Truncated version of formal complaint against Stan Hazlett

Formal Complaint Against Stanton Hazlett (Truncated)

Excerpt of Letter from Keen A. Umbehr to his first attorney, John Ambrosio (Oct. 5, 2010)

October 5, 2010

SENT BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Mr. John Ambrosio

Attorney at Law

800 SW Jackson, Ste. 817

Topeka, KS   66612

            RE: Keen A. Umbehr; DA Complaint No. DA10,902

Dear John:

This letter is to acknowledge your October 1, 2010, invoice showing a $200.00 credit balance on my account. When the remaining balance is consumed, please notify me and we will set up an appointment to renegotiate any and all agreements on the remaining work to be done in this matter.

Please be advised that I will not accept any form of diversion as I will not admit nor concede to a scintilla of unethical conduct in my actions regarding the August 7, 2009, phone conversation with [>>>>>>>] of KDOC, or the August 10, 2009, attorney-client meeting with inmate [>>>>>>>] at TCF. Therefore, I am instructing you not to expend any time on drafting or the negotiation of a diversion agreement with the Disciplinary Administrator. If you have already produced a first draft of a proposed diversion agreement, please send me an unedited copy of the same.

At our last meeting you indicated that the Probable Cause Panel met in Hutchinson, however, you did not disclose their decision. Please notify me of the date of the probable cause hearing in my case and the decision of the panel. . . .

My personal experience is that when the misconduct of government officials is exposed and they are put in a negative light, they will often use their power to retaliate against the whistleblower in some form or another . . . If another complaint is filed against me as a result of my decision to carry out my client’s wishes in assisting them in having their story told publicly, then I will defend that accusation just as vigorously as the first. This is why any diversion with the Disciplinary Administrator is out of the question.

My intent is to fully participate in the disciplinary process and, if necessary, plead my case before the Kansas Supreme Court. If, after a full airing of the facts, the Justices determine that the act of assisting my clients in the exercise of their First Amendment rights and exposing the unlawful sexual relations occurring between TCF staff and inmates somehow violated one or more Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, only then will I accept and endure such a finding.

Sincerely yours,

Keen A. Umbehr

 CLICK ON "OLDER POSTS" BELOW (lower right-hand corner of page) TO VIEW NEXT DOCUMENT IN SEQUENCE. (You may also click on each document individually from the list along the left side of the page.)

Letter from John Ambrosio to Keen Umbehr (Oct. 18, 2010)

 LEFT CLICK on documents below to see larger view. 
(After viewing, click OUTSIDE the document in the black area to return to blog.)

Email from John Ambrosio to Keen Umbehr (Nov. 24, 2010)

  LEFT CLICK on document below to see larger view. 
(After viewing, click OUTSIDE the document in the black area to return to blog.)
 

 

Letter from Stan Hazlett to John Ambrosio (Jan. 12, 2011)

LEFT CLICK on document below to see larger view. 
(After viewing, click OUTSIDE the document in the black area to return to blog.)
 

 

Letter from Keen Umbehr to Stan Hazlett (Jan. 15, 2011)

January 15, 2011

                                        

Mr. Stanton A. Hazlett

Office of the Disciplinary Administrator

701 Jackson St., First Floor

Topeka, Kansas  66603-3729

            RE: In the Matter of Keen A. Umbehr; Case No. DA10,902

Dear Mr. Hazlett:

My attorney, John Ambrosio, forwarded a copy of your letter to him dated January 12, 2011, wherein you state: “I have not heard back from you regarding Mr. Umbehr’s position on diversion.”

On October 5, 2010, I sent Mr. Ambrosio a letter outlining my position on diversion. The letter stated in part:

           

Please be advised that I will not accept any form of diversion as I will not admit nor concede to a scintilla of unethical conduct in my actions regarding the August 7, 2009, phone conversation with [>>>>>>>>>] of KDOC, or the August 10, 2009, attorney-client meeting with inmate [>>>>>>>]at TCF. Therefore, I am instructing you not to expend any time on drafting or the negotiation of a diversion agreement with the Disciplinary Administrator. . . . My intent is to fully participate in the disciplinary process and, if necessary, plead my case before the Kansas Supreme Court. If, after a full airing of the facts, the Justices determine that the act of assisting my clients in the exercise of their First Amendment rights and exposing the unlawful sexual relations occurring between TCF staff and inmates somehow violated one or more Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, only then will I accept and endure such a finding.

