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.
- 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.
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.