Free Paul Jacob » Blog Archive » Push to Reform Oklahoma's Initiative Begins;Paul's Preliminary Hearing Continued into 2009

Push to Reform Oklahoma's Initiative Begins;
Paul's Preliminary Hearing Continued into 2009

December 1st, 2008 by Kathleen

Paul was home for Thanksgiving after a big week in Oklahoma. In addition to attending his preliminary hearing along with Oklahoma Three co-defendants Rick Carpenter and Susan Johnson, Paul also met with Oklahomans working to restore the state’s voter initiative process.

Paul was well-received by the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC) luncheon, where he spoke November 12. Paul then met with legislators and activists working to open up the state’s initiative process.

Last session, with a 24 to 24 Republican-Democrat tie in the Senate, Democrats blocked Republican attempts to even study reform of the state’s initiative process. At the time, Democrat Senators acknowledged that Attorney General Drew Edmondson had lobbied them to kill the bill. Now, after the November election, Republicans hold a 26 to 22 advantage in the Senate. Leading Republicans such as Sen. Randy Brogdon and Rep. Randy Terrill are introducing bills to ease restrictions on the process, most notably the draconian 90-day limit on petitioning for an initiative.

On Saturday, Nov. 15, Oklahomans for Initiative Rights held a forum featuring two panels discussing the state’s initiative law. The standing room only event received a favorable mention in The Oklahoman.

Featured panelists were: Bob Sullivan, former Republican candidate for governor and proponent of the 65% Solution petition; Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner Editorial Page Editor; Oklahoma City University Law Professor Andrew Spiropoulos; University of Iowa Professor Frederick J. Boehmke; City Sentinel Managing Editor Patrick McGuigan; Ron Calzone, Chairman of Missouri First; Brandon Dutcher, Vice President for Policy, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs; M. Dane Waters, Chairman of the Initiative & Referendum Institute; Norma Sapp, Oklahomans for Initiative Rights Executive Director; and Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-Owasso).

At lunch, Paul Grant, a plaintiff in the landmark petition rights case, Meyer v. Grant, and now an attorney in Colorado, told the history of John Lilburne, an English pioneer for petition rights back in the 1600s.

Preliminary Hearing

If the wheels of justice turn slowly, so do the wheels of injustice. Indicted in October of 2007, the Oklahoma Three have still not had a full preliminary hearing.

First, the AG pushed off the hearing originally scheduled for July 23 until November. Then, just days before the rescheduled November 17-18 hearing, the AG canceled the 17th. (Paul reportedly told his attorney: “If the AG can’t get it together, this is the last time I’m being indicted!” Knowing Paul’s sense of humor, it’s believable.)

By the end of the 18th, the hearing wasn’t even close to being complete. The judge has not yet set a new date, but it will definitely not be before February 2009.

Eyewitness and media reports of the one-day partial hearing were quite upbeat, though it should be noted that rarely is a case ever dismissed at the preliminary hearing stage. Throughout the day, the state presented dubious testimony from four witnesses, while defense lawyers asked the judge to make the AG get to the meat of the case. If there were any such meat.

One bit of testimony that was informative was that of Investigator Tommy Butler with the Attorney General’s Multi-County Grand Jury. Amidst objections by defense lawyers (many sustained), Butler informed the court that he had attended political rallies and followed Paul Jacob on the Internet, especially at FreePaulJacob.com. He reported that Paul had declared his belief that Oklahoma’s residency law was unconstitutional.

Then, Butler made a huge leap by implying that Paul having called the law unconstitutional was as good as an admission of guilt that Paul broke the law. Of course, Paul’s statements have always been clear that he did not break the law, though he does indeed believe it to be unconstitutional. (As do the judges on the federal Sixth and Ninth Circuits, who recently struck down similar residency laws. Note that Oklahoma’s AG has yet to file charges against these federal judges.)

Butler also told the court about a law enforcement database that showed Paul was “associated with” Americans for Limited Government, a group supportive of the Oklahoma initiatives for which Paul worked. Defense attorney Stephen Jones asked Butler what entity created and maintains this database that keeps records on the political affiliations of American citizens. Butler could not answer. To which, Jones remarked that it sounded like “Big Brother.”

Butler’s testimony was ridiculous in making any criminal case against Paul, Rick, or Susan. But it was riveting in demonstrating the degree to which the AG’s office is politically-motivated in this prosecution and likely to ignore the law in favor of a strategy of trying to demonize Paul as a “radical” and “outside agitator” to an Oklahoma jury. No wonder Ralph Nader condemned the AG for prosecuting these
“Jim Crow laws.”

The day ended with the testimony of petitioner Robert Colby. When asked by the state, Colby testified that he came to Oklahoma to petition and did not consider himself a resident. On cross examination, however, Colby said he was honest in establishing residency during the 2005 petition drive, including obtaining an Oklahoma ID and renting an apartment. Colby also testified that he would have remained living in Oklahoma had he continued to find work.

Paul released a statement on the morning of the preliminary hearing. In yet another interesting twist, after emailing the statement to media outlets in Oklahoma, a spam complaint to Hostica caused the company to shut down the Citizens in Charge website. Upon investigating the complaint, and getting the web site restored, it was discovered that the complaint came from OETA (the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority).

Could this public television “authority” just possibly have a political axe to grind? Seems that not only does OETA not wish to hear from all sides on issues, but it actually uses the sending of a press release (to a media outlet, after all) as an excuse to attempt to shut down a web site, and thus silence the free speech of others.

Posted in Uncategorized |

Comments are closed.

Search

Links

Categories

Archives

Meta:

Stay Connected

Recent Posts

Push to Reform Oklahoma's Initiative Begins;
Paul's Preliminary Hearing Continued into 2009