Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, December 13, 2007

Republicans say legal review of Morrison not enough

December 13, 2007

Advertisement

Reader poll
Should Attorney General Paul Morrison resign over sexual harassment allegations?

or See the results without voting

— Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison may face more than a review by his peers of allegations of lawyer misconduct.

State Republican Party Chairman Kris Kobach said Wednesday that Morrison also could be subject to investigations by an independent prosecutor and the Legislature.

"There are many possible paths," Kobach said.

In a stunning development this week in Kansas politics, Morrison admitted to having a two-year extramarital affair with Linda Carter, who had been director of administration of the Johnson County district attorney's office when Morrison was district attorney.

Carter has filed a sexual harassment complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and alleged that Morrison tried to get information from her about legal matters involving Phill Kline, according to a report by the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Morrison, a pro-abortion rights Democrat, defeated the incumbent Kline, an anti-abortion Republican, in the attorney general's race in 2006. Kline then was selected by Johnson County Republican officials to serve the remainder of Morrison's district attorney term. Morrison had been a Republican before switching to the Democratic Party to take on Kline in the attorney general's race.

In addition to the affair, Carter says Morrison tried to get from her information about Kline's litigation with the Planned Parenthood clinic in Overland Park, and to have her write letters on behalf of former district attorney's office employees who had sued Kline after he dismissed them when he took office, according to the Capital-Journal.

While admitting to the affair, Morrison has vehemently denied Carter's other reported charges.

On Wednesday, he asked the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator's office to investigate him.

"I deny any wrongdoing, but I believe a thorough investigation is necessary," Morrison said in a letter to the disciplinary administrator.

The disciplinary administrator is an agency under the Kansas Supreme Court that reviews complaints against lawyers who allegedly violate the attorney code of ethics.

The disciplinary administrator's office receives approximately 1,000 complaints a year with about one-third of those resulting in some level of investigation, according to Ron Keefover, a spokesman for the Kansas Supreme Court.

Once a complaint is filed, Administrator Stanton Hazlett determines whether to docket the case for investigation.

If he does, then Hazlett appoints an investigator to gather facts. That investigator doesn't have the authority to compel people to testify.

The investigator submits a report to a three-member panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, which can dismiss the case or determine that hearings are necessary.

If a formal complaint is filed, then the process moves from behind closed doors into the open, where hearings are held and witnesses can be required to testify. The panel overseeing that process then makes a recommendation to the Kansas Supreme Court, which would have the final word in the case.

If the court determines the lawyer should be punished, then it can issue a censure, suspend his or her license or take away the license.

Everyone involved in this review and investigation process is a lawyer.

But Kobach said if it is determined that Morrison committed crimes, then he deserves more punishment than something that could affect his law license.

Kobach also said he is distressed that several members of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys had contributed money to Morrison's campaign to unseat Kline. He said those members should not be allowed to be a part of the investigation process.

Comments

crispysyn 7 years ago

Of course they are, it is nothing but a witchhunt.

dozer 7 years ago

Why is Kobach the darling of every news article these days? Of course he wants Morrison out of office, he is the Republican chairman as well as a very strong conservative candidate. Now Kobach claims that those in the Disciplinary Administrator's Office should not participate in the investigation if they contributed to Morrison's campaign! Kobach's logic is that b/c they contributed, they won't properly investigate. Following that logic, no police officer or prosecutor should ever donate to the republican or democratic party b/c they may have to prosecute someone from that party in the future. Wow Kobach, and you are a law professor at UMKC!

dagopman 7 years ago

Kansas has suffered through an embarrassing string of politicians. Kline, then Boyda, now Morrison, won't we collectively ever get it right?

dirkleisure 7 years ago

How great is it to see the state GOP chairman calling for campaign finance reform? Sounds to me like he favors publicly funded elections!

"Kobach also said he is distressed that several members of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys had contributed money to Morrison's campaign to unseat Kline. He said those members should not be allowed to be a part of the investigation process."

sdinges 7 years ago

It's hard to take this seriously when it's allegations from a woman who is filing a sexual harassment suit because she participated in a consensual affair.

If she felt harassed, maybe she should have stopped sleeping with her married boss at some point during the two years.

