My Cart

Close

GO. FIGHT. WIN.

KKKobach 2 Kanasas Supreme Court Ethics Complaints 3 of 5

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on June 04 2018

 

Kobach running for KS Governor & AZ SB1070, found here 

Kobach onerous anti-immigration bills, cost 6 towns millions, here

Kobach Contempt of Court, twice, found here 

 

Kris Kobach a hero?

HARDLY.

More like a sanctioned villian who

shouldn’t be allowed to practice law.

Full STOP



Most know that when you become an attorney, you take an oath. In Kansas the oath is pursuant to Rule 702, which reads in part:

 

‘You do solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and bear true allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Kansas; that you will neither delay nor deny the rights of any person through malice, for lucre, or from any unworthy desire; that you will not knowingly foster or promote, or give your assent to any fraudulent, groundless or unjust suit; that you will neither do, nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court; and that you will discharge your duties as an attorney and counselor of the Supreme Court and all other courts of the State of Kansas with fidelity both to the Court and to your cause, and to the best of your knowledge and ability. So help you God.”

 

You can read the whole oath via the Kansas Supreme Court website, here 

In 2014 the Kansas Supreme Court ORDERED Kobach to fulfil this obligations regarding his position as Secretary of State. And once again Kobach’s late filing. 

You can read the Kansas Supreme Court 2014 Order & 10 -page Opinion, here 

 

In June of 2017 a Federal Judge found Kris Kobach in Contempt and the Judge excoriated him. In the Order & Opinion:

 

‘The court agrees that the defendant's deceptive conduct and lack of candor warrant the imposition of sanctions," U.S. Magistrate Judge James O'Hara wrote in his ruling.

 

Also in June of 2017 Keri Strahler, 47, of Topeka, submitted an Ethics Complaint to the Kansas Supreme Court against Kobach, his conduct and $1,000 sanction, in late July of 2017 the local paper Topeka Capital Journal published the following article, confirming Ms Strahler’s Ethics Complaint. The which reads in part:

 

...said she received a letter over the weekend that says allegations she made against Kobach “will be investigated” and that an investigator would be in contact with her. Strahler said Monday that she has not yet heard from anyone at the court since receiving the letter Saturday....

You can read the Topeka Capital Journal Article, here

 

But back to the June 2017 sanctions against Kobach, yes predictablly Kobach appealed and had his hat handed to him. Full Stop.

Judge O’Hara reminded Secretary Kobach that in his capacity as counsel of record in this case, he is “an officer of the Court with a duty of candor and a duty not to assert frivolous arguments.”

Judge O’Hara ordered Defendant to produce the two documents at issue and left it to Plaintiffs “to decide whether to seek sanctions against defendant.”

Judge O’Hara would not go so far as to say the Defendant “flat-out lied in representing the content of the disputed documents,” but did find that his justifications for these statements were based on “thinly parsing the wording plaintiffs allegedly used.” He found that “it would have been obvious to any reasonable attorney” that the document request would encompass the documents at issue.

 

See Judge Robinson’s July 25, 2017 Order & Memorandum, here 

In November of 2017 CREW filed a complaint with the Department of Justice when it was discovered that Kris Kobach had written numerous articles and was “moonlighting”  for Briebart “news” as in Kobach was and IS on Briebart’s payroll. You can read CREW’s Complaint to the DOJ, here.

There are several sound and reasonable arguments to be made regarding Kris Kobach violated his ethical duty and oath as an “Officer of the Court”, for example if you read the Kansas Canons:

Because he was repeatedly chastised by the judge for running afoul of evidentiary rules during the trial, Kobach violated the rule requiring attorneys to “provide competent representation to a client. One could also argue that Kobach violated rule 1.1, found here

1.1 Competence

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

 

Kobach continued to miss filing deadlines, as detailed in numerous cases. There’s no wiggle room here. Kobach did in fact Rule 1.3, see comments [1] [2] [3], found here

1.3 Client-Lawyer Relationship: Diligence

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

...A lawyer should act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf. However, a lawyer is not bound to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client...

 

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson found before the trial that Kobach had made “patently misleading representations to the court,” Kobach violated the rule prohibiting attorneys from knowingly making false statements to the court. One could and should argue that Kobach violated Rule 3.3 (a)(1), found here.

3.3 Advocate: Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;
(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or
(3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.
(b) A lawyer may act as an advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9.

Because Kobach played both roles by 1) acting as an attorney and 2) serving as a fact witness. It’s cut and dry case that Kobach DID violate rules governing this potential conflict of interest. Which bars attorneys from acting as advocates at a trial in which they themselves are witnesses. It’s a clear conflict and most ethical attorneys take Rules seriously

 

3.7 Advocate: Lawyer as Witness,  Found Here.

(a) A lawyer shall not act as an advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness except where:

1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or 3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.

(b) A lawyer may act as an advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9.

 

 

 

In April of 2018 Kris Kobach was hit with yet another Ethics Complaint filed by J. Whitfield Larrabee. Link to April Ethics Complaint can be found, here.

 Simply put this isn’t a one off. Kris Kobach has a long standing history of breaking the very basic rules of the Court and in violation of the Oath he took when he became an officer of the Court. It’s a fact Kobach has lied, mislead, missed filing deadlines and engage in subterfuge...which has repeatedly frustrated both State and Federal Judges.

Yet people in Kanasas still support him? This is WHO Kobach is, he’s anti-immigration, Anti-Rules, and he thinks he’s above the law yet he’s cost tax payers millions of dollars in dozens of lawsuit. Why on earth would you vote for him? Oh wait MAGA  that’s why 

 

While you're here, throw us a bone.

Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.

Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.

DONATE