What's the matter with Kansas grand juries?

Not only did a Johnson County grand jury refuse to indict Overland Park Planned Parenthood, that same grand jury thinks Kansas needs to reconsider letting the public call grand juries by petition. From Diane Carroll:

Johnson County grand jurors, who cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing this week, called today for a review of the state law that allows citizens to seat a grand jury.

“It is the feeling of this grand jury that the current statute that addresses the formation of a grand jury be evaluated as to evidence required to call the grand jury,” the jurors said in a one-page statement.

“The grand jury also feels that the statute also be reevaluated as to the percentage of the population required to convene a grand jury.”

For those coming in late, Kansas lets anybody call a grand jury, if they can muster the requisite number of signatures for a petition. Abortion opponents have used it a lot, especially in Sedgwick County. When one jury failed to indict abortion doctor George Tiller, the abortion opponents passed around another petition and seated a different grand jury.

Meanwhile, Prime Buzz reports, abortion opponents aren't lying down after this latest setback.

Comments

[Nick]

Hmmm, is this a function of a grand jury, or is someone tampering with it before their political appointment disappears?

[doggydaddy]

Did anyone notice that this same process has been used to empanel a GJ to investigate BPU's spending practices as detailed in the Pitch and picked up by the other KC media outlets? Some say it's political sour grapes by a failed candidate, but it looks to have as much validity (where there's smoke, there's fire) as the cause behind this action. I think these GJ members may be right about reform; the entire state of Kansas could end up serving on, or being ivestigated by, a GJ when everybody with a nit to pick catches on that they can do this...

[James Hart]

Doggydaddy's right -- the BPU investigation was also started because of the petition process.

I support this restriction of government power.

Having called it thus... truthfully, it does not seem to me nearly so much of a government action as a mob action. Seemingly missing only pitchforks.

The idea that these GJs could be conviened without any evidence is the most disturbing issue, however; it's almost conviction by popular opinion given that they can simply call a new jury if the old doesn't yield the desired verdict.

the B Guy

[Sasquach]

What would be awsome is if the grand jury just went ahead and handed down an indictment, let it go to trial, get an acquittal, and the double jepoardy attaches so it can just stop. If there isn't enough evidence for even a grand jury to indict, what's that say about reasonable doubt?

[Nick]

Hmmm, who would benefit by removing the peoples right to petition for grand jury investigations?

Just ask yourself that one little question. The list is long, but no where on there will you find, "The People".

[doggydaddy]

Could concievably end up with every Kansan on a GJ, investigating the ones on other GJs. Total Kansas gridlock.

Now, trying to figure out if I'm for, or against... ;-)

"Hmmm, who would benefit by removing the peoples right to petition for grand jury investigations?"

The people they persecute. Er... prosecute.

...no, the first one.

the B Guy

[Nick]

Could concievably end up with every Kansan on a GJ, investigating the ones on other GJs. Total Kansas gridlock. - doggydaddy

Seriously doubt that. Getting 6,000 people or more interested in anything governmental without 6 months worth of advertising is a pretty rare phenomena.

In any event, the people's right to light a fire under a bureaucracy that doesn't want to enforce the laws, is a good thing.

It's the people who failed to understand the law, not the government of Kansas. This is why the cases were so harshly dismissed. To trust the people to have a greater grasp of law than the government (the institution *of* law) is silly.

the B Guy

[bigalsbeans]

Nick, if this grand jury thing is so great, ever wonder why so few states allow grand juries to be seated this way? Is Kansas just that much smarter than the rest of the country (pause for hysterical laughter)?

I agree with Sasquach in this case, would have been better to have a trial and end the cycle of pro life groups and assorted zealots endlessly seating grand juries until they get a ruling that is what matches their beliefs. Oops, I meant to say the correct ruling. After all, if it matches the religious beliefs of the group filing the petition, that MUST be justice!

Not sure the grand jury system needs to go away, but I think there needs to be more controls on it to prevent misuse of it.