7 years ago

Should the Attorney General resign if he repeatedly broke the laws of the state?

It's a yes or no question, no matter who is asking it.

deskboy04 7 years ago

I think that everyone should wait and see what the evidence shows.

situveux1 7 years ago

Hey Dorkleisure, Kobach didn't call for campaign finance reform. He's pointing out the 'independence' of an investigation of a candidate by a board that donated significant amounts of money to that candidate.

Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys Sara S. Beezley, Chairman, $100 to Morrison, 12/12/2005 Robert I. Guenthner, Vice Chairman, $100 to Sebelius 8/25/2005

* J. Nick Badgerow,  $1000 to Morrison, 11/11/2005, Morrison's attorney in EEOC case
* John D. Conderman, $100 to Morrison, 3/1/2006
* Dennis D. Depew,  Depew Law Firm gave $1000 to Morrison on 10/31/2005; $100 to Sebelius on 8/1/2006, and $50 more on 8/18/2006
* Anne L. Baker, $100 to Sebelius in 1998, and $200 to Sebelius in 2002
* Patricia M. Dengler, $250 to Chris Biggs, 10/23/2002; $550 to Morrison (three dates), $1550 to Sebelius (four dates)
* Ruth E. Graham, $50 to Sebelius, 11/1/2006
* Calvin J. Karlin, $50 to Morrison on 12/9/2005 and $50 more on 2/8/2006; $400 to Sebelius in 2002-2003 (three dates)
* Jack S. McInteer, $250 to Sebelius, 7/8/2002

Yea, I'm sure these folks can be fair and impartial in their review.

Calling all liberal morons...get a clue.

preebo 7 years ago

This brings back memories of Ken Star and the Republicans witch-hunt against Bill Clinton. Republican State Senate going after the first sign of blood from a Democratic offical. Sit back and wait for the grandstanding. It'll be interesting...

mom_of_three 7 years ago

Let's say they do find him guilty of something and want to remove him- what happens to the murder cases he is working on. I personally was relieved he was going to try the Jodi Sanderholm case instead of kline. It would case all heck to break lose to replace an attorney in those cases.

7 years ago

"the only good politician is a dead one"

Au contraire. Politicians are quite useful when you want to take your neighbor's money or toys and they are great for getting rid of , er, "regulating" your competitors. They can get you and your friends contracts to build things for government, heck, they can even pay you (or your law firm) a whole lot of money, extorted from private companies, to do nothing. Owning politicians allows you the privilege of using force legally against your fellow man and take whatever you want from him.

They are very, very, useful indeed. If they weren't, people wouldn't pay so much money for them.

8ball 7 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

7 years ago

"what happens to the murder cases he is working on?"

Do you suppose he is personally working on those cases, spending time at the law library looking up precedents or talking with the CSIs about DNA samples? Not likely, as he has an office of a couple dozen assistant AGs whose job it is to do that. And the assistant AGs, who do the real work of the office anyway, are pretty much the same ones Kline had, who are pretty much the same ones Stovall had, who are pretty much the same ones Stephan had.

Only the deputies and the direction change; the people who do the actual work remain.

ctrmhero 7 years ago

Why are we so up in arms about this. In the kinder gentler 70's we had a republican AG get caught coming out of a hotel in Joplin with a woman not his wife. The woman was his secretary in the AG's office. There were no calls for impeachment, or even investigation. In the 80's GOP AG Bob Stephan (a good AG by the way) was sued and paid for sexual harrasment, while AG. One of the allegations was he chased the woman around his desk in the AG office while trying to fondle her. No calls for investigation, he was just reelected, but it ruined his plans to run for gov. I think that is all that will happen to morrison. Let's not forget our history with that very office.

tir 7 years ago

So far the only thing Morrison is actually "guilty" of (by his own admission) is having a consensual affair with someone he worked with--really, really stupid, and embarrassing but not illegal. The rest is merely accusations at this point. Yes, there needs to be an investigation, and if the allegations can be proved, he should be charged according to the laws of the state, and of course he should resign as AG.

What I would really like to know is why his "partner" in their consensual affair has only just now decided to air their dirty linen? Why wait until after Morrison became AG? Was she being leaned on to keep quiet before the election? Is she being leaned on to bring Morrison down now? Or are her reasons purely personal? I think there must be a lot more to the story, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

7 years ago

"embarrassing but not illegal."

