Go ahead and hate, but Not at my school's graduation.

[100% Ozone Safe]

why won't the thread delete?!

[TI83]

although i don't agree with homosexuality, this group is, in my opinion, giving a bad name to Christians everywhere. It makes me angry that these people are so ignorant and hypocritcal that they preach about God hating...i mean how ironic can you get?

[makelldog]

although i don't agree with homosexuality, this group is, in my opinion, giving a bad name to Christians everywhere. It makes me angry that these people are so ignorant and hypocritcal that they preach about God hating...i mean how ironic can you get?

I would go as far to say that these people are definitely not representing Christ and his teachings. I don't know them, but I feel sorry for them.

[CTsnapple]

Are they basically a hate group with a religious front? Seems like they're just replacing "I hate ***s" with "God hates ***s", pulling a few quotes from the bible, and then parading around their contempt for homosexuals with a guilt-free moral facade. But then again, I don't know much about their group. :rolleyes:

[New York XC]

God does not hate anybody. God hates the sin, but he loves the person. That's at least how I interpret the Bible. Therefore, if you belive that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, then God would hate that your a homosexual but he loves you nonetheless. That's how I see it, like I said.

[jersey_guy]

So if the graduation is in an auditorium, where will they picket? Outside? If so, then they can do that and you can ignore them.

[100% Ozone Safe]

My question is, why at a School Graduation? ( I couldn't open your link for some reason--if it's answered on there, just copy and paste for me)
My school every year has a "diversity fair day." People from different countries around the world all set up a booth, and all the different clubs in my school get a booth. Turns out, the GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) is a club at my school. The flyer makes it sound like we all gather around a bunch of flaming gay people and they tell us that "its the gay way, or the highway".

Pshh...

(PS; this thread will probobly only last 2-3 more days, im going to be deleting it, if you would like to know why, go ahead and PM me...)

[jrun]

Nothing more than a hate group.

[Zat0pek]

This baptist church is real, the phone number on the flyer was called and they indeed are planning on attending my school's graduation ceremonies. I know they have the right to do this, but it's just sick that this is a church in Kanas' "mission trip" is to be at a graduation ceremony walking about with signs saying "God Hates ***s".

Allow me to illuminate this for everyone.

Fred Phelps is actually a disbarred Kansas attorney (why no one ever mentions this in stories about him is beyond me). He was disbarred in 1979 for several ethical violations. Virtually all of his kids and grandkids went to law school, and one was a classmate of mine. They have their own "firm" in addition to the church. Fred has been the subject to several national TV pieces including, I think, one on 20/20 a number of years back. To say this is an unusual group of folks would be, well, the understatement of year.

He has picketed various events and funerals (yes, funerals) related to homosexuals for years. He is best known for picketing the funeral of Matthew Shephard, the young man vicously murdered because he was gay. He also attempted to get a memorial to Shephard removed. Do a Google search and you'll all kinds of "interesting" things about Fred.

On a theological note, I always find it interesting that all of his scripture references are to the OLD testament, not the new. Apparently Fred missed a few things along the way.

Ol' Fred is everything you think he is.

[MoMo]

Interesting, zat.

Our country seems to spawn its fair share of such, uh, unconventional thinkers.

[exjersey1]

Interesting conundrum.

If you're going to "celebrate diversity" you should be willing to do that with ALL diversity.

That's the problem when instead of treating people as individuals, we tend to drop people into boxes labeled as what group they're part of.

[Zat0pek]

This is going to take about five posts, but its worth it, I think, if you want a little more insight into Mr. Phelps. Here is the Kansas Supreme Court decision disbarring Fred Phelps. Headnotes, headings, etc. have been omitted for brevity. If you go to the last couple of paragraphs in the last post, you'll see that he had been suspended from practice for two years once before this.

I post this without further comment; I think it speaks for itself:

PER CURIAM:
On March 13, 14 and 15, 1978, a panel of the State Board of Law Examiners held a hearing on a complaint against respondent, Fred W. Phelps, Sr. It filed its report, findings and recommendations on February 12, 1979. The action is before this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 212 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1006355&DocName=KSRDISCR212&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) (224 Kan. lxxxvi-lxxxvii; old rule No. 213 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1006355&DocName=KSRDISCR213&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05), 223 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1006355&DocName=KSRDISCR223&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) Kan. lxxxiv).

The facts out of which respondent's violations arose are as follows: On May 31, 1974, a preliminary hearing was held in Division One of the Magistrate Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, before Judge Allan A. Hazlett, wherein the State of Kansas was plaintiff and Sherman Robinson was the defendant charged with a felony and represented by R. W. Niederhauser, attorney. Carolene Brady was the court reporter who took the testimony at the hearing.
On July 15, 1974, Mr. Niederhauser attempted to call Carolene Brady to notify her he needed a transcription of the testimony at the Robinson preliminary hearing, **181 (http://<b><i><font%20color=/) but was informed Brady was on vacation and would not return until August 1, 1974. In the meantime, R. W. Niederhauser had employed Fred W. Phelps, Sr. to try the Robinson case.

