ATTORNEY GENERAL DREW EDMONDSON TURNS TO PRIVATE PRACTICE WITH GABLEGOTWALS AFTER TERM ENDS

 

Attorney General Drew Edmondson today announced he will join the law firm of GableGotwals as a shareholder in the firm’s Oklahoma City office after his term in public office ends in January 2011. Edmondson has served as the state’s attorney general since his election in 1994 and served as the president of the National Association of Attorneys General from 2002-2003.

“Drew Edmondson has been a powerful and principled force as Oklahoma’s attorney general,” said David Keglovits, GableGotwals president. “We are excited about bringing his talents to bear on behalf of our clients.”

During his term, Edmondson was one of eight attorneys general asked to serve on the negotiating team for states involved in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit filed against the tobacco industry. The suit resulted in a national settlement in excess of $200 billion with the industry and will bring more than $2 billion to Oklahoma over a 25 year period.

Under his leadership, the attorney general’s office has helped reform the death penalty appeals process, established victims’ services and vigorously represented rate payers in telephone, gas and electric rate cases. On his watch, the attorney general’s office finally ended the Battles prison case, the Terry D. juvenile justice case and the Hissom class action lawsuit. He was instrumental in creating the constitutional Technology Trust  and the Oklahoma Educational Technology Trust.

“Although it will be hard to leave public service after 16 years in office, I look forward to working in private practice,” Edmondson said. “I could not be more excited to become a shareholder in a firm that has such a great reputation and long history of serving public and private companies and individuals throughout the United States.”

Before his election as attorney general, Edmondson was elected, unopposed, to three consecutive terms as Muskogee County District Attorney in 1982, 1986 and 1990. He served as president of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association and was selected as Outstanding District Attorney for the State of Oklahoma in 1985 and the Outstanding Death Penalty Prosecutor in the 9th and 10th Circuits.

Edmondson served one term in the Oklahoma Legislature before entering the University of Tulsa College of Law in 1976. His undergraduate teaching degree is from Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, which he attended after graduating from Muskogee Central High School.

Edmondson is a Navy veteran with a tour of duty in Vietnam. He is a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association.

About GableGotwals
GableGotwals is a full-service law firm representing a diversified client base in Oklahoma, the Southwest and across the nation. The firm has offices in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. With more than 60 attorneys on staff, the firm handles complex litigation in all areas of state and federal courts as well as representation in compliance matters before state and federal administrative agencies and regulatory authorities, energy-related disputes and transactions, sophisticated business transactions and administrative matters for many different clients including individuals, corporations, regulated entities, financial institutions, insurance companies, estates and trusts, inventors, employers and employees.
 

Senator Clark Jolley Files Paperwork to Seek GOP Attorney General Nomination

With a clear record of promoting a pro-growth environment in Oklahoma, Edmond State Senator Clark Jolley has filed paperwork with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to begin the process of soliciting support for election to the office of Oklahoma's Attorney General.

The position is an open seat being vacated by Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Governor. "We desperately need a pro-jobs, pro-growth Attorney General in Oklahoma," said Jolley. "People in our state have lost their jobs because of an Attorney General's decision to sue companies in our state.

As a Senator who has a proven record of supporting job creation and reducing needless litigation in Oklahoma, I believe those qualities are needed in the next Attorney General."

Jolley also stated his intention to see vigorous prosecution of those who hurt the most vulnerable of our citizens–the elderly and children: "Oklahoma's Senior Citizens have been the targets of crime through identity theft and fraud. Our children are being hunted on the Internet and abused by those they trust.

I will ensure the Attorney General's office responds quickly and decisively against those who prey on those who have very little protections of their own.

I have stood for the rights of the victim in the State Senate and I will stand for their rights in our courthouses as well."

As a staunch opponent of increased regulations and higher taxes on businesses and individuals, Jolley also will champion the freedom of Internet use from greedy bureaucrats wanting to tax bandwidth usage and services. "We can't afford to allow the economic downturn we face turn into an opportunity for bureaucrats to invent new taxes on vital services such as Internet use.

With other countries blowing past the United States in broadband speeds and access, we can't let government discourage growth, especially for rural areas of our state."

Jolley has been honored as an inductee in the Child Advocates Hall of Fame under two categories, Child Health & Safety and Education. He has also been recognized for his leadership by DNA Saves, a national victim's rights organization. He has been honored by the Research Institute for Economic Development for his support of business issues in the state and has been selected by his fellow Senators to serve as one of their Assistant Majority Leaders in the present session.

Jolley was elected to the Senate in 2004 by a large margin and was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2008.

His wife, Verlyne and two children live in Edmond. Jolley also named Edmond CPA James R. Hale as his campaign treasurer.

Contact: info@clarkjoll 405.650.1582

Meacham not running for re-election

Just like I said a few weeks a go, Oklahoma State Treasurer Scott Meacham not running for re-election in 2010

SCOTT MEACHAM
OKLAHOMA STATE TREASURER


For Immediate Release: October 30, 2009


Treasurer Meacham Announces Future Intentions

OKLAHOMA CITY – State Treasurer Scott Meacham today announced he will not seek another term as State Treasurer following the expiration of his current term in January of 2011. He also announced that he will not seek any other elective office.

Meacham is DOA for re-elect as Treasurer or run for AG

Thinking Oklahoma State Treasurer Scott Meacham (D) will NOT be running for re-elect as Treasurer or make a run for Attorney General.

