Complaint [ Part 1 ] Against Kansas Attorney Generals Office, Derek Schmidt, [Judge] Robert Fleming, [Judge] A.J. Wachter, Stanton Hazlett, Kimberly Knoll, Kate Baird, Deborah Hughes, Michael Serra, Derek Schmidt, and Stephen Phillips

THIS IS THE COVER SHEET TO THE
ATTACHED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE

ATTORNEY GENERALS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE
FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF PAST COMPLAINTS ON 11THDISTRICT JUDGES ROBERT FLEMING AND AJ.
WACHTER
THE OCTOBER 21, 2015 RESPONSEFROM KATE BAIRD DEPUTY DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR TO
THOMAS WALTERS FROM HIS COMPLAINT IN 15CV79P IN CRAWFORD COUNTY WAS NOT CONSISTENT
WITH WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF FAIRCHILD VS. STATE OF KANSAS. THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL RECUSED FROM THAT CASE ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 BUT CHOSE TO RETALIATE
WITH A MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN CASE NUMBER 15CV79P WHERE HE REPRESENETEDTHE ABOVE
NAMED 11THDISTRICT JUDGES ROBERT FLEMING AND AJ. WACHTER ON SEPTEMBER 25,2016 BECAUSE
lSCV79P WHICH WAS THE UNNAMED CASE FORCED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO RECUSEFROM
FAIRCHILD VS. STATE OF KANSAS.
A.J. Wachter and Robert Fleming "SHOULD HAVE NEVER heard THE Cases of 15CV4G Travis Carlton vs.
Kansas Department
of Revenue, and lSCV38P Community
Crawford County District Court"
National Bank vs. James Beckley Sr. et el all in
BECAUSE AJ. WACHTER AND ROBERT FLEMING BOTH HAD
COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST THEM BY JAMES BECKLEYJR. AND TRAVIS CARLTON WHICH ROBERT
FLEMING AND LORI-BOLTON FLEMING WERE DOCKETED IN THOSE COMPLAINTS THAT HAD TO DO WITH
AN INAPPROPRIATE EMAIL THAT WAS SENT FROM JUDGE LORI BOLTON flEMING TO JUDGE AJ.
WACHTER'S BROTHER BilL WHACTER AND IT WAS A VIOLATION OF RULES RELATING TO JUDICIAL
CONDUCT RULE 2.11(A) DISQUALIFICATION FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE BOTH ROBERT
FLEMING AND AJ. WACHTER WERE BIASED AND PREJUDICED AGAINST TRAVIS CARLTON AND JAMES
BECKLEYJR. AND THAT IS WHY THEY HAD THERE ATTORNEY THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE FILE A
MOTION FOR FILING RESTRICTIONSWHICH WAS GRANTED AGAINST KASEY KING, JAMES BECKLEYJR.,
TRAVIS CARLTON, AND ERIC MUATHE DUE TO RETALUATION FROM THE ATORNEY GENERAL AND HIS
CLIENTSWHICH VIOLATES SURPEME COURT RULE 223 IMMUNITY.
a"j '5'.
This is also a complaint against Robert Fleming of

Pittsburg Ks 11th district Crawford County chief judge.
t p0t/SO,?S /(5 ~? '357

andAJ. Wachter of 602 N. Locust in
Ch'1f'<:\
This is the same exact reason that Derek Schmidt recused from Fairchild vs. State of Kansas and Robert
Fleming and AJ. WachterI'" should have recused from hearing the above mentioned
and 15CV38P for the HAPPEARANCEOF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST".
cases of 15CV4G
We also feel that all the judges of Panel A and Panel B should recuse from hearing this complaint as well
since they are also co-defendants with Derek Schmidt in case number 15CV79P and the appeal in the
docketed case of 16-116284-A Eric Muate vs. Honorable Kurtis Loy, ETAL. The same reason that Derek
Schmidt recused from Fairchild vs. State of Kansas for just "A POSSIBLEAPPEARANCEOF IMPROPRIETY"
is the same reason that Chair Mary Thrower, Vice Chair Nicholas ST. Peter, Robert Fairchild, David King,
should all recuse from the investigation of this complaint against Robert Fleming and AJ. Wachter
because they are al/"CO-DEFENDANTS IN lSCV79P WHICH ISTHE UNNAMED LAWSUIT" which required
Derek Schmidt to recuse from Fairchild vs. State of Kansas and the Fairchild they are talking about is
none other than the "MEMBER OF COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALlFICATIONSn Robert W. Fairchild.
Numerous judges of Panel A and Panel B have already recused theirselves from complaints previously of
Michael and Kasey King that were sent in on November of 2015 and were delayed twice for "LACK OF
l~J+e.,
QUORUM" due to the recusal of judges of Commission on Judicial Qualifications for a conflict of interest
under Rule 2.11(A} Disqualification.
Please highly consider recusing yourself from this complaint if you don't want to possibly be involved in
a federal lawsuit because "JAMES BECKLEYJR. LOSTALL OF HIS FATHER'SINHERITEDRENTALHOUSESIN
CASENUMBER 15cv38P AND TRAVISCARLTONDOESNOT HAVE A DRIVERSLICENSEWHICH IS SERIOUS
DAMAGES FROM 15CV04G WHERE BOTH ROBERTFLEMING AND A.J. WACHTERCHOSETO STAYRATHER
THAN RECUSE"
dt1J6I'..(!1
Office of the Disciplinary Administrator

701 SW Jackson
Topeka Kansas 66603
November 11, 2016
THIS ISa COMPLAINT AGAINSTTHE ATTORNEYGENERAL'SOFFICE,Derek Schmidt, Stephen Phillips, and
Dennis Depew of Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor 120 SW 10th Avenue Topeka, Ks 66612.
Case Numbers Class action injunctive petition in lSCV79P IIFIUNG RESTRICTIONS
CASE", lSMR2P in the
matter of grand jury petition, lSCV4G Travis Carlton vs. Kansas Department of Revenue, and 15CV38P
Community National Bank vs. James Beckley Sr. et el all in Crawford County District Court.
Dear Investigative Committee:
James Beckley Jr. and Travis Carlton were damaged after September 18, 2015 because Judge A.J.
Wachter stayed in the case of lSCV4G Travis Carlton petition vs. Kansas Department of Revenue and
Judge Robert Fleming stayed and failed to recuse himself from case number 15CV38P which is titled
Community National Bank & Trust, et al.)
Plaintiff,
VS.
James Beckley, SR.deceased
James A. Beckley, Jr.,
Michael Andrew Edwards,
Unknown Spouse of Michael Andrew
Edwards, Unknown Tenant(s)
Kansas Department of Revenue,
Board of County Commissioners For
Crawford County et al.
)
Defendant.
CASENO. 15CV38P
even though Judge Wachter and Judge Fleming should have recused from those cases for the same
reason that Derek Schmidt recused from the Fairchild vs. Kansas case according to the article printed
September 18, 2015 for the appearance of IICONFUCTOF INTEREST". The attorney generals office
should have recused from 1SCV79Pbecause it does not comply with statute K.S.A.75- 702 because the
defendants in case number 15CV79P are not liTHE STATEOF KANSAS"which the statute states as
follows:
Statute K.S.A. 75-702 states "Duties and responsibilities; authority to prosecute. The attorney general
shall appear for the state. and prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings. civil or criminal, in the
supreme court. in which the state shall be interested or a party, and shall also, when required bv the
governor or either branch of the legislature. appear for the state and prosecute or defend, in any other
court or before any officer, in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which this state may be a party or
interested or when the constitutionality
of any law of this state is at issue and when so directed shall
seek final resolution of such issue in the supreme court of the state of Kansas. The attorney general
shall have authority to prosecute any matter related to a violation of K.S.A.12-189 or 75-5133, and
amendment thereto, related to unlawful acts when the offender is an officer or employee of a city or
county."
We are looking into filing a combined civil federal complaint for damages now against the attorney
generals office in federal court where filing restrictions "00 NOT APPLY"and filing a "SUBPOENA" to
witness Noah Day to have him testify in the federal court case since Noah Day and the attorney
generals office reached a plea bargain in case number 15CV79P with Noah Day and he has violated that
"PLEA BARGAIN" on "SEVERAL"different occasions now. Noah has stated he was never going to have
any contact with SJGagain, however no one from SJGhas ever contacted him since he was intimated by
the attorney generals office on May
n". of 2016 and he chose to coward down
and take a plea bargain
from case number 15CV79P which removed him from "FILING RESTRICTIONS"instead of standing up for
his constitutional rights. "NOAH DAY" took the "PLEA BARGAIN" on the "FILING RESTRICTIONSIN CASE
NUMBER 15CV79P" but he has harassed and intimidated Kasey King on several different occasions
which are proven in texts from phone number 720-696-1643 and his numerous "RESTRICTED"calls
which we plan to "SUBPOENATHE BUSINESSRECORDSOF NOAH DAY'SCELLPHONERECORDSFROM
MAY OF 2016 TO PRESENT"to show that the same dates and times Kasey King is showing "RESTRICTED"
on his calls there will be a *67 call from Noah Day's telephone bill.
To put the icing on the cake Noah threatened Kasey King on the morning after the presidential election
on Wednesday November 9. 2016 at 8:27 a.m. which is recorded from a "RESTRICTED"phone cail from
Noah Day and we will present this recorded message at "DISCOVERY"if we sue the attorney generals
office in federal court so "WHOEVER IS INVESTIGATINGTHIS COMPLAINT, PLEASEDO YOURJOB OR YOU
MIGHT BEADDED IN THE LAWSUITAS WELL".
Kasey King is including texts from the phone number of Noah Day on May 11, 2016 stating that "Kasey
King won't will Noah Day away according to Noah Day and Noah says he guesses we want him as an
enemy even though he was not suppose to contact SJGand that is why he received a plea bargain
because he was scared of what SJGwas supposedly doing but he is the one who intimidates and
harasses members of SJGon May 11, 2016 and after.
The texts on May 11, 2016 are the same day that attorney Stephen Phillips self reports for himself for
possible misconduct.
2016.
We have included that self report for evidence along with the texts from May 11,
There are "50 MANY" texts from Noah Day to Kasey King after this date that Kasey King has been
working on putting all of the information
and texts off his phone together to send them in as /I ANOTHER
HUGE COMPLAINT" with evidence of text messages and recorded harassing messages from Noah Day.
Please investigate the above mentioned attorneys for violating KRPCRules 3.3 Candor Toward the
Tribunal for lying to the judge in case number 15CV79P and informing him that Noah Day would not
contact SJGand that is why he received a plea bargain. It also violates KRPCRule 3.4 Fairness To
Opposing Party and KRPCRule S.4 Misconduct.
The attorney generals office should be reprimanded for violating Kansas Supreme Court Rule 223
Immunity because they retaliated against us and that's why we received filing restrictions.
They have also told Noah Day they were going to arrest us criminally for being domestic terrorists!
Please investigate this matter.
This complaint is also being sent to "THE GOVERNOROF KANSAS" because according to K.S.A.75-702 the
governor should have given an order for the attorney generals office to represent people in case
number 15CV79P that are not liTHE STATEOF KANSAS".
Does the attorney generals office also represent employees at liTHE KANSASSTATESCHOOLFORTHE
BLIND" if they get sued like they did the 11th district court judges?"
We think "NOT" and we feel there office has usurped their power by practicing law in jurisdictions they
are not allowed to practice in where the defendants should have had to get private counsel not public.
Noah Day has a history of harassing people on the telephone and that is why we have included a court
case 15WOS44 of just one year ago in July of 2015 in County Court in Denvery County Court, Colorado at
1437 Bannock St. #170, Denver, Co S0202 which is Jennifer Neary vs. Noah Day for issuing a
"PERMANENT CIVIL PROTECTIONORDER ISSUEDPURSUANTTO SECTION13-14-106, C.R.S.". The court
ordered that Noah Day could not have any contact with the Plaintiff Jennifer Neary and he must stay at
least 100 yards from the Protected Persons, where every they may be found from her home and work.
It says that a violation of this protection order may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, municipal
ordinance violation, or a delinquent act. The judge Theresa Spahn signed this order on 7/27/2015.
On Jennifer Neary's statement she claims that she is seeking this civil protection order as a victim for
Physical Assault, Threat or other situation.
She states that she is friends with and co-worker of his
domestic partner Michelle Smith. She believed Noah would cause Harm to her life, and physical or
emotional harm to the family home or the home of another.
calling/directed
use of obscenities, threatening,
She made an incident checklist of "name-
harassing phone calls" which is exactly the same thing
he was doing to Kasey King, Eric Muathe, Julie Stover, James Beckley Jr., and Travis Carlton on May 11,
2016.
We have also included a "NOTICE OF CLAIM" that Noah Day had filed on March 8, 2016 against the
Crawford County Sheriffs office to show that he was "FULLY AWARE OF EVERYTHINGSJGWAS DOING
INCLUDING HIMSELF"!!!!
We have also included the video/url where Noah states that he I(HASHIS OWN WEBSITE
CONFlICTGATE" at the Donald Trump rally to prove whatever lies or stories he told the attorney
generals office.
We have also included the audio recording of Noah Day calling members of SJG"DOMESTIC
TERRORISTS"which is after he spoke to the attorney generals office on May 11, 2016.
P.5. Kasey King has also included a "RECORDEDCD" for defamation of character from what Noah Day is
libel and slandering about Kasey King after he received the "PLEA BARGAIN" in case number lSCV79P
from the attorney generals office.
We are saving the November 9, 2016 recorded "RESTRICTED"message to include later because we want
to see if the attorney generals office lies like they usually do during our complaints and then we will
bring the recorded message up again later to show it and subpoena Noah Day to testify in the possible
upcoming case against the attorney generals office in federal court.
Kasey King's father Michael King and his wife Julie Stover-King also signed the grand jury petition in case
number lSMR2P and were part of the injunctive petition filed in 15CV79P and they are scared they are
going to get arrested now for signing
a grand jury petition and being considered domestic terrorists
according to Noah Day so please investigate this "HIGHLY SERIOUSMATIER" to see if "NOAH DAY" is
lying about what the attorney generals office said or if in fact "Stephen Phitlips did inform Noah Day
they are arresting everyone that signed the grand jury petition in case number 15MR2P for being
domestic terrorists I ! I!! II 1Il!!!!!I!! f!!!!!!!! II!!!!! I
Sincerely,
Kasey King, PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762. ;,
Eric Muathe PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
d'1 N
Travis Carlton PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762~

