Cost Functions Should Not be Used to Make Education Spending Decisions

by Kansas Policy Institute


June 1 - Wichita - A cost study recommending a school funding increase upwards of $2 billion survived a peer review by a scholar the Legislature hired; but, another respected school finance scholar says cost studies should not be used to set funding levels.

Benjamin Scafadi, Ph.D., a professor of economics and director of the Education Economics Center at Kennesaw State University, says, “cost function studies do not provide valid and reliable estimates of the minimum 'cost' of achieving a given outcome.” 

Knowing the Legislature’s WestEd cost study would define the conversation on education spending and impact further judicial proceedings, Kansas Policy Institute partnered to do an independent peer review with Dr. Scafidi.  His findings disprove the notion that spending more money causes student achievement to improve. 

In response to the Kansas Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Gannon V case, the Kansas Legislature recently contracted with a vendor conducting a $285,000 study to analyze the “cost” of educating public school students in grades K-12. The Legislature asked the vendor, WestEd, to “estimate the minimum spending required to produce a given outcome within a given educational environment.” WestEd used a “cost function” approach to estimate the costs of providing students in each public school in Kansas with an adequate education. 

Dave Trabert, president of the Kansas Policy Institute, commented, “These cost studies may be done with the best of intentions, but they fail to provide results that are useful in guiding policy decisions. In practice they only take a partial look at one variable – spending – and ignore all other variables that impact learning.”

Scafadi said, “The estimates vary widely and do not track with historical data on spending and achievement.” The review outlined the reasons why supposed “cost” functions do not provide valid and reliable estimates of the minimum “cost” of achieving a given outcome.

“One glaring problem we found with the WestEd study is that researchers do not have access to data on all external factors that impact the cost of educating students.” Trabert said.

Scafidi’s study for Kansas Policy Institute included in its exhaustive review a complete recommendation of best practices that should be performed to “check carefully for robustness and reliability of results.”

His data determined it unreasonable to conclude that giving the Kansas public school system, as currently constituted, a large boost to spending would significantly improve student outcomes.

“Given the vast sums of taxpayer funds at stake, the Kansas Governor, Legislature, and the State Supreme Court should implement the five best practices, as laid out in my review, to discover the truth about the relationship between spending and valuable student outcomes.” Scafadi concluded.




Editor's Note: Such mathematical games accomplish little more than feed the lawyers who feast on endless court decisions that force the Kansas Legislature to raise taxes violating both the separation of powers and the people's right to determine fiscal policy.

Federal Judge Rules: Way Trump Uses Twitter Is Illegal

by George Upper


There’s been a lot of theorizing about the effect of social media on the 2016 presidential election, most of it — in the establishment media, anyway — focused on how Donald Trump’s campaign, with or without the help of the Russians, “stole” the election from Hillary Clinton by selectively planting “fake news” on Facebook.

But Trump’s social media advantage during the campaign was never on Facebook; it was always on Twitter, from his announcement through the election and inauguration.

And, while it wasn’t obvious at the time, that’s when swamp water began seeping into Trump’s online presence, with the ultimate result being that federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump cannot block users from access to his Twitter account without violating the First Amendment to the Constitution after seven plaintiffs — we don’t have their names, but I’m guessing they don’t hail from right-of-center heartland America — sued over the practice.

The judge ruled that, because blocking accounts that disagree with him on Twitter prevents those users from expressing their disagreement with him on what was essentially a public forum amounted to government suppression of their right to free speech, according to The New York Times.

Now, given the circumstances, the judge could hardly have decided anything differently. It’s not the judge in the wrong here; it’s the circumstances surrounding the judge’s decision.

Essentially, Federal District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that, because Trump and Dan Scavino, the White House social media director, “exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account,” the account is an official government account and blocking the seven plaintiffs from it because of their political views violated their First Amendment rights. 

Again, that’s true. But that’s not the problem.  The problem is that this should never have been an “official government account” in the first place. 

Donald Trump — with the help of media experts in his employ, one would imagine — built his following on Twitter long before he ever ran for office, and he continued to build it — and expertly so — during his campaign.  If the account had remained under his personal control, he could block or not block anyone he chose.

But that’s not what happened.

“The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the president’s personal First Amendment interests,” the judge, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, wrote in her decision.  The White House is apparently considering an appeal, although the basis for such an action was not mentioned and remains unclear, given the present circumstances.  

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering our next steps,” said the Justice Department, which is representing the president in the case.