Ryan Leonard announce run for AG

Ryan Leonard announce, He is intending to run for Oklahoma Attorney General.

Leonard, an Oklahoma City attorney, former state prosecutor and former legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Don Nickles, is a Republican.

"I intend to be a candidate for the office of attorney general in 2010," Leonard said in a statement. “My top priority will be to keep Oklahoma families safe. Oklahoma needs an effective advocate who will work tirelessly to fight illegal drug use, keep our children safe from internet predators and stand up for victims of crime.”

A Beaver native, Leonard recently served on the executive committee of the anti-methamphetamine "Crystal Darkness" campaign. Leonard also serves as one of Oklahoma's national commissioners on the Uniform Law Commission.

He is a member of the Oklahoma and American Bar Associations, and has served on the boards of the Oklahoma City National Memorial, Central Oklahoma Red Cross and the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals.

Leonard is a past president and co-founder of the Downtown Club of Oklahoma City, and a member of Leadership Oklahoma.

In 2008, Leonard co-chaired the finance team for Sen. John McCain in Oklahoma, and co-chaired Lawyers for McCain.

Oklahoma Senate President Pro Tem Glenn Coffee, is also said to be looking at running.

PRO TEM, SPEAKER CALL FOR OSBI INVESTIGATION

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn Coffee and House Speaker Chris Benge called upon the Attorney General to a request an OSBI investigation into the State Medical Examiner’s office today.

The leaders have expressed concerns for over a year regarding the management and operations of the office, but additional allegations of sexual harassment charges inside the office bring new urgency to the matter.

“I have expressed real concern about this office for some time now,” said Coffee. “We have been acutely aware of serious management issues, but the new allegations require immediate action.

“On a legislative level, we will continue looking at the management at this agency,” he continued. “But multiple issues need to be resolved at this vital agency.

“I hoped that the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation will look into these allegations immediately, and help us all move this agency toward fulfilling its mission,” Coffee concluded.

House Speaker Chris Benge added, “It is vital that the public has confidence in this office, and given the current allegations, I think it is important that an investigation is initiated immediately so as to not impede ongoing operations.”

Oklahoma lawsuit has Arkansas chicken farmers registering flock

Oklahoma lawsuit has
Arkansas chicken farmers registering flock
2/11/2008

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. -- Arkansas is counting its chickens and tracking chicken litter in response to an Oklahoma lawsuit that accuses several poultry companies of polluting the Illinois River watershed.

The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission and county conservation districts compile data for the statewide poultry registry. All chicken farmers with at least 2,500 confined birds are required to register their birds each year.

The effort began in 2004 after Oklahoma officials questioned Arkansas environmental workers about chicken litter removal methods.

"We didn't have any data at that point about disposal," said Patrick Fisk of the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission.

The following year, Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson sued 14 Arkansas-based poultry companies. Edmondson alleged the chicken litter was polluting the Illinois River watershed, and he asked the court to stop the application of litter on land in the region. The case is pending in federal court.

The Arkansas registry keeps track of the type and number of poultry produced in the state. It also documents how chicken litter is disposed of in Arkansas.

Gene Pharr, chairman of the county's conservation district, owns five chicken houses near Lincoln. He said the registry shows the litter is being exported rather than leaching into the region's water supply.

"Registering is not something people want to do, but it basically gives the state some idea of how much litter is being used," Pharr said.

Washington County Judge Jerry Hunton is a poultry farmer and president of Poultry Partners, a defendant in the federal lawsuit. He maintains eight chicken houses. Hunton said registering his chickens has become part of doing business.

"Now you've got to account for every pound of chicken litter," he said. "You've got to be half-lawyer, half-tax accountant."

This year, registration began Jan. 1 and continues until March 31. The first failing-to-register offense is punishable by a written notice. The second can lead to a fine of $50 and the third offense can result in a fine of $500.

Edmondson give Mike Turpen NEW PAYOUT !

Edmondson's lawyers
face big payout in Big Chicken suit
by Rob Luke

As the latest chapter of Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson's Big Chicken saga drags on, the private attorneys he hired to fight it must be thinking settlement.

And why not? The lawyers have markers out for a goodly chunk of whatever the 14 chicken-producing companies the AG sued in 2005 for polluting Arkansas headwaters might pay to get out of the lawsuit, thanks to their controversial contingency-fee contract with the AG. That's despite some questionable connections and recent history.

The three firms - Miller & Keffer, LLP; Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison & Lewis; and Motley Rice - won a legal battle early last year against the defendants to keep their contingency-fee contract with Edmondson. Defendants including agribusiness giants like Tyson, Inc. and Simmons Foods, Inc. charged that the three stood to collect a third of any award and that the contract was unconstitutional.

The firms' motion also charged Edmondson with seeking to enrich his favorite lawyers. They might have forgotten that one of the Big Chicken firms - Tulsa, OK-based Riggs, Abney - could legitimately claim to have had that pleasure already.

The Big Chicken suit - State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods et al. (docket# 05-CV-329-GKF-SAJ) - in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has now dragged into its third year after four fruitless years of negotiations. It centers around chicken waste allegedly spread by the defendants in the Illinois River headwaters, causing pollution in downstream Oklahoma.

The case has sparked a flurry of legal back-and-forths, most significantly with the judge's ruling last June that upheld the firms' contingency-fee agreement with the AG. That decision sparked outrage amongst groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (sponsor of this publication) that oppose such fee arrangements between private attorneys and the state.

