insurance adjustors to determine your 'risk' factor in premium assignments. Otherwise, it's a worthless document for anyone who has filed it.

After I arrived back home I called the Kentucky state police but they wouldn't run the license plate I recorded.  They suggested that I talk to Louisville police at Division 4 of Jefferson County.  So I call there and the officer tells me they don't have jurisdiction and they wouldn't run the plate because I'm not a law enforcement officer or an insurance representative.  They suggest I call the Jefferson County DA.  So I talk to a Jefferson County assistant DA who tells me that I cannot file a criminal complaint over the phone and that I would have to return to kentucky.  Neither would they accept my complaint in a notarized letter. Only a local lawyer could file my complaint, I was told.  I believe the reader can see where this might be going.

Talking to a number of lawyers in the Loiuisville area that handle auto accidents revealed a host of solutions for the hit and run accident I was involved in but none of them were viable. I should point out that few attorneys called me back the same day as either business was exceptionally good or the amount of damages I experienced wasn't sufficient to peak their interest.
One attorney suggested that I file a civil action to recoup the rental losses. But unfortunately, even if I returned to Kentucky and filed a civil and criminal action, I was told that the accused could simply deny it. (The perpetrator obviously didn't have insurance which was why the person fled to begin with).  Another lawyer said paying the damages myself (or my insurance company) would be cheaper than hiring a lawyer to resolve the issue. What this translates to is unless there's sufficient money in play because of an incident we're not interested in pursuing it even if it's a felony. Remember that statement because it's nothing more than 'pay to play', it's characteristic of the endemic corruption in America's legal system. You'll understand this a bit further down. 


My personal favorite was a local lawyer who advertises  'How to Get a Car Accident Report or Police Report in Kentucky'.  Nothing gauche about tooting your own horn.  The process is actually quite simple, "There is a company that has a website to handle requests for car accident reports for Louisville and all of Kentucky. The website is called www.buycrash.com (www.buycrash.com/Public/Home.aspx). There is a fee for each accident report that can be paid by credit card (MasterCard, Visa, Discover, or American Express) or PayPal...Written requests need to be addressed to the Kentucky State Police post that worked the accident. Written requests should include a self-addressed stamped envelope and a $5.00 check or money order payable to Kentucky State Treasurer...If you believe another person was responsible for your car accident in Louisville or elsewhere in Kentucky, you may want to contact a Kentucky attorney to assist you with filing a claim or pursuing a lawsuit..You can contact Brett via email or call (502) 749-5700, toll free (866)935-5729.."

His site has a number of testimonials from happy satisfied clients  So there you have it, if the monetary damages are sufficeint to make it worthwhile for the attorney then a claim will be pursued.  Apparently the same condition applies to the Jefferson county D.A. Never mind that a particular law has been violated, after all we break the country's laws every day where iimigration is concerned. 

One final call to the Jefferson County DA to suggest that their office pursue the criminal charge against the individual who fled the accident scene as it was at least a Class C misdemeanor.  (My guess is it wouldn't be a felony unless it was something like $5000 or more in damages) The assistant DA that I talked to said they don't pursue individuals and that I would have better luck with a civil complaint through an attorney.  Now the DA had to know that a civil complaint against an individual without auto insurance was futile so his recommendation was more 'pay for play' rhetoric. 

I retorted with 'I bet if I robbed a bank and someone got my license you’d run it. That’s no different than someone leaving the scene of an accident.'  There was complete silence from the assisant D.A. I thought he had hung up.  He reiterated that there was nothing he could do and so the call ended.


Travel through Kentucky at your own risk.




Kansas Supreme Court Message: Don't enforce the law

by Jenn Giroux


Phill Kline's legal marathon to clear his good name and save his law license

On May 15, 2012 the legal team of former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline filed a motion in the Kansas Supreme Court seeking the recusal of two justices who would otherwise sit in review of Kline's appeal of an ethics panels' recommendation that his law license be indefinitely suspended after he prevailed in successfully filing criminal charges against Planned Parenthood. The motion seeks to recuse both Justice Carol Beier for her bias and deception and Justice Lawton Nuss, who, himself, was the subject of an ethics complaint brought by Kline when he was Attorney General. The legal brief is nothing short of a white hot legal bombshell. The majority of the brief focuses on Justice Beier. The heavily footnoted motion exposes for anyone who reads it, Justice Beier's pattern of dishonest opinion writing, her bias against Kline, and her aggressive activism from the bench to protect the abortion industry from legitimate legal prosecution. The motion also reveals Beier's tactics to undercut and defeat legitimate enforcement of Kansas laws designed to protect children from sexual abuse.

