Request for Reconsideration:

Decision of the Review Committee in

Formal Complaint Against

Stanton A. Hazlett

Submitted by:

Keen A. Umbehr

April 24, 2013

1

BEFORE A REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTED UNDER

SUPREME COURT ORDER 2012 SC 52

Complainant: Keen A. Umbehr, #22047 Date Complaint Filed: May 23, 2012

P.O. Box 482 Date of Dismissal: February 1, 2013

Alma, Kansas 66401 Date of Complainant’s Request for

Keen@keenjustice.com Reconsideration: April 23, 2013

Respondent: Stanton A. Hazlett, #9531 Special Prosecutor: Edward G. Collister, Jr.

Disciplinary Administrator Collister & Kampschroeder

701 SW Jackson, First Floor 3311 Clinton Pkwy Ct.

Topeka, Kansas 66603 Lawrence, KS 66047

Members of the Review Committee:

Ms. Nancy Anstaett Mikel L. Stout

Rowe & Anstaett, L.L.C. Foulston Siefkin, LLP

8675 W. 96th St., Ste. 210 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway #100

Overland Park, KS 66212 Wichita, KS 67206

Hon. J. Patrick Brazil

2317 SW Mayfair Place

Topeka, KS 66611

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE HAZLETT DISMISSAL

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys B.8., I

hereby submit a formal request for reconsideration of your previous decision dated February 1,

2013, wherein you dismissed the formal complaint against Disciplinary Administrator Stanton A.

Hazlett (S.C. #9531), which was filed on May 23, 2012 by Keen A. Umbehr (S.C. #22047). In

support of my request for reconsideration, I provide the following facts:

Decision of the Review Committee

According to the written decision dated February 1, 2013, and released by Carol Green on

February 6, 2013, the dismissal of the Hazlett complaint by Nancy S. Anstaett, J. Patrick Brazil,

and Mikel L. Stout (hereinafter referred to as “the Anstaett committee"), was based on a

conclusion that the Review Committee members who were appointed to investigate the ethics

complaint filed against Keen A. Umbehr by the Kansas Department of Corrections (Case No.

DA10,902), Sara Beezley, Robert Guenthner and William Swearer (hereinafter referred to as

“the Beezley committee”), made a finding of probable cause which predated Mr. Hazlett’s

statements to Keen Umbehr’s then-attorney, John Ambrosio, claiming that the Beezley Review

Committee had already made a finding of probable cause and that he (Mr. Hazlett) planned to

prepare a formal complaint and set the matter for hearing.

2

The Anstaett committee dismissed the formal complaint against Stanton A. Hazlett for the

following reasons:

3

The rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Kansas, specifically, the Internal Operating Rules of

the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys B.8., states:

“The Review Committee, upon a proper showing, may reconsider any

decision. After reconsidering an order, the Review Committee may direct any

action pursuant to Rule 210(c).”

I hereby request that the members of the Anstaett Review Committee reconsider their previous

decision to dismiss the formal complaint against Stanton A. Hazlett for the following reasons:

1. The Anstaett Committee finding is unsupported by any documented evidence

substantiating a finding of probable cause in the Umbehr case (DA 10,902).

The Anstaett committee’s conclusion that the Beezley committee found probable cause in the

Umbehr complaint (DA Case No. 10,902) is without any factual basis.

a. Mr. Collister’s investigation did not produce any documents, notes, minutes,

affidavits or review committee reports which provided evidence of a finding

of probable cause by the Beezley committee in the Umbehr case.

i. There are no Review Committee reports in existence from the

Beezley committee reflecting a finding of probable cause in the

Umbehr complaint. (See Exhibit XX; Hazlett complaint)

ii. If the Beezley Committee had in fact found probable cause, such a

vote would have been recorded by the Chair of the Committee,

Sara Beezley, in accordance with Internal Operating Rules of the

Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys Rule B.7., which states:

“A record reflecting each action of the Review Committee shall be

prepared by the Chair and distributed to the Review Committee

members and the Disciplinary Administrator.” [Emphasis added]

Failure to make a record reflecting each action of the Review

Committee would constitute a violation of Rule B.7., by Sara

Beezley, Chair.

iii. The reason Sara Beezley did not produce a report which recorded a

finding of probable cause, is because the Beezley committee never

found probable cause in the Umbehr case by majority vote – ever.

iv. The record proves that the only time the Beezley committee voted

on whether the facts contained in the Umbehr complaint supported

a finding of probable cause by clear and convincing evidence was

on October 24, 2011, when the committee decided to dismiss the

complaint with a letter of caution. (See copies of all five Beezley

committee reports; Exhibit XX; Hazlett complaint.)

v. If the Beezley committee had in fact found probable cause by

majority vote in 2010, then the Umbehr complaint DA Case No.

10,902, would have proceeded to a panel hearing. In addition, on

October 5, 2010, I had informed my attorney John Ambrosio of my

4

decision not to accept any form of diversion or admit to a scintilla

of guilt. (See Exhibit G; Hazlett complaint)

vi. I reiterated my decision not to accept any diversion proposal in a

subsequent letter to Mr. Ambrosio dated November 21, 2010 (See

Exhibit P; Hazlett complaint).

vii. In a letter dated January 12, 2011, from Mr. Hazlett to John

Ambrosio, he writes in relevant part: “I have not heard back from

you regarding Mr. Umbehr’s position on diversion . . . If I do not

hear from you by that time, I will prepare a formal complaint and

set the matter for hearing. As you know, the Review Committee has

already made a finding of probable cause in this matter.” (See

Exhibit R; Hazlett complaint.)

viii. In a letter dated January 15, 2011, which was written to Mr.

Hazlett and sent via my attorney, John Ambrosio, I restated my

October 5, 2010, decision not to accept a diversion or admit to a

scintilla of guilt. (See Exhibit S; Hazlett complaint.)

ix. Finally, on March 17, 2011, a full five (5) months after I originally

informed Mr. Ambrosio of my decision not to accept a diversion

proposal, I received a copy of a letter Mr. Hazlett wrote to John

Ambrosio acknowledging receipt of my January 15, 2011, letter.

Mr. Hazlett stated in part: “In that letter Mr. Umbehr makes it

clear that he does not wish to be considered for the diversion

program.” He goes on to state: “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.” (See Exhibit W; Hazlett complaint.)

x. In summary, Mr. Hazlett’s January 12, 2011, letter to John

Ambrosio (Exhibit R) makes three important statements: 1) that

the Review Committee had already made a finding of probable

cause; 2) that he intended to prepare a formal complaint; and 3)

that he would be setting the matter for hearing. However, Rule

210(c) clearly states: “A complaint shall not be referred for panel

hearing . . . unless the review committee finds by a majority vote

that there is probable cause to believe there has been a violation of

the Attorney’s Oath or the disciplinary rules of the Supreme

Court.” [Emphasis added] The fact remains, that the Beezley

committee never determined by majority vote that there was

probable cause to believe that I had violated any of the KRPC.