In an amicus curiae brief in the Big Chicken case, the National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC) wrote: "The use of contingency fees to compensate litigating counsel turns on its head the traditional dictum that the state achieves its goals whenever justice is done, not when it wins a large award."

One of Edmondson's law firms already knows plenty about large awards. Of the $250 million in attorney fees generated by Edmondson's tobacco settlement a decade ago, Riggs Abney picked up $30 million for its share. In the years since, the firm and its attorneys have donated thousands of dollars to the campaigns of Edmondson and other prominent Oklahoma and national Democrats.

Motley Rice is a well-known plaintiffs' attorney but since signing on with Edmondson it has faced several problems, most recently in West Virginia for allegedly directing part of a contingency-fee settlement to an out-of-state beneficiary. Meanwhile, Miller & Keffer's Bill Keffer, a Texas state legislator, sponsored a bill there placing more restrictions on property-owners trying to sue companies for environmental damage.

Now Edmondson and the lawyers have moved to place a moratorium on further chicken-waste spreading in the Illinois River area, halting all such activity. Small farmers in the area are concerned and the Oklahoma Farm Bureau last month got permission to file a brief in the case on their behalf.

A legal resolution looks further away than ever. A settlement, though, may be ever closer.

"The Oklahoma 3" Rally with Paul Jacob, Sen. Randy Brogdon

The Oklahoma 3, does not deserve to be the target of political retaliation from politicians who want to limit the political choices available to all Oklahomans.

This is an issue that transcends the political spectrum. Every one of us has a dog in this race." All of us may, in good time and for pressing issues, decide in the future to exercise our right to petition for redress of grievance via the initiative petition process. Any limitation on that right is therefore a direct attack on all of us.

Hat Tip to my Buddy Jenn @ forthardknox.com

Paul Jacob Kicks off the
“Save the Initiative Blog Tour”
by Jenn Sierra
January 28, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Today I had the pleasure of speaking with Paul Jacob after the arraignment of "the Oklahoma 3" (Paul Jacob, Susan Johnson, and Rick Carpenter). One might think that with the prospect of about a year ahead of him in legal battles, he might want to just relax and take a break, but quite the opposite was true. He stated the arraignment had gone about as expected, and that he would, if needed be back for the scheduling hearing on March 13th.

But then he was ready to talk about several Oklahoma initiatives, about the initiative process in general, and about his new project over the next year - which is is calling the “Save the Initiative Blog Tour.” The goal, partially, is to make bloggers more aware of the importance of the initiative process.

Jacob stated that his three major goals regarding his legal process are:

1) Win in Court

2) Get the residency laws in the states that have them “thrown out.”

3) Make sure this indictment of the Oklahoma 3 does not become a deterrent to intiative-activists, but that it instead becomes a rallying cry for them.

Jacob explained that the initiative process does for politics what the first amendment did for the media, and that a successful revolution of this process would allow citizens to dynamically address te legal system - now and in the future.

He shared that for a citizen, deciding to begin an initiative (e.g. for term limits, spending limits, government accountability, etc..) requires that citizen to count the cost, personally, and those costs can be astromical, personally and professionally. There is an enormous amount of time (away from family, career, personal life), and often a huge financial burden involved. But when the additional cost of legal retaliation by the government becomes a consideration, many citizens decide they simply cannot take that risk, and will “shut up.” Jacob’s goal, in working through his own legal battle, through his foundation (Citizens in Charge), through the Sam Adams Alliance and Foundation, and now through the “Save the Initiative Blog Tour” is to reduce the fear of such legal action against citizens by their government.

When asked what advice he would give to citizens who are considering becoming involved in the initiative process, he said:

1) Go for it.

2) Get an attorney. It may seem ridiculous to need an attorney to petition your own government, and it is, but get an attorney.

3) Look “over your shoulder” on every move. Retaliation from certain government officials can extend to the initiative creators, the petitioners, the volunteers, and even the donors.

4) If a move is questionable, go the “unquestionable route.”

5) Remember that if you can just succeed in getting the initiative on the ballot, you can still win (even if you’re outspent and bullied by the opposition).

6) Don’t give up. If we give up our right to petition our own government, we aren’t going to like what our country looks like for our children and grandchildren.

Finally, when asked how bloggers, and our blog readers can help - both with the legal battle of the Oklahoma 3, and with the citizen initiative process in general - Paul said:

1) Spread the word, by talking with your neighbors

2) Contact the governor (in this case of Oklahoma, Brad Henry)

3) Don’t “harrass” Drew Edmondson or his staff, simply for the sake of harrassing them.

4)Pay attention to current legislative measures pending, and contact your legislators.

The most inspiring thing that Paul said to me during the interview was that he considered the sacrifices he is making now to be insurance for his children’s and grandchildren’s future. Although he made it clear that he fully intends to win this case, he also stated that it was even more important that the end-result of his efforts was an America in which citizens are free to petition their government, and carry out the initiative process. If this meant he had to go to jail, then he would be willing to do it.

For more information, see Free Paul Jacob.

For more info see

Poultry council praising Tahlequah for being the nation’s 16th best fishing town by Field & Stream

Poultry council denies irony
in praising cited watershed city

BY ROBERT J. SMITH
Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008

Arkansas’ chicken companies waded into the tourism business Friday by congratulating an Oklahoma town for its national fishing prestige.

