Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Set up to fail or Over her Head
Linda Stanley Dist. Attorney
Dear Editor,
If I said that I was a police officer for several years and I learned my values, to include honesty, from my father who was a farmer and a Marine, would this influence your opinion of me in a positive way? This is how the Republican nominee for District Attorney, Linda Stanley, describes herself. These are lies. She and I are siblings. I know the facts. Our father was not a farmer, he was an accountant and later worked in IT. He hated his two years in service and neither identified as a Marine nor did this influence our upbringing in any way. She was an officer for a very short time and fails to include her actual time on her site for a reason. I haven’t space to detail all the lies.
Ms. Stanley was sanctioned by the Colorado Bar Association in 2019 for making repeat, obvious errors, errors no qualified attorney should make. (Please see 18PDJ058, People v. Linda Stanley.) She lacks the experience necessary to lead this office. Her site lists nothing about any innovations, cases of merit, positions on issues, leadership skills or recommendations from anyone who has worked with her, not a single thing that would make her eligible for this position.
Many are voting a straight ticket this year. I implore you to not make this choice when it comes to the DA. “Prosecution should never be political,” is one of Ms. Stanley’s taglines. In this one instance, we agree. Show her the door. The citizens of the 11th Judicial District deserve better.
Sandra Fisher
Linda Stanley Dist. Attorney was she was set up to fail before she even started?
Despite Linda Stanley’s own sister writing a letter persuading voters not to vote for her, Stanley went on to become the District Attorney in the 11th Judicial District of Colorado. However, since her sister’s warning, Stanley has been accused of violating rules of professional conduct for attorneys, including violating mandatory evidence disclosures to defense attorneys and attempting to investigate a sitting judge without criminal evidence backing it up. Stanley’s investigation of the judge was prompted by his decision to throw out domestic violence evidence in Suzanne’s case. Given that Suzanne’s name appears on Colorado’s domestic abuse victims list, the evidence should have been allowed. The judge’s decision to exclude the evidence raises questions about his impartiality and integrity. Stanley’s attempt to investigate the judge may have been unfounded, but it is understandable given the circumstances. It is important for all legal professionals to uphold the highest standards of ethics and professionalism, and to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially. Since the issues she has faced after the Morphew case Stanley has announced that she will not seek re-election in 2024.