Therefore, when Mr. Hazlett threatened to prepare a formal

complaint and set the matter for hearing, he was actually making a

false statement of material fact. Rule 210(c) prohibited him from

proceeding to a panel hearing before the Review Committee found

probable cause by majority vote. Mr. Hazlett’s written threat was

an attempt to increase the pressure and coerce me into accepting

his diversion proposal.

5

xi. Neither Ed Collister nor the members of the Anstaett committee

have identified a date specific in 2010 when the Beezley

committee allegedly made a finding of probable cause by majority

vote in accordance with Rule 210(c). The reason the Anstaett

committee members did not provide a date, is simply because they

could not provide a date. It was impossible for the Anstaett

committee to furnish a date for a vote, or a finding, or an event

which never occurred.

xii. The only time the Beezley committee voted on whether there was

probable cause to believe that I had violated the KRPC was on

October 24, 2011, when the committee voted to dismiss the

complaint due to lack of clear and convincing evidence.

xiii. In conclusion, the Anstaett committee’s determination that there

was an unreported and undocumented finding of probable cause in

the Umbehr complaint, assumes facts not in evidence from either

sworn testimony or written documents, and constitutes a clear and

flagrant abuse of discretion.

2. The Anstaett Committee finding is unsupported by any sworn testimonial evidence

pertaining specifically to the finding of probable cause in the Umbehr case (DA

10,902).

Mr. Collister’s investigation did not produce a single sworn statement from any member of the

Beezley committee stating that they had found probable cause by majority vote that I had

violated one or more of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC).

a. The Review Committee members in the Umbehr case consisting of Sara

Beezley, Robert Guenthner, and William Swearer did not provide sworn

statements stating that they had found – by majority vote – that there was

probable cause to find that I had violated one or more of the Kansas Rules of

Professional Conduct (KRPC).

i. In order for the Anstaett committee to make the claim that the

Beezley committee found probable cause, they must provide

evidence that a vote was taken and that the majority of members of

the Beezley committee found probable cause.

ii. Such a finding of probable cause must be in compliance with

KRPC Rule 210(c) which states in part: “A complaint shall not be

referred for panel hearing, referred to the Attorney Diversion

Program, or the discipline of informal admonition imposed unless

the review committee finds by a majority vote that there is

probable cause to believe there has been a violation of the

Attorney’s Oath or the disciplinary rules of the Supreme Court.”

[Emphasis added]

iii. If in fact Ed Collister did take sworn statements from Sara

Beezley, Robert Guenthner and/or William Swearer, and present

6

those statements to the Anstaett committee for consideration, I

assert that those statements could not and did not include any claim

that the Beezley committee took a vote on whether there was

probable cause in my case 2010 – much less made a finding of

probable cause by majority vote.

iv. If any of the members of the Beezley committee gave Mr. Collister

a sworn statement that they had voted on and established probable

cause in the Umbehr case by majority vote pursuant to Rule 210

(c), then those statements would constitute perjury.

v. Sara Beezley, Robert Guenthner and William Swearer are

honorable attorneys of impeccable reputation, and I do not believe

that they would have proffered perjured statements to special

prosecutor, Ed Collister, regarding a finding of probable cause.

vi. No member of the Beezley committee would have testified under

oath that they found probable cause by majority vote in 2010

because such a statement would have directly contradicted their

own five Review committee reports – none of which recorded a

finding of probable cause. (See Exhibit XX; Hazlett complaint.)

vii. In addition, no member of the Beezley committee would have

testified under oath that they found probable cause by majority

vote in 2010 because such a statement would have directly

contradicted statements made by Sara Beezley, Chair, in a letter

she wrote to me on April 3, 2012, (and copied to Robert Guenthner

and William Swearer), which stated the following:

7

viii. Ms. Beezley’s April 3, 2012, letter to me provides an indisputable timeline (in

her own words) of the Review Committee’s handling of the Umbehr

complaint. She states in relevant part: “My records actually show that we

reviewed your case in April 2011 but put it on hold pending a new

submission from you or your counsel and again reviewed the case in August

but hadn’t received the additional materials from your counsel early enough

to decide the case then. On October 24, 2011 we decided on a

recommendation of a letter of caution. We do not have anything other than

what you have seen. The Disciplinary Administrator indicated in that letter

that there was not sufficient evidence to prove a rules violation by clear and

convincing evidence so, of course, there would not be a formal hearing.”

[Emphasis added]

ix. Ms. Beezley’s admission that the Review Committee did not review my case

until April of 2011 provides irrefutable evidence that there could not have been

a probable cause finding by majority vote in 2010, because the committee

would not have found probable cause prior to reviewing the case file.

x. Furthermore, the Beezley committee would never have found probable cause

by majority vote prior to receiving Mr. Hazlett’s 204 Report, which was not

submitted to the committee until April 13, 2011. (Exhibit Y; Hazlett complaint;

see letter below.)

8

xi. Therefore, Mr. Hazlett’s letter to John Ambrosio dated January 12, 2011,

(Exhibit R; Hazlett complaint; see letter below), wherein he stated that the

Beezley Review Committee had already made a finding of probable cause,

and if I did not accept a diversion then he would be drafting a formal

complaint and setting the matter for hearing, was an intentional false

statement of material fact. Mr. Hazlett knew when he made that statement to

my attorney in January of 2011 that he had not yet presented his 204 Report

to the Review Committee members for their review. (See letter above;

Exhibit Y; Hazlett complaint.) Indeed, Sara Beezley’s April 3, 2012, letter to

me confirms that the committee did not review my case until their meeting in

April of 2011. Simply stated, it would be impossible for the Beezley Review

Committee to have made a finding of probable cause by majority vote

without the benefit of the 204 Report.