[Nick]

This is why the cases were so harshly dismissed. - the B Guy

Huh? The Grand Jury did not dismiss a case, nor did they "clear" PP as the Star reporter attempted to communicate. The came back with no true bill.

The reason they came back with "no true bill" is because they were never allowed to see the evidence. Without the evidence there was no possible way to pursue the investigation. The records were never given to them.

The most amazing thing to me is that the subject of the investigation was allowed to participate in how it was conducted, and negotiate in what evidence was used. Never in my life have I ever heard of any crap like that.

[doggydaddy]

Been a little TIC with my comments, Nick, but I tend to agree with you. Just kind of fantasizing about some turnarounds here, you know where one group uses a tactic like this and next thing you know, their opposition is doing the same to them. Not really opposed at all to a little ox-goring action, just imagining if they were all investigating each other...while I sit 2 blocks east of state line LMFAO. Actually, might be good for us to have this ability over here in MO as well. School board, city gov, county gov, state gov could keep us busy for a long time. ;-)

[Nick]

Nick, if this grand jury thing is so great, ever wonder why so few states allow grand juries to be seated this way? Is Kansas just that much smarter than the rest of the country (pause for hysterical laughter)? - Big Bean

Actually I think it would have been eliminated a long time ago had everyone not forgotten about it.

I don't wonder at all why so few states allow it. Lawyers/Politicians have been hijacking the law and setting themselves up as the sole proprietor for as long as I have been alive.

What kind of prosecutor likes the idea of having the people armed with the ability to make him look like a horses patoot if he doesn't choose to do his job.

If you get rid of that in Kansas, then you just turned the dogs of corporatehood loose on Kansans. You see, we live in a state where it has been made legal for 3rd party entities to subsidies (bribe) the paycheck of state employees without disclosure.

Sasquach wants to be a lawyer. Of course he doesn't want the people to have oversight or recourse to his actions.

[Nick]

Just kind of fantasizing about some turnarounds here, you know where one group uses a tactic like this and next thing you know, their opposition is doing the same to them. - doggydaddy

Anything can be abused my friend. In fact, if it can be abused, someone, somewhere is doing it. That isn't a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Lawyers, Bureaucrats, and Corporations have precious little oversight, but the threat of pissing off enough people to unite against them is sufficient to keep all but the most dishonest, honest.

"The reason they came back with "no true bill" is because they were never allowed to see the evidence." As per due course of law, which is what you were originally hyping.

Seeing as there would have to be enough evidence to go to trial to formally clear PP... (and there wasn't even that much... *any* of the times they attempted it...) that's as close to a clearing of the accused as can be reached.

And good point Bigalsbeans; the absence of this system from other states is indeed powerfuly indicitave that the system is fundamentally flawed.

the B Guy

[Nick]

Seeing as there would have to be enough evidence to go to trial to formally clear PP... (and there wasn't even that much... *any* of the times they attempted it...) that's as close to a clearing of the accused as can be reached. - B

Actually we will not know. Since the GJ was never allowed the evidence and the judge allowed the accused to determine what evidence was allowed, the cloud of doubt will remain.

The one good thing about the ability to call a Grand Jury again. PP will not be hosting an out of state safe haven for late term abortions again, anytime soon. You can't even find an out of state license plate around there anymore, except for employees.

But the judge saw the evidence. And rendered a verdice that it wasn't admissable. And the "cloud of doubt" exists only because the petition to appoint a GJ kicked up the dust.

Finally, you use a Begging the Question argumentative fallacy by implying that they were a "out of state safe haven for late term abortions" when such has not been proven. Thus, returning the argument full circle to you trying to proove something sans evidence and due process.