My position on diversion, as set forth in the above stated excerpt from my October 5, 2010, letter to Mr. Ambrosio, could not have been stated more unambiguously. In addition, I have repeatedly reaffirmed my position in subsequent letters to Mr. Ambrosio dated October 18, October 25, November 8, and November 21, 2010.

I can offer no explanation as to why Mr. Ambrosio, while acting in the capacity of my legal advocate, failed to convey my decision to decline the diversion option as set forth in my letter of October 5, 2010.

Additionally, in my letter of October 5, 2010, I specifically instructed Mr. Ambrosio not to expend any time drafting a diversion agreement or negotiating the same with your office. However, according to Invoice No. 10094 which I received from Mr. Ambrosio dated November 1, he had two separate conferences with you in the days immediately following receipt of my October 5, 2010, letter (sent my facsimile) wherein I relayed my decision not to take a diversion.  These conferences, occurring on October 6 and October 8, 2010, lasted for a combined total of [thirty] minutes. This is when I would have expected Mr. Ambrosio to inform you of my decision to reject the diversion option.

Again, I do not know how I could have stated my position any more clearly. Notwithstanding, your letter to John [Ambrosio] dated January 12, 2011, and forwarded to me, indicates that you are unaware and uniformed about my position on diversion.

I have requested that Mr. Ambrosio, as my legal representative, forward this correspondence directly to you on my behalf no later than January 19, 2011.

Sincerely yours,

Keen A. Umbehr

KAU/eu

Enclosures

Copy: John Ambrosio

Letter from Stan Hazlett to John Ambrosio (March 17, 2011)

  LEFT CLICK on document below to see larger view.
(After viewing, click OUTSIDE the document in the black area to return to blog.)

\

Letter from Stan Hazlett to Review Committee members (Sept. 28, 2011)

LEFT CLICK on document below to see larger view. 
(After viewing, click OUTSIDE the document in the black area to return to blog.)
 

    Note: Keen requested a copy of this letter under the Kansas Open Records Act and he received a heavily redacted version of the letter. This is page one only from that letter showing where Mr. Hazlett also told the Review Committee members, Sara Beezley, Robert Guenthner and William Swearer, that a previous Review Committee had found probable cause. He later admits that no committee ever found probable cause to believe that Keen Umbehr had violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct.

Letter from Stan Hazlett to Charles Simmons (Nov. 4, 2011)

  LEFT CLICK on document below to see larger view. 
(After viewing, click OUTSIDE the document in the black area to return to blog.)
 

CLICK ON "OLDER POSTS" BELOW (lower right-hand corner of page) TO VIEW NEXT DOCUMENT IN SEQUENCE. (You may also click on each document individually from the list along the left side of the page.)

Letter of retraction from Stan Hazlett to Charles Simmons (March 15, 2012)

LEFT CLICK on document below to see larger view. 
(After viewing, click OUTSIDE the document in the black area to return to blog.)
 

 

Complete copy of formal complaint available at:

    A link to a pdf copy of the full complaint that Keen A. Umbehr filed against Stanton A. Hazlett is contained in this article posted on the ABA Journal web site:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/kansas_attorney_cleared_of_ethics_violation_files_complaint/


For additional information please contact:

Eileen Umbehr
eileenumbehr@aol.com

“But either type of relationship provides a valuable financial benefit, the threat of the loss of which in retaliation for speech may chill speech on matters of public concern by those who, because of their dealings with the government, ‘are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work,’ Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 674 (1994).”

 -- Board of County Commissioners, Wabaunsee County, Kansas v. Umbehr - 518 U.S. 668 (1995)