9

xii. It is worth noting that in Mr. Hazlett’s April 13, 2011, letter to the members of the

Beezley Review Committee, he acknowledges that the Umbehr complaint has been

“discussed” previously, but makes no mention of an earlier finding of probable cause

by majority vote. Furthermore, Mr. Hazlett makes no mention of his intention to

“prepare a formal complaint” or “set the matter for hearing” as he indicated to my

attorney, John Ambrosio in his letter to him dated January 12, 2011. (Exhibit R)

xiii. Finally, in Mr. Hazlett’s March 17, 2011, letter to Mr. Ambrosio, (See Exhibit W;

Hazlett complaint and letter below), he once again states that there has already been a

finding of probable cause by the Review Committee and that it is his intention to set

the matter for hearing shortly. Obviously, this was a bluff – also known as a false

statement of material fact. Mr. Hazlett knew when he made that statement to my

attorney in January of 2011 that he had not yet presented his 204 Report to the

Review Committee members for their review. (See letter above; Exhibit Y; Hazlett

complaint.) Indeed, Sara Beezley’s April 3, 2012, letter to me confirms that the

committee did not review my case until they convened in April of 2011. Simply

stated, it would be impossible for the review committee members to have made a

finding of probable cause by majority vote without the benefit of the 204 Report.

10

3. Ed Collister’s investigation did not comply with Supreme Court Rule 52, which in

turn led to an erroneous finding/dismissal by the Anstaett committee.

Mr. Collister’s improper reliance upon non-existent or unsworn testimony from Sara

Beezley, Robert Guenthner or William Swearer, when Supreme Court Rule 52(c) explicitly

requires that all witness statements be recorded and sworn, led to an erroneous conclusion by the

Review Committee members consisting of Nancy Anstaett, J. Patrick Brazil and Mikel Stout

regarding a finding of probable cause in DA10,902, which in turn became the sole basis for their

dismissal of the Hazlett complaint.

a. Supreme Court Rule 52(c) states in part: “All interviews must be

conducted as sworn statements and recorded by stenographic means or by

electronic recordings.”

i. The members of the Beezley committee did not state under

oath to Mr. Collister that they had established probable

cause by majority vote in the Umbehr case in 2010, or at

any other time thereafter, because such a statement would

contradicted multiple documents contained in the record

and thereby constituted perjury by any individual who

would so testify.

b. On page 2 of the Anstaett committee report, paragraph 3, it states that the

special prosecutor, Mr. Collister, conducted an investigation, collected

documents and took sworn statements. However, they do not provide the

names of the witnesses Mr. Collister reportedly interviewed under oath.

i. I allege that either Mr. Collister never interviewed the

members of the Beezley committee under oath, or, if he did

interview Sara Beezley, Robert Guenthner or William

Swearer under oath, he purposely chose not to ask the

relevant questions which would have revealed the truth

about whether there was actually a verifiable finding of

probable cause by majority vote in the Umbehr case.

If Mr. Collister was sincerely interested in discovering the

truth about what actually occurred and whether or not Stan

Hazlett had made false statements of material fact about a

finding of probable cause, he would have had to pose the

following questions to the members of the Beezley

committee: a) If the Review Committee indeed found

probable cause by majority vote in 2010, specifically, what

date did the committee meet and vote to establish probable

cause; b) Where was the meeting held; c) Was the vote to

find probable cause a majority vote consisting of 2 of the 3

committee members, or was it unanimous; d) What specific

11

allegations did the committee find probable cause on; e)

Was the meeting where probable cause was found by

majority vote a special meeting of the Review Committee,

or were other cases decided on the same day; f) If other

cases were decided on the same date, did Sara Beezley fail

to record the actions of the Review Committee in those

cases (as required by Rule B.7.), as well as in DA Case No.

10,902; and finally, g) What was the date listed on the 204

Report Mr. Hazlett submitted to the members of the

Beezley committee on April 13, 2011?

Had Mr. Collister performed his due diligence as special

prosecutor in the Hazlett investigation by asking the

aforementioned questions, he could easily have

substantiated my allegation that there was no probable

cause finding by the Beezley committee in 2010, thus

proving that the letters Mr. Hazlett sent to my attorney on

January 12, 2011, and March 17, 2011, regarding a finding

of probable cause contained false statements of material

fact.

I allege that Mr. Collister did not ask the pertinent

questions necessary to find the truth of the matter under

investigation, but rather investigated around the truth

because he was determined to protect his professional

colleague and fellow co-defendant in the Stout case – and

the man whose agency was the source of funds for the

$35,000 payment Mr. Collister received the previous year.

ii. I further allege that Examiner Ed Collister, who was

appointed as special prosecutor in the formal complaint I

filed against Stanton Hazlett, has a history of investigating

around the truth when it involves a high-ranking member of

the Kansas judiciary. Case in point: In 2006, when then-

Justice Lawton Nuss was being investigated for alleged

violations of the Rules Relating to Judicial Conduct,

Edward G. Collister, Jr., was appointed to serve as special

prosecutor in that matter. (Docket No. 954) Additionally, J.

Patrick Brazil was the presiding judge who conducted the

pre-hearing conference in the Nuss investigation. Judge

Brazil and Nancy Anstaett also served on the hearing panel

in that case.

During the June 15, 2006, pre-hearing conference in the

Nuss matter, the Honorable J. Patrick Brazil asked the

parties whether they were anticipating any discovery

12

relating to the upcoming hearing. The following excerpt

from the official Transcript of Proceedings from the

Prehearing Conference, outlines Mr. Collister’s response to

Judge Brazil’s question regarding discovery:

iii. If Ed Collister chose not to seek discovery which would

typically include a request for answers to interrogatories,

production of documents, admissions, and finally

depositions under oath, when serving in the capacity of

Special Prosecutor in the Nuss investigation, then I

question whether he employed similar strategies when

investigating the complaint against Mr. Hazlett. I know for

a fact that he chose not to interview me or my attorney,

Robert A. Van Kirk, during the course of his investigation

– despite the fact that we were both obvious key witnesses

to the allegations made against Mr. Hazlett, which were

contained in the formal complaint.

