The Kansas Supreme Court has come up with a response for when its own justices are accused of being biased toward the abortion industry and against a former state attorney general who investigated alleged criminal activity there.
That’s the result of a petition to the court that was filed on behalf of former Attorney General Phill Kline.
Kline probed alleged illegal activity by abortion provider Planned Parenthood and the late abortionist George Tiller, eventually filing charges against them after getting the counts approved by several trial judges in the state.
However, the pro-abortion political atmosphere in the state spelled defeat for Kline in the next election, and his foes launched criminal investigations into his probe of Planned Parenthood and Tiller.
Among the political powers Kline defied was then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who had partied with Tiller.
Now the justices on the state’s highest court have refused even to consider evidence that uncovers their bias against Kline, and have refused to explain their decision or provide a comment to the public.
Dana Cody, executive director of Life Legal Defense Foundation, which represents Kline, called the state Supreme Court’s decision an “outrageous political lynching.”
“Phill courageously fought to enforce the law against abortion providers, particularly Planned Parenthood, and has been paying the price ever since. He deserves a fair hearing before an unbiased tribunal,” Cody said.
Tom Condit, the lead counsel for Kline, said the court “took only five business days to deny a 90-page motion that proved objectively that the court’s opinion misrepresented Mr. Kline’s conduct in at least six different ways.”
“In doing so, this court has joined the abortion industry in Kansas, the disciplinary administrator, the so-called ethics panel, and the pre-recusal court in a willful distortion of the facts to unjustly condemn Kline,” he said. “The court’s unwillingness to answer Mr. Kline’s challenge to its own distortions will reinforce the belief of many observers that the Kline case was a sham from the beginning.”
A court official, contacted by WND with a request for a comment, said the justices refused to comment. Or explain.
WND reported just days earlier on the filing on Kline’s behalf.
The conflict over the abortion industry in Kansas had gone on for years. It pitted Kline, in his office as attorney general and then as Johnson County district attorney, against the entire abortion industry, including state officials.
Among his opponents was Sebelius, now Health and Human Services secretary, who went way beyond being pro-abortion to being “pro-death,” according to attorneys who worked on the brief.
The petition was filed by attorneys working with the LLDF. They had sought a rehearing or modification in Kline’s case, in which it was recommended that his law license be suspended due to an alleged failure to make sure grand jurors understood state law after he explained it to them.
The brief asserted the high court justices made mistakes regarding due process, disregarded the principles of enforcement of the law, misrepresented the facts, ignored the official records in the case and violated the First Amendment.
“It is doubtful any criminal suspect in the history of this nation has ever so successfully used a high court to thwart legitimate investigations while persuading the judicial branch of government to put the prosecutor on trial,” the brief said.
“While the executive branch of the Kansas government ran cover for two abortion providers by (in one instance) shredding evidence of crimes and (in the other instance) conducting a sham prosecution that did everything but stipulate to the abortion provider’s innocence, the judicial branch pursued a two count, multi-charge disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Kline for alleged ethics violations,” the brief argued.
Kline had filed criminal charges against the abortionists for allegedly violating records requirements and late-term abortion limits. The charges later were dropped by Kline’s political opponents.
“Dripping with ideological warfare, the complainants against Mr. Kline included the targets of his investigation, his political adversaries, and the pre-recusal Kansas Supreme Court,” the brief said.
“The Kansas disciplinary administrator vigorously pursued Mr. Kline for ethics violations, contrary to the findings of his own investigators and in violation of required Kansas disciplinary procedures (e.g., no written probable cause finding obtained from a review board prior to filing a formal complaint),” according to the brief.
“The court then appointed a panel of three Kansas attorneys to preside over Mr. Kline’s ethics trial, two of whom had contributed to Mr. Kline’s political opponents during contested elections and refused to voluntarily disclose that fact. With the process so utterly tainted from the outset, the biased panel’s final report and recommendation appeared to be a foregone conclusion. Ignoring much exculpatory evidence, distorting other evidence to the detriment of Mr. Kline, and finding that Mr. Kline had violated three rules that did not even exist, the panel recommended that Mr. Kline’s law license be suspended indefinitely. Mr. Kline appealed to the same Kansas Supreme Court that had previously displayed such hostility to him in the Alpha and CHPP v. Kline opinions.”
