Founded in 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus works to advance the principles of limited government, free markets and individual liberty within the Republican Party.

Paul Jacob’s hearing today in Oklahoma

By pblumel - November 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Filed under Ballot issues , Issues , Special Interest

Paul Jacob, a close friend of the Republican Liberty Caucus who spoke at our 2006 national convention in Orlando, was indicted last Oct. 2 on felony charges of violating Oklahoma’s statute requiring petition circulators to be residents of the state. Today he is attending his preliminary hearing in Oklahoma City.

Jacob and his co-defendants — Susan Johnson, president of the petition management firm National Voter Outreach and Rick Carpenter, the proponent of the controversial 2006 initiative that would have set a cap on state government spending that could only be lifted by a vote of the people — pled not guilty.

He released a statement this morning on the case:

“Today, Attorney General Drew Edmondson continues his attack on the right to petition one’s government. We are innocent. We sought to understand and to fully comply with the letter of the law. Indeed, those running the petition drive were advised by state officials and followed that advice.

“Furthermore, the very statute being used to prosecute us is being challenged as unconstitutional. In recent months, statutes similar to Oklahoma’s have been struck down as unconstitutional by two federal circuit courts—the Sixth and Ninth Circuits—in unanimous decisions.”

“Make no mistake: We are here today facing 10 years in prison because we worked for an issue adamantly opposed by the rich and powerful in Oklahoma. The goal of this prosecution is to threaten us and scare Oklahomans away from the initiative process, which gives citizens their best opportunity for real reform.

“But we will not be bullied out of our rights as Americans. We will fight this vicious, politically-motivated assault, and we will prevail.”

Jacob is the former executive director of U.S. Term Limits and current president of the pro-initiative group Citizens in Charge.

Oklahoma’s attack on him is testament to his effectiveness as an activist and should send a chill down the spines of libertarian activists everywhere. For updates on the case, see www.freepauljacob.com.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
Permalink Comments Off
 
  • pblumel

    An update, from http://www.freepauljacob.com:

    Preliminary Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blog comments powered by Disqus