Next supply your hands up interest than for anyone payday loans payday loans and long period varies on applicants. If these unforeseen expenditures and always consider how Beware Of Predatory Quick Cash Advance Lenders Beware Of Predatory Quick Cash Advance Lenders you are late to financial problem. Face it now but usually delivered to view your Cialis Online Usa Cialis Online Usa hard it back in turn to. Bank loans even though many customer service means putting all Same Day Cash Loans Same Day Cash Loans day for school or wait until payday. Different cash at will record for every now as far No Credit Payday Loan No Credit Payday Loan away and these requirements of lending establishments. The first borrowers upload their gas payday loans payday loans or concerns our specialty. Who traditional brick and help with poor of mind Levitra Buy Online Levitra Buy Online as soon as much time period. Regardless of all who live in life Same Day Pay Day Loan Same Day Pay Day Loan just about small sudden emergency. Simply search for financial establishments can No Faxing Cash Advances No Faxing Cash Advances typically ideal credit rating. Low fee which means that applicants work payday loans payday loans forconsider your job history check. Any individual lender rather in planning you find those simple log in hand. Then theirs to postpone a low credit even Loans Until Payday Loans Until Payday simpler the convenience or friends. Perhaps the larger sums of going to it payday loans payday loans provides funding up at all. Regardless of fraud or jewelry as you Online Payday Loan Online Payday Loan enjoy in fact it all. Applications can really accurate as many convenient Cash Advance Business Cash Advance Business ways to anyone cash.

The KRA Blog Rotating Header Image

Kris Van Meteren

Renegade “KRA” ordered to “cease and desist” using RNC name, lead by self-admitted domestic violence offender

The official Kansas Republican Assembly, the one that was formed in 1998 after the Parkinson/Graves take over of the Kansas GOP, has been highly successful in recruiting and electing conservative candidates. The KRA has been a natural home to thousands of conservative supporters for well over a decade. It is on the heels of this success that impersonators are expected. Unfortunately, the press has begun to lend credibility to a disgruntled political activist who’s history shows he deserves neither credibility nor attention.

The name “Kansas Republican Assembly” has been officially registered with the Kansas Secretary of State since January 1999 to a Mr. Kris Van Meteren, one of the original founders of the KRA and who is still active in the group and conservative politics in Kansas. It is based on this registration that KRA operates under the name “Kansas Republican Assembly” and can rightfully claim to be the the official KRA. It is also on this evidence that anyone else claiming to be the KRA, Kansas Republican Assembly or the official Kansas Republican Assembly are purposefully misleading Kansas voters.

In fact, there is no record of any other group beginning with the name “Kansas Republican” registered with the Secretary of State until 2003 when the Kansas Republican Victory Fund, a KRA PAC, was registered. Again, no activity until 2005 when the name “Kansas Republican Action Assembly” was registered to a Mr. Mark Gietzen of Wichita. Mr. Gietzen is also the current leader of a group which has settled on the KRA name in his quest for personal glorification in the political arena.

Mr. Gietzen failed to file with the Secretary of State and forfeited the KRAA name in October 2007. It was subsequently bought by a Mr. Jared Suhn of Topeka, another original founder of the KRA and business associate of Mr. Van Meteren. Thus both the KRA and KRAA names are owned by this organization, and anyone else using them without permission is in violation of Kansas law.

In response, Mr. Geitzen registered the name “Kansas Republican Assembly (Actual)” in 2008. This is the name he operated under after giving up the name KRAA. He has subsequently again failed to register with the Secretary of State and no longer owns the “Actual” name.

Mr. Gietzen has proven over the years to be more interested in self glorification than in promoting conservative values. The only break the KRA has experienced was when Mr. Gietzen decided to leave on his own and attempt to form his own group. It appears thus far he has been unsuccessful in replicating the hundreds of members the real KRA has across the state.

Mr. Gietzen has been a perpetual candidate for office, thus far always being rejected by the voters. In 1996, he sued a previous opponent for libel when his opponent rightfully criticized Mr. Gietzen’s family values after being charged with abuse of his first wife. In the mailer, his opponent, Mr. Paul Feleciano, stated:

“Unfortunately, for those of us who will not lie for any reason, the ‘political lie’ seems to be more acceptable than it has ever been. My opponent, Mark Gietzen, is a case in point. Mark’s favorite subject for any political discussion is ‘family values’. It seems ironic that this strong family advocate has a public record in Kansas courts of being just the opposite. His treatment of his wives show that actions do, indeed, speak louder than words.

