The WynnBlog originally reported, August 28, 2008, on the wrongful termination lawsuit filed against RSU by former Bit by Bit director Jana Walstrom, in this post.

I did a follow-up post January 23, 2009, in this post.

With the recent mess at Bit by Bit due to Dr. Ray Brown’s termination of interim director Trista Milliman, I thought the Walstrom case worth revisiting. I’m glad I did, because Walstrom’s case is very much still alive.

Here’s the quick and dirty background. Walstrom filed her suit against RSU, its regents, and Dr. Larry Minks and Ms. Linda Andrews, two RSU administrators (at that time; Minks has departed, Andrews remains) in Rogers County District Court, which is the state court having jurisdiction over RSU, which is located in Claremore, Rogers County, Oklahoma. Walstrom alleged some very serious acts on the part of RSU, through Minks and Andrews, which, if true, should scare anyone from working for RSU ever again. There were also several similarities between Walstrom’s allegations and those made in other suits against RSU and its agents (yes, there have been several).

Back to Walstrom. RSU’s attorneys pulled a maneuver whereby they moved to have the case removed from the state court to federal court. The Rogers County courts have delivered some fairly harsh decisions against RSU in the past, and it’s likely that RSU attorneys view the federal court friendlier to their client. There’s another reason as well. It’s the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

For all practical purposes, the courts interpret this to mean that U.S. states cannot be sued in federal court, for which the term is “sovereign immunity.” This is not absolute, and there are a couple of exceptions. One of these exceptions is if a state gives permission to be sued in federal court, the federal court then has jurisdiction to hear the case. In the Walstrom case, RSU’s attorneys filed a motion to move the case from Rogers County court to the federal courts, the United States Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, based in Tulsa. Once in federal court, RSU’s attorneys then moved to dismiss the case because, they allege, RSU (an arm of the State of Oklahoma) is immune from suits in federal court because of the Eleventh Amendment. Pretty snazzy, huh? Move to go to federal court, then move to dismiss because you’re immune to federal court, and call it a day.

To me, as a non-attorney, is seems preposterous that a party could make the motion to move a case to federal court then claim it hadn’t given permission to be sued in federal court. But the argument has been successful before, which, one assumes, is why it was tried again. But this time, the court reached the same conclusion I did, Judge Eagan ruling that RSU’s motion to move the case to federal court granted Walstrom permission to sue it in federal court, stating:

Plaintiff argues, and the Court agrees, that removal of a case to federal court constitutes an intentional waiver of the RSU’s defense of sovereign immunity. … Therefore, RSU has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and it is not immune to plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim.

Win one for Walstrom.

Because the case was not dismissed, the federal court went on to Walstrom’s claim that her Constitutional rights were violated by Dr. Minks and Ms. Andrews, who were acting under the color of state law, which is referred to as a §1983 claim (after the numbered section in which it appears in the statutes). There is a precise methodology for stating a claim under §1983. In the Walstrom case, the federal court ruled that Walstrom had failed to state a claim, meaning that she did not adequately meet the requirements of a 5-prong test in her allegations. The court’s opinion is that the Walstrom didn’t satisfactorily satisfy the 5-prong test, so her §1983 claim was dismissed.

Win one for RSU.

Since the §1983 claim was the only federal issue of Walstrom’s case, the court then ruled that state court is the best place for the remaining issues, all related to Oklahoma state law, to be decided, thus the federal court declined to exercise jurisdiction over what remains of the case and remanded it back to Rogers Country District Court for further action. So, Walstrom’s case is back in Judge Post’s Claremore court.

Win one for ??? Only time will tell. Rogers County judges have been fairly good at getting to the truth and issuing good opinions. We’ll see if that remains the case. I have every confidence Judge Post will do well. According to OSCN, the parties have agreed on a scheduling order. I’ll try to get by the courthouse this week and see what else has been filed recently.

And that’s all I have to say about that (for now). If you’d like to see the court document I have referenced for this post, it is here. Feel free to comment if you feel I have made an error in my analysis. I’ll be glad to correct mistakes.

And special thanks to the WynnBlog friend who helped me get the court document. You know who you are.

Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern has created a Proclamation for Morality, asking for signatories, and planning a signing ceremony at noon, Thursday, July 2, 2009, at the Capitol Rotunda. Many are keen to get behind the proclamation, with some viewing its support as indicative of one’s conservatism. Kern has been the center of much controversy in the past, due to her statements about homosexuality. While I agree with much of the sentiment of her proclamation, I cannot sign it. Read the proclamation (take a deep breath, it’s long), then I’ll explain why.

WE THE PEOPLE OF OKLAHOMA, Invoking the guidance of almighty god, in
order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty; to secure
just and rightful Government; to promote our mutual Welfare and
Happiness, do establish this proclamation and call upon the people of
the great State of Oklahoma, and our fellow Patriots in these United
States of America who look to the Lord for guidance, to acknowledge
the need for a national awakening of righteousness in our land.

WHEREAS, “It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the
Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “We have no government armed with power capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by Religion and
Morality” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious
people” (John Adams), and

WHEREAS, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization,
not upon the power of government…. But upon the capacity of mankind
for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern
ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the
Ten Commandments of God” (James Madison); and

WHEREAS, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a
right that belongs to us by the laws of God” (Benjamin Franklin); and

WHEREAS, “God who gave us life gave us liberty and can the liberties
of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm
basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties
are of the Gift of God” (Thomas Jefferson); and

WHEREAS, “Whether any free government can be permanent, where the
public worship of God, and the support of Religion, constitute no part
of the policy or duty of the state” (Joseph Story); and

WHEREAS, “We hold sacred the rights of conscience, and promise to the
people…. The free and undisturbed exercise of their religion” (Roger
Sherman); and

WHEREAS, “This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by
Christians” (Patrick Henry); and

WHEREAS, “When you…. Exercise the right of voting for public
officers, let it be impressed upon your mind that God commands you to
chose just men who will rule in the fear of God” (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, “The principles of genuine Liberty and of wise laws and
administrations are to be drawn from the Bible” (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, the people of Oklahoma have a strong tradition of reliance
upon the Creator of the Universe; and

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater
national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion,
pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate
births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America
is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was
built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the President of these United
States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past
presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the President of these
United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and
pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned elected
officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of
the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world,
solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of
these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and
Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True
God and His only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing
that “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord” and humbly implore
all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of
God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of
Almighty God; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God,
our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to
stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of
righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.

Signed on the Second Day of July in the Year of our Lord Christ Two
Thousand and Nine.

So there you have it. It’s long, as proclamations tend to be, and it employs many good words—some from our Founders, and most of the sentiments I find biblical and worthy of support. But, there’s one thing in particular that bothers me.

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater
national moral crisis; and

Really? Sorry, but I don’t buy it. What if our current economic woes are due to persons at all levels making bad economic choices  and/or many being the victims of fraud and/or the federal government being altogether too entangled in the affairs of her subjects citizens?

Can and does God bring economic calamity as a punishment for moral lapses. Certainly. Is every economic travail an indication of rampant sinfulness in the lives of those affected. Certainly not! This is some of the wrong-headed thinking about the Gospel that I can’t stomach, and I hate to see that my fellow Baptist Sally Kern has made this leap into what I can only term as error.

Think about Christians down through the ages. We Christians, historically, have certainly not been characterized by wealth. What about those Christians today who suffer both abject poverty and acute persecution? Are they paying economically for their views on abortion, homosexuality, and pornography? I know it’s counter to a whole segment of prosperity preachers of this modern age, but Christ said that foxes had holes and birds had nests but the Son of Man had no place to lay His head. This, from the same Guy who said that a servant is no better than his Master. If we believe Him, and I think it’s a pretty good idea that we do, we understand that there is no guarantee of financial blessing because we claim Him as our Lord.

We have, no doubt, been a supremely blessed people. Being born in this country is a blessing above all blessings. And even in a nation that is currently slouching toward the false promises of socialized this and government-guaranteed that, we are freer, richer, and better off than most people on the planet in any era of history. Why? This thing called Liberty.