The Poultry Community Council, an organization funded by Arkansas poultry companies, notified the media that Tahlequah, Okla., ranks as the nation’s 16th best fishing town in Field & Stream magazine’s February issue.

It’s a nice honor for Tahlequah, even if it’s being promoted by an unexpected source, said Ed Fite, director of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission.

“I’m not the sharpest or the brightest crayon in the box, but I wouldn’t think Field & Stream’s list would be promoted by the poultry companies,” Fite said.

The council didn’t mention in its release that eight poultry companies are being sued by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who claims they are polluting the Illinois River watershed that includes Tahlequah.

At first, Field & Stream spokesman Amanda McNally couldn’t figure why a poultry group would brag on a fishing town.

“I caught wind of that press release, and I couldn’t figure out why they’d care,” McNally said. “Now, I know.” The council had no hidden agenda, said Jackie Cunningham, the council’s director.

“Agenda ?” Cunningham said. “It’s important that people realize the river is clean.” Edmondson, who declined comment, filed the lawsuit in 2005, accusing the companies of polluting the Illinois River watershed with poultry litter. Tahlequah is the biggest town on the Oklahoma side of the watershed, which also includes large portions of Benton and Washington counties in Arkansas.

The 2006 population estimate for Tahlequah is 16, 237, according to the U. S. Census Bureau.

Kirk Deeter, an editor at-large for the magazine who helped select Tahlequah, said he didn’t know about the lawsuit.

“Tahlequah won’t stay on the list if they ruin the lake,” Deeter said.

“It wasn’t the most scientific list. It was a subjective and qualitative process.”

In Oklahoma, freedom's not OK

In Oklahoma,
freedom's not OK

Our view

For most people, the right to petition the government is as old as our Bill of Rights. Others may argue the right extends to the Declaration of Independence or to ancient English documents.

Comes now the state of Oklahoma, in the person of Attorney General Drew Edmondson, with different ideas.

Edmondson has indicted three people — Paul Jacob, former head of U.S. Term Limits; Rick Carpenter of Oklahomans in Action; and Susan Johnson of National Voter Outreach — for what he says is willful violation of state law prohibiting out-of-state people to circulate political petitions in Oklahoma. The defendants and their supporters say the real impetus behind this prosecution by Edmondson, a Democrat, is the indicted trio's successful petition campaign against big government.

Some background: Carpenter, a Tulsan, launched the petition effort in 2005 when he sought to limit government spending there. Despite overt efforts by opposing organizations to defeat the petition drive, some 300,000 Oklahomans signed on, enough to put the question on the ballot. That's when the state Supreme Court weighed in.

The high court ruled state law prohibited out-of-state people like Jacob and Johnson, professional organizers, and out-of-staters like some of those who distributed petitions, from operating in Oklahoma. Out-of-state people who would — and did — try to block petition drives are permitted, not those who distribute them.

The petition organizers had sought legal clearance before they launched their First Amendment work. They were told they could operate with only the intent to move to Oklahoma. But in its ruling, the high court changed the rules, petition organizers charge, by saying out-of-staters must intend "permanent residence" in Oklahoma. It gets worse.

Edmondson pursued felony criminal charges against the Oklahoma Three. When his October 2007 indictment of the petition organizers encountered legal problems, Edmonson indicted the three again. Jacob, Carpenter and Johnson — who have been handcuffed and shackled in Oklahoma, and threatened with 10 years in the slammer — are scheduled for arraignment at month's end.

If you thought Oklahoma was a conservative state, guess again. With Edmondson — critics call him the ayatollah of Oklahoma — operating, nobody's freedom is safe. If one group of petitioners can be prosecuted on political whim, eventually all petitioners can face some form of prosecutor abuse.

Oklahoma's continuing drama demonstrates America's most vicious and divisive political trend in the last two decades: the criminalization of political differences.

In Jena, thousands gathered in 2007 to decry what they believed was unjust court action, siding with six people — the Jena Six — who were accused in the savage attack of one schoolmate. The Oklahoma Three is accused of no savagery; these three law-abiding people merely petitioned the state government. How many will show up at 1:30 p.m. Jan. 28 at the Oklahoma County Courthouse, 321 Park Ave., Oklahoma City — that's when and where their arraignment is scheduled — to protest the state of Oklahoma's political savagery?

You don't need to be a permanent Oklahoma citizen to do that. Not yet.

Given the political climate, who'd want to be?

thenewsstar.com

Petitioner indictments short democratic rights

THE PEOPLE SPEAK:
Petitioner indictments
short democratic rights

Published January 19, 2008

As independent voters, we are concerned that the initiative and referendum process in Oklahoma is being threatened.

Three initiative leaders were brought up on criminal charges by the attorney general (Drew Edmondson) for hiring out-of-state petition carriers to help place an initiative on the ballot after they had been assured that it was legal. More than 300,000 Oklahomans signed the petition. However, the court ultimately ruled the initiative off the ballot, and it was never voted on.

Now almost a year later, the attorney general has indicted the three initiative leaders for “willfully violating” the state’s residency requirements.

His persecution of the initiative leaders is a blow to the democratic rights of Oklahoma citizens. It serves only to frighten and intimidate voters from exercising their constitutional rights to participate in the initiative process.

We urge you to call on the attorney general to drop this indictment and to defend our right to initiative and petition.

John Adair of Edmond and 46 other Oklahomans

Editor’s note: The above letter was sent to Gov. Brad Henry this month from a group called Oklahoma Independent Voters, Kim Wright of Altus, chair.