13

iv. There are only two Review Committee reports in 2010

from the Beezley committee which pertain to the Umbehr

complaint. (See Exhibit XX; Hazlett complaint.) The first

report is dated June 24, 2010, and documents activity in

Case No. 10,902 to be: Discussion – Stan Hazlett. This

report does not reflect a finding of probable cause.

v. The second Review Committee report from the Beezley

committee in 2010 is dated July 30, 2010. (See Exhibit XX;

Hazlett complaint.) This report documents the activity in

Case No. 10,902 with one word: Hold. Again, this report

does not reflect a finding of probable cause.

vi. In a letter dated April 12, 2012, which I received from Martha

Coffman, General Counsel of the Office of Judicial

Administration, she states the following on page 5, paragraph

5: (Exhibit XX; Hazlett complaint)

14

vii. Ms. Coffman, speaking on behalf of Disciplinary

Administrator Stanton A. Hazlett, confirmed that the Beezley

committee only met five times to discuss the Umbehr

complaint (10,902), and that there are no other reports other

than the five which she provided to me in response to a KORA

request. Of the five reports which Ms. Coffman provided, only

two reflect activity of the committee during 2010, and neither

of those two reports record a finding of probable cause.

viii. In order for the Anstaett committee to dismiss the allegations

that Mr. Hazlett made false statements of material fact when he

informed my attorney, John Ambrosio, that there had been a

finding of probable cause in my case, Mr. Collister would have

had to produce evidence in the form of a written document or

sworn statements from the members of the Beezley committee

attesting to a specific date, and a specific meeting, at a specific

location when the committee members allegedly found by

majority vote that there was probable cause to believe that I

had violated the KRPC.

ix. If Mr. Collister did not present the members of the Anstaett

committee with written documentation or sworn testimony

from the members of the Beezley committee stating with

specificity that there had indeed been a finding of probable

cause by majority vote on a date certain in 2010, then it would

constitute an abuse of discretion for the Anstaett committee to

dismiss the complaint against Mr. Hazlett based on unverified

information contained in a confidential investigative report

from Mr. Collister which referenced facts not in evidence,

documents which could not be produced or examined – or

even proven to have ever existed – and/or conclusions drawn

which had no factual support in the form of written documents

or sworn testimony.

15

In conclusion, according to Supreme Court Rule 52(c), the Anstaett committee was

prohibited from considering any statements, summaries from informal discussions, conversations

or interviews, off-the-record comments, unsworn letters, memorandums, or affidavits. Anything

other than sworn statements from key witnesses in this matter, fails to comply with the

requirements of Supreme Court Rule 52(c).

This procedural defect in the Anstaett committee’s decision to dismiss the formal

complaint against Mr. Hazlett has created an erroneous outcome in the Hazlett complaint.

4. Ed Collister’s investigation did not pass the thoroughness test.

Mr. Collister’s refusal to interview me, the Complainant, at any time during the course of

his investigation into the 12-count, 52-exhibit, 193-page ethics complaint which I filed against

Stanton Hazlett, constitutes a fatal error in his investigative strategies and was prejudicial to my

complaint.

a. Mr. Collister’s decision not to interview me is an indication of his unwillingness to

conduct a fair and unbiased inquiry into the allegations contained in my complaint

against Mr. Hazlett.

b. By failing to interview me, Mr. Collister denied me the opportunity to make sworn

statements on the record which would have provided the Anstaett committee

members with valuable input and additional information which may have shed light

on the matter at hand, and impacted the conclusions ultimately drawn.

c. By refusing to grant me equal access/opportunity to offer my personal input into the

investigative process, Mr. Collister has demonstrated his obvious bias and proven that

his investigation was incomplete, one-sided, and lacked the requisite thoroughness

expected from a special prosecutor appointed by the Kansas Supreme Court.

d. Mr. Collister’s handling of this investigation calls into question his competency as set

forth in Rule 1.1 of the KRPC.

i. To illustrate the atypical nature of Mr. Collister’s decision not to

interview the Complainant as part of his investigation, I would like to

point out that in a recent 10-sentence, unsigned email complaint that

was filed against me – not by a client, but by the friend of a former

client – regarding a case that had been concluded three years

previously, the special prosecutor assigned to investigate that

complaint indicated that he “engaged in a lengthy interview” with the

Complainant regarding her claims. (The complaint was ultimately

dismissed.)

ii. The Complainant who submitted this 10-sentence, unsigned email, was

in fact interviewed and consequently received more investigatory time

and attention from the special prosecutor assigned to investigate her

allegations, than I received from Mr. Collister when he investigated

my signed, 12-count, 193-page complaint, complete with 52 exhibits.

iii. In spite of the fact that the person who filed this 10-sentence complaint

did not provide any supporting documentation to substantiate the

allegations leveled against me, the special prosecutor interviewed the

16

complainant “at length” nonetheless. In contrast, Mr. Collister never

interviewed me – or my attorney, Robert A. Van Kirk.

e. In addition, Mr. Collister refused to provide me with a copy of Mr. Hazlett’s response

to the 12-count complaint, despite my specific, written request dated October 8, 2012,

and sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. An excerpt of my letter to Mr.

Collister follows below:

i. As referenced in the excerpted letter to Mr. Collister above, Mr.

Hazlett sent me a letter dated October 23, 2009, notifying me that

Charles Simmons from the Kansas Department of Corrections had

filed an ethics complaint against me. In that same letter, Mr. Hazlett

informed me that my response to the complaint would be provided to

the Complainant, Mr. Simmons. (See Exhibit D in Hazlett complaint,

and excerpt of Mr. Hazlett’s letter below.)

ii. Not only did the Complainant, Mr. Simmons, receive a copy of both of

my bound responses to the complaint which he filed against me, but he

was also granted the opportunity to offer rebuttals and submit counter-

responses to my answer.

iii. The following letter dated February 23, 2010, from SI Terry Morgan,

investigator with the Disciplinary Administrator’s Office, outlines a

list of all the responses his office received from Mr. Simmons:

17

iv. The above letter clearly shows that Mr. Simmons submitted four

separate supplemental responses after the initial filing of a formal

complaint. In his letter to Mr. Hazlett dated November 16, 2009, Mr.

Simmons provided a 3-page rebuttal to my initial response to the

ethics complaint he filed against me. The following is an excerpt of

Mr. Simmons’s letter regarding his submission of a counter-response:

18

v. If Mr. Simmons was provided with a copy of my written responses to

the complaint which he filed against me, and was afforded the

opportunity to submit a written rebuttal to the same, there is no

justification for why Mr. Collister refused to extend the same courtesy

to me. In other words, Mr. Collister failed to follow the same

investigatory protocols which Mr. Hazlett adopted during his handling

of the complaint filed against me by Mr. Simmons.

vi. I allege that it is wholly inequitable for Mr. Collister to deny me the

same open access to information, namely, a copy of Mr. Hazlett’s

response. In addition, it is equally unfair that the complainant who

filed an ethics complaint against me was given the opportunity to offer

a rebuttal to my response, however, Mr. Collister has denied me the

same opportunity to offer a rebuttal to Mr. Hazlett’s response.

vii. Additionally, it is worth noting that when the ethics complaint was

filed against then Justice Lawton Nuss, his response to the complaint

was initially released to the public and posted on the kscourts.org web

site at: http://www.kscourts.org/nussanswer.pdf. A link to the

response was also posted on the Lawrence Journal-World web site at:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jun/16/unprecedented_hearing_s

et_justice/

The fact that Mr. Collister failed to interview me or my attorney, or provide a copy of Mr. Hazlett’s

response and grant me the opportunity to offer a rebuttal, provides undeniable evidence that a

double standard has been applied in this case.

