The 'Ville Voice header image 1

Judge Katie King Has Apparently Done It Again

July 25th, 2012 by admin · 24 Comments

Has the woman no filter when it comes to conflict or the appearance of impropriety? Because the latest seems like a hot mess in the making.

She’s currently got a defendant in her court who was arrested for allegedly trafficking more than five pounds of marijuana. And she knows this person – Mitch Brown – socially, to say the least. We can find no evidence that she has disclosed their connection. And she hasn’t recused herself as she is compelled to do by the state code of judicial conduct.

We believe ties are greater than a mere connection (cough) but they can’t be proved at this point because Katie and her father are really good at making things go away.

The specifics:

  • Case 12-F-006382
  • Charged on June 1, 2012
  • Arraigned on June 29, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. in King’s court, room HJ302
  • Preliminary Hearing held on July 16, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. in King’s court, room HJ302
  • Another Preliminary Hearing is scheduled for July 30, same court, same time, same room

Here’s a photo of Katie with Mitch:


To prove that’s him on the far right, here’s an image from his public Facebook profile:


Things get a lot more interesting. Check these two images from his public timeline:



Seems pretty clear to us that there is a very real, very personal relationship between the two and Judge King is violating the law. It’s both unfair to the taxpayer and unfair to Mitch Brown, as there doesn’t appear to be a snowball’s chance in hell that the woman can be impartial in this case.

A little birdie tells us that the Judicial Conduct Commission has been letting the complaints stack up. There’s no doubt a new complaint will be filed by some angry wingnut before the week is over.

In fairness, we do like Katie and think she’s been a decent judge. Just. But this issue illustrates a larger problem and it’s our opinion that she no longer needs to be a judge.

UPDATE: You can read what Scott Cox has to say here. He says there was no reason for her to recuse herself and that he merely appeared in her court for arraignment and, well, you can read the rest. Katie had ample time to respond and offer comment prior to publication but she chose not to do so.

This isn’t the first time a close connection of Katie’s has appeared before her and caused controversy and it certainly won’t be the last. What’s unfortunate for both her and her father – who has tried unsuccessfully in the past to buy favors for his daughter (yes, we can prove that and not just with us) – is that we won’t be backing down. We will be watching her every move.

UPDATE 2: Now A Kentucky Newspaper reporter is saying they’re going to report that Jake erroneously reported that Katie didn’t disclose her relationship… despite it being clear at the top of this very story that he didn’t write it.

Sure, I could have done more research and gotten the audio recordings but get real. Like I said when I wrote this, I couldn’t find evidence that she made it clear that she had a relationship with this guy. Nothing erroneous about that. If A Kentucky Newspaper wants a fight over Katie King and her daddy, they ought to think twice. As anyone with two cents worth of intelligence can surmise, Jake has dirt on both Jim and Katie that would seriously damage them.

UPDATE FROM JAKE: Andy Wolfson did contact me. As I said to him off the record at the time:

By “you” I’m assuming you mean The ‘Ville Voice, as I didn’t write it…? Or are you assuming I wrote it? Because even when I’m at work, I personally can’t write everything for two websites while running a business.

Reporting that I erroneously reported anything would be inaccurate on your part.

The individual who wrote it contacted Katie at her private email address and via cell phone – both provided by me – and she didn’t respond. She had two days (I think) to do so.

I suggest you re-read what they wrote and what I wrote in response to Scott Cox. I’m assuming (I’m not at work this week – and haven’t been for a couple weeks) they didn’t have the knowledge that she disclosed their personal relationship, as that’s what they told me.

You can see at the top of the post that I didn’t write it. Otherwise I would have slapped my name across the top as the author, as I always do.

Here’s what Andy Woflson said to me after that:

Our story will report that the ‘Ville Voice erroneously reported that King failed to disclose her connection to the defendant. Thanks. Andy Wolfson

But if Andy Wolfson and his bitter employer want to pick a fight? They can fucking bring it.

Because: 1) I didn’t write the story. 2) Nothing was erroneously reported, as anyone with a brain can see. They said they couldn’t find the evidence that she’d disclosed the relationship. Wouldn’t that mean their research abilities were sub-par? Or would that mean they purposefully and erroneously made some shit up? 3) I’d love nothing more than to have another piece of meat to throw at them for dishonestly reporting.

Here’s reality: If I wanted to write something about Katie King or her dad? You know I most certainly could. It’s no secret that I sit on a mountain of material. An absolute mountain. I may just do that.