‘The right thing for the president and his social media director to do would be to log into the president’s account and unblock everyone who has been blocked on the basis of viewpoint,” said Jameel Jaffer, the plaintiffs’ attorney and the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, which joined the case as a plaintiff itself.

The court, however, did not order the president to take such an action which would, on the face of it, appear to mean that any government employee or elected official with a social media account funded with taxpayer money would have to take the same action or face similar lawsuits.  Again, since White House staffers became involved, free speech is a legitimate issue in this case. But was it really necessary for that to happen? Isn’t the president’s Twitter account really that, a personal account?  

And the president should be able to communicate directly with the American people without the intervention of federal bureaucrats. Shouldn’t he?

The court, however, did not order the president to take such an action which would, on the face of it, appear to mean that any government employee or elected official with a social media account funded with taxpayer money would have to take the same action or face similar lawsuits.  Again, since White House staffers became involved, free speech is a legitimate issue in this case. But was it really necessary for that to happen? Isn’t the president’s Twitter account really that, a personal account? 

And the president should be able to communicate directly with the American people without the intervention of federal bureaucrats. Shouldn’t he?


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.




Oregon Judge Tries to Silence Mother of Medically Kidnapped Children: Orders Website Taken Down

by HealthImpactNewsStaff

 

Multnomah County Oregon Circuit Court Judge Susan M. Svetkey recently ordered Trisha Delaurent of Vancouver, Washington, to take down a website and Facebook page that chronicled her struggles with Oregon CPS to get her children back. Trisha was charged with “medical neglect” of her oldest son, Max, who is 15.

Oregon CPS not only removed Max from her custody, but also his 3 siblings, including a newborn baby just 12 days after he was born.
Baby Elias – Removed from family just 12 days after birth. Image Source.

The website chronicling the family’s struggles is injusticeoregon.com, which has since been taken over by other interested parties, so that Trisha no longer has control over the website. The website was ordered to be taken down by Oct. 2nd, but is still up at the time of publication. The Facebook page for injusticeoregon has apparently been removed. 


Family Court Judges Routinely Violate the 1st Amendment

Judge Svetkey. Image source/contact info.


Here at MedicalKidnap.com we have had family court judges order our stories about families who claim they have had their children taken away unjustly be removed from our website. These judges usually threaten the parents and issue gag orders against them that many attorneys have claimed are unconstitutional. The parents are, of course, terrified, because the state is holding their children in custody. Sometimes the parents come back and beg us to remove their stories. A few times judges have threatened to jail parents for failing to comply with their order.

But Health Impact News has never given in to pressure to remove these stories. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the freedom to publish these stories, and each time we stood firm and defied those orders, any legal action threatened by the judge against the parents, such as going to jail, has (so far) not happened.


Why Does Oregon Want this Mother Silenced?

Since the website injusticeoregon.com is still up despite a judge’s order that it be taken down, much of the background of this case is documented on this site. Guy Bini, writing for GarrettsVoice.com has also covered their story recently:

Delaurent has been accused of medical child abuse. She has publicized her family’s story and claims her innocence. The information published on the website has been highly critical of both Oregon CPS and law enforcement investigators who have been looking into the medical child abuse allegations.
 

Specifically, Delaurent has published a counter narrative with details that point to a lack of a genuine investigation which includes false reporting, false statements, failure to investigate and witness tampering all initiated by state investigators.


According to Judge Svetkey, the creation of the website and FB page flies in the face of state and federal laws designed to help protect the privacy and confidentiality of minor children who become caught up in the DHS/CPS system. However, DHS attorneys representing the children did not present any documentation during the 9/28 hearing that would suggest Delaurent was in violation of any state or federal privacy laws, nor were any specific laws referenced by code or by statute. Instead, state attorneys asked Delaurent if she posted medical information about the children which any parent has a right to do. Delaurent answered “Yes” which embolden Judge Svetkey to order the entire website injusticeoregon.com to be shut down.

Delaurent, a mother of four, is currently embattled with both Oregon DHS and Washington DSHS over the custodial rights of her children.

In October of 2016, the three oldest children were taken into temporary protective custody by Oregon CPS and later placed with the children’s maternal grandmother. On the surface it seems like an optimal plan to place the three older children with their maternal grandmother, until one scratches the surface to dig into grandma’s background and discovers a long-term hostile relationship towards Delaurent.

In February 2017, Delaurent gave birth to her 4th child. Twelve days after the birth of her youngest son, Washington CPS took temporary custody of him as well based upon a ‘threat of harm’ due to the other 3 children being taken by Oregon CPS.

