; oct05
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

oct05

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 8

  • pg 1
									    LAW WISE
PUBLISHED BY THE KANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION
Editor: Crystal Marietta, Attorney at Law, Pittsburg
Coordinators: Ron Keefover, Kansas Supreme Court and Janessa Akin, Kansas Bar Association
                                                                                                                                     October 2005



Greetings from the Kansas Supreme Court and the Kansas Bar Association. This is the second edition of Law Wise for the 2005-2006
school year. The theme of October’s edition of Law Wise is “This Land Isn’t Your Land … Exploring Private Property Rights.”

 IN THIS ISSUE                                                    Exploring Private
  Calendar of Events ........................................ 1
                                                                  Property Rights
  Exploring Private Property Rights ................ 1                A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision originated in the city of New London,
                                                                  Conn., where the city approved a development plan that had been submitted
                                                                  by a development agent. The plan called for construction of a waterfront hotel,
  Exploring Property Rights in Kansas ............. 2             restaurants, retail stores, residences, and office space; also, portions of the
                                                                  development area were to be used for marinas and support services. The city
  Technology for Teachers ................................ 2      authorized the agent to purchase property in the development area or to acquire
                                                                  it by eminent domain. The agent purchased most of the required property, but
                                                                  nine owners refused to sell. The Court found that the development plan served a
  Courts Welcome Students ............................. 2         public purpose and therefore constituted a public use under the Takings Clause of
                                                                  the Fifth Amendment. The plan was not adopted to benefit a particular class of
                                                                  identifiable individuals. Although the owners’ properties were not blighted, the city’s
  Lesson #1: This Land Isn't Your Land ........... 3
                                                                  determination that a program of economic rejuvenation was justified was entitled to
                                                                  deference. There was no basis for exempting economic development from the broad
  KBA YLS to Sponsor High School                                  definition of “public purpose.” The Court declined to require a reasonable certainty
  Mock Trial Competition ...............................7         that the expected public benefits would accrue, nor was it proper to second-guess
                                                                  the city’s determination of the boundary of the development area.
                                                                      The Supreme Court’s June 23, 2005, decision to allow the city of New London,
  Resources for Law-Related Education ........... 7               Conn., to condemn its citizens’ homes to generate more municipal tax revenue
                                                                  offended many Americans and became a much debated topic. In a blistering
  Mock Trial Registration Form ...................... 8           dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor declared, “Nothing is to prevent the state
                                                                  from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping
                                                                  mall, or any farm with a factory.” That’s the bad news if you disagree with the
                                                                  Court’s findings.
   CALENDAR OF EVENTS                                                 On the other hand, the Court’s decision does not prevent states and localities
                                                                  from adopting a different approach. “We emphasize that nothing in our opinion
2005                                                              precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the
Oct. 25-26       Kansas Court of Appeals in session –
                 Topeka and Wichita                               takings power.”
                                                                      The eminent domain debate now returns to the local and state level, where it
Dec. 2           Deadline for IOLTA grant applications            ultimately belongs. All states have statutes or constitutional provisions governing
                                                                  the conditions under which governments can take private property. Michigan,
2006                                                              New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky,
Feb. 10          Deadline to submit Mock Trial
                                                                  and California significantly limit that authority. A 1976 California court opinion
                 registration form
                                                                  describes their approach. Eminent domain “never can be used just because the
March 4          Regional Mock Trial Tournament                   [city] considers that it can make better use or planning of an area than its present
April 1          State Mock Trial Tournament                      use or plan. ... [I]t is not sufficient to merely show that the area is not being put
                                                                  to its optimum use, or that the land is more valuable for other uses” to justify
May 1            Law Day
                                                                  condemnation of property.
May 13           National Mock Trial Tournament                                                     (Continued on Page 2)
 OCTOBER 2005 / LAW WISE – 2


Private Property Rights (cont.)
   The laws of Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North                 struggled, is what to do when the government seizes private property
Dakota, and Connecticut, conversely, grant local and state governments      to create jobs or increase tax revenue or some other economic
much broader leeway.                                                        development objective.
   Virtually everyone agrees that when the government takes private            The debate about eminent domain centers on two questions.
property to build something that clearly and directly benefits the entire   When can government take private property? What should it pay for
community – schools, roads, parks – it is acting for a public purpose.      that property? 
   The thorny question, and the one with which the Supreme Court

 Portions of this article were taken from a posting on www.alternet.org by David Morris, titled “The Politics of Land Grabbing,” posted July 7, 2005.