Actually, it is illegal (K.S.A 21-3507), so every specific sexual act with a person not his wife was a violation of the law. Now, one can argue that it is a stupid law that ought to be repealed (and I would agree), but we have the fact, admitted by the AG, that he, over a considerable period of time, purposely violated the law.

If a continual pattern of lawbreaking does not disqualify a prosecutor from office, what does?

Ceallach 7 years ago

People are quite quick to trash the woman and defend Morrison. No wonder women are reluctant to report such actions! I love the way so many people refer to them as working together. He was her boss, her supervisor. Apparently offices were also used as motel rooms. Ewwww!

Those who keep bringing up Clinton's "indiscretion" should remember that he was GUILTY! It is now difficult to see the Oval Office without remembering how he defiled it. If Hillary gets elected I would think her first order of business would be to renovate that office.

Dani Davey 7 years ago

Dollypawpaw asked why liberal babes defend their nasty boys. I gotta tell ya DPP, there is just something hot about them bad boys...I can't explain it.

But on a more serious note, the reason democrats are defending Paul and republicans seem to want to disbar him is simple. We all agree that Paul is a bad husband. The difference between the republicans and democrats, though, is that the democrats can separate the fact that he's a jackass in his personal life from the fact that he's a pretty amazing attorney, whereas for republicans the rule seems to be once a jackass, always a jackass.

At home, I hope Joyce gives him a swift kick to a certain somewhere and then takes him for all he's worth. But in the office, I'd rather have a cheater than a pre-occupied zealot any day of the week.

7 years ago

"I'm just saying that the "because it's illegal" reasoning can be flawed."

But if so it's at least a starting point and it does have the advantage of being objective, without which we end up making an argument like, "A prosecutor can break the law with impunity so long as he thinks it's a stupid law," which, as you might imagine, is a dangerous precedent.

If we don't think that that specific class C misdemeanor (I wonder how many he's thrown in the county lockup for the allowable month for class Cs in the past) ought to be against the law, then we ought to repeal it.

But I don't think we ought to give our prosecutors the power to ignore laws they think stupid when they are unwilling to extend the same courtesy to us.

tolawdjk 7 years ago

"What is it about Adultery that attracts Liberal babes to willing men?"

Must be the same phermones that attracts Rupublican politicians to gay sex.

Godot 7 years ago

"He was her boss, her supervisor. Apparently offices were also used as motel rooms. Ewwww!"

Morrison was also Carter's mentor. He first brought her into his crime unit from a clerical position, then he promoted her to office administrator. He had considerable influence over her.

dirkleisure 7 years ago

"Dorkleisure." That's worth responding to.

Kobach is most certainly calling for campaign finance reform, and now you are too. To question someone's partiality based upon a campaign contribution is to question our campaign finance system.

Anyone who does so is calling for campaign finance reform. You are taking it even further by calling into question campaign contributions made to Sebelius, thus indicating you do not believe anyone who contributes to a statewide candidate from the same political party can be impartial.

If you believe that, then you believe in publicly financed elections. Either that or you believe only people who refuse to participate in out political process should serve on boards, commissions, etc. Sort of an odd way to qualify yourself for civic duty, by refusing to participate in the electoral process.

That makes you the true liberal.

trinity 7 years ago

just saw in the cj online that kline has indeed convinced jo co commish to pay 25k for a special prosecutor to investigate this ordeal. it'll be interesting to see who gets that job.

7 years ago

"all of a sudden interested in draconian enforcement of the existing (albeit stupid) laws. It's a double standard."

Well in my defense, I have long said that the best way to get rid of stupid laws is to enforce them ruthlessly. There is no more tyrannical government than one that criminalizes nearly everything and then picks and chooses what it wishes to enforce.

However, there will always be SOMEONE who gains an advantage from the downfall of anyone else. That can hardly be a good reason for deciding what should cause such a downfall.

"As for extending the same courtesy-how many people has Morrison locked up for adultery?"