Lesson's over for the day kids. M'going home.

the B Guy

[doggydaddy]

Don't know that I would agree about
"fundamentally" flawed, but it does seem to favor causes that are proposed by those with an existing organization, such as pro-life churches, who can easily gather the needed signatures. As Nick said, getting the numbers required for the more obscure and yawn-worthy political causes could be difficult. The guy who petitioned for the GJ on BPU probably didn't knock on many doors in WYCO where people didn't want to try to find out why their utility bills are so damn high, while the execs are lunching regularly at the Cigar Box. The Friends of Planned Parenthood, or the United Council of Pagan Dirtworshippers might have a harder time of it, no? But nobody said keeping your gov't in line would be easy...

[Sasquach]

Never said the grand jury petition process needs to go away, nor did I say that people shouldn't have oversight of government action. Just think that its kind of odd that the losers here (take that to mean what ever you want) keep blaming the same liberal judicial system that previously agreed with teaching religious theories in science classes.

If there was enough evidence to support the subpoenas, or if focus of their request would have been narrow enough to fit within what they were asking for (specific patient records, not all patient records), they would have recieved the information they were requesting. This investgation has nothing to do with protecting the people the petitioners claimed to be protecting. It's about their desire to eliminate abortion clinics completely. Investigations built on propaganda and lies that, when they fail, the failure is blamed on propaganda and lies. Ironic maybe?

[Nick]

Finally, you use a Begging the Question argumentative fallacy by implying that they were a "out of state safe haven for late term abortions" when such has not been proven. - B

I dont have to be Perry Mason to drive past there three times a week and no longer see a rows of cars from across the lower 48 states.

[Herbert Spencer]

I'm betting the same judge who with held evidence from them either wrote, or instructed the jury's alleged attorneys to write, the report.

Just as importantly as wondering about being the subject of a grand jury probe, one should wonder about trying to have a rule of law when the judiciary is corrupt and biased towards one side.

[Jennifer]

"I dont have to be Perry Mason to drive past there three times a week and no longer see a rows of cars from across the lower 48 states." - Nick

I see Nick is doing his usual of just making stuff up and expecting people to believe it. I drive by there every day and certainly did not see cars from accross the lower 48 states. Virtually all are from Missouri and Kansas with a slight few others thrown in.

[parkay]

Judges are not allowed to edit, doctor, or withhold evidence, or make shady back-room deals with the defendants on how to hide the evidence, or act as a witness presenting their version of the doctored evidence. Courts are supposed to enforce subpoenas for evidence. Public demonstration protesting "judge" Kevin Moriarty's judicial misconduct is Friday morning, March 7, 10 am, Johnson County Courthouse.

[slthman]

Ridiculous. Judges routinely examine confidential evidence in camera (look it up if you don't undestand the phrase) when a protective order is sought by the disclosing party. That's all that happened here. The judge reviewed the evidence in camera and came up with a solution that provided the GJ with the necessary info while redacting confidential or priviledged info. Understand, it would have been a hell of lot easier for Judge Moriarity to simply rule on the motion and have it kicked to appeal. Instead he did the right thing which allowed the GJ tohave their deliberations and conclude this farce. If you really believe that he sat in his office, parsing through the info thinking, "this is incriminating, out, this is fine, in" you need to lay off the sauce.
Also, your assertion that the attorney appointed to advise the GJ s somehow a minion of PP is ridiculous. He was appointed because he is a extremely well respected retired judge and mediator. The fools that make those types of allegations have obviously never litigated a case in front of either of the men that their so eager to disparage.

[bigalsbeans]

The one thing you have to love about the pro-life crowd, especially my own personal hero (Troy Newman), is that if the outcome is not what they wanted then its automatically because of corruption. Of course if there was no corruption or bias everyone would have to rule in their favor right?

Ever wonder why the forces fighting abortion so hard don't seem to grasp that birth control and sex education can prevent far more pregnancies? Gotta love Kansas sometimes!

Nick- BTW, the Perry Mason comment was pretty good, got a good laugh out of that!

Gotta love talking about abortion to get the zealots on both sides stirred up!

[Justin]

Holy crap this is getting out of hand. Since when did Nick get his own forum? Don't get me wrong, Nick, you make some valid points, but you're not the ultimate authority so every other post doesn't need to be yours. Feel free to sit back and read other posts for a while to really see how the majority thinks.

