Contact Us

.

« Rich with irony | Main | Little sister's words bite a would-be dentist? »

October 31, 2006

Comments

Most sensible Republicans realize that Phill Kline is going down to a huge defeat and don't want to associate themselves with his campaign in any way.

MonkeyHawk

And then there were 88.

According to Tuesday's Iola Register, Allen County Sheriff Tom Williams, one of 89 Kansas sheriffs who pledged support to Phill Kline's re-election, withdrew his support Monday.

In an e-mail to the Kline campaign Williams said he was pulling his support “because of the ads (about a sexual harassment allegation) ... that has been dealt with in court some time ago.”

Williams, a Republican, said, "I do not want my name or my office associated with the type of politics that tries to demonize an individual or could result in hurting his family.”

Kline's campaign repeatedly has mentioned support by 89 of the state’s sheriffs.

Dickeylee

And remember, they all have to go through the motions again this weekend, when George flies in for a 40 min crop dusting, then leaves again. They've got to waste 3-4 hours waiting for our king, then listen to him mangle the English language, then scatter back to the four corners of the state.

Dickeylee

Seems the column to the left of the page called categories goes Blunt, Blunt, Bond, Brownback, Bush, but no Boyda. Why? Why can't we link to other posts about Nancy? Caught with your pants down Buzz Blog. Are you guys Republicans, too?

Instead of all the speculating on this blog, go to "Standing by her Aleegation" blog and read some facts.

lenrod

Then there were just 88 sheriff's. Like the "Crazy 88's" in the "Kill Bill" movie.

jack

I wouldn't want to be identified with Phill Kline either.

Dave

Paul Morrison was a married man attempting to commit adultry which is illegal in Kansas. It's a mistake to elect Morrison.

cominghome

check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyLqKYTZ__4

Jeetz

For those who endorsed Paul Morrison,

Getting elected 101: from a former political science teacher

As a prosecutor, Morrison gets to participate in the selection of his jury for trial. He then gets to use his years of experience with human behavior to lead "those voters" to a verdict that is favorable to his case.

Outside of a Johnson County courtroom is different. The State of Kansas is a very large courtroom and winning over this "jury" is much more difficult. In this case, he doesn't get to choose his jury. It's already chosen for him. And these jurors don't have to come to him, he has to go to them.

He has no experience here and shows it. It's not about how good you are as a prosecutor, it's about winning an election. And he never had to work his tail off to win an election. It's always been given to him. Watch and learn.

The election moral? Never confuse voters with jurors, for you can't give instructions to voters.

I'm laughing my tail off because it must be frustrating for him when courtroom tactics backfire in the "court of public opinion."

Jeetz seems to know as much about prosecuting cases as Mr. Kline does. No prosecutor gets to pick his jury. The process involves the Court, a defense attorney, and a prosecutor. Additionally, the prosecutor doesn't instruct the jury, the Judge does -- and those instructions are pattern instructions provided by a committee and presumptively endorsed by the appellate courts.

Keep laughing, Jeetz. You are about to get a lesson in the court of public opinion.

John Conaghan

Your are right about the court of public opinion. After the Star printed Paul's false bravado months ago, it refused to print my response because it added a little balance. Read on:

"You may have read about Attorney General Phill Kline's successful argument in front of the US Supreme Court. His opponent, District Attorney Paul Morrison, criticized the spending of $30,000 in preparation, saying that he would have done it at no cost. Do you remember the 2000 Bush/Gore arguments in front of the US Supreme Court? Two of the most prominent and polished litigators in this nation, US Solicitor General Ted Olson and David Boies, represented them respectively. Before either could finish their opening statements they were peppered by nine justices with a barage of questions that only people totally prepared and of strong character could withstand. It was very intimidating, indeed, and in striking contrast to presenting a case uninterrupted in the Johnson County courthouse in front of one judge, with whom you rub shoulders daily. Following Phill Klines'successful decision, this same Ted Olson praised his performance and proclaimed that less than 1% of A.G.'s get their case heard and many of those fail. But Paul Morrison would have done it at no cost. But what is the price of no cost? Perhaps embarrassment to the State of Kansas. How can I make such a statement? Let me explain. I debated Paul Morrison on 9/19/01, hosted by the KC Star and League of Women Voters, over the traumatizing abuses that were occurring at the Juvenile Intake and Assessment Center ("JIAC") by his Johnson County establishment. Children's and parents' constitutional rights were being trampled on. I am no debater, have no formal training, no courtroom experience and was totally out of my comfort zone. Yet, every time Paul gave his E.F. Huttonesque one line response on juvenile and parental constitutional rights (basically, that they do not exist), I simply held up the pertinent US Supreme Court case and read the controlling language that ruled quite contrary to Paul's misconstruction (video-taped). With the help of many, the wrongs at JIAC were righted, Paul lost, and the people of Johnson County won. Figuratively and literally speaking, A.G. Phill Kline possesses the character and the polish to easily fill and walk comfortably in the likes of Olson's and Boies' shoes. Paul Morrison lacks the character to polish them."

With all the respect I can muster, your son or daughter's experience with the JIAC program in its infancy five years ago is not relevant to the decision on who should be the attorney general of Kansas.