Good question. I suspect none - the only actual prosecution under that law that I know of was in Dickinson County. However, he is a "tough prosecutor" and I'm pretty sure he has not overlooked prosecuting misdemeanors to the full extent when it suited his purposes. Heck, he's not even above destroying the reputations of others for their misdemeanors (see: Bryan Brown) even when they are thrown out of court. I know that was a campaign and all, but I want the same as you, a consistent standard.

Maybe that's too much to ask, but I see no other way of getting good law but to enforce the bad law until people get mad enough to change it, and for government officials to be held to the same standard to which they hold us.

If Morrison wants to show us how tough he is on corruption, he should indict and prosecute himself. I might even vote for him next time around if he showed that kind of integrity.

Godot 7 years ago

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/402019.html

More detail about the special investigator. Note that the target has not been identified.

dirkleisure 7 years ago

What in the world was Tim Carpenter doing at a Johnson County Commission meeting? Seems like an awfully long drive for a reporter from the Topeka newspaper to make.

As if there should be any doubt who is pumping Carpenter with information for his stories. Kline has to hire a special prosecutor because he is damaging his credibility by handing over everything he can to this reporter!

Oh, wait, maybe he checks the agendas for the commission on a daily basis. Sure he does. I bet he checks the agendas for the Douglas County Commission all the time, too.

Note how the prosecutor is looking into "phone harassment." Look for there to be a story in the Cap Journal about phone calls.

7 years ago

"I wonder if:::"

Yes, it was Rucker, in a pile-on charge tangential to a drug case.

Godot 7 years ago

Wouldn't it be ironic if the target of the investigation was Linda Carter?

When did she stop being Kline's administrator, and why?

conservativepunker 7 years ago

I guess St. Paul of Olathe isn't as squeaky clean as everyone thought he was.

dirkleisure 7 years ago

Phill and Co. taking on a fight is the best thing that could happen. Whatever the opposite of the Midas touch is, Phill Kline has it.

What is this about phone harassment? Let's take bets on when the Cap Journal story about phone records comes out. Another Sunday blockbuster?

PK is feeding this info about phone calls, so you can bank on the Cap Journal doing a story.

Eride 7 years ago

"Republicans say legal review of Morrison not enough"

Well of course they say that which is why this story is pointless.

situveux1 7 years ago

Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys http://www.kscourts.org/Rules-procedures-forms/Attorney-discipline/default.asp

http://ethics.ks.gov/CFAScanned/StWide/2006ElecCycle/200601/SW02PM_200601.pdf Sara S. Beezley, Chairman, $100 to Morrison, 12/12/2005 page 10

J. Nick Badgerow, $1000 to Morrison, 11/11/2005, Morrison's attorney in EEOC case page 5

Dennis D. Depew, Depew Law Firm gave $1000 to Morrison on 10/31/2005 page 34

Calvin J. Karlin, $50 to Morrison on 12/9/2005 page 69

Patricia M. Dengler, $250 to Morrison on 11/22/2005 page 33

These are just from one report that Morrison filed in Jan 2006. Now, I'd be happy to go ahead and post the rest of the pdf links to these campaign finance reports if you would like, because it would be no trouble what-so-ever, but you can also go to http://www.accesskansas.org/srv-campaignfinance/index.do and search what I have posted for yourself as well.

The search is actually easier than opening the pdf file and searching in adobe, although, with the adobe search you also get the contributor's address and occupation so you can verify it really is the person you're looking for and not just someone with the same name.

"Calling all conservative extremist morons: get a clue!! All extremists are liars, fakes, cheats, swindlers, and adulterers!! situveux1 is one of them!!! What a conjobber!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!"

Doesn't it suck when you're wrong Ag?

Oh, Dirkleisure, I actually didn't mean to put dork, I guess I need to copy and paste. You should pick an obscure name so that doesn't happen.

Anyway, as far as what you wrote, Kobach is pointing out that the board, having given money to a man they are now called to investigate, should recuse themselves. Whether or not they CAN be impartial really doesn't matter, I think this goes back to the appearance of impropriety. And after everything Morrison has admitted to doing, I'd think to keep confidence in the AG's office, everyone, Dem and Repub, would want the investigation done in a manner that is 100% on the up and up.