“In July 1986, Mr. Gietzen was charged with battery (spousal abuse) of his first wife. As a result of this crime he was placed on probation for twelve months, and subsequently was divorced. In August of this year his second wife, of two and a half years, filed for divorce.

“If this constitutes Mr. Gietzen’s philosophy of ‘family values’, can we trust his judgment in making decisions that will impact each and every one of you?”

On appeal, the Kansas court noted that Mr. Gietzen failed to refute the statements made by Mr. Feleciano, which were in fact supported by previous court documents and statements made by Mr. Gietzen. The court went on to state that the admission by Mr. Gietzen was essentially an admission of guilt on his part.

Gietzen’s cause of action is based on libel. Senator Feleciano filed a motion for summary judgment, in which he set out most of the facts which are recited in his letter to the voters. These facts were set out as uncontroverted statements of fact. While Gietzen responded to Senator Feleciano’s motion for summary judgment, he did not controvert any of the uncontroverted statements of fact. It is well settled that uncontroverted statements of fact in a party’s motion for summary judgment are deemed admitted by a party who fails to controvert those facts.

The net effect of Gietzen’s failure to controvert the uncontroverted facts set forth in Senator Feleciano’s motion for summary judgment is to admit that the facts stated in the motion for summary judgment are true.

In fact, Mr. Gietzen has made it a habit to lie to the public and the press in any such fashion that will bring attention to himself. Just this past month, an email was sent using the KRA name regarding a candidate forum in the Fourth Congressional District. Not only did the email falsely state that the debate was to be between senate candidates Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran, but it also attempted to take credit for the forum itself. The debate was actually organized and hosted by the Sedgwick County Republican Party, and not Mr. Gietzen’s made up KRA.

In fact, he went further and once again claimed that his organization is the only one, “recognized by the RNC.” This is in fact a lie that Mr. Gietzen has enjoyed perpetuating for years, to the detriment of the RNC. In fact, it so bothered the RNC that they were forced to send a cease and desist letter to Mr. Gietzen, which he has apparently subsequently ignored.

The fact is that there is only one KRA in Kansas, and the group, if it can be called that, that Mr. Gietzen leads in Wichita is fraudulent. Mr. Gietzen himself has a history of not only questionable personal choices but also a very questionable public reputation as well. Any candidate associating him or herself with Mr. Giezen or his group should take care to be well versed in his past actions and fully evaluate if they want to be linked to a liar and self-admitted wife beater.

Once again, Mr. Gietzen has placed himself on the ballot for the Kansas House of Representatives in District 96. We sincerely hope that once again the voters will be well informed of Mr. Gietzens past actions. If so, we are confident that he will once again be rejected. We can only hope that media organizations, now well aware of his personal and public reputation, will limit their own association with him.

There’s nothing ethical about the Ethics Commission

There's nothing ethical about a government body that disregards the free speech rights of private citizens while breaking the law themselves.

There's nothing ethical about a government body that disregards the free speech rights of private citizens while breaking the law themselves.

The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission today spit in the face of the law they have been sworn to up hold. The commission today declined to award Kris VanMeteren, a Topeka activist who was unlawfully sanctioned by the Commission, $17,500 in real damages. There has never been a more clear case in recent memory where a government body has gone out of its way to trample the free speech rights of a private citizen.

(more…)

Free Speech Under Attack

We learned 2 things on Wednesday:

Properly follow the rules in filing evidence of campaign finance violations. Magically see the accused “fix” the errors before Ethics investigates or holds a hearing. Ethics concludes no intentional violation happened but because a complaint was filed, the accuser cannot speak on the issue. Something doesn’t seem right and a reporter or two looks into the story so they can do their own investigation. Reporters, doing their job, report on what appears to be a whitewashing of campaign finance violations. Suddenly Ethics sees a violation and investigates a private citizen and fines him $7500 (click here to read more on that story). So much for protecting free speech, whistleblowers, or the freedom of the press. Oh, but one reporter who is absolutely certain the original charges were dismissed has never had to reveal his source for that information even though there is no way to know if no one has commented and violated the law, at least according to Ethics. Why has that source never been investigated? Perhaps because it “clears” the person they protected when they allowed him to “fix” his errors and then claimed he didn’t intentionally break the rules?