On July 31, 1974, Carolene Brady returned from her vacation and on August 5, 1979, she was contacted by Niederhauser about transcribing the testimony from the Robinson preliminary hearing. Mrs. Brady advised Mr. Niederhauser at that time that she was working on a transcript for Russell Shultz of Wichita and she would not be able to provide the Robinson transcript by the date Niederhauser desired it, which was August 9, 1974. Brady told Niederhauser if he could obtain a continuance of the trial she would try to complete the transcript by August 13, 1974, and *372 (http://<b><i><font%20color=/) would call him on August 12, 1974 and report. The continuance to August 13 was obtained.
On August 12, 1974, Brady tried to contact Niederhauser to report she had the testimony dictated onto tape but she couldn't find a typist. Niederhauser was not available when she telephoned so she left word for him to return her call. The call was never returned.

Later on August 12, 1974, Carolene Brady received a telephone call from a female who said she was calling from Phelps' office advising her she'd better have the Robinson transcript ready that day "or else." The person was later identified as Fred Phelps' daughter, Shirley.

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

Brady next called Fred Phelps, Sr. to notify him, since she couldn't find Niederhauser, that she would be unable to get the testimony typed on time. Phelps responded angrily and told her he had wanted to sue her for a long time. Thereafter, Phelps, on behalf of Robinson, filed a mandamus action in Shawnee County District Court, case No. 125695, and obtained an emergency court order for Carolene Brady to produce the transcribed testimony by 9:00 P.M. August 13, 1974, or to appear August 13, 1974, at 1:30 P.M. and show cause to the contrary. Brady found a Ms. Laird, who picked up the tapes around 4:00 P.M. August 12, 1974, and typed the transcript, taking some 6 hours to complete it. The transcription was delivered to the court at 8:30 A.M. August 13, 1974. Brady appeared at 1:30 P.M. to show cause but no action was taken. Sherman Robinson went to trial on August 14, 1974 and was acquitted.

In spite of the successful termination of the criminal action which set this sequence of events in motion, Robinson or his attorney, Phelps, continued to pursue the mandamus action and, in addition, filed a damage suit against Carolene Brady for fraud and misrepresentation, designated as case No. 125742, in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. The petitioner prayed for $2,000.00 actual damages and $20,000.00 punitive damages.
Case No. 125742, the damage suit, was set for trial December 16, 1976, before a jury of six, lasting 8 days. It resulted in a verdict for Carolene Brady. Case No. 125695, the mandamus action, was tried at the same time but to the court. It also resulted in a verdict for Brady.

In both trials, Fred Phelps, Sr. represented Sherman Robinson **182 ("]*373[/url] and tried the case. Fred Phelps, Jr. assisted. The case appeared to be Phelps' personal case. He called the defendant, Carolene Brady, as his witness, had her declared hostile, then proceeded to cross-examine her for 3 or 4 full days. The record discloses that his cross-examination was abusive, repetitive, irrelevant, and represented a classic case of "badgering" a witness. Then he had the temerity to complain that Brady cried in the presence of the jury. Throughout the trial, Phelps made attempt after attempt to adduce testimony concerning Carolene Brady's reputation for truth and veracity, her reputation for competency, the falsification of her income tax return and her morality, or lack thereof.

It is clear from our examination of the record and transcripts in that case that the trial was a personal vendetta by Fred Phelps, Sr. against Carolene Brady. The jury verdict didn't stop the onslaught of Phelps. He was not satisfied with the hurt, pain and damage he had visited on Carolene Brady. He filed a motion for a new trial, [url=") the controversial part of which is herewith set out in full:

"1. Erroneous rulings by the Court as follows:
(a) Rejecting the proffered testimony of R. W. Niederhauser, F. G. Manzanares, Jess Danner and Richard Waters as follows: That Messrs. Niederhauser and Manzanares qualified as practicing attorneys to have an opinion as to the conduct of defendant herein, assuming all relevant facts taken in their best light for plaintiff and construed most favorably to plaintiff, that they in fact had an opinion, and that in their opinion defendant's conduct herein was reckless. With regard to the testimony of Jess Danner and Richard Waters, that they qualified as certified court reporters to have an opinion as to the conduct of defendant herein, assuming all relevant facts taken in their best light for plaintiff and construed most favorably to plaintiff, that they in fact had an opinion, and that in their opinion defendant's conduct herein was reckless. Rejecting Niederhauser July 15 and August 1 telephone conversations with one identifying herself as speaking for defendant.

(b) In rejecting the proffered testimony of Ralph J. Hiett, B. L. Pringle, Patrick Connolly, Dan Turner, Dick Brewster, Rodney Joyce, Patrick Brady, Kathy Fitzgerald and Karen Kennedy, as follows: That each such person had relevant knowledge of the defendant Brady, knew her reputation in the community for truth and veracity, and that such reputation was bad; further, that from their knowledge in the community they had an opinion as to the truthfulness and veracity of defendant, and as to the attitude of defendant toward her oath or other solemn obligation to speak the truth and be bound by any such oath or solemn judicial obligation and that in their opinion defendant was not a truthful person and had scant regard toward her oath or any such solemn obligation; and further, that they had knowledge of specific instances of conduct by defendant including but not limited to the conduct of defendant when employed as the court reporter *374 ("") for two separate grand jury investigations in Shawnee County, and wherein the defendant Brady had a sworn duty not to reveal such grand jury proceedings to outsiders, and to maintain all such proceedings in strict secrecy, and notwithstanding such bounden and solemn duty under the law, the defendant Brady repeatedly 'leaked' knowledge of such proceedings to certain of those being investigated by such grand jury and who were later indicted by such grand jury including but not limited to: Morris 'Pete' Peterson; Gary Guerrero; Peggy Guerrero; the brother of Governor Robert Docking; and others connected to the so-called 'architectural kickback case'; and further included but not limited to the conduct of defendant in 'leaking' two confidential transcripts taken by Dan Turner in his investigation of a matter involving Bill Glenn, such statements being sworn statements of Kathy Fitzgerald and Karen Kennedy, which statements were taken in secrecy and for which the defendant was bound to secrecy and which were delivered by Mrs. Brady to the news media and consequently published in violation of her solemn oath and duty. Rejecting Appendix 'C' in connection with such proffer.

