Office of the Attorney General's Office

120 SW 10thAvenue, 2nd Floor

Topeka Kansas 66612
May 7,2016

THIS IS AN OUSTER COMPLAINTUNDER KS.A, 60-1202(1)(2)(4)(5), KS.A. 601205(1)(2)(3), KS.A. 60-1206(a)(b), KS.A. 60-1207 AGAINSTTHE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'SOFFICE, Derek Schmidt, Stephen Phillips, Carrie Barney, and Dennis
Depew
Case Numbers 1SCV7SP, 1SCV79P, lSSC70P, 1SSC71P, and 1SSC8SP in Crawford
County District Court

Dear Investigative Committee:

This is a complaint against attorney's Derek Schmidt, Stephen Phillips, Carrie Barney,
and Dennis Depew at the address of 120 SW 10thAvenue, 2ndFloor in Topeka Ks
66612. I signed a grand jury petition in case number lSMR2P at the beginning of
2015 to oust the 11thdistrict court judges and Lori Fleming sent an email to stop an
advertisement on the radio. I sent a complaint to the attorney general's office in June
of 2014 and I never got a response back from this office.
What I find extremely unethical is not only did the attorney general's office never
respond to my complaint but they also chose to represent the same lady I complained
on in case number 15CV79P a class action injunction in Crawford County District
Court who is Lori Fleming. How can the attorney general's office represent public
officials if this is the same place us people are suppose to complain to? The Kansas
Legislature was previously involved in a lawsuit against the district judges
which threatened to challenge the constitutionality
of this year's judicial
budget bill which include Larry Solomon chief judge of 30th district, Meryl
Wilson chief judge of 21 st judicial district, Robert Fairchild, chief judge of 7th
judicial district, and Jetfry Jack 11th iudicial district court judge and I am
confused why The Attorney General's Office defends Jeffry Jack and all the
other judges in case number 15CV79P in Crawford County when the attorney
general's office should have made them retain there own private attorney like
Jeffry Jack had to do on the state's court funding bill case where Jeffry Jack

was represented by private attomey Pedro lrogonegaray.

I read a court transcript from April 18, 2016 for case number 15CV79P which
is a class action injunctive case to stop judges in the 11th district from hearing
people's cases who signed the grand jury petition in 15MR2P in the matter of
grand jury petition. I don't understand why the attorney generals office wants
filing restrictions against Kasey King, Eric Muathe, Noah Day, and Travis
Carlton for simply trying to use their constitutional right to freedom of speech
under the 1st amendment by starting a grand jury petition and filing a case
that we were all part of. We now have an attorney representing us in federal
court in federal case number 2: 16-cv-02108-JAR-GLRagainst Respondents Lori
Fleming and Kurt Loyand the attorney representing us is attorney Adebayo
Ogunmeno of Ogunmeno LawFirm in K.C.Ks with approximately 50 people and more
to be amended and join from the grand jury petition that had their rights violated by
Kurt Loyand LoriFlemingfor ruining our radio advertisement and calling us posse
comitatus which the attorney general's officechose to ignore and instead chose to
represent her in case number 15CV79P.
Howcan the attorney generals officeget filingrestrictions for pro se people trying to
file paperwork when the attorney general can't even file his paperwork in the right
case which seems frivolousto me? I have included the court docket from 15CV75P
that shows that the response filed on 4-11-2016 is in the wrong case! I also don't
understand why a civilchapter 60 is ran together on a transcript with 3 small claims
chapter 61 so I would like you to investigate that as well. I am also confused why the
attorney generals officewas allowedto speak for and show up for MyTownMediain
case number 15SC70PNoah Dayvs. MyTown Mediawhen the case was expedited
unexpectedly without proper notice of hearing from 1:30 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. I have
included the court order for case number 15SC70Pto show that "Defnot present" is
crossed out meaning "Defendant"so according to the transcript that would be Dennis
Depewas the defendant appearing for MyTown Mediawhich I feel is usurpation of
power from their attorney generals office and violates Chapter 75 Article 7 duties
of Attorney General. Dennis Depew even says to the judge that he would be
happy to prepare the order for case number 15SC70P and Stephen Phillips
says he want to join the case by commenting on 20-311 (f) which means he
helped represent My Town Media in their small claims case. To make matters
even worse and more unethical is that it seems that the attorney generals office
and the judge forgot that the court reporter was still typing because they agree
to have an ex-parte conversation off the record so that they can receive the
judges private address but not the plaintiffs in case number 15CV79P,
15SC70P, 15SC71P, and 15SC85P. Please find out why the attorney generals
office was even in the case of Noah Day vs. My Town Media 15SC70P when
attorneys are not allowed in small claims court in Kansas. I would like to see
the contract in accordance with KRPC Rule 1.5 Fees that they had with My

