• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
P R E S S R E L E A S E
 For Immediate ReleaseJuly 21, 2009 - 1:00 PMContact - Ryan Kriegshauser - 816-256-3181
Van Meteren to Seek Damages from Ethics Commission
 
Topeka -
Caleb Stegall, lead attorney for Topeka businessman, Kris Van Meteren, faxed aformal demand letter
[see following 4 pages]
to the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commissionyesterday. The letter is Van Meteren’s formal request to be reimbursed by the Commission forout-of-pocket costs incurred when he was forced to defend himself against a complaint filed byCommission staff. That complaint alleged that he had illegally spoken to two reporters about aseparate complaint he had filed last September against Senator Dwayne Umbarger (R-Thayer).The complaint filed against Van Meteren, which ultimately resulted in the Commission fininghim $7,500, was the first and only such complaint to be filed against a private citizen under anobscure 1974 law. Throughout the complaint and hearing process, Van Meteren continued toassert that speaking publicly about his complaint against Umbarger amounted to constitutionallyprotected free political speech. The Commission refused to accept Van Meteren’s defense anddismissed the case law cited by Van Meteren’s legal team.Only after Van Meteren filed an appeal in Shawnee County District Court did the EthicsCommission seek to determine if his claims of constitutional protection had merit. KansasAttorney General Steve Six was retained by the Commission for the appeals process. Shortlyafter taking the case, Six advised the Commission that they had acted illegally and had, in fact,violated Van Meteren’s right to free speech. As a result, the Commission was forced to reverseitself, vacating the order and fine that it had levied against Van Meteren.This letter is Van Meteren’s attempt to seek reimbursement for the legal expenses he incurredwhile defending himself against the Commission’s unconstitutional actions. It spells out some of the egregious actions of the Commission that led to their order being overturned.Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser, who represented Van Meteren during the hearing process, willaddress the Commission at 1:00 PM tomorrow, July 22, 2009, regarding the details of thisdemand letter. He is expected to expand on the damaging aspects of the Commission’s decision.Members of the press and public with an interest in free speech are encouraged to attend.The meeting will be held in the Board of Agriculture Hearing Room on the 4th Floor of the MillsBuilding located at 109 SW 9th Street in downtown Topeka (one floor down from the EthicsCommission office).###
 
Caleb Stegall Robert A. Fox
PRINCIPAL OF COUNSEL
785.597.5777 • Fax: 785.597.5766 504 Plaza Drive • Perry, KS 66073cs@steglaw.com • www.steglaw.com
July 20, 2009Sabrina Standifer
VIA FAX & HAND DELIVERY (785) 296-2548
Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission109 SW 9th, Suite 504Topeka, KS 66612
 Re: Kris Van Meteren
Dear Ms. Standifer & Commissioners:Please consider this letter as my client Kris Van Meteren’s formal demand forpayment from the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission to compensate him foractual damages suffered at the Commission’s hands for its unconstitutional and illegalprosecution of him in Complaint No. 424. This letter is addressed directly to theCommissioners at the behest and with the permission of Commission counsel JudyMoler, who is copied on this correspondence.The facts of this matter are as follows. On September 15, 2008, Mr. Van Meterenfiled a complaint against Senator Dwayne Umbarger with the Kansas GovernmentalEthics Commission. While the Commission appeared uninterested in the clear errors inSenator Umbarger’s campaign finance reports (errors which were serendipitouslydiscovered and remedied by Senator Umbarger immediately after they were initiallybrought to the Commission staff’s attention), the Commission was anxious to prosecutemy client for exercising his First Amendment rights to freely discuss this matter of clearpublic policy implication with the press.The Commission filed its own complaint against Mr. Van Meteren (ComplaintNo. 424) on October 22, 2008, accusing him of speaking to the press and alleging thatsuch speech was criminal in nature.
See Findings of Fact 
, ¶ 8 (Feb. 18, 2009). Mr. VanMeteren never attempted to hide the fact that he had discussed this matter with the press.In fact, Mr. Van Meteren positively asserted his First Amendment rights to do so. TheCommission brushed aside such constitutional rights and pursued its prosecution withvigor, going so far as to harass members of the press and obtain sworn statements fromreporters.Mr. Van Meteren was forced to retain counsel who subsequently filed a Motion toDismiss and argued it before the Commission. The Motion to Dismiss clearly set forththe governing law in this matter: “There is little to no argument that confidentiality
 
Caleb Stegall Robert A. Fox
PRINCIPAL OF COUNSEL
785.597.5777 • Fax: 785.597.5766 504 Plaza Drive • Perry, KS 66073cs@steglaw.com • www.steglaw.com
provisions of this sort are content-based restrictions on free speech. … Content-basedrestrictions are presumptively invalid.”
See
Motion to Dismiss at 3. Moreover, theMotion to Dismiss provided to the Commission the recent 10
th
Circuit Court of Appealscase of 
Guttman v. Widman
which clearly held that any restriction or penalty theCommission sought to impose upon Mr. Van Meteren’s speech would beunconstitutional.At oral argument on Mr. Van Meteren’s motion, the Commission was openlydisdainful of the constitutional protections afforded free speech. This inexplicabledisdain was carried over to the Commission’s subsequent Order. In its Order of February18, 2009, the Commission held that Mr. Van Meteren’s political speech was illegal andsubjected him to a civil fine imposed of $7,500 and, as Ms. Williams made certain tomention to Mr. Carpenter of the
Topeka Capital Journal
, possible criminal sanction aswell. The Commission entered this finding with nary a backwards glace at theConstitution or what is perhaps its most cherished right—the right to free politicalspeech. This alone represents a staggering display of hubris on the part of theCommission.The Commission justified its decision by reference to one case—and did notdiscuss a single other case on this most important of rights—
 Nichols v. KansasGovernmental Ethics Commission
. This case did not even deal with the issue before theCommission, but rather with the propriety of sealing a record.As a result of this decision, Mr. Van Meteren was forced to expend furtherresources to file his judicial appeal of the Commission’s blatantly unconstitutional order.That appeal was filed, and in response,
apparently for the first time
, the Commissionsought representation by the Kansas Attorney General. This fact, too, demonstrates thecavalier attitude and arrogance with which the Commission had, to this point, handledthis matter. In spite of the claims by Mr. Van Meteren and his legal counsel from theearliest days of this case that his right to free speech was in danger of being infringed andin spite of the fact that the Commission announced that it was taking the extraordinarystep of allowing itself an extra month to consider his claims, apparently at no time in thefive months leading up to the issuance of the order fining Mr. Van Meteren did theCommission seek to determine, either from the Attorney General or any otherconstitutional authority, whether his claims of constitutional protection had merit. This isappalling, especially in light of the fact that a majority of the Commissioners areattorneys.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...