By J. Andrew Curliss, staff writer

Suspended Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline says she wants to delay an inquiry set to begin on Monday that will determine whether she should be permanently removed from her elected office.

But she had not filed the necessary paperwork by the close of business Friday that would cause a judge to consider her request, according to the Durham County clerk's office.

Instead, Cline emailed a motion to Superior Court Judge Robert H. Hobgood, who is presiding over Monday's hearing. Judges typically act on motions that are filed with the clerk, not ones that are only sent to the judge by email.

Hobgood has declined requests through a courts administrator to discuss the removal inquiry or issues surrounding it.

Cline could still file her request for a delay on Monday, but it is not clear if the judge would consider it then.

In the emailed document, Cline cites as reasons to delay that she has a physical illness and was unable until recently to find an attorney to represent her. She wrote in documents that she is not prepared for the removal hearing.

Cline asked Hobgood, the senior judge for a four-county area northeast of Durham, to delay the matter for a maximum of 16 days.

In an email message on Thursday morning that was copied to courts officials, Cline first wrote that she needed more time.

"I need to move to continue the hearing from Monday because I do not have any attorney and I have been physically sick for over a week and presently I am not physically at my best," Cline wrote. "If necessary I can provide medical documentation."

But in the formal motion to continue, which Cline emailed to court officials at midday on Friday, she wrote that she had found one attorney "who could do the hearing but he will be out of town."

She said she had diligently tried to find an attorney before then "when physically able to do so" but that those she contacted were in conflicts and could not represent her due to the people involved.

Cline is asking Hobgood to set a new date for the hearing that is still within the 30-day timeframe allowed under state law for the removal effort to be heard. Monday is 14 days from when Cline was suspended by an order from Hobgood.

The removal effort was begun by Durham lawyer Kerry Sutton, who was involved in two cases in which Cline filed documents attacking Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson, the senior judge in the county.

Sutton filed an affidavit under a rarely used state law that requires the removal of a DA for engaging in a range of actions, including "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice" which brings the office into "disrepute."

Sutton cited "venom" and "alacrity" in Cline's attacks on Hudson, including that Cline has alleged Hudson's rulings in cases have "raped" victims and that Hudson rules in Durham with the "reprobate mind of a monarch."

Cline has accused Hudson of "corruption" and other misconduct, and asserts that he has made decisions not based in facts or the law. Two judges have dismissed Cline's claims, citing insufficient proof. The judges have also pointed out that Cline's avenues for her claims are available through the appeals courts or with the state commission that oversees judges.

Cline claims Hudson began retaliating against her last year because she would not dismiss a murder case. Cline has alleged that Hudson then tossed out charges against a Durham man, Derrick Allen, without any basis in fact or the law.

But Hobgood, in ordering Cline suspended on Jan. 27, wrote that his review of the Allen case showed there was sufficient reason for Hudson's decision to dismiss it. That case is still being appealed by Cline in the state Court of Appeals.

Court clerks waited until 5 p.m. on Friday for Cline to file the motion for a continuance. They locked the doors and said it had not come in.

In the emailed version, Cline lists five reasons for why Hobgood found reasons to suspend and possibly remove her from office, but gets one of those wrong.

Cline asserts that Hobgood found grounds for removal because Cline had said "on the record that she was completely unprepared despite her having months of advance notice" to handle a post-conviction appeal in the case of accused murderer Michael Peterson.

Hobgood did not find that.

Sutton had alleged in her affidavit that it was a reason to remove Cline.

But Hobgood specifically did not cite that claim in his order outlining the reasons for Cline's suspension.

In all, Hobgood's order cited a dozen other issues as being the basis for Cline's suspension and possible removal. He did not adopt several others that Sutton alleged, including the Peterson case preparation issue.

Cline wrote that she will "defend each assertion made by (Sutton) by presenting evidence including but not limited to testimony, exhibits, court documents and court records."

