As you may know, the lawsuit by former Bit by Bit director Jana Walstrom against Rogers State University for wrongful termination was kicked from the federal courts back to state court, specifically Rogers County District Court, where the case is presided over by Judge Post.

Here is RSU’s response to the allegations made in Walstrom’s First Amended Petition.

Here is the schedule both sides have agreed to for trying the case.

And, here is what I consider the most significant document in the file. This was attached to the back of Judge Eagan’s federal court opinion, which I previously shared here. I find this document noteworthy because, in all the litigation I have seen RSU involved in—and there has been a bunch—I have never seen RSU or any of its people represented by attorneys other than those of OU’s office of Legal Counsel. As this document clearly shows, former State Senator Pro Tempore—and RSU library namesake—Stratton Taylor is listed as lead counsel, as is Clint Russell, of Taylor’s law firm. To further muddy things, it should be noted that the Burrage of Taylor, Burrage, Foster, Mattett, Downs & Ramsey is current state senator Sean Burrage. Further, Sean Burrage’s wife, Carole, is a former RSU faculty member, and Stratton Taylor’s wife, Carolyn, is currently on the faculty of RSU’s History & Political Science Department. Clint Russell, of Taylor’s law firm, is also listed as lead attorney, and it appears as if he has been signing most of RSU’s documents; additionally, two attorneys from OU’s Office of Legal Counsel are listed.

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.

In the first place, there is Marilyn Goff’s case. Read previous posts about the case here:

• RSU/FHU President Joe Wiley Sued for Wrongful Termination (Again!)
• Joe Wiley Lawsuit Update
• Court Documents for Goff v. Hukill, Wiley, et. al.
• Judge: Wiley’s Previous Evasion of Service Not Pertinent in Current Case
• Joe Wiley Lawsuit Update 7/28/2008

The case was moved from Rogers County District Court, where RSU has previously not fared well, to the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (based in Tulsa). The federal court system provides online access to court documents for $.08/page. Since I’m paying for them, I am sharing them here as a public service. All the documents can be views on my Goff v. Wiley page. I won’t go into great detail here, but I will mention a few highlights.

RSU’s attorneys asked to stay the case until one of RSU’s attorneys returned from active military duty in Iraq. The judge recently required RSU to state whether this attorney, Steven Ashmore, had returned from Iraq. RSU responded that he had, though the attorney for RSU also notified the court that she would be on medical leave from Feb. 5-May 11, 2009.  RSU also filed a motion to dismiss the case for various reasons. The judge denied their motion and, I assume because Mr. Ashmore is back, has issued a scheduling order. This means the case is now set for a jury trial, albeit over a year from now (2/16/2010). Goff’s attorney seems to be more skilled than those previously trying to get RSU and its actors brought before a jury in federal court. I’ll provide more updates when I can.

**********

In the other case against RSU and Joe Wiley, among others, filed just before Wiley left RSU to head up Freed-Hardeman University in Tennessee, Jana Walstrom sued for wrongful termination. Read my previous post about this case here:

• Deja Vu All Over Again -or- RSU Sued for Wrongful Termination (Yes, Again!)

There’s been no media coverage of this case that I know of (other than on the WynnBlog). The Oklahoma court database shows that the case was stricken because neither party showed up for a December 2008 court date. Then in 2009 a new attorney made an entry of appearance, and attorneys for both parties appeared before Judge Post January 14, at which point the following was recorded:

MOTION TO STRIKE IS MUTE [sic]. WHISTLEBLOWER ACT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.

Looks to me as if there may have been a settlement, but I can’t be sure until I visit the courthouse to see the documents. I’ll try to do that this week.

**********

And in the matter of Tywone Parks, the Claremore Progress covered his most recent court appearance. Progress reporter Tom Fink reported that evidence was presented against Parks, whose attorney argued that the statutes Parks is accused of violating is unconstitutional. Judge Steidley took the issue under advisement and will issue a written order. As it stands now, Parks is scheduled for a jury trial April 6, 2009.

**********

And that’s it for this update. I’ll try to do a better job of keeping things updated.

In a story on NewOK.com, it is reported that because some skull-full-of-jello fired a gun on the Langston University campus, rules are being changed to improve safety on campus. The changes?

• a safety hot line,
• hiring more police officers, and
• a random apartment search policy.

Absolutely none of the above measures will do anything to make campus safer. A safety hotline (isn’t that 911) and more police may help clean up after someone’s been shot. And the random apartment search is ludicrous in a free society. But I’m sure everyone feels better now that there’s a new policy.

And to illustrate how maligned guns are in this society (instead of the morons who accidentally fire them (by the way, guns do not go off accidentally unless they are seriously damaged)), just pretend that, because they found some crack or meth or weed on campus, university officials decide there will now be random apartment searches. See the disparity?

