You may have noticed a lack of posts over the last week. Jeane and I were on our first vacation in about four years. We met some friends for a week in Branson, which I have not visited since I graduated ninth grade and went to see Ray Stevens with the Wyricks (Ray’s theater is now the RFD-TV Theater).

The bulk of the week was spent lying around like third base, which we needed. We stayed at the Big Cedar Wilderness Club (a time-share next to the Big Cedar Lodge). The accommodations were beautiful, we got to use all the Big Cedar amenities, and we got a great deal renting it from an owner.

We also ran around town a bit. We hit the new Branson Landing, which is new and clean…and in large part, Woodland Hills Mall outside. I have been hearing everyone cry for a Branson Landing in Tulsa for the last couple years, and my question is Why? I’m not opposed to river development, but we can do better than the Branson Landing. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice and clean and pretty. The water/fire shows are cool, too. But it was very generic. I saw very few stores that were not part of a chain. We ate at Garfields. We visited Bass Pro, and Lids, and Yankee Candle, and Rockie Mountain Chocolate, and Bath and Body Works, etc. I guess what I am saying is that there wasn’t much Branson to the Branson Landing. You literally could have picked it up and plunked it down in any other city, and nothing would be out of place or not fit in. I’m a little sad we didn’t spend some time exploring the historic parts of the city, and we will next time.

We, of course, did hit Silver Dollar City (and I bought Season passes, which is why we have to make at least one more trip this year). It’s the beginning of their season, so they aren’t open everyday. I had a real Clark Griswold feeling when we pulled up to the park on Wednesday and the sign said “Closed Today.” Fortunately, we made it inside the park on Thursday, without kidnapping a security guard at BB gunpoint.

I hadn’t been since I was a little kid, and it was fun. I mean, let’s be honest, in large part it’s a huge gift shop that they charge admission to, but it’s still cool, and they have their marketing down pat. Jeane loved the glass blowing and we bought a couple very nice pieces. We rode a couple rides, and Jeane picked an oyster which had a size 7 pearl in it! We bought some apple butter, and ate a funnel cake. Just a relaxing day being a Branson tourist. Asleep at the Wheel will be at the Silver Dollar City Amphitheater in September, so that may be when we return.

Around town, we visited the Hollywood Wax museum, which was pretty good. They have some proportion issues with some of their exhibits where the heads are way too huge for the bodies or visa versa. On the other hand, some models were very good.

We also visited the Titanic museum, which was excellent. You get to touch what a real glacier feels like, see many artifacts from the ship, see a scale reproduction of a third-class cabin (which was quite elegant for third-class travel at the time), see a reproduction of the Marconi room, walk up the Grand Staircase, see video from the underwater discovery of the wreckage, tap out Morse Code, sit in a lifeboat, and see how long you can keep your hand in 28-degree water (the temperature of the Ocean that night). It was a great time.

All in all, we had a great time, and it was wonderful to see our friends. I even taught my friend how to make perfect sausage gravy.

But now, we’re back home and back to work. There’s a lot going on for me right now, so the posting may be sporadic for he next week.

And to quickly update some stories the WynnBlog has been following:

While I was gone, comments on the post regarding the latest Joe Wiley lawsuit (Goff v. Huckill, Wiley, et. al.) were very busy. I can also report that last week, President Wiley and President-Designate Rice called a meeting of Huckill’s department and announced that Sheree Huckill and Penny Pricer are resigning. It is also reported that the Department of Education, which was recently on campus to audit the Trio program, has not yet released its report, which will be public, and has asked for further documentation.

As far as the lawsuit itself, court documents since I last reported include a response to RSU’s motion to dismiss for lack or service and failure to state a claim, which includes my affidavit regarding service of President Wiley in the previous Fellman case as an exhibit. Goff contends that service is good and that Wiley and Company have a history of avoiding service. Goff further argues that if service is deemed not to have been perfected, that dismissal is not the proper remedy. RSU has responded asking that the exhibits be stricken and the case dismissed. I’ll update you when there is more, and especially when the judge rules on the motions.

There’s nothing new in the Tywone Parks case that I know of. The next thing down the pike is the issue preliminary hearing on April 29.

And, lastly, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed themselves on their recent decision regarding redaction of personal information from court filings and ending online access to court documents. Bully for them. I’d still look for changes, but they may do a little study of the issue before their next order.

[Update]

Just moments ago, I engaged the random sequence generator, and it produced the following results:

Commenters 5 and 7 have been notified. If I do not hear back from them in 24 hours, I will work down the list.

Thanks to the many who visited and those who commented. Here’s hoping the resurrection is real to you every day.

[Original Post]

(Click for big.)

