Enid Residents Sue City Council For Not Doing Their Jobs

During the podcast for Friday, October 25th, NeeAnn Clinton from Enid, in Garfield County, talked with us about the 5000 acre solar installation that is being planned for just north of Enid. Many residents are not in favor of this kind of installation because of the many risks to the community that come from solar installations - including long-lasting lithium battery fires that give off toxic fumes, use millions of gallons of water to fight and require expensive, special firefighting equipment. Unfortunately, so many of the 'green agenda' projects coming in droves to a city near you in Oklahoma, are not being regulated by Oklahoma regulatory agencies, allowing 'green energy' companies coming into the state - mostly from outside - to do business as they like. This leaves citizens trying to protect their property and individual rights without any assistance from the government they pay to protect them from unregulated industry. In this episode, NeeAnn talks about desperately trying to find an Oklahoma regulatory agency to help them stop the private company NextEra, from turning 5000 acres of productive farmland into a toxic wasteland devoid of life and finally having to SUE the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission to make them follow their own regulations. Make no mistake - this is taxpayers paying a taxpayer-paid group of elected officials to do the jobs they were elected to do. How does this happen in RURAL RED STATE OKLAHOMA?

Casey Yochum - Sexual Abuse And Wetumka Public Schools; ROPE Report Short

Our friend Mary, from V1SUT Substack, has broken and then followed, several stories of student sexual abuse by public school employees - many of them coaches - across the last two years. Last month, Wetumka Public Schools coach, teacher and athletic director, Brent McGee - whose wife Donna is the Superintendent of Wetumka schools - was arrested for child sexual abuse, in part on the basis of Yochum's testimony and the evidence he provided law enforcement. Please see V1SUT's substack for the full backstory and on-going story of Casey, and other men and boys who have bravely stepped up to put McGee behind bars and away from anyone else he could possibly hurt. You can find her reporting at V1SUT.com. In this video, Casey talks a bit about how he took matters into his own hands and recorded Bret McGee admitting that he had abused him, but when he took the recording to an attorney friend, he found that his age put him beyond the statute of limitations for being able to build a case against McGee in court. Why would there be a statute of limitations to a crime? Who would that serve? Why would Senate Education Chair, Adam Pugh want to fight to have a statute of limitations on crimes committed by members of the public school system in Oklahoma? Who would benefit from that? The victims? Please watch the entire live video to hear Casey tell the full story under the 'live' tab on our YouTube channel and on Rumble. Casey wants to see the statute of limitations for crimes - especially like those perpetrated against him - done away with.

Parents Can't Fight Issues Schools Say Aren't Happening - ROPE Report Short; Maria Seidler and Brice Chaffin

When citizens of Stillwater, Oklahoma, concerned that boys were being allowed in girl's bathrooms went to the school district to discuss the issue, the school lied and said there was nothing like that happening in the district. Only after administrators of Stillwater Public Schools were confronted with a witness, did they acknowledge the practice. They then said it was a policy, but when citizens asked for the policy, SPS officials couldn't produce the policy. At that point, they told citizens that SPS didn't have a policy, President Obama had put the policy in place.

How can concerned citizens/taxpayers/parents deal with an issue in their schools if the school will just lie and say it's not happening and/or say it's a policy when it's not - or even make up a policy to put in place after the policy has been questioned. Why should we allow schools to teach our impressionable children when they don't have a set of morals or ethics that directs them not to lie?

See the full video on our Rumble and our YouTube Channels.

Emilie Garrelts and Michael Grande On Their Lawsuit With Edmond Public Schools

A group of Edmond (Oklahoma) public school parents pooled their resources, hired an attorney and sued Edmond public schools for treating vaccinated and unvaccinated students differently by policy - if students were vaccinated and there was a COVID case, they could stay at school, but if a student wasn't vaccinated, the student was sent home for a minimum of 10 days - preventing those students from access to the same learning vaccinated students were getting. The Edmond parents WON THEIR LAWSUIT against the school after the judge ruled that EPS' policy violated the Constitutional rights of the students.

