On Air Now

Listen Now

Weather

heavy-rain-night
38°
Cloudy
H 43° L 30°
  • heavy-rain-night
    38°
    Current Conditions
    Cloudy. H 43° L 30°
  • cloudy-day
    36°
    Evening
    Cloudy. H 43° L 30°
  • cloudy-day
    31°
    Morning
    Cloudy. H 37° L 23°
Listen
Pause
Error

Krmg news on demand

00:00 | 00:00

Listen
Pause
Error

Krmg traffic on demand

00:00 | 00:00

Listen
Pause
Error

Krmg weather on demand

00:00 | 00:00

Local
Botanical battle: Woman suing Tulsa after city crews destroy plants
Close

Botanical battle: Woman suing Tulsa after city crews destroy plants

Botanical battle: Woman suing Tulsa after city crews destroy plants
Photo Credit: Russell Mills
Denise Morrison's yard, full of edible and medicinal plants, a few months after the city of Tulsa removed hundreds of them claiming a violation of the city's nuisance ordinance

Botanical battle: Woman suing Tulsa after city crews destroy plants

In a case that has garnered international attention, sparked a petition drive and outraged some, a Tulsa woman has sued the city for destroying thousands of plants she used for food and medicine.

The city told her the plants violated a municipal nuisance ordinanance.

Denise Morrison has filed suit in federal court, seeking monetary damages for more than $10,000 worth of plants she says the city arbitrarily decided to destroy on two properties she owns.

She tells KRMG the dispute actually began nearly six years ago, when city crews "mowed" a two-acre property she owns near N. 46th St. and Lewis Ave.

They took the action the day after she had planted the entire lot, clearly, she says, with plants, not weeds.

After years of wrangling over that action she was ordered to pay the city another $1,000 to cover the cost of the mowing, or lose the property.

Only employed part-time, with a recently deceased son and an elderly mother for whom she cares, it took donations from friends and neighbors to save her land.

Morrison says she was given from 5 p.m. one day until 8 a.m. the next morning to come up with the money.

A month after finally settling, the city showed up at her home, in the 500 block of 49th Pl. North.

She tells KRMG she had checked with the city to make sure everything she was growing at her home was legal.

"They sent me a report back telling me I had no violations," she said. "I wanted to make sure that it wasn't a problem. But after they forced me to pay $1,000 last year to save my property, the very next month they came here."

She called police, she says, and the officer gave her a summons to go to court.

"I went to court August 15th, the judge said we're gonna recommend it over to October court. Okay, come back in October. August 16th, that morning, they had trucks lined up out here."

They told her, "We're gonna take out all of this."

"No you're not," she says she replied. "I'm gonna sue you."

True to their word, the crews removed lemon mint, apple mint, Rose o'Sharon, stinging nettles and even 35-year-old Concord grapes.

All her plants, she says, are grown completely organically, with no pesticides or commercial fertilizer.

They are all edible, and many medicinal.

KRMG contacted the City of Tulsa for a response. Spokeswoman Michelle Allen responded via email.

"This matter you are referencing is now pending litigation in federal court and I am not at liberty to comment at this time."

She did send a copy of the city's nuisance ordinance.

It contains verbiage which would seemingly exempt many, if not all, the plants destroyed on Morrison's property.

The pertinent passage to the ordinance (which is attached as a related link above):

6. Weeds and other rank growths of vegetation upon private property or
adjoining parking, including but not limited to poison ivy, poison oak, or poison sumac
and all vegetation at any state of maturity which:
a. Exceeds twelve (12) inches in height, except healthy trees, shrubs,
or produce for human consumption grown in a tended and cultivated
garden unless such trees and shrubbery by their density or location
constitute a detriment to the health, benefit and welfare of the public and
community or a hazard to traffic or create a fire hazard to the property or
otherwise interfere with the mowing of said weeds;
b. Regardless of height, harbors, conceals, or invites deposits or
accumulation of refuse or trash;
c. Harbors rodents or vermin;
d. Gives off unpleasant or noxious odors;
e. Constitutes a fire or traffic hazard; or
f. Is dead or diseased

Morrison maintains her plants were for human consumption, constituted no health hazard, was kept clean of trash and did not harbor any vermin.

Online petitions seeking a reversal of the city's stance and the replacement of her plants are circulating, and websites around the world have taken note of the story.