In summary, Mr. Collister was entrusted with the weighty responsibility of investigating a high-

ranking government official accused of serious ethical misconduct. However, Mr. Collister’s

handling of the Hazlett complaint demonstrates a clear bias and purposeful departure from standard

investigatory protocols typically employed by – and expected of – a special prosecutor appointed

by the Kansas Supreme Court.

In conclusion, as a result of Mr. Collister’s calculated decision to conduct a one-sided

investigation, the Anstaett committee members were denied access to pertinent information that

would have provided clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hazlett had indeed made false

statements of material fact about a finding of probable cause prior to any formal decision by a

majority vote of the Beezley Review Committee regarding the Umbehr case. Mr. Collister’s

failure to conduct a thorough and balanced investigation created an inaccurate and fraudulent

portrayal of Mr. Hazlett’s actions, thereby producing a final outcome which was unsupported by

any factual evidence or any sworn testimony.

5. It was an abuse of discretion for the Anstaett Committee to disregard

uncontroverted, direct evidence contained in the record.

The Anstaett Committee’s decision to dismiss the ethics complaint filed against Disciplinary

Administrator Stanton A. Hazlett, was based primarily on their finding of the following fact:

19

“Allegations of false statements by Hazlett are not supported. He proceeded in good faith

based on actions of the KBDA review committee.”

This finding of fact from the Anstaett Review Committee has three parts:

1) The allegations of false statements by Hazlett (contained in the 193-page, 12-count

complaint with 52 exhibits) were “not supported”;

2) Mr. Hazlett proceeded in “good faith”;

3) Mr. Hazlett relied upon certain “actions” of the KBDA Review Committee.

This finding of fact by the Anstaett committee contradicts the following documents, the majority

of which were contained in the record and included as exhibits with the formal complaint filed

against Stanton A. Hazlett on May 23, 2012:

a. The five Review committee reports from the Beezley committee relating to

Case No. DA 10,902 – none of which reflect a finding of probable cause in the

Umbehr case:

i. Beezley Review Committee Report for June 24, 2010:

“Discussion – Stan Hazlett” (Exhibit XX – Attachment 5)

ii. Beezley Review Committee Report for July 30, 2010:

“Hold” (Exhibit XX – Attachment 6)

iii. Beezley Review Committee Report for April 22, 2011:

“Hold – pending new submission from Respondent – will

reconsider” (Exhibit XX – Attachment 7)

iv. Beezley Review Committee Report for August 2, 2011:

“Hold” (Exhibit XX – Attachment 8)

v. Beezley Review Committee Report for October 24, 2011:

“Letter of Caution - if doesn’t accept, institute formal

charges” (Exhibit XX – Attachment 9)

In Martha Coffman’s letter dated April 12, 2012, she unequivocally confirms that the Disciplinary

Administrator has no other documents or reports produced by a Review Committee member

relating to Case No. DA10,902. (Exhibit XX; Hazlett complaint)

Secondly, in a letter dated December 14, 2011, from Stanton Hazlett to my attorney, Robert A.

Van Kirk, Mr. Hazlett states the following in relevant part:

“When the Review Committee meets, there is discussion amongst the

members and then a decision is made. That decision is memorialized by the

Chair of the Review Committee, Sara Beezley. There is not a transcript of the

meeting and there are no notes made by the committee’s members. In this case,

the Review Committee’s decision would have been a report to our office . . . .”

(Exhibit HH; Hazlett complaint) [Emphasis added]

20

With this letter, Mr. Hazlett confirms that actions of the committee are memorialized by the Chair

of the Review Committee, Sara Beezley, and that there are no other notes or transcripts which

record the actions of the Review Committee.

Thirdly, Martha Coffman makes the following statement on Page 5, Paragraph 5 of her letter dated

April 12, 2012: “The Report of the Review Committee is the only document that memorializes

decisions made by the Review Committee during its meeting on October 21, 2011.” (Exhibit XX)

Lastly, the Internal Operating Rules of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, Rule B.7.,

states: “A record reflecting each action of the Review Committee shall be prepared by the Chair

and distributed to the Review Committee members and the Disciplinary Administrator.” [Emphasis

added]

Therefore, in light of the fact that each action of the Review Committee must be recorded by the

Chair pursuant to Rule B.7., and none of the five Review Committee reports outlined above

recorded a finding of probable cause, coupled with the letters received from Mr. Hazlett and Ms.

Coffman, confirming that there are no other reports, notes or transcripts produced by any Review

Committee member memorializing the actions taken by the Beezley committee relating to Case

No. DA10,902, it is without question that Ed Collister did not produce a single written document

or report to the Anstaett committee which could be interpreted as evidence that the Beezley

committee made a finding of probable cause by majority vote on a specific date, at a specific

meeting in the Umbehr case. And, the reason why Mr. Collister did not produce a single document

or report showing that the Beezley committee found probable cause by majority vote in the Umbehr

case is because the Beezley committee never found probable cause by majority vote in the Umbehr

case – at any point in time during the 2-year long investigation. Ed Collister could not identify a

date or produce a record for an event which never actually occurred. Additionally, this would

explain why Mr. Collister was unable to produce any sworn statements from any member of the

Beezley Review Committee attesting to a finding of probable cause by a majority vote in the

Umbehr case.

Bear in mind, according to Rule 210(c), Mr. Hazlett could not proceed to a panel hearing – as he

threatened to do in his letter to my attorney dated January 12, 2011, (See Exhibit R) – unless the

Beezley committee made a formal finding of probable cause by majority vote. This threat was a

false statement of material fact made for the purpose of coercing me into accepting a diversion.

The Anstaett committee was without factual basis for dismissing the allegations against Mr.

Hazlett based on supposed “actions” of the Beezley Review committee for which there is no

specific date, no actual document evidencing the meeting time or location, or a recording of a

finding of probable cause by majority vote – even though Rule B.7., requires that every action be

recorded in the form of a written report. In addition, Mr. Collister did not provide the Anstaett

committee with any sworn statements from any member of the Beezley committee stating that they

found probable cause in my case by majority vote.