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

(c) In rejecting the proffered testimony of Patrick Brady, former husband of the defendant Brady, to the effect that the three children of the defendant, Mike, Karen and Laurie, were in fact living with him (Patrick Brady) and away from the defendant Brady during the years 1974 and 1975, the very years when the defendant Brady swore on her oath to the United States government and the State of Kansas on income tax returns admitted as evidence in this case that each of said three children were in fact living with the defendant Brady in 1974 and 1975 and that the defendant Brady was therefore entitled to claim each of said three children as her personal exemptions for said years, and further, that custody of the son of the parties, Mike, changed *375 ("]**183[/url] from the defendant Brady to Patrick Brady in 1973, and since that time, the son Mike has been living with Patrick rather than the defendant, and that the only remaining minor child of the parties, Laurie, is now in the custody of Patrick Brady and all in contradiction to the sworn testimony of the defendant Brady and constituting substantial impeachment of the defendant Brady and having strong probative value in the instant case going to the critical question of whether Mrs. Brady or Mr. Niederhauser was telling the truth on vital questions of evidence."

The defendant, Carolene Brady, responded to Phelps' motion for a new trial by obtaining and filing affidavits from eight of the witnesses, listed by Phelps, showing they would not testify as Phelps indicated they would. The motion for a new trial was denied and the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed February 17, 1978.
After Phelps had appealed Robinson v. Brady to the Court of Appeals, he filed documents to the trial court entitled, "Plaintiff's Reply Affidavits to Defendant's Post-Trial and Post-Appeal Affidavits." The content of the affidavits was so scurrilous that the Court of Appeals ordered its copies expunged as of the date of the opinion and the trial court later expunged its copies from the *376[/b] ("]**184 4. Did he violate DR7-102A5 'Knowingly Make False Statement of Fact or Law' and
[url=") 5. Did he violate Kansas Statute, KSA 60-211 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1001553&DocName=KSSTS60%2D211&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) when he affixed his signature to the Motion for a New Trial?"

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

The disciplinary hearing before the panel was held March 13, 14 and 15, 1978, with trial briefs submitted June 1, 1978. The panel made the following findings:

"The Respondent seeks to vindicate his written Motion for a New Trial by an interpretation of the motion to the effect that not all persons named would testify to all the proffers. (TR-527) but that some would testify to each element. The Panel concludes this is a strained construction and interpretation of the writing. Had the Respondent so intended when he wrote the motion, he could easily have used language that would have expressly set forth what each witness would offer in testimony. The Respondent elected to 'lump' the names and proffers and the posthumous explanation is not accepted by the Panel.

"The Panel recognizes that in the trial of a case things may be said inadvertently. Also, we note that the reading of the transcript of the trial of Robinson v. Brady makes it difficult to get the full or true meaning of statements by counsel and of ruling by the court. However, the written Motion for a New Trial is of a different character. Here the Respondent was in the quiet of his office; he has spoken with the witness and has been advised by them as to what they will and will not testify he has opportunity to confer with his co-counsel and with his investigator and informant. At that time he could have and should have taken steps to make certain that his 'proffers' were in fact correct. This would not have been difficult. For example, the Respondent had himself talked to several of the named witnesses and had been personally advised by certain of the witnesses that they could not and would not testify in the manner or to the things set forth in the motion.
"An inquiry to the investigator would have disclosed that (1) he made no written reports of his interviews and that some of the interviews were conducted in 1973 (Tr 418). (2) That Kathleen Fitzgerald had no direct information as to who may have 'leaked' testimony of a secret nature (Tr 419- 420) (3) That the informant and investigator had never personally talked to Patrick Brady or Joyce (Tr 423) but he did talk to Joyce by phone and Joyce declined to talk about the reputation of Brady (Tr 424). (4) That he last talked to Joyce in 1973 (Tr 425) and to Brewster in 1973 (Tr 425).
"At the meeting of Respondent and his co-counsel on or about January 2, 1977, when the Motion for a New Trial was prepared, the Respondent knew that certain of the witnesses would not testify as orally proffered, but he made no mention of that fact and in fact prepared and signed the motion with that knowledge in mind.

"Tr-430 (testimony relating to the preparation of the Motion for a New Trial)

'Q. At that time did Mr. Phelps advise you or say anything to you or Mr. Niederhauser or anything that you heard that he had information that Pringle, Connolly, Brewster, Turner and Brady would not so testify as was stated in here?