Read More
  • A New Jersey town council approved a resolution last week that proclaimed it a “sanctuary township” for law-abiding gun owners. Lawmakers in West Milford passed a non-binding resolution that “opposes further interference with, or abridging of, the rights of lawful gun owners,” NJ.com reported. Pete McGuinness, council president in the rural town of 26,000 people, said the resolution was approved by a 5-0 vote Dec. 4, the website reported. “We’re just letting the community know we are a gun-friendly, Second Amendment-positive township,” McGuinness told NJ.com. The resolution declares West Milford a “Second Amendment/lawful gun owner sanctuary township' and criticizes “red flag laws” that have been adopted by at least 17 states, including New Jersey, rthe website reported. Adoption of the resolution came six days before a shooting in Jersey City that killed four people, including a police officer, NJ.com reported.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear arguments on an effort by President Donald Trump to prevent Congress and investigators in New York from using subpoenas to access his tax, banking, and other financial records, items which the President has fought to keep from being released. Lower courts had ordered Mazar's, the President's accounting firm, and two major banks, Deutche Bank and Capital One, to turn over financial records - those orders will stay on hold until the cases are resolved before the High Court. Attorneys for the President have lost at every level in state and federal court in all three cases, making the argument that Congress does not need Mr. Trump's financial information for any legitimate legislative purpose, casting it as a fishing expedition. The subpoenas were not to sent to the President - but rather to Mazar's, Deutche Bank, and Capital One - making the case somewhat different than a simple subpoena to Mr. Trump. 'Having considered the weighty interests at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the Committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable,' a three judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote earlier this year in the Mazars case.  'We affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee and against the Trump Plaintiffs,' the judges added. With the arguments in March of 2020, that timing would suggest that a final decision could be one of the biggest cases to be decided in the 2019-2020 term - possibly being saved for late June, when the Court ends its work before a summer break. That would put the results squarely into the midst of the 2020 campaign for the White House. As for why the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, a number of legal experts said the Justices could have done that as a favor to President Trump - not necessarily indicating that Mr. Trump is going to prevail. 'These cases involve the President and his tax returns, and they may have felt no choice but to take the cases and decide them on the merits given their political importance,' said Aswin Phatak, a lawyer with the Constitutional Accountability Center.
  • Forecasts are still showing a chance for a wintry mix Sunday night into Monday morning. Meteorologists with the National Weather Service say a light wintry mix will be possible along the I-44 corridor later Sunday night. Temperatures may cool enough to support all snow near the Kansas border.  They don’t expect much accumulation, although some issues could develop along elevated surfaces such as bridges and overpasses.  The FOX23 and KRMG Severe Weather Team will be keeping a close eye on the data.
  • T-Mobile CEO John Legere said if his company’s $26.5 billion deal to buy Sprint fails, it may have to raise prices to slow user growth and relieve stress on the T-Mobile network.  He said that would be his “worst nightmare.”  Legere’s testimony came on the fourth day of a high-profile antitrust trial.  Fourteen state attorneys general are suing to block the combination of T-Mobile and Sprint.  They say the deal would cost consumers billions.  The trial with the states is a major hurdle for T-Mobile, but federal regulators have already cleared the merger.  The Justice Department approved it after T-Mobile and Sprint agreed to set up satellite TV provider Dish as a new wireless competitor.  The states say that’s not enough. Legere’s testimony regarding T-Mobile’s potential pricing strategy Thursday stemmed from a September 2019 T-Mobile document that made projections about T- Mobile’s future as a standalone company in 2020.  A lawyer for the states, Glenn Pomerantz, laid out evidence that T-Mobile had options beyond acquiring Sprint that would let it obtain more spectrum, the airwaves that signals travel over and the lifeblood of a wireless network.  Adding spectrum would shore up the network from the strain of its growing user base watching Netflix and uploading cat videos to Instagram.