More pertitent, if Kline is of such great character (as you profess) and is such a selfless champion of causes, why does he pocket $3,600 to store his own campaign signs? If he is a true and selfless believer in his own message, why not provide the storage for free? Heck, I would have done it for $2,000. You probably would have gladly done it for free. He is pocketing your campaign contributions instead of spending it trying to get a message you believe in out to a public that increasingly doesn't buy what he is selling. As a true believer, how can you not feel betrayed? Or, did you not contribute to his campaign?

John Conaghan

You make no sense. What happened at JIAC is a direct reflection on Morrison's character. This election is about character. Middle schoolers and those younger were being drug out there by School Resource Officers (that's police offices in case you were unaware) in contravention of K.S.A. 38-1624. Paul lamented this statutory restriction and even wanted to have kids who skipped out on one hour of school declared truants and, therefore, a child in need of care. This would enable the SRO's to haul them out to his money machine also.

You cavalierly refer to it as JIAC's infancy. Perhaps, but it was the beginning of Paul Morrison's gestapo tactics towards children and parents in order to keep his JIAC budget burgeoning. They had to answer 139 Yes or No questions such as "Do you have sex with someone high on drugs", "Do yo need more and more drugs in order to get high". "Is there any mental illness in your family", "Do you wear a condom when you have sex". They had to answer every question and could not call a parent. It was all inputted into a satewide database. Don't know how the 8th grade girls managed to answer the one about wearing a condom. Then Paul used all of this in deciding whether to press charges, perhaps for a pushing match in middle school. This violates everything our founding fathers stood for when drafting the Bill of Rights. We corralled it before it got out of hand. Now its 60 some questions that must be related to the offense and the kid has the right to call a parent.

You seem to know about Paul's system but your anonymity leads me to think that you may have been a part of it. Were you also a part of the alleged corruption spelled out by Flyonthewall in the blog on "Standing by her allegation". I've copied and pasted it below:

"Paul Morrison's juvenile division is on record as filing charges against minors on most every police report. Even for minor matters of mischief or horseplay where there is not even an aggrieved party. The offenders can still be years shy of their teens. However, in one case, on a much more serious matter against an older teen, where there was an aggreived party, our D.A.'s office drops the charges after a friend of the family, who happens to be with the FBI, intercedes.

Why the 180? Were the intimidators intimidated? Was it favoritism? Was it corruption, perhaps tantamount to a crime in and of itself? Unlike our local newspapers, I report, you decide."

Finally, don't patronize me with amounts like $3,600 when Tiller, Planned Parenhood and Stowers have funded that figure followed by many zeros to get Kline defeated.

Jeetz

John, I like what you say. I'll add this. If everything remains constant, Morrison will likely win. He better change though, because the State is hugely different than Johnson County. He better brush up on the civil side of things, because his criminal case tactics won't work against higher courts. Frankly I think he's out of his league because he's most a criminal prosecutor who will now handle mostly civil cases. He'll be a lameduck unless he learns to be diplomatic and realize he is an ambassador for the State of Kansas. He can't do it. End of fairy tale. If I were a business thinking of relocating to Kansas, I would think twice with Morrison at the helm. You get what you pay for.

So, the amount matters in issues of character. 30 pieces of silver wouldn't have mattered to you, I guess. It is such a paltry sum. Talk about not making sense.

Mr. Kline is profiting from his campaign by charging a storage fee for signs at his home. He doesn't deny it. This is okay with you? Doesn't a Kline supporter deserve to know his money is going in to an effort to get his message across to a voting public that isn't buying what he is selling? And if Kline is such a man of character, why not provide storage for free for a cause you believe in?

Seriously, I would have saved his campaign some money and done it for $2,000.00.

You are right about this election being about character, though.


Jeetz

Hey dufe who said "no prosecutor gets to pick his jury." Do you need tutoring? It's called "jury selection." They get to strike jurors, which legalese for elliminating jurors unfavorable to their case. I was on a jury, in fact a Federal Court jury. It is an amazing process--jury selection. In fact I was struck. I would suspect the defendant's attorney struck me because I said something unfavorable to his drug dealing case. I'm certain the U. S. Attorney wanted me on the jury. Anyone who knows the law--knows that cases can be won or lost in jury selection.

Har-rumpf!

Jeetz

By the way, you are legally on a jury if you are called for jury duty. Then the selection process may eliminate you for the "trial" jury.

I was elliminated for the trial jury.

Jeetz

John,
Pretty impressive to take on Morrison. My hat's off to you.

Jeetz

Back to dufe who knows a jury. You must think they call 12 people and then put those 12 in a courtroom for a trial. Maybe in some village in a 3rd world country, but in this country it is much more of a sophisticated process.

dufe

Classic.

Jeetz, you seem so clear on the process of jury selection. Help me out a little bit more on how peremptory strikes work, would you? Hypothetical for you: If, by law, a prosecutor gets six peremptory strikes and a defense attorney gets six peremptory strikes, and the Court can strike anyone for cause, and both attorneys get to question the panel through voir dire and seek a cause strike of any member of the panel in addition to the peremptory strikes, then how exactly does Mr. Morrison have total control over the jury? Is he a witch or something? Magic pixie dust?