Earlier this week, Cline had not given indications that she would not be prepared.

She issued a round of subpoenas to various people, requiring them to appear in court for the hearing on Monday. Among them are Hudson and his judicial assistant, and a reporter and two editors from The News & Observer. All have filed motions seeking to quash Cline's subpoenas.

Among the allegations from Cline is that she believes Hudson has sought to discredit her by manufacturing "media mayhem" in causing the N&O to publish a three-part series about Cline in September. Hudson and the N&O have disputed that.

She had also issued subpoenas seeking testimony on the issues surrounding Hudson in December and January, each time expressing a willingness to present her case. Judges did not grant her requests, saying her written proof was not sufficient or that she had not followed what the law requires.

The first indication that she needed time came in an email message on Thursday morning.

By that afternoon, Cline wrote to Sutton that she wanted a continuance on her removal, according to an email message provided to the N&O by the courts system. But she said she would be ready on Monday to have a hearing on whether she can access information, known as discovery.

"I do have some discovery issues I believe that we can hear on Monday," Cline wrote, "but I will not be ready for the hearing."

Cline had previously asked the judge, in an email message, for a hearing on discovery. He did not schedule one.

Comments have been closed and removed on this posting.

Documents:

A second medical examiner's report into the death of Ralph Madison Stockton IV raises more questions about the level of observation provided by Wake County jail staff in the hours leading up to his fatal drug overdose.

The report released to the News & Observer this week represents the initial investigation into Stockton's death by the state medical examiner's office. It says Stockton, 19, of Raleigh, was last known to be alive at 11:30 p.m., Nov. 5. That is the same time he was evaluated by a jail nurse, according to an autopsy report.

Stockton entered the jail at roughly 3 p.m. that day. He was found unresponsive on a jail mat at 6:31 a.m. the following day, and pronounced dead less than an hour later. If the report is accurate, he would not have been properly checked on for roughly six hours before he was found unresponsive.

That information in the report was provided by Wake County sheriff's investigators, said Dr. Clay Nichols, a deputy medical examiner.

Last week, state officials said the jail had violated a regulation requiring that all inmates be observed at least twice an hour. That observation requirement means making sure they are alive and OK, according to Steven Lewis, the state Department of Health and Human Services official who oversees the jail regulations.

The state report found the jail staff had last seen Stockton, the grandson of a prominent Winston-Salem lawyer, at 5:29 a.m., or 62 minutes before he was found unresponsive.

Phyllis Stephens, a spokeswoman for Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison, who is in charge of the jail, said staff did not violate the observation standards. But she declined to provide documentation, saying it is not a public record for security reasons.

UPDATE: This afternoon she said the death is under an "on-going internal administrative investigation into the actions of specific personnel regarding the supervision of the inmate."

Jim Jones, a DHHS spokesman, said the state investigation did not look into the entire time Stockton was in jail to determine whether the observation standard had been followed through the night. He added the state is not required to do further investigation into the death.

The medical examiner's report, and a subsequent autopsy, also suggest that jail staff had indications that Stockton needed closer observation. The state regulation requires those who are suspected of being intoxicated to be observed four times an hour.

Both reports say that Stockton was observed by numerous people to be intoxicated. Stephens said she could not confirm such observations because that would be protected "medical" information regarding Stockton.

The medical examiner's report also indicates that Stockton had been caught using "a number of illicit drugs" at his mother's home and that he had a past history of depression and drug use.

The autopsy report contains one apparent error, and the medical examiner report contains two.

The autopsy report says that Stockton had been picked up on Nov. 5 after being drunk and disorderly at a football game. Arrest reports indicates he had been picked up in his car on a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge, and subsequently charged with failure to appear on a prior underage drinking charge issued by police in Watauga County.

The medical examiner's report says Stockton was caught using drugs at his mother's home the night of Nov. 5, but Stockton was in the jail by then. It also says the death was reported to the medical examiner at 7:30 p.m. on Nov. 6; it was actually reported at 9:30 a.m. that day. Nichols said he has corrected that error.