Exploring Property Rights in Kansas
   The issue of whether a governmental entity may take private              statutes that apply uniformly to all counties.
property for economic development came squarely before the Kansas               The landowners unsuccessfully contended that the home rule
Supreme Court in 2003 when a landowner and his company appealed             powers do not expressly permit acquiring property for public purposes.
the taking of property valued at $329,000.                                  However, the Court held that the exceptions to home rule powers do
   The property consisted of seven acres that were part of a planned        not prohibit that use of home rule.
400-acre industrial park on which a huge Target Distribution                    In making its ruling, the Supreme Court approved an attorney
Center was to be constructed. The property is now under part of             general’s opinion which held that once a county has established an
the Center’s foundation. The decision, which can be found online at         economic development program, it may buy and sell real estate for
www.kscourts.org, came in the appeal of General Building Contractors        industrial sites for economic development as long as the purchase and
L.L.C. and Robert D. Tolbert v. Board of County Commissioners of            sale are related to the program and serve a public purpose.
Shawnee County (Docket No. 89,029).                                             The Supreme Court upheld the Shawnee County District Court
   The Shawnee County Commissioners used their powers under                 decision in the case, which awarded Tolbert and his company $329,000
“home rule” to acquire the property and establish the industrial park.      for taking his acreage and the removal of a building that was constructed
The power of “home rule” was granted to counties by the Legislature in      on the site. The Target Distribution Center has since been built and is
1974 and allows county commissioners to “transact all county business       now open for business. Approximately 600 jobs were created by the
and perform all powers of local legislation and administration it deems     county’s development of the industrial park. 
appropriate,” subject to a list of exceptions including changing any


                        CourtsWelcome Students
                            The Kansas Court of Appeals, a 12-member intermediate appellate court, sits in three-judge panels. The court is
                        pleased to have students attend the hearings. The Court of Appeals will be hearing cases in Topeka and Wichita on
                        Oct. 25-26.
                            The Kansas Supreme Court is the highest court in the state, and includes seven members. Students are also welcome at
                        oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The high court holds its hearings only in Topeka.
   If you have any questions concerning the Kansas appellate courts, or if you would like to bring your class to either the Kansas Supreme Court or
the Kansas Court of Appeals, teachers may contact Ron Keefover, Education and Information Officer of the Office of Judicial Administration, 301
W. 10th Ave., Topeka, KS 66612-1507, (785) 296-4872, for assistance. You can also contact Mr. Keefover via email at keefoverr@kscourts.org. 



     TE R R I F I C TE C H N O L O G Y F O R TE A C H E R S
                        1. The Institute for Justice Web site has several articles and a case timeline of the case in New London, Conn., at
                           http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/
                        2. Findlaw.com has a good summary defining eminent domain with special emphasis on the law in Missouri at
                           http://library.findlaw.com/1999/May/25/130971.html.
                        3. For further information, a brief history of eminent domain can be found at
                           http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domain.html.
                        4. The Future of Freedom Foundation is a good source for the history of eminent domain and gives summaries of the
                           landmark cases in this area of law and can be accessed at http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0412a.asp.
                                                                                                       OCTOBER 2005 / LAW WISE – 3


                                                        LESSON 1 

                  This Land Isn’t Your Land …
      Exploring the Impact of Legal Private Property Seizure
Authors: Michelle Sale, The New York Times Learning Network, and
         Tanya Yasmin Chin, The Bank Street College of Education, New York City

Grade Level: 6-12

Overview: In this lesson, students review scenarios relating to a Supreme Court case upholding the practice of eminent domain. They then dis-
cuss the complex issue of private property seizure and write letters to a local or state government representative.

Suggested Time Allowance: 1 hour

Objectives: Students will:
1. Explore how they would respond if their home were possibly going to be seized by the government.
2. Consider the responses and effects of a recent Supreme Court decision by reading and discussing the article “Ruling Sets Off Tug of War
   Over Private Property.” (Handout A)
3. Discuss various scenarios affected by eminent domain laws and consider viable solutions in a round-table discussion.
4. Write letters to local or state government officials expressing their views on eminent domain.