Students, time to move off campus where you can legally have a gun for protection (kept out of reach of idiots who “accidentally” fire them) and where you are safe from your “protectors” searching through your personal effects to make sure you don’t have a gun (or maybe eventually a Bible, or maybe pen and paper, Winston). This is just an example of how the government will erode your rights for your own good if you will let them. Sure, we’ll help you afford college. Sure, you can live on campus. Oh, but wait, you cannot defend yourself with a gun if someone attacks you. But, it’ll be OK because we have an emergency hotline you can call and get one of our many police officers to mop up the blood. Oh, and we’ll be pilfering through your things on a regular basis. We’ll only need this phone hotline until we get the telescreens installed. Now don’t you feel safe?

I’ll be interested to see if the many who have been writhing in anguish over eavesdropping on terrorists will make a peep about this.

P.S. Anyone who’s ever tried to get an open record from a university is probably laughing (if it didn’t hurt so much) at this whole situation. One must move heaven and earth to have access to documents that are public by law, yet the university regularly tramples students’ 2nd and 5th Amendment rights with no outcry. I think I’m gonna be sick.

I’ll share more as I am able to confirm.

…an issue McCain has asked me to help his campaign with — the federal judiciary — is one that disturbs voters to the point of having enormous electoral possibilities. The federal judiciary is the Democratic Party’s vehicle of choice to enact policies that could never see the light of day if they were required to go through the democratic process. And that party now talks about electing a supermajority in the Congress that, along with the most liberal president in our lifetime, would allow them to change the face of America without enacting one piece of legislation — a change that would take us a generation to rectify, if we ever could.

McCain has chosen to make this issue a priority because he thinks the public worries about a Supreme Court lost to liberalism for our lifetime, and that it cares about the appointment of federal judges who will follow the law and the Constitution and not remake it along the lines of their own policy preferences. (emphasis added)

I’m thrilled that Fred! is aiding the McCain campaign (and McCain administration) with this huge task. The judiciary is one of the highest ranking issues in this election. President Bush has done an excellent job with his Supreme Court nominees, with the exception of the Harriet Myers fiasco. He recovered well, and we got an excellent Justice out of it.

The appointment power of the president cannot be misunderestimated. With a closely divided Court, the next President can make an extremely long-term impact on the nation and the world (not to mention the impact other federal courts nominees will have). Very little from a president’s term lives on as a legacy with as much permanence as his or her Supreme Court picks. The Court is currently composed of some good, mediocre, and awful Justices.The current roster (and who nominated them).

• C. J. John Roberts (G. W. Bush)
• J. John Paul Stevens (Ford)
• J. Antonin Scalia (Reagan)
• J. Anthony Kennedy (Reagan)
• J. David Souter (G. H. W. Bush)
• J. Clarence Thomas (G. H. W. Bush)
• J. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton)
• J. Stephen Breyer (Clinton)
• J. Samuel Alito (G. W. Bush)

Those appointed by Democrats – Ginsburg and Breyer, both by Clinton – have been disasters. Some appointed by Republican presidents – Stevens, Kennedy, Souter – have been huge disappointments, too. Great justices – Scalia, Thomas, Alito – were all appointed by Republicans. In sum: you’re guaranteed a disaster with Democrat picks or you take a gamble with a Republican pick. The next president will likely get to choose two justices. Stevens is 88. Ginsburg is not well. Those are two of the most liberal justices the Court has ever seen. I cannot hand the choice of their successors to B. Obama. I trust McCain to make better choices, and if Palin succeeds him, we’re really set!

(In closing, I also note that it’s convenient for some of us that our own policy preferences line up with the law and Constitution – see Fred’s last paragraph above.)

Thrilled that an astute employee would notify university administration of potential misappropriation of university funds, Minks thanked Walstrom for discovering and reporting the irregularity. Walstrom was promoted, and those responsible for the misdeeds were fired and prosecuted. Oops, slipped into a perfect dream world there for a second. The first two sentences of this paragraph, in addition to being thoroughly out of character for RSU, are total fiction.

Here’s what really happened, according to Walstrom’s petition: Two days after reporting the issue to Minks, she was fired by Minks and Andrews. She was also told by Minks and Andrews that if she did not sign a statement that she was resigning voluntarily she would not be paid for services performed. She signed the document under duress. Further, Minks and Andrews attempted to have her sign a “general release and settlement statement” (geez, do RSU administrators carry these things in their pockets?)

…attempting to release RSU and all employees, including Defendants Minks and Andrews, from all claims and attempting to have Plaintiff agree to a gag order which is unenforceable and void under law, including the Oklahoma Open Records Act, which abhors secrecy in government. The documents would have secreted the unlawful conduct of Minks and Andrews. The document further attempted to limit Plaintiff’s rights by attempting to have Plaintiff agree that “she will not disparage or make adverse public statements against the university or any of its directors, officers or employees.” Such document further specifically prohibited Plaintiff from cooperating with any party, in any lawsuit against the university including testifying as a witness against the university.