Stockton's family declined to comment on the additional information. The medical examiner's report, autopsy and DHHS report are all attached below.
 

Documents:

Durham officially has a new district attorney.

Retired judge Leon Stanback was sworn in as the acting DA in a private ceremony today, according to courts administrator Kathy Shuart.

Stanback did not want to have a public ceremony. He was sworn in by Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson, the senior resident judge in the county.

Stanback, a judge in Durham from 1989 to 2009, is filling in for suspended DA Tracey Cline, who faces a hearing about the possible removal from her elected office next week over allegations she has leveled at Hudson.

Stanback has said he will serve as long as needed.

He was appointed last week by Gov. Bev Perdue. His appointment was effective Feb. 1, according to the official commission that put him in the office.

"He will serve at my pleasure or until his appointment is terminated by operation of law," the document signed by Perdue says.

Calls to Stanback at the DA's office were not immediately returned.

The receptionist had not yet absorbed the change, answering with greetings from "the office of Tracey Cline."

UPDATE: Stanback said in an interview that he did not want a public swearing-in ceremony given the circumstances. He took the oath in Hudson's office. "And then I went to work," he said.

-- J. Andrew Curliss

By J. Andrew Curliss, staff writer

A former longtime judge in Durham will fill in as the district attorney while elected DA Tracey Cline is suspended from duty.

Leon Stanback, who was a judge from 1989 until his retirement in 2009, was appointed today by Gov. Bev Perdue to serve as the interim DA in Durham.

Stanback also is a former member of the state's parole board, and was an assistant district attorney in Guilford County in the 1970s. He has also been in private practice as a defense lawyer. He retired in late 2009, and has been a court mediator since.

"Judge Stanback has served North Carolina and the Durham community with distinction as a prosecutor, parole commissioner and Superior Court judge," Perdue said in a statement. "He is the ideal person to bring strong leadership to the district attorney's office at this challenging time."

Stanback said in a brief interview that he did not have much to say about the appointment because he did not yet know what his approach would be in the office.

He said he would not seek the office permanently if it were to open up.

"I'm not going to run for the office," he said. "I'll serve at the pleasure of the governor as long as I am needed."

He said he did not yet know when he would be sworn in, but thought it would take several days.

State law required Perdue to appoint an interim DA after a judge last week suspended Cline on a finding of probable cause that she has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brought her office into disrepute.

Over the past three months, Cline launched attacks in court documents against Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson that legal scholars and lawyers have described as unprecedented and beyond acceptable. Reports in the News & Observer have shown substantial errors of fact by Cline in the filings.

Citing Cline's writings and actions, a Durham lawyer filed an affidavit to begin a removal process under state law, leading to review of the issue last week by Superior Court Judge Robert H. Hobgood of Franklin County.

Hobgood suspended Cline on Friday and set a hearing for Feb. 13 to make a final decision about her removal from office. Separately, the state agency that regulates lawyers has been obtaining the filings made by Cline.

The appointment of Stanback is through at least the Feb. 13 hearing.

If Cline is removed, it is expected that Stanback would remain as the acting DA until voters choose a new district attorney in November.

According to state law, Stanback would hold the office on an interim basis as a replacement district attorney until the next election is held for members of the General Assembly, which is in November this year.

Under that scenario, an election would be held to fill out the rest of Cline's term -- which was to run through 2014. But that would only be the case if all appeals of any removal decision are final within 60 days of the November election.

When Stanback retired, he was praised for his depth of experience, including spending two decades in legal roles prior to becoming a judge.

State courts officials and the governor's office signaled Monday that action is under way to appoint an interim district attorney following Friday's suspension of Durham DA Tracey Cline.

State law says the governor must fill the position if a district attorney is unable to fulfill the duties "for any reason."

