The Criminal, Not the Court, Calls the Tune
August 28, 2009
Press play to listen
Last week I wrote about the case of Kimberly Knight. She’s the treasurer who pleaded guilty to embezzling almost a million dollars from the Ann Arbor Amateur Hockey Association. Knight effectively wiped out the organization’s savings – including its scholarship fund, its down payment for a new rink, even its operating budget. And now the Association is fighting for its very existence.
For most crimes, there are shades of gray, and two sides to the story. Not this time. On one side you have an all-volunteer organization that’s helped 20,000 kids play hockey since 1951.
On the other side you have a corrupt treasurer who methodically emptied almost a million dollars from the pockets of those kids who paid to play hockey. She pulled this off over a two-year period – hardly a spontaneous act. Then she gorged herself on diamond earrings, Escalades and expensive trips.
Knight claims she’s already paid back almost a quarter million. The Association says she hasn’t paid back a cent. Hm. Whom do you believe?
Before Knight’s sentencing, the probation department recommended she pay back $160,000 immediately, to keep the league afloat. Judge Melinda Morris agreed, but Knight asked for two more weeks to get the money together. Judge Morris said, Sure.
On Monday, Knight asked the judge if $75,000 – less than half of what the Judge had asked for upfront -- would be enough. Judge Morris said, Sure. But Knight still hasn’t paid a dime of even that amount, because she’s still “waiting for checks to clear.” I’m sure we can safely assume the checks are in the mail.
Am I the only one who gets the feeling the criminal is calling the tune here?
The rest of the sentence wasn’t much tougher. Instead of prison -- or even work release or house arrest -- Knight got parole. Instead of paying back all the money, she needs to write a check for only $1500 every month. At that rate, with a meager 2.5 percent interest and no inflation, she will send in her last check when she’s 116 years old. Let’s hope she’s not a smoker.
The rationale for this is simple: if they put Knight behind bars, she can’t pay the money back. But given Morris’s sentence, she’s not going to anyway.
Which brings us to a central problem with embezzlement cases in general – and this one in particular. The old joke goes, if you owe the bank ten thousand dollars, they’ve got you. But if you owe the bank ten million dollars, you’ve got them. Apparently, the more you steal, the more power you have, the softer you can make your sentence.
You don’t have to be vengeful to expect more. It’s a question of whom are we looking out for: the criminal, or the kids? Since Knight became treasurer in 1999, enrollment has dropped dramatically from 1200 players to just 500 now. The scholarship program is history, as is the league’s “learn to play” programs. The kids who used to get the most help, now get the most hurt.
Another judge in town takes a different approach. Tired of deadbeat dads not paying their child support, he decided to call their bluff and put them in jail, every time, until they paid. It was amazing how quickly they all seemed to find the money they owed their kids. Problem solved.
Something tells me it’s pretty hard to burn through a million bucks with nothing to show for it. And if Judge Morris had the backbone to put Knight in jail, I bet you’d see Ms. Knight cutting a rather large check by lunch.
In coddling the criminal, Judge Morris sold out the kids. Which is a shame, because it’s from hockey kids learn things like fair play and honor.
Obviously, Kimberly Knight never learned those lessons. Thanks to Judge Morris, she’ll never have to.
But the kids will – the hard way.
Copyright © 2009, Michigan Radio
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/johnubacon
Press play to listen
Download | Duration: 00:03:17
Last week I wrote about the case of Kimberly Knight. She’s the treasurer who pleaded guilty to embezzling almost a million dollars from the Ann Arbor Amateur Hockey Association. Knight effectively wiped out the organization’s savings – including its scholarship fund, its down payment for a new rink, even its operating budget. And now the Association is fighting for its very existence.
For most crimes, there are shades of gray, and two sides to the story. Not this time. On one side you have an all-volunteer organization that’s helped 20,000 kids play hockey since 1951.
On the other side you have a corrupt treasurer who methodically emptied almost a million dollars from the pockets of those kids who paid to play hockey. She pulled this off over a two-year period – hardly a spontaneous act. Then she gorged herself on diamond earrings, Escalades and expensive trips.
Knight claims she’s already paid back almost a quarter million. The Association says she hasn’t paid back a cent. Hm. Whom do you believe?
Before Knight’s sentencing, the probation department recommended she pay back $160,000 immediately, to keep the league afloat. Judge Melinda Morris agreed, but Knight asked for two more weeks to get the money together. Judge Morris said, Sure.