The same liberty that allows persons to choose other than Christ allows persons to shift gears mid-stream and embrace the offer of grace. I know it’s a silly notion, but what if abortions plummeted not because they were illegal but because our collective hearts were changed to the point that the physical expression of love occurred between committed, married couples who would welcome a child into the world? What if smut no longer sold because the market dried up due to God’s replacing hearts of stone with hearts of flesh? What if child and elder abuse died because we simply loved life? I know, I know. I am an idealist trapped in a realist’s body. It is right and proper that we have laws against these things on the books, but I long for the day when His government rules and the law of love is perfected. For now, though, dark as the world is, it sure looks white unto a harvest. Does this Proclamation for Morality do anything to bring in the sheaves? I’m unconvinced it does.

And so for now, though I can agree with much in Kern’s proclamation and the sentiment behind it, I cannot endorse it or encourage others to do so. If I need to get behind a proclamation, I’ll continue to support the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am convinced that committed Christ followers elect better representatives, so if we want morality to reign in the halls of government, we best share Christ.

OK, I guess the talking point is that Letterman’s comments about the Palin family were “in bad taste.” I could describe it very differently. But what just blows my head off is how Matt Lauer on Today could not resist coming at Palin and asking her if it wasn’t in bad taste that her spokesperson said they intend to keep 14-year-old Willow Palin away from David Letterman. You have to be kidding me! What kind of moral eqivilization is this? I know some places here in Oklahoma where Letterman’s comments would have gotten him, at least, an arse-whoopin’ that even the Sheriff and D.A. would consider justified. I used to be a Letterman fan, but I—like most viewers—have abandoned him in recent years. Anyone who has not the sense to just admit his horrible mistake and truly apologize deserves a public uprising and channel-changing. And, as for Matt Lauer, I am appalled that his own political views and obvious disdain for Palin can allow him to make such an utter fool of himself. Neither of these two hacks would have ever behaved this way if Michelle Obama were substitued for Sarah Palin, and you know it.

Previously in this space, I have shared that I have been in a dialogue with Bailey Dabney, publisher of the Claremore Progress, regarding Claremore’s tea party last week and the Progress‘ coverage of it. What I did not share was that Mr. Dabney was gracious enough to invite me to respond on the pages of his paper as a guest columnist, rather than in a letter to the editor. He certainly did not have to do so. And when he received my column, he didn’t have to print it, but he did. You’ll find it on the Op-Ed page of today’s (April 21, 2009) Progress and also online here.

Since my reports on the Claremore tea party and subsequent responses to the Claremore Progress‘ coverage of it, I have had occasion to be in communication with Bailey Dabney, the still relatively new publisher of the paper. I won’t be sharing many of the details of our dialogue, other than to saw it has been cordial, fair, and friendly. I find him a reasonable man. I am also impressed with his level coverage of what he say when he was in attendance at the Oklahoma City tea party. It’s as if he actually got out of his car and walked among those about which he intended to report.

The Tea Party crowd was friendly and lively, with an interesting array of witty and creative signs expressing dissatisfaction with our current national fiscal policies. As an eyewitness to this sizable gathering, I was surprised the way these groups have been portrayed by national media. There was no anti-government, anti-American, or anti-establishment attitude, as one cable news network described them. Taxpayers did want to be heard regarding their distaste for the current fiscal strategy. The tone was civil and friendly as I walked through snapping pictures with my Blackberry. Watching this group actually made me proud to live in a country where this type of civil communication is allowed. I haven’t seen official estimates, but my unofficial estimate puts 5,000 or more American patriots in attendance as our group walked through. By my estimation, this is an example for other protestors to follow.

That’s strikingly different from the report provided by his underlings in regard to Claremore’s event. It’s nice to see a reasoned head at the helm, and I am hopeful that he continues to improve the paper’s reporting and editorial pieces. His staffers should take a page from his book (or should that be paper?).

This is a good sign. I’ve been critical of the Progress many times, but I have to give credit where credit is due. At this rate, they may get me back as a subscriber.

[UPDATE—April 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.]