Oklahoma water wars

Oklahoma water wars
By Trent Loos

For as long as I have attempted to be an advocate for American agriculture, I have struggled to understand why most don't appreciate the economic impact that agricultural operations have in rural communities. The standard multiplier, to the best of my knowledge, continues to be seven times. For every dollar generated by the local farming operation, it turns over seven times in the community. The Iowa Development Authority tells me that every dairy cow in a county has a $7,000 economic impact on that community.

As we really gear up to hit 2008 rolling, I have committed to do everything possible to explain to non-farm folks the benefits of farming. I understand that people are quick to shun the economic advantages, if they think a pig farm will stink; but let's face the fact that the migration of young people out of rural America will only turn around if we start telling it like it really is. The bottom line is that new money and new opportunities are vital to sustaining rural America.

Most of this really hit me two weeks ago when Dr. John Lawrence, Iowa State University Professor of Ag Economics, joined me on my Rural Route radio program. He stated that ethanol production has generated more "new" money and opportunities than anything to come along in our rural communities for a long time. He stated that a 50 million gallon ethanol plant will consume 15.1 million bushels of corn, providing 35 direct jobs and 98 indirect for a total of 133 total regional jobs.

Compare that to a beef feedlot that consumes the same amount of corn annually and feeds 250,000 cattle. This entity provides 140 direct jobs. For a farrow to finish swine operation to feed that much corn, they will need 75,000 sows and directly employ nearly 400 people. So while ethanol plants are good for sustaining rural communities, look at the economic impact of other industries that could use the same amount of corn by feeding it to livestock.

I suggest that it is high time we start sharing the economic incentive of livestock agriculture with our county and state government officials and our fellow residents. Take, for example, the complete ignorance of the benefit of the poultry business to the economy of Oklahoma. The poultry industry directly employs 12,000 residents of Oklahoma and generates $453 million in farm receipts, resulting in over $3 billion going into the Oklahoma economy. All of this seems to pale in comparison, in the eyes of some government officials, to the importance of floating on the Illinois River in Oklahoma, which generates a mere $9 million annually in direct economic benefits.

You see, in 2005 Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson sued 14 Arkansas-based poultry companies for polluting the Illinois River watershed with chicken litter. Edmondson, instead of doing his real job of prosecuting criminals in the state of Oklahoma, has attempted to create a windfall in state earnings by targeting poultry companies owned by out-of-state entities. He can't file any criminal charges against contract producers in his state because the chicken farmers have followed the application laws set forth by the state of Oklahoma. A better question might be, why doesn't the Attorney General fulfill his actual duties and start locking up some real criminals?

A quick search of criminal drug use in eastern Oklahoma shows us that prosecutors can't get their cases processed because of pile-ups in the courts and in the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation's (OSBI's) state crime labs, a situation the Tulsa World called "an incredible expanding black hole of backlogged cases."

OSBI's Tahlequah crime lab, which serves eastern Oklahoma, has more than 1,200 methamphetamine cases pending. In rural Adair County alone, the number of backlogged drug cases includes two from 1997, five from 1998, 44 from 1999, and 53 from 2000. In 2004, 168 were arrested in one district and that number was up to 299 in 2006. The District 27 Task Force deserves some credit for the morass; its members made 577 drug arrests in 1999, more than 350 of them for methamphetamine offenses.

Now guess what. All of the above meth lab busts took place in the Illinois River watershed. These criminals are handling phosphorus to make their product. Am I to believe that drug cooks are so careful that they can ensure that their waste materials and ingredients never enter the watershed? As preposterous as you think that sounds, the potential is certainly evident to suggest that the illegal drug business is doing more to contaminate the water supply in Oklahoma than the poultry industry. The source of the increased phosphorus in the water supply has not actually been determined; poultry operations have simply been the only target.

Perhaps if these drug cases were to get prosecuted and convicts were to be put behind bars, other meth producers would feel the pressure to get their operations out of the area and water quality would improve. And since most meth producers aren't contributing in a positive way to the economy through sales tax payments or income tax reporting, let's just assume that keeping hard-working, tax-paying poultry operations in these rural communities would be more beneficial than continuing to allow meth producers to go without prosecution.

Senator Jim Inhofe has recently suggested a real solution to the ongoing lawsuit involving the Water Wars of Oklahoma, including using mediation to solve ongoing disputes and come to terms that both parties can agree upon. He has also included a provision in the farm bill suggesting that the Secretary of Agriculture develop a Poultry Sustainability Research Council, which will look at new ways to utilize nutrients from poultry operations. Time will tell if the powers that be in Oklahoma truly want to make a difference in improving the lives of Oklahoma residents or if we are witnessing one of the great abuses of power that I think is unfolding. No matter, I hope the entire agricultural community is tuned in to what is happening in northwest Arkansas and northeast Oklahoma. Your future may depend on it.

Editor's note: Trent Loos is a sixth generation United States farmer, host of the daily radio show, Loos Tales, and founder of Faces of Agriculture, a non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com, or e-mail Trent at trent@loostales.com.

1/14/08

Drew WIMP OUT on Death Penalty

Between life and death

By Chris Casteel

Washington Bureau

Sun January 6, 2008

WASHINGTON — More than 30 years after the lethal injection method of executing prisoners was developed in Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to determine whether it is cruel and unusual punishment.

