|
|
Welcome to the new home of Lee's Summit Tribune. We are dedicated to providing you the most current and accurate news and events in Lee's Summit
|
|
Home
»
News
»
Lee’s Summit May Face Crime-Fraud Trial in Ted...
|
|
|
| | |
|
 | |  |
|
Lee’s Summit May Face Crime-Fraud Trial in Ted White Case
March 10, 2011
City Continues to Fight Paying Judgment
Nearing $17 Million
By Debbie Van Pelt
Ted White
Tribune Photo/Fred Poese
Ted White’s contentious battle with the City of Lee’s Summit has been going on for 13 years; and, it doesn’t appear that it will be letting up any time soon. When the case began in 1998, White was the defendant; but now it’s the city that finds itself in the hot seat.
In what resembled a cat and mouse game in the federal courthouse in downtown Kansas City this past Tuesday, March 8, U.S. District Court Judge Nanette K. Laughrey grew frustrated with attorney Joe Rebein’s reluctance to answer her questions. Rebein, an attorney with Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, is representing Lee’s Summit in its efforts to avoid paying White a $14-million compensatory damage judgment he won in 2008 against former Lee’s Summit Police Department detective Richard McKinley. With additional interest and attorney fees, the judgment now totals nearly $17 million. Although city attorney Theresa Williams was in the courtroom Tuesday, it was Rebein who argued on behalf of the city. Michael Kanovitz of Loevy & Loevy in Chicago argued for White.
Court records show White was arrested in March, 1998 on false child molestation charges by Richard McKinley, a Lee’s Summit police detective who was having an affair with White’s wife, Tina. The affair and other important evidence were withheld from White’s criminal defense team, preventing him from having a fair trial. He was convicted and sentenced to 50 years in prison. Tina White married Richard McKinley shortly after Ted’s conviction. When the evidence came to light, White was granted a new trial. The second trial resulted in a hung jury, so White had to be tried a third time.
After three trials and nearly six years in prison, White was found innocent of all charges in February of 2005; but, by then, he had lost everything he had – including his wife, his three children, luxurious Lakewood home, and thriving business. He suffered partial loss of his eyesight in a prison beating.
White’s family had also suffered great loss. His parents had mortgaged their property and business and worked so excessively to raise money for White’s defense that their health deteriorated dramatically. His father was hospitalized several times during the years White was incarcerated. White’s younger brother moved back to the family home to save money and to assist the parents; and his sister and her husband did everything they could to help out. White says he looks forward to repaying them some day.
Toward that effort, a short time after his release, White filed a $100 million lawsuit against the City of Lee’s Summit, Police Chief Kenneth Conlee, Detective Richard McKinley and Tina McKinley. Conlee and McKinley have since resigned from the police department. In exchange for the city and Conlee being released as defendants in the lawsuit, the city signed an Indemnification Agreement on August 21, 2006, promising to pay “any final judgment entered by the court in favor of White and against (Richard) McKinley for compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and court costs above and beyond any available insurance coverage to which he may be entitled.”
On August 29, 2008, the U.S. District Court returned a verdict in favor of White for $14 million in compensatory (actual) damages against Richard McKinley, plus punitive damages totaling $2 million against Richard and Tina McKinley. The punitive damages were not part of the indemnification agreement, leaving the McKinley’s personally responsible for that part of the award. According to the city’s signed agreement, Lee’s Summit taxpayers are responsible for the $14 million in actual damages, plus interest and legal fees. McKinley appealed the verdict.
On July 6, 2010, the date the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied McKinley’s appeal and affirmed the multi-million-dollar award, Mayor Randy Rhoads issued a public statement saying that despite signing the indemnification agreement promising to pay such a verdict, “paying any damages in this case would be a violation of city ordinances”. Rhoads was not Mayor at the time the agreement was signed.
Richard McKinley, who reportedly still lives in Lee’s Summit with Tina and with Ted’s children, has appealed the verdict in every court possible and lost each time – all the way to the Supreme Court. When the U.S. Supreme Court denied McKinley’s petition this past December 6, MARCIT, the city’s liability insurer, gave up the fight and paid $362,849 – the amount they consider to be their portion of the judgment.
The city, however, continues to fight - in an effort to protect Lee’s Summit taxpayers from having to pay McKinley’s huge bill. Interest charges pile up at the rate of approximately $6,000 every week the case goes unsettled. Attorney fees continue to mount at the average rate of $400 per hour per attorney. Brian McCallister, one of White’s attorneys, presented the city with a settlement offer of $15.6 million in December; but, that offer was withdrawn when the city chose not to accept it by January 28.
