I am making this complaint against Judge Andrew J. Wachter of Crawford County Judicial Court.

I had a
Final Divorce hearing yesterday February 6, 2013 where I should have been granted-a-default
but was denied.

judgment

I had filed my Divorce Petition over 60 days ago and my soorrto be -ex-=w'ifewas

suppose to file an Answer within 21 days of service; or Judgment for Default WILL BE ENTERED AGAiNST
YOU not may be entered ag-ainst you it says on the summons!
My soon to be-ex wife did not have an attorney and when I asked Judge Wachter if I ~~:)Uld receive a
default judgment

he said no because she showed -up today-and t-hat was

"
goOO-ernwgb!r
him.

Judge Wachter told my ex and myself that we BOTH needed an attorney at the next hearing.
tired of the way this was going and wasn't going to put up with a peanut galleryand
with people that were law trained.
according to Judge Wachter.

He was

he needed to deal

I took this as an insult that if your not a lawyer then your not smart

My ex lied right in the court room and told Judge Wachter that Kay Morin

of Morin and Morin was already retained by her if she needed her. Judge Waebter-saiQ that was good
enough for him. I left the hearing very humiliated,

belittled and very, very angry that I was treated so

unfair and-should have atready received a-de-fault judgment.

I went home and called up to Morin and Morin's office and spoke to Kay Morin to disc~

any

settlement

she is not the

possibilities.

Ms. Morin informed me that she does not even do divOtc@s-~

attorney for Jeanita Moore.

Ms. Morin actually called up to Crawford Countv'Dtstrtrt'Court

and let the

secretary for Judge Wachter know that she is not my ex wifes attorney and told me there was no
appearance of an attorney for her.
Judge Wachter is not following court rules and procedures and he is biased against me ~cause

I am Pro

Se. He has no right to tell me 1HAVE TO GET AN ATIORN-UKE HE TOLD ME-li<:-aHed-=~ to Shawn
Higgins the court reporter and asked him how much a court of record was ant1n-eSc3m'1here was not one
because the judge did not want one. I have a few friends who have had Pro Se divorces and they have
had a transcript

for ALL HEARINGS in their divorce case and I feel Judge Wachterdklpot

give me one

because I am Pro Se and he was biased against me. I want a court of record at evervthing

I do so I could

have proof of what Judge Wachter said and proof of his snide little jokes and.remarks be made to me.
~
Another reason I think Judge Wachter was biased against me is because Kay Morin's husband of the Law
firm Morin and Morin used to work with Judge Wachter.
together in 2002 at Wilbert and Towner law firm.

William Morin and Judge Wachter worked

I think this is the reason Judge Wa(hter

was so unfair

to me is when my ex stated that Kay Morin was going to be her attorney even though sh had not

retained her or filed an entry of appearance.

I mean lets get real if she was retained, WHY WAS MY EX SPEAKING AND WHY WAS THE ATIORNEY NOT
THERE AND WHY HAD THE ATIORNEY NOT FtLED AN ANSWER FOR HER-?-??????????Judge Wachter
allowed this and did not follow Rule 115 Entries of Appearance of Rules Relating to'J~icial