Ag, you let me know about posting more, I'd be more than happy to air Morrison's contributions.

justthefacts 7 years ago

Factual questions (if anyone has the answers and can cite to the source of the information):

Has Ms. Clark's complaint with the EEOC been resolved by that agency or is it still pending before that agency? If it has not been resolved, how did the press obtain the information about the complaint, given the fact that the agency itself is prohibited from releasing any information about pending investigations?

How long have the parties said the affair lasted? I have read/heard varying lengths of time, and would like to know the actual facts.

Is Ms. Clark still married? Again, I have been told/heard/read various answers on this question, with no "matching" answers.

situveux1 7 years ago

Oh yea, also, as the KC Star editorial pointed out today, this "investigation" is pretty lame because the board can't subpoena witnesses, investigate the sexual harassment charges or file any charges. Any investigation that can't do those things seems like it would be pretty pointless to me.

http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/401192.html

ctrmhero 7 years ago

I wonder if the other members of the board for discipline of attorneys gave money to kline or any republicans. There are 20 members. My question still remains whey morrisons transgressions not an issue when Bod Stephan, while AG did real sexual harrassment, and Schneider did the same thing that Morrison did.

staff04 7 years ago

Question for situveux1:

So then it would stand to reason that anyone within that organization who donated to Phill Kline should also recuse themselves, right?

dirkleisure 7 years ago

Political contributions do not represent an appearance of impropriety unless you believe elections should be publicly funded. You keep making the same point, and I keep shooting it down. Unless you feel people shouldn't be allowed to freely participate in the political process, you cannot call foul based upon contributions.

Where did the paper get the info? FROM PHILL KLINE!!!!!

Obviously, this "phone harassment" issue is the next Cap Journal story to be written by Kline.

ctrmhero 7 years ago

Who is giving the information about the disciplinary adm. That is correct they don't have subpoena power during the investigation. What is not mentioned is that if the matter goes to the hearing panel they do have the power to subpoena. Just like any prosecutor or plaintiff would. If the KBI did the investigation they would not have a right to subpoena either unless there was a filing with a court. Same thing here. If a matter goes to hearing they have subpoena power, maybe that's why that clown teaches in Missouri and Kansas. You will notice those coments have not come from law profs in KS or attorney's that actively practice here.

7 years ago

"Political contributions do not represent an appearance of impropriety unless you believe elections should be publicly funded."

Rather than impropriety, political contributions represent an appearance of BIAS, because a person, by giving money, has publicly claimed to prefer one over another. Such bias could still be shown in a publicly-funded campaign (e.g. if one were to serve as an honorary chairman for another), so public funding of elections is irrelevant to the issue, unless you expect that all campaign workers will be assigned like pro-bono lawyers.

The problem is not the mode of funding the election, but that the judge has in the case of that election publicly declared preference to one party in an action over another.

8ball 7 years ago

so now its not even a question about right or wrong,its just about democrat vs republican?what a joke,you people all suck

dirkleisure 7 years ago

And what of the contributions to Sebelius that are listed? And what of those members of the committee who have contributed in the past to a Phill Kline campaign? Or to the campaign of a member of the Johnson County Commission?

Serving in an official capacity, such as staff or honorary chair, is a far more involved position than a contribution. You are comparing bacon to the whole pig.

dirkleisure 7 years ago

The information about the role of the disciplinary admin is coming from the same source as the information about the EEOC complaint. The Johnson County DA's office.

Wanna talk about phone harassment? How about the amount of time spent on the Jo Co DA phones calling reporters about this affair?

jayhawklawrence 7 years ago

Unfortunately, this is a serious offense and I would recommend resignation.

When you put yourself in a position to engage in these type of relations with a subordinate in the workplace you have crossed the line. If you cross that line, can you trust yourself not to do it again? I am sorry for the man, but I think he needs to resign and make a new start in his career after a period of deep reflection. Otherwise, how can he find happiness within himself or with his family. I voted for him. I do not regret that I did so. Now I wish him well.

situveux1 7 years ago

Staff04??? Are you LJW staff or did you just pick that name out? If you did, that's clever, I think I might re-register under a different name.

Anyway, I think you know the answer to that question without asking it. If someone on the board gave money to Kline they too should recuse themselves. If you know of someone, please go ahead and post who it is and how much they gave so we can all know. And be sure and post the link, Ag will be upset if you don't!