The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday in a case from Kentucky in which two death row inmates claim the three-chemical method of execution poses a risk of an extremely painful death. Citing examples of problems delivering an anesthetic through an IV, the inmates say the "combination of the dangerous three-drug protocol with complex administration procedures and poorly trained personnel renders foreseeable errors and botched executions inevitable over time.”

The inmates, who contend there are less dangerous alternatives to the three-chemical formula, lost their case in Kentucky, but the Supreme Court agreed to take the appeal amid challenges in other states regarding lethal injections.

Since taking the case, the court has effectively imposed a moratorium on executions in the nation.

In October, Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to delay executions until the case is decided. Edmondson's request came after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the final appeal of Terry Lyn Short, who was sentenced to death for killing an Oklahoma City man in 1995.

In an interview, Edmondson said he hopes and expects the high court to use the Kentucky case to "enunciate a national standard” for an execution method that doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The inmates are arguing that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a punishment that creates an "unnecessary risk of pain and suffering.”

That standard is much different than the one that states like Kentucky and Oklahoma use as their guide — that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a method that poses a "substantial risk” of wanton infliction of pain.

Edmondson joined in a brief filed by several states in the case arguing that the three-chemical method used in Kentucky is neither cruel nor unusual.

The 36 states that have the death penalty and use lethal injection follow the three-drug method devised in Oklahoma.

When a punishment "is not opposed by a consensus of states and also is not unusual and inherently cruel, the punishment at issue should be upheld as fully consistent with the Eighth Amendment,” the states argued to the court.

The U.S. Solicitor General, the administration's representative to the Supreme Court, also contends that the method should be upheld as constitutional.

The solicitor general told the court that the Constitution protects people against officials who are "deliberately indifferent” to a significant risk of pain but that the inmates haven't shown that Kentucky officials are "acting with anything close to deliberate indifference.”

"Indeed, the whole point of the lethal-injection procedure is to avoid the needless infliction of pain and to hasten death.”

Inventor sought painless method
The method was developed in part by a former Oklahoma legislator who was personally opposed to the death penalty.
Bill Wiseman, a Tulsa Republican, wrote the legislation in 1977 that made Oklahoma the first state in the nation to adopt lethal injection as the method of execution after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to reimpose the death penalty.

Wiseman, working with the state medical examiner and an anesthesiologist, wanted to make executions painless. He said in an interview in 1990 that, while working to pass the legislation, he showed his colleagues pictures of the corpses of inmates who had been killed in an electric chair.

"It looked like seared meat,” he said then.

Wiseman, who died in a plane crash last year, told The Oklahoman in 2006 that he still believed lethal injection was a painless way of administering death if done properly.

One of the questions raised in the Kentucky case is whether proper administration can be guaranteed.

The Oklahoma Corrections Department eventually chose the drugs: sodium thiopental, a barbiturate anesthetic to keep the inmate from feeling anything, like a person undergoing surgery; vecuronium bromide, which paralyzes movement and halts breathing; and potassium chloride to induce cardiac arrest.

The Kentucky inmates argue that the people who chose the drugs "did not consult any other physicians or veterinarians, conduct any medical or scientific research, or consider how, and by whom, the drugs would be administered in actual executions.”

According to them, the improper administration of the anesthetic could lead to excruciating pain from the potassium chloride.

Because the inmate had been injected with a drug that effectively paralyzed him, he wouldn't be able to signal that he was experiencing pain.

The inmates say that because each of the three drugs used in lethal injection are capable of causing death, the paralytic agent and the potassium chloride could be eliminated.

"The resulting protocol, using thiopental (or another barbiturate) as the sole lethal agent, would be far less sensitive to error, and would allow any injection errors to be detected and corrected without subjecting the inmate to extreme suffering,” the inmates argue.

End of the death penalty?
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 929 inmates have been executed by lethal injection since 1982. There have been 86 Oklahoma inmates executed by lethal injection since 1990, when the method was first used in the state.
The Kentucky inmates argue that they shouldn't have to prove the three-drug protocol would cause extreme pain.

"The proper question is whether repeated executions using the three-drug formula and Kentucky's inadequate procedures would produce torturous deaths in at least some cases,” the inmates say. "The answer to that question is plainly yes.”

But the U.S. Solicitor General argued that the Supreme Court "has never held that a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment.

"To the contrary, the court has rejected challenges to executions by firing squad and electrocution and, at the same time, made clear that jurisdictions are not required to use the ‘best' available method of execution: i.e., the method that is believed to cause the least amount of pain when compared to other methods.

"Such a standard would impose an impossible burden on the federal government and the states and would, at a minimum, be a recipe for judicial micromanagement of execution procedures, including the medical and scientific details of those procedures.”

Edmondson said the case "could be the vehicle for saying that there will be no more death penalty.”

But he said he didn't the think the court would rule that way.
And he said he didn't think the court would want to review the specific procedures used in every state with the death penalty. Instead, he said the court will likely rule on what broad standard under the Eighth Amendment should apply to executions.

"I hope that's why they accepted the case,” he said.

Paul Jacob updates the case against the "Oklahoma 3"

Paul Jacob, citizen leader and Senior Advisor with the Sam Adams Foundation, discusses what's happened since his criminal indictment in October 2007. OK Attorney General Drew Edmondson accuses Paul and two others of breaking a state law regarding petition signature gathering, but Paul and the others followed the law as it had been interpreted previously by the OK Supreme Court. Now Edmondson wants to imprison the OK 3 for up to 10 years. For more information, visit http://www.freepauljacob.com and http://www.samadamsalliance.org

For the background on the Oklahoma 3 see this...