Resources/Materials:
  student journals
  pens/pencils
  paper
  classroom board
  copies of the article “Ruling Sets Off Tug of War Over Private Property,” found online at
   http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20050801monday.html and at the end of this lesson plan (one per student)
  resources about eminent domain (civics textbooks, computers with Internet access, etc.)

Activities/Procedures:
1. WARM-UP/DO NOW: In their journals, students respond to the following prompt (written on the board prior to class): “Imagine that you
    have just been informed that the local government is planning to seize your home and demolish it to make way for a new shopping mall.
    What do you think and feel? What would you do? How would your response change, if at all, if your family were to be given fair market
    value for the price of the home, as well as relocation expenses?” After a few minutes, allow students to share their answers.

   Then, explain to students that what they are discussing is known as “eminent domain,” which is not mentioned specifically in the U.S.
   Constitution, but the Supreme Court ruled in June that the government can take land for certain types of development use. Review and
   discuss the following definition and constitutional amendment, focusing on how they relate to the seizure of private property:

   -According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, eminent domain means “the power of a government body to take
   private property for public use. Numerous public and quasi-public agencies (such as airport authorities, highway commissions, and
   community development agencies) are authorized to use eminent domain. Private property owners are entitled to compensation for any
   property taken under eminent domain” (http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/centers/sac/eminent/index.cfm).

   -The Fifth Amendment includes the provision that “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
   nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

   For further information, a brief history of eminent domain can be found at http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domain.html.

2. As a class, read and discuss the article “Ruling Sets Off Tug of War Over Private Property”
   (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20050801monday.html), focusing on the following questions:
   a. What is happening as a result of the Supreme Court ruling?
   b. How have various states responded to the ruling?
   c. How has Congress responded to the ruling?
   d. According to the Supreme Court ruling, what is “public use” when it comes to eminent domain?
                                                               (Continued on Page 4)
 OCTOBER 2005 / LAW WISE – 4


                                                   LESSON 1(CONT.) 
    e.   What seems to be at stake at the heart of the argument surrounding eminent domain?
    f.   According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, what legal issue are Americans most concerned about?
    g.   According to officials at the California League of Cities, what purpose does redevelopment serve?
    h.   How does the struggle of the Lau family illustrate the challenges presented by eminent domain? Why do you think the author featured this
         particular situation in the article?

3. Divide students into pairs. Tell them to imagine that they are legal advisors for one of the land use projects described in the article. Assign
   each pair a scenario, such as (more than one pair may receive the same scenario, or additional imaginary ones may be created, depending on
   class size):
   a. The taking of land owned by a family for 36 years to build condominiums. A successful restaurant exists on part of the land; the rest was
         ruined by an earthquake.
   b. The condemnation of old homes to make way for a private development of new homes.
   c. The condemnation of old homes to make way for a new football stadium.
   d. The condemnation of old homes to make way for a new shopping center, despite pleas from elderly homeowners who said they have
         nowhere else to go and no desire to move.
   e. The eviction of a tire shop and auto repair shop to make room for a housing development designed to bring 10,000 residents to the central
         part of a city.
   f.    The eviction of a prosperous cigar and coffee shop to make way for a hotel project.

    Instruct students to examine the issue as it is presented in the article, and brainstorm a list of benefits and drawbacks for the government to
    exercise the power of eminent domain in this particular situation.

    After about 10 minutes, allow pairs time to share their ideas with the class.

    Then, as a class, students explore eminent domain in round-table discussion format. Though the discussion will most likely be easily driven
    by student comments, some guiding questions are offered below. Because the discussion may become heated, the teacher may want to
    maintain a “speaker’s list.” Students who wish to add to the discussion raise their hands, and the teacher writes their names on a list. Students
    will be called on in the order that their names appear on the speaker’s list. Students can be added to the list at any time by raising their hand,
    but students must talk in turn.
    a. Should the United States government get involved in issues of private land use? Why or why not?
    b. What arguments might the United States government use to support the fact that they can take property under eminent domain laws?
    c. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, what arguments might citizens use to oppose a governmental plan to exercise eminent domain?
    d. Is seizure of property under the Fifth Amendment legalized theft? Why or why not?
    e. For each of the cases discussed in pairs, what would be a fair settlement? Why?