Just in time for Easter, I am happy to offer a first here at the WynnBlog. I will be giving away two copies of The Life of Christ: Rediscovering how His life, death, and resurrection changed the world, the fabulous new resource from the American Bible Society and Time, Inc.

This book is not only beautiful in appearance, but it also vividly recounts the story of Christ’s life on earth with very important details that give readers what is often not so easy to grasp: context.

When the New Testement was being penned as Gospel accounts and epistles, the intended readers had no need of detailed instruction in the culture, geography, customs, etc., of the times–they were living them daily. We, many years and miles removed, can greatly benefit from a tool that helps us get a grasp of the culture and context in which Jesus lived, taught, died, and was resurrected–not to mention the culture of the early believers, who were the intended audience of the Scriptures. We better understand the Word when we comprehend what it meant to its first audience. If you’d like a resource that will give you greater insight and add depth to your biblical understanding, The Life of Christ is for you.

This hardcover book is beautiful, containing full-color pictures of the biblical lands and Christian works of art through the ages. No words I can write will fully do it justice.

And, for you, my readers, I offer an Easter giveaway. I am giving two, count them, two copies of The Life of Christ away. And here’s how it will work.

If you would like a chance to receive a free copy of the book, you must comment on this post, with the words, “I’m in,” or something similar. Friends and family members are eligible and encouraged to enter.

It’s just that simple. You can even use a fake name in the form if you wish. BUT YOU MUST USE A VALID, WORKING EMAIL ADDRESS. It is not public, and I will use it only to contact you for your shipping address if you are a winner. I pay the postage, too. Keep in mind that my blog may automatically hold your comment for moderation (something I have to do to avoid spammers). Just comment once, be cool, and wait. I’ll approve comments periodically.

The fine print:

At 10:00 AM, Monday, March 24, 2008, I will enter the number of comments I have received into a random sequence generator that will process a random order list (the high-tech, totally random way of drawing names from a hat). I will contact the submitters of the top two comments (as determined by the random sequence generator) via email. They will have 24 hours to respond and provide their shipping information. If I have not heard from them in 24 hours, they have missed their chance, and I will move down the list. If my email to you bounces, you are disqualified, and I move down the list. No information you provide to me will be sold, rented, or given to any other party. It will be used by me only for the purposes of communicating. That’s it.

Your part is simple: just comment. I’ll take care of the rest. And, please tell your friends. I want as many people as possible to have a chance to receive this book.

And Happy Easter! Christ has risen!

The WynnBlog had a reporter (me) present in the courtroom this morning for Tywone Parks’ scheduled no-issue preliminary hearing. Due to a scheduling conflict on the part of Parks’ attorney, Jack Zanerhaft, Parks is set for the issue docket, April 29, 2008, at 9:00 AM.

During the appearance, Zanerhaft informed the court that he had this morning filed a motion to dismiss. I, of course, got my hands on it for you. It’s fairly short, sweet, and lacking in specificity, arguing to dismiss all felony charges based upon constitutional grounds, specifically that the language of the statute under which Parks is being prosecuted violates the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

See the Motion to Dismiss for yourself here.

On a related matter, the Oklahoma State Courts Network site is showing that the three young women who initially applied for and received temporary emergency protective orders against Parks have now had their protective orders made permanent, expiring March 15, 2011.

Stay tuned to the WynnBlog for the latest.

Just a quick post to point out that it is patently unfair for Obama apologists (whom I have heard on radio and TV) to dismiss Jeremiah Wright’s racist, anti-American, and un-Christian statements because, as they say, all black churches are prone to this kind of thing.

Let’s just be really clear here: I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to be black and who also would have ridden this nutcase out of their church on a rail. Don’t dis a whole segment of society to shore up a man’s candidacy.

The Left has a tendency to see everyone as a member of some group, easy divisible (as opposed to “indivisible”), then to speak of those groups as monoliths. True believers in Jesus Christ and His Gospel reject the teachings of Wright and his authority as a pastor, be they black, white, or polka-dotted. I, for one, reject that all black churches get caught up in the message of self reliance that calls on members to hate their country and embrace teachers of another way to God. True Bible teaching instructs believers not in self-reliance but in radical reliance upon Christ–regardless of the political atmosphere.

And so, I am offended on behalf of the many Christians of color around the world.

[Update]

Monday, March 17, Freedom of Information Oklahoma awarded the Oklahoma Supreme Court its inaugural Black Hole award for its new rules.

The justices received the award for roadblocking freedom of information by establishing new rules addressing content on the Internet.

[Original Post Below]

Today begins what is known as Sunshine Week. From the Sunshine Week website:

Sunshine Week is a national initiative to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include print, broadcast and online news media, civic groups, libraries, non-profits, schools and others interested in the public’s right to know.

Sunshine Week is led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and is funded primarily by a challenge grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation of Miami.