Judge Denies Stillwater Public School's Dismissal Request - ROPE/Chaffin Lawsuit Scheduled for Pre-Trial Hearing in November

 

Stillwater Parent Brice Chaffin, ROPE President Jenni White, Attorney Maria Seidler

In an awesome victory for ROPE's case with Stillwater parent Brice Chaffin against Stillwater Public Schools (SPS) and Stillwater School Board members filed May 4th (2022), Maria Seidler successfully argued against the dismissal of our lawsuit requested of the court by SPS.  ROPE and Chaffin, led by attorney Seidler, will meet SPS again in court in November for a pre-trial hearing.

ROPE Hires Attorneys To File Amicus Brief In Support of HB3399

As of Friday, June 27, ROPE has hired two different attorneys to represent the PEOPLE in the lawsuit against HB3399.  If you would like to help us raise money to fund these efforts, you can do so here.

At the time of our associations with either set of attorneys, we had no idea who would represent the respondents (the state) in the lawsuit.  Today, after speaking with Emily in the Attorney General's office, we have found the AG's office will be mounting the defense.  I would like to point out, however, the AG's office is defending the respondents - the State Department of Education, Speaker of the House Jeff Hickman, Pro Temp Brian Bingman and the State of Oklahoma.

However much confidence we have in the ability of the AG's office to defend the state (and our hard work to Stop Common Core in Oklahoma) against this silly lawsuit, I ask you to turn your attention toward the Hobby Lobby religious liberty case.  Today, Hobby Lobby won a major fight for the cause of religious liberty in the United States, however, there were many lawsuits filed in many different courts before this final verdict was reached today.  In fact, though, the Green's attorneys represented them ably, many Amicus briefs were also filed in support of the original lawsuit to give the court other perspectives and information to consider. 

So what is an Amicus brief?  An Amicus brief is also called "friend of the court".  Only the respondents in any lawsuit are given 'standing' in a lawsuit - it is up to those being sued to mount a defense.  An Amicus brief allows people NOT a party to the original lawsuit to bring their voices into deliberation on the action.  In other words, though the state is defending the state, no one is defending the PEOPLE.  The state's interest and the people's interest are not always the same, as we found when the lawsuit was originally filed.  Filing one or more Amicus briefs in response to this lawsuit help the voice of the people to be heard...yet again.

Here is the information I provided today on our Facebook page.  If you have further questions or concerns, please either respond to the post here, on our Facebook page or feel free to message me personally through our Facebook page.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING ROPE's REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN FILING AMICUS BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF HB3399.

Please, rest assured we are not attempting to gain anyone's personal information in using the Go Fund Me site to collect money to fund our Amicus briefs on behalf of the people and HB3399. ROPE was the first organization in all of Oklahoma - and one of the first in the nation - to research, educate others and attempt legislation to stop the State Longitudinal Database. We will not use anyone's email addresses supplied to the Go Fund Me effort, period.

The Oklahoma Attorney General has agreed to represent the respondents in this case, yes. This is a good thing, however, again, the state is being represented and not the people.

Here is a statement from one of our attorneys, Don Powers, of Powers At Law, law firm in Edmond, Oklahoma (http://powersatlaw.com/), 

"An Amicus brief provides a venue into the case, allowing us to present facts on the side of the people that can be helpful to the Attorney General and the Supreme Court in deciding the case in our favor. It simply allows the people to have more ammunition on our side."

We have also secured the services of John Paul Jordan in Yukon, Oklahoma (http://www.jpjordanlaw.com/). Mr. Jordan replied, 

"We have seen time and time again where an Amicus brief has helped to sway a court to have a more clear understanding of the issues. In addition, given the confinement of the briefs, an Amicus brief helps to get more information to the court that a party may not be able to include. We can't take for granted what information is presented to the court. For example, many Amicus briefs were filed in the Hobby Lobby case. This is a common legal practice."

Please visit the websites for both sets of attorneys if you are concerned that our request is without merit, simply political or for any other reason than a pure representation of the people who fought so hard to STOP COMMON CORE in Oklahoma.

State School Board Members and Others Sue State Over HB3399

I told you in May that the national Associations of State Boards of Education (NASBE) had sent a letter to Governor Mary Fallin explaining they would sue Oklahoma over the Constitutionality of having the state legislature sign off on the standards.  I poo-pooed the whole letter as nonsense - how in the world could NASBE - an out of state lobbying organization have standing in Oklahoma to sue us over a law our own legislature passed?