As prosecutor of Johnson County, Kansas, Kline filed 107 criminal charges against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri in October, 2007. While civil suits have been filed against Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in the past, Phill Kline's investigation was the first and only criminal case pursued against the abortion giant by a prosecutor in our nation's history. While in office, Kline was personally attacked and publicly maligned by the Kansas Supreme Court (and their friends in the media) for his willingness to investigate child rape and illegal abortions that were being performed by Planned Parenthood and late term abortionist George Tiller. Every single judge that reviewed Kline's evidence found probable cause that crimes had been committed. The detailed recusal motion reveals the deception of Justice Carol Beier, a lifetime appointee to the Kansas Supreme Court by then-Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Beier prevented Kline's prosecution of Planned Parenthood from ever reaching trial, and her not-so-subtle dishonesty came to light when she crafted a remedy in one case that required Kline to hand over all of his evidence to his successor, former Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison, who made clear his intention of returning the evidence to Planned Parenthood. You read that right: while Planned Parenthood was fighting to derail Kline's investigations of abortion-related crimes, Justice Beier fashioned a factually dishonest opinion that required Kline to turn over the evidence gathered during his investigation to the target of the investigation.

Additionally, Mr. Kline's appeal brief dismantles the flawed reasoning of the Disciplinary Panel which conducted a kangaroo court-like hearing and has now recommended his suspension. The outcome was all too predictable despite the fact that there are no facts to support their findings and recommendations.

It is important to keep the following facts in mind:

1. While Kline has been constantly maligned with accusations that he was violating patient privacy, not a single patient name was ever revealed by him or his staff in two prosecutorial offices covering nearly six years of effort.

2. The evidence clearly shows hundreds of abortions on children. Under state and federal law these pregnancies are a result of child abuse/rape. Of over 400 abortions on children, only 16 were reported as potential abuse. To date, no one but Kline has seriously followed up on that evidence or these abused children.

3. Justice Carole Beier is a Sebelius appointee and an avid supporter of abortion. She formerly worked for the National Women's Law Center which represented interests supporting abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. This presents a clear bias and conflict for her in this case.

4. None of the allegations against Phill Kline relate to the investigation that he initiated against the Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. They are created accusations which are completely false.

5. The evidence against Planned Parenthood has always been, and continues to be, strong and verifiable.

6. Every judge who has reviewed the evidence has found probable cause to believe that Planned Parenthood committed crimes.

7. Justice Beier, as revealed in the recusal motion, has written approvingly of using the media as a "tool" to shape public perception in order to bring about "legal reform" in support of "third-wave feminism." And that is exactly what she achieved with her anti-Kline opinions — turning Kline into a reviled figure in Kansas based in large part on non-existent evidence and lies about the actual evidence.

8. Kline consistently prevailed in moving the case forward while he was in office because the evidence was so strong. However, he lost in the public perception game because of Beier's deceptions and the deliberate media confusion created in Kansas, a state whose mainstream media feeds off the lies of one another. At the height of Kline's investigation the main newspaper, The Kansas City Star, ran a cartoon of Kline sitting on the bench next to a little girl with his hand up her dress. The script under the photo mocked the investigation of child rape with the theme: "he'll violate anyone's privacy to get what he wants." That same paper was awarded the "Maggie Award" by Planned Parenthood (in honor of founder, Margaret Sanger) for their editorial efforts to unseat Phill Kline.

Phill Kline lost his bid for re-election in 2008. It was a tragic turn of events when then Senator, now Governor of Kansas Sam Brownback betrayed the pro-life movement and longtime friend, Phill Kline, by endorsing RINO Steve Howe, who now serves as prosecutor over the remaining criminal case against Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, Howe has chosen to drop the felony charges which could have led to the de-funding of Planned Parenthood nationwide. Many in the pro-life community (inside Kansas and across the country) have believed for some time that Howe lacks the will and the desire to aggressively prosecute the case against Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this is the fact that throughout Kline's ordeal of fighting unjust charges from political enemies, (i.e. friends of the abortion industry trying to remove Kline's law license), there has been only silence from Governor Brownback's office. He sat in the Governor's office just blocks away from where Phill Kline was put on trial by Beier's political hacks. It calls to mind the biblical verse: "I do not know the man" (Mathew 26: 72). This is no surprise coming from the same man who betrayed the entire country by refusing to invoke a long standing Senate tradition which allowed one Senator of a nominee's home state to pull the plug on their nomination. This would have stopped the appointment of Kathleen Sebelius as Obama's HHS Secretary. Brownback, in both scenarios, could have changed the course of events by simply stepping forward for the truth. He chose political self-preservation instead.