A judge suspended Cline from her position on Friday, pending a formal removal hearing set for Feb. 13. Cline has been attacking the senior judge in Durham in a series of court filings that other judges have determined are not lawful or were not based in fact.

State court system director John W. Smith said in a statement Monday that the replacement process is in motion and "we anticipate it will be quickly resolved."

Assistant prosecutors in the office are continuing their duties as normal, he said.

"With a very few possible exceptions all responsibilities of the elected District Attorney can be performed by the Assistant, and those reserved for the District Attorney alone are not likely to become relevant during this short time," Smith said. "One way to think about it is that the elected District Attorney of any district is sometimes not immediately available due to illness or other factor, and the office is expected to function normally during the temporary absence. We are monitoring the situation and that appears to be the case in Durham."

A spokesman for Gov. Bev Perdue has said her office is working to fill the slot as quickly as possible.

State correction officials said this week they did an "informal internal" review of Dr. Metiko Olushola's second job as a medical file reviewer for the state Division of Motor Vehicles and found nothing wrong.

But they have yet to say how many hours he is working on that second job and when he is working them.

Two days before our Sunday story about Olushola's second job, the department's top medical official, Dr. Paula Smith, issued an email statement that praised the doctor, but gave no indication there had been any internal review. Olushola is the Central Prison hospital's chief medical officer.

The department didn't acknowledge the internal review until Rep. Shirley Randleman, a Wilkesboro Republican and a chief budget writer for prisons, told us on Monday that one was underway. She had not been told that it had been completed, and she was not satisfied with the lack of information about the results.

She said she would be seeking more information through legislative staff.

Our story raised questions about the second job because Olushola is reviewing as many as 10,000 files annually, earning $6 per file. These are files of people who are at risk of losing their driving privileges for health reasons.

If he spent the five minutes minimum per file that DMV officials are expecting, he would be looking at the equivalent of 18 to 20 weeks of full time work per year.

Metiko has been getting permission to perform the second job through the department by filling out a form known as a "Request & Approval of Secondary Employment" over the past decade.

Back when he began putting in for the approvals, the form included a line that required the applicant to estimate how many hours the second job would take each week. In his 2001 form, Metiko estimated two hours weekly. (We do not know how many cases he handled that year.)

But in later years, that line disappeared from the form. As a result, Metiko's supervisors are now approving his and other correction employees' requests without requiring a written estimate as to how much time those second jobs will take.

By J. Andrew Curliss, staff writer

The senior judge for a four-county district northeast of Durham has been assigned to oversee an effort to possibly remove Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline from her elected office.

Robert H. Hobgood, who served in 2001 as director of the administrative office of the state court system, will take over the matter, according to an order from the senior judge in Durham, Orlando Hudson.

Hudson has been accused of a wide range of misconduct by Cline over the past three months in more than 600 pages of court filings. Two judges have rejected Cline's efforts to remove Hudson from hearing criminal cases in Durham, saying her effort was not based in the law and had not provided a factual basis for removing Hudson.

Cline claims Hudson has been retaliating against her with court decisions and actions after she refused to dismiss a murder case in late 2010, using harsh language and including information in allegations that is false.

Last week, a Durham lawyer filed an affidavit under a rarely used state law that requires a judge to determine whether Cline should be removed from office. That lawyer, Kerry Sutton, wrote that Cline's actions have been prejudicial to the administration of justice and brought the courts into "widespread disrepute," a standard in state law that requires the DA to be removed.

Separately, the state agency that regulates and disciplines lawyers has been requesting motions filed by Cline.

The state law sets a deadline for an initial decision of 30 days. A hearing could be scheduled after that. The law typically requires the senior judge in the county to review the matter, in this case Hudson. But it also allows for him to assign it elsewhere.

Hudson, in referring the issue to Hobgood, wrote that "it is appropriate and in the best interests of justice" for another judge to consider it.

Hobgood could not be reached.