Well, apparently they didn't, so they got Oklahomans as Plantiffs and had them file a lawsuit.  Here are the willing accomplices:  Heather sparks, teacher of the year, Leo Baxter, Amy Anne Ford, William F. Shdeed and Daniel Keating, Oklahoma State School Board members.  Also Nancy Kunsman, Elizabeth Luecke, Leonardo DeAndrade (doesn't he drive formula one race cars?), Mara Novy and Charles Edward Pack, II.  I don't know anything about the last two - apparently they are either teachers or parents as described by some of the recent news stories about this.

This is the Section with which they are alleging HB3399 conflicts:

Section XIII-5: Board of Education.The supervision of instruction in the public schools shall be vested in a Board of Education, whose powers and duties shall be prescribed by law. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be President of the Board. Until otherwise provided by law, the Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General shall be ex-officio members, and with the Superintendent, compose said Board of Education.

The lawsuit alleges that the legislature is encroaching on the right of the state school board to supervise instruction in public schools by allowing the legislature to review and modify state educational standards if that is deemed necessary by the citizens of Oklahoma.  Let's review a few reasons this is ridiculous.

• What did the legislature do when they passed SB2033 in 2010? That was two whole sets of standards passed together before they were even in finalized form. So it was ok for the legislature then and not now? 
• Where does it actually say that only the state school board can oversee standards?
• The way I understand it, the legislature can already vote down the rules the state board makes to accept the standards in the first place, basically negating the standards - we just did that with the National Science Standards re-named Oklahoma Academic Standards for Science.

Here are a few other observations:

• Isn't it interesting our own state board members are filing this suit? 
• Isn't it interesting they are appointed by Mary Fallin - current chair of the NGA? 
• Isn't it interesting this lawsuit would be filed the day after the historic election in which Janet Barresi - the incumbent, the Chairman of the Board and a Common Core proponent - came in dead last in a primary? 

Does anyone wonder here whether Governor Fallin signed the bill knowing they were going to bring action against it, hoping to stop the oversight process and therefore slip Common Core back into the standards?

Yes, these are all fascinating questions upon which to ruminate.  Sadly, they all make some kind of sense in a statist, sour grapes kind of way!  The Board were Barresi supporters.  Why?  Because Governor Fallin is a Barresi supporter.  The Board serves at the pleasure of the Governor, therefore the Board does as the Governor - NOT THE PEOPLE - wishes.

Here's another gem: The filing attorneys are saying the lawsuit must be heard quickly because school starts in several months and it will create havoc for schools and teachers if it's not promptly heard. That's GARBAGE! This particular issue doesn't even apply until the standards are re-written and that can take up to two years.  Teachers are not going to be inconvenienced if this lawsuit isn't settled before school begins in the fall.  It has nothing to do with the standards themselves, just the process of completing them.  We've gone back to PASS and nothing will change that now until new standards are written.  You know lawsuits are full of garbage and hot air when they affix so much unnecessary drama to them.

It's awfully fun to point out here that our Oklahoma Constitution SPECIFIES that Oklahoma will only provide an education to children until they are 16.  

Section XIII-4: Compulsory school attendance. The Legislature shall provide for the compulsory attendance at some public or other school, unless other means of education are provided, of all the children in the State who are sound in mind and body, between the ages of eight and sixteen years, for at least three months in each year.

Why aren't high school parents suing for warehousing their kids until they're 18 or older?  Kids, you don't have to attend public school once you turn 16!  Make sure to tell your principal and superintendent you'll sue them if they call you in truant after that time.  

Not only that, but Pre-K and Kindergarten programs HAVE TO GO!  Until your child is 8 years old, the state cannot educate them!  We need to go back and remove all that money we're spending on Pre-K.  That will be an outstanding way to free up some extra cash for teachers and classrooms!

But wait!  The state doesn't have to provide Special Education classes either.  How about if taxpayers begin to sue the state for using taxpayer money to fund Special Education classes?  What would this do to legislation such as the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship which most certainly falls under the category of special education?  What would it do to school choice?  Well, never mind,  I think it's a grand idea!  I'm with the state school board!  Let's follow the Constitution!  Let's just play this game all the way out.

I think ROPE should go on a campaign to make parents aware of the Constitution immediately.  Thanks for the idea of sticking to the state Constitution Fellers/Snider/Blankenship/Bailey and Tippens law firm!  Too bad our points are actually spelled out in the text of the document and yours are contrived to make a point and stymie parents that were simply trying to make their voices heard on behalf of their children and families.