It’s time for Laramie County voters to get justice in the Manlove case

Leigh Anne Manlove, Laramie County DA

The people of Laramie County should be incensed by the utter contempt that the Wyoming State Bar has shown them. In November 2018, citizens voted by a 67 percent majority to make Leigh Anne Manlove their district attorney. It was a mandate to clean house. Since that day Wyoming’s deep state has used every underhanded tactic in the book to deny them her services.

Months before she took office, the effectual sabotage of her work was already underway. In Washington, the Sussman trial is exposing how the deep state obstructed and sabotaged President Donald Trump’s transition team after the 2016 election. Washington has nothing on Wyoming. 

Recent court filings document how outgoing district attorney, Jeremiah Sandburg, denied AG-Elect Manlove customary access to case files needed to prepare for a smooth transition. It also alleges that on January 7, 2019, Sandburg handed her the keys to an DA Office that was in utter disarray—with five unfilled attorney positions and unfiled paperwork littering the office.

Jeremiah Sandburg

One might think that such unprofessional conduct would merit attention from the Wyoming Bar. It got none. Instead, it unleased more than two years of sustained lawfare against the woman who spent her first year in office cleaning up the backlog and fully staffing her office.

Since the fall of 2020, Manlove has essentially worked two full-time jobs. In addition to her duties as elected district attorney, she has been forced to spend countless off-duty hours, and thousands of dollars out of her own pocket, responding to a barrage of legal filings, paperwork requirements, and spurious charges from Wyoming’s own deep state.

Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson (1892-1954) wrote: “While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.” He has the power to “strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself.”

Such is certainly the case here. First, actors in the Wyoming Bar obviously colluded with multiple district judges to elicit a letter of complaint. The day after the letter was sent, they filed a dozen documents with the Wyoming Supreme Court (WSC) calling for the immediate suspension of Manlove’s license.

After the Court decisively rejected this petition, they immediately commenced secretive in-house proceedings that gobbled up Manlove’s time, money, and energy for two more years—retrying virtually the same charges in their own kangaroo court. In the justice system, that would be double jeopardy. But this is not the justice system.

Little America, Cheyenne

Manlove finally got a public hearing in February of this year—and was promptly billed $91,000 dollars for the privilege. Maoist China was infamous for executing political opponents and then sending their grieving families a bill for the bullet. Making Manlove pay for the meals and lodging of her persecutors gives away the game. The process is the punishment.  

You wouldn’t know much of this from the headlines. In the Tribune Eagle, practically every press release from the Wyoming Bar has been reported as established fact, while meticulous court filings from the Manlove side are given such slight reporting that readers have never heard her defense. The Cowboy State Daily is no better.

I have never met or spoken with Manlove. I do not reside in her jurisdiction. I have no skin in the game. It is purely by reading the documents filed before Wyoming’s Supreme Court that my sense of justice is offended. It is an injustice against a woman and her solitary attorney. And it is an injustice against the people of Laramie County who elected her to do the job. 

Residents of Laramie County who want to see for themselves how their vote is treated with contempt, need only go onto the Wyoming Supreme Court website and look up docket number D-20-0009. It speaks for itself. They will read, for instance, how Manlove is charged with wrongdoing for actions she took in consultation with the Natrona County DA. While he took the very same actions and even co-signed a letter with her explaining them, she is prosecuted, but he is not (May 9, Response, pp. 15-16). 

Now the good justices of the Wyoming Supreme Court are being asked—for a second time—to act as tools of the Bar. Wyoming can hope that they are not bamboozled by clout and bluster, but see the facts for what they are. While the Bar has damaged its own credibility by allowing the unhinged Manlove prosecution, the Wyoming Supreme Court can still preserve its own dignity.

One might even venture to hope that the Court will rule in such a way that it discourages future lawfare intended to thwart the will of voters. Justice requires no less.

UW’s Inclusion Council should be more inclusive.

Photo credit: Caleb Holden on Unsplash

Wyoming’s first-ever female Senator came home from D.C. with something to say. When Cynthia Lummis addressed the families, friends, and faculty of the University of Wyoming’s class of 2022, it wasn’t with mindless bromides. She brought three important points.

First, she quoted her friend and fellow Cowboy, Haley Micheli Davis, who observed: “It’s hard work to teach children to work hard.” Under this heading, Lummis exhorted today’s graduates and tomorrow’s parents to take their vocation seriously. Parenting requires that we put down the phone and be present to others. This not only blesses them; it blesses us. “By giving your attention to others, with intention,” Lummis said, “you give yourself a gift.”

The second point came from, Jody Levine, a woman named Outstanding University of Wyoming Alumna in 2018. “If you think you are the smartest person in the room,” she said, “you are in the wrong room.” 

Lummis observed: “[A]t no time since the 16th century has the world been in as disruptive, transformative times as you are now entering.” The Industrial Age is over, she said. “To excel in this Information Age, you will need to constantly learn, constantly grow, constantly challenge yourself.”

The “transformations and disruptions” of our era are challenging the very freedoms that make learning and growing possible. Lummis warned, “There are those in government who believe not that the Creator endowed us with inalienable rights …but that government created those rights, and that government should redefine those rights—including our rights to freedom of speech, religion, property, assembly, and to keep and bear arms.”

First in her list of examples, she said, “Even fundamental scientific truths, such as the existence of two sexes, male and female, are subject to challenge these days.” After a brief interruption, she completed her list: “I personally question how, under our Constitution, we could forbid in-person worship services during a time of pandemic, while labeling liquor stores essential, and keeping them open. And how the creation of a government disinformation board is not an affront to free speech.”

Senator Cynthia Lummis

It’s not every speaker who can lead her audience spontaneously to prove her point. But Lummis did. No sooner had she asserted that “the existence of two sexes, male and female, are subject to challenge these days,” some in the audience challenged her statement. Quod erat demonstrandum.