Hobgood is the senior judge for a district that includes Franklin, Granville, Vance and Warren counties. Those four counties are north and east of Durham and Wake counties, stretching to the Virginia border.

He has been a judge since 1980 and lives in Franklin County, according to a court biography. He previously served in the state House of Representatives.

Hobgood has handled some sticky cases in recent years. In 2009, he ruled that neither the legislature nor the State Board of Education can deprive the elected superintendent of authority to be chief administrative officer of the board without a constitutional amendment, a setback for Gov. Bev Perdue, who had championed her own appointee as being in charge of schools.

In 2010, he changed a death sentence for convicted murderer George Goode to back-to-back life sentences amid questions about the state crime lab's work on the case. Hobgood's ruling was seen as a victory for the state and a setback for Goode, who wanted more leniency.

In 2008, Hobgood held up a murder trial and criticized Raleigh police for producing evidence late in the case that should have been shared with the defendant.

In 2004, Hobgood ruled on a closely watched case that phone cards being sold in convenience stores were not a lottery, telling state Alcohol Law Enforcement agents to stop treating the sale of such cards as an illegal lottery.

In late 2003, Hobgood was part of rulings that settled long-fought battles over legislative redistricting after then-chief justice I. Beverly Lake took the redistricting case away from a Johnston County judge and assigned it to Hobgood.

It was Lake who appointed Hobgood to run the state courts system in 2001.

Hobgood was first appointed as a judge in 1980 by Gov. Jim Hunt.

Hobgood followed his father, Hamilton, a well-known and widely respected judge for his handling of the racially charged Joan Little murder trial in 1975. The case led to death threats and a bodyguard for Hamilton Hobgood and caused the family to lock its doors at home for the first time in memory, according to an account in the New York Times.

A member of the state Board of Elections says that former Gov. Mike Easley should pay an outstanding $94,665 fine as a condition of getting his law license back.

Chuck Winfree, a member of the elections board since 2001, said the reasoning behind a deal struck by the N.C. State Bar to settle an investigation of Easley and grant him a two-year law license suspension is inadequate as long as the fine is unpaid. Easley, a Democrat, is the former two-term governor who was the subject of state and federal investigations that resulted in a plea deal in 2010 and a felony conviction.

The bar last week consented in an agreement with Easley to a punishment that is less than disbarment and it said was warranted for six reasons, one of them being that "Easley accepts personal responsibility for his own actions and for the actions of his campaign committee."

Winfree said it is "lip service" to conclude Easley took responsibility for the campaign as long as the fine is unpaid.

"The State Bar needs to make payment a condition," Winfree said in an interview. "Otherwise, it's all window dressing."

Attempts to reach board chairman Larry Leake were unsuccessful. Winfree said he is working to see if the full elections board will make a formal request of the N.C. State Bar about the issue.

"I can certainly say that the board wants its fines paid," Winfree said.

The elections board is a state agency that oversees elections and enforces election law.

The bar is a state agency that regulates lawyers.

The elections board is appointed by the governor on the recommendation of the two major political parties. The majority is from the party of the governor. Currently, the elections board is made up of three members and has two vacant seats.

Winfree is the lone Republican on the board at the moment. He is also a lawyer.

He noted that the board's decision to fine Easley's campaign, made in late 2009, was unanimous. There has been discussion in recent years of legislation to hold candidates personally responsible for the misdeeds of their campaigns, but it has not advanced.

The fine against Easley's campaign was for $100,000 and it was tied to free flights Easley had taken while he was a candidate. Officials say $5,335 has been paid.

In reaching a decision last week to suspend Easley's law license for two years despite his conviction in 2010 of a felony, the bar said that Easley did not have "actual knowledge" of a false campaign report that led to the felony.

The bar also said that Easley is "genuinely remorseful." Easley did not appear at the hearing dealing with his law license. His lawyer told disciplinary hearing commissioners that the former two-term governor had accepted responsibility for the campaign by entering an Alford guilty plea tied to a single flight that wasn't reported. That type of plea allows a defendant to continue to assert innocence but legally acknowledges there was enough evidence to yield a conviction.