On Monday, Knight asked the judge if $75,000 – less than half of what the Judge had asked for upfront -- would be enough. Judge Morris said, Sure. But Knight still hasn’t paid a dime of even that amount, because she’s still “waiting for checks to clear.” I’m sure we can safely assume the checks are in the mail.
Am I the only one who gets the feeling the criminal is calling the tune here?
The rest of the sentence wasn’t much tougher. Instead of prison -- or even work release or house arrest -- Knight got parole. Instead of paying back all the money, she needs to write a check for only $1500 every month. At that rate, with a meager 2.5 percent interest and no inflation, she will send in her last check when she’s 116 years old. Let’s hope she’s not a smoker.
The rationale for this is simple: if they put Knight behind bars, she can’t pay the money back. But given Morris’s sentence, she’s not going to anyway.
Which brings us to a central problem with embezzlement cases in general – and this one in particular. The old joke goes, if you owe the bank ten thousand dollars, they’ve got you. But if you owe the bank ten million dollars, you’ve got them. Apparently, the more you steal, the more power you have, the softer you can make your sentence.
You don’t have to be vengeful to expect more. It’s a question of whom are we looking out for: the criminal, or the kids? Since Knight became treasurer in 1999, enrollment has dropped dramatically from 1200 players to just 500 now. The scholarship program is history, as is the league’s “learn to play” programs. The kids who used to get the most help, now get the most hurt.
Another judge in town takes a different approach. Tired of deadbeat dads not paying their child support, he decided to call their bluff and put them in jail, every time, until they paid. It was amazing how quickly they all seemed to find the money they owed their kids. Problem solved.
Something tells me it’s pretty hard to burn through a million bucks with nothing to show for it. And if Judge Morris had the backbone to put Knight in jail, I bet you’d see Ms. Knight cutting a rather large check by lunch.
In coddling the criminal, Judge Morris sold out the kids. Which is a shame, because it’s from hockey kids learn things like fair play and honor.
Obviously, Kimberly Knight never learned those lessons. Thanks to Judge Morris, she’ll never have to.
But the kids will – the hard way.
Copyright © 2009, Michigan Radio
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/johnubacon
Thanks for the update - What a shame! Shame on the Judge! The kids deserve better! WE deserve better judges!
Reply to this
How incredibly sad - Judge Morris and Ms. Knight should BOTH be ashamed of themselves!
Reply to this
John:
Thanks for the update, albeit not the outcome those of us with a conscious were hoping for.
Among the many issues that are upsetting regarding the actions (or lack of) from Judge Morris is an intangible one that concerns me. It is the lesson learned from the children, which indicates it is wrong to steal but the consequences are not too bad if you happen to get caught. If only one of the children read into the actions of the judge in this manner it will be one too many. I agree with you, this was an opportunity to clearly make a point that this is wrong and the penalty should equal the crime.
The return this crook got on her investment far exceeds what any legal investment will provide. The $75,000 the judge accepted is a paltry sum given the amount taken. I can assure you that although she has had a good time with the money stolen from the organization there are still hidden funds and shame on the judge for not demanding more.
In most cases the job of the District Attorney's office is to receive input from the victim to assure they are pleased with a plea bargain, which this clearly was.
Obviously there can be a lot of finger pointing in this case, but I strongly urge the officers of the association to bring the children together to allow them to express their feelings and then create a short and long term action plan for moving forward with input from the kids. I am sure the parents have already discussed a plan, but I encourage them to at the very least include the kids as a learning experience on overcoming financial difficulties in hopes something positive can come from this nightmare. They need to understand that there will be times in life when you are dealt a bad hand, but we must make the most out of a bad situation and in the end we can be stronger than before.
Eventually when her life ends Ms. Knight will come face to face with another judge in a much higher court and I believe that one will carry a much stiffer penalty.
God Bless the kids and I hope the program can survive.
Reply to this
I understand your frustration with the judge's decision, but, unless you know more about the case than you said in your article, I think you should hold off on the criticism of the judge. If this woman can come up with $1500 per month, that is money the AAAHA can certianly use, and, if things are handled correctly, Ms. Knight will be watched closely, and if she can earn more, she will be forced to pay more. Again, if the Court and the AAAHA pay close attention, they can make fairly certain that this woman never gets to enjoy the fruits of her past misdeeds or her future endeavors. In my opinion (again, unless there is something about this that I do not know, and all I know is what I have read in the papers and in your blog), the right thing to do is to observe and see what happens, and then criticize if Ms. Knight is not forced to work as hard as she can and pay darn near everything she earns to the AAHA. If she does not do that, and the judge still doesn't send her to jail, THEN, I would agree with your attack on the judge. Until then, I think you are being uncharacteristically prematurely harsh (perhaps because you are so close to the part of society that has been injured here).