James Beckley Jr. PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762./
Michael King PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
~11~/
Julie Stover-King PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762

~
Tom Walters PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
-:ftf1YJ
The governor
The legislature of Kansas
T~
6N
E-
/(&( 11S q S
:>u",",
C.0
q~,~
rv; rf\)'
S 5; d/V
J ~\;R <:C\;t\~I-J S
+:'I 1/2.
~?
/J!!!IlA ~
Lester Moore PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
CC
'"
&vJ
J ;t;:
THIS IS THE COVERSHEET TO THE

ATTACHED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
ATTORNEY GENERALSAND THE ATIORNEY GENERALSOFFICE
THE OCTOBER 21,2015 RESPONSEFROM KATE BAIRD DEPUTY DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR TO

THOMAS WALTERS FROM HIS COMPLAINT IN 15CV79P IN CRAWFORD COUNTY WAS NOT CONSISTENT
WITH WHAT REALLYHAPPENED IN THE CASEOF FAIRCHILD VS. STATE OF KANSAS. THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL RECUSEDFROM THAT CASEON OR BEFORESEPTEMBER 18, 2015 BUT CHOSETO RETALIATE
WITH A MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN CASE NUMBER 1SCV79P ON SEPTEMBER25, 2016 BECAUSE
15CV79P FORCEDTHE ATTORNEY GENERALTO RECUSEFROM FAIRCHILD VS. STATE OF KANSAS.
KATE BAIRD "SHOULD HAVE NEVER INVESTIGATEDTHE COMPLAINT IN lSCV79P" BECAUSESTANTON

HAZLmTHE
DISCIPLINARYADMINISTRATOR IS A CO-DEFENDANT WITH DEREKSCHMIDT IN 15CV79P
AND IT WAS A VIOLATION OF KRPCRULE 1.7 CONFLICT OF INTERESTFOR KATE BAIRD TO INVESTIGATE
THE COMPLAINT BYTHOMAS WALTERS SENT IN OCTOBER OF 2015.
This is also a complaint against Stanton Hazlett, Kimberly Knoll, Kate Baird, Deborah Hughes, and
Michael Serra who were all part of the "OFFICE OF THE DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR" when the
complaint sent in by Thomas Walters on October of 2015 was investigated.
It was a violation of KRPC
Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest for any one that worked at IIOFFfCEOF THE DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR"
to investigate a complaint in the case of 15CV79P that has Stanton Hazlett and Derek Schmidt as codefendants.
This is the same exact reason that Derek Schmidt recused from Fairchild vs. State of Kansas and the
"OFFICE OF THE DISCIPLINARYADMINISTRATOR" should recuse from hearing this complaint on their
office and the attached complaint against Derek Schmidt, Stephen Phillips, and Dennis Depew and the
attorney generals office for the APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST".
H
Office of the Disciplinary Administrator

701 SW Jackson
Topeka Kansas 66603
November 11, 2016
THIS IS a COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ATTORNEYGENERAL'S OFFICE, Derek Schmidt, Stephen Phillips, and
nd
Dennis Depew of Memorial Bldg., 2
Floor 120 SW
io" Avenue
Topeka, Ks 66612.
Case Numbers Class action injunctive petition in 15CV79P "FlUNG RESTRICTIONSCASE", 1SMR2P in the
matter of grand jury petition, 15CV4G Travis Carlton vs. Kansas Department of Revenue, and 15CV38P
Community National Bank vs. James Beckley Sr. et el all in Crawford County District Court.
Dear Investigative Committee:
James Beckley Jr. and Travis Carlton were damaged after September 18, 2015 because Judge AJ.
Wachter stayed in the case of 15CV4G Travis Carlton petition vs. Kansas Department of Revenue and
Judge Robert Fleming stayed and failed to recuse himself from case number 15CV38P which is titled
Community National Bank & Trust, et al.)
Plaintiff,
VS.
CASE NO. 15CV38P
James Beckley, SR. deceased

James A. Beckley, Jr.,
Unknown Spouse of Michael Andrew
Edwards, Unknown Tenant(s)
Board of County Commissioners For
Crawford County et al,
Defendant.
even though Judge Wachter and Judge Fleming should have recused from those cases for the same
reason that Derek Schmidt recused from the Fairchild vs. Kansas case according to the article printed
September 18, 2015 for the appearance of "CONFLICT OF INTEREST". The attorney generals office
should have recused from 15CV79P because it does not comply with statute K.S.A. 75- 702 because the
defendants in case number 15CV79P are not "THE STATE OF KANSAS" which the statute states as
follows:
Statute K.S.A. 75-702 states "Duties and responsibilities;
authority to prosecute. The attorney general
shall appear for the state. and prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings. civil or criminal, in the
supreme court, in which the state shall be interested or a party, and shall also, when required bv the
governor or either branch of the legislature. appear for the state and prosecute or defend, in any other
court or before any officer, in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which this state may be a party or
interested or when the constitutionality
of any law of this state is at issue and when so directed shall
seek final resolution of such issue in the supreme court of the state of Kansas. The attorney general
shall have authority to prosecute any matter related to a violation of K.S.A. 12-189 or 75-513~, and
amendment
thereto, related to unlawful acts when the offender is an officer or employee of a city or
county."
We are looking into filing a combined civil federal complaint for damages now against the attorney
generals office in federal court where filing restrictions "DO NOT APPLY" and filing a "SUBPOENA" to
witness Noah Day to have him testify in the federal court case since Noah Day and the attorney
generals office reached a plea bargain in case number 15CV79P with Noah Day and he has violated that
"PLEA BARGAIN" on "SEVERAL" different occasions now. Noah has stated he was never going to have
any contact with SJGagain, however no one from SJGhas ever contacted him since he was intimated by
the attorney generals office on May
n". of 2016
and he chose to coward down and take a plea bargain
from case number lSCV79P which removed him from "FILING RESTRICTIONS"instead of standing up for
his constitutional
rights. "NOAH DAY" took the "PLEA BARGAIN" on the "FILING RESTRICTIONSIN CASE
NUMBER 15CV79P" but he has harassed and intimidated

which are proven in texts from phone number
Kasey King on several different occasions
720-696-1643 and his numerous "RESTRICTEDIJcalls
which we plan to "SUBPOENA THE BUSINESSRECORDSOF NOAH DAY'S CELLPHONERECORDSFROM

MAY OF 2016 TO PRESENT"to show that the same dates and times Kasey King is showing "RESTRICTED"
on his calls there will be a *67 call from Noah Day's telephone
To put the icing on the cake Noah threatened
bill.
Kasey King on the morning after the presidential election
on Wednesday November 9, 2016 at 8:27 a.m. which is recorded from a "RESTRICTED"phone call from
Noah Day and we will present this recorded message at "DISCOVERY" if we sue the attorney generals
office in federal court so "WHOEVER IS INVESTIGATING THIS COMPLAINT, PLEASEDO YOUR JOB OR YOU
MIGHT BE ADDED IN THE LAWSUIT AS WELL",
Kasey King is including texts from the phone number of Noah Day on May 11, 2016 stating that "Kasey
King won't will Noah Day away according to Noah Day and Noah says he guesses we want him as an
enemy even though he was not suppose to contact SJGand that is why he received a plea bargain
because he was scared of what SJGwas supposedly doing but he is the one who intimidates and
harasses members of SJGon May 11, 2016 and after.
The texts on May 11, 2016 are the same day that attorney Stephen Phillips self reports for himself for
possible misconduct.
2016.
We have included that self report for evidence along with the texts from May 11,
There are "SO MANY" texts from Noah Day to Kasey King after this date that Kasey King has been
working on putting all of the information
and texts off his phone together to send them in as "ANOTHER
HUGE COMPLAINT" with evidence of text messages and recorded harassing messages from Noah Day.
Please investigate the above mentioned attorneys for violating KRPCRules 3.3 Candor Toward the
Tribunal for lying to the judge in case number 1SCV79P and informing him that Noah Day would not
contact SJGand that is why he received a plea bargain. It also violates KRPCRule 3.4 Fairness To
Opposing Party and KRPCRule 8.4 Misconduct.
The attorney generals office should be reprimanded for violating Kansas Supreme Court Rule 223
Immunity
because they retaliated against us and that's why we received filing restrictions.
They have also told Noah Day they were going to arrest us criminally for being domestic terrorists!
Please investigate this matter.
This complaint
is also being sent to "THE GOVERNOR OF KANSAS" because according to K.S.A.7S-702 the
governor should have given an order for the attorney generals office to represent people in case
number 1SCV79P that are not "THE STATEOF KANSAS".
Does the attorney generals office also represent employees at "THE KANSASSTATESCHOOL FORTHE
BLIND" if they get sued like they did the 11th district court judges?"
We think "NOT" and we feel there office has usurped their power by practicing law in jurisdictions
they
are not allowed to practice in where the defendants should have had to get private counsel not public.
Noah Day has a history of harassing people on the telephone
and that is why we have included a court
case 15W0844 of just one year ago in July of 2015 in County Court in Denvery County Court, Colorado at
1437 Bannock St. #170, Denver, Co 80202 which is Jennifer Neary vs. Noah Day for issuing a
"PERMANENT CIVIL PROTECTIONORDER ISSUEDPURSUANT TO SECTION13-14-106, C.R.S.". The court
ordered that Noah Day could not have any contact with the Plaintiff Jennifer Neary and he must stay at
least 100 yards from the Protected Persons, where every they may be found from her home and work.
It says that a violation of this protection order may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, municipal
ordinance violation, or a delinquent act. The judge Theresa Spahn signed this order on 7/27/2015.
On Jennifer Neary's statement she claims that she is seeking this civil protection order as a victim for
Physical Assault, Threat or other situation.
She states that she is friends with and co-worker of his
domestic partner Michelle Smith. She believed Noah would cause Harm to her life, and physical or
emotional
harm to the family home or the home of another.
calling/directed
use of obscenities, threatening,
She made an incident checklist of "name-
harassing phone calls" which is exactly the same thing
he was doing to Kasey King, Eric Muathe, Julie Stover, James Beckley Jr., and Travis Carlton on May 11,
2016.
We have also included a "NOTICE OF CLAIM" that Noah Day had filed on March 8, 2016 against the
Crawford County Sheriffs office to show that he was "FULLY AWARE OF EVERYTHINGSJGWAS DOING
INCLUDING HIMSELF"!!!!
We have also included the video/url where Noah states that he "HAS HIS OWN WEBSITE
CONFlICTGATE" at the Donald Trump rally to prove whatever lies or stories he told the attorney
generals office.
We have also included the audio recording of Noah Day calling members of SJG"DOMESTIC
TERRORISTS"which is after he spoke to the attorney generals office on May 11, 2016.
P.S. Kasey King has also included a "RECORDEDCD" for defamation
of character from what Noah Day is
libel and slandering about Kasey King after he received the "PLEA BARGAIN" in case number 15CV79P
from the attorney generals office.
We are saving the November 9, 2016 recorded "RESTRICTED" message to include later because we want
to see if the attorney generals office lies like they usually do during our complaints and then we will
bring the recorded message up again later to show it and subpoena Noah Day to testify in the possible
upcoming case against the attorney generals office in federal court.
Kasey King's father Michael King and his wife Julie Stover-King also signed the grand jury petition in case
number 15MR2P and were part of the injunctive petition filed in 15CV79P and they are scared they are
going to get arrested now for signing a grand jury petition and being considered domestic terrorists
according to Noah Day so please investigate this "HIGHLY SERIOUSMATIERH to see if "NOAH DAY" is
lying about what the attorney generals office said or if in fact "Stephen Phillips did inform Noah Day
they are arresting everyone that signed the grand jury petition
domestic terroristsl!!!!!
I!!!!!!!!
I!!f!! I!!!!l!!!!!
in case number 15MR2P for being
I!!
Sincerely,
Kasey King, PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
Eric Muathe PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
~
('./Vv
Travis Carlton PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762~
15",,1;'; 1;2
~fo1~! ~~
James Beddey Jr. PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762./

Michael King PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
Julie Stover-King PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
/l!!!.u. ~
lester Moore PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
~,~
Tom Walters PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
J,{J f."
cc
The governor
The legislature of Kansas
T~e...k'lin.S4S C OMr(\1'S);6/V
6 N )""uc.\\q",\ t? u<\.\.7 R~'\.:l\o,.J
V1/
eve ,J2IV
$tate of 1Sansas
(!Commission on 3Jubicial ~ualifitations

KANSAS JUDICIAL CENTER
301 SWTENTH AVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org
CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
VICE-CHAIR:
Nicholas M. St. Peter
Judge Member
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
Brenda M. Cameron
Judge Member
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
November 23,2015
Kasey King
P. O. Box 101
Opolis, Kansas 66760
Re:
Dr. Mary E, Davidson

Non-Lawyer Member
Robert W. Fairchild
Judge Member
Allen G. Glendenning
Lawyer Member
Larry D. Hendricks
Judge Member
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member
David J. King
Judge Member
Your complaint against District Judge Kurtis 1. Loy, Chief Judge A. J.

Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming, District Judge Robert J.
Fleming, District Judge Jeffry L. Jack, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
Senior Judge Richard M. Smith, and Senior Judge John E. Sanders
Dear Mr. King:

The Commission on Judicial Qualifications considers and investigates
complaints of alleged unethical conduct of state court judges under the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
The above-captioned complaint will be referred to the Commission and will
be placed on the Commission's December 4,2015, meeting agenda.
The Commission does not have jurisdiction over attorneys. If you wish to
file a complaint against an attorney, you will need to contact the Office of Disciplinary
Administrator. Enclosed is a brochure regarding complaints about lawyer services.
Susan Lynn
Non-Lawyer Member
Sincerely,
Diane H. Sorensen
Lawyer Member
//~/.A
Rep. Valdenia C. Winn

Non-Lawyer Member
Heather L. Smith,
Secretary
SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith
mm
~tate of J'kansas
~ommission on jJ umnal ~ualifications

301 SW TENTH AVE., ROOM 374

785-296-2913
CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
VICE-CHAIR:
J udge
November 24,2015
Member
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
Brenda M. Cameron
Judge Member
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
Lester Moore
508 E. Viener, Lot Al
Frontenac, Kansas 66763
Re:
Dr. Mary E. Davidson

Non-Lawyer Member
Robert W. Fairchild
Judge Member
Lawyer Member
Larry D. Hendricks
Judge Member
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member
David J. King
Judge Member
Susan Lynn
Non-Lawyer Member
Diane H. Sorensen
Lawyer Member
Your complaint against District Judge Kurtis I. Loy, Chief Judge A. J.

Senior Judge Janice D. Russell, Senior Judge Richard M. Smith, and
Senior Judge John E. Sanders
Dear Mr. Moore:

Judicial Conduct.
Sincerely,
{:~m::0

Non-Lawyer Member
SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith
Secretary
mm
Enclosure
~tate of If{ansas
qcommission on jJ utnnal ~ualifitations


785-296-2913
CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
VICE-CHAIR:
Judge Member
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
November 23,2015
Brenda M. Cameron
Judge Member
Michael King
P. O. Box 101
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
Re:
Dr. Mary E. Davidson

Non-Lawyer Member
Robert W. Fairchild
Judge Member
Lawyer Member
Larry D. Hendricks
Judge Member
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member
David J. King
Judge Member
Susan Lynn
Non-Lawyer Member
Dear Mr. King:

Judicial Conduct.
Sincerely,
Diane H. Sorensen
Lawyer Member
Non-Lawyer Member
SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith

mm
~tate of Jitansas
Q[ommission on 31umnal <!aualifications

KANSAS JUDICIAL
301 SWTE
CENTER
THAvE.,RoOM 374

785-296-2913
MEMBERS
OF
PANELA
CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
VICE-CHAIR:
Brenda M. Cameron
Judge Member
February 23,2016
Michael King
P. O. Box 101
Re:
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
Robert W. Fairchild
Judge Member
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member
Your complaint against District Judge Kurtis 1. Loy, Chief Judge A. 1.

Dear Mr. King:

The Commission met February 5, 2016, at which time the above-captioned
complaint was listed on the meeting agenda. The matter was, however, continued due
to a lack of quorum as Judge Cameron and Judge Fairchild recused. The matter will be
placed on the Commission's April 1, 2016, meeting agenda.

Lay Member
Thank you for your continued patience as the Commission does its work.
Cordially,
ACTING SECRETARY:
Douglas T. Shima
mm
(!Commission on JJ utnnal ~ualifications

KANSAS JUDICIAl,
301 SWTENTH
CENTER
AVE., ROOM 374

785-296-2913
MEMBERS
OF
PANELA
CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
VICE-CHAIR:
Brenda M. Cameron
Judge Member
February 23, 2016
Kasey King
P. O. Box 101
Re:
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
Robert W. Fairchild
Judge Member
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member
Your complaint against District Judge Kurtis I. Loy, Chief Judge A. J.

Dear Mr. King:


Lay Member
Cordially,
ACTING SECRETARY:
Douglas T. Shima
mm
~([ommiggion on 'Jf uatrtal <!F!ualificationg

301 SWTENTI-I AVE., ROOM 374
785-296-2913
MEMBERS OF
February 23, 2016
PANELA
CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
Kasey King
P. O. Box 101
VICE-CHAIR:
Brenda M. Cameron
Judge Member
Re:
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
Robert~.Fauchild
Judge Member
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member
Rep. Valdenia C. ~inn
Lay Member
Your complaint against District Judge Robert W. Fairchild,

District Judge Jeffry L. Jack, District Judge Kurtis 1. Loy,
Chief Judge A. J. Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming,
District Judge Robert 1. Fleming, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
Dear Mr. King:

to a lack of quorum as Judge Cameron and Judge Fairchild recused. The matter will
be placed on the Commission's April 1, 2016, meeting agenda.
ACTING SECRETARY:
Cordially,
Douglas T. Shima
mm
..
$>tate of kansas
'([ommission on 31ubicial <mualifications

KANSAS JUDICIAL
CENTER

TOPEKA, KANSAS
785-296-2913
66612
MEMBERS
OF
February 23,2016
,PANELA
CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
Lester Moore
508 E. Viener, Lot Al
Frontenac, Kansas 66763
VICE-CHAIR:
Brenda M. Cameron
Judge Member
Re:
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
Robert W. Fairchild
Judge Member
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member

Dear Mr. Moore:


Lay Member
Cordially,
ACTING SECRETARY:
Douglas T. Shima
..
mm
Z7'
ouglas 1:. Shima, '

Acting ecretary ,
Bloomberg Politics
1011612015
Watch latest episode here.
Heilemann & Halperin

Weekdays, 5 PM ET
The Index
~e ()J S~e
-
Focus groups
--
Hillary likeability
Syrian refugees
f
)#
~
-_._--_._:\\-_._-----------_.
Follow us:
Index
loe Biden
Jeb's dog
__ ._-----------_ _-_. __ ._--_._---------- -_._-_._-----------_.

Clinton Lauds Jennifer
Stephen Colbert S
2.
1. Hillary
Lawrence"s Wage Gap Comments
Do "Late Show' Oc
<
..
Supreme Court Justice Hears Case Unaware 011

Stock Conflict!
by
Greg Stohr
~ @GregStohr
October 15, 2015 - 10:46 PM CDT
Bloomberg Politics
1G'15'2015
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer pauses while testifying during a Financial Services and General
Government Subcommittee
meeting in Washington on March 23, 2015. Photographer: Pete Marovich/Bloomberg
Breyer's wife sells company stock after reporter inquires
Alita's Johnson Controls stake may decide fate of energy rule
'as empty Wednesday when the
nt ramifications
u.s. Supreme
Court heard arguments
in a case with
for the power industry. Justice Samuel Alito didn't take part,
.tlv because he or his wife owns stock in Johnson Controls Inc., whose
~
.onnect subsidiary is a party in the case.
"it-
rs over, Justice Stephen Breyer was hearing the case unaware that he had the same
cause his wife also owned Johnson Controls. She sold her 750 shares for about
$33,000 the following day, only after a Bloomberg reporter inquired.

The case is the latest example of a recurring phenomenon:
a Supreme Court fight proceeding
1011612015
Bloomberg Politics
fueling calls for the justices to shift into investments less likely to pose a conflict of interest,
while underscoring the complications that can arise in a system that gives the justices broad
discretion to decide when to step aside.
"Wedon't begrudge the justices for

wanting to invest."
-Gabe Roth
In Wednesday's case, Breyer's office did a regular check for potential conflicts that failed to
turn up the connection between the case and the stock, a top court official said in a letter
released Thursday night. Breyer plans to remain on the case following the sale, the official
said. Alito's absence, meanwhile, could swing the outcome, raising the prospect of a 4-4
split. That would leave intact a lower court ruling invalidating an administrative order
aimed at cutting electricity use.
"We don't begrudge the justices for wanting to invest," said Gabe Roth, executive director of
Fix the Court, which seeks more accountability and transparency from the justices. "It's just
when you look at their holdings, a lot of the stocks they own are in the blue-chip companies
that often have cases before the justices. And nobody wants a tie."
Breyer, Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts -- or a close family member -- each owned
shares in at least a dozen companies as of Dec. 31,2014, according to their most recent
financial disclosure reports. Roberts's family held Microsoft Corp. and Nokia Oyj; Breyer
disclosed stakes in Pearson PIc and International Business Machines Corp.; and Alito listed
Exxon Mobil Corp. and Target Corp. Each justice declined to comment for this story.
Those holdings have proven troublesome over the years. In 2008, Roberts recused himself
from a case involving Pfizer Inc., leaving the court in a 4-4 deadlock that let product-liability
suits against the drugmaker go forward.
That same year, Alito was absent when the court ruled on the punitive damage award
1011612015
Bloomberg Politics
against Exxon over the Valdez oil spill. Although Exxon won a $2 billion reduction in the
award, the court split 4-4 on a separate line of argument that might have meant a new trial.
In 2008, the three justices' stock holdings, along with a family conflict affecting Justice
Anthony Kennedy, left the court unable to muster a quorum to review an appeal by
companies accused of helping South Africa's former apartheid regime repress blacks.
Breyer's misstep in the energy case isn't the first time a justice has overlooked a potential
conflict. In 2009, Alito took part in a case involving Walt Disney Co.'s ABCInc., even though
his children held Disney stock. Alito, who voted against ABCin the case, later said in an
interview that a staff oversight was to blame.
No Explanation
The justices typically don't give reasons when they step aside, so tying a recusal to a stock
holding usually requires comparing a disclosure report to the list of parties in a case. The
annual disclosure form lists investments held by the justices, their spouses and any
dependent children.
By law, the justices
can't participate in a case when they own stock in a company that is a party. They don't step
aside as a matter of course when a company files a friend-of-the-court brief in a case
involving other entities.
To varying degrees, the stock-holding justices have taken steps to alleviate the problem. In
2008, Breyer and his wife began selling some of their stocks so the justice could take part in
more cases. They retained stock in 17companies as oflast year, down from about three
dozen. Much of Breyer's wealth comes from his wife, Joanna, the daughter of an English
lord.
Roberts has also sold stocks, twice enabling himself to take part in a case that otherwise
would have involved only seven justices. Alito has shed individual stocks as well, including
some that he or his wife inherited after the death of a parent. The other six justices have few
if any individual stock holdings.
Still, conflicts remain. Breyer's stake in Cisco Systems Inc. kept him out of a patent case the
C'.rlllrt
npeinpn
in
M::nT
1011612015
Bloomberg Politics
And Roberts, Breyer and Alito all disqualified themselves at least once when the court
opened its new term Oct. 5 by rejecting appeals in more than 1,000 cases. The impact of
those recusals isn't clear because the court typically doesn't disclose the vote on rejected
appeals. The court accepts a new case only if four justices vote to consider it.
Minimizing Recusals
Some experts in judicial ethics say that, while justices should try to minimize recusals, they
shouldn't have to totally abstain from holding stocks. That's in part because of the tax
implications of a forced sale.
"This in-between view has not been disruptive, so I see no reason for change," said Stephen
Gillers, a professor at New York University School of Law who has advised Breyer on ethics
questions.
Others disagree, citing this week's energy case as a prime example. Power generators are
challenging a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission order that would give financial
incentives to large electricity consumers to reduce use during peak hours.
Johnson Controls' EnergyConnect unit, which helps those customers cut usage, would
benefit from the rule and is helping to make the case in its favor.
A federal appeals court ruled on a 2-1vote that FERC was overstepping its authority. Should
the Supreme Court divide 4-4 -- something Wednesday's argument suggested was at least a
possibility -- the appeals court ruling stands to become the final word.
"You could have a result where the agency can't put out a rule because the court of appeals
said they couldn't promulgate the rule, and four justices of the Supreme Court said they
can't," said Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who served as President
George W. Bush's chief ethics lawyer and advised on the nominations of Roberts and Alito.
"That has major implications for the public interest," Painter said. "We really would be much
better off if Justice Alita were in the case."
As for Breyer, Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris said in the letter that "the ordinary conflictcheck conducted in Justice Breyer's chambers inadvertently failed to find this potential
Bloomberg Politics
1011612015
conflict."
Johnson Controls itself isn't a party to the case. Its ownership of EnergyConnect was noted
in one of the two petitions the court accepted for review in January.
Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Breyer learned of the possible conflict
when a Bloomberg reporter asked about the stock ownership Thursday.
Harris's letter pointed to the code of conduct that federal judges follow, citing a provision
that lets jurists take part in a case after they have divested their financial interest.
Harris wrote that Breyer "has devoted substantial judicial time to this case" and "has no
reason to believe that the financial interest could be substantially affected by the outcome of
this case."
Read MorE!
Supreme Court
1011612015
Bloomberg Politics
Trump: Fed1s Yellen Keeps Rates Low for Political Reasons

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump sits down with Stephanie Ruhle about the state of the
US economy and whether or not he shares the view of Carl Icahn who says we are headed for financial
disaster. They speak on "Bloomberg <GO>."(Source: Bloomberg)
Is Donald Trumps Rhetoric Distorting Reality?
Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Matthew Winkler and Bloomberg Politics' Mark Halperin
weigh in on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's rhetoric. They speak on "Bloomberg
<GO>."(Source: Bloomberg)
PLAINTIFF,
FIFTH THIRD BAND,
VS.
CASE NO. 2012-LM-356 P

DEFENDANT.
ERIC M. MUATHE,
ORDER GRANTING
CHANGE OF JUDGE
The Defendant herein filed a Motion for Disqualification

with Affidavit
of Judge
pursuant to K.S.A. 20-311 d. The Motion has been
assigned to this Court by the departmental
justice pursuant to K.S.A.
20-311d(b) for consideration.