Here’s a teaser: Jim King tried to buy me off during the mayoral race. A campaign staffer and personal friend disclosed to me that Jim was upset that I wouldn’t write positive stories about Katie after his bank had advertised with us in the past and he was trying to do the same in the mayoral race. His wife, Debbie, also expressed the same to me. I’d be happy to dig those emails and notes up along with the rest of Jim’s bullshit.

Another teaser: There’s email evidence that Jim King paid Clarence Yancy and others in cash to do under the table campaign work.

P.S. Looks like your local newspaper is once again about to give The ‘Ville Voice free publicity. Even if it’s a non-issue about an insignificant judge with a ton of ethical issues.

Jake

UPDATE (not from Jake):

Here are some comments just left that deserve more widespread readership:

keatssycamore // Jul 25, 2012 at 3:32 pm

Mr. Cox writes, “Because Mr. Brown’s case will be either waived to the grand jury or resolved in the rocket docket.”

So here’s my question for Mr. Cox:

Who signs off on the decision to waive it to the grand jury or send it to the rocket docket? Wouldn’t that be a substantive decision made by the Judge?

If I’m wrong and the prosecutor’s office gets to decide without the presiding judge’s okay, then perhaps that’s something you should have made clear in your comment. If not, then please correct your comment.

datass // Jul 25, 2012 at 4:00 pm

And let discuss the propriety of a defense attorney publicly defending the honor of a judge he is arguing a case before. The Cox family knows about corruption and political payback.

lateshiftatthezoo // Jul 25, 2012 at 4:03 pm

^ that in itself has stink written all over it.

Tags: Jim King · Judges · Legal · Scandal

24 responses so far ↓

  • 1 G'town Reader // Jul 25, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    The implication that only a “wingnut” will be moved to complain does a huge disservice to offended NON-wingnuts.

  • 2 G'town Gullible // Jul 25, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    I.E., a wingnut will file a complaint and taint everything, making it further impossible to hold Daddy’s Girl accountable.

  • 3 thistownneedsanenema // Jul 25, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    Well this expalins what Jim does with his time. He must be fixing everything Katie is doing because he sure has hell hasn’t done one damn thing about LMAS,LMEMS,PARKS, Shanky

  • 4 Turtle Head // Jul 25, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Jim King is busy trying to make the Barbara Shanklin thing go away so all the walls don’t come crumbling down.

  • 5 Scott C. Cox // Jul 25, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    I am the attorney for Mr. Brown in the matter you referenced above. We appeared in front of Judge King for arraignment where she disclosed, on the record, that she was friends with Mr. Brown. Because Mr. Brown’s case will be either waived to the grand jury or resolved in the rocket docket there was no reason for Judge King to recuse.
    When we appeared for the pretrial there were no rocket docket (assistant commmonwealth’s attorneys) available so we continued the case one last time. Again, the Judge’s connection to Mr. Brown was disclosed on the record and the fact that she would never make any substantive rulings on the case was made clear.
    Please correct your report.

  • 6 jake // Jul 25, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Then don’t you think Katie should have given a comment clearing things up?

    And why was she calling around asking her pals what could happen if she didn’t disclose?

    I’ll include your comment in the main story but I stand by what my people published. To their knowledge, she had not disclosed.

    And why wouldn’t there be a reason to recuse herself the second she saw the guy’s name? Because she sure knew it wasn’t okay or she wouldn’t have been asking others for guidance.

  • 7 keatssycamore // Jul 25, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Mr. Cox writes, “Because Mr. Brown’s case will be either waived to the grand jury or resolved in the rocket docket.”

    So here’s my question for Mr. Cox:

    Who signs off on the decision to waive it to the grand jury or send it to the rocket docket? Wouldn’t that be a substantive decision made by the Judge?

    If I’m wrong and the prosecutor’s office gets to decide without the presiding judge’s okay, then perhaps that’s something you should have made clear in your comment. If not, then please correct your comment.

  • 8 lateshiftatthezoo // Jul 25, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    There is one fact in this case that is correct. Katie is friends with someone who had in his possession more than 5 lbs of marijuana.

  • 9 datass // Jul 25, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    And let discuss the propriety of a defense attorney publicly defending the honor of a judge he is arguing a case before. The Cox family knows about corruption and political payback.

  • 10 lateshiftatthezoo // Jul 25, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    ^ that in itself has stink written all over it.

  • 11 chief // Jul 25, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    Peeeeeeeeeee-U!

  • 12 chief // Jul 25, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Stinks!…..I know , but what does a small town judge do when he knows Everybody in town!….I mean Katie gets around, and she knows lots of people?