In conclusion, there were no other actions taken by the Beezley Review Committee other than

those documented in the five Review Committee reports. Therefore, the claim made by the

Anstaett committee that Mr. Hazlett operated in “good faith” based on “actions” of the Beezley

21

committee, is not supported by any documented evidence in the record. The records listed above

clearly prove that the Beezley committee never made a finding of probable cause by majority vote

at any time during the pendency of the Umbehr complaint.

b. Letter dated April 3, 2012, which I received from Ms. Beezley stating that the

Review Committee did not review my case DA10,902 until April of 2011, (after

Mr. Hazlett had informed my attorneys that the Beezley Committee had already

made a finding of probable cause), and that the matter was held until the

October, 2011, Review Committee meeting, at which time the committee

dismissed the complaint.

22

It is worth noting that nowhere in the above letter, wherein Ms. Beezley recounts the history of the

Umbehr case, does she mention a finding of probable cause. By Sara Beezley’s own admission,

the Review Committee did not review my case until April of 2011. This letter constitutes direct

and indisputable evidence that the Beezley committee could not have found probable cause by

majority vote at any time in 2010, because they didn’t even review the case for a determination

until April of 2011 – at which time they held it until October of 2011 when it was ultimately

dismissed.

Therefore, statements made by Mr. Hazlett in letters he sent to my attorneys dated January 12,

2011 (Exhibit R), and March 17, 2011 (Exhibit W), claiming that the Review Committee had

already made a finding of probable cause, combined with his threats to “prepare a formal

complaint” and “set the matter for hearing”, were blatantly false and clearly pre-date the Review

Committee’s meeting in April of 2011, when they reviewed my case for the first time.

In conclusion, the Anstaett committee’s determination that the Beezley committee made a finding

of probable cause (which became the basis for the dismissal), is not supported by any factual

documentation, and is contradicted by overwhelming direct evidence contained in the Hazlett

complaint. The truth of the matter is that if the Anstaett committee was attempting to exonerate

Mr. Hazlett from the allegation that he made false statements to my attorneys in letters dated

January 12 and March 17, 2011, then they would have to establish that the reported finding of

probable cause occurred prior to the date of Mr. Hazlett’s first letter, January 12, 2011. Mr.

Collister would have had to provide the Anstaett Review Committee with a document from the

Beezley Committee showing a finding of probable cause by majority vote in 2010, or, in the

alternative, sworn testimony from a member of the Beezley committee testifying to the same. Mr.

Collister did not produce or present any such evidence to the Anstaett committee. Therefore, the

Anstaett committee’s conclusion that the Beezley committee made a finding of probable cause is

wholly without support or factual basis. This constitutes an abuse of discretion by the Anstaett

committee.

c. Letter from Martha Coffman, General Counsel of OJA, dated April 12, 2012,

Pg. 2, Par. 1, (Exhibit XX; Hazlett complaint) excerpted below:

23

In this letter, Ms. Coffman makes the following statements regarding the Beezley committee’s

findings in the Umbehr case:

i. The Review Committee directed Mr. Hazlett to send a “letter

of caution.”

ii. The letter of caution stated that the Review Committee did not

find a violation of the Kansas Rules of Profession Conduct

regarding the complaint made against me.

iii. Formal charges could not be implemented after the Review

Committee decided that I did not violate the KRPC.

iv. The Review Committee gave notice it found no probable cause

to support the complaint against me.

v. The complaint was dismissed.

vi. No complaint proceeding is pending.

d. Letter dated Letter dated April 13, 2011, from Mr. Hazlett to the members of

the Beezley committee referencing, for the first time, his submission of the 204

report, after he had informed Mr. Umbehr’s attorneys in letters dated January

12 and March 17, 2011, that the Beezley Committee had already made a finding

of probable cause. (Exhibit Y; Hazlett complaint)

i. “In the report to the Review Committee of the Kansas Board of

Discipline of Attorneys required by Supreme Court Rule 204, the

Disciplinary Administrator shall contain a recommendation for

or against diversion”. (SC Rule 203(d)(1)(iii))

ii. It would be impossible for the Beezley Committee to have made

a finding of probable cause by majority vote prior to the April

22, 2011, meeting of the Review Committee when they

reviewed Mr. Hazlett’s 204 Report and the Umbehr case for the

first time.

iii. “The Review Committee members shall review all materials

forwarded by the Disciplinary Administrator and the

Respondent when considering the suitability of the complaint

and the Respondent for eligibility under the Attorney Diversion

Program”. (SC Rule 203 (d)(1)(iv))

iv. Again, it would be impossible for the Beezley Committee to

have made a finding of probable cause by majority vote prior to

reviewing all materials forwarded by the Disciplinary

Administrator and the Respondent. According to Ms. Beezley’s

letter dated April 3, 2012, the Review Committee did not review

my case until their meeting in April of 2011, which was after

Mr. Hazlett made statements to my attorneys in letters dated

January 12 and March 17, 2011, stating that the Review

Committee had already made a finding of probable cause.

v. When I asked Mr. Hazlett for a copy of the 204 Report from my

case during a face-to-face meeting at the Disciplinary

24

Administrator’s Office on Mach 9, 2012, his response was:

“You’ll never get a copy of that report.”

vi. If the members of the Anstaett committee would review a copy

of Mr. Hazlett’s 204 Report in the Umbehr case they will

discover that the date on the letter proves that he did not prepare

or present the 204 Report until after he made statements to my

attorney in letters dated January 12 and March 17, 2011, that the

Review Committee had “already made a finding of probable

cause”.

e. On March 9, 2012, during a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Hazlett at the

Disciplinary Administrator’s Office, he admitted to me that he had reviewed

my file the previous week and discovered that there had not been a finding of

probable cause. He stated “I made a mistake!” (See Count IX; Hazlett

Complaint)

i. Mr. Hazlett verbally admitted that there had not been a finding

of probable cause in my case.

ii. This verbal admission directly contradicts the Anstaett

committee’s finding that the Beezley committee found probable

cause.

f. Martha Coffman, General Counsel for the Office of Judicial Administration,

states the following in her letter to me dated April 12, 2012, Page 5, Paragraph

4: (See Exhibit XX; Hazlett complaint)

The above excerpt from Ms. Coffman’s letter includes the following references about the

incorrect statements made by Mr. Hazlett regarding a finding of probable cause:

i. References Mr. Hazlett’s letter to Mr. Simmons that “corrects a

statement” made in the November 4, 2011, letter that “a finding

of probable cause was made” regarding the complaint against

me.

ii. References Mr. Hazlett’s March 14, 2012, email to me wherein

he advised that he would send a letter to Mr. Simmons

“correcting this incorrect statement”.

iii. References the March 15, 2012, letter from Mr. Hazlett to Mr.

Simmons wherein he “makes this correction.”

