A Kansas Supreme Court that recommended former Attorney General Phill Kline’s law license be suspended indefinitely for his investigation of alleged criminal activity on the part of abortionists is being petitioned to correct its own ruling.
The fight over the abortion industry in the state, which included Wichita late-term abortionist George Tiller as well as Planned Parenthood, the American abortion industry’s biggest player, has gone on for years, pitting Kline, in his office as attorney general and then in the position as Johnson County district attorney, against the whole of the abortion industry including state officials who ardently supported abortion.
Among those was Gov. Kathleen 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 Life Legal Defense Foundation, and seeks a rehearing or modification in Kline’s case, in which the suspension of his license was recommended over issues such as his alleged failure to make certain grand jurors understood state law after he explained it to them.
The brief makes it clear that Kline is facing an uphill fight in the Kansas court system, providing a background for the dispute:
“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. 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.”
Kline had filed criminal charges against the abortionists for allegedly violating records requirements and late-term abortion limits, charges that 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 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). 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.”
In fact, 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, and were replaced with other judicial department insiders.
The brief argues that the conclusions of the Kansas Supreme Court were incorrect because the justices misinterpreted, misstated and misunderstood the state’s law.
Dana Cody, chief of the LLDF, told WND that the prosecution against Kline effectively is a “political lynching.”
The brief “establishes the errors on which the Kansas Supreme Court relied in issuing its decision,” the legal team’s statement said.
Cody said, “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 pointed to the argument made in the motion for reconsideration that if the justices and judges on the court were to apply to themselves the same standard of intolerance they applied to Kline, “everyone on this court would be subjected to significant disciplinary sanctions.”
“As an attorney committed to the integrity of my profession and our justice system, I hope that the court will take this opportunity to rectify the wrong done to Kline and to all attorneys who may now be similarly subjected to such an unjust public crucifixion,” she said.
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.
Cody said if the 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.
That comes because state and federal grant money would have been discontinued based on a criminal conviction.
Even setting aside the morality of the issue, Cody said taxpayers should be wanting 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 that is entrenched in the Kansas court system was spotlighted when there was a hearing in Kline’s case months back. A research clerk, Sarah Peterson Herr, employed by the Kansas Appeals Court, tweeted that Kline was a “douchebag” and suggested 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. Kilein, (sic) live!”
Cheryl Sullenger, of Operation Rescue, which battled Tiller on his home grounds 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.
“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. Estrada continued to rape both girls for four more years, resulting in a total of four pregnancies. I reported on this story on Operation Rescue.org. 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. 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,” she reported.
“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,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue. “The court system has convicted the wrong person and let the criminals go free only to re-offend.”
The brief tells the high court justices they made mistakes regarding due process, they disregarded the principles of enforcement of the law, they misrepresented the facts, ignored the official records in the case, and violated the First Amendment.