4. WRAP-UP/HOMEWORK: Individually, students write letters explaining their viewpoint on the issue of eminent domain to a local or state
   government official, such as a council person, legislator, mayor, or governor. Encourage them to include examples and arguments presented
   during class.

Evaluation/Assessment:
Students will be evaluated based on completion of initial journal responses, participation in class and group discussions, and thoughtfully
written letters to government officials.

Extension Activities:
1. In the article, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell compares the reaction to the recent Supreme Court ruling to the Boston Tea Party. What does
   she mean? How are the events similar or different? Create a poster illustrating your findings. Include a brief explanation of the events that led
   to the “explosive” reactions to each.
2. Various organizations fighting eminent domain cases can be found at http://www.castlecoalition.org/organizations/. Choose one, and
   research the other side of the argument. Prepare a balanced report of your findings, and write a brief reaction. With which side do you agree? Why?
                                                       (Handout for this lesson begins on Page 5)
                                                                                                              OCTOBER 2005 / LAW WISE – 5


                                            LESSON 1 – HANDOUT A 

          Ruling Sets Off Tug of War Over Private Property
By Timothy Egan                                                              safe, we’ve got to do something now,” he said. “But as more states take
     August 1, 2005, SANTA CRUZ, Calif.—More than a month                    a look at this they will respond in some form, but they won’t want to
after the Supreme Court ruled that governments could take one per-           take away a valuable tool.”
son’s property and give it to another in the name of public interest, the         In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry added the issue to a special legislative
decision has set off a storm of legislative action and protest, as states    session initially called for education. Both houses passed bills limiting
have moved to protect homes and businesses from the expanded reach           eminent domain with some exceptions, including one allowing the
of eminent domain.                                                           city of Arlington to condemn homes for a new Dallas Cowboys foot-
     In California and Texas, legislators have proposed constitutional       ball stadium, a project already under way. The two versions of the bills
amendments, while at least a dozen other states and some cities are          were not reconciled before the session ended.
floating similar changes designed to rein in the power to take property.          But some cities view the ruling as blessing their redevelopment
     But at the same time, the ruling has emboldened some cities to          plans; Arlington filed condemnation lawsuits against some holdout
take property for development plans on private land. Here in Santa           property owners this month. Officials in Sunset Hills, Mo., outside St.
Cruz, for example, city officials started legal action this month to seize   Louis, voted to condemn a cluster of homes to make way for a shop-
a parcel of family-owned land that holds a restaurant with a high Zagat      ping center, despite the pleas of some elderly homeowners who said
rating, two other businesses, and a conspicuous hole in the ground and       they had nowhere else to go and no desire to move. Officials in Oak-
force a sale to a developer who plans to build 54 condominiums.              land, Calif., evicted a tire shop and an auto repair shop to make room
     Far from clarifying government’s ability to take private prop-          for a development that is part of Mayor Jerry Brown’s plan to bring
erty, the 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision has set up a summer of               10,000 residents to the central part of the city.
scrutiny over a power that has been regularly used but little-discussed           In Santa Cruz, the plans pit one family against the city’s long
for decades.                                                                 effort to redevelop a downtown hit by the 1989 earthquake. With the
     “The intense reaction - this backlash - has caught a lot of people      Supreme Court’s ruling, city officials here said they felt free to seize a
off guard,” said Larry Morandi, who tracks land use developments for         20,000-square-foot lot they considered a blight.
the National Conference of State Legislatures.                                    To the city, the lot owned by the Lau family is a drag on other
     In Connecticut, where the court case originated, Gov. M. Jodi           businesses, because the hole, left by the earthquake, has never been
Rell, a Republican, has likened the reaction to the Boston Tea Party         redeveloped. To the family, the seizure is legalized theft and shows how
and called for a moratorium on land takings until the legislature can        the court decision can be used to take anyone’s property under the
revisit the law.                                                             broad rubric of public use.
     California’s proposal would prohibit the use of eminent domain,              “My family has owned this land for 36 years,” said Eric Lau, who
a process in which governments force a sale of someone’s property, in        laid bricks to shore up the building that would become his thriving
cases like Santa Cruz’s.                                                     restaurant, which is adjacent to the hole. “And now they’re trying to
     “This decision opens a new era when the rich and powerful can           erase us from this place, to take it and say we don’t have any choice.”
use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private             The ruling has struck a chord; in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News
gain,” said State Sen. Tom McClintock, a Republican who proposed             poll this month, the legal issue that Americans said most concerned
the amendment.                                                               them was “private property rights,” ahead of parental notification for
     In Congress, liberals like Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat of              minors’ abortions, or the right-to-die debate.
California, have joined conservatives like Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas,               Property rights groups have united with more liberal organizations
the House majority leader, in criticizing the ruling. The House              in arguing that taking property for economic use usually favors the
voted 365 to 33 to pass a resolution condemning the decision,                rich over the poor.
and proposals in both the House and the Senate would prevent                      “Typically, you have these corporate lobbyists who go down to a
the federal government from using eminent domain for private                 city council and say, ‘Take this person’s property and we’ll build you
development, as well as local governments using federal money on             a shopping center,’” said Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer with the Pacific
such projects.                                                               Legal Foundation, a libertarian-leaning legal group that helped draft
     The Fifth Amendment allows the taking of land for “public use”          the proposed California amendment.
with “just compensation,” and governments have long used the prac-                Opponents of the Supreme Court decision also point to San
tice to build roads and schools and to allow utilities to run service        Diego, where Ahmed Mesdaq lost his prosperous cigar and coffee shop
lines. In its June 23 ruling regarding efforts by the city of New Lon-       in the trendy Gaslamp Quarter to a hotel project, which the city said
don, Conn., to condemn homes in an old part of town to make way              would bring more tax revenue.
for a private development, the Supreme Court said public use could                Many city officials say eminent domain is crucial for creating
mean something that brings a public benefit – like jobs or increased         jobs, expanding tax bases, and keeping their communities
tax revenue.                                                                 economically viable.
     But at the same time, the court invited states to tailor their own           “Redevelopment is sometimes the only tool a community has to
laws. While only one state, Delaware, has changed its law, most states       jump-start revitalization of downtrodden, blighted communities,”
are likely to have a proposed change by next year, Mr. Morandi said.         officials at the California League of Cities wrote in a response to the
     “The initial outcry after the court case was: Nobody’s house is                                     (Continued on Page 6)
 OCTOBER 2005 / LAW WISE – 6