The Defendant's
affidavit
sets forth the basis for the Motion and
the Court hereby finds as follows:

1. The Defendant is requesting
disqualified
from presiding
that Judge Janice Russell be

over this case;
2. The Defendant was a Co-Plaintiff

2013 CV 47 P, In the District
in a class action, Case No.
Court of Crawford County,
Kansas, wherein he alleges dissatisfaction
with Judge
Russell;
3. The Kansas Code of Judicial
Conduct, adopted by Kansas
Supreme Court Rule 601 B, provides in Rule 2.11 (A) that:

judge shall disqualify
"A
himself or herself in any proceeding in
which the judge's impartiality
might reasonably be questioned
...".,
4. The standard of review of rulings on disqualification
of a
Judge are found in Smith v. Printup, 262 Kan. 587 (1997). In

Smith, at Syl. 8, the Kansas Supreme Court reveals that, "The
standard to be applied to a charge of lack of impartiality
is
whether the charge is grounded in facts that would create

reasonable doubt concerning
the court's impartiality,
not in
the mind of the court itself, or even necessarily in the. mind of

the litigant filing the motion but rather in the mind of a
reasonable person with knowledge
5. A disinterested
of all the circumstances.";
person aware of the allegations by Mr. Muathe
against Judge Russell in the prior case might reasonably
doubt the impartiality
of Judge Russell to preside over the
instant case; and

6. The Court finds the Defendant's Affidavit
to be legally
sufficient.
IT IS THEREFORE, the FINDING and ORDER OF THE COURT, that
the Defendant's Motion for Disqualification
of Judge is hereby granted.
IT IS BY THE COURT SO ORDERED.

~~
Dated this
day of June, 2015.
"-
District
Judge
Sixth Judicial
District
.1
Crawford County Distric:tCourt

602 N. LOCUST
PITTSBURG, KANSAS 66762
"'-'.:.~
J':
(i '.~
,
!
,. ,e,
1111111111111111111\1111111111111111111111111111111111111111'((4
".,~,!, .....
, ..
i-,:.~...;.:;:-.
)
. .,',
~'
::~;;"" .. J'"
..
..
Eric Muathe
14:10Bitner Terrace
.. Pittsburg KS 66762
'..
... ,.'''"'"''e;E:?E::aE:~.f;Fr5.:Rf.:,1l:::t:3
e; ffti JpJ1
PlI'ulfj';)lJ lll" llJlJill,/i
I,;rr1
hi 1/ Ji i i)1 iJ j flil
~
'15
MAR 24
A 8 '57
:1- eRK OF (if S )1'1:: COUi

CRAWf Gi'll) COUH ry
Monday, March 23, 2015
Hon A.J. Wachter

Chief Judge
602 N Locust
Pittsburg KS 66762
~L........:::::::---------------Travis Carlton vs.Kansas
Department of Revenue
2015-CV-000004-G
Dear A. J.:
Please be advised that I am recusing myself from the above mentioned
am requesting that you appoint another Judge to hear this matter.

Thank you.
cc:
Ted E. Smith
Travis Carlton
case and
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRA.WFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

Travis Carlton,
vs.
Case No. 2015 CV 4 G
Kansas Department of Revenue
NOTICE OF HEARING
Because of the change of judge, the hearings scheduled for June 9, 2015, must be
moved. The parties to the above entitled case will please appear for a Pretrial Conference
on the
s" day of June, 2015, at 10:30 a.m.,
at the Crawford County Judicial Center, 602
North Locust, Pittsburg, Kansas. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss will be addressed at that
time.
""'v~6
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2ih day of April, 2015.
SIv>J\A
, v-,
V ;;.0 "-
Ov\ec\
. f'\
,(M. \;{,ttJf
-
p 0\~
0\ s'tv~\
Cop~~
_
\
rJ.
mvJa4~c;;:.
{ews",01
J,eAJ
~.
Hon. A.I. Wachter

Judge of the District Court
Mr. Ted E. Smith

Legal Services Bureau
Kansas Department of Revenue
Docking State Office Building
Topeka, KS 66612
Mr. Travis Carlton

1410 N. Smelter
Pittsburg, KS 66762
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document
was deposited in the United States Mctil,..p.osta re.pai.d--.EEd properly addressed to the
above party or parties on the~1laY.:f
_._... yJ..D
,2015.
:~~
ROBERT J. FLEMING
District Judge
Eleventh Judicial District, Division Three
Labette County, Kansas
Judicial Center
201 South Central
Parsons, Kansas 67357
620-421-1410
FAX 620-421-3633
Courthouse
Oswego, Kansas 67356
620-795-4533
FAX 620-795-3056
July 27, 2015
Pamela Hicks
Clerk of District Court
602 N. Locust
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
In Re: Comniiiiii
ational Bank & Trust v. Beckley, et al- Case No. 15 CV 38-P
Dear Pam:
Enclosed herewith for filing in the above-captioned case please find the Court's
Memorandum Decision and Order and Notice of Case Management Conference.
you please send a file-stamped copy to counsel and Mr. Beckley. Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
RJF:vb
Enclosure
cc: Creath L. Pollak
Kip Sagehom
Steve Stockard
/' James A. Beckley, Jr.
Would
c- n
IN THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DIsrRl<t:,r,

STATE OF KANSAS
TO:
iD
-.
15
Hon. Robert 1. Fleml

District Judge
201 S. Central
Parsons, KS 67357
C"
$." ~"
JUL24 P3 :07
l~t ~F\h CF ~:'l'~-. " .
CiU...wT .....
::::; ~._, .'~, (
lJ \D\~
i~tA)
o
~7 vtv~
Under and by virtue of the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 107(b) and
Administrative Order No. 113, you are hereby assigned to hear and determine the following
case presently pending in Crawford County, Kansas, at Pittsburg:
Community National Bank & Trust,
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)Case No. 2015 CV 38 P
James A. Beckley, Sr., deceased,
)
James A. Beckley, Jr.
)
)
Unknown Spouse of Michael Andrew Edwards,
)
Unknown Tenant(s),
)
Jesus Piedrea-Segovia, a/k/a Jesus Piedra,
)
Maria Lopez, Juan Lopez,
)
)
Board of County Commissioners
)
for Crawford County,
)
________________________
~D~e6=e~n=da=n~t~s.~)
DATED this 23ro day of July, 2015.
A.J. Wachter
Chief Judge
Copies to:
Hon. A.J. Wachter
District Judge
602 N. Locust
Pittsburg, KS 66762
Ms. Creath Pollak

Attorney at Law
8080 E. Central Ave., Ste.
300
Wichita, KS 67206
Mr. Kip Sagehorn

Attorney at Law
P.O. Drawer B
Pittsburg, KS 66762
~CJ;jJ&rJ
...........
~:-),
Wo.c,\,-Y ~~
.. .
)AW~
fr",1\.
V\
,
\ \0\
D\~~C\
YJ vi
t-
/.e- ).,
f\;)
t\ C
16
IN THE DISTRICT
_------
~ {ec~
.o... r.,A
t/~~Ire(
~(..'
J
P~Ud{{~ Cd$
I
0 'I SttAS\C~
FII 1='0
-..MAY -9 P!2:12
COURT OF CRAWFORD
COUNTY, KAJ'\fSAS
CLERK OF D/Sf CCt;:'~
SITTIN
8( G ~fN\HiJRi'Sllt1Rg'
_
James Beckley Jr, Petitioner
Plaintiff
Case ?\0.2015-D~vl-00048]-P
VS.
Defendant
Tatum R Beckley, Respondent
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS

TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD:
You are hereby notified that the above entitled case will be dismissed on 6/2/2016
at 9:00 AM for the following reason unless cause be shown for not doing so:
x
Lack of Prosecution
Date:
5/2/2016
Copies to:
James Beckley
1212 E. 16th
Pittsburg, Ks. 66762
---
Tatum Beckley
1501 N. Michigan
Pittsburg, Ks. 66762
e.
".
STATE.OFKANSAS
701 Jacks()n SL
STANTONA.HAZLETT
Disciplinary Administrator
latP/oor
Topekti,Kansas6~603~3729
Telephone: (785) 296-1486
Fax:. (785) 29~6049
KIMB'ERLYLKNOLL
KATEP:BAIRiJ
..
.'
DEBORAHLHUGHES
GAYLE:B.LARKIN
.MICHAELR. SERRA
D~puty lJisciplinarJlAdministrators
Admissions Attorney
OFFICE OF
THEDISCiPLINARY':ADMINISTRATOR
.October 21, 2015

Thomas Walters
21S East-Carlton
PittsDUrg, Kailsas.66762
Re:LetterofOctober
13,2015
Dear Mr. Walters:

This wHlacknowledge.receiptofyourletterofcomptaint
(jatedOctdber 13, 2015 .
.The complaint relates to thecondLJctof tbree attomeys<intlieOffice
ofIlie
.'Attorney General. You a"egethatf~~governmenfattorl1eys are engaging in
miscoiiductby defending.the state In
a~ion challenging the.constitutibnality of
legislation while simultaneously represen1ingoneof-the.plaintiffjudges.inan
unrelateddvilmatter
...You also reportyourccmcern with the lac~ofr~sponse
from the AG's office rel;iarding your complainffiledagainst
a judiCialofflcet.
an
As you. may know. thisofflce only hasJurisdictionlOcconsiderwhetherthe

conduct of anattorney.ficensed
in .Kansas, violatesthe-Kans3sRules
of
Professional Conduct. It would beourblJrde~ to prove a violationbycJear and
convincing evidence. Ifa violationisestahlished
the /awYer's/icensemaybe
..subjeet.to sanction by the KansasSuprerne Court. Our assessment of conduct is
ln lightofthe rules.
made
Neither ourofftce.northeoffiee
offheAttomey
General has authority to consider
acomplaintagainsta
ju:diciafofficer. You have reportedlhafthejudicial
.
)--.'. 1ft)
complaint made:With'the AG was also rnadewith the Kansaf>G()mmisslon on
~
\("
JudiciaIQualifications; ..~ccordingto y()urletter, the matter has been docketed for
\J.'
J.~<"'\reViewwith
the Commission. Yourconc~rnwiththe/ack.of,aresponsefrom
the
...."
'Attorru::!y General's Office regarding the complaint is insuffiCieritloimpllcatethe
p..tV l!;'
rtlles'lf p(Ofes~Onal conduct.
.
\...
lJ
~~
Ihaye ~Isocon~idered:~~ef~cts
Ordlnanly,alawer'sobhgatlqnto
.J::
\J
relati~gtoth~~U~ged
co~f1ic! of irtt~r~st.
avo.rdcenfilctsisanobligatior
thatheor she
owes toa client orformerclient.ltjoesnotap,eearthatanyofthe

?lffeged
\ \part~aconcern
.. h;()ssibl~co~f1tct
Ihave;tFiou~h,d
detEmntned tnatthe scope olthe rules: Of professional conduct provides some
gtlidancein assessing the situati'on.Paragraph18
ofthe Preamble to the Rules
6fProfessionai Gonduct.contemplatesthescQpe
Of the nnesappucationto
\;-\.
~.
(j:
situations involving governmenUawyers.
, o <t\..~
V,
~ utE. ?)"
I o- """'~
..u..
.
{"<- ~\ . ,,~I,1\ Fb y' (1'.1(\,7 ,,,stll( \-I."s
r > ~_,~
1")\
~.
Paragraph 18 provides:
Undervarious lega/provisions; includingconstitutiona/;statutoryand
common law,the re$ponsibilifiesof-government/awyers l11ayinclude authority
cancemingJegalmatterS;tbat
ortlinarilyieposes
in the Client in. pnvateclient-
Por ex~mp/~,.arawyerfor8govemfi1ent figencymay have
lawyerrelafionship.
authority on behalfofthegovemmentiQ~decideuponsettlementor
appealfrom
anc;idversejudgmentSt,idhaufhorityin
various
whetherfo
respects Is
generallY vested in the attotneygene.riil andthestate'saltomey
instate
federal counte,peirfs. and the samecmay befriJeofother

governmenUawoffipers .. A/sQ, 1~VttJ(~f$Hnd(3rtHesupe1Vision ofthe'se.officers
maYbeauthorized to.repre$ent'severalgovernmentagencie$in
intragovemmel1taI1egalcontroversje~:in.circtJrnstanceswhereaprivste/awyer
cou/d:no(repmsent mllltipleprivatec;clif!n(., These Rules do .notal:)rogateany
sach"authorlty;:{2014I<al'r. CtR>Annot; 45't)
. , ., ...,
gOYemment,andtheir
I haveconcluded thatthe facts dfthismatter~onot,at
tirne;demonstratea
to the authority
..' .
violation of the rules .. The complaint will1.be d1smissedpursuanf

granted in Supreme COllrtHule2Q9;
.
.
...
..
rJ;W;;Y
Kate F. Baird
DeputyDisciplinary
Administrator
KFB:SG
cc: Derek Schmidt