Dirk, if a judge had taken contributions from a defendant, he would recuse himself because of an appearance of impropriety. If a defendant was best friends with the judge, he should recuse himself because an appearance of impropriety.

The only thing you have shot is hot air. They can make all the contributions they want, but this doesn't mean they then have a right to stay involved in this investigation.

7 years ago

"Serving in an official capacity, such as staff or honorary chair, is a far more involved position than a contribution."

It can be or not. How much time do you suppose Larry Craig spent on his honorary chairmanship of the Idaho Safe Kids coalition? I would suspect none - well, he may have been scouting, who knows? - he simply lent his name to it. It is usually the same with honorary campaign chairs. They don't do any work at all. But they do display a bias, and they do call otherwise uninvolved people (otherwise known as voters) to act on that bias.

situveux1 7 years ago

See, I don't get that...so what if the info is coming from the JoCo DA office? Does that make Morrison any less of a liar? No. It would make Kline more of a scumbag, but it would do nothing to justify what Morrison might have done.

This is from a blog, so take what it says with a grain of salt, but still, an interesting read.

http://thesource.typepad.com/thesource/2007/12/morrison-should.html

What is particularly amazing is that Phill Kline could have outed Morrison months ago, but didn't. The article details a brief filed by Kline that asks for a witness to be protected from being intimidated. The judge denied the brief because Kline asked for it to be under seal, or private, to protect someone from "grave harm." When given the opportunity to file the brief publicly, and expose Morrison, Kline declined.

dirkleisure 7 years ago

Judges frequently hear cases involving attorneys which contributed to their campaign, if they stand for election, so swing and a miss

I agree. It doesn't absolve PM, it just paints a poor picture of Kline and the reporters doing his bidding.

situveux1 7 years ago

I didn't say attorney's, I said defendant. Morrison would be a defendant, not an attorney as far as this matter is concerned. Plus, his attorney that he has retained is on the board, but I'm sure that's just fine and cozy with you as well?

dirkleisure 7 years ago

That is a professional relationship, not political. An established personal relationship, a professional relationship, or an in depth political relationship, such as campaign chair, is grounds for recussal.

A political contribution is not.

situveux1 7 years ago

"An in depth political relationship" versus "a political contribution." That's good, you've really got me on the ropes now.

Please, explain the difference to me. This ought to be good.

dirkleisure 7 years ago

That's just it - you don't see a difference, which is why you would be happier in a world with publicly financed elections. Under the current system, the risks of recussal eliminate anyone who contributes to a campaign from civic duty.

That is the disagrement. You're not on the ropes, you just fail to recognize the full extent of your position.

situveux1 7 years ago

Realize the full extent of your argument.

"Judges frequently hear cases involving attorneys which contributed to their campaign"

"An established personal relationship, a professional relationship, or an in depth political relationship, such as campaign chair, is grounds for recussal."

Now, what are you going to tell me, that a lawyer and judge don't have a professional relationship? That, after they see each other in the courtroom and the lawyer gives cash to the judge, they don't have a personal relationship? That giving someone hundreds of dollars isn't an "in depth political relationship?"

Tell me, what is an "in depth political relationship?" And please, don't contradict yourself.

dirkleisure 7 years ago

You just compared a political contribution to a bribe. And before you blather on about how you didn't, know that the campaign committee for a judge subject to election collects contributions, not the judge personally. And there is a difference, and it is a difference that has been delineated by the Supreme Court.

There's no need to repeat the difference between a role on a campaign committee and a contribution. You disagree, at least when it comes to Democrats, which is why you lumped in contributors to the Governor when discussing a case involving the Attorney General.

So be it.

situveux1 7 years ago

It's difficult to repeat a difference you never delineated in the first place. Contribution, campaign worker, whatever, however...they are involved and in the end show a bias. But whatever, so be it if you have no problem with that.

staff, let me know about the Kline contributions, that would be very interesting if someone on the board also contributed to Kline!

Ag...where are you buddy? No smart comment for me? I'm very disappointed I went to all the trouble of 2 minutes to post sources and you can't even make a comment.

You guys are a blast.

