Kansas Supreme Court Once Again Dictates the Level of School Spending

by Allen Williams


If you have ever lived in Kansas then you know that the state's judiciary gains bench positions by appointment NOT election.  "These efforts succeeded in 1958, when Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing merit selection of supreme court justices. The amendment's success can be attributed to the intensive lobbying efforts of the Kansas Bar Association and the political scandal aptly titled the "triple play of 1956," in which the governor and chief justice resigned their positions with the understanding that the lieutenant governor--who would become the governor--would appoint the former governor as chief justice. "

"The current procedure for filling a Supreme Court judgeship is very simple. A panel of lawyers [and non-lawyers] creates a list of fellow lawyers as candidates. That list is submitted to the governor and who appoints someone from that list. There is no vote. There is no confirmation process. There is no investigation or approval of any kind. The result of the current process is a judiciary run amuck.  A prime example is the Kansas Supreme Court. In the last session of the legislature, judges were caught discussing legislation with senate members and ethics complaints were lodged (they are still pending).  That same court has, in direct violation of the Kansas Constitution, ordered increases in school spending, a function reserved to the legislature. By its illegal actions, the court has effected increases that will force each man, woman, and child in the State of Kansas to pay an extra $400 per year in taxes by the year 2009."   It's a nice little monopoly  where, as KU law professor Stephen Ware, has noted some 10,000 people control 2.8 million.

In 2005 a petition was circulated by Wayne Flaherty and Judicial Watch for a constitutional amendment to change the judicial selection system to popular election. The state legislature failed to pass the amendment. The same year Topeka judge Terry Bullock ordered an increase of One Billion dollars for K-12 education in schools. This ruling violated the separation of powers via legislating from the bench. However, it was Kansas Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss who dictated the monetary amount in the Montoy decision to the state legislature that forever transferred spending authority from the Kansas Legislature to the Kansas Supreme Court.

In past years a number of attempts have been made to return judicial selection to popular election but the proposals were always beaten back by the public education system and its many supporters who obviously profit from the corruption of the current system.  Finally in 2013, then Governor Sam Brownback replaced merit selection for appeals court judges with gubenatorial appointment and Senate confirmation as in the case of federal judges.  A Kansas constitutional amendment to move the state judiciary to the federal model failed during Brownbacks tenure as governor. And in 2015, incredibly the Kansas Supreme Court, found that the state legislature's attempt to defund the court was unconstitutional. This decision has denied the people of Kansas the right of self government and established the Kansas Supreme Court as a ruling olighargy

The Kansas Court system is a corruption cesspoll and it hasn't disappointed.

Alan Rupe and his legal team have carved out a sweet niche suing the state legislature through the years to force higher taxes for education. Due to the obscure wording in the Kansas Constitution requiring a 'suitable education'. Many attempts have been made in the past to formulate a 'funding formula' for 309 Kansas school districts.

That's an awfully large number of school districts for such a small state you might think. Well, yes but absolutely essential to keep the for profit school indoctrination system rolling.  And public money makes the Kansas education system the largest PAC-lobby in the state. 

Here's how the school funding merri-go-round works:

(1) The state legislature develops a school funding formula which is always 'unfair' to some particular school district and in some cases nearly all by agreement. Greed dictates the relative 'degree of unfairness', etc.  (2) Rupe and his team go to court, finding a synpathetic judge isn't difficult because the lawyers control the judicial selection process. (3) The lawyers argue that the funding formula distributions aren't equitable or isn't weighted properly or the current formula simply fails to provide a 'suitable education' (Doesn't spend enough money) (4) The court agrees. Legal appeals are made and eventually the Kansas Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling for a fixed sum of money to finance education.(5) Go immediately back to (1) and begin the process anew.

Kansas is under authoritarain rule held hostage by a judicial hunta.