Stephen Phillips
Dennis Depew
~
i
~
Topeka attorney handling judiciary lawsuits defiant in wake of AG's call for 'humility'
111812016
~
(I)
Posted September 21,201506:40 p
- Updated September 22,201510:34 am
timothy.carpenter@cjonline.com
Topeka attorney handling judiciary lawsuits defiant in

wake of AG's call for 'humility'
Lawyer Pedro Irigonegaray affirms plan to aggressively challenge pair of Kansas
laws
Comments
.: 0 Share
1118f2016
Topeka attorney handling judiciary lawsuits defiant in wake of AG's call fur 'humility'
Pedro Irigonegaray (right), a Topeka lawyer representing plaintiffs challenging constitutionality
of two
Kansas laws delving into judicial power, Monday dismissed Attorney General Derek Schmidt's (left)
public plea for restraint among litigants.
A Topeka lawyer representing plaintiffs challenging constitutionality of two Kansas laws

delving into judicial power Monday dismissed the attorney general's public plea for
restraint among litigants.
Attorney General Derek Schmidt called for a "healthy dose of humility and restraint by aU
involved" in a lawsuit contesting overhaul of the way district court chief judges were picked,
as well as a companion suit contesting linkage of an outcome in the first case to future
state funding of the courts.
Pedro Irigonegaray, who represents five judges who are plaintiffs in the litigation, said both
statutes were an overreach by legislative and executive branch members and could
damage the democratic process by bringing the government's third branch to its knees.
AOVERTISING
Topeka attorney handling judiciary lawsuits defiant in wake of AG's call fer 'humility'
111812016
o
o
Replay
learn
more
"We can't remain quiet in face of this attack on our democracy," Irigonegaray said in an
interview. "This is an overt act to threaten the judiciary.
It is an effort to use extortion
on
the judiciary."
The 2014 legislature
appointment
and Gov. Sam Brownback agreed on a statute shifting chief judge
decisions from the Supreme Court to judges in each of the state's 31 judicial
districts. After Irigonegaray flied suit in February to contest that law, the 2015 Legislature
and Brownback enacted a measure making state aid for the courts through June 2017
conditional
on validation of the judicial selection reform.
Schmidt said in a statement Friday the dispute reflected interests of people who believed
the Legislature exclusively held power of the purse and those who contended the judiciary
had absolute power to decide cases.
In addition, there is a sense controversial
state court decisions regarding financing of
Kansas public schools sharpened feuding in state government.

''This conflict does not represent traditional
regrettably
Kansas values and is deeply distressing and
divisive," the attorney general said.
Shawnee County District Court judge Larry Hendricks recently struck down the chief judge
selection law as a violation of the Kansas Constitution.
His ruling was stayed pending
appeal by Schmidt.
Schmidt said he would ask all Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from hearing
the appeal because the case "directly involves their own power." At minimum, the
Republican prosecutor said, any justice who publicly criticized the 2014 law ought to
voluntarily
step aside.
"Even an appearance of partiality would not serve the interests of justice in a case of this
importance," Schmidt said.
11/812016
Topeka attorney handling judiciary lawsuits defiant in wake of AG's call for 'humility'
Irigonegaray filed the second lawsuit on behalf of four district court judges who challenged
the new law placing conditions on state funding for the judicial branch. Specifically, they
are fighting to throw out a provision making "null and Void" the state's budget for the
judiciary if judicial selection is rendered unconstitutional.
.~
Sch!!lidt said he wOl!ldn't represent the state i~hiS cas: because one plaintiff, ~abette ,)' L U 7qer
County Judge jeffry Jack, had been named as defendant along with Schmidt in an unrelated
e
....
lawsuit. Irigonegaray said Jack's recusal wasn't necessary. Schmidt said a private law firm.,..;
would represent the state.
D U'{~C 4~-e ~
Irigonegaray said the constitutional conflict was an outgrowth of "irresponsible" leadership

by Brownback and Sen.Jeff King, the Independence Republican who was lead architect of
the judicial bills.
"As a result of their reckless disregard for the rule of law, we Kansansfind ourselves in an
unnecessary crisis which was created for selfish political gain," Irigonegaray said.
He said the governor and legislators should embrace the separation of powers doctrine
and take steps to prevent defunding of the Kansasjudiciary.
Derek Schmidt urges recusal of justices critical of law under review (lnews-state/2015~
09-19/derek-schmidt-urges-recusal-justices-critical-law-under-review)
Kansas attorneys argue merits of chief-judge selection lawsuit (/Iegislature-state/201S08-28/kansas-attorneys-argue-merits-chief-judge-selection-lawsuit)
Kansas lawmakers keeping eye on new judicial budget lawsuit (llife-state/2015-0909/kansas-lawmakers-keeping-eye-new-judicial-budget-lawsuit)

Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks rejects policy lawmakers imposed on courts
(/news-local-state/2015-09-02/shawnee-county-judge-larry-hendricks-rejects-policylawmakers-imposed)
::7
11/812016
Wamego Smoke Signal: Print Window
-Si)urc~:Wamego Smoke Signal
AG Schmidt urges 'humility and restraint'

by Derek Schmidt, Attorney General
September 18, 2015
TOPEKA - Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt today issued the following statement regarding the
two pending lawsuits filed against the State of Kansas by district court judges. The lawsuits challenge
both the 2014 change in the selection process for chief judges across the State and the 2015 linkage of
those changes to the Judiciary's budget:
"Kansans are all too aware of the ongoing tension between the legislative and judicial branches of state
government. The Legislature's defenders believe the courts have failed to respect the Legislature's
power of the purse, while the Judiciary's defenders believe the Legislature has failed to respect the
courts' power to independently decide cases brought before them. This conflict does not represent
traditional Kansas values and is deeply distressing and regrettably divisive.
"The two pending lawsuits filed against the State of Kansas by district court judges are symptoms of
this ongoing tension. The first case challenges the Legislature's constitutional authority to alter the
method by which the Judiciary selects the chief judge in each of the state's 31 judicial districts
(Solomon v. Kansas, Shawnee County District Court Case No. 201S-CV-1S6, ('SOlomon'. The second
case challenges the Legislature's authority to place conditions on the funding it appropriates for the
Judiciary (Falrchlld, et. al. v. Kansas, Shawnee County District Court Case No. 201S-CV-S02,
('FairChild'.
"As attorney general, I swore an oath to uphold the Kansas Constitution which, of course, insists upon
both legislative control of the purse strings and judicial independence. From the standpoint of the
attorney general's office, which regularly works with both the Legislature and the Judiciary on many
matters important to Kansans, I urge a healthy dose of humility and restraint by all involved in an
effort to ease tensions and improve inter-branch cooperation.
"Although I would prefer to avoid the crossfire between these two branches of government in which I
do not serve, I cannot. My office is responsible for providing legal representation for the State when it
is sued - even when it is sued by its own judges. As attorney general, I do not have the luxury of
standing aside and watching events unfold. Therefore, I am announcing the following steps to move
these cases toward resolution:
"First, today the State has formally filed notice that it is appeaHng the decision of the Shawnee County
District Court that declared unconstitutional the 2014 change in the method for selecting local chief
judges (SOlomon). The change in the selection process presents issues never before addressed under
the Kansas Constitution, but the district court's decision is inconsistent with established practice in
many other states and seems logically inconsistent with the fact that each judicial district itself is
created by legislative action. I am grateful to the district judge in this case and to the plaintiff for
agreeing so far to stay the district court's decision white this appeal proceeds.
/'
111812016
Wamego Smoke Signal: Print Window
'}'Secof'ld, at the appropriate time, I will formally ask the Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court to
recuse themselves from deciding the Solomon case because it directly involves their own power. At a
minimum, all of those Justices who - as the 'Supreme Court of Kansas' - publicly and pointedly
criticized the legislation when it was enacted should recuse themselves from this case testing the law's
validity. Even if those Justices could decide this case without regard to their publicly expressed views,
the inevitable perception of many Kansans would be that the Supreme Court had made up its mind
about the constitutionality of the 2014 legislation before the lawsuit was even filed. Even an
appearance of partiality would not serve the interests of justice in a case of this importance. I fully
recognize that recusal of all, or almost all, of the Kansas Supreme Court Justices in such an important
case of statewide concern would be unusual, but there is ample precedent in Kansas and other states.
"Third, to avoid even the potential appearance of a conflict of interest, I am recusing myself from
-. representing the State in the second lawsuit (Falrchlld) in which three district court chief judges and a
r./fourth district judge challenge the Legislature's authority to link judicial branch funding to the change
~ in the method of selecting chief judges. My conflict arises because the Honorable Jeffry Jack of Labette
County is one of the plaintiff judges suing the State in this lawsuit, and the attorney general's office
already represents Judge Jack in an uJ:!related lawsuit where both he and 1 are codefendants. To avoid
even any hint of possible conflict of interest or impropriety from being simultaneously for'and against
Judge Jack in these lawsuits, I have arranged for separate, private representation for the State in the
Fairchild proceedings.
"1 believe neither the Legislature nor the Judiciary intends or wants increasingly strident conflict, nor
would that serve Kansans well. Each and every step I am taking is intended to preserve proper respect
for the separation of powers and for the important institutions of Kansas government. I am firmly
dedicated to preventing these disputes from shutting down Kansas courts, and 1 am confident that the
Legislature never intended such a result through its enactments in 2014 and 2015."
AG Schmidturges'humility andrestraint'
11/812016
Home
Kansas
Our towns
Sports
Schools
Classifieds
About us
Links
I
0I
Tweet
G+l
Like
by Derek Schmidt, Attomey General
September 18, 2015
TOPEKA - Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt today

issued the following statement regarding the two pending
lawsuits filed against the State of Kansas by district court
judges. The lawsuits challenge both the 2014 change in the
selection process for chief judges across the State and the
2015 linkage of those changes to the Judiciary's budget:
News
Pawnee Mental Health Servicss will be
hostfng a 60th Annivernary
Celebration
Nobert, Flach represent Cloud County
on Kansas J"yhawk
west AlIConference Teams
11-1-16
Alma City Meeting

Veterinartan
In Flint Hills
or Year
Sees Transitions
3n1 annual 'Thanlcs 4 GiVing' food drive

at the 'Westmoreland
"Kansans are all too aware of the ongoing tension between

the legislative and judicial branches of state government.
The Legislature's defenders believe the courts have failed to
respect the Legislature's power of the purse, while the
Judiciary's defenders believe the Legislature has failed to
respect the courts' power to independently decide cases
brought before them. This conflict does not represent
traditional Kansas values and is deeply distressing and
regrettably divisive.
"The two pending lawsuits filed against the State of Kansas
by district court judges are symptoms of this ongoing
tension. The first case challenges the Legislature'S
constitutional authority to alter the method by which the
Judiciary selects the chief judge in each of the state's 31
judicial districts {Solomon v. Kansas, Shawnee County
District Court Case No. 201S-CV-1S6, (,Solomon'). The
second case challenges the Legislature's authority to place
conditions on the funding it appropriates for the Judiciary
(Fairchild, et. al. v. Kansas, Shawnee County District Court
Case No. 201S-Cv-a02, ('Fairchild'.
Loc:al group brings

to FHSU campus
Country
Pulitzer
Market'
Prtze winner
KANSAS NATIONAL GUARD SUPPORTS

VETERANS DAY EVENTS ACROSS
KANSAS
Politically
Arts
Inspired
Exhibit at Haven
KBI requests assistance

In locating suspects
Candidate:
Dennis
Candidate:
Jerry
from
the public
Pyle, KS Senate
Henry,
KS Senate
1
1
SECRETARY OF STA1E KOBACH

PREDICTS RECORD GENERAL
ELECTION TURNOUT
Navigating
the world
KDHE Investigating
of student
loans
E. cell Infections
MILLER TO RECEIVE COMMAND OF 1st

BAITAUON,
161St FIELD ARTILLERY
Get More News
Extras
e-mail
this article
letter
to the editor
link to a friend
about this article
print this arnde