White’s attorneys have been trying to find out why the city and MARCIT, its liability insurer at the time, would have signed the indemnification agreement in August, 2006 promising to pay, if there was a city ordinance in place prohibiting them from honoring their commitment. However, city officials and attorney Joe Rebein have refused to answer that question and many others. When questioned, city officials and Rebein keep citing “attorney-client privilege” as their reason for not providing answers.
In court Tuesday, Kanovitz read from some meeting minutes that seemed to indicate city officials were aware the ordinance existed, but signed the indemnification agreement anyway. White’s attorneys want to know more about what was discussed in those meetings to determine if the city acted in a fraudulent manner or if they made a grave error when signing the agreement. McCallister filed a motion in U.S. District Court on September 16, 2010 seeking to overrule the city’s attorney-client privilege, which would allow White’s law team to obtain information they need to resolve the case.
Ordinarily, information shared between attorneys and clients is extremely privileged (private). However, when an attorney’s services are used to enable or aid someone to commit a crime or fraud, that privilege may be taken away by the court in what is called a crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.
Judge Laughrey is faced with deciding whether a crime-fraud hearing will be necessary to determine if a fraud was committed or a mistake was made when the city signed the agreement to pay in spite of the existing ordinance which says they can’t pay. She has already ordered Rebein to submit many documents for her personal review.
Laughrey asked Kanovitz what his goal is, and he said, “Our goal is enforcement of the judgment or to get our cause of action and, unfortunately, have another trial.”
Rebein told Laughrey that he knows the plaintiff, Ted White, wants to enforce the judgment. He added, “When the judgment became final, the mayor announced to the community that the city can’t pay the judgment; but, that’s just a mayor’s opinion. Ultimately, the court will have to rule.”
Rebein stated that there was a copy of the ordinance at the council meeting when the agreement was discussed. Laughrey queried, “Why did they think they could indemnify in view of the ordinance?” Rebein replied, “ I don’t think I have that answer.” She continued to press. “Is it the position of the city that a mistake made by the council was the result of advice by their attorney?” Rebein replied, “I can’t go that far.”
Judge Laughrey, getting frustrated, said, “If we have to have a crime-fraud trial and take this case apart piece by piece, we will do that. I’m trying to determine a fair way to figure out what’s going on. If I get stonewalled when I try to find out what the city’s position is on this case, that suggests to me . . . I think you can figure out what that suggests to me.”
The attorneys were given five days to search for additional legal authority and to submit to the court their opinions as to how a crime-fraud hearing would progress and what the format would be. Their documents are due back to Judge Laughrey on Monday, March 14.
Joe Rebein refused to talk to the media after the hearing; but Ted White was happy to talk. White said, “I’m looking forward to a crime-fraud hearing. They either signed that agreement in good faith or in bad faith. We’re going to find out the truth. We’ve got a judgment and a contract with the city; but they keep throwing up road blocks. I’m glad we have a fair judge who will find the truth.”
| |
 | |  |
| | |
|
Other Recent Articles from the News Category:
| |
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee's Summit Tribune web site article was picked up by www.oldhouseweb.com
|
|
|
One of two things must be true -
1. Your city council was either unaware of the ordinance or misunderstood it.
2. It knew exactly what the ordinance meant, but assumed White would lose or win a much smaller amount in court; or if the judgment was substantial, a legal footing would be in place that would either absolve the city or drag the whole thing through the courts until White gave up.
In other words, they were either massively incompetent or appallingly dishonest.
And if it was deliberate malfeasance, it was poorly planned. Why did they dismiss the worst-case scenario so easily? Did the city council, its insurers, and its lawyers at the time really think "but we can't, it violates city ordinance" would get them off the hook? Didn't they realize how it would make them look, and what it would do to their credibility? And that it would cause the whole thing to be dragged out over time, costing them more in the long run? Did they really think White and his lawyers would just give up? I certainly wouldn't if what happened to Mr. White happened to me. This sort of stupidity is no better than failing to understand city ordinances in the first place.
I know it's unfair to those who voted for other candidates and to those who didn't live in the area when the agreement was signed, and I know the vast majority of Lee's Summit residents at the time are not directly responsible for what happened, but this is going to cost you. And it will cost you even more if this keeps getting dragged out. If I were you, I'd be pressuring the current city council to honor the city's agreement and press criminal charges against those responsible for it.
I'd also be asking why criminal charges were never brought against the people responsible for what happened to Mr. White.
sincerely,
concerned citizen