BACKGROUND: (From a previous post): "Much of the disciplinary hearing centered on Stanley’s handling of the case against Morphew, who she charged with murder in 2021, a year after his wife, Suzanne Morphew, 49, disappeared from the family’s Chaffee County home on May 10, 2020. State regulators accused Stanley of making inappropriate comments to members of the media and on a YouTube true-crime show about Morphew’s case. The disciplinary board found that her appearance on the online show “Profiling Evil” was unfair to Morphew in part because her comments that she “stared him down… ‘every chance (she) got'” during his preliminary hearing. Stanley also posted extensive comments on the YouTube video, using her own name and a photo of herself. The disciplinary board found many of the comments “demeaned or personally attacked” other commenters. She claimed during her disciplinary hearing that those comments were made in a personal capacity, not in a professional capacity as elected district attorney.Stanley also texted the YouTuber about evidence in the Morphew case, telling him at one point that prosecutors believed Morphew strangled his wife and that it couldn’t have been in the family’s hot tub, which appeared to have been in a state of disuse. “We know it wasn’t bloody,” she texted him in 2021."
https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/8207350773624359271
------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "9NEWS wanted to ask Stanley why she used money from her office budget to pay her legal bills. Her lawyer, who she is paying using that taxpayer money, said he has advised Stanley not to talk with 9NEWS since the last time she did interviews it in part led to her being disbarred."
----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Colorado DA used taxpayer money from her office to fund failed legal defense for ethics violations," News 9 (Reporter Marc Sallinger) reports.
SUB-HEADING: "A branch of the Colorado Supreme Court took Stanley's law license away last week. Now she may have to repay $53,000.
GIST: "When 11th Judicial District Attorney Linda Stanley was disbarred by a branch of the Colorado Supreme Court last week, she may have lost more than just her law license.
Stanley paid tens of thousands of dollars in legal defense fees using taxpayer money. If she had won her case or if the charges were dismissed, that may not have been a problem. Since she did not, one of the counties that funds her office with taxpayer money wants the money back.
The checks total more than $50,000, all written from the same checkbook belonging to the Office of the District Attorney of the 11th Judicial District.
“May fees,” “April Attorney” and “February Legal Fees” the checks read.
The taxpayer money from the office budget all went to a lawyer, Steve Jensen, representing DA Linda Stanley in her legal battle over ethics violations.
Stanley brought murder charges against Barry Morphew in 2021 after his wife Suzanne went missing outside Salida.
Her handling of the case and others eventually led to her losing her law license last week after a trial in front of a branch of the Colorado Supreme Court.
She was accused, among other things, of launching a secret investigation into the judge overseeing the Morphew case and making inappropriate comments to the media about cases she was prosecuting.
Because of that Office of Presiding Disciplinary Judge ruling, Fremont County commissioners are now seeking repayment of up to $53,000 of taxpayer money that Stanley spent on her legal defense.
"What was spent and from what source since we sent the attached letter in June is what we are still attempting to discover," Fremont County Commissioner Kevin Grantham wrote in a statement to 9NEWS. "Our investigation is ongoing, and the County intends to recover any legal fees improperly paid from moneys appropriated for the District Attorney’s budget from Ms. Stanley."
In June, Fremont County Commissioners sent a letter to Stanley warning her about using taxpayer money to fund her legal defense.
"In reviewing expenditures from your office during your term, it appears that you have been paying legal fees incurred by you and other members of your staff for the defense of alleged ethical violations from your office budget," the letter states.
"Legal fees arising from violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct are not costs 'necessarily incurred in the discharge of official duties for the benefit of the County' and cannot lawfully be paid from funds appropriated by the County for the operation of your office."
If she won the ethics case, Fremont County Commissioners said she could have requested to have the county pay the legal fees.
"If a professional discipline case results in dismissal or a finding of no professional misconduct, you are welcome and encouraged to submit a request for reimbursement or approval of legal fees paid in its defense," the letter states.
Since she lost, commissioners said they “intend to recover all misappropriated funds” from Linda Stanley.
9NEWS wanted to ask Stanley why she used money from her office budget to pay her legal bills.
Her lawyer, who she is paying using that taxpayer money, said he has advised Stanley not to talk with 9NEWS since the last time she did interviews it in part led to her being disbarred.
Jensen said she will appeal the ruling, and she is evaluating whether or not she will resign as district attorney.
"All attorney regulation litigation with respect to DA Stanley arose from matters that she was handling in her capacity as District Attorney and were conducted exclusively as part of her role as District Attorney," Jensen wrote in a statement to 9NEWS. "No alleged ethics violation arose from any matter that occurred in her private life. It was legally appropriate for DA Stanley to pay her attorney fees relating to defense of conduct arising from her prosecution of criminal matters on behalf of the People of the 11th Judicial District out of her office budget. If the county commissioners for the counties in her judicial District do not agree with that decision, they are free to take action with respect to future budget allocations."
Jensen described the matter of her paying the legal fees as a “complex and unsettled legal issue.” He said that since she was found to have only violated certain parts of the ethics complaints, some of the legal bills should be paid for by her office budget.
"Regardless of the contested majority opinion in favor of disbarment, DA Stanley would arguably be entitled to legal fees based on the matters that were successfully found in her favor," Jensen wrote. "Additionally, the defense was to one complaint involving multiple allegations, so it would be very difficult to parcel out on what issues she would be entitled to reimbursement of attorney fees."
County Commissioners are still investigating exactly how much taxpayers will be on the hook for."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
- SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