A mash-up video, about the Oklahoma AG's attack on "The Oklahoma 3".

The Oklahoma 3, does not deserve to be the target of political retaliation from politicians who want to limit the political choices available to all Oklahomans.

This is an issue that transcends the political spectrum. Every one of us has a dog in this race." All of us may, in good time and for pressing issues, decide in the future to exercise our right to petition for redress of grievance via the initiative petition process. Any limitation on that right is therefore a direct attack on all of us.

Now the Oklahoma AG is banning 'Christmas'

Hat Tip to my facebook buddy and fellow Okie Mark Tapscott

Oklahoma attorney general Drew Edmondson drew national scorn earlier this year when he arrested Paul Jacob of the Sam Adams Alliance and two colleagues on trumped-up charges that they violated a discredited state law requiring all circulators of initiative petititons in Sooner Land to be residents.

Now the Okie Napoleon is banning Christmas!

I am not making this up (because I am from Oklahoma and this guy is an embarrassment).

Edmondson issued an advisory opinion to officials at Southwestern Oklahoma State University in Weatherford advising them that the word "Christmas" should not be spoken by any employee of the state school, not written in any official holiday decorations.

Matt Staver and Liberty Counsel issued the following statement on the Edmondson action:

"Southwestern Oklahoma State University (SWOSU), has issued a disturbing policy which requires all employees to refrain from using the word 'Christmas' in oral or written form. This directive was given by the university upon legal advice of the Oklahoma Attorney General, W.A. Drew Edmondson. Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to SWOSU following a complaint from a university affiliate.

"John Misak, the Director of Human Resources, recently visited various university departments and employee groups and informed everyone that any decorations featuring the word 'Christmas' in any work or public areas of the university must be immediately removed. He also instructed everyone to discontinue the use of the term 'Christmas' in their speech while on the job. This censorship specifically includes exchanging greetings of 'Merry Christmas' among employees or with non-employees, whether initiated by a non-university employee or not. Christmas remains a legal holiday for state employees, including those at SWOSU. The directive does not include any other legal holidays such as Thanksgiving or New Year’s.

"The announcements made by Misak are in direct violation of the United States Constitution and other federal law. The First Amendment prohibits government from being hostile to religion. Selecting one legal holiday for negative treatment and special restrictions solely because it has religious aspects clearly demonstrates hostility toward religion. Moreover, the free speech rights of employees at the university are infringed when their speech is censored solely because of a religious viewpoint or perceived religious viewpoint. A public employer like SWOSU also violates the Civil Rights Act when it prohibits its employees from saying 'Merry Christmas.'

"Liberty Counsel’s demand letter requests an immediate reversal of the university’s unconstitutional policy. Liberty Counsel’s Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign educates and, if necessary, litigates to insure that Christmas is not censored.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: 'Of all places, a public university should foster free expression. How can public university officials honestly believe that the state can prohibit its employees from saying 'Merry Christmas?' After all, Christmas is a state and federal legal holiday.'"

If you would like to tell the Okie Napoleon what you think of his advisory, you can reach his office via telephone at: 405-521-3921. Don't forget to wish him a "Merry Christmas." Please be courteous and be clear that you think Edmondson's advisory opinion is beyond ridiculous.

FLASH - DREW’s CRUSADE Part 2: The RE-Indictment of “The Oklahoma 3”

It look like our AG has re-file "CRIMINAL FELONY" counts on "The Oklahoma 3"

“Everyone should be deeply concerned about this,” Oklahoma Sen. Randy Brogdon said.
“The Constitutional rights of every citizen of Oklahoma are in jeopardy as well as the
liberty of three good people who face ten years in prison. If this shameful political
assault succeeds, everyone is at risk. It is an outrage!”

Brogdon said the only crime committed was the disenfranchisement of over
300,000 Oklahoma voters who expressed their voice by exercising their
Constitutional rights.


"The Oklahoma 3" are Rick Carpenter, Susan Johnson and Paul Jacob

Also for more Info see

www.freepauljacob.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS42UfTfQd0

http://tinyurl.com/2vkn9x



more to come....

DREW’s CRUSADE: The Indictment of “The Oklahoma 3”

A mash-up video, about the Oklahoma AG’s attack on "The Oklahoma 3".

The Oklahoma 3, does not deserve to be the target of political retaliation from corrupt politicians who want to limit the political choices available to all Oklahomans.

This is an issue that transcends the political spectrum. Every one of us has a dog in this race.” All of us may, in good time and for pressing issues, decide in the future to exercise our right to petition for redress of grievance via the initiative petition process. Any limitation on that right is therefore a direct attack on all of us.

“Everyone should be deeply concerned about this,” Oklahoma Sen. Randy Brogdon said. “The Constitutional rights of every citizen of Oklahoma are in jeopardy as well as the liberty of three good people who face ten years in prison. If this shameful political assault succeeds, everyone is at risk. It is an outrage!”
Brogdon said the only crime committed was the disenfranchisement of over 300,000 Oklahoma voters who expressed their voice by exercising their Constitutional rights.

“It appears Drew Edmondson is more concerned with protecting his own political power than he is with preserving, protecting, and defending the right of Oklahomans to free speech,” Brogdon added. “This is nothing less than an attack on our Republican form of government.”

