Campaign contributions link Judge Waller to those with ties to the Tiller illegal late-term abortion case
Wichita, KS — Concerns have arisen over the ability for Judge Gregory Waller to remain neutral as he presides over the criminal case against abortionist George R. Tiller that was filed by Attorney General Paul Morrison in June. The first public hearing in this case is slated for Friday, as Tiller’s attorneys attempt to persuade Waller to dismiss the 19 counts of illegal late-term abortions.
“Information that we have uncovered leaves us feeling uneasy about the links some people close to Tiller have with Judge Waller,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “We would love to be able to fully trust Judge Waller to rule impartially, but frankly, we haven’t had a good track record of officials in any branch of Kansas government following the law with impartiality whenever Tiller is involved.”
Campaign Receipts and Expenditure Reports filed with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission on October 26, 1998, show that one of Tiller’s lead attorneys, Daniel Monnat, made the maximum allowable contribution of $500 to Waller’s campaign on August 28, 1998.
Those same records show a maximum contribution from attorney Warner Eisenbise. Eisenbise is the father of Ann Kristin Neuhaus, the abortionist that Tiller is accused of having an illegal business relationship with that resulted in the 19 criminal charges that Tiller will challenge before Judge Waller tomorrow.
In addition, another law firm known to represent Tiller in adoption situations, Triplett, Woolf, & Garretson, gave a maximum contribution to Judge Waller’s political campaign on August 7, 1998. Tiller has admitted in newspaper articles that he sometimes arranges adoptions for supporters and in return for political favors.
“The Monnat and Eisenbise/Neuhaus connections to Waller are just a little too close to the case for our comfort,” said Newman. “We’ve been down this road before and didn’t like where it led.”
Newman was referring to the dismissal of Tiller’s previous 30 criminal charges related to illegal late-term abortions in December by Judge Paul Clark, who it was later discovered, had received campaign contributions from Monnat’s law firm. District Attorney Nola Foulston, a personal friend of Tiller’s who made the dismissal request, had also given Clark campaign money.
An ethics complaint was filed against Clark by Sen. Tim Huelskamp and a group of national pro-life leaders for not removing himself from the Tiller case, but the judge was cleared by the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications because it could not be proved that Clark ever saw the list of campaign contributors.
“We are also concerned about the back-room deal that Tiller’s attorneys made with Waller to arraign Tiller secretly four days early,” said Newman. “The only Morrison’s office was given notice, and that was only minutes before the hearing began. The public and the media were kept in the dark.”
“We hope that back room wheeling and dealing do not become the order of the day in the this case. There have been far too many times where the appearance of impropriety surrounding Tiller has been overwhelming,” he said. “We’ve seen justice blocked by Gov. Sebelius, we’ve seen cover-ups by the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, and we’ve seen questionable conduct by the District Attorney’s office during a Grand Jury investigation involving an abortion death, and shady dealings from Attorney General Morrison’s offfice that prevented the Kansas Supreme Court from reinstating previous charges filed against Tiller. For once, we would like to see open and honest proceedings that give us confidence that Tiller is not receiving special privileges.”
Waller will hear a motion to dismiss criminal charges against Tiller on Friday, August 10, based on an argument that the law he was charged under is unconstitutional. K.S.A. 65-6703 prohibits post-viability abortions unless two physicians not legally or financially affiliated determine that the pregnancy will cause substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. This law is interpreted to include mental health risks as long as they meet the same strict standard. Tiller says that the requirement of a second signature is overly burdensome to the abortionist.
Legal experts who have examined Tiller’s motion have expressed that the it has little chance of success because it is based on outdated court cases, and does not take into consideration legal precedents that allow states to restrict abortions in the later months of pregnancy.
“We hope justice isn’t for sale. Friday’s hearing will tell us a lot,” said Newman. “We will be watching both sides very carefully.”
Read Waller Campaign Contribution Documents