A. (By Hiett) No.'

"A lawyer is an officer of the court and owes a duty to the court and to his client. DR 1-102 states:

*377 (http://<b><i><font%20color=/) 'A lawyer shall not
(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.'

"The Panel finds that the Respondent knew that the witnesses named in the Motion for a New Trial would not each testify as the motion states. This information was made known to the Respondent personally by some of the named witnesses. Further, because of the Respondent's personal involvement in other prior cases and investigations, the Respondent, as an attorney, had a duty to check his sources of information, the accuracy of the information, and **185 (http://<b><i><font%20color=/) the possible prejudice of the informant. The Respondent ignored the warning signals and his own personal knowledge and the Panel finds that his conduct in signing and filing the Motion for a New Trial constitutes a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and also a violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) in that he did engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
"A lawyer is an advocate and he has a duty to represent his client zealously. But, he must do so within the bounds of the law. DR 7-102 states:

'A In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not
(5) Knowingly make false statements of law or fact.'
"The Panel finds that the Respondent had personal knowledge prior to the time the oral proffers were made and prior to the time the written Motion was filed that some or all of the named witnesses would not testify in the manner and to the things as stated in the proffers and in the Motion for a New Trial. It is apparent to the Panel that the Respondent was relying on innuendos and deductions and the hope that the witnesses, if called to the stand, might change their testimony. But the Respondent does not so state in his proffers or in the motion. The Respondent chose to ignore the direct testimony he had personally received and to accept the statements of his investigator and informant. The Panel finds that the Respondent did knowingly make false statements of fact and did violate DR 7-102(A)(5).

"The Panel further finds that when the Respondent signed the Motion for a New Trial, he knew of his own knowledge that certain of the statements therein made were not true and that the witnesses would not so testify and that by signing the pleading he thereby violated KSA 60-211 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1001553&DocName=KSSTS60%2D211&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05), and that the signing of the Motion by the Respondent was a wilful act.

"Beyond these specific findings, the testimony in this case and the reference to prior related cases disclose a course of conduct by the Respondent that indicates the Respondent may have ceased to be an advocate for his client and may be embarked upon a personal vendetta against some persons and is using his position as a lawyer as a weapon. We do not make such a specific finding. However, we do call the attention of the Respondent to DR 7-102(a) (Sic ) (1):

'In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of his client when he knows that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.'

We merely suggest to the Respondent that he might well take a critical look at his tactics and policy and procedures in his utilization of his license as a lawyer and answer truthfully to himself the question 'Am I fulfilling my duty as a lawyer?'

"The Panel has received and has reviewed and studied the briefs prepared and filed by counsel for the State and counsel for the Respondent. They are most *378 (http://<b><i><font%20color=/) helpful. Unfortunately, there are not many decided cases upon the points we are now considering. Most of the cases deal with the application of Federal Rule 11, our KSA 60-211. The case of Miller v. Schweickart, 413 F.Supp. (1059) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=345&SerialNum=1976143040&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) (1061) (USDC-SDNY-1976) is cited by both counsel and thoroughly dissected. It involved a complaint in a class action and the Court said

'Lawyers have a responsibility before subscribing their name to complaints which contain serious charges to ascertain that a reasonable basis exists for the allegations, even if they are made on information and belief Unverified hearsay based on rumor is not sufficient upon which to subject one to the burdens of complex litigation and heavy legal costs. (underlining added).'
We recognize this case is not directly in point for it refers to a complaint and not a motion or subsidiary pleading. But, we are of the opinion the wording is peculiarly applicable to this case. The Respondent contends he did have a reasonable basis for his allegations, namely a co-counsel, his investigator and informant, and a third party. But, the inferences and innuendos and conclusions **186 (http://<b><i><font%20color=/) of those parties had been directly controverted by certain of the witnesses named by the Respondent in his Motion for a New Trial. The Respondent chose to ignore the direct negation by the witness, of which he had personal knowledge, and based his affidavit upon the erroneous information given to him by those whom he chose to believe.

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

"We point out that KSA 60-211 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1001553&DocName=KSSTS60%2D211&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05), which refers to pleadings is made applicable to all 'motions and other papers' by KSA 60-207(B) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1001553&DocName=KSSTS60%2D207&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05). See also Fed.Rule 11 and 7 and U. S. ex rel. Foster Wheeler Corp. v. American Surety Co., 25 F.Supp. 225 (E.D.N.Y.-1938) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=345&SerialNum=1938121783&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) and Wright & Miller Fed. Practice & Procedure, Vol. 5, Par. 1332.

"And in the article 'Honesty in Pleading and its Enforcement' by D. Michael Risinger, Minnesota Law Review 1976, Vol. 61, Page 1 of his conclusion, the author states with respect to Rule 11 (KSA 60-211) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1001553&DocName=KSSTS60%2D211&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05)
'Rule 11 seeks to obtain honesty in pleadings by requiring the signature of an attorney and by requiring that there be good ground to support the document signed. Good ground cannot exist as to any alleged proposition known to be false, including a denial; further, an attorney must engage in reasonable investigation to determine the probability of any proposition he proposes to allege in a pleading or other document. (underlining added)'
"We cannot accept the Respondent's argument of 'reasonable basis' when certain of the named witnesses had personally advised the Respondent that they had no knowledge or information on the matters sought to be elicited or that they would not testify as stated by the Respondent in the affidavit.
"We have also considered Respondent's procedural objections and contentions. In our opinion the issue is not whether the trial court was misled but rather is whether the Respondent knowingly made false statements to the Court in his Motion for a New Trial, and we have found from the evidence that the Respondent did knowingly make such false statements."