Larger
I Smaller
"As attorney general, I swore an oath to uphold the Kansas Constitution which, of course,
insists upon both legislative control of the purse strings and judicial independence. From
the standpoint of the attorney general's office, which regularly works with both the
Legislature and the Judiciary on many matters important to Kansans, I urge a healthy dose
of humility and restraint by all involved in an effort to ease tensions and Improve interbranch cooperation.
"Although I would prefer to avoid the crossfire between these two branches of government
in which I do not serve, I cannot. My office is responsible for providing legal representation
E-edition
Cookin'
Obits
Galleries
111812016
AG Schmidturges'humility and restraint'
for the State when it is sued - even when it is sued by its own judges. As attorney general,
I do not have the luxury of standing aside and watching events untold. Therefore, 1 am
announcing the following steps to move these cases toward resolution:
"First, today the State has formally filed notice that it is appealing the decision of the
Shawnee County District Court that declared unconstitutional the 2014 change in the
method for selecting local chief judges (Solomon). The change in the selection process
presents issues never before addressed under the Kansas Constitution, but the district
court's decision is inconsistent with established practice in many other states and seems
logically inconsistent with the fact that each judicial district itself is created by legislative
action. I am grateful to the district judge in this case and to the plaintiff for agreeing so far
to stay the district court's decision while this appeal proceeds.
"Second, at the appropriate time, I will formally ask the Justices of the Kansas Supreme
Court to recuse themselves from deciding the Solomon case because it directly Involves
their own power, At a minimum, all of those Justices who - as the 'Supreme Court of
Kansas' - publicly and pointedly critidzed the legislation when it was enacted should recuse
themselves from this case testing the law's validity. Even if those Justices could decide this
case without regard to their publicly expressed views, the inevitable perception of many
Kansans would be that the Supreme Court had made up its mind about the
constitutionality of the 2014 legislation before the lawsuit was even filed. Even an
appearance of partiality would not serve the interests of justice in a case of this importance.
I fully recognize that recusal of all, or almost all, of the Kansas Supreme Court Justices in
such an important case of statewide concern would be unusual, but there is ample
precedent in Kansas and other states.
"Third, to avoid even the potential appearance of a conflict of interest, I am recusing myself
from representing the State in the second lawsuit (Fairchild) in which three district court
chief judges and a fourth district judge challenge the Legislature's authority to link judicial
branch funding to the change In the method of selecting chief judges. My conflict arises
because
the Honorable Jeffry Jack of Labette County is one of the plaintiff judges suing the
State in this lawsuit, and the attorney general's office already represents Judge Jack in an
unrelated lawsuit where both he and I are codefendants. To avoid even any hint of possible
~
conflict of Interest or impropriety from being simultaneously for and against Judge Jack in
these lawsuits, I have arranged for separate, private representation for the State in the
Fairchild proceedings.
"I believe neither the Legislature nor the Judiciary intends or wants increasingly strident
conflict, nor would that serve Kansans well. Each and every step I am taking is intended to
preserve proper respect for the separation of powers and for the important institutions of
Kansas government. I am firmly dedicated to preventing these disputes from shutting
down Kansas courts, and I am confident that the Legislature never intended such a result
through its enactments in 2014 and 2015."
Print
Mail
Comment
Share
Tags: Kansas news

Comments (0)
o Comments
Add
Sort by i Oldest
comment...
Facebook Comments Plugin
Our Towns
Spori:5
Manhattan
UstAl1
t'-13!Jie Hill
Rossville
p,irnr.o,
Schools
Blain-:.
USD 3.1.1 Kaw
Cfassif(eds
Gatiedes
~jSD 3.~0Wamego
'vailev
pcwered hv
l in~a!"PHNI~;-"Jh!
(""('r:)'li!!hl ;999 2016
111812016
6elv'ue
Lcuisville
ft1cfarlancl

USD 322 Onega
USD J23 Reck: Creek
USD 329 Mill Creek
0;5"'9
use 382 E.:uc: \,'.:d\r::..,-
On,s1a
R.~H':G0Iph
PaxlcC
SL GeOrq(~
St. ~.1ary:;
warneqo
\!!estmoreland
wheaton
Pottawatornle
County
\'Vabaunsee County
,.
STATE
OFFICE
DEREK
AnORNEY
OF THE
OF KANSAS
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
MEMORIAL HALL
SCHMIDT
120SW
GENERAL
10TH AvE., 2ND FLOOR
TOPEKA,
(785)
296-2215
KS 66612-1597
FAX (785)
WWW.AG.KS.GOV
Kate Baird
Deputy Disciplinary Administrator
701 SW Jackson Suite 1
Topeka, Kansas 66603
Dear Ms. Baird:
'7 Ci
j\~
'j\\ ~
\ll.bl\L ~"
C>f\'-.l~ t
\oN
'70
l\
,,-'v--
I am writing to you to self-report allegations against me of possible ethical violations.

A copy of a letter that I was cc'd on is attached. The plaintiffs in this case are pro se individuals
who have been attempting to challenge the authority of Kansas judges in the Eleventh Judicial
District. A copy of their Petition (absent exhibits) is enclosed as Exhibit 1. You will note that
Stan Hazlett is a defendant whom I represent.
Attached as Exhibit 2 is the letter sent by Travis Carlton, one of the Pro Se Plaintiffs, to
senior judge Burr who is presiding over the case. Carlton makes several allegations that might
lead Pro Se Plaintiffs to file an ethical complaint against me. First he suggests that I engaged in
an ex parte conversation with Judge Burr at a April 18, 2016, hearing in Crawford County.
Plaintiffs did not appear at that hearing, thereby waiving their right to participate. I did suggest
that Judge Burr not state his home address in public record, but that request does not constitute
an ex parte contact. Pro Se Plaintiffs were not excluded from any conversation. A copy of the
transcript of hearing is attached as Exhibit 3.
Carlton implies that I have sent materials to Judge Burr's home address. I have not done
so. I have only sent them to him in care of the Sherman County Courthouse, as is indicated in
my certificates of service.
\
Finally, Carlton alleges that one of my responses to a motion showed a certificate of
service date of April 8, 2019, but they were not postmarked until April 11. A copy of the
Response is attached as Exhibit 4. After reading Carlton's letter, I reviewed my records
regarding the Response he discussed. I found that on Monday, April 11, I emailed to my
Administrative Assistant the Response that inadvertently included the date of April 8, which was
the date I drafted the Response. No subterfuge was intended. Also, no harm was suffered by
Pro Se Plaintiffs. The hearing was not until April 18, and all parties were well aware that I
objected to any continuance.
~,
296-6296
'.. t
.',~
Kate Baird
May 11,2016
Page 2
Finally, Carlton complains that my Response contained an incorrect case number. This is
true, but is was merely a typographical error. The case caption is correct, all parties are
identified correctly, and the Response was obviously to motions filed by Plaintiffs.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEREK SCHMIDT
P-fJj4)St~'ptillir.
J1IiI;{
v(..
Assistant Attorney General

SP/drw
Enclosures
cc:
Judge Jack Burr
Sherman County District Court
801 Broadway, Room 201
Goodland, Kansas 67735
Jim Emerson
Crawford County Counselor
111 East Forest, 2nd Floor
Girard, Kansas 66713
Eric Muathe
PO Box 224
Hand delivered copy to:
Noah Day
PO Box 224
Carrie Barney
Kansas Attorney General
120 SW 10th, 2nd Floor
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Noah Day
9601 Hiss Ave., Apt. 1527
Denver, CO 80231
Kasey King
PO Box 224
James Beckley Jr.
PO Box 224
Travis Carlton
PO Box 224
..
~i
...
15
;::.-
.....
JUL22 P 1 :41
IN THE DISTRICT COURTL~~~i~~~BtW,YNTY,KANSAS
BY .._------ -
CLASSACTION PETITION
FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST THE FOLLOWING
LORI FLEMING)
DEFENDANT JUDGES;
A. J. WACHTER, KURTIS LOV, ROBERT FLEMING,
OLIVER LVNCH, JEFFRY JACK,
JANICE D. RUSSELL, RICHARD M. SMITH, JOHN E. SANDERS.
OTHER DEFENDANTS INCLUDE; KANSAS COMMISSION

"A" AND
AnORNEV
"B",
STANTON A. HAlLEn,
ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
PANEL
MICHAEL GAYOSO, JR., TIM GRILLOT, AND KANSAS
GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT.
Case No.
K.S.A. Chapter
60
Exhibit 1
:...." .... :-.::....
j).'
.,'
... ,'.,'
....
. ..; .... ~:.

'.'
, .' ';':~ :-..

: ';'..
:.:;
.
!.' ~
_. .r,~.~
.
;
"
Reasons that 'PANEL A' AND 'PANEL B' OF THE KANSASCOMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
QUALIFICATIONS need to be served as well as investigated are as follows:
Why send judges who have been complained on one type of letter advising the judge what
they need to correct or use caution on and send a completely different letterto
the
complainant like the Travis Carlton order in case number 2014CV7P? The panel also needs to
be investigated as to why they allowed Honorable Robert Fleming to be the Chair of the Kansas
Commission on Judicial Qualifications when he himself was violating the rules of "THE KANSAS
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS"by being a youth preacher and having his wife
collect money for the "PARISH". Judge Robert Fleming is also hearing his past law partners
cases while recusing himself from ethic complaints on Donald Noland by Kasey King, Michael
King, and Kolby King back on July 25 of 2003, recusing himself from Lester Moore's "DOCKETED"
complaint #1179 on March 11, 2013 on A.J. Wachter who was Fleming's former college
roommate, member of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church, teammate at Colgan, and former
owner of "Wilbert, Towner, Lassman, Toburen, Fleming, and Wachter".
Judge Robert Fleming failed to recuse himself from complaints filed by Julie Stover against
Timothy Fielder on May 11/2011 and he failed to recuse himself from complaints filed by Kasey
King and Julie Stover on March 11, 2013 against Honorable Goering and Honorable J. Patrick
Walters where "Judge Walters was recused from the case" out of Wichita.
Kasey King, Julie
Stover, and Michael King all got Judge Fleming's former law partner, A.J.Wachter, reprimanded
with a "LETTEROF CAUTION" in docket number 1114, 1115, and 1116 for his inappropriate use
ofthe term "peanut gallery" made on June 7, 2011 which was two years before the above
mentioned complaint.
Robert Fleming also should have never heard any complaint made by
"Kasey King or Michael King'} because Kasey King played league and All-Star Baseball with
Michael Fleming who was coached by Michael King when he played 14 and 15 year old All Star
Baseball.
Judge Lay had previously recused himself from case number 2011DM136P with Dustin Blair for
involvement
in All Star Baseball with his son Kris Lay when he was the coach and this
inconsistency with recusing under Rule 2.11{A) is why this investigation is needed.
The wrongful acts of Crawford County District Court employees led to
a class action lawsuit
filed by Kasey King, Michael King, Lester Moore, Julie Stover, Eric Muathe, and Noah Day in
Crawford County case number 13CV47P that was filed against Crawford County District Judges
including the relief judge, Honorable Senior Judge Janice Russell, for wrongful acts and omission
of employees. Janice Russell also had a Writ of Mandamus filed against her in the State
Supreme Court in Appellate Case No. 12-108867-5 and since the attorney general's office in
Topeka chose to represent the above mentioned judges in court cases before where they were
sued civilly or perhaps had ouster complaints filed against their BONDS, chose to defend the
Page2 of15
.:.c .. .:.; .. ::
'
..:-:-:.' :
-,"
~:
, ...;~: :::: :<:
.. -.
':'.' ...... '.' :
- '
above mentioned judges instead of prosecuting them and their insurance BONDS so that all
judges in the
ri" judicial
district, including Janice Russell, Richard Smith and john Sanders,
would become "UNBONDABLE" by any insurance agent in the state of Kansas under K.S.A.60-
1205 and K.5.A. 60-1206(a)(b).

The thing that disturbs the people in the
n" judicial
district is that the "KANSASCOMMISION
ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICIATIONS" does not even follow their own "Advisory Opinion
Annotations"
when it means they have to rule against their own religious members, family,
former law partners, and friends that should be disqualified from hearing a case for a conflict of
interest under Rule 2.11(A) of RULESRELATINGTO JUDICIALCONDUCT.
Judge Robert Fleming's daughter-in-law, Lori Bolton Fleming has already been "NOTED" on
December 13, 2012 by the "KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIALQUALIFICATINES"for her
husband being the treasurer/campaign
manager' for county attorney Michael Gayoso.
Somehow, Judge Lori Fleming thinks even after being noted by the committee after a complaint
by Lester Moore in December 13, 2012, she is still hearing the cases of Mr. Gayoso. Even
though they are members in the church band "Team Jesus", apparently there are no conflicts!
Lori Fleming also just recently got reprimanded with an informal letter of advice on February
23,2015 for the "appearance of practicing law" even though she is an i i" judicial district judge
because she was listed in the "NAMES AND NUMBERS 2013 and 2014 phone book" as an
attorney with the phone number of 520-231-1290, This number conveniently rings to her
former employer, Fred Spigarslll, and her husband Kyle Fleming of "Fleming's Law Firm" which
is housed inside the Spigarelli Law Firm!
Judge Lay was reprimanded for the same thing on February 23,2015 for having the
"appearance of a law firm" and for double dipping as "Lay and Sagehorn" and still hearing their
cases and not recusing himself, even after complaints had been filed against him in case
number 2014LM55P and 2014LM409P where he heard the case of Burton Harding and Kip
Sagehorn and is still listed as the current judge.
There are numerous reasons why there should be an investigation into Panel A and Panel B of
the KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONScommittee to see why these judges
are able to violate their own rules and still be a judge when they have obviously violated the
"oath of office" to be called 'Your Honor' when they have shown they have been "ANYTHING
AND EVERYTHING EXCEPT HONORABLE" and have failed to follow Rule 1.1 of Rules Relating to
Judicial Conduct Compliance with the Law, which says "Ajudge shall comply with the law and
the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct".
The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications "Advisory Opinion Annotations" which shows
obvious cases where Robert Fleming should have not allowed his son Kyle Fleming or his
Page 3 of 15
! -:.~.
;.:.-:
...........
"1
daughter-in-law
Lori Bolton Fleming to go in front of judges in the 11thjudicial district along
with Candace Brewster Gayoso whose uncle and father are Daniel and David Brewster who
were former
n" judicial
judges and had a financial CD with Robert Fleming according to his
financial disci osure report.