The disciplinary hearing commission chairwoman, lawyer Sharon B. Alexander of Hendersonville, said that commissioners would not comment on the decision making because their deliberations are considered private.

"I cannot and will not disregard our obligation to respect that privacy," Alexander wrote in an email message. "Please accept this as a response from all members of the hearing committee and the only one that you will receive."

-- J. Andrew Curliss

By J. Andrew Curliss, staff writer

The N.C. State Bar will revisit the disciplinary order that suspended for two years the law license of former Gov. Mike Easley -- a punishment that allows the former two-term Democrat to practice law again in December 2012.

The punishment order contains incorrect information, the bar's general counsel confirmed in an email message after a report Saturday in The News & Observer.

It is not clear if the overall thrust of the decision to suspend Easley's license for two years will change because of the erroneous information, which described the reasoning for why Easley was receiving the level of punishment he did.

The N&O report showed that the disciplinary order entered in Easley's case was not correct about factors the order says "particularly warrant" the suspension of Easley's law license instead of a disbarment, which is the full loss of the right to practice law.

Typically, according to the bar, a felony conviction of a lawyer leads to the "most severe discipline," which the bar says is "often disbarment."

Easley was convicted of a felony in Nov. 2010 after reaching a plea deal to end lengthy state and federal investigations of him. Easley entered what's known as an Alford guilty plea in state court, which means he can maintain innocence, but pleads guilty and agrees there was sufficient evidence for a judge or jury to find him guilty of the crime.

Easley's conviction was tied to the filing by his campaign of a false disclosure report that was in violation of six state laws because the report did not disclose a $1,600 helicopter flight Easley took in Oct. 2006. Easley was fined $1,000 for the low-level felony.

While the plea ended the criminal investigations, the state bar also looked into the case because it is the state agency responsible for regulating and disciplining lawyers in North Carolina. Easley, a former state attorney general, has been a lawyer since 1976 and was subject to professional discipline because of the felony, the bar said.

The bar ended its probe last month by filing a complaint that said Easley showed "professional unfitness" as a lawyer. A hearing was set for Friday. As the hearing began, the sides announced the agreement to the two-year suspension.

Factors 'warrant' lesser discipline

The written order that outlines the suspension, which was accepted by the bar's Disciplinary Hearing Commission, listed six factors "that particularly warrant lesser discipline" than the loss of Easley's law license.

According to the agreement, the factors pointing to lesser discipline are:

1. There is "no evidence" that Easley had "actual knowledge" of the content of the campaign finance report that led to his felony conviction.

2. Easley's "denial of such knowledge is credible" because he did not sign the report and because "when the report was prepared and filed he was Governor and was involved in governing the State."

3. The felony of which Easley was convicted is "the lowest level felony under North Carolina law."

4. Easley accepts "personal responsibility for his own actions and for the actions of his campaign committee."

5. There is "no evidence of dishonest conduct or dishonest motive."

6. Easley is "genuinely remorseful."

But there are questions about at least three of those factors.

The felony report's content

It is not clear why the bar's agreement says that there is no evidence Easley had knowledge of the content of the finance report.

The campaign report that led to Easley's felony conviction was filed by his campaign amid growing questions after reports in The N&O in early 2009 showed that a vehicle driven by Easley's son was not owned by the Easley family.

The vehicle was owned by a car dealer and Easley friend, Robert Bleecker.

Easley had offered differing explanations about the arrangement.

But then, on April 17, 2009, the campaign disclosed for the first time that the vehicle was, according to the new campaign filing, a campaign vehicle for some period of time.

A lawyer for the campaign, John Wallace, wrote to elections officials that day and said the campaign had "determined" what happened with the vehicle issue. The campaign acknowledged the vehicle had not been paid for, and made a series of disclosure filings to amend past reports to reflect that. The campaign then settled up the past unpaid charges.