Town Media to see how much they got paid to show up for them and enlighten
the judge on the case.
The fact that the attorney general's office represented My Town Media violates
numerous rules of Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct which include KRPC
Rule 1.1 Competence, KRPC Rule 1.2(d)(e) Scope of Representation, KRPC Rule
1.5 Fees, KRPC Conflict of Interest Rule 1.7, KRPC Rule ~.8 Conflict of Interest
Prohibited Transactions, and KRPC Rule 1.10(a)(b)(c)(1)(2)(d)Imputed
Disqualification, KRPC Rule 1.11 Successive Government and Private
Employment, KRPC Rule 1.16(a)(1)(4)Declining Or Terminating Representation
, KRPC Rule 2.1 Advisor, KRPC Rule 2.2 Intermediary, KRPC Rule 3.1
Meritorious Claims and Contentions, KRPC Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The
Tribunal, KRPC Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party and Counsel, KRPC Rule
3.5(c)(1)(2)(3)(4)(d)Impartiality and Decorum of The Tribunal, KRPC Rule 4.4
Respect For Rights of Third Person, KRPC Rule 5.1 Responsibilities of a Partner
or Supervisory Lawyer, KRPC Rule 5.5(a) Unauthorized Practice of law, KRPC
Rule 8.3(a)(b) Reporting Professional Misconduct, KRPC(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g).
The
attorney General's office has violated Chapter 75 Article 7 duties of Attorney
General by representing My Town Media in case number 15SC70P when they
should have had to show up for court themselves and enlighten the judge on
the case themselves without an attorney.
Please find out why the attorney generals office is choosing to not do their
public duties and instead representing private corporations in small claims
court.

~~Jc,/~
Thomas Walters
213 E.

Carlton

Pittsburg Ks 66762

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SITTING IN PITTSBURG
PLAINTIFF

Noah Ian Day

FI! "'.,

PO Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762
Vs.

~~<~

.~

Case No. 201S-SC-000070-P

'16

APR 18 P 1 :,37
DEFENDANT

My Town Media
250 N Water Suite 300
Wichita, KS 67202
~EAL

Ig .

.::. J
,,'

JOURNAL ENTRYOFJUDGMENT
IME
FOURTEEN DAYS AFTER JUDGMENT

On this
day of
20_1_6_, this action comes on for trial. The court finds that each
person against wbomjudg
nt is entered has been properly served with summons or process herein and
that this court has jurisdiction to enter the judgment requested.
Whereupon, the court finds that judgment should be entered:
Defendant(s)
by agreement of the parties;
Witnesses for Plaintiff

Y-:

by reason of default of said

by trial of the issues herein.
Witnesses for Defendant

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AS FOLLOWS:

RECOVERY OF MONEY:
Judgment for Plaintiff
________
for the principal balance of $
0
r with interest at
___
% per annum to date of judgment and costs. Principal balance s all bear interest at
per annum from this date until payment in full.
DISMISSAL:
On motion of plaintiff, the action is dismissed'-x
with __
without
prejudice.

APPEAL ADVISORY:

OTHER:

,~SB~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ur

The judgment creditor in this case is the party or parties to whom money is owed and the judgment
debtor is the party or parties who owe money. If this judgment has not been paid within 14 days of the
date of this judgment, the judgment creditor shall mail a copy of this judgment form by certified mail to the
judgment debtor together with the statement of assets.
Within 30 days of receiving the statement of assets form, unless the judgment has been paid, the
judgment debtor shall complete the statement of assets form and return it t the Clerk of Di ict Court.

user: UNI

Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg)

Date:

4/25/2016

Time:

