OLR’s Investigation (or OLR’s Non-Investigation) into Atty. Michael Crooks’ Client, Robert Krenz

OLR attempted to prevent Sellen and Tibbetts from being forced to testify.  OLR staff attorney Julie Scott-Falk asserted that OLR had “already thoroughly investigated allegations of misconduct, as it relates to Humphrey’s actions during the Raisbeck trial.”  (See Attachment #39)  And, based upon this assertion, OLR claimed that Sommers should be prohibited from deposing anyone in regard to the specifics of the OLR investigation.  This would be one of the few battles OLR would lose, and Sommers was permitted to put both Tibbetts and Sellen under oath.

Under oath, Atty. Tibbetts asserted that she felt her business relationship with Robert Krenz did not affect her impartiality.  She testified that she investigated whether Krenz committed perjury on behalf of Humphrey. (See Attachment #40)

However, a problem arose for OLR when they were unable to produce a scintilla of evidence substantiating that Atty. Tibbetts had taken a single step into investigating whether Krenz had committed perjury.  OLR then reversed course and now OLR staff attorney Julie Scott-Falk asserted in court that, “The Office of Lawyer Regulation has not investigated or initiated an investigation as to whether Expert Robert Krenz committed perjury.” (See Attachment #41)

This led to Atty. Tibbetts repudiating under oath her prior testimony under oath, and now claiming that she never investigated whether Krenz committed perjury, and that her prior testimony to the contrary was due to a court reporter error. (See Attachment #42)

The problem with Atty. Tibbetts’ new testimony was that when she prior testified that she had investigated whether Krenz committed perjury, she gave numerous answers (taking up pages and pages of transcript) consistent with her claim that there had been an investigation; while conversely, she had given no answers consistent with her latter claim that no investigation had taken place.  Atty. Tibbetts had little to worry about, because it would be decided that the transcripts related to the hearings would be treated as if they did not exist.

« PreviousNext »