[1] (http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?n=1&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&docsample=False&service=Find&rlt=CLID_FQRLT4112195&rs=WLW5.05&rp=%2fFind%2fdefault.wl&fcl=False&cxt=DC&serialnum=1979125100&mt=Westlaw&ss=CNT&cnt=DOC#HN;B1) We have said a disciplinary action is more serious than a civil action, State v. Johnson, 219 Kan. 160, 546 P.2d 1320 (1976) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1976113214&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05), and charges must be established by substantial, clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. State v. Hoover, 223 Kan. 385, 574 P.2d 1377 (1978) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1978108391&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05); State v. Johnson, 219 Kan. 160, 546 P.2d 1320. (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1976113214&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) In addition, it is well *379 (http://<b><i><font%20color=/) established the Board's findings and recommendations are advisory only and are not binding on the court. State v. Johnson; In re Phelps, 204 Kan. 16, 459 P.2d 172 (1969) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1969131680&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05). This court has the duty in a disciplinary action to examine the evidence and determine for ourselves the judgment to be entered. State v. Klassen, 207 Kan. 414, 485 P.2d 1295 (1971) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1971124448&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05).

We have carefully and painstakingly reviewed the voluminous transcripts and exhibits and conclude there is clear and convincing evidence to support the panel's finding that the respondent violated: DR 1-102(A)(4); DR 1-102(A)(5); DR 7-102(A)(5); and K.S.A. 60-211 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1001553&DocName=KSSTS60%2D211&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05).

In addition, a study of the transcripts, particularly that of the trial of Robinson v. Brady, convinces us that Fred W. Phelps, Sr. meant it when he told Carolene Brady he had wanted to sue her for a long time. The trial became an exhibition of a personal vendetta by Phelps against Carolene Brady. His examination was replete with repetition, badgering, innuendo, belligerence, irrelevant and immaterial matter evidencing only a desire to hurt and destroy the defendant. We note the panel's discussion of DR 7-102(A)(1) and its observation that the record and testimony show "a course of conduct by the Respondent that indicates the Respondent May have ceased to be an advocate for his client and May be embarked upon a personal vendetta against some persons and is using his position as a lawyer as a weapon." (Emphasis added.) The panel declined to make such a specific finding. We, however, are not bound by the failure to make such a finding. The formal complaint lodged against Phelps states: "That the Motion for New Trial (Attached J) clearly misrepresents the truth to the court and holds a defendant up to unnecessary public ridicule for which there **187 (http://<b><i><font%20color=/) is no basis in fact." We have examined the record and transcripts from Robinson v. Brady, which were made exhibits by the panel and are properly before this court as part of the record in the disciplinary case. This record unquestionably supports a finding that Phelps' action in filing the motion for new trial attempted to hold Mrs. Brady up to unnecessary public ridicule. Additionally, we find the entire record before us clearly supports a violation of DR 7-102(A)(1).

[2] (http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?n=1&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&docsample=False&service=Find&rlt=CLID_FQRLT4112195&rs=WLW5.05&rp=%2fFind%2fdefault.wl&fcl=False&cxt=DC&serialnum=1979125100&mt=Westlaw&ss=CNT&cnt=DOC#HN;B2) Respondent claims he was denied due process when the panel denied his motion for discovery. We find the panel's ruling *380 (http://<b><i><font%20color=/) correct. The panel hearing is a type of discovery, with lenient rules to permit respondent to present any defense he might have to the complaint. Respondent relies upon Brotsky v. State Bar, 57 Cal.2d 287, 19 Cal.Rptr. 153, 368 P.2d 697 (1962) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1962109307&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05), to support his claim. This case, however, recognizes the existence of a California state statute allowing discovery in this type of proceeding. See Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code s 6085 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000298&DocName=CABPS6085&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) (West). Kansas law is distinguishable because we have no statutory requirements for discovery under such circumstances. Additionally, we note with approval a recent Indiana case holding denial of discovery in a disciplinary proceeding is not an unconstitutional denial of due process. Matter of Murray, 362 N.E.2d 128 (Ind.1977) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=578&SerialNum=1977109589&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05). We find the respondent had proper notice of the nature and extent of the complaint and that the hearing was fairly and properly conducted by the panel.

[3] (http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?n=1&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&docsample=False&service=Find&rlt=CLID_FQRLT4112195&rs=WLW5.05&rp=%2fFind%2fdefault.wl&fcl=False&cxt=DC&serialnum=1979125100&mt=Westlaw&ss=CNT&cnt=DOC#HN;B3) Respondent argues his motion for a new trial and allegations therein referring to proffered evidence are no more than a normal proffer. We do not agree. An oral proffer during the course of a trial is made for the purpose of preserving the record. K.S.A. 60-243(c) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1001553&DocName=KSSTS60%2D243&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05). The reference to witnesses and their testimony in a motion for a new trial is an attorney's representation to the court that a new trial should be granted because of the quality of proof available. The motion is prepared in the attorney's office and should be carefully and studiously drafted. It is an attorney's representation to the court and is contemplated by K.S.A. 60-211 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1001553&DocName=KSSTS60%2D211&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05).