In 1984, JE-8 says "Appearance of attorney who is judge's daughter before other judges in
district, Canon 3(" How does this not relate to Lori Fleming, Kyle Fleming, and Candace
Brewster Gayoso as attorneys when they go, or went, in front of judges in the 11th judicial
district?
In 1984, JE-l1 says "Attorney's advice to clients upon being appointed to the bench,
recommendation
of spouse/attorney.
Canon 2 " How does this not relate to Lori Fleming
advertising in the phone book for her husba nd's law f rm of "Fleming law Firrn" and Judge Loy
advertising for "loy and Sagehorn"?
In 1984, JE-12 says "Appearance of firm members before former partner, now district judge,
who is also owner/landlord
of firm's office building and son oHormer partner who is retired
and receiving an annuity form the firm and whose name remains on firm letterhead. Canons 2B
and 3C." How does this not relate to Kurtis Loy who owned the office building of "Loy and
Sagehorn" and still owned 99% stock of Lay and Sagehorn and Kip Sagehorn and Burton
Harding go in front of him and still currently are according to the docket in case number
2014LM55P and 2014LM409P. Judge Lay's father also previously had stock at "Lay and
Sagehorn", Where did Judge tov's stock go?
In 1985, JE-13 says "Attendance of judge's spouse at political gatherings; political contributions
by judge's spouse form spouse's business income maintained in separate account." How does
this not relate to Lori Fleming's husband Kyle Fleming being Michael Gavosos campaign
manager and Lori Fleming and Kyle Fleming donating money to Michael Gayoso's campaign?
The Lester Moore Complaint in December 13, 2012 should have been a reprimand resulting in a
letter of caution, informal advice with a "PRIVATECEASEAND DESIST"from Lori Fleming ever
being able to hear Michael Gayoso's cases.
In 1987, JE-19 says "Involvement of judge in cases handled by judge's former law firm'; effect of
"blind trust" set up by judge to administer proceeds due him upon his leaving practice. Canon
2; 3C{l), (2), and (3); and 3D. All the judges in the judicial district heard their law partners'
cases within 5 years after becoming a judge, especially Judge Oliver Lynch, Jeffry Jack, and
Kurtis loy.
So, how does this not pertain to the judges in the
n" district?
Kurtis Loy is still
hearing cases of Burton Harding and Kip Sagehorn, according to dockets on 4-28-2015 in
2014LM55P and 2014LM409P. April 28, 2015 was just last month!
Page 4 of 15
....
,',
-.-:
.....
..
",
.~.....
In 1987, JE-21 says "Property of newly-appointed district judge remaining as co-trustee of

former clients' revocable trust. Canon 5D How does this not pertain to Judge Kurtis Loy owning
tov and Sagehorn and owning the building at 112 W. 4th in Pittsburg Kansas?
The "ORDER" in case number 2014CV7P from August 2014 in the complaint filed by Travis
99% of his stock at
Carlton against Kurtis Lay where lithe information was for his eyes only but Chief Judge
Wachter filed it publicly" clearly should have been a reprimand with a letter of caution,
informal advice with a "Private Cease and Desist" to leave the case because of
s" amendment
right of Due Process Of Law.

In 1988, JE-25 says "Judicial candidates' continuation as weekend pastor", Canon SA and S8(2).
How does this not relate to Robert Fleming the
ri" judicial
district judge and chair for
numerous years of the "KANSAS COMMISION ON JUDIClA,LQUALIFICATION"? How, to this day,

is Robert Fleming, Kyle Fleming, and his wife Peggy Fleming still youth ministers and Judge Lori
Fleming a "lecturer"
at Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church and it does not violate JE-25???
In 1988, JE-26 Recusal due to relationship disqualification under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iv}; procedure
for remittal of such relationship under Canon 3D? Why are
ri" district
judges, and retired
senior Judges Jan ice Russell, Richard Smith and John Sanders not all clear on "when to recuse
and when not to"?
In 1992, JE-37 says "Judge's spouse as campaign manager in partisan county-wide election".
How does this not relate to attorney Kyle Fleming being Michael Gayoso's campaign manager
when his wife Lori Fleming is a judge? Lester Moore's complaint on December 13, 2012 that
was "NOTED" by committee should have been a reprimand.
In 1992, JE-38 states, "Judge as member of Kansas Commission on Governmental Standards and
Conduct. Kan. Const., art. 3 Section B." How does this not relate to previous Ethic Chair Judge
Robert Flem ing?
In 1993, JE-42 says "Judge presiding at docket call wherein son or son's law firm represents a
party."
Canon 3C{1)(d)(i), (ii), (iii). How does this not relate to Judge Robert Fleming with Kyle
Fleming and Lori Fleming as attorneys before him and Candace Brewster Gayoso in front of
Daniel or David Brewster and Kurtis Loy in front of his father Kurtis Loy for numerous years?
In 1994, JE-47 says "Judge as member of non-profit corporation board of directors, Canon 5B./f
How does this not relate to Oliver Lynch of the Kansas Arts Board? And this also should relate
to Kurtis Loy of "THE STILLWELLFOUNDATION" where Kurtis Lay received over $200,000.00 of
forgivable loans from the City of Pittsburg economic committee where his former law partner,
Mark A. Werner, and attorney Kyle Fleming, spouse of Judge Lori Fll?ming, and son of
Honorable Robert Fleming, are the two attorney/committee
Page5 of 15
members who agreed on the
!.
.... ::-. :...
.'~."
. -."
"
:. :~..
.....
..... ,
..: -v :..
'
request from Kurtis Loy and gave the "FREe' money? How is this not a demonstrated conflict of
interest?
In 1994/ JE-49 says "Part-time city attorney serving as part-time municipal judge for a different
city", How does this not relate to Pittsburg city prosecutor and city judge in Cherokee County,
John Mazurek?
The complaints of Jim Willard filed in February of 2015 that were dismissed by
Stanton Haztett and The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

In 1997, JE-72 says "Municipal judge who is also assistant county attorney may serve as
prosecutor under certain conditions."
How did John Mazurek get away with being a municipal
judge in Cherokee County and was the assistant county attorney under Michael Gayoso for
years? Is it because Michael Gayoso's wife is Candace-Brewster Gavoso and had ties to
n"
judicial former judges, Daniel and David Brewster? The complaint of Jim Willard on February of
2015 should have been a reprimand.
In 1997, JE-77 says "Judge may serve as elder oi church as long as judge does not solicit funds.
Canon 4C(4J(b)."
How does this not relate to Judge Robert Fleming when his wife Peggy
collects man ey for the "PARISH'1 at Our Lady Of Lourdes Catholic Church where he, their son
Kyle, and Peggy are youth ministers? The complaint filed by Eric Muathe back in December of
2014 to February of 2015 against Robert Fleming for his ties to Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic
Church should have been a reprimand.
In 1988, JE-81 says "Judge shou Id not purchase property from an estate pending in the judge's
court even though the transaction was at arm's length and in good faith. Canons 1, 2A, 4A(1)
and 4D(1). How does this not relate to Judge Loy and Judge Gariglietti whose wives are realtors
in this county?
In 1988, JE-B4 says "Judge may serve on a land purchase committee for his church if he will do
no legal work or fund raising." How does this not relate to Robert Fleming because the Catholic
Diocese of Wichita, which is over all the Catholic churches in this area, previously owned
"Crawford County Judicial Center" at 602 N. Locust, Pittsburg, Kansas! Robert Fleming's wife
collects money for the "PARISH" and has a retirement account from the Catholic Diocese
according to his financial disclosure reports since she was a teacher at ST. Mary's Colgan, which
is the private Catholic school in Pittsburg, Kansas.
In 2000, JE-95 says "Judge must cease all participation
building. Canon 4D(1)(6),"
in ownership interest in a law firm
How does this not relate to Judge Kurtis Lay still hearing Kip
5agehorn's cases when Judge Loy owns the building of the law firm? How was Judge Lay able
to still make judicial determinations
and stay in case number 2014CV7P when Travis Carlton
made a complaint for this and Mr. Carlton got one letter saying it was dismissed and Judge Loy
got another letter telling him to get his financial affairs in order? Why was there at least not a
Page6 of 15
'.:.:
.-....
letter of caution for this???? How can a judge stay in a case after a complaint makes them
change their Articles of Incorporation and the judge not be biased?
In 2001, JE-102 says" District magistrate judge may release log or written record of all closed
cases to the media as long
as the judge does not comment on pending cases. Canon 38(9)"
Why does Janice Russell comment on pending cases of Eric Muathe to other attorneys against
him???
In 2003, JE-112 says "Judges may volunteer to cook and serve meals at a community soup
kitchen sponsored by a local church and open to the public daily. Canon 4((4)"
How does this
not apply to Robert Fleming since Our Lady of Lourdes is a private church and not a public one
and he and his wife ore always volunteering/raising
money for Our Lady of Lourdes
"PARISH"?!!!ll
In 2005, JE-126 says "Judges should not attend or participate in a conference sponsored or
presented by a law enforcement agency which would in effect train judges to consider these
matters in future cases. SeeJE-121. Canon 2A and Canon 36(7)" How does this not relate to
Judge Lori Fleming since she sits drinking wine with Crawford County Deputy Stu Hite and his
wife Amy as Stu Hite himself explains law enforcement techniques to her husband, attorney
Kyle Fleming as Mr. Fleming drinks wine himself in the picture at Crestwood County Club which
is "PRIVATE" j!! How can Lori Fleming hear cases that involve Stuart Hite as the arresting
officer, which she does when he is a youth minister at her church, private member at
Crestwood, and good family friend?
In 2005, JE-130 says "An adverse ruling, standing alone, is not grounds for disqualification
of a
judge who is being sued by a pro se counterclaim ant. Canon 3E" How does this not relate to the
class action lawsuit in case number 13CV47P that involves Janice Russell? Just because she was
sued alone does not require disqualification,
but this ruling disagrees with her ruling when a
judge should recuse or not recuse.

In 2005, JE-131 says "Ajudge may attend an open house sponsored by a law firm; however, a
judge should not accept a golf and poker invitation from a law firm since it would create a
perception of impropriety due to the expense. Canon 2. How does this not relate to Judge
Robert Flem ing, Lori Fleming, Kurtis Loy, A.J. Wachter, and deceased Chief Judge John
Gariglietti all playing Golftogether
at Crestwood and paying membership fees? How does this
not apply to Stanton Hazlett's Golf Charity with attorneys where they get credits for attending
his workshop?
This is why Stanton Hazlett should not be able to investigate any complaint
against an attorney due to his economic conflicts of interest.