At least you have a (singular) jury trial experience. More than we can say about Mr. Kline. Mr. Kline hasn't picked a jury, much less sat on one. Sadly, it shows in his judgment.

Whether it is mistakenly claiming there is a crime of "aggravated rape" or diving down into southeast Kansas and charging kids for a Colombine style case, then dismissing the case and dropping it the lap of the local county attorney claiming that the AG didn't have the authority in the first place in a juvenile matter (true enough, but shouldn't he have known that three years into serving as AG?), Mr. Kline has consistently shown he isn't competent enough to be the lead attorney for the State of Kansas. And, ...all this play time aside about which of us knows more about the jury system..., isn't that what this election is about? Who is competent to serve as Attorney General?

Just my humble opinion.

Jeetz

Dear Dufe,
By the way, it is seven strikes at the federal level because their are two alternate jurors. Obviously you are covering your tail with your last post. You have come to the common sense that I was talking about pre-trial and not the trial itself. And I can assure you--hotshot Georgetown Law wannabe--that Mr. Morrison is accomplished in the jury selection process.

My MAIN point was to say he better get his act together because State level cases are different that county level.

If I've insulted you vast knowledge of Johnson County court procedures, then I apologize. My intent was to show simply that the State level...annd beyond...is much more sophisticated and that his cowboy aggression won't work there.

dufe

Not insulted at all. You overstated Mr. Morrison's abiility to impact a jury panel in a lame effort to minimize his significant advantage over Mr. Kline as a lawyer. I just pointed it out.

You are definitely not a dufe,

At the end of my explanation is a copy of my post that can be used as a reference if you find a need to further critique my thinking. That post is apparently your basis for saying "you overstated Mr. Morrison's ability to impact a jury panel." Apparently my post lacked the attention to detail that you seem to need. I'll try to further clarify my thinking.

1.) Does a prosecutor not participate in the selection of a jury for trial? ....I did use the word "participate" and it was a preface for later using the word "choose."

Rationale: Morrison's vast experience should give him a pretty good idea, prior to jury selection, what kind of jury he needs to win a case. And then he goes about trying to get that jury "chosen." Certainly, jury selection is an integral part to the adversary system of justice. Winning is important and preparation gets you there. By the way, isn't winning an election equally the quest. If you don't know how to "politik," who cares about your credentials?

I already prefaced the word "choose" with "participate." I simply left out the detail of what went into "participate." Yet, I still think that you pulled something out of my post, like the word "choose" and attack it as a fragment. They do that on TV ads. Please, no more sound bites.

2.) In addition, this part might somehow be associated with your criticism. The word "lead." Does a prosecutor try to "lead" a jury to a verdict? Everything I've read on Morrison colors him with the word "aggressive."

Rationale: I later used the word "instructions," which implied that an attorney would likely lead a jury by reminding them of any instructions that were given to them in an earlier phase of the trial. As a former teacher, I often reviewed things. I would hope a good prosecutor would lead a jury the same way be reviewing with the jury what they could find for a verdict. Of course, I'm assuming that in Johnson County a jury gets instructions prior to the opening phase of the trial and that the prosecutor finds a way to lead a jury by selectively reviewing those instructions over the course of the trial. Maybe that is only done at the federal level?

Hopefully this concludes my having to defend my post. I'm sorry that my post lacked an attention to detail. It seems that the heart of your criticism is my absence of detail; with the theme being how I carelessly used "choose" and/or "instructions." I learned something from you and that is "I should detail things with greater clarity so as to not open myself to criticism." I will try to do that with future posts. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

And Tuesday may the best politician win, because like it or not that's what it is about.
--------------------------------------------
For those who endorsed Paul Morrison,

Getting elected 101: from a former political science teacher

As a prosecutor, Morrison gets to participate in the selection of his jury for trial. He then gets to use his years of experience with human behavior to lead "those voters" to a verdict that is favorable to his case.

Outside of a Johnson County courtroom is different. The State of Kansas is a very large courtroom and winning over this "jury" is much more difficult. In this case, he doesn't get to choose his jury. It's already chosen for him. And these jurors don't have to come to him, he has to go to them.

He has no experience here and shows it. It's not about how good you are as a prosecutor, it's about winning an election. And he never had to work his tail off to win an election. It's always been given to him. Watch and learn.

The election moral? Never confuse voters with jurors, for you can't give instructions to voters.

I'm laughing my tail off because it must be frustrating for him when courtroom tactics backfire in the "court of public opinion."

dufe

I can't say that I disagree with any of this last post. Thanks.

I think you will find that Mr. Morrison will earn your respect and trust as Attorney General. But you fairly point out that it will need to be earned. If elected, give him a chance to do his job and I believe you won't be disppointed.

As an aside, no offense was taken and no apology needed on being more clear. I appreciate reading your clarification. It was interesting to read a breakdown of your thoughts on what went in to your writing.

We may not agree on much, but since you are a former poly sci teacher I suspect we do agree on this: free and open discussion between people who disagree is critical to our process working.

The comments to this entry are closed.