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

[4] (http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?n=1&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&docsample=False&service=Find&rlt=CLID_FQRLT4112195&rs=WLW5.05&rp=%2fFind%2fdefault.wl&fcl=False&cxt=DC&serialnum=1979125100&mt=Westlaw&ss=CNT&cnt=DOC#HN;B4)[5] (http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?n=1&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&docsample=False&service=Find&rlt=CLID_FQRLT4112195&rs=WLW5.05&rp=%2fFind%2fdefault.wl&fcl=False&cxt=DC&serialnum=1979125100&mt=Westlaw&ss=CNT&cnt=DOC#HN;B5) The final determination for the court is the proper discipline for respondent's violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In this regard, we note it is proper to consider an attorney's previous record concerning professional conduct. State ex rel. Okl. Bar Ass'n v. Hensley, 560 P.2d 567 (Okl.1977) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1977111531&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05). See also Selznick v. State Bar, 16 Cal.3d 704, 129 Cal.Rptr. 108, 547 P.2d 1388 (1976) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1976113543&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05). Phelps was suspended from practicing law for a period of two years for unprofessional conduct in 1969. In re Phelps, (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1969131680&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) 204 Kan. 16, 459 P.2d 172. (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1969131680&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) The seriousness of the present case coupled with his previous record leads this court to the conclusion that respondent has little regard for the ethics of his profession. In his attorney's oath, Fred W. Phelps, Sr. swore as follows:

"You do solemnly swear that you will support and bear true allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Kansas; that you will neither delay nor deny any man his right through malice, for lucre, or from any unworthy desire; that you will not knowingly foster or promote, or give *381 (http://<b><i><font%20color=/) your assent to any fraudulent, groundless or unjust suit; that you will neither do, nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court; and that you will discharge your duties as an attorney and counselor of the Supreme Court and all inferior courts of the State of Kansas with fidelity both to the court and to your cause, and to the best of your knowledge and ability. So help you God." Rule No. 702(H ) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1006355&DocName=KSRADMR702&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) (224 Kan. cxxxviii).

He has disregarded that oath, and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and K.S.A. 60-211 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1001553&DocName=KSSTS60%2D211&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05). The practice of law is a privilege rather than a right and by his conduct, respondent has forfeited his privilege. We find he should be disciplined by disbarment and assessed the costs of this action.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT, dated this 20th day of July, 1979.
Kan., 1979.
State v. Phelps
226 Kan. 371

[Zat0pek]

Again, this says all you need to know: http://www.godhates***s.com/images/2005/20050320_shirts2.jpg

[jrun]

Again, this says all you need to know: http://www.godhates***s.com/images/2005/20050320_shirts2.jpg


Truly despicable.

People like Phelps, who seem to be boasting and parading God’s hate for others and others’ actions, are the most self-righteous, Pharisaical type of people. They’re often more debased than the very people they scorn. We see multiple present-day examples of this with politicians being the most notable due to their public image.

Another tidbit that gives you an idea of his ilk (from his bio [http://www.godhates***s.com/main/phelpsbio.html] on his site):

enrolled instead for Bible/ministerial training at Bob Jones College

[Zat0pek]

WTF IS THIS!?!!
http://www.ospolitics.org/legalwrites/images/news3.jpg

"Thank God for September 11th" ???????

Shouldn't the Patriot Act have these people in Guantanamo by now...?

Browse through their website. The tsunami was God's wrath, 9/11 was proof that God hates America because of gays, its all there. Like I said, they are exactly what they appear to be. What is new and shocking to those of you seeing it for the first time, the good people in Topeka have been putting up with for years. I'll give Fred this much praise: He's a smart enough (disbarred) lawyer that he knows exactly what he can get away with legally.

[jrun]

BJU. The most ironic name for a Fundementalist (read: Primitive) University EVER.

More information (than you ever wanted):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402413_pf.html

Bob III also inherited a gift for pugnacious rhetoric. In the '60s, he told an interviewer: "A Negro is best when he serves at the table," then quickly added, "I'm not a racist."

[NJ5k]

Since I can't sort out everything I want to say against this twisted character, I'll leave it at this:

Utterly despicable.

When I saw the flyer, I was outraged. I'm not gay, and I have no affiliation with anyone who has any affiliation with a gay organization or anyone who is gay. However, I fully support gay rights and everything to that effect. Even if I didn't, though, I would clearly see that this is crossing the line. No, make that "erasing the line." Everything from the wording on the flyer to, and this is what got me the most, the small graphics on the flyer.

Then, reading further down the thread, I learned about the man himself. The egregious acts of hate and close-mindedness make him possibly the single man for whom I have the least respect. I completely agree with Layla, et al. in saying that he's replacing "I" with "God" and writing his crusade off as God's war.