It is no secret that some—even on the UW campus—go so far as to challenge the existence of two sexes. What is fascinating about this incident is that UW’s taxpayer-supported Inclusion Council immediately denounced Senator Lummis’ words as having a “harmful impact,” and being “marginalizing.” 

To date, the University’s Zoology & Physiology Department has not weighed in on the controversy. Scientists are, of course, aware that the intersex phenomenon happens in the animal kingdom as it happens in human biology. But they are inclusive enough to acknowledge the existence of such animals without denying the fundamental fact that there remain two sexes. Perhaps the Inclusion Council would benefit from attending some of the department’s classes to learn how this is done.

Does UW’s Inclusion Council recognize that its own press release marginalizes a large portion of the student body and countless alumni, like Lummis? One would hope that advocates for diversity would aggressively defend a diverse array of perspectives. They should consider the ENTIRE university community before issuing a public statement that marginalizes those who agree with Wyoming’s first female senator.

This incident would be comical if it were not such a serious affront to basic human rights. Just exactly as Lummis warned, “There are those in government who believe not that the Creator endowed us with inalienable rights …but that government created those rights, and that government should redefine those rights—including our rights to freedom of speech...”

The Inclusion Council, which is a governmental entity, introduced the topic of free speech with these ominous words: “While, as a public institution, we respect the rights of free expression…” Note the qualification. It does not categorically and unreservedly respect the right of free expression but only “as a public institution.” 

If UW’s Inclusion Council were not frustrated by its status as a government entity, it might use its power to throttle Lummis and all who agree with her. Considering the climate of censorship on Twitter and Facebook, such a muted endorsement of free expression is more than concerning. It brings a special urgency to Lummis’ third, and final point. 

Citing best-selling author, Eric Metaxas, she reminded us: “We are, ourselves, in this moment, the keepers of the flame of liberty.” When government entities, like UW’s Inclusion Council, fail to protect human rights, it becomes the duty of everyone. Lummis said, “The Constitution’s charter of self-governance requires the civic engagement of all who call themselves ‘Americans.’” Q.E.D.

The Ministry of Truth

In a recent speech at Stanford, former president Barak Obama advocated for a radical reimagining of the First Amendment in response to recent advances in technology. It was an interesting mix of sharp insight and partisan misinformation. But there is one statement that cuts to the heart of his argument and merits careful thought.

Obama said, “it’s not necessary for people to believe this information in order to weaken democratic institutions. You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions, in each other, in the possibility of truth, the game’s won.”

Three points jump out of this passage. First, it ignores that our democratic institutions, themselves, have destroyed their own credibility through egregious misconduct. Second, it assumes that citizens can be rendered totally unable to know the truth. Third, it implies that unquestioning trust in political leaders, mainstream media and political institutions will bring infallible truth.

While there are countless examples of institutional misconduct that have weakened democratic institutions, let’s name only one. The Department of Justice allowed the Russian collusion theory to fester for years while possessing reams of evidence that it was a hoax cooked up by the failing Clinton Campaign. The DOJ is not discredited by “raw sewage,” but by its own criminal misconduct. 

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Until the American public sees that the miscreants behind this massive fraud are held to account, that public would be foolhardy to trust the DOJ as an objective and truth-seeking institution. The same can be said of every news outlet that eagerly allowed itself to be the stooge of fraudulent sources.

Christopher Wray

That brings us to the second claim. Obama is right to observe that many citizens no longer know whom to believe. Outrageous falsehoods peddled by legacy media and three-letter agencies have disorientated millions who once afforded them great trust. But, he is wrong to say that they cannot know what to believe.

The world has always been filled with truth and lies in equal measure. But blessed by rational thought that sorts one from the other, Western civilization has not succumbed to nihilistic claims that truth is impossible to know. That is the entire point of classical education. From Plato, Socrates and Aristotle to Bacon, Newton and Einstein, philosophy, science and religion equip all men, women and children to ferret out the truth for themselves.

On Easter morning two millennia ago, there was not only one narrative, but two. The women who arrived at Jesus’ tomb reported that Jesus had risen from the dead. But, the soldiers guarding the tomb spread a different narrative. The chief priests and elders convinced them to “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matt. 28:13 ESV). One of these stories was true. The other was a lie. 

From then until now, each person must weigh the evidence and decide for himself. On one side, we have the eye-witness testimony of Peter, all twelve apostles, five hundred well-known individuals, James, and St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). These people were public figures, available for decades of cross-examination and careful observation. By contrast, nobody even remembers the names of the soldiers who told their competing story. And, unlike their counterparts, they were never pressured to change their story by torture and death.

Nina Jankowicz

Will Alejandro Majorkas’ “Disinformation Governance Board,” weigh in on this debate? Will Nina Jankowicz, who obscenely mocks Christmas, tell us whether to believe the soldiers or the apostles? Without a doubt, there are some reading this column who want just that. Certainly, totalitarian regimes from the ancient Romans to the Chinese Communists have done it for millennia.

Every civilization throughout history has seen its most powerful institutions—not the least—wage war on the truth. From the chief priests and elders, to the Bolsheviks and Maoists, regimes propped up by lies demand to be regarded as the sole source of truth. By contrast, small minorities armed with the truth always prevail, sooner or later. Sooner is better.

Obama’s call for “trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions,” is the siren song of those who control these institutions. In reality, no human being or human institution is worthy of unquestioning trust. Any leader who claims to be the final arbiter of truth discredits himself. Any news source that claims infallibility has proved itself fallible. Any institution that demands to be trusted without transparency has disqualified itself from any trust whatsoever.

Technology has not rendered the First Amendment more dangerous, but more necessary than ever.