Five members of the state Supreme Court had to recuse themselves from Kline’s case after being accused of issuing a misleading opinion against Kline. They were replaced with other judicial department insiders.
The brief argued that the conclusions of the Kansas Supreme Court were incorrect, because the justices misinterpreted, misstated and misunderstood the state’s law.
Cody’s legal team said the brief “establishes the errors on which the Kansas Supreme Court relied in issuing its decision.”
Cody said that from “the prejudiced positions of the justices (five of whom later recused themselves), to the court’s flat rejection of amicus briefs, to the opinion itself with its one-sided rendition of the facts and the law, the court has demonstrated its vendetta against Mr. Kline.”
Cody cited the argument made in the motion for reconsideration that if the members of the court applied to themselves the same standard of intolerance they applied to Kline, “everyone on this court would be subjected to significant disciplinary sanctions.”
She told WND she gives Kline great credit for calling out the pro-abortion powers in Kansas, wherever they may be situated.
“He’s got his eye on the prize,” she said. “I can’t speak for him personally … [but he puts] the lives of unborn children as more important than a legal career.”
She said the motion, regardless of the response from the courts, is making a statement for the public to see.
“This court came to an outcome-based decision,” she said.
She agreed that the case could be one of the tipping points through which the links, friendships, connections and power of the abortion industry eventually are revealed. Those “dirty secrets” already have started coming out, with the conviction of abortionist Kermit Gosnell and the death of Tanya Reeves after she went to Planned Parenthood in the Midwest.
She said if the Kansas criminal cases, which originally were supported as valid by at least four Kansas judges, had been handled in an unbiased court system, Planned Parenthood would have “lost millions and millions and millions” of dollars, including state and federal grant money.
Even setting aside the morality of the issue, Cody said taxpayers should want investigations of the type Kline was pursuing.
“The industry that is helping to bankrupt the government is benefiting from taxpayer dollars,” she said.
The bias entrenched in the Kansas court system came to light in a hearing in Kline’s case months ago. A research clerk, Sarah Peterson Herr, employed by the Kansas Appeals Court, tweeted during the hearing and called Kline a “douchebag,” suggesting she had inside information about how the court would rule in the case.
Among her tweets: “I predict that he will be disbarred for a period not less than 7 years”
“I love that Phil (sic) is talking about Dr. Tiller like they are cool, and not that his witch hunt helped lead to Dr. Tiller’s murder.”
“Why is Phil Klein (sic) smiling? There is nothing to smile about douchebag.”
“You can watch that naughty naughty boy, Mr. Klein, (sic) live!”
Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, which battled Tiller on his home ground in Wichita, pointed out that the brief notes the Supreme Court relied on “perjured testimony” instead of the records of a grand jury.
She also writes about the confirmation of the validity of Kline’s cases.
She wrote that Kline’s allegations were confirmed with the 2006 rape conviction of Robert Estrada, who began to sexually abuse his two step daughters when they were just 11 and 12 years old.
Estrada impregnated the 12-year old then took her to a Wichita abortion clinic where she received an abortion without a suspected abuse report being filed, Sullenger said.
Estrada continued to rape both girls for four more years, resulting in a total of four pregnancies.
Sullenger said Kline forwarded the abortion records obtained during his investigations to Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston, “who falsely told reporters Kline had nothing to do with the case.”
“In an apparent cover-up, the abortionist was never held accountable for his actions either criminally or by the Kansas Board of Healing Arts where Operation Rescue filed a complaint against him,” she said. “Kline’s investigations into abortion clinics that hid child sex abuse was thwarted by attorneys for the investigation’s targets and Kansas oversight agencies, such as SRS and KDH&E. Kline was never able ascertain if over 160 minor girls aged 14 and younger who had been subjected to abortions were safe or still in danger from continued abuse thanks to the Sebelius administration’s obstructive legal interference.”
Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said that reading Kline’s Motion for Rehearing or Modification “brings home the injustice that continues to reverberate throughout Kansas, which has placed abortionists above the law and prosecutors under fear of enforcing the law.”
“The court system has convicted the wrong person and let the criminals go free only to re-offend,” he said.