Paul Jacob and Sen. Randy Brogdon both have said, What is really happening here is a conspiracy to violate “under color of law” the constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances in Oklahoma.

www.freepauljacob.com

Sen. Randy Brogdon Questions Edmondson's TABOR Motives

Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdon (Owasso, R-34) questioned Oklahoma AG Drew Edmondson’s motives in his effort to prosecute three participants in the 2005 Taxpayer Bill of Rights petition drive.

Sen. Brogdon noted that when asked by reporters whether his prosecution was politically-motivated, Edmondson stated that the indictment of the petition workers did not come from his office, but was the work of a multi-county grand jury. The Attorney General recently filed a motion to dismiss the multi-county grand jury’s indictment against the three petition activists, making a statement that a new indictment would be issued directly from the office of the Attorney General.

Brogdon also pointed to recent negative news coverage of the Attorney General’s prosecution against the “Oklahoma 3”. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine compared Oklahoma’s justice system to that of Pakistan and North Korea, respectively.

“Drew Edmondson and this outrageous prosecution are an embarrassment to the state,” Brogdon said. “His politically motivated decision to prosecute three innocent people has cast the state in a negative light and has been criticized by publications read throughout the nation and world.”

“Amazingly, there was no news coverage when the Attorney General quietly dismissed his once trumpeted indictment,” said Sen. Brogdon, “Attorney General Edmondson needs to come clean. Is there something so wrong with his grand jury process or with the indictments themselves that he has to re-issue the indictments from his office after dismissing them from the grand jury?"

Calling the actions of the Edmondson an embarrassment to the state, Sen. Brogdon urged the AGn to end his “politically motivated” prosecution.

“This is a good time of the year for our Attorney General to reflect on what is at stake and end the persecution of three innocent people,” Brogdon stated. “This politically motivated prosecution sends a chilling message to our citizens to never buck the political system.”

The “Oklahoma 3” are Rick Carpenter of Tulsa, Paul Jacob of Virginia and Susan Carpenter of Michigan, president of National Voter Outreach, a petition management company. The three worked to gather signatures for a Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiative in 2005.

Oklahoma's Most Wanted

The latest thing in political felonies: a petition drive.

Monday, November 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

A veteran political activist is facing 10 years in prison and a hefty fine for attempting to petition government for redress of grievances. The latest news from Pakistan? No, this is happening in Oklahoma.

Last month Paul Jacob, the former head of U.S. Term Limits and current head of Citizens in Charge, was led out of an Oklahoma City courtroom in handcuffs after pleading not guilty to charges that he conspired to defraud the state. Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who's overseeing this bizarre prosecution, has accused Mr. Jacob and two fellow petition organizers--Rick Carpenter of Oklahomans in Action and Susan Johnson of National Voter Outreach--of bringing out-of-state petition gatherers to Oklahoma to collect signatures.

In 2005 Mr. Carpenter, a Tulsan, launched a signature campaign to get a state-wide vote on a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Tabor, as it is known, would cap the rate at which state government spending could increase. Mr. Jacob and Ms. Johnson were later brought on board to assist the effort. Not surprisingly, politicians and interest groups that favor big government have developed an intense dislike for Tabor spending limits, even though, like lawmaker term limits, they tend to be popular with voters.

This certainly proved to be the case in Oklahoma. Despite strong opposition from organized labor especially, Tabor petition advocates managed to gather some 300,000 signatures from registered voters, far more than the 219,000 needed to get the measure on the state ballot. Following a court challenge, however, the signatures were invalidated, not because the signers weren't legitimate but because the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that nonresidents of the state had collected signatures.

Ironically, it is perfectly legal for opponents of a petition to solicit money and manpower from out-of-state. And sure enough, public sector unions opposed to the Tabor initiative recruited people from outfits like the Oregon-based Voter Education Project, an offshoot of the AFL-CIO that specializes in countering signature drives. They also set up Web sites that advertised the location of signature-gathers and urged their members to harass them.

After the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled, Attorney General Edmondson could have let the matter die. Instead, he decided that the best use of scarce prosecutorial resources was to indict the petition campaigners. There's reason to believe his decision has less to do with enforcing the law and more to do with warning activists to think twice before challenging political elites.

Mr. Jacob says petition organizers consulted with both the board of elections and the secretary of state's office and were told that the residency rule could be met by anyone who moved to the state and declared himself a resident. In any case, that residency requirement is currently being challenged in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Mr. Edmondson might have at least waited for that outcome before pursuing felony counts against three people acting in good faith.

"The response is draconian and intended to scare and intimidate," says Mr. Jacob, who also faces a fine of up to $25,000 if convicted. "To get 10 years in prison for following what you understand to be the rules of the petition drive would send a chilling message, not only throughout Oklahoma but throughout the country. That's not what we want people to be thinking about when they consider whether to join a campaign to reform their government."

The Democratic AG has denied that his actions are politically motivated, telling reporters that "we're charged with enforcing the laws that are on the books." But every prosecutor has to make judgment calls about how to deploy limited manpower. And in other areas, Mr. Edmondson has opted not to act while legal challenges are pending. Upon learning that the Supreme Court had agreed to review a challenge to the death penalty, for example, he recently requested that all executions be halted until the High Court speaks.

Like many other ambitious AGs, Mr. Edmondson has his eye on higher office, and indicting Tabor supporters will win him friends among the unions and liberal interest groups that can sway a fight for the Democratic nomination. With so many other real crimes to deter, his pursuit of citizen petitioners is not the kind of prosecutorial zeal we need.



http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010882