MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Tuesday, February 09, 2010 | WIRELESS CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBER SERVICES | SIGN IN SIGN OUT | MY PROFILE PAGE | MY ACCOUNT

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Newspaper View      Print this story Print      Email this story Email      Comment Comment      RSS RSS     
Share      Bookmark Bookmark

End to gag order sought
 
By APRIL MARCISZEWSKI World Staff Writer
Published: 2/14/2008  1:58 AM
Last Modified: 2/14/2008  1:58 AM


View a PDF of the Brookers’ planned appeal of the gag order at www.tulsaworld.com/appeal and catch up on previous stories and documents at www.tulsaworld.com/ orulawsuit.


An attorney says a gag order in the ORU case is being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Two former Oral Roberts University professors who are suing the college are asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to overrule a gag order preventing participants in their lawsuit from talking about the case outside of court.

Paul Boudreaux, an attorney for former professors Tim and Paulita Brooker, said they appealed the gag order to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, although the appeal did not appear on the court's Web site, cf,fgc www.tulsaworld.com/oscn. cf,ceno

Tulsa County District Judge Rebecca Brett Nightingale issued the order Jan. 11, saying she was concerned about all participants' ability to have a fair trial, considering all they had said publicly about the case. She said she did not think the case could move to a different city because it had been covered by national media.

Attorneys for ORU, former ORU President Richard Roberts and ORU administrators had asked for the gag order in October. Their request to the court claimed the Brookers and their attorneys were abusing the judicial system to seek publicity and spread unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing.

Roberts denied the allegations but resigned from the presidency in November.

In the appeal, the Brookers argue that the facts of the case do not meet the high standard for restricting free speech, and they claim Nightingale did not consider less restrictive measures. Nightingale did not return a phone call Wednesday afternoon.

Her order bans comments that would "substantially and materially prejudice the ability to have a fair trial." The attorneys involved have said that means participants in the lawsuit cannot talk about the case at all outside of court.

The Brookers now argue that the order "is an abuse of judicial power."

"Any threat to a fair trial in this matter, for either side, is far outweighed by the clear right to speak the truth," their appeal says.

Boudreaux said Roberts' father, Oral Roberts, along with televangelists, media and anyone besides the lawsuit participants can talk about the case.

"We don't think the professors should be gagged of their opinions," he said.

He added: "We immensely respect this judge. . . . We just disagree with her on this issue."

The appeal to the Supreme Court will not prevent other aspects of the case from moving forward, Boudreaux said.

John Tucker, an attorney for ORU, Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association and two ORU administrators, said the process with the Supreme Court usually takes 30 to 60 days. The court could decide not to consider the request at all, or it could take up the issue and decide whether it agrees with Nightingale's order.


April Marciszewski 581-8475
april.marciszewski@tulsaworld.com

By APRIL MARCISZEWSKI World Staff Writer

Newspaper View Newspaper View      Print this story Print      Email this story Email      Comment Comment      RSS RSS     
Share      Bookmark Bookmark

Reader Comments
       Add your comment

16 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Report Comment Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you.  -- Web Editor Jason Collington
 
 
Report Comment
nsss, ba (2/14/2008 9:35:28 AM)
New attorney for the Brooker's ??? We are waiting 30 to 60 days before any more information can come out on this case??? Courts are slow unless your name is Brittnity Spears??? How does she get court dates the day she wants them??? But this suit has to wait??
Report Comment
Machiavelli, Houston (2/14/2008 11:49:09 AM)
I'm no expert, but certain lawyers specialize in "appeals" and also "cases before State Supreme Courts." These are "specialties," like in medicine, a trial attorney might not know all the ropes of how to do things before judges only, and people specialize in these things.

I hope the Supreme Court rules the gag order is unconstitutional and allows the Brookers plus their attorneys to speak about the case.

The point about Oral Roberts going all over TV and speaking about it is true. I saw Oral Roberts with my own eyes on Benny Hinn's daily show saying how he was going to forgive everyone who was suing Richard. Now that's speaking about the case.

I guess when an article gets "revised," the other previous articles on the same subject disappear?
Report Comment
ALUM, (2/14/2008 12:07:22 PM)
The GAG order is totally one-sided as long as the Robertses are seen on television. They are able to say things (even though indirect comments) that sway the public. Their pathetic antics do influence others. I think the whole GAG order idea on any of the lawsuits is completely unfair to the other side. If the judge wanted to truly issue a fair GAG order . . . the judge should have made them stay off the air.
Report Comment
Gail, Tulsa, Ok (2/14/2008 12:30:04 PM)
To: Mach: For an attorney to argue before any State or Federal Supreme court an attorney must seek and be approved for that priviledge. So I am sure that is why the change of the attorney in the appeal.
Report Comment
Charles Fowler, Colorado Springs, Colorado USA (2/15/2008 8:06:21 AM)
Gag Orders Are Un-Constitutional

It's time for the good people of Oklahoma to stand up and hold their Judges accountable and reinstate the Oklahoma and U. S. Constitution.