Now, I'm not Christian, so I won't go interpreting "God's will" or "God's word" or applying it to this situation. However, as a Jew who shares many religious scriptures with Christians, I feel comfortable in saying that his fanatacism being taken "straight from the bible," as I'm sure he claims, is completely inaccurate and unacceptable.

[KenA55]

hmmmm...If I get my way our grounds crew will be pulling some after-hours duty and be out in force on the mall in front of Northrop with the fleet of riding lawn mowers, looking to cut whatever patch of grass this guy and his band of goons happens to be standing on for a couple hours. We can have our fleet of front end rotary snow brush riding machines on hand for sidewalk cleaning duty as well. Now that would be fun.

I will see to it that the Chief of the UMn police has a copy of that flier in the unlikely event that he's not already aware of the situation; hopefully permitting proceedures will allow us to authorize their protest somewhere out of sight of the mall, the hog barns over on the St. Paul campus strike me as the perfect place, the swine will be excited to have the company.

Better yet, maybe we can have their incoming flight diverted to Winipeg or something.

[cnick]

Better yet, maybe we can have their incoming flight diverted to Winipeg or something.

Haha, oh man. I'm no big fan of Canada either, but they don't deserve him. That's just wrong.


Oh, and I'm kidding about Canada. They have nice water.

[exjersey1]

Oh, and I'm kidding about Canada. They have nice water.

They also gave us Shania Twain.

http://www.rne.es/r3/t1/021229/shania-twain-27.jpg

[100% Ozone Safe]

alright guys, if you want this thread to stay, somebody else please just quote my first post and put it into a new thread. I will discuss the matter there, but im going to delete this thread sometime tomorrow. PM me if you don't understand why i'd delete it... i'd be glad to tell you, but not here.

[KenA55]

Consider this the double edged sword of The First Amendment. As Zat said, this guy Fred knows what he can do legally--and I'd hope so. He was a lawyer. People are allowed to say horrible things in the name of God and we're allowed to protest actions of our Government be it federal or local. We're allowed to say silly things like "No Blood for Oil". It's the beauty of our system. If you like, you can stand outside a Church and hold signs reading "Jesus is a Lie", but we don't see that nearly as much as we see things like "God Hates ***s", do we?

Bear always in mind what Voltaire once said:

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I'll defend to death their right to get up in arms about something happening in their own local schools. But when you have a group of misfits with a history of crossing multiple state lines in pursuit of their 'mission' to stir up trouble in somebody else's neighborhood, I have no problem with the idea of impounding their bus at the state border over any minor equipment violation imaginable, even creating some violation if necessary with some sharp blows of the nightstick to their front and back lights.

In any ideal world, law enforcement would just announce their intent to stay the heck out of it before and after the fact, no matter what, and they'd show up at their own risk knowing that if they made a nuisance of themselves, nobody was going show up and bail 'em out of a dangerous situation, or do anything about it after the fact either. We've simply gotten way to far away from the time-tested idea that just because you have law doesn't mean that you can't use good sense in regards to when, and when not, to apply it. People tend to behave better when they know that government isn't going to act to support and protect their 'right' to make as big an ass of themselves as they please outside their own homes.

There's a lot to be said for a policy of governmental indifference, and way too little of it happening today. They tell mountaineers the same thing- you're on your own. If you get in trouble, maybe there'll be a rescue attempt, maybe not.

[Jwaksman]

No, free speech is about protecting those people that are most offensive. That's the whole point of "free speech." For example, Ken, I'm sure you wanted protesters at the RNC to have their "free speech". But it wasn't their right to free speech that you were worrying about - you simply hated Bush and wanted the other point of view to be heard. Everyone wants their own side to be heard.

But it's a test of how much you really care about free speech if you support free speech for hate groups, like the aforementioned gay-hating group.

[KenA55]

I have no problem with people traveling to national political conventions to make a public statement of one kind or another regarding their views. Political conventions, after all, are all about that. High School graduations and funerals aren't national events, and if people are traveling across state lines hoping to be disruptive and obnoxious at something like that, then the more heat they face for it, the better. If I flunk the test I could really care less, and if these people can't understand the difference between a national forum and a local or family ceremony that just isn't a national stage, then some stern education is in order, and the law needn't stand in the way of that if it were so minded.

[jersey_guy]

All politics is local. And being obnoxious is protected by the Constitution, even if across state lines. What you are doing is basically inciting a riot ("stern education is in order, regardless if the law stands in the way").

[KenA55]

What you are doing is basically inciting a riot ("stern education is in order, regardless if the law stands in the way").

Even if the law stands in the way? I think I said the law needn't stand in the way if it were so minded. Meaning we don't have to actively apply law when it just doesn't make sense. That's been a staple of law enforcement and administration from time immemorial. If you want to put quotation marks around something I said, then don't change the wording to mean something different. The law doesn't stand in the way of anything except when we choose to apply it. It's a tool, to be unpacked and applied when the job at hand calls for it. Or not, when the job at hand is better accomplished without it.

But if a little Minneriot were to send that bunch packing prematurely, and nobody really felt like doing anything about it when they whined about it afterwards, it might just be a good lesson for them in appropriate social behavior. I sure wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Heck, undesirables used to get run out of town as a matter of routine less than a century ago, and nobody ever bothered to call it a riot. Just business as usual.

