Archive for Thursday, December 13, 2007
Republicans say legal review of Morrison not enough
December 13, 2007
Advertisement
Reader poll
Topeka — 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.
13 December 2007 at 6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crispysyn (Anonymous) says…
Of course they are, it is nothing but a witchhunt.
13 December 2007 at 7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
Naw, let's just remove him from office. The republican's have decided he's guilty of something, anything, so he's got to go. Biggest thing is he's no longer a republican, so he must go.
13 December 2007 at 8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dozer (Anonymous) says…
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!
13 December 2007 at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dagopman (Anonymous) says…
Kansas has suffered through an embarrassing string of politicians. Kline, then Boyda, now Morrison, won't we collectively ever get it right?
13 December 2007 at 8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
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.”
13 December 2007 at 9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
Kobach needs to wipe the foam from his mouth. Yesterday he compared this situation to a hit and run driver. I thought lawyers were supposed to be well versed in the rules of logic…
The disciplinary administrator is the appropriate body to investigate allegations of lawyer misconduct. The investigation will undoubtedly turn up any ethical/professional misconduct as well as any criminal behavior. At that point, if any criminal activity is found, the appropriate authorities can prosecute Morrison.
But it is redundant and a waste of taxpayer money to have two separate investigations going on in parallel.
13 December 2007 at 9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sdinges (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Paul Morrison is a self-serving political hack of the worst kind.
He switched parties soley so that he could run for AG and win, to take advantage of the baby-killer vote as the baby murderers were upset with Phill Kline.
What Morrison forgot to tell his supporters was that he is a scumbag with no respect for his marriage vows causing anyone with a rational mind to wonder how much respect he has for his vow of oath of office.
Morrison has no self-respect or he would resign immediately.
13 December 2007 at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deskboy04 (Anonymous) says…
I think that everyone should wait and see what the evidence shows.
13 December 2007 at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
yeah, gypsynatalie… **you're** one to preach about “respect for marriage vows.”
Uh-huh.
:rolleyes:
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org
13 December 2007 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Kris Kobach: Media Whore Du Mois!
—Ag
13 December 2007 at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
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…
13 December 2007 at 10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
The Hazlett investigation is a good start. Kobach needs to sit down and shut up. If Morrison wants the investigation to proceed properly, he needs to take “administrative leave” from his office and stop working on cases, at the bare minimum.
—Ag
13 December 2007 at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
situveux1, how long did it take you to make those things up, and pull them out of thin air? :))))
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!!!!!!!!!!
—Ag
P.S. Or, do you maybe have a link to back your s**t up? I doubt it…
13 December 2007 at 10:22 a.m.
Permalink
8ball (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
13 December 2007 at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
“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.
13 December 2007 at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
““The republican's have decided he's guilty of something, anything, so he's got to go.”- bb
This theme sounds strikingly familiar.”
Yes, it is exactly what they did to Bill Clinton.
13 December 2007 at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
“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.
13 December 2007 at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ctrmhero (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tir (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
“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?
13 December 2007 at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
northtown (Anonymous) says…
Good old Urinal world,Again this should never beasked in Lawrence,you know how they will answer!!!!
IF they are not Boggiers then they are not perfect,Oh my God ,he got may have got himself a litle.Like those that are perfect in Lawrence have not??Look in the mirror before you question those that you do!!
Stupid Lawrence has it's own worries!!!!!
13 December 2007 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ceallach (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“If a continual pattern of lawbreaking does not disqualify a prosecutor from office, what does?”
––––––-
So should an AG be removed from office for jaywalking?
For speeding?
For getting fellatio (technically illegal in Kansas)?
All those things are illegal as well. Just pointing out that illegally maybe shouldn't be the line-in-the-sand standard, especially because of the breadth of things that are illegal and the existence of (perhaps) ridiculous laws.
That is not to say that Morrison shouldn't step down. I don't think he should step down for an affair, but I can sort of understand where those that do are coming from. I'm just saying that the “because it's illegal” reasoning can be flawed.
13 December 2007 at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dani (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
“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.
13 December 2007 at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…
“What is it about Adultery that attracts Liberal babes to willing men?”
Must be the same phermones that attracts Rupublican politicians to gay sex.
13 December 2007 at 12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
“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.
13 December 2007 at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
“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.
13 December 2007 at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“Why do liberals babes protect their “nasty boys”?'
I don't know, you would have to ask a liberal, and liberal babe at that. Moron.
“What is it about Adultery that attracts Liberal babes to willing men?”
Why are you a moron? Why are you so stupid? Why are you so idiotic? Why are you so ignorant? Why are you so blind and one sided? These are much better questions, believe me. You, once again, are the most stupid person on this board, you really should have your account deleted. Fool.
13 December 2007 at 12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“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.”
––––––-
I agree, and taking it one step further, I don't think we ought to give *anyone* the power to ignore laws they think are stupid. Yet we do—again, see fellatio and adultery. My only point is that we can't sit here and think nothing of the illegality of adultery, but the second an elected official does it and people stand to gain from his dismissal, we're all of a sudden interested in draconian enforcement of the existing (albeit stupid) laws. It's a double standard.
As for extending the same courtesy—how many people has Morrison locked up for adultery?
13 December 2007 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
trinity (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
“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.
13 December 2007 at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Well, not really, Willy perjured himself.”
––––––—
So by implication, then, there is absolutely no basis for the case against Morrison? (since he admitted to the affair).
In 1998, conservatives were up in arms (supposedly) about the fact that Clinton lied about his affair, not about the fact that he had the affair in the first place.
Now in 1997, conservatives are up in arms about the fact that Morrison had an affair. (because you can't nail him for lying).
In both cases, it seems like the loudest rabble rousers are simply looking for a reason to justify their desire for removal, rather than finding a evidence that *gives* them reason to desire removal.
13 December 2007 at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_…
More detail about the special investigator. Note that the target has not been identified.
13 December 2007 at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
“I wonder if………”
Yes, it was Rucker, in a pile-on charge tangential to a drug case.
13 December 2007 at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Wouldn't it be ironic if the target of the investigation was Linda Carter?
When did she stop being Kline's administrator, and why?
13 December 2007 at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
conservativepunker (Anonymous) says…
I guess St. Paul of Olathe isn't as squeaky clean as everyone thought he was.
13 December 2007 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Eride (Anonymous) says…
“Republicans say legal review of Morrison not enough”
Well of course they say that which is why this story is pointless.
13 December 2007 at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
RT,
You didn't even address my point.
13 December 2007 at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys
http://www.kscourts.org/Rules-procedures…
http://ethics.ks.gov/CFAScanned/StWide/2…
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-campaign… 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.
13 December 2007 at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
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/4011…
13 December 2007 at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ctrmhero (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
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?
13 December 2007 at 2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ctrmhero (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
“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.
13 December 2007 at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
8ball (Anonymous) says…
so now its not even a question about right or wrong,its just about democrat vs republican?what a joke,you people all suck
13 December 2007 at 2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
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?
13 December 2007 at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
“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.
13 December 2007 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
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/2…
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.
13 December 2007 at 2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
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?
13 December 2007 at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 December 2007 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
“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.
13 December 2007 at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
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.