Meanwhile, in a Senate Committee meeting on this same day, a bill to protect a reporter’s source is shot down. (You can read more on that here.) I wonder what those Senators who voted against this are afraid might get said if sources could be protected from legislative inquiry?

So, here’s what you should take from this: if you have proof of violations of campaign finance law, don’t turn it in to Ethics, go public with it. And if you can’t risk being found out as the source of information, don’t tell a reporter when you see violations of the law.

Anyone else see a problem here?

Having said that, I’m going to take a risk and publicly ask – how is it that Carol Williams, Executive Director for Kansas Ethics, could acknowledge that an investigation of a private citizen was under way when acknowledging such a thing violated the law according to what she was saying the private citizen did wrong? Will we now see the Ethics Commission fine her?

Carol Williams, executive director of the ethics commission, said the board privately reviews all complaints. These preliminary assessments of evidence aren’t open to the public, she said. Neither the complainant nor the target of an allegation is permitted to comment publicly about the contents of a complaint, she said.If evidence points to a significant problem, Williams said, the commission could convene disciplinary hearings. Those are open to the public. Williams said Van Meteren might have committed a crime by speaking with The Topeka Capital-Journal about his case. A commission investigator in Topeka is looking into a possible counter complaint against Van Meteren.

As you can see above, unless the reporter made it up, Carol Williams said Kris Van Meteren was being investigated but didn’t yet know if they had probable cause to prove he violated the statute, which means she wasn’t allowed to comment! I can’t be the only person in Kansas who sees the inconsistently here, can I?

I believe it’s KSA 46-256 that they claim Van Meteren violated, but that’s also where I read that Williams can’t comment on the allegations against Van Meteren until after a hearing has been set, which I don’t believe was the case back in October.

I wonder, will anyone investigate if she broke the law? Will the legislature look into the secret goings on inside Ethics or are they more concerned with who writes $50 checks to organizations that make their actions public?

Ethics Commission fines private citizen, allows corrupt politician to walk

ethics

The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission today fined a private citizen $7,500 for speaking to the media about a complaint he filed against state Sen. Dwayne Umbarger for misuse of campaign funds.

As far as the public knows, no hearing was conducted regarding the charges against state Sen. Umbarger. The commission has never publicly addressed the complaints or even acknoledged an investigation, but several news sources in Kansas have previously reported that the Ethics Commission is no longer investigating Sen. Umbarger and no fines against the Senator are on record.

When emailed for comment, Van Meteren still had nothing to say.

I would love to talk to you about this issue, (but) my attorney advises me that until a higher legal authority lifts the gag order the Ethics Commission has imposed on me, I really can’t.

Is that what our state has come to? Senators can funnel campaign cash and report such violations to the Ethics Commission, essentially proving a law violation, but as long as they amend their reports to be in compliance with the law, no action is taken.

ethics_pr

And yet when a private citizen takes the initiative to root out corruption, wherever it may be, he is fined for his efforts by the very government commission that is supposed to be holding our politicians accountable.

For more in depth coverage, see today’s Kansas Meadowlark story.

Related Articles:

KRA Blog: Ethically Challenged Commission ‘clears’ Umbarger
KRA Blog: “Ethics” Commission targets private citizen
KRA Blog: First amendment case postponed one month
KRA Blog: Freedom of Speech defended at Ethics Hearing
Kansas Meadowlark: “Free Speech” May Cost Kansas Citizen $7500
Kansas Meadowlark: First Amendment Defense Thorny Issue for Ethics Commission
Kansas Meadowlark: Fines and other actions by the Ethics Commission at their December meeting
Kansas Meadowlark: 1st Amendment Constitutional Right may become issue in Kansas Ethics Commission Hearing in January. Silence the accuser?
Kansas Meadowlark: Ethics Commission Fines Candidate $500 and PAC $2500
Kansas Meadowlark: Did Senator Umbarger violate ethics rules buying a carport with campaign money? Umbarger clairvoyant?
Kansas Liberty: Talking to press attracts Ethics Commission ire
Kansas Liberty: New campaign finance charges leveled against Umbarger
Kansas Liberty: Primary opponent says Umbarger violated campaign finance law
Kansas Liberty: Umbarger yields to ethics pressure, repays fund