Opinion ID: 2550875
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Subjected to Retaliation Against His Witnesses

Text: Respondent alleges specific instances in which witnesses he named to support him in this proceeding were retaliated against. Respondent states that a few days after he named Frank Williams as a witness in support of Stan Hazlett's pattern and practice, the State sought to seize [Mr. Williams'] stock in satisfaction of a long dormant judgment. Respondent also argues that [s]everal natural parents were prepared to testify against a number of attorneys involved in the alleged adoption/kidnapping conspiracy, but that the Disciplinary Administrator dismissed the complaints against the attorneys. At Respondent's request, the panel reviewed confidential records of possible disciplinary complaints against four attorneys representing adoptive parents in camera. The panel concluded that any complaints that existed were not relevant and that they would fail to establish a connection between those attorneys' treatment by the Disciplinary Administrator's office and any alleged conspiracy. Respondent also pointed to several affidavits alleging retaliation by Topeka city officials and Topeka police. The record is otherwise totally devoid of facts to support the argument that Respondent's due process rights were violated by retaliatory actions taken against his witnesses. The affidavits were submitted in connection with the Bolden Litigation. No connection is established between those affidavits and Respondent's due process rights in this hearing.