Though spearheaded by journalists, Sunshine Week is about the public’s right to know what its government is doing, and why. Sunshine Week seeks to enlighten and empower people to play an active role in their government at all levels, and to give them access to information that makes their lives better and their communities stronger.

Sunshine Week is a non-partisan initiative whose supporters are conservative, liberal and everything in between.

If you live in Oklahoma, and have been awake the last week, you are sure to have heard by now that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued new rules ordering the redaction of some personal information from court filings (which most folks, myself included, don’t object to, though it might be well for us to revisit just what information should be redacted at a later time) and eliminating the availability of court filings online. This was regarded by the WynnBlog, journalists, bloggers, politicians, and even some members of the Supreme Court as huge blow for public records and open government.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Marion Opala did not even vote (for or against) in the new rules decision. Knowing Opala to be a great supporter of First Amendment rights, I wondered why he had not participated. The answer seems to indicate his continued disdain for the rest of the Court:

Five justices voted for the rules. Two agreed with part of the policy and disagreed with the rest. Justice Steven Taylor voted against the new policy and Opala chose not to vote even though he opposes it.

“I decided not to participate in that brouhaha because I’ve been in enough controversies with the court,” Opala said.

(You may remember Opala as the justice who sued the rest of the Supremes because they changed their long-standing rules of order to deny him the position of Chief Justice. He succeeded in the district court, but the federal court, saying it had no power to remedy the situation, remanded the case and ordered the district court to dismiss it with prejudice, and the U.S. Supremes refused to hear Opala’s appeal. I think it goes without saying that there is likely a little tension between Opala and his colleagues.)

Opala was also quoted in the NewsOK article as saying:

“How can you keep public records from public knowledge?”… “I don’t understand how anybody who is a lawyer can say that a government can ration, censor or screen public records from the public. There’s just no way.”

In a NewsOK.com Sunshine Week interview with Oklahoma Attorney Drew Edmondson, with whom I have more than a few differences, the AG stated that he believes the new rules go too far, and that he agrees more with the dissent than the majority opinion. Interestingly, that appears to be an opinion he shares with his brother, Vice Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, James Edmondson, who joined in Justice Yvonne Kauger’s opinion concurring in part (redaction) and dissenting in part (online access). In pertinent part, the article states:

[Bryan Dean, NewsOK staff writer]: Are you troubled by the state Supreme Court’s recent decision to take many court records off the Internet and limit identifying information in court documents?

[Drew Edmondson]: I would tend to agree more with the dissent than the majority. I’ve read the rules that have been handed down. I think some of them are prudent in an effort to avoid identity theft. Some of them may have gone too far. The section which deals with Internet access says at the end that this may be subject to further review, and it doesn’t go into effect until June. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Supreme Court didn’t take a second look at that particular provision. It’s hard to justify a record that is otherwise open that anyone can go down to the courthouse and see not being available on the Internet. I don’t see the rationale for that and I think the court would be well-advised to take another look at it.

The article quoting Opala further states that the Court is welcoming public comment:

The chief justice also is welcoming public comments. Comments can be e-mailed to Michael Evans, the administrative director of the courts, at michael.evans@oscn.net.

So fire up those email clients and let the court know what you think about this drastic new change. But, don’t hold your breath for changes. The article concludes with Opala responding as to whether the Court will actually revisit the rule change:

“It’s difficult to predict. At times, they dig in when there is a public outcry,” he said. “To me, it was shocking that they took the position to begin with. In the face of the First Amendment, there just isn’t any question.”

I know five justices who look pretty tempting as “No” votes on the Oklahoma judiciary retention ballot later this year.

—————————————

For more open records info, visit:

• Freedom of Information Oklahoma
• Sunshine Week Website
• NewsOK.com’s Right to Know Page (lots of great links for Oklahoma)

In a case decided yesterday, the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck a drastic blow to the public’s right to access court documents online. It’s a real shame, because Oklahoma has been a leader in getting its court system online. The Oklahoma State Courts Network (OSCN) is one of the best in the nation, and has been a model other states have attempted to reproduce.

There were two issues decided. The first deals with redacting certain personal information from court documents. I have no quarrels with that part of the decision. WynnBlog readers will note that I voluntarily redact certain information from court documents I post here (for example, many of the Tywone Parks documents were released with his social security number, which I redacted). There might be some need for further discussion about exactly what information should and should not be redacted, but I leave that for another day. (I will also say that as a process server, I find court documents invaluable for helping to locate persons who would rather not be found.)