Reply to this
I have a couple of comments about this story and your take on it John. First, before I get into what I'm trying to say, I want it to be known that I'm on your side. Knight should be put behind bars and be made to pay back what she took. Hockey is a fantastic game for young kids and what happened is a tragedy.
Here's my question and it has been since the beginning of this incident. What is more important, giving the club their money back, or putting this woman in jail? In my opinion, getting the club its money back is more important, so then what good is it to throw her in prison? As you said in this post, she won't pay it in prison.
Using the rationale you had in this post, that another judge just throws deadbeat dad's in prison for not paying alimony (i'm pretty sure you're referring to judge Connors here) in theory, that works, since they're not paying anyway. This case, to me, however, is different. In my opinion, it is better to have SOME money coming back to the kids rather than none at all. Plus, to pay ALL of it back, Knight will have to sell her possessions (including the escalade, diamonds, etc) and lord knows, that won't happen quickly.
I guess in the ideal world, Knight would be in jail until every penny she took is paid back, but let's be honest, we don't live in the ideal world. As we all know, putting this woman behind bars feels much better than forcing her to pay back what she took, but that just isn't the way the system works. Unfortunately, we just have to choose whether we want what's right for the kids or what's right for the criminal.
From what little I know of this case, (I wasn't there for the pretrial conferences or the sentencing) I think Judge Morris did the right thing by making sure that these kids are getting something out of this (however little it may be). Putting Knight behind bars doesn't sharpen their skates or give them new sticks, it just serves to make sure they don't get any of their money back.
Reply to this
Hi, John.
I could not agree with you more on this issue.
Criminals need to pay restitution, but they also need to be punished. This not only concerning their personal misdeeds, in general, but their damage to the public in particular. Moral hazard is not only an economic issue, it is central to individual's role in society. She had a fiduciary responsibility to the parents and their children. How can one condone stealing from children? Parole is not punitive. Her actions merit some form of punishment. Is her debt to society paid, if she doesn't even pay back the total amount of money stolen?
Reply to this
Hello John,
What a tragic story. This is something that should be sent to Bill O'Rielly, and let his producers interview judge Morris. They can ask why such a soft approach, and what about all the kids she is hurting. To forgive is fine, but only after paying back what was stolen. Good story, and thanks for keeping up the communication on this terrible situation.
Reply to this
Dear Readers,
Thanks for all your comments. I've enjoyed them all, though a few seem to warrant a response.
To Dave and Paul, you raise good points so I need to clarify what I'm saying. I agree wholeheartedly that, no matter how emotionally satisfying it might be to throw Kimberly Knight in jail, even if it means getting no restitution for the league, it's not worth it. Like you, I feel we should leave the pitchforks and the torches in the barn.
My point -- and if you re-read the piece, I think you'll see it there -- is that by taking any threat of incarceration off the table, the Judge reduces the chances of getting any real money back for the league. As I wrote, it's hard to believe Knight burned through a million dollars with nothing to show for it -- no goods, investments or overseas accounts. But people like Knight tend not to fork over the goods voluntarily. (One former attorney said, from his experience, embezzlers are as incurable as pedophiles -- and Knight's history suggests this might be true.) You need to leverage one to get the other.
This can be done in a variety of ways, short of a full-time sentence, including house arrest, weekend or evening imprisonment, or even an electronic tether.
My ultimate point is, by dropping the bar so low with both probation and a still-not-delivered $75,000, Judge Morris has given AAAHA almost no hope of getting much back, and almost no punishment for Knight.
It's worth noting that the AAAHA board members are appalled by the sentence. They do not feel Judge Morris's sentence will get them much back, and a few have told me that the likely return is so low, Judge Morris might as well have sent Knight to jail, even if it meant no chance of restitution. I don't share that view, but it's a myth to think Judge Knight did AAAHA any favors. They certainly don't feel so.
Finally, of the dozen or so prosecutors, defense lawyers and city and county attorneys I talked with -- many of whom know, like and respect Judge Morris -- every single one of them felt this sentence misses the mark, and badly.
As you both write, time will tell. It might be that Judge Morris's sentence results in more money being returned than threatening jail time -- in some form or other -- but I am, sadly, not optimistic.
-JUB
Reply to this