Delaurent’s motivation to develop a website was to publish her family’s story. It was born out of her frustration which stemmed from what she believed to be a biased investigation on the part of Oregon CPS investigator, Steve Jackson, and Gresham Police Officer, Detective Robert Harley who is assigned to the Portland Child Abuse Team known as CAT. Neither investigator interviewed friends or family members close to the Delaurent family. Instead, they sought the opinions of those who were adversarial to Delaurent, and that includes Delaurent’s mother.

In April of 2017, Detective Harley interviewed Delaurent, six months after the decision was made by the state to take her children into temporary protective custody, and only after she had made numerous requests to be interviewed.

Medical abuse cases typically involve parents who fail or neglect to seek medical attention for their children, especially those children who have life threatening ailments. Delaurent has done the exact opposite. Delaurent has sought out medical treatment for her children and accepted the medical advice given by her doctors. She has made certain that doctor’s orders were followed. Then why has Delaurent been accused of medical child abuse?


Read the full article here.


How a Sebelius judge saved Planned Parenthood

by Jack Cashill {WND.com}


With her first appointment to the Kansas Supreme Court as governor in 2003, Democrat Kathleen Sebelius chose the proudly “third-wave” feminist, Carol Beier. It was a timely choice.  That same year, Republican Phill Kline took office as Kansas Attorney General.  From Beier’s perspective, Kline represented a serious threat to the “reproductive freedom” that she, Sebelius, and other third-wavers espoused.

As Kline sensed before taking office, the state’s two dominant abortion providers, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (CHPPKM) in suburban Kansas City and George Tiller’s Women’s Health Care clinic in Wichita, were ignoring state restrictions on late term abortion, Tiller flagrantly.  What Kline discovered only after a multi-year fight with Sebelius’s people to get access to relevant records was that both clinics were grossly ignoring mandatory reporting laws on child rape.

Of the 166 abortions performed on girls under-fifteen in the years 2002 and 2003, the clinics reported only three cases to the state department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. They should have reported all 166.

Kline was prepared to press charges against both Tiller and CHPPKM. For reasons of ideology and campaign finance, Sebelius could not let this happen.

To begin, Sebelius persuaded Paul Morrison, a popular Republican district attorney from Johnson County in suburban Kansas City, to change parties and run against Kline in 2006. The state abortion industry invested nearly $2 million to help the local media defeat Kline.

To the dismay of the abortion industry, however, Kline was elected to fulfill the remaining two years on Morrison’s term as Johnson County DA. From that position, he was able to continue the investigation into CHPPKM he had begun as attorney general.

In October 2007, Kline filed 107 counts, 23 of them felonies, against CHPPKM. District Court Judge James Vano found “probable cause” of crimes having been committed and allowed the case to proceed.

Planned Parenthood and new AG Morrison sued Kline to derail the prosecution.  When the case reached the Kansas Supreme Court, the justices grudgingly ruled in Kline’s favor and allowed his case against Planned Parenthood to go forward.  If the facts supported Kline, Judge Beier clearly did not. “His attitude and behavior are inexcusable,” she wrote for the majority , “particularly for someone who purports to be a professional prosecutor.”

Associated Press writer John Hanna uncritically described her summary as “a public tongue-lashing.” A Topeka reporter termed her opinion “a searing condemnation.” The Kansas City Star headlined its story, “Kansas Court Rebukes District Attorney Kline.” And remember, Kline won the case.

If the media were blind to what was happening, then Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice, Kay McFarland, was not.  She called Beier’s opinion “ the very antithesis of ‘restraint and discretion’ and . . . not an appropriate exercise of our inherent power.”  McFarland scolded Beier and the majority for attempting “to denigrate Kline for actions that it cannot find to have been in violation of any law and to heap scorn upon him for his attitude and behavior that does not rise to the level of contempt.”


McFarland may have suspected that Beier’s hectoring of Kline was not spontaneous. Earlier that year, in fact, Beier co-authored a provocative paper that endorsed a strategy very much like the one used to defame Kline.  The paper was written for the Feminist Legal Theory and Feminisms (sic) Conference sponsored by the University of Baltimore School of Law and dealt with what is called third-wave feminism and its effect on parenting law.


The article’s closing quote by Gloria Steinem captures the spirit of this radical feminist incarnation. “We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned,” said the feminist icon and all-purpose leftist. “We are really talking about humanism.”  Understanding that tradition is not easily discarded in a state like Kansas, Beier and Walsh cite approvingly a strategy suggested by feminist law professor Bridget Crawford.