                                  LESSON 1 – HANDOUT A (CONT.) 
proposed amendment.                                                        have been very fair and very patient.”
    Mayor Brown of Oakland said it was inevitable that some small busi-          “Taking the Lau property would serve the public good,” Ms.
nesses would have to be relocated, and he urged caution in any efforts     Cirillo said, “because there is a hole in the center of our retail district.”
to pass laws. “I understand the horror of urban renewal,” he said. “But          Eric Lau and his sister, Lani, say the city is taking their property
you don’t want to take away a tool that a city has to reform itself. If    simply because their father took so much time to try to build some-
you did, Oakland would suffer greatly.”                                    thing unusual.
    During the 1970s, the Lau property, with its bookstore and cafe              “My dad was hell-bent on getting his dream project built, nothing
in the pre-Starbucks age, was a central hangout in funky Santa Cruz,       less, and that has been his biggest weakness,” Eric Lau said.
neighbors say. Eric Lau watched his father’s bookstore come to life and          The city agency has offered the family $1.6 million for the proper-
then die in the Loma Prieta earthquake, which destroyed the building.      ty, and the Laus plan to fight it. It is unclear whether the amendment
    The family’s restaurant, Oswald, would not be considered blight        would protect the Laus, but they hope to hang on to the property long
by many standards. There is ivy on the outside walls, art on the inside,   enough to find out. A vote on the amendment would come no sooner
and the tables are covered with fresh-pressed linen. The restaurant is     than next June, legislative leaders say.
packed on most nights, neighbors say. And it has consistently been               Meanwhile, the Laus say they are willing to modify their plans and
voted one of the best places to dine in Santa Cruz, a beach town of        build something close to what the city has agreed to with a developer.
54,000 people south of San Jose, known for its university and the car-           But city officials say that they have run out of patience and that
pet of redwoods on its fog-shrouded hills.                                 it is too late for the Laus to come up with new designs. They have an
    Ron Lau, who is 69, has long tried to build something on the           exclusive agreement, Ms. Cirillo said, with a developer, Bolton Hill, to
undeveloped part of the property – the hole in the ground. The prob-       take over the property and build on it.
lem, city officials say, is that Mr. Lau has proposed hard-to-build,             “The project is moving forward,” Ms. Cirillo said. “The Supreme
idealistic plans, involving alternative energy sources and unusual         Court gave us reassurance of our ability to proceed.”
designs that have never gotten off the ground, angering some nearby              As for the Laus and their restaurant, Ms. Cirillo said there might
property owners.                                                           still be a place for them in the new development – after they sell out.
    “We do not use eminent domain frivolously,” said Ceil Cirillo,               “Ideally, we would like to see them relocated in some way to the
executive director of the Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency. “I feel we      project,” she said. 