  • 13 thistownneedsanenema // Jul 25, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Speaking of King, I hear, lateshiftatthezoo, that more folks are leaving the zoo? Katie King needs to grow up.

  • 14 shamefulthewaytheytreatpeople // Jul 25, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Everybody knows Jake has been sitting on dirt for a long time and I hope to god he starts talking! He has been too nice about not attacking them personally.

    I may be mistaken or talking out of turn but I think he has been under the weather or taking time off. He needs to come back and hammer on the King Kabal like they deserve.

    Jim King is a bully and has tried to buy everything for Katie and he has never had to answer to anybody.

    Everybody knows all of his staff and friends ahve quit his city council office for a reason.

    Thank god for the ville voice

  • 15 Anon // Jul 25, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    You should do a better cover up on the faces of those not associated with the story. It is pubic record what goes on in the courts and there are public Facebook profiles you can look at but this website should not bring it front and center to its readers.

    I can’t help but recall school yard bullies when I read the updates from Jake. Threatening to reveal a mountain of material that would seriously damage them is reflective of a bully says he is going to kick you ass. Just as in college a guy who talks about how much pussy he gets likely never gets pussy, he is just all talk.

  • 16 jake // Jul 25, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Try me.

    Your anonymous concern trolling gets you nowhere with me.

    Longtime readers know I don’t take on something I can’t win or produce.

  • 17 Jared K // Jul 25, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    Jim King is a bully. Want proof? Go to the Metro Council website and check out the video from the 2nd to last appropriations committee meeting where he gets all hot and bothered with the african american county attorney. Watching it – I could tell he was trying to intimidate the poor guy who was just trying to do his job.

  • 18 Anon // Jul 25, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    Not trying to troll you Jake, but you really should cover the other children’s faces in your screen shots. The others deserve their anonymity too. Reddit users have more respect than what you are showing.

  • 19 jake // Jul 25, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    FOR THE RECORD: I’m sick and commenting out of frustration.

    There are no children who don’t have their faces blurred. The only child has their face blacked out. Your concern is bullshit.

    That aside… who the living fuck cares?

    And for anyone who suggests I’m a bully? Maybe you forgot the bullshit defamation I faced last year where people did things like spread photos of my deceased mother. You’ll recall that I won a MONSTER SETTLEMENT and the Democrats responsible for it are STILL in my vice grip because of the crap they pulled.

    I don’t take bullying lightly. But I dare a motherfucker to try me because I’m at a point where I don’t care about partisan politics. I will burn bridges. I won’t take bullshit.

    And there’s a specific kind of bullshit I detest the most: that of the Courier-Journal when it tries to silence a critic and that of Jim King.

    I’m tired of it and I won’t take it.

  • 20 Anon // Jul 25, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    Take a closer look to the wall post screenshot smartass, those are children and I am sure their family cares you haven’t removed their faces or the name of the poster. They are the living fucks who care. You have faces and names of people on here who are innocent. People who have families, jobs and reputations. Go after the King family all you want but cover the faces of those kids and the other innocent people. This is obviously gaining traction and will get publicity, what you are doing is not fair to them. I am not sure of the laws but it feels morally wrong to not protect the innocent.

    Get pissed over my comments all you want, honestly I am not sure why I care so much…I don’t fucking know these people. I do believe you are so upset because someone is taking a different stance than you are your readers. I keep thinking if my son and daughter’s face was in an article about a questionable judge and a drug dealer I would be fucking pissed and I would tear your door down. I hope their parents don’t feel the same way I do. This will be my last reply, goodbye.

  • 21 jake // Jul 25, 2012 at 11:32 pm

    I couldn’t give a fuck what you think.

    Don’t want your kids on the internet? Don’t put them on the internet.

    But I have a history of protecting the innocent and to suggest otherwise without having the balls to use your name?

    Well, you’re just like Joni Jenkins and any other Democrat lately in that you’re afraid to take on your opponent and hide behind your paranoia.

    So. Blow me.

  • 22 JTT // Jul 26, 2012 at 9:50 am

    I’m still not sure she did fully disclose – what precisely did she say? I “know” a lot of people, but she actually lived with him, apparently – big difference.

  • 23 lateshiftatthezoo // Jul 26, 2012 at 10:18 am

    If Katie lived with this guy I would think that would be a real big deal.

  • 24 datass // Jul 26, 2012 at 11:56 am

    I notice the CJ didn’t follow up on their threat. . .

google

couk