[Tom K]

The biggest reason that they oppose the Plan B pill is because that gives them leverage. The anti-choice people are incapable of honesty, even when they know that they will be easily caught in a lie, like the lie that the defendant in this case determined what evidence would be presented.

I think that more than one person here realizes that the law can actually penalize Planned Parenthood for failure to follow laws that protect patient confidentiality. Judge Moriarty would have admitted the evidence if it was legal to do so, and just as soon as he makes that decision, abortion opponents choose to lie about it. Someone should call them on their lies.

[blarney]

Justin, this is a message board and Nick is giving his opinion. This isn't a "what the majority of the board thinks" board, it's an opinion board. He's also been solid in his responses and supporting his opinion.

[Tom K]

What I am trying to say, in other words, is that no matter what the grand jury wants, no one is entitled to break the law in giving them that evidence. Planned Parenthood had the obligation to follow the law when giving patient information to the grand jury.

[Herbert Spencer]

Libs love this decision. Not only are they defending their leading sacrament, but also because they believe the "right" babies are getting killed. They know that blacks who are 11% of the population are having 33% of the abortions. Abortion for liberals is both welfare reform and consumerism of the lowest form.

As for the charges of corruption. If it weren't so easy to point out blatantly corrupt decisions all the way from leftist public attorneys like DA Nola Foulston and City Attorney Gary Rebenstorf down in Witchta to Paul Morrison's clean bill of health criticized by Judge Anderson. New AG Six has also refused to honor subpoenas, following in the footsteps of his comrade in arms at PP. Then there's the constant stalling tactics of Sleepy McFarland.

In addition to ideological bias and racism, it's certainly not fortuitous that liberals who have been the recipients of millions of dollars of campaign assistance from the baby-killing industry as well as the Stowers' Frankenstein projects money, would now know what to kiss and when when the whip comes down on their paymasters.

As I said elsewhere, Amerika - the rise of the Fourth Reich right here in the heartland.

[DSW]

"the statement said, the petition process does not require citizens to have evidence that crimes have been committed before presenting a petition to the court"

Isnt this the exact oppisite of what the USA was built on? So GJ's done have to have evidence of a crime? If nothing else there should at least be evidence otherwise Im going to start petitions on every pro life place in the world just because, and when I get to my lucky number of 3k peeps I'll make them pay for lawyers to defend whatever retarded charge I come up with.

Lets see.....ProLife kinda sounds like aliens wonder if we should get a GJ to make sure there from this planet! Who wants to sign..........Duh

[Herbert Spencer]

Go for it DSW. The difference is that there was probable cause to believe that both Tiller and PP were/are committing crimes. Both are still under prosecution for criminal charges, and the GJs were simply extensions of those charges.

What we're finding out now is just how corrupt the legal system is from local punks like Moriarty all the way to the top with Sleepy McFarland and the rest of the Seven Dwarves.

And it's not only the judges, but also liberal prosecutors who are refusing to enforce the law. Morrison, Six, Foulston and Rebenstorf have all bent over for the baby-killing industry. The perfect oxymoron is honest liberal.

[Tom K]

Herbert, people like you who hate human rights always resort to cries of corruption when you can't get your way. You also resort to illegal violence when you can't get laws passed, and that is so ironic.

[Sasquach]

Yes, Herbert. Because the line that these prosecutions are meant to protect people is the gods honest truth. It has nothing to do with pushing a religious agenda and trying to take baby steps to outlawing abortion entirely.

[Herbert Spencer]

Sasquatch, I didn't understand your point.

Tom K, you're an idiot and a liar.

When have I ever used violence? And as for hating human rights, you're the ones who have embraced the crypto-nazi mentality that something intrinsically human does not even have the right to life. You not only deprive the baby of its civil rights and civil liberties, you even deny it, as the Nazis did with the Jews, its very humanity.