                           LAW WISE Newsletter Subscription Form
 Please help us update our database files. Fill out this form and return to: Kansas Bar Association, P.O. Box 1037,
 Topeka, KS 66601-1037; or call (785) 234-5696.

 Name _______________________________________________________________________

 School/Business Name __________________________________________________________

 Address ______________________________________________________________________

 City ________________________________State _______ Zip + 4 ______________________

 E-Mail _______________________________________________________________________

 Phone ___________________________________ Fax ________________________________

 Law Wise is furnished free on request to any interested party. To receive Law Wise, fill out this form (please feel free to
 copy this form and give to associates you feel would like to receive Law Wise) and return to the Kansas Bar Association,
 P.O. Box 1037, Topeka, KS 66601-1037; or call (785) 234-5696.

                                  You can also access Law Wise at http://www.kscourts.org/lawwise
                                    or at http://www.ksbar.org/public/public_resources/lawwise/
                                                                                                               OCTOBER 2005 / LAW WISE – 7


KBA Young Lawyers to Sponsor High School Mock
Trial Competition
   Every spring, the Kansas Bar Association                                                                          The registration deadline for the
Young Lawyers Section (YLS) offers a statewide                                                                 competition is Feb. 10, 2006. The case
mock trial competition to high school students.                                                                materials and rules will be available
This year’s competition will offer two regional                                                                later this fall at www.ksbar.org. The
tournaments – one in Sedgwick County and                                                                       regional tournaments are scheduled for
one in Johnson County. The top teams from                                                                      March 4, 2006. The state tournament is
those tournaments will compete at the state                                                                    scheduled for April 1, 2006. The 2006
tournament in Kansas City. The winner of                                                                       national tournament will take place on
the state tournament will then compete at                                                                      May 13, 2006, in Oklahoma City.
the national tournament in Oklahoma City.                                                                            The KBA has a VHS tape and
The YLS will provide financial assistance to                                                                   a DVD of the final round of the
the state champion for participation in the                                                                    2005 national competition available
national competition.                                                                                          to loan out to schools who are
   The national high school mock trial cham-                                                                   interested in seeing a sample round
pionship began in 1984. The competition                                                                        of the competition. Amy Fellows-
offers students simulated courtroom experi-                                                                    Cline is the coordinator for this year’s
ence with real lawyers available to help coach                                                                 tournament. Cline can be reached by
participating teams. Additionally, lawyers and                                                                 phone at (316) 630-8100 or by e-mail
judges act as the judge and jury during the tournaments. Students in          at amycline@twgfirm.com.
debate, forensics, government, speech, drama, gifted programs, or those           Please contact Cline if you would like an attorney to assist your team
interested in pursuing a career in law will find the mock trial competi-      in preparing for the competition. These volunteers will offer invaluable
tion worthwhile and exciting. Educators are encouraged to consider            advice and real life experience to your teams. Many attorneys have
entering at least one team from his or her school.                            volunteered to assist with practice rounds, and offer advice on opening
   Teams for this competition consist of six to eight students. Schools       statements, closing arguments, and examination of witnesses. Teams are
can enter as many teams as they would like. Registration fees are             encouraged to take advantage of this valuable resource.
minimal, starting at $50 for the first team and $25 for each additional           A registration form for the 2006 Mock Trial Competition can be
team. However, in no event is any school required to pay more than            found on Page 8 of this issue of Law Wise or at www.ksbar.org. 
$200, regardless of the number of teams entered.