Oklahoma Constitution:

SECTION II-22
Liberty of speech and press - Truth as evidence in prosecution for libel.

Every person may freely speak, write, or publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the freedom of speech, or of the press

TULSA, OKLAHOMA desperately needs two things to happen:

1. If the Oklahoma Supreme Court upholds this gag order, then the law firm should take it to the United States Supreme Court.

This will put the Oklahoma Supreme Court in it's place if they make such an un-Constitutional ruling.

2. JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY should become the campaign issues for any and all political candidates in Tulsa and Oklahoma who believe in and support our constitutional freedoms and liberties.

Judges who impose gag orders, hold secret hearings and closed court meetings should be held accountable by the voters in Oklahoma.
Report Comment
Elizabeth Conley, Norfolk (3/4/2008 9:16:16 AM)
It is fascinating to note that the effect of the gag order. The vast majority of people seem to beleive the ORU debacle is over, when in fact it is only about half through.

There's a virtual news blackout, and finding information about the pending legal cases is very difficult.

Gag orders are powerful tools. This one has entirely concealed the ORU case from the public eye.

Wow!
Report Comment
Sarah R. Cooper, Columbus, Ms (3/17/2008 7:49:06 PM)
Hope the Judge is not a Free Mason.
Report Comment
nss, ba (3/18/2008 1:24:57 AM)
The Judge - I think - is a female and the Free Mason's only let in their own kind - MEN
Report Comment
nss, ba (3/18/2008 1:33:47 AM)
My attorney tried to get an answer from the Okla. Supreme Court - not an hearing - just an opinion and it took 7 months - of course I did not have the ORU in the suit - but anyway don't hold your breath for a quick hearing from those folks - bet it will be until after the 4th of July anyway.

On another note - we are have thunder storms here tonight and I finally had to give me dog a half of a Xanax to calm him down. What do you think the police would say if they stopped me with them and I said they were for my dog? -
Report Comment
Fifty Dollar Fine, (3/18/2008 2:24:21 AM)
#9 nss - "My attorney tried to get an answer from the Okla. Supreme Court - not an hearing - just an opinion and it took 7 months - of course I did not have the ORU in the suit - but anyway don't hold your breath for a quick hearing from those folks - bet it will be until after the 4th of July anyway."

Aw man, I think you're right. Nobody's saying anything. I bet the ORUites really think it's out of the news, though.
Report Comment
Canned Applesauce, Tulsa (3/19/2008 2:10:42 AM)
9. 3/18/2008 1:33:47 AM, nss, ba
"....On another note - we are have thunder storms here tonight and I finally had to give me dog a half of a Xanax to calm him down.."
nss, my dog freaks out over the storms too. I gave her about 1/4 of an antihistimine tab about 1 a.m. and she zonked out the rest of the night. I guess we could call and ask R & L for prayers for our doggies' anxiety attacks...then they can be drug free canines....whatchathink?
Report Comment
nss, ba (3/19/2008 8:03:56 PM)
I did check with my vet before he got it -- but R & L might do some good also LOL
Report Comment
Shows Over Folks, Detroit (3/24/2008 12:30:23 PM)
So is it safe to say that we arent having a trial?
Report Comment
PM, OK (3/27/2008 12:37:15 AM)
All of this is old news.
Report Comment
PM, OK (3/27/2008 12:39:39 AM)
Just another opinion. Everyone has already tried and hung everyone. So what is the point of going to court, judges, and juries when everyone has already tried and hung everyone involved in these lawsuits. Like I said old news.
Report Comment
Elizabeth Conley, Norfolk (3/31/2008 9:37:19 AM)
"Everyone has already tried and hung everyone. So what is the point of going to court, judges, and juries when everyone has already tried and hung everyone involved in these lawsuits. "

Gee, I dunno. Maybe you should ask the people who are principles in the lawsuits. No, wait, they're not allowed to say anything. Their constitutional right to free speech is abridged until this thing plays out.

Folks, if this case doesn't give you the creeps, nothing will.
 

 
Add Your Comment 
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.

 
  
Post Your Comment
 


Most Popular Stories
Comments made yesterday 2,015
Total Comments 1,032,965
Register to make reader comments

Most Popular Stories




Tulsa World

Home | About Tulsa World | Advertise With Us | Privacy | Usage Agreement | FAQ and Help | Contact Us | Today's Headlines
Copyright © 2010, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved.




Advanced Search