MyName 7 years ago

El Borak:

Actually, it is illegal (K.S.A 21-3507), so every specific sexual act with a person not his wife was a violation of the law. Now, one can argue that it is a stupid law that ought to be repealed (and I would agree), but we have the fact, admitted by the AG, that he, over a considerable period of time, purposely violated the law.

If a continual pattern of lawbreaking does not disqualify a prosecutor from office, what does?

To supplement your list of class C misdemeanors:

Disorderly conduct, Maintaining/Permitting a public nuisance, Refusal to yield a telephone party line, Selling beverage containers with detachable tabs, False membership claim, Knowingly employing an alien illegally within the territory of the United States, etc., ad nauseum...

Most (if not all) of these are not something anyone should lose their job over, including the State Attorney General. Especially since the alleged violations of the law you are referring to occurred outside of Morrison's tenure as AG. Not only that, but it would be difficult (if not impossible) to prove the crimes occurred as both defendants could take the 5th amendment and the state would be left with little or no evidence.

The bottom line is that Morrison may have been accused of a number of crimes, but he has yet to be convicted or even brought up on charges for any of them. There is no way he will be brought up on charges for Adultery (for a variety of reasons) and he will have his day in court for the remaining (alleged) offenses should they get to that point. Until then, remember that "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" applies to politicians as well as ordinary citizens.

7 years ago

"Until then, remember that 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty' applies to politicians as well as ordinary citizens."

Except that he already admitted to having an affair with Carter, which means that he has publicly confessed to the crime. It is silly to pretend that such a confession is meaningless.

Well, sure, maybe he has taken part in the first affair that has not actually involved adultery, or maybe he did it 20 years ago before either was married and he didn't tell us. Come on, you can do better than that.

Carter is not taking the 5th; she's the one making the accusations.

But you left a few Class C misdemeanors off the list, such as soliciting a prostitute.

So I ask you, if Kline had admitted to soliciting a prostitute, multiple times over the course of 2 years, on public property, when he was supposed to be working, would you be so blase'? So concerned over legal legerdemain? I doubt it, my good friend, and there is a good reason for that that we both know quite well...

I ask a simple question: what level of purposeful lawbreaking disqualifies a public prosecutor from office? I have yet to see an answer.

justthefacts 7 years ago

If I were to handicap this race, i.e. express an opinion for once, I'd guess that desipte the $25,000 Johnson county is about to spend digging (using the help of Ms. Carter?), and the review of ethic rules by the Dicsp. Admin.'s office, PM will not resign and will not be found guilty of anything more then having the affair (which will not be the first one since the 1800's in Kansas to get criminally prosecuted). He will not, however, run for AG again.

I doubt he'll even run for any office again. He shot his political career, as well as his wedding vows, full of holes. That may not matter nearly as much to him after he is making 3x his AG salary when he goes into private practice (probably sans wife).

Besides his family and the "lady's" family, the people most likely to suffer actual personal fall out from this mess will be the several top aides that PM brought over to the AG's office. Several people he hired were making a lot more money in Johnson county, but hitched their wagons to him b/c they thought he was going somewhere and/or had good things ahead. Now they see the folly of counting too much on any politician!

The citizens of Kansas will suffer too. They will lose even more faith in the system, as the AG and his staff office focus more on this mess instead of giving full attention to the work at hand. What a mess.

situveux1 7 years ago

You mean I didn't make it up like you said Ag?

"how long did it take you to make those things up, and pull them out of thin air? :))))"

What's up with that? You mean you were WRONG? You mean you jumped to a conclusion? You mean I can back up what I say and you have to rely on know-how provided by others to make your point?

"For all we know, some of these same folks made contributions to Kris Kobach in the past!"

Well...for all YOU know. For rest of us who know how to find information and aren't complete blubbering idiots...it's a different story.

How much of an idiot are you that you have to use knowledge provided by me to find something. Kind of pathetic???...no not really...VERY pathetic.

staff04 7 years ago

situveux1-

I wasn't asserting that there were, I was merely asking a question of whether your standard, which seems pretty high, applied to both sides.

I guess you want to strip 1st Amendment rights from government employees and public servants. Typical of your ilk.

And no, I have no affiliation with the LJW, other than as a reader and semi-regular commenter. Actually chose the name while I was on the staff of a public agency. Good thing I didn't make any contributions back then or you'd have been after my job!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.