25

Here we have the General Counsel for the Office of Judicial Administration, Martha Coffman,

describing in great detail the various steps Mr. Hazlett has taken to “correct” his false statement of

material fact that “a finding of probable cause was made” regarding the complaint against me. Ms.

Coffman refers to Mr. Hazlett’s previous claim that there had been a finding of probable cause as

an “incorrect statement”. This description directly contradicts the Anstaett committee’s findings

that the Beezley committee had made a finding of probable cause and Mr. Hazlett had simply

“erroneously” admitted this mistake.

g. An email dated March 14, 2012, from Mr. Hazlett wherein he acknowledged

that he had informed the Complainant, Mr. Simmons in a previous letter that

there “had been a finding of probable cause that was later rescinded”. Mr.

Hazlett stated that it was his “honest belief” at the time, and he intended to wrote

to Mr. Simmons and explain that “there was not.” (See Exhibit VV; Hazlett

complaint and email below)

From: Stan Hazlett [mailto:Hazletts@kscourts.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:10 AM

To: KeenUmbehr Subject: RE: materials

Keen. In reviewing this request I looked at the letter to Simmons. I saw that I told him that there was a finding of probable cause which was later rescinded. Again, that was my honest belief at the time. I intend to write to Mr. Simmons and explain to him that there was not. I believe that you have a right to expect that. Stan

i. Mr. Hazlett admitted to me in this email that his previous

statement to Mr. Simmons that there had been a finding of

probable cause in my case was incorrect.

ii. Mr. Hazlett informed me that he would be correcting this

statement in a letter to Mr. Simmons and stated that I had a right

to expect a copy.

iii. This email admitting that there was not probable cause in my

case directly contradicts the Anstaett committee’s finding that

the Beezley committee did in fact find probable cause.

h. Letter dated March 15, 2012, from Mr. Hazlett to Charles Simmons admitting

that his previous statement to Mr. Simmons in his letter dated November 4,

2011, that there had been a finding of probable cause was incorrect. (See letter

below; Exhibit WW; Hazlett complaint)

26

This letter contains several very detailed references concerning Mr. Hazlett’s false

statements of material fact contained in his November 4, 2011, correspondence to Mr.

Simmons regarding a finding of probable cause by the Beezley committee:

27

i. “There is a misstatement in that letter.”

ii. “I indicated to you that the Kansas Review Committee, at one

point in time, had determined there was probable cause to

believe that Mr. Umbehr had violated the Kansas Rules of

Professional Conduct.”

iii. “That was not correct.”

iv. “. . . I was wrong.”

v. “I am sending this letter to you in fairness to Mr. Umbehr.”

vi. “I found out last week that there had not been a finding of

probable cause.” [Emphasis added]

vii. “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.”

The Anstaett committee’s determination that the Beezley committee had made a finding of

probable cause by majority vote collides dramatically with the aforementioned statements made

by Mr. Hazlett himself in his letter to the Complainant wherein he clearly admits that there had

not been a finding of probable cause.

Yet, the Anstaett committee’s report states that Mr. Hazlett “erroneously” admitted a mistake; this

assertion is without a scintilla of factual support. Mr. Hazlett’s repeated admissions are not merely

a “slip of the tongue”, but rather a concentrated effort to correct the record and retract his previous

false statement about a finding of probable cause in the Umbehr case.

i. Letter dated May 31, 2012, from Mr. Hazlett to my attorney, Robert A. Van

Kirk, admitting that he was wrong about his previous statement that the

committee had made a finding of probable cause, and apologizing for the error.

(See Addendum to the Formal Complaint against Stanton A. Hazlett, and

excerpt below.)

28

This mea culpa from Mr. Hazlett to my attorney, Robert Van Kirk, is just another example of the

profound and convincing evidence contained in the record proving that there was never a finding

of probable cause in my case. This evidence is in direct conflict with findings of fact and

conclusions drawn by the members of the Anstaett committee.

When Mr. Hazlett himself has unequivocally admitted to me, my attorney and the Complainant

that there was never a finding of probable cause in the Umbehr case – and has even issued a written

apology to my attorney for that “misstatement” – it provides indisputable proof that the Anstaett

committee ignored direct evidence of Mr. Hazlett’s repeated made false statements of material fact

regarding a finding of probable cause, thereby making their decision to dismiss the complaint a

clear and flagrant abuse of discretion.

6. Ed Collister, along with the three members of the Anstaett committee, failed to

declare a conflict of interest and recuse themselves from the Hazlett investigation

a. Ed Collister received $35,000 for payment of fees for work done for the

Commission on Judicial Qualifications from Stan Hazlett/Office of

Disciplinary Administrator in the year preceding the investigation (FY 2011-

2012).

i. The following is an excerpt of the annual budget letter which

Mr. Hazlett sent to Chief Justice Nuss dated January 12, 2012,

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 205(a) describing the $35,000

payment to Ed Collister:

ii. I first raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest in a letter

to Mr. Collister dated July 20, 2012, an excerpt of which follows

below:

29

iii. Mr. Collister never responded to my letter personally. However,

on August 9, 2011, I received a letter from Carol Green, Clerk

of the Courts, stating: “. . . there is no conflict of interest.”

b. Special Prosecutor Ed Collister, Review Committee Chair Nancy Anstaett, and

Review Committee members J. Patrick Brazil and Mikel Stout, were all named

co-defendants – along with the Respondent, Stan Hazlett, and others – in a six-

year long legal battle (Kansas Judicial Watch et al v. Stout), which was resolved

by a Federal District Court Order requiring the defendants to pay the plaintiffs

$164,000 (Civil Action No. 06-4056-JAR), just prior to Mr. Collister’s

appointment as special prosecutor, and the appointment of the three members

of the Anstaett committee.

i. I raised the issue of this conflict of interest again in a letter to

Mr. Collister dated October 8, 2012, and sent by certified mail,

an excerpt of which follows below:

In this same October 8, 2012, letter to Mr. Collister, I included the following excerpt from State

v. Logan, 236 Kan.79,86,689, P.2d 778 (1984):

“The standard which federal courts use is whether the charge of lack of

impartiality is grounded on facts that would create reasonable doubt concerning

the judge’s impartiality, not in the mind of the judge himself, or even, necessarily,

in the mind of the litigant filing the motion, but rather in the mind of a reasonable

person with knowledge of all the circumstances.”