Many may ask: "Why are they still after Kline?"

The answer is simple. Planned Parenthood wants to make an example of Phill Kline to send this message to all prosecutors nationwide: if you pursue criminal investigations against the abortion industry, you will suffer....you will be sued, you will be unjustifiably charged with trumped-up ethical accusations, you will be sued again and again, you will be lied about in the media, you will be betrayed by political friends in high places, your ability to support your family will be targeted, and of course, you will be politically assassinated. The one thing they have continually underestimated is Kline's tenacity and willingness to stand up for the truth and the law in order to protect the legal rights of abused children and the unborn. The power of that truth can be found in the legal brief filed this week. This case against Phill Kline has far reaching effects if Justice Beier and her other abortion-minded friends on the bench succeed. Few people in my lifetime have endured what Phill Kline and his family have been put through. Kline's silent strength shines through in all of the suffering. It has been both inspiring and painful to watch. And it is a story that must be told. Truly they are a living example of this verse: "Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven." (Mathew 5: 3-12)

The Secret Poceedings of the Kansas Supreme Court...

by Denis Boyles


Locking the courthouse door may seem like a lousy way to insure fair justice for all, but holding secret hearings on one of the state's most controversial issues is exactly what the Kansas Supreme Court is doing.

Most of us don't trust courts that operate in the dark. Americans, observed Justice Hugo Black 60 years ago, have a "historic distrust of secret proceedings, their inherent dangers to freedom, and the universal requirement of our federal and state governments that criminal trials be public."

Here's a short list of places where secret court proceedings are not unknown:

  • North Korea
  • Iran
  • China
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Zimbabwe
  • Kansas

All those secretive Syrians and enigmatic North Koreans probably would beg to differ, but, to paraphrase everybody's favorite Sunflower cliché, "what's up with Kansas?" How did it hop onto that short list of kangaroo judiciaries?

Back in June 2007, Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri filed charges in the Kansas Supreme Court against former Attorney General and Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline, all part of the ongoing battle by abortion clinics to prevent government enforcement of state laws regarding late-term abortions and child molestation.

Peter Brownlie, Planned Parenthood's CEO, confirmed the filing and that's the last we've heard, because Planned Parenthood requested a secret hearing, and the Kansas Supreme Court gave them one. That meant, according to David Klepper, blogging at the Kansas City Star, "the public couldn't see what the court case involved, couldn't read the filings, couldn't sit in on what surely must have been a fascinating hearing before the Supreme Court."

It's risky business when courts invite ridicule, but at the Kansas Supreme Court, the invitation's a standing one. Because of the eccentricities of state law, none of the supreme court's justices have ever been vetted by elected representatives. As many critics, including KU law professor Stephen J. Ware, have complained, "..there's no confirmation process at all" the governor appoints them and there they sit, sometimes dozing through cases that often seem to have already been decided by some backroom handshake.

Because Kansas has never had a conservative governor, there's not even much political diversity on the court. All the members are in general agreement on the way things ought to be in Kansas in fact, in 2005, they even started passing legislation of their own, deciding to the penny how much the state should spend on educating kids. Most of them have, at one time or other, made clear their impatience with wing-nuts and others who disagree with them.

You'd think conservatives would be pleased with a court that has moved so far back in time that its hearings resemble the Star Chamber trials that ended the reign and the life of Britain's Charles the First back in the 1600s.

But no. this afternoon, Rep. Lance Kinzer's House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings "public's invited, of course"on HB 2825, a crowbar bill that would pry open courtroom doors across the state by limiting the ability of judges to conduct secret trials and hearings or have their pleadings sealed.

The Planned Parenthood v Kline case triggered Kinzer's concern, but, as he wrote in an email, the bill is "more of an open [government] issue than a pro-life issue." In a statement released yesterday, Kinzer wrote, "The public has a fundamental interest in all cases that are submitted to a court for resolution. It is an unfortunate reality today that many of the most important public policy issues facing our State are being decided by courts. As such it is more important than ever that our judicial process is open and accessible."

An open court presided over by justices who have been through a public confirmation process? There's a wild and crazy idea, one that's never been tried in Teheran or in Topeka.


Denis Boyles, comments on the media and the Midwest for National Review Online, also writes the Monday, Monday column for Kansas Liberty. He's the author of Superior, Nebraska, an oddly-titled book mostly about Kansas.