[KenA55]

100%, I'm pretty sure you can no longer delete your own threads- but if you send the administrator a pm explaining good reasons why that needs to happen, they may do it for you.

[100% Ozone Safe]

100%, I'm pretty sure you can no longer delete your own threads- but if you send the administrator a pm explaining good reasons why that needs to happen, they may do it for you.
yea... i figured that.

Update: they didn't come.

[KenA55]

Good for them, maybe they were warned off. I really wanted to get after 'em with the lawn equipment.
:D

[MoMo]

Allow me to illuminate this for everyone.

Fred Phelps is actually a disbarred Kansas attorney (why no one ever mentions this in stories about him is beyond me). He was disbarred in 1979 for several ethical violations. Virtually all of his kids and grandkids went to law school, and one was a classmate of mine. They have their own "firm" in addition to the church. Fred has been the subject to several national TV pieces including, I think, one on 20/20 a number of years back. To say this is an unusual group of folks would be, well, the understatement of year.

He has picketed various events and funerals (yes, funerals) related to homosexuals for years. He is best known for picketing the funeral of Matthew Shephard, the young man vicously murdered because he was gay. He also attempted to get a memorial to Shephard removed. Do a Google search and you'll all kinds of "interesting" things about Fred.

On a theological note, I always find it interesting that all of his scripture references are to the OLD testament, not the new. Apparently Fred missed a few things along the way.

Ol' Fred is everything you think he is.

Zat, thought you might be interested to know that Phelps's bunch was the ONLY group protesting today along the path of the 9/11 memorial marchers here in D.C. According to their signs, they think 9/11 was a "good thing." Jeesh....

[Zat0pek]

Zat, thought you might be interested to know that Phelps's bunch was the ONLY group protesting today along the path of the 9/11 memorial marchers here in D.C. According to their signs, they think 9/11 was a "good thing." Jeesh....

Par for the course for that bunch. It'll be interesting to see what happens when Fred finally croaks. Unfortunately, I think he has done a successful job brainwashing enough succeeding generations that they'll carry on as they do now.

[New York XC]

Looks like he's at it again: link (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91136-1200311,00.html)

[exjersey1]

Why do I have the impression that this "church" is just another Jonestown or Waco waiting to happen?

[mzungu]

a priori I support free speech rights. where you limit free speech for public safety is highly controversial. most would agree you should not be allowed to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, unless there is a fire. and many would agree that you have no right to directly incite violence. it is difficult when you have a case where it is highly predictable that a certain message or words in certain places will result in physical acts of violence. I would support the broader interpretation of free speech rights, fewer limitations. Sometimes the best way of opposing hateful groups is by letting them show the public who they really are.

[Zat0pek]

Best way I can think of to deal with the Phelps bunch.

Wonder how I can donate money to the bikers....

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060221131509990006&ncid=NWS00010000000001

[Sebrle]

I'm speechless when it comes to protesting funerals via an agenda...

[clifbar]

A couple months ago the theater department at my school put on a production of "The Laramie Project" (which my brother was in), which is basically a play about the repercussions in Laramie, Wyoming after the brutal murder of Mathew Shepard. Fred Phelps and his crew said they were going to protest at the final night of the production, which if anything helped sell tickets instead of scaring people away. However, when the night came it was cold and rainy and none of them showed up.

[Zat0pek]

The link I posted was on AOL; could you non-AOL users open it OK?

[KevinM]

Opened no problem, Zat. Thanks for the link.

[wineturtle]

The link I posted was on AOL; could you non-AOL users open it OK?

Thanks Zat......opened up with out a churchkey fine.

[Wolverine318]

A couple months ago the theater department at my school put on a production of "The Laramie Project" (which my brother was in), which is basically a play about the repercussions in Laramie, Wyoming after the brutal murder of Mathew Shepard. Fred Phelps and his crew said they were going to protest at the final night of the production, which if anything helped sell tickets instead of scaring people away. However, when the night came it was cold and rainy and none of them showed up.

they showed up at the University of Michigan production last semester. However, i heard it was a member of the local GLBT chapter that tipped him off on the date and location of the production so that the local media can see how ridiculous Phelp's protests are.

[Zat0pek]

Opened no problem, Zat. Thanks for the link.

Great. I wasn't sure if non-AOL folks could open those links. Thanks to you and wineturtle for letting me know.

[Zat0pek]

I had an interesting experience yesterday.

I was in Topeka for a hearing. Following the hearing, I was leaving the courthouse with another lawyer and my clients, one of whom is gay. We were standing on the courthouse steps visiting when a white truck pulled up and parked.

It was the Phelps children with all their signs and one adult supervising them. Looked to me to range in age from about 6 to 10 or 12. It was an oppressively hot day, so they chose a shady area on the corner.

Without saying a word, the kids got out and began holding up their signs outside the courthouse, complete with an upside down American flag. The adult that was with them didn't even have to say a word; the kids all knew exactly what to do.

We just stared, and short conversation about freedom of speech followed. As we were leaving, we had two routes we could take, one that would pass some distance from them and one that take us down the same sidewalk they were on. I glanced at the gay client and asked which way he wanted to go.

"Right passed 'em," he said. So we did.

It was quite creepy to pass within a foot of the these little kids holding these unbelievably foul signs.