30

ii. Mr. Collister never responded to my letter dated October 8,

2012.

iii. I then sent another letter to Mr. Collister by certified mail on

December 10, 2012, (and copied to Chief Justice Nuss), and

I concluded that letter with the following statement: “I

hereby formally renew my request for your recusal as

special prosecutor. If you elect not to recuse yourself from

this matter, then please provide me with a written

explanation for why you do not believe that you have a

conflict of interest which would require your recusal.”

iv. Once again, Mr. Collister declined to respond to my

concerns.

v. On February 1, 2013, the Review Committee handed down

their decision to dismiss the Hazlett complaint.

Supreme Court Rule 204(e) states in part:

“A board member may not take part in a proceeding in which a judge

similarly situated would be required to abstain.”

The Rules Relating to Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.11, Disqualification, under (A) states:

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the

judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . . .”

Mr. Collister and all three members of the Anstaett committee had a bona fide conflict of interest

due to being professional colleagues of Mr. Hazlett for years and all being employed in various

capacities by the Kansas Judiciary, as well as being co-defendants in a lawsuit that lasted six years

and ended after the United States Supreme Court denied their request for a rehearing and an Order

of Judgment was issued against them for $164,000.

I maintain that an individual with knowledge of the facts and circumstances would reasonably

question the impartiality of Special Prosecutor Ed Collister and the three members of the Anstaett

Review Committee.

Finally, by utilizing the Kansas Open Records Act, I have attempted to ascertain the source of the

funds for the $164,000 judgment against the co-defendants in the Stout case. If it is eventually

proven that the funds to pay this monetary judgment on behalf of the co-defendants (approximately

twenty individuals in all), came from the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, of which the

Respondent, Stanton A. Hazlett is the Chief, then the conflict of interest for Special Prosecutor,

Ed Collister and the three members of the Anstaett Review Committee would become even more

glaring and significant.

31

CONCLUSION

On February 1, 2013, the Review Committee consisting of Nancy S. Anstaett, J. Patrick Brazil,

and Mikel L. Stout, dismissed the 12-count ethics complaint I filed on May 23, 2012, against

Kansas Disciplinary Administrator Stanton A. Hazlett.

In their decision, the Anstaett committee determined that the allegations that Mr. Hazlett made

false statements of material fact were not supported by any documentation contained in the 193-

page complaint, and 52 attached exhibits. This determination was based solely on the

unsubstantiated premise that the Beezley committee found probable cause at some point in time in

the Umbehr case, DA10,902.

However, the Anstaett committee could not produce a single document or any sworn testimony

identifying the date of the alleged finding of probable cause, the location of said meeting, or

information regarding whether the vote was by majority or unanimous. Moreover, the Anstaett

committee did not produce a Review Committee report documenting the alleged finding of

probable cause by the Beezley Committee – despite the fact that Rule B.7., requires that every

action of the committee be recorded by the Chair and distributed to the Disciplinary administrator

and the members of the Review Committee. There is no evidence, therefore, that any record of the

alleged probable cause finding was ever produced or distributed by the Beezley committee during

the pendency of the Umbehr complaint.

In addition, the Anstaett committee was well aware that Supreme Court Rule 52(c) required that

all witness interviews be conducted as sworn statements and recorded. However, Mr. Collister,

while reportedly taking sworn statements, did not obtain sworn statements from any member of

the Beezley committee specifically stating that they had found probable cause by majority vote in

the Umbehr case, as required by Rule 210(c). It’s also interesting to note that Mr. Collister refused

to interview me or my attorney, Robert Van Kirk, thereby denying us the opportunity to provide

input from our side of the issue.

Without a document or sworn statement specifically testifying to a finding of probable cause by

majority vote of the Beezley committee, the Anstaett committee lacked any factual basis that would

support the dismissal of the complaint against Stan Hazlett. Consequently, the decision of the

Anstaett committee should be deemed defective, and be remanded for reconsideration, because it

is an abuse of discretion for the Anstaett committee to base their dismissal of the complaint against

Stan Hazlett on facts not in evidence.

Furthermore, in order to dismiss the complaint against their longtime colleague and fellow co-

defendant, Mr. Hazlett, the Anstaett committee had to intentionally disregard actual documentation

contained in the record. This documentation included the five Review Committee reports,

statements made by Martha Coffman, and descriptive letters of confession from Stan Hazlett

himself, including a written apology to my attorney, Robert Van Kirk, for making a misstatement

regarding the finding of probable cause. I maintain that it is an abuse of discretion for the Anstaett

committee to dismiss the complaint against Stan Hazlett based on a theory that the Beezley

committee found probable cause in the Umbehr case, when that theory is clearly contradicted by

multiple sources of irrefutable documentation contained within the record.

32

Said another way, it is a blatant abuse of discretion for the Anstaett committee to give superior

evidentiary weight to unproduced, non-existent documents, while at the same time giving

absolutely no evidentiary weight to documents and reports which clearly substantiated the

allegations that Stan Hazlett made false statements of material fact regarding a finding of probable

cause in the Umbehr case.

No legitimate tribunal would ever accept a proposition or a finding of fact which could not be

supported by sworn statements or actual written documents. Likewise, no legitimate tribunal

would ignore actual evidence which was available for inspection and determinative of the issue at

hand.

The Anstaett committee’s unsupported finding that the Beezley committee found probable cause

in the Umbehr case – the basis for their decision to dismiss the complaint against Stan Hazlett –

stretches credulity to its breaking point and beyond. This decision extinguishes any flicker of

integrity remaining in the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator’s Office, a judicial branch agency so

imbedded in corruption that it can no longer be trusted by reasonably-minded attorneys.

To allow the current system of jurisprudence within the Disciplinary Administrator’s Office to

continue unabated will only serve to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice

in Kansas.

I appeal to those honest jurists on the Kansas Supreme Court who value truth and justice above all

else, and I implore you to intervene in this matter. For the reasons stated above, therefore, I pray

that the decision of the Anstaett committee be set aside and the matter be reconsidered in its

entirety, de novo.

Respectfully submitted,

Keen A. Umbehr, SC #22047

P.O. Box 482

Alma, Kansas 66401

(785) 765.2626 (office) / (785) 765.2627 (fax)

Keen@keenjustice.com

Enclosure: Review Committee Report dated February 1, 2013

Copy: Carol G. Green

Chief Justice Lawton Nuss; Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court

Edward G. Collister, Jr., Nancy S. Anstaett, Hon. J. Patrick Brazil, Mikel L. Stout

Sara S. Beezley, Robert I. Guenthner, William B. Swearer

Steven R. Fabert, Martha J. Coffman, Ron Keefover, Mark L. Bennett, Jr.

Robert A. Van Kirk

Date: April 24, 2013

33

34

35

36

37