In response to my (and others’) claims that the Claremore Progress’ audio report posted on their site was inaccurate (see original post below), whoever Twitters for the paper as WillRogersPaper just tweeted this:

Some RC folks upset as being characterized as being “angry” while at TEA Party and not in street. Todays Progress

And as proof that participants were demonstrating in the intersection, they offer a link to this twitpic (click for big):

Let’s do a little analysis, shall we? What you see here are not tea party demonstrators protesting in an intersection, though the Progress intends you to think that. You see one man (“Born Free – Taxed to Death”) standing off the curb, though not being a hindrance to traffic, holding his sign. The rest of the people in this picture, which the Progress obviously intends you to interpret as protesters in an intersection, are actually crossing the street at the designated point (i.e., the crosswalk). You see a couple young men transporting signs (obviously not waving them) crossing from east to west, and another group, appearing to be mostly women, crossing from west to east. Notice they all have a raised foot, caught by the camera in the action of walking across the street, at the legal place to do so (presumably after receiving the illuminated “Walk” indication). The woman in the red hoodie holding up her sign is on the sidewalk (notice her height). All in all, a weak attempt to substantiate a fabrication with a misleading picture. Seems the Progress continues to ratify everything people have been saying.

This goes perfectly to my previous point. One can report what actually happened, or because of bias, agenda, or just sloppy journalism, they can report what they want and offer up a clearly mischaracterized picture  as support.

I reassert my previous points: protesters were not demonstrating in the intersection, the demonstrators were certainly not a disturbance to traffic, they were not angry, raving maniacs. It was an orderly demonstration by patriotic Americans, which–judging by the public response as it happened–has significant support. Guess it’s too much to ask that the Claremore Progress get it right, or at least correct the record when they are shown to be wrong.

Oh, and just one question for Progress reporter Krystal Carman, who received photo credit for previous Progress pictures and presumably this one: “Did you cross the street, and if so, where? If you were photographed doing so, would it be fair to accuse you of practicing the craft of alleged journalism (or photography) in the intersection?” Didn’t think so.

[End of Update]

[Original Post]

I was on the scene at yesterday’s Claremore tea party. Loyal readers will recall I provided audio reports from the scene throughout the morning demonstration. I did this using a nifty little program called AudioBoo. Lo and behold, today I see that the Claremore Progress has updated its report about the tea party by uploading an audio report using AudioBoo. I wonder where they got that idea? I don’t mind being a trendsetter. But, the Progress is missing the point. The beauty of technology is that it allows one (in this case, me) to do reports from the scene of the action as it happens. It’s a waste of the technology to use it as the Progress has.

What did they do? Well, according to the Progress website:

Progress Managing Editor Randy Cowling and Staff Writer Krystal Carman talk about the event.

Click the play button below to listen to their commentary.

What a joke! Were these people even at the same event I was? Aside from seemingly missing the metaphorical meaning of a tea party, they seem to be awfully concerned with the distraction to traffic. I was at the 11 a.m. event the entire time, and I never once saw anyone in any intersection. There were ROCO sheriff’s deputies on scene who I witnessed showing demonstrators where they could and could not stand (from the sidewalk out). If there were ever anyone in an intersection, the deputies would no doubt have dealt with it. Demonstrators were lining the streets at intersections, but that is not being in an intersection, and they were certainly not a distraction to traffic. In fact, if you listen to my reports from the scene, you will hear lots of honks of support from the allegedly distracted passersby.

Further, I spoke with several people there, and no one was emotionally angry. Sure, people are passionate about where they stand. But it was no hateful crowd ranting and raving. It was a very collegial and good-spirited gathering. Again, if these were raving lunatics, you could have heard that in my reports. Judge for yourself. It’s also shocking to hear the surprise in their voices as they share that the public is allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights without a permit. Maybe the Progress should be required to get a permit to exercise theirs.

And finally, I would challenge the numbers quoted. There were far more than 50 at the 11 a.m. event, and if they’re off by that much once, how many other things are being slanted by this rag? I’ve alleged the Progress‘ bias for a long time, and these two hacks have proved my point. For too long, certain papers (which are rapidly dying) have reported the news after the fact and after it has passed through a less-than-objective filter. And in print, they can use certain verbiage that makes them seem fair. Audio is another thing. You can hear the bias in the Progress‘ audio report. Just give a listen and judge for yourself.