Write the authors, “Crawford posits that the third-wave’s reclamation of feminism through engagement with the media is powerful ‘cultural work’ that may be a necessary pre-condition to an evolution in the law.”

According to Crawford, “The media are tools to produce cultural infrastructure, without which even the best intentioned and artfully designed legal reforms are ineffective.”  Beier knew something about the media. Before going to law school, she worked several years for the Kansas City Times, the then sister publication of the Kansas City Star.

The Star proved to be the most useful of all media “tools” at Beier’s disposal. Indeed, the paper won Planned Parenthood’s top 2006 national editorial honor for its work defeating “anti-choice zealot” Kline and attacked him relentlessly thereafter.  So powerful was the media’s “cultural work” that in May 2007 Sebelius had no qualms about letting Planned Parenthood celebrate her birthday at a big Kansas City blow-out.

Leading the “conga line around the concert hall” was Peter Brownlie, the local CEO whose abortion clinic was then at the center of Kline’s investigation.  The partiers “sure know how to have fun!” enthused the Planned Parenthood newsletter.  With the cultural infrastructure so well established, Kline lost his re-election bid and was forced to leave the state to find employment.

Wanting to make an example of Kline lest some other prosecutor challenge Planned Parenthood in the future, the activists on the Supreme Court prompted an ethics investigation into Kline’s handling of the abortion cases.  Ironically, one of the charges was that Kline did not share the scope of his investigation with Sebelius. This was true. Kline feared her people would hamper the investigation and possibly destroy evidence.

As it turned out, they did both. Planned Parenthood will likely escape prosecution because Sebelius’s health department and her attorney general’s office separately destroyed key evidence.  Last week, as the decision in the ethics case neared, Kline filed a recusal motion showing that Beier’s 2008 opinion was “flagrantly dishonest in its presentation of facts.” After reading Kline’s motion, four other justices decided that they too had previously complained about Kline’s behavior and recused themselves, as did Beier.

In doing so, the justices gave Beier cover. A public airing of the Beier-led assault on Kline would have seriously damaged the court’s reputation and Sebelius’s.  Planned Parenthood stood to lose over $300 million in federal funding if CHPPKM had been successfully prosecuted. Sebelius protected Planned Parenthood’s interest in Kansas and now oversees its funding as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The ladder goes up, Kathleen, but the circles go down.




The Kansas Supreme Court Mockery of Justice Continues

by Allen Williams


Kansas has a governing problem.  The rule of law has transcended into the 'rule of money' and is a strong testimony to the deep seated corruption nurtured in this state by planned parenthood.  The planned parenthood litany of corruption can be found here.  They helped elect some of the most corrupt successors to public office from Paul Morrison to Kathleen Sebelius.  The 14 member committee for picking judges made up of 7 lawyers and 7 members appointed by the governor ensures the 'status quo' is maintained in the judiciary.


The Kansas Supreme court ranks right up there with the truly nefarious gulags of the past.  Kangaroo court doesn't begin to do justice to this pack of jackals.  In fact, you were likely to get a fairer trial in Nazi germany or under Stalin than from these misfits.  It was justice Lawton Nuss who dictated to the worthless Kansas Legislature precisely how much money should be voted for education in deference to the teacher's union in the Montoy decision.  It was justice Carol Beir's antagonism towards anything threatening abortion that led to Kline's ethics trial despite having been exonerated twice before by the ethics committee.  It was the Kansas Supreme Court who gagged sitting judge Richard Anderson and prevented him from testifying that planned parenthood abortion records had been forged.  It was the Kansas Supreme Court who allowed then attorney general Paul Morrison to join planned parenthood's suit against Kline to get the evidence back.  However, Morrison got caught with his 'trousers around his ankles' and had to resign in a sex scandal, so it fell to Steve Six, appointed by governor Kathleen Sebelius, to destroy the fraudulent records resulting in 23 felonies dismissed by the district court.