Only Hope for Kansas Student Education is a Constitutional Amendment

by Dave Trabert


Kansas students deserve constitutional amendment


On the Courts Allocating Education Spending Levels:

The Gannon v Kansas decision confirms that the only hope for students to get the education they deserve depends upon a constitutional amendment that prohibits the court from setting funding levels, and legislation that holds schools accountable for academic improvement at the building level.

What it Means for Taxpayers:
Rejecting a six-year $818 million funding increase as ‘inadequate’ is preposterous.  On top of the biggest tax increase in state history, Kansans face another inevitable tax increase to fund the $818 million already approved for schools -- and now unelected judges are effectively ordering even more tax hikes.

On the Disconnect Between Higher Spending and Student Achievement: 
We cannot be misled by the faulty premise that higher spending can produce greater results for our students. It’s time to end the decades-long cycle of litigation that has cost taxpayers millions. We must encourage our leaders in the legislature to ask the right questions about education spending; questions that put our students and teachers first.


Rutherford Institute Asks U. S. Supreme Court to Defend the First Amendment Right of Retailers Not to Be Forced to Speak for Government

by Nisha Whitehread


WASHINGTON, D.C. — Insisting that retailers have a First Amendment right not to be forced to speak for the government, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the Court to strike down an ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to tell consumers that cell phones are dangerous.

In the brief filed in CTIA-Wireless Association v. The City of Berkeley, Institute attorneys ask the Court to declare unconstitutional an ordinance adopted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors requiring cell phone retailers to advise purchasers about the disputed health effects of cell phone usage. Institute attorneys argue that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it forces citizens to become unwilling mouthpieces for the controversial viewpoints of their elected officials.       

The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in CTIA-Wireless Association v. The City of Berkeley is available at www.rutherford.org. Attorney Michael Lockerby of Foley & Lardner LLP, in Washington, D.C., assisted The Rutherford Institute with the First Amendment brief.

“The very purpose of the First Amendment, as Justice Hugo L. Black recognized, is to ensure that Americans are free to think, speak, write and worship as they please, not as the government dictates,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Well-meaning or not, the government’s desire to communicate a disputed health alert about cell phone usage cannot be permitted to trump the First Amendment rights of citizens—including retailers—to decide for themselves whether or not to advance such a message.”

In 2015, the City of Berkeley, Calif., passed an ordinance requiring cell phone retailers within the city to provide all persons purchasing or leasing a cell phone a statement relating to the effects of cell phone use. Retailers are required to tell customers that, “to assure safety,” federal guidelines require phones to limit radio-frequency exposure, and that if users carry a cell phone on their person while the phone is on they may exceed those guidelines. However, city council members admitted they had no scientific evidence that cell phones pose a health risk and the Federal Communications Commission has determined there is no scientific evidence linking wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. In addition, the World Health Organization issued a report in June 2011 which concluded that after a large number of studies, no adverse health effects had been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

Hoping to prevent enforcement of the ordinance, the wireless industry filed a lawsuit arguing that the mandated statement was false and misleading and that it compelled retailers to speak in violation of their First Amendment rights. The trial and appellate courts rejected the constitutional claims, ruling that the mandated disclosures have a reasonable relationship to public safety. The wireless industry petitioned the Supreme Court to review that ruling. In its amicus brief supporting the wireless industry’s petition, The Rutherford Institute argues that the lower courts’ rulings will grant the government the power to compel citizens to make statements with which they disagree, even though the statements may be misleading and controversial.

Kentucky's 'Pay for Play' Legal System

by Allen Williams


In October of 2017 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 or her  swing in behind me from an angle consistent with someone entering the highway from an on ramp. 

It looked to be a woman or guy with long hair from my rear view mirror 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 over 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 consistent 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 adjusters 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 called 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' and even if you win the civil suit it's doubtful that you'd be awarded attorney's fees. 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.."

So the lawyer's advertisement suggests that what I experienced outside Louisville is quite common in the area. His site has a number of testimonials from happy satisfied clients  So there you have it, if the monetary damages are sufficient 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 immigration 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 assistant 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.