“The discretion of the trial court is, of course, subject to appellate review and correction where there has been a clear-cut abuse of discretion. In its exercise a judge may not be arbitrary or whimsical. We have held on a number of occasions that abuse of judicial discretion, as that term is ordinarily used, implied not merely an error in judgment, but perversity of will, passion or moral delinquency when such discretion is exercised to an end or purpose not justified by and clearly against, reason and evidence.” _________________________________________________________ Stayton v. Stayton, 211 Kan. 560, 561-62, 506 P.2d 1172 (1973)

Request for Reconsideration of dismissal of complaint against Stanton A. Hazlett

Request for Reconsideration (filed 4-24-13)

"During my years as a prosecutor I interviewed thousands of witnesses, and one thing I learned is that when a witness is telling the truth, their story doesn't change . . . They might [supplement] their story with additional details, but the core facts do not change."
                                                                          - Nancy Grace (2013)

Topeka Capital-Journal article (click on link below)

Topeka Capital-Journal - Sunday, February 17, 2013

Hazlett complaint dismissed

Formal complaint filed against Stan Hazlett on May 23, 2012

On May 23, 2012, Keen A. Umbehr filed a 12-count formal complaint against Kansas Disciplinary Administrator Stanton A. Hazlett. The 193-page complaint contained 52-exhibits. 

On June 29, 2012, Edward Collister, Examiner for the Judicial Qualifications Commission, was appointed as Special Prosecutor to investigate the complaint against Stan Hazlett.

As of January 15, 2013, Mr. Collister has yet to interview the Complainant, Keen A. Umbehr, nor forward copies of any response submitted by Mr. Hazlett. 

The truth about Mr. Hazlett's handling of the ethics complaint filed by Charles Simmons from the Kansas Department of Corrections is revealed in his own letters containing his own signature.  Here are excerpts from those letters included as exhibits in the complaint Keen Umbehr filed against Stan Hazlett. (Copies of the actual letters are posted in their entirety on the blog below.)

• 1. Exhibit R

January 12, 2011, letter from Stan Hazlett to Umbehr's first attorney, John Ambrosio stating:  

"As you know, the Review Committee has already made a finding of probable cause in this matter."

• 2. Exhibit W

March 17, 2011, letter from Stanton Hazlett to John Ambrosio stating:

"As I advised you in my January 12, 2011 [letter] to you, there has been a finding by the Review Committee of probable cause in this case. Shortly I will be setting this matter for hearing."

• 3. Exhibit CC

September 28, 2011, letter from Stan Hazlett to Sara Beezley, Chair of the Kansas Board of Discipline of Attorneys, Robert Guenthner, Vice-Chair, and William Swearer stating: 

"The Review Committee made a finding of probable cause."

• 4. Exhibit EE

November 4, 2011, letter from Stanton A. Hazlett to Complainant Charles Simmons (former Deputy Secretary of Corrections) dated November 4, 2011, stating:  

"As you know, at one point in time, the Kansas Review Committee had determined that there was probable cause to believe that Mr. Umbehr had violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct."

      And finally, over 2 years after Charles Simmons lodged his complaint against Keen Umbehr - and five months after the actual Review Committee dismissed the charges and exonerated Keen Umbehr - there was this letter of retraction from Mr. Hazlett regarding his previous statements that the Review Committee had made a finding of probable cause:

• 5. Exhibit WW

March 15, 2012, letter addressed to Complainant Charles Simmons:  

“. . . There is a misstatement in that letter. I indicated to you that the Kansas Review Committee, at one point in time, had determined that there was probable cause to believe that Mr. Umbehr had violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. That was not correct . . . I was wrong . . . I do not think it is fair to Mr. Umbehr to have anybody be under the mistaken belief that there had ever been any finding that he violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct."

      6. Addendum to Complaint 

In a letter dated May 31, 2012, Stan Hazlett told Mr. Umbehr's attorney that he had been wrong about a finding of probable cause, and offered an apology for his mistake. Here are some excerpts from that letter: 
  
“In one portion of the complaint Mr. Umbehr alleges that I misled you by indicating to you in a phone conversation on April 20, 2011, that there had been a finding of probable cause by the Review Committee in Mr. Umbehr’s case. I don’t have any specific recollection of making that statement, but I suspect I did. At that point in time, I did believe that the Review Committee had made a finding of probable cause. I did not learn until March of this year that I was mistaken about that fact. Interestingly, part of Mr. Umbehr’s complaint against me is that I have been lying by saying that I mistakenly advised some folks that there was a finding of probable cause.

“If I made that statement to you that there had been a finding of probable cause, please accept my apology for that misstatement. Certainly, the statement was not made in any way to mislead you. . . .” 

Go to the ABA Journal online and click on the hyperlink to the 12-count complaint Keen Umbehr filed against Stan Hazlett. The link to a pdf of the complaint can be found in the body of the article. 

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