Courts. He

~~~::~~:::~:~:s:~~:o:e~a~::~k;;
E~~~:~:~:~~::~~dl~:v:S
r:::i~~d
na:'7:::1.~~ea:~n~o:Ule
granting me my default judgment,

Judge Wachter did not follow Rules Relating To District Courts Rule

132. Judge Wachter also did not follow Rules Relating To District Courts Rule 164 in this case as well.

~~

~.~~
{1Y ~~\~

Judge Wachter's errors are now going to make a one day Final Hearing for Default JU~..'(l1ent divorce
now turn into, Objection's to orders I must file, Motions to-vacate orders and-:pes-sit*;~ppeal
Nature of Mandamus against Judge Wachter

with a

because of the lack of due pr0C6SClTIth11e unethical way

Judge Wachter has treated me in this court case. I feel he has violated numerous rules of RULES
RELATING TO JUDICIAL CONDUCT and they are the following:

CANON 1 RUlEl~l;~8U.tE

1.2, CANON 2

RULE 2.2, RULE 2.3{A)(B), RULE 2.4{BL RULE 2.5, RULE 2.6, RULE 2.8, and when Judge W.~.,chter heard Kay
Morin of Morin and Morin he should have Disqualifled
let the committee

himself in accordanee-wlth-Rele

';~11. I want to

know that Kay Morin and William Morin should never be ~noVlied1nfront

of Judge

Wachter because it's a conflict of interest and it seems like Judge Wachter either does not care or does
not know.

Sincerely
Lester Moore

~tate of ]kansas

<!Commission on Jf ubtnal ~uaHfications

Kansas JudicialCenter
301 S.W. Tenth Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1507
judicialqual@kscourts.org

Telephone 785-296-2913

Facsimile 785-296-1028

MEMBERS OF
PANELB

CHAIR:
Jeffery A. Mason
Lawyer Member

VICE-CHAIR:

March 11,2013

Lester Moore
P. O. Box 1861
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762

Dr. Mary Davidson Cohen

Lay Member

Re:

Bruce Buchanan
Lay Member

Dear Mr. Moore:

Robert J. Fleming
Judge Member
David 1. King
Judge Member

Docket No. 1179, In the Matter of A. J. Wachter

The Commission met March 1, 2013, at which time the above-captioned

complaint was considered. It was the decision of the Commission to docket your
complaint and make further inquiry. The matter will be placed on the Commission's
May 3, 2013, meeting agenda.

Nicholas St. Peter

Judge Member

Cordially,

Diane S. Worth
Lawyer Member

Secretary

SECRETARY:
Carol G. Green
Kansas Judicial Center
301 S.W. Tenth Avenue
Topeka, KS 66612-1507

mm
Judge Fleming recused.

I.

l..e~hif{)()CJ'(~ CD mp

(1. ~

.,LA_JI'
n'VISORY
~

nt

No violation was found when it was alleged a judge advised parties in a divorce matter
they were required to have attorneys at the next hearing. While the judge denied the allegation,
the judge could not provide a corroborating transcript because a hearing was not made. The
judge was informally advised on the importance of preserving a record of all court proceedings.

No violation was found for delay when it was alleged a judge failed to rule on a motion
taken under advisement. The judge indicated there was not a mechanism in place to help
monitor case loads, acknowledged the delay, and took remedial steps to resolve future issues.
The judge was informally advised on the importance of monitoring matters taken under
advisement.

A Notice of Formal Proceedings was filed alleging a judicial candidate, violated Rule
4.1(A)(4) by posting false or misleading campaign statements and/orendorsements on the
candidate's campaign website. The candidate denied knowingly or recklessly making any false
or misleading statements but, in an abundance of caution, removed the misleading information
and clarified the endorsement. A stipulation was entered that there was insufficient, clear, and
convincing evidence to establish a violation of Rule 4.1(A)(4), but the Respondent was advised
to be more careful in restating endorsements, should the decision be made to run again for
elected office.

No violation was found when it was alleged a judge appeared late for a hearing, called a
recess, never returned, and instructed a deputy to clear the courtroom as a ruling would be
mailed. The judge was informally advised to review nearing procedures. The judge's attention
was directed to K.S.A. 38-2243(b) and (d), K.S.A. 38-2232, and 38-2233 authorizing placement
of children in DCF Custody.

No violation was found when it was alleged a judge made a female litigant feel
humiliated and traumatized by ordering the removal of her hat which was worn to cover baldness
due to a medical condition. While the judge acknowledged ordering the removal of the hat, in
compliance with courtroom rules, the judge denied that the comments were intended to
humiliate. The judge was informally advised to refrain from commenting on personal
appearance in accordance with Rule 2.8(B) and Comment [1].

.
---------

....
2013
ANNuAL REpORT. PAGE 22:---------

...