And, while I have never used violence, were the Czechs wrong to assassinate Reinhard Heydrich when the opportunity presented itself? Mass murderers should never be given any protection under the color of law, nor should those who would deny the humanity of another.

[Herbert Spencer]

Sasquatch, I didn't understand your point.

Tom K, you're an idiot and a liar.

When have I ever used violence? And as for hating human rights, you're the ones who have embraced the crypto-nazi mentality that something intrinsically human does not even have the right to life. You not only deprive the baby of its civil rights and civil liberties, you even deny it, as the Nazis did with the Jews, its very humanity.

And, while I have never used violence, were the Czechs wrong to assassinate Reinhard Heydrich when the opportunity presented itself? Mass murderers should never be given any protection under the color of law, nor should those who would deny the humanity of another.

[Big John]

Tom K, I am always amused when "conservatives" attack "liberals" on abortion. I am a conservative from the time when when "conservative" meant the Government didn't get involved in people's lives. That works fine when it comes to issues like gun control. However, you "conservatives" want the Government to get involved in the abortion issue because you don't agree with it. It's hypocritical. And aren't conservatives supposed to be against welfare? What would happen to all the unwanted babies if not for abortion? Do you deny them welfare or just let them starve? And what about your "conservatives" in Congress? Did they abolish welfare when we have a Republican President, House, and Senate? Heck, no. We had a more "conservative" government under Bill Clinton -- at least then we weren't running 4 Trillion Dollar deficits.

Good point Big John, and one I'd never realized before. Conservatism really means less government (as opposed to being a Christianity-base more recently) as its primary tennant... Bill *was* more conservative than George. The mind boggles, the seas dry, and there are seven seals, trumpets, and censors. 8D

But back to topic; Herbert, herbert, herbert.

First, the moment you bring up ethnic statistics, you obfuscate the issue from abortion to "race" politics. Second, you've already moved it from the value of the GJ system (the actual subject) to abortion. So, bringing it back to topic...

Next issue, you've quite a plethora of data regarding politicans and their actions which did not match your agenda. The flawed assumption (which you didn't bother to spell out) was that any decision which doesn't support your views is a wrong decision. This is of course an invalid premise.

Thirdly, you falsely imply that the nature of PP, and other doctors, is a "baby-killing industry", which is yet again a Begging the Question Falacy. You assume (incorrectly) that the motive is profit, when they (like you if you're honest) are doing what they believe is right.

Finally, you use an irrational Emotional Equivalence argumentative falacy in the last blurb. The US is not a reich, and never has been. Your false statement that it is, is little more than colorful opinion from a colorful personality.

the B Guy

[DSW]

I'm not a liberal or a conservative I'm an American!

[Sasquach]

My point, Herbert, is that it is somewhat ironic that the people who were pushing so hard for an investigation built their case on a base of lies (protecting people from being taken advantage of by PP) rather than thier actual motivation (opposition to abortion in general, predominantly for religious reasons). Then, when their attempts fail, they blame it on the corruption of a bunch of "lying liberals."

"I'm not a liberal or a conservative I'm an American!"

Well said DSW.

the B Guy

[Glenda]

Do your homework, gentlemen, and follow the money. The case in Wichita against Tiller is about the fact that Kansas law requires a Dr. to obtain a second opinion in a late
term abortion. The records already exist to prove that on many (if not all of these during a certain period of time) the "Dr." actually obtained this "independent" consultation from a physician that is supported both directly and indirectly by Dr. Tiller financially. It's no fabrication to wonder about corruption when the district attorney that has repeatedly dropped charges against Tiller is also a recipient of his finances to her coffers at campaign time. (It's public record - again,
just do your homework, gentlemen, before you continue to spew misinformation about who really cares about the people of Kansas). The Grand Jury system is the last resort of ordinary citizens who are fed up with a justice system that refuses to do its job and business people who don't appreciate different sets of laws for different "businesses". If you think Mr. Tiller is a benevolent health provider, check the stats for pro bono services to
poor women. You may be looking awhile.