08: 13 AM

ROA Report

Page 1 of 1

Case: 2015-CV-000075-P
Current Judge: Kurtis 1 Loy

AKCC Management LLC vs. Two Big Fish LLC, et al

Other Contract
Judge

Date
Petition Filed
Document ID Number: 286123

Kurtis I Lay

2 Request For Personal Service

Document ID Number: 286124

Kurtis 1 Lay

2 Summons Issued Back to Attny for Service

Document 10 Number: 286125

Kurtis I Loy

8/14/2015

Clerks Order For Additional Time to Answer Or Plead to Petition

Document 10 Number: 289498

Kurtis I Loy

8/27/2015

Answer
Document 10 Number: 291036

Kurtis I Lay

8/28/2015

Email Sent Date: 08/28/2015

11 :31 am To: vbrisbin@wntlaw.com
Attached: ANSWER.pdf Name of Document: Answer

8/31/2015

Notice of Case Management Conference

Document 10 Number: 291264

7/15/2015

Hearing Scheduled
PM)

Kurtis I Lay
Kurtis I Lay

(Case Management Conference

9/412015

Answer To Counterclaim
Document 10 Number: 291787

10/29/2015

Hearing Scheduled

(pretrial Conference

Hearing Scheduled

(Court Trial 05/19/201609:00

10/26/201502:30

Kurtis I Loy
Kurtis I Lay

04/27/201611;00

AM)

AM)

Kurtis' I Lay
Kurtis I Lay

Scheduling Order
Document 10 Number: 297689

Kurtis I Lay

Notice of Service of Discovery Requests

Document 10 Number: 302779

Kurtis I Loy

Notice of Service of Discovery Requests

Document 10 Number: 302780

Kurtis I Loy

3/2412016

Email Sent Date: 03/24/201603:44

Attached: SCHEDULINGORDER.pdf
Order

Kurtis I Loy

4/11/2016

Response of Defendants Lay Wachter Fleming Fleming Jack Lynch

Kurtis I Lay _\/),.
Russell Smith Sanders Hazlett Grillot and Schmidt to Plaintiffs Three Motian'"f'-'
Document ID Number: 314226

12/17/2015

'*

File

pm To: vbrisbin@wntlaw.com File

Name of Document: Scheduling

_._.

o.

'..>.

.'.:

_. 0.. .'

:, -;;: .- .'"

.. ~

O_~

--;:..........--~

----

--

--------~----

- - -

1
1
2

IN THE DISTRICT
ERIC M. MUATHE,

'-:'~]?"T
OF CRAWFORD

et a~.,

COUNTY, KANSAS

)
)

F~a.:':::I:iffs,
)
)

vs.

) CASE NO. 15CV7

)

HONORABLE

KURTIS

LOY, e~ al.,

)
)

Defendants.

)
)

Plaintiff,

NOAH IAN DAY,

7

vs.

) CASE NO. 15SC70P

MY TOWN HEDIA,

10

Defendant.
11

)
)

NOAH IAN DAY,

12

Plainti ff, )
)

13

vs.

) CASE NO. 15SC71P

14

LORI FLEHING,

)
)

15

Defendant.

)
)

NOAH DAY,
16

Plaintiff,
17

)
)

vs.

) CASE NO. 15SC85P

18

LORI FLEHING,

19

Defendant.

20

TRANSCRIPT

OF HOT IONS

21
PROCEEDINGS

had before

the Honorable

22
JACK BURR, Senior

Judge, assigned

to the District

Court of Crawford

County, Kansas,

at Pittsburg,

23

24
Kansas,
25

on the 18th day of April,

2016.

1
2

~=~~~:~;.

MR. PHILLIPS:

~e gs~ a letter

Friday,

continuance.

saying so~e~~:~;

------THE COURT: Yeat,

g=~ a motion

to continue

since I already had t~~s -- ~tis trip planned

have not been down here en ~~ese cases,

come down and see what happened.

guess,

-- 2
-- 3

~,

~-~------------------------------

and correct me if I'm wrong,

-:

- --

the motion

a response

to

And my questions,

I currently

here, if -have a motion

by the plaintiffs

to dismiss

to the motion

by you, I believe,

and I

to dismiss.

I also have a motion

dismiss

but

I decided

since I don't have the plaintiffs

on file by both parties

~~0~t they wanted

~O

".

last Thursday,

------------------------

;~

nor have I heard

asking

on their behalf.

to dismiss

Mr. Phillips,

to

I have

by the plaintiffs,

indicating

that you

"

::
;

don't -- it has already been dismissed

in your

.,

opinion,

but you want to talk about sanctions;

is that

correct?
MR. PHILLIPS:
reinstate
dismiss,
reinstate

it.

and then they moved

They filed their

then when I opposed

60-241 motion

to

to

it they said we want to

it.