Washington Insider

  • The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear arguments on an effort by President Donald Trump to prevent Congress and investigators in New York from using subpoenas to access his tax, banking, and other financial records, items which the President has fought to keep from being released. Lower courts had ordered Mazar's, the President's accounting firm, and two major banks, Deutche Bank and Capital One, to turn over financial records - those orders will stay on hold until the cases are resolved before the High Court. Attorneys for the President have lost at every level in state and federal court in all three cases, making the argument that Congress does not need Mr. Trump's financial information for any legitimate legislative purpose, casting it as a fishing expedition. The subpoenas were not to sent to the President - but rather to Mazar's, Deutche Bank, and Capital One - making the case somewhat different than a simple subpoena to Mr. Trump. 'Having considered the weighty interests at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the Committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable,' a three judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote earlier this year in the Mazars case.  'We affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee and against the Trump Plaintiffs,' the judges added. With the arguments in March of 2020, that timing would suggest that a final decision could be one of the biggest cases to be decided in the 2019-2020 term - possibly being saved for late June, when the Court ends its work before a summer break. That would put the results squarely into the midst of the 2020 campaign for the White House. As for why the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, a number of legal experts said the Justices could have done that as a favor to President Trump - not necessarily indicating that Mr. Trump is going to prevail. 'These cases involve the President and his tax returns, and they may have felt no choice but to take the cases and decide them on the merits given their political importance,' said Aswin Phatak, a lawyer with the Constitutional Accountability Center.
  • The U.S. House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines on Friday morning in support of two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, sending the issue to the House floor for a historic vote next week. After Democrats had recessed the hearing late on Thursday night, lawmakers reconvened for two quick votes on impeachment articles dealing with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. “Mr. Chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 noes,” the committee clerk said twice, as Democrats moved in rapid fire fashion to report the impeachment articles to the full House. Republicans denounced the outcome. You don't get to remove a President because you don't like him,” said Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA).    “They did not produce a scintilla of evidence to support a charge of impeachment.” “This is really a travesty for America and it’s really tearing America apart,” said Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), who called the effort a 'railroad job.' “It was a witch hunt,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). The President used his office for his private benefit. He jeopardized our national security, and elections. He covered it up. Democrats said the case for action was simple. “The President used his office for his private benefit. He jeopardized our national security, and elections. He covered it up,” said Rep. Val Demings (D-FL). “Today is a solemn and said day,” said House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY).  “The House will act expeditiously.” The committee vote sends the issue to the full House, where a vote is expected next week. If the House votes to impeach, the Senate would be required to hold a historic impeachment trial, which is expected to start in January. President Trump would be the third President subjected to such a trial under the Constitution, joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. As for the President, his Press Secretary joined GOP lawmakers in ridiculing the impeachment effort. “This desperate charade of an impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee has reached its shameful end,” Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a written statement. “The President looks forward to receiving in the Senate the fair treatment and due process which continues to be disgracefully denied to him by the House,” she added. A Senate impeachment trial is expected to start in January.
  • After over 14 hours of debate, Democrats surprised Republicans by holding off a final vote in the House Judiciary Committee until Friday morning on two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, as Democrats charged the President was clearly trying to get Ukraine to announce investigations which would benefit Mr. Trump's 2020 re-election bid. 'President Trump used his office to serve himself,' said Rep. Val Demings (D-FL), as Democrats said the evidence was clear that President Trump was trying to get foreign help for 2020. 'The President is an imminent threat,' said Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX). 'We have to take action, we must impeach the President.'  'One of my colleagues said that we are lowering the bar on impeachment,' said Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA). 'I believe we are lowering the bar on the Presidency.' Republicans denounced the impeachment effort as a political vendetta by a party which was still upset about losing the 2016 election. 'This impeachment is going to fail, and the Democrats are justly going to pay a heavy political price for it,' said Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA). 'This is a day that will live in infamy for the Judiciary Committee,' said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). 'It's a focus group impeachment,' said Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), as Republicans decried the lack of detail in the articles of impeachment. The delay in the committee vote until Friday left Republicans spitting mad, as GOP lawmakers were caught completely off guard. “Stalinesque,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Republicans had prolonged debate until after 11 pm - and the immediate thought on Capitol Hill was that Democrats did not want to be accused of voting on impeachment 'in the middle of the night' - so they delayed action until Friday. The panel will meet at 10 am ET.
  • Already over two months behind schedule, key lawmakers in Congress said Thursday they had reached a tentative agreement which would hopefully bring $1.3 trillion in funding bills to a vote next week in the House and Senate, avoiding a government shutdown deadline of December 20. 'There's a meeting of the minds,' said Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, as lawmakers scrambled to wrap up a dozen unfinished funding bills for the federal government - work which should have been finished by October 1. With no details readily available - and House leaders talking about holding a vote by Tuesday on a single giant bill, or maybe a pair of funding plans - the familiar year-end rush caused furrowed brows for some in the Congress. 'Two minibuses = an omnibus,' tweeted Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), using the familiar name for large funding measures, in which up to a dozen spending bills are jammed into one catch-all funding plan. Congress is supposed to be finished with the 12 different funding bills for the federal government by September 30 of each year - as the new fiscal year begins October 1. But over the past 45 years, it has become standard procedure for lawmakers in both parties to use temporary funding measures - known as 'continuing resolutions' - to fund operations of the government while final spending deals are worked out by the House and Senate. Only four times since a big change in Congressional budget rules in 1974 has the Congress finished the funding work on time - in 1976, 1988, 1994, and 1996.
  • Facing a wall of Republican opposition, Democrats in the U.S. House are on the verge of approving two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, as critics of the President pressed their case in opening arguments Wednesday night before the House Judiciary Committee. 'We must hold this President accountable for corrupting our democracy,' said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). 'We must impeach this President.' 'President Trump grossly abused his power,' said Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ). 'Until this investigation began, I did not support impeaching President Trump,' said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), who labeled this a 'break glass' emergency moment in American history. 'This is a moment that the President has forced upon us,' said Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL). On the other side of the dais, Republicans ridiculed and blasted the impeachment effort by Democrats, labeling them sore losers, and accusing their rivals of simply trying to undo the results of the last election. 'We are witness, I believe, the most tragic mockery of justice in the history of this nation,' said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH). 'This is scary stuff what they're doing,' said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). 'Frankly it is dangerous for our country. It is not healthy for our country.' 'We've heard some great speeches tonight, but let's not forget, this is a political hit job,' said Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA). 'This is the quickest, thinnest, weakest, most partisan impeachment in all of American presidential history,' said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Debate will resume at 9 am on the two articles of impeachment which Democrats have set before the panel. One charge alleges abuse of power by President Trump, revolving around his July 25, 2019 phone call with the leader of Ukraine, where the President pressed Ukraine to announce investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden, and a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine - and not Russia - had been behind the hacking of Democrats in 2016. The other impeachment charge covers obstruction of Congress, as Democrats say the President's refusal to cooperate with investigators - and his orders to Executive Branch officials to defy subpoenas from Congress - is not behavior which should be tolerated under the Constitution. Votes in the Judiciary Committee are expected Thursday, with a vote in the full House next week.