May 13, 2009
Attirubute to Mary Kay Culp, KFL Executive Director, 913-406-4446 or firstname.lastname@example.org
PP calls Prosecution “Political” while truly “Political”Interference
by Supreme Court and A.G. is on Full Display
“Oral arguments before the Kansas Supreme Court today provided yet another act in the theater of the absurd. That this high Court has again interfered in the prosecution of illegal abortions is outrageous, but all too expected in a state where abortion political funding destoyed Phill Kline, elevated Kathleen Sebelius, and secured this arrogant Supreme Court.
“This case against Planned Parenthood ought to be simple– but because it deals with abortion, all the ordinary legal rules change.
“For this case to go forward, the Johnson County District Attorney needs state abortion reports from 2003 (that never have patient names) to be verified in court by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment so they can be compared to the allegedly falsified reports from Planned Parenthood that year. Alternatively, the D.A. needs a 13-month gag order lifted from Judge Richard Anderson, so he can testify about both such sets of 2003 reports already in his possession.
“The state Supreme Court has been interfering in criminal prosecutionsof Kansas abortionists for over six years! The immediate solution to this situation would be for Attorney General Stephen Six to retract his demand for the gag order, so that Johnson County trial could proceed. Six should also initiate his own investigation of abortion reporting fraud for the years 2004 through the present. Indeed, it is a scandal that that the last two Attorneys General (Paul Morrison and Six) have tried to free Planned Parenthood from the 107-count indictment for illegal late-term abortions.
“Today, Planned Parenthood again asserted that the recent court arguments were political because they had come from former D.A. Kline. However, Assistant D.A. Steve Obermeier rebutted that claim, saying the document cited was written by himself and addressed a grave injustice of attempted evidence suppression, assisted by the state Court!
“This is a strong case of abortion fraud, but Assistant D.A. Obermeier unfortunately failed today to articulate the critical distinction between KDHE abortion reports and patient records. Both kinds of documents have been vetted in several Court actions without harming patient privacy, but the Court continues to moan about safeguarding the acute sensitivity of such medical files, ignoring other highly sensitive personal information which is routinely utilized– and kept protected– by Kansas prosecutors.
“The rule of law in Kansas continues to disintegrate with the Supreme Court acting outside its proper authority, desperately seeking a way to end prosecution of Kansas abortion fraud, now and in the future. Every citizen should be alarmed.
Below is an excerpt of Judge Anderson’s sworn testimony that the Supreme Court continues to surpress:
From hearing in Judge Tatum’s court in Johnson County, Kansas – Jan., 2008
Typed from PDF document by KFL Volunteer-Emphasis added
Q Judge Anderson, subsequent to the production of the KDHE reduced-report of induced termination of pregnancy records that I believe are in front of you, the Exhibit 1A through 1DD, did you make any determinations as to whether the alleged discrepancies were the result of something that counsel had done?
A No. No, I did not.
Q Subsequent to that allegation being brought to your attention-I believe it was a concern as it was characterized, being brought to your attention-did you make and inquiries to determine the origin of the concern that was brought to by the then District Attorney Kline?
A I can tell you what I did. I don’t quite understand the question.
Q What did you do?
A When Kline first raised the issue of a questioned record-and remember this would have been after he was out of the Attorney General’s office, he was over here in Johnson County-he showed certain records to me. I could compare them. They appeared to be a photocopy that I had represented to me to be different patients.
I asked him whether he had discussed it with the Attorney General Morrison’s office and he said that he hadn’t, I already said that, and then he said that he would. So at that point this time, he left. I believe since I had asked him to report to the Attorney General Morrison’s office his concern, that two competent prosecutors had this information and they could go about whatever investigations they wanted to do.
At the time also, because of how they were treating one another and all of the controversy surrounding this matter, I took it on myself to ask a detective from the police department in Topeka to do a windshield of three records for 22 weeks and three records for 23 weeks and give me an opinion as to whether the documents appeared to be photo copies of one another. She confirmed that there was a question about the records and that it was-appeared to be a photocopy of one another. So at that point in time, I just did nothing more because the two prosecutors had the information.
What happened next in time was I had an opportunity to have a conversation with Veronica Dersch from Paul Morrison’s office. She confirmed that she was aware of the questioned record issue. This was a conversation that I had down in Wichita during our judicial conference.
Very quickly after that, Mr. Morrison declared that he was not going to do any further investigation of Planned Parenthood, close the investigation and represented publicly that there was no evidence of wrong doing. A few days after that he filed a motion to return the records of Planned Parenthood to Planned Parenthood.
Before I had an opportunity to even rule on that, I-Mr. Irigonegaray (PP lawyer) came to my office, expecting to pick up the records. I said, “Well, there’s a problem with the record.” And he looked confused. And I said, “Let me show you.” And I showed three records and I said, “These look like they are the same records and until the gets cleared up I am just going to sit tight on the records.” Mr. Irigonegaray left the office without the records. And then in a few days, it was probably two or three weeks later, Attorney General Morrison filed a mandamus action against me to try to disgorge me of the records.
I had notified everyone that were was a questioned record. I had written a letter and subpoenaed that and distributed it to Mr. Kline, Mr. Morrison, the disciplinary administrator, the Supreme Court Chief Justice and said there’s a problem with these records I am going to sit tight. And I sat down like an old mule and just was going to sit on that until everything was cleared up. And that’s where we have been during the pendency of the mandamus. So I have made no determination that anybody did anything wrong.
I have had a chance to review the records themselves and compare them with the records that were produced by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, originally. These records that were produced by the Attorney General’s office, or with the subpoenaed 109 records for the court’s retention, do not match the records that have been attached to the medical file that was reviewed by the physicians and used and relied on in their report to the court.
That is the transaction as I recall it.
Q But still, nothing untoward about conduct of Planned Parenthood’s counsel in the production of any of these records, correct?
A When I spoke to Mr. Irigonegaray, I pointed out there was a problem. And, you know, I have described this as he looked at me like my golden retriever does when he doesn’t understand. He looked surprised. And I have known him for 25 years and truly he was surprised. He said, “You’re unpredictable.” And as a judge, you don’t like to be called unpredictable because you like to be very deliberate about your rulings.
I have known him for so long, I did what I probably should not have done, but for the relationship, I pulled these records from the file and I said, “Pedro, look at these records. There is a problem.” And I said, “Mr. Morrison probably shouldn’t have written that clearance letter like he did.” Mr. Irigonegaray said, “It looks like this is going to last for a while.” And I said, “Yeah.” And that was the end of the conversation.
I have not tried to make a determination as to whether the lawyers cooked the books. I’ve known you too long. You wouldn’t do that. I don’t know what happened in this production. But I do know that these records and the records that were produced with the medical record are not the same.
Mr. Eye: May I have one moment, your Honor?
The Court: Sure.
Mr. Eye: That’s all the cross examination I have
(The original of this transcript can be provided on request.)
We may have further comments later.
Tags: kansans for life, mary kay culp, phill kline, steve howe