Easley was asked about that in a hearing at the end of 2009.

Easley testified that he was personally involved in fixing the problem, and that he went to two staffers to help clear it up. They told him there hadn't been payments made on the vehicle, Easley testified.

"That's what got me looking at this and very concerned about it," Easley testified to elections board members. "I then inquired of John Wallace, and he confirmed that there had been no payments made."

Easley said the work then started to clear it up.

"When we ran into the problem with (the vehicle) not having been paid ... our election committee attorney, John Wallace, and Rick Gammon got with Bob Bleecker's attorney, and to my understanding they were able to figure out what needed to be done to make sure that he was properly paid," Easley testified.

Gammon is a lawyer who worked closely with Easley.

While the April 17 filing and a payment to Bleecker cleared up the car issue, the campaign report wasn't all truthful, according to prosecutors.

That's because the campaign failed to also disclose Easley's 2006 helicopter flight -- the second such disclosure report to fail to do so. In all, dozens of flights were not reported by the campaign, according to one of Easley's friends who flew him, McQueen Campbell of Raleigh.

A criminal information document filed by special state prosecutor William Kenerly of Rowan County said that Easley "caused" the false report to be filed by the campaign on April 17, 2009, and that Easley "knew the amended report was not true and correct."

Easley's denial 'credible'

The bar's agreement with Easley says the former governor's denial of any knowledge about that report is credible because he didn't sign it and because he was governing at the time.

But Easley was not governing the state in April 2009. That is four months after Easley left office. 

It is correct that Easley did not sign the report in question.

The disclosure form was signed by Easley campaign treasurer Joseph A. Newsome. The campaign report form includes a required paragraph that specifies the disclosure report is certified as "true and correct."

However, Newsome added a phrase to that in his own handwriting, saying the form was correct "to the best of my knowledge. JAN."

Newsome did not write that same qualifying language on previous, regular disclosures.

Newsome could not be reached.

Taking responsibility

Easley also has come under criticism for not paying a $100,000 fine issued against his campaign, tied to free flights he received.

Easley said in court at the time of his plea deal that, "The buck has to stop somewhere. It stops with me, and I take responsibility for what has occurred in this incident."

Kenerly, a veteran Republican prosecutor who retired after the Easley case, said after the conviction that paying the campaign fine in full would be the "honorable thing for him to do."

Bob Hall, executive director of the campaign finance watchdog Democracy North Carolina, said at the time and again on Sunday in an interview that it was good when Easley said that in court. Hall and others noted that state law does not hold candidates responsible for their campaign's misdeeds. A number of fines remain unpaid.

Easley's committee has paid $5,335 toward the fine, according to elections officials, but ran out of money and incurred more than $200,000 in debts, mostly on lawyers.

"I don't understand how they could say he's taken responsibility for the campaign when the fine isn't paid," Hall said. "How could anyone say that?"

Elections officials said Friday that the unpaid amount remains about $94,700. Payments benefit schools.

The bar confirms errors

Katherine Jean, the general counsel at the state bar, acknowledged the incorrect information but did not indicate that it would lead to a substantial change. She said she will bring it to the attention of the Disciplinary Hearing Commission. Its chairwoman is Sharon B. Alexander, who presided over the Easley hearing on Friday.

Jean wrote in an email message: "I ... agree that there is language in the order that does not accurately reflect what was intended.  The order inadvertently fails to identify the distinction in the time periods when the defendant was Governor and when the different reports were filed.  I will bring this issue to the attention of the DHC and request that the order be clarified.  Thank you for pointing this out.  I certainly want to make sure the order accurately reflects what was intended."

At the hearing on Friday, Jean had said that she researched past cases in also trying to decide the extent of Easley's punishment.

Jean said that lawyers who were convicted of felonies for drug abuse or for improper federal tax filings had also received punishments less than disbarment. Those reasons were not listed in the written order.