    The producers of RAISE THE BAR, the documentary based on the                  The price to purchase the complete film has been reduced to $50 per
 2003-04 National High School Mock Trial Championship, are proud to           copy. Ten or more copies are $40 each.
 announce the completion of their film.                                           Please contact Jim Charleston at charleston@mac.com to request a
    Preview copies of RAISE THE BAR, containing selected scenes, are          free preview copy or to order the complete film. Be sure to include your
 being made available (at no cost!) to all educators and mock trial coaches   address and school/team association. 
 that are interested.

Resources at the Law-Related Education Inventory
                                The Law-Related Education Inventory           3. “Update” Magazine –These lesson plans are provided by the Amer-
                                has the following items that might be         ican Bar Association and help educate K-12 in each issue. The spring
                                useful in working with students on emi-       1987 issue focuses on Justice, Equality, and Property.
                                nent domain issues or states’ rights:
                                1. States’ Rights. This book is geared        The Law-Related Education Inventory has many resources to help
                                for grades 4-7 and discusses the issue        teach about law-related topics. The Kansas Bar Association and the
                                of states’ rights and traces the history of   lawyers in your community sponsor the Law-Related Education
                                conflicts between states’ legislature and     Inventory. To order a catalog, call Janessa Akin at the Kansas Bar
                                a strong central government. Library          Association, (785) 234-5696. The clearinghouse will mail free copies
                                number 321.023/B314s.                         of law-related posters, games, mock trials, booklets, lesson plans, and
                                2. This Constitution: Our Enduring            other aids. It is open Monday through Thursday, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., and
                                Legacy. This book is for high school          Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The director of the Teachers College Resource
                                students and includes essays on the           Center, which houses the Law-Related Education Inventory, Marla
                                Constitution’s theoretical origins and        Darby, can be reached at Darbymar@esumail.emporia.edu/. 
                                its application to issues such as nation-
                                al versus states’ rights. Library number
                                342.73/T349.
 OCTOBER 2005 / LAW WISE – 8


                 Mock Trial Competition Hosted By The
              Kansas Bar Association Young Lawyers Division
                                                                ENTRY FORM


School:                                                                       Phone: (         )

School Address:                                                               City:                              Zip:

Teacher/Coach:                                                                Home Phone:

Email Address:                                                                Fax Number:

Number of Teams Participating [Circle one]:    1   2    3   4    5   6    7    8      9   10

Fees:     1st Team                            $50.00
          Each additional Team                $25.00            Total Fees Remitted:
          (Maximum fees of $200.00)

Responsibilities for Participation:

1.      Each participating team must provide its own transportation to and from the competition sites at area courthouses and provide
        transportation and funding to and from state and national competition sites.
2.      Each team must obtain the support of the principal or school administrator for entry into the project.
3.      Each team must assume responsibility for clearing tournament dates with the principal and for placing them on the school calendar.
4.      Each team must submit all questions regarding the mock trial problem and the competition in writing to the Competition Coordinator.
5.      Each team must agree that the decisions of the Competition Coordinator, whether made before, during, or after the competition,
        are final.

We agree to meet the above responsibilities for participation in the 2006 Kansas High School Mock Trial Competition.




                          Teacher/Date                                                               Principal/Date

Please make your entry fee payable to: KBA Mock Trial Project.
Return the completed application along with your entry fee on or before Feb. 10, 2006, to:

                                                             Janessa Akin
                                                          Mock Trial Project
                                                         Kansas Bar Association
                                                            P.O. Box 1037
                                                        Topeka, KS 66601-1037

Applications will not be processed unless accompanied by the full entry fee. No team will be allowed to
participate unless the Kansas Bar Association has received the team’s completed application and full entry fee on or before
Feb.10, 2006.




        [For Office Use Only]       Date Received: _________________ Fee Paid: __________________ Ck. No.: __________________

								
To top