Yes, that’s all in bold print. The emphasis was added by me. Now go back and read it again. It’s that important.

Once again, we have very familiar allegations made by a former RSU staffer. It’s just eerie how similar this story is to the many that have come before. The WynnBlog will follow this case and bring you periodic reports.

Click here to see the PDF of Walstrom’s full petition.

To get up to speed, you can read my previous posts regarding the lawsuit.

• RSU/FHU President Joe Wiley Sued for Wrongful Termination (Again!)
• Joe Wiley Lawsuit Update
• Court Documents for Goff v. Hukill, Wiley, et. al.
• Judge: Wiley’s Previous Evasion of Service Not Pertinent in Current Case

Since I last reported on the case, there have been a few things happen and a few documents filed. For the list of and PDF access to the documents filed, visit my Goff v. Wiley page (it has now been updated to reflect the date of filing for each document).

Now for the news: There was a settlement conference between the parties that did not go very well, according to WynnBlog sources. What I can say is that there has not yet been a settlement reached according to court filings.

In other news, the RSU crowd has moved the court to stay the proceedings until O.U. attorney Steve Ashmore can return from Iraq, where he is serving with the military. His return is estimated by O.U. to be November 2008. Goff opposes this delay and has filed a motion to that effect. O.U. moved to strike this motion because it was filed three days late. Goff opposes striking the motion, and has filed a motion to that effect, stating that he was late filing because his office was flooded. The judge denied O.U.’s motion to strike. He as not yet ruled on whether the case should be stayed until Mr. Ashmore returns.

That’s about it for now. I’ll post periodic updates.

The only way to deal with an errant school board member in Oklahoma is to petition the district court for a grand jury to investigate. This is an extreme burden in small school districts, in that grand juries are county-wide. In the instant situation, my hometown of Welch, OK, has a total population of approximately 500 persons. The last school board election saw 274 persons cast votes for a school board member. The minimum number of signatures necessary to impanel a grand jury is 500. So, what you have is a small school district with a board member behaving badly that, to deal with the issue, must get the equivalent of the entire population of the town (and almost twice the number of persons who voted in the last school board election) to sign a petition to have the bad behavior addressed. It’s lunacy to require so much from a small community. Most recalls require only a percentage of the last vote for that specific entity, which is a much lower bar. In this case, if the school board recall bill authored by Representatives Toure and Hamilton had passed in 2003, it would require a petition signed by 25% of the number of persons voting in the last school board election, or 69 persons in this case, to set a recall election of just Welch school district voters. The grand jury petition requirement is 7 times that number! That’s a high bar indeed. In the Welch case, 69 signatures were gathered in less than a week if my memory serves. However, the grand jury does ensure that it’s not a popularity contest. The grand jury can subpoena witnesses and look at the evidence and reach an informed conclusion about Mr. McCord’s fitness for office.

All the above notwithstanding, the citizens of Welch have worked their rears off and traveled the county asking fair-minded citizens to sign the petition. The group, WE CARE (Welch Citizens United for Responsible Education), announced earlier today that it now has in excess of the 500 signatures necessary. WE CARE has given the board member’s attorney notice that they have the signatures and intend to file them with the court if he has not resigned by 4:00 p.m. tomorrow. We shall see what transpires.

The larger lesson here is that Oklahoma MUST reform school board accountability. Waiting up to five years to vote a bad board member out of office is simply not feasible; asking a small school district to gather more signatures than it has citizens is an undue burden. Oklahoma school board members should be subject to recall or impeachment. I will be addressing this in the future.

The OSCN report now reflects that Tywone Parks waived his right to District Court Arraignment Monday and it has been rescheduled for June 23 at 1:30 PM.

[Original Post Below]

I was at the courthouse for Tywone Parks’ arraignment yesterday. As for details, I don’t have many. It was crowded in the courtroom, so I was sitting in the hallway waiting for Judge Steidley to deal with his sounding docket before they brought prisoners over from the county jail. My plan was to enter the courtroom when I saw the defendants in custody brought over.

At one point, I looked up and saw Parks’ attorney, Jack Zanerhaft, standing the courtroom. I got up and headed for the door to see what was happening, and Zanerhaft came out before I could get there. I heard him tell a sheriff’s deputy that they had not received the transcript from the preliminary hearing so they had requested–and received–a later arraignment. And that was it. I didn’t report it before now because I was hoping to see what the OSCN site reported. As of a few moments ago, it has not been updated since May 19. As soon as I get details I’ll post more.