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
No comments:
Post a Comment