THE COURT: No,

appeared

Yes, Judge,

understand

to me the~~ reasoning

don't want any sanc~~cns.

that.

And it

in that response

We don't mind the

was we

 ,.

J..H.LLll.JJ.J:";):

.:'_eed to do a Rule 170 journa

'7;.:'.-:ry,
Judge?
THE COURT:

I -::::-..:._::
-- ~-es,

journal entry

~~~~k,

:::"~cumstances,a Rule

MR. PHILLIPS:
THE COURT:

I do want you to do
under the

~r:caDly

would be the way to

Yes, sir.

And you can forward

;~~bablybetter

forward

:'~ at the courthouse

that to me at --

it to my house,

in Goodland

that way --

reasonably

regularly

------------------------------------------------~
='m not there all the time. And my address

is --

-----------------------------------------------------~R. PHILLIPS:

How about we do that later off the

----------------------~

~EE COURT: That's

:-..L<.. PHILLIPS:

fine, I will give it to you.

Okay.

:HE COURT: I will let you know.

=:~;~~questions
~.:=R.

DEPEW:

~HE COURT:
. =.':::':'5 afternoon

~_e

LO

~~~~d

of Mr. Depew,
Yes,

ViR.

Yeah .

I know these are scheduled

for

but I'm not sure we are going to be

do anything

DEPEW:

is it?

sir.

this afternoon

anything on either

I want to ask a

anyway.

Have you

of these small claims cases?

I have had phone calls with Mr. Day

~~: is the plaintiff.

lnOlCdLI:::!U

should

We will proceec.

...

__

---_

say, and - 1_

MR. DEPEW:

THE COURT;

MR. DEPEW;

..
:

l..HCl.

-.

- -.;:;--

:;:

:...::-_:;-

-:'0

note a dismissal.

--.-----...---_.

-~ ~wo cases that --

- '-

afternoon

THE COURT: Year:.

MR. DEPEW:

--

are No ah Day vs. Lori Fleming.

10

THE COURT: Right.

11

MR. DEPEW:

15SC85P

12

THE COURT:

Okay.

13

MR. DEPEW:

And there is also a suit against

14

separate

small claims

and 15SC71P .
Now, and --

suit against My Town Media

-that

---...

15
16

is -- I am not here on.

THE COURT:

I didn't

realize

that.

I thought

17

there were only two of them and I see what you are

18

talking

19

on the other one, it is 70P, I think.

20

about now.

Now, can you tell

enlighten

me

.~------------------------------

MR. DEPEW:

Yes.

It is basically

,-

21

same thing.

22

they terminated

23

neglects

24

when they terDina~ei

25

THE COUR~:

exactly

He is suing the radio station,

the advertising

to mention

--

contract.

in any of his paperwork

~~ ~~ey refunded
-::

::::..

the

because
What he
was that

--

of the same series of

-----:;,_

defendant

--

"""f:'

__

.... :::..--- ~ ....+=r>:

,....

_.J

cases 15SC70P,

HR. DEPEW:

Yes, s~~.

THE COURT:

Anc for ~he reasons

10

suppose

not involved

11
12
13

14

~S~~

-")

I can jot a dismissal

facilities

stated.

in, Hr. Depew, but since you have the

to do so.

HR. DEPEW:

THE COURT:

If you would

would appreciate

16

will happy

to prepare

them.

forward me the same forre

I will do so.

THE COURT:

And if you would

I will make

address is and how you

other questions

in, I

it.

MR. DEPEW:

afterwards,

Now, I

on the one that you are

for the third case that you are not involved

15

is a

in the

15SC71P and 15SC852,

20

~Qdio station

19

.............

THE COURT:

18

_...."

HR. DEPEIi'7:

17

...

step into chambers

--------------------~
-----------------~,
can send that.

you aware of what my home

about any

Are there
------of those cases at this

any

point?
HR. DEPEW:

No, Your Honor.

~-----------...-------"
MR. PHILLIPS~
abo~~

L~-~~~\~).

..
,

'

<

),-;,"

~G~~d

,
~o

----COURT:
Yeah.

~G~~

~h~~~

"
in his mC~2on

limitation
THE

.c

LO

~~~~~~,~

"
~hexe

~s

co==en~s
a~so

~~=~

r recusal.

Well,

------

and I'm trying

to -- ~