“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.