The real blow to public records is that the Court has, in its order, decided:

…to immediately limit internet public access to court dockets only. The individual pleadings and other recorded documents filed of record in state court actions shall not be publicly displayed on the internet. Court documents may be viewed at the courthouse unless otherwise prohibited by law. (emphasis added)

In a day and age when we’re moving to more and better online access to our government institutions, this step is unnecessary and unwise. Further, if the personal data has been ordered redacted, what is the harm in allowing court documents to be accessible online? Documents in the federal courts are almost all accessible online. Not all of Oklahoma’s district courts post actual documents online, but they were advancing toward that end.

In his her (thanks to Michael Bates) opinion, which concurred on the issue of redaction but dissented on the issue of ceasing online access of records, and with which I heartily agree, Justice Kauger stated (emphasis added, footnotes omitted):

¶4 In this computerized, internet age, courts, with the help and the direction of legislatures, are taking fiscal responsibility by reducing paperwork, reducing copying costs, moving towards electronic filing and electronic transfer of records, and providing the public greater and easier access to information to which it is entitled. Court records are migrating from paper form to electronic form where information may be disseminated in bulk, accessed over the internet, or both. In a step towards this responsibility, the Court recently increased court costs by $15.00 to provide for improved computerization of all 77 county clerk dockets. However, as a result of the Court’s order, not only is the Court taking a giant, thirty year leap backwards to a time when the personal computer was nonexistent, the public is now paying for access to a system which is made inaccessible by the order.

***

¶6 The Court is obligated to provide the public with access to court records. The judiciary has long recognized that case file documents, unless sealed or otherwise restricted by statute or court rule, are available at the courthouse for public inspection. The common law right and the presumption of public access to court records relate to the public’s right to monitor the functioning of our courts, thereby insuring quality, honesty, and respect for our legal system. The Oklahoma Open Records Act, 51 O.S. 2001 §§24A.1-24A.29 provides for the public’s right to access to and review of government records. Section 24A.2 provides in pertinent part:

. . .The privacy interests of individuals are adequately protected in the specific exceptions to the Oklahoma Open Records Act or in the statutes which authorize, create or require records. Except where specific state or federal statutes create a confidential privilege, persons who submit information to public bodies have no right to keep this information from public access nor reasonable expectation that this information will be kept from public access; provided, the person, agency or political subdivision shall at all times bear the burden of establishing such records are protected by such a confidential privilege. Except as required by other statutes, public bodies do not need to follow any procedures for providing access to public records except those specifically required by the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

Consequently, court documents are required to be open for inspection, copying and reproduction. Exceptions are made for documents which have been removed from public record by court orders.

***

¶10 Oklahoma’s state courts have been consistently ahead of the pack in adapting to the digital age. In the Law Library Journal, Peter Martin called the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network, “. . . without dispute the most comprehensive court-based legal information site in the United States.” In the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, Lynn Foster wrote that the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network, “. . . represent[s] the cutting edge in technological advances for governments and universities with regard to the dissemination of appellate decisions.” Oklahoma’s state courts website offers access not only to statutes, rules, opinions, and orders, not only to summaries of filings and other docket events for individual cases in our appellate courts and courts of general jurisdiction, but also to digital copies of pleadings at the trial level in certain counties.

***¶13 With the invention of each new method of conveying information, it becomes more difficult for the courts to seal and protect information without the individual cooperation of litigants and members of the Bar. Whether it is a development we welcome, the simple fact is that the tide of new media may not be ignored or dodged. Instead, we should make policy that contemplates this new reality. Given the public’s increasing expectation of governmental transparency and its acclimation to the variety of new media, a strong philosophical distinction between documents available to the public at the courthouse and documents available to the public online becomes harder and harder to maintain. A blanket ban on posting copies of pleadings online, without consultation with the bench, the Bar, or the Legislature is a step too far, especially when in all likelihood we will lift this ban in the near future when we begin operating under a new case management system. If it is intellectually acceptable to post these documents for all counties, how can it be unacceptable to post them for some counties? The ban will not protect the court any further than the new redaction policy and its existing immunity. In fact, this temporary ban will do little more than have the undesirable effect of limiting the public’s access to public information to which it has become accustomed —- and creating a stir.

***

¶15 It makes more sense to test our new redaction rules and their effectiveness by continuing to allow a few counties to make documents available online and work out any kinks now rather than to wait until all counties are online and then test the new rules on such a grand scale. Oklahoma was ahead of the game when it came to providing information online; we should remain a pioneer in this regard by requiring redaction and continuing to provide information online. Obviously, case management is being done on a state by state basis. If there were an existing system, every state would be utilizing it. Other states followed Oklahoma’s lead by developing websites and going online. Why would we suddenly want to move to the end of the line to wait and follow other states? This is an egregious example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

As for now, the baby has been thrown out with the bath water and Oklahoma has taken a giant, thirty-year backward leap. Expect to hear more about this in the coming days.

Hat Tip: NewsOK