Attorney General Phill Kline was punished by the state supreme court for daring to do the job he was elected to do.  The Secret Proceedings of The Supreme Court provides background on the court's constitutional abuses.  Here are key allegations excerpted from hKline's motion for recusal:


*Ordered that discovery be obtained from Mr. Kline and his staff in a manner that served well the shared goals of Morrison and Planned
Parenthood, but was detrimental to Mr. Kline’s investigation into the crimes of Planned Parenthood, including Planned Parenthood’s failure to report child sexual molestation;

* Entertained an unprecedented and merit less mandamus action filed by attorneys for the target of a criminal investigation (Planned Parenthood) seeking to have the evidence of serious crimes taken from the prosecuting attorney (Mr. Kline) and given back to the criminal target;

* Ordered that the entire CHPP v. Kline case be conducted under seal, including a secret trial hidden from public scrutiny in which the criminal target was able to utilize extraordinary discovery rights outside the parameters of the pending criminal case;

* Continued the tactic of publicly threatening Mr. Kline with ethical charges or contempt citations in a most injudicious way;


Endless opinions, half truths and scathing editorials from the Wichita Eagle to Sun Publications to the Kansas City Star reviled Phill Kline continuously during his tenure as both state attorney general and then as Johnson County prosecutor (replacing Paul Morrison).  It was no concern to the rat pack of journalism that Kline had evidence of coerced sex among underage girls.  The bastions of liberalism were under assault and must be protected no matter what the cost or who suffers.  Justice isn't blind..it's dead in Kansas.

Kansas truly reflects the culture of special interest corruption money that now rules the nation.

Obama Birth Certificate 'Raises Questions' Says Court Justice

by William Green 

A Supreme Court Justice in Alabama has declared that, thanks to recent investigations into Barack Hussein Obama's alleged Constitutional ineligibility to be President of the United States, a filing that seeks to require an original copy of Obama's birth certificate before he would be allowed on the presidential ballot in November has raised "serious questions" about Obama's "birth certificate" -- and the possibility that it's a FORGERY.

Justice Tom Parker has filed a "special, unpublished concurrence" in the case arguing that Alabama citizen Hugh McInnish's charges of "forgery" were legitimate cause for concern, according to a report at WorldNet Daily!   In his "concurrence" opinion, Justice Parker wrote:  McInnish seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, directly ordering Beth Chapman, as secretary of state for the State of Alabama, 'to demand that [President Barack Hussein] Obama cause a certified copy of his bona-fide birth certificate be delivered to her direct from the government official who is in charge of the record in which it is stored, and to make the receipt of such a prerequisite to his name being placed on the Alabama ballot for the ... November 6, 2012, general election.'"

Justice Parker then wrote, "Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the 'short form' and the 'long form' birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public." 

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and his "Cold Case Posse." And in the words of Sheriff Joe, when asked about his official probe into Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States: "We got tons of other information that could be very shocking!" 

"I'm not going after the president to keep him off a ballot or anything else, but that could happen," Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio said. "I'm going at it strictly as a law-enforcement guy investigating a possible forgery and fraud. I'm sticking with that, but I'll tell you one thing. We got tons of other information that could be very shocking, too, but I'm sticking now with just the [forgery] investigation and possible criminal violations."

Sheriff Joe is also calling the media's suppression of his findings of a likely forged  presidential birth certificate and Selective Service Card "probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States."

BUT, in spite of the media "blackout," his investigation is WORKING! After Sheriff Joe released his report on the likelihood that Obama's "birth certificate" is probably fake, states are beginning to MOVE to force the issue to the forefront! The L.A. Times reports: "Weeks after Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio embraced the... contention that President Obama was born outside the U.S. and is therefore ineligible to hold office, other elected officials jumped on the bandwagon.

On Wednesday, Republican state Rep. Carl Seel's 'birther bill' passed a Senate committee on a party-line vote, the Arizona Republic reported. The bill, passed 4 to 2, would require candidates for president and vice president to submit affidavits to the Arizona secretary of state vowing that they meet the constitutional requirements to hold office, including being born in the U.S.

Although Republican state Sen. Judy Burges voted for the bill, she complained that it had been watered down, the Republic reported. An earlier version required the secretary of state to certify candidates' citizenship.

Meanwhile, Republican Secretary of State Ken Bennett is expected to call for aspiring chief executives to complete a form that asks about their place of birth. 'There has been a lot of media attention devoted to this, so we wanted to make sure there is a standardized form,' spokesman Matthew Roberts told the Associated Press."


Another CASE has been filed asking State officials to REMOVE Barack Hussein Obama from the 2012 presidential ballot, because he DOES NOT meet the state's eligibility requirements -- this time, in Pennsylvania.


PLEASE, take action RIGHT AWAY to DEMAND that every Secretary of State AND Attorney General in all 50 States REMOVE the name of Barack Hussein Obama II from their States' presidential election ballots, due to his ineligibility to serve in that office under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.


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.