In 2005, JE-135 says "A judge may bid for land at a public auction arising out offoreclosure
action if the judge has nothing to do with the foreclosure action, since it would not exploit his
Page7 of 15
:'.
".
!'-.'
..:....
...";'.'.'
:"i
position or give an appearance of impropriety.
Canon 40(1) and Canon 2A." How does this not
have to do with Judge Kurtis Lay's wife Cindy Lay being a realtor and deceased John Gariglietti's
wife Eunice Gariglietti being a realtor as well??? Judge Lev's wife Cindy Lay and Judge
Garigliettie's wife Eunice went in on all the property for the new Crestwood Estates Edition out
by the private "Crestwood Country Club" which they are all members. Cindy Lay and Eunice
Gariglietti are the first to hear of any foreclosures when it becomes property for sale. Seems
like that is a huge impropriety.
In 2007, JE-1S1 says "A district judge participating as a player and/or auctioneer in his or her
country club's fundraising member guest tournament clearly violates Canon 4C(4)(b) which
prohibits fundraising.
How does this not relate to Judge Loy, Judge Robert Fleming, Judge Lori
Fleming, former deceased judge John Gariglietti, and Judge A.J. Wachter when they play golf at
"Crestwood Country Club"? They are all participating in the fundraisers that happen
throughoutthe
year, When a fundraising event happens at the country club, you can count on
any, if not all, of these to attend. There are pictures to prove it.
In 2009, JE-167 says "A judge is required to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in
which the partner of the judge's spouse represents a party before the judge. See Canon, 2,
Rule 2.11(A) and Canon 1, Rule 1.2. How does this not relate to Robert Fleming when he was
hearing cases of J. Gordon Gregory from "Wilbert and Towner" as his son and daughter-in-law
worked for Wilbert and Towner and Spigarelli Law Firm where he accepted both assignments
from those law firms. This should also apply to Oliver lynch when he heard cases of Candace
Gayoso when Michael Gayoso was still paying Oliver Lynch money from the buyout of his law
firm.
And last but not least, how does 2011 JE-171 not affect Judge Kurtis Loy who according to the
dockets in case number 20l4LM55P on 4/28/2015 and 2014LM409P still show Kurtis Lay as the
current judge when the attorneys are Burton Harding and Kip Sagehorn of "Lay and Sagehorn"
even after a complaint was filed with Stanton Hazlett on this matter and Mr. Hazlett said "he's
sure Judge Lev will take care of this once he learns of it". That was in November of 2014 and it
is now 4/28/2015
and yet the docket in case number 2014LM5SP shows on 2/13/2015 that a
garnishment order was signed by Judge Loy. The opinion of JE-l71 in 2011 says "Ajudge
and
his or her spouse who owns an office building may lease the building to attorneys or law firms
who practice and appear in the judge's district as long as the attorneys appear before other
judges in the district and the conflicts appear only periodically. See Rules 1.2,2.1,2..11,3.11.
Since the "KANSAS COMMISISON ON JUDICIALQUALIFICATIONS" has faiied to be consistent
with their handling of ethic complaints and since they claim they have no jurisdiction to
recuse/disqualify
a judge yet Rule 2.11(Aj requires Disqualification under their rules and they
have the power to issue a "CEASEAND DESISTORDER PUBLICOR PRIVATE" and this is confusing
Page8 of 15
....
:: ....
. 1
and that is why the KANSAS COMMISSION

investigated
as well.
of advisory
annotation
still able to be their
opinions
injunctive
of advisory
Michael
relieffrom
negligent
out their ministerial
for numerous
case annotations
yet he was
years.
that were not followed
Gayoso County Attorney's
Office, Timothy
several examples
on Judicial Qualifications
B",
ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS Panel A, Panel
Administrator,
General's
Fleming has violated
of the Kansas Commission
examples
KANSAS COMMISSION
Attorney
that Robert
Chair person for the ethic committee
The above mentioned
Disciplinary
ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS needs to be
It also is very disturbing
Stanton
by "THE
Hazlett
Office, and Stephen
Phillips
Grillot which have now led to the claim against them for
and wrongful
acts and omissions
of employees
by failing to carry
tasks which are the following:
STATEMENT Of FACTS
1. Stanton
Hazlett
Committee
orto
refusing
any other
to give complaints
filedagainst
body and chooses to basically
himselfto
The Disciplinary
ignore complaints
Oversight
against himself.
2. Kansas Commission
failing
and failing to properly
investigate
2014CV7P and 2014CCV53PA and failing
Honorable
case number
to follow
LOy a Private Cease and Desist Order even though
Wachter in August 2014 in this case shows that a violation

and yet no reprimand
which
opinions
to give
the /lORDER" filed by Judge
of Advisory
opinion
of 2Dl1JE-171
was done.
3. Stanton Hazlett failed to address attorney/Judge

2014LM55P
their own advisory
is the
Kurtis Lay for hearing case number
case of his past law partner
Kip Sagehorn.
Mr. Hazlett stated that he
was sure Judge Lay will take care of this once he learns of it, but the court docket of 4-28-2015
shows he is stilt violating
Kansas Commission
which
failed to properly
Hazlett,
carry out this investigation
failed to reprimand
Robert Fleming for a
as a youth preacher
Church, yet his wife collects money for the "PARISH".
Robert
Fleming for recusing from Kasey King and Michael
and Honorable
and Julie Stover

Wacther,
Walters
In Wichita
all got Robert Fleming's
reprimanded
with a letter
recuse himself
from Julie Stover's
city/pro-tempore
judge in the
11th
King's ethic complaints

against Honorable
on March 13, 2011 after Kasey King, Michael
former
of cautlon
law partner
and former
on June 7, 2011.
May 11, 2011 complaint

judicial
at Our Lady of
They have also failed to
back in July 25, 2003, but yet failed to recuse from Kasey King's complaint
Goering
Hazlett and The
Panel A and Panel B, by failing to properly
of 1988 JE-25 and 1997 JE-77 for his involvement
Lourdes Catholic
reprimand
act of Stanton
of 2011 JE-171 since Stanton
Judge Loy.
4. Kansas Commission
violation
Opinion
led to a wrongful
reprimand
the Advisory
district
King,
college roommate,
Robert Fleming also failed to
against Timothy
Fielder who was a
and Judge Robert Fleming should have
Page 9 of 15
AJ.
...........
...
i.
recused from that complaint like he did with complaints against Honorable Donald Noland and
Honorable A.J. Wachter. This inconsistency with Rule 2.11(A) and K.S.A.20-311d has led to the
people of the
n" judicial
district not receiving due process of law from the previous ethic chair
person himself.
5. Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications has failed to reprimand Lori Fleming and
Michael Gayoso for allowing Michael Gayoso to practice law in front of Judge Lori Fleming when
her husband was Mr. Gayoso's campaign manager and her church band partner in ''TEAM
JESUS"which is an obvious violation of Rule 2.11(A).
6. The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications failed to reprimand Oliver Lynch, Kurtis
lay, and Jeff ry Jack.fa r a violation of 1987 JE-19 even though they heard numerous cases of
their former law partners within a 5 year window.
7. Michael Gayoso is being served for failing to follow "Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct"
Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest by failing to recuse himself from cases that involve attorneys he has
previously worked with and for litigating cases in front of judges that he is friends and private
members of Our Lady Of Lourdes Catholic Church. He has also failed to investigate complaints
under K.S.A. 50-1206(a) that were filed against Judge A.J. Wachter because he is a member of
the same ch urch as Judge A.J. Wachter.
8_ Attorney .General's Office and Derek Schmidt are being served for failing to follow KRPCRule
1.7 as well since he has previously represented
n" judicial
judges as clients then went in front
of the same judge later on to represent another client. He has also failed to investigate
complaints filed against
ri" judicial
judges under K.s.A. 60-1206(a)(b) and that is why he needs
investigated as well for committing a negligent act by failing to conduct a thorough

investigation.
9. Stanton Hazlett has allowed Timothy Grillot in case numbers 2014CV7P and 2014CV53P to
investigate the com plaint on Judge Timothy Fielder even though the complaint has to do with
Robert Fleming signing an Ex-Parte Order with Timothy Fielder and Timothy Grillot and Robert
Fleming were co-defendants in case number 12-3177-SAC Ozell Pouncil vs. Labette County
District Court et al., Robert Fleming, Timothy Grillot and both are members of the Catholic
Church and have known each other for years and this is a violation of KRPCRule 1.7 Conflict of
Interest
as a neutral unbiased investigator should have been assigned to investigate these
cases. Stanton Hazlett has also failed to recuse/disqualifv
himself from investigating cases of
attorneys that receive credits at his golf tournaments which is a violation of 2005 JE-131 and
2007 JE-1S1_
10. Janice Russell has failed to honor the ministerial task of following Rule 2.l1(A) of Rules
Relating to Judicial Conduct and K.S.A.20-311d as she stated that basicallv Oliver Lynch's
Page 10 of 15
...... -
disqualification
~
. ...
.... ...
.... '.'-",:,
.. .
of AJ. Wachter in case number 2.012LM356P was wrong since A.J. Wachter and
a pro se litigant are not related and Judge A.J. Wachter was still ORDEREDout of that case.
11. Robert Fleming recently recused from case number 2012LM356P as well on May 20,2015
just one day after a grand jury petition was filed In case number 2015MR2P and Robert Fleming
and myself are not related as well and this would contradict Janice Russell's judicial
determination
that a judge should only recuse if the family is related. Janice Russell has shown
biased and prejudiced against "Pro Se" litigants and therefore an "injunctive relief" is needed
against JaniceRussell.
12. John Sanders has failed to honor the ministerial task of following the 14th and
amendment
s"
of the United States Constitution by failing to give due process in case number
201414CV57P "Petition For Relief In The Form Of Quo Warranto" by dismissing the case "with
prejudice" which was later overturned and dismissed "without prejudice".
John Sanders has
shown that he is biased and prejudiced against "Pro Se" litigants and therefore an "injunctive
relief" is needed against John Sanders.
13. Timothy Grillot failed to follow the ministerial task of KRPCRule 1.7 Conflict of Interest and
has failed to disqualify himself from the investigation of "In The Matter of Timothy Fielder"
DA12, 181"whfch
has been going on since October 31,2014" in case numbers 2014CV7P and
2014CV53PA where the judges are Kurtis Lay and Robert Fleming. Timothy Grillot was a codefendant in case number 12-3177SAC Ozell Pouncil
VS.
Labette County District Court et al.,
Robert Fleming, Timothy Grillot. Timothy Grillot is biased and prejudiced for Robert Fleming
who has been complained on several times by Mr. Carlton in case number 2014CVS3PA for
signing an Ex-Parte Order when the attorney was Timothy Fielder who is a pro-tempore!
judge in Crawford County
a i" judicial
city
district which should have been a conflict of Interest
under Rule 2.11(A) of Rules Relating To Judicial Conduct. Injunctive relief is needed against
Attorney/Office
Of Disciplinary Administrator
Investigator Timothy Grillot so that an unbiased
out of 11th district attorney can complete the investigation of uDA12, 1811n The Matter of
Timothy Fielder".
14. Judge Richard M. Smith should have lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction to hear case number
2015MR2P for failing to follow Supreme Court rule 601B Relating To Judicial Conduct Canon 3.
Rule 3.15{B) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 74BI because he did not file his "Judicial financial
Disclosure Report" for 2013 until May 13, 2014 and he did not fill out his 2014 "Judicial
Financial Disclosure Report" until May 19,2015 which both violates Rule 3.15(8) of Rules
Relating To Judicial conduct. According to Canon 3 Rule 3.15(B) a judge is supposed to have his
financial disclosure report filled out by April 15 of every calendar year and his failure to file his
2013 and 2014 financial disclosure reports on time is a violation ofThe Code of Judicial
Conduct. RuIe 3.15(8) says r'A judge shall report annually the information
Page 11 of 15
listed above in (A)(1J
...
-..... ; .
.....
through (7) on a form provided by the Commission on Judicial Qualifications. The judge's
report for the preceding calendar year shall be filed as public document in the office of the
Clerk of the Appellate courts on or before April 15 of each year. (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B} 2013 and
2014 calendar year financial disclosure report.
All of the above 14 claims have been a result of failing to perform their ministerial acts of
properly investigating and preceding over cases without conflicts of interest. An example of a
ministerial act is the clerk of the court's duty to report drivers to the DHSMV under Section
3.1815(1)(a) is a ministerial act that is not entitled to any form of judicial immunity in case
"The clerk, an officer of the court, is obliged to comply with rules of
number16-203-CA-005890.
procedure governing his duties. "When delinquent or derelict in such performance,

appropriate
legal measures are available to enforce compliance, as well as to secure redress
by way of da mages incurred as <I result of his failure to perform those duties."
Fountain,
122 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla.
i'' DCA 1960)
Ward v,
(em phasis added).
ARGUMENT
1. Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications conduct in reprimanding judges for violations
of Rules Relating To Judicial Conduct is a Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which Immunity
is Available.
2. Stanton Hazlett's conduct in reprimanding attorneys for violations of Kansas Rules of
Professional Conduct is a Ministerial Act, not a judicial Act for Which Immunity is Available.
3. Michael Gayoso's conduct in failing to disqualify himself form cases that are a conflict of
interest is a Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which Immunity is Available.
4. Stephen Phillips conduct in failing to reprimand
11th judicial judges for violations from ouster
quo warranto complaints filed under K.S.A. 60-1206(a) is a Ministerial Act not
a Judicial Act for
which Immunity Is Available.

5. Timothy Grillot's conduct in failing to disqualify himself from a complaint that had to do with
an Ex-Parte violation of Rule 2.9 between Robert Fleming and Timothy Fielder of Rules Relating
To Judicial Conduct and failed to reprimand attorney Timothy Fielder in docket number
DA12,181In the Matter of Timothy L Fielder.
6. The same case of
Cook v. City of Topeka,
654 P. 2d 953 was used to show that clerk of the
courts are not subject to the doctrine of judicial immunity.

involves a determination
At its core, the court's analysis
as to whether the clerk was engaged in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or
Page12 of 15
:.:
ministerial task. See id. At 957. If the complained of actions of the clerk are ministerial, judicial
immunity does not apply. See id. At 958.
7. Failing to disqualify from an investigation under KRPCRule 1.7 Conflict of Interest is a
Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which Immunity is Available.
8. Janice Russell has a ministerial duty under K.S.A. 20-311d and Rule 2.11(A) to recuse herself
from cases where there is an appearance of not being able to be impartial and she has failed to
do so and this is a Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which Immunity is Available. Judge
Russell has a ministerial duty to not take any further action in any cases she had already been
recused as seen by her deliberate decision to sign orders in Crawford County District Court
cases number 2012-LM356-P and 2Dl4-CV-28-P AFTERshe had been recused.
9. John Sanders has a ministerial duty to follow the due process clause of the 14th and
s"
amendment which he has failed to do and this is a Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which
Immunity is Available.
10. It seems to be a violation ofThe Code Of Judicial Conduct according to Judicial Ethic
Advisory Opinion 1997 JE-77 which says "Judge may serve as elder of church as long as judge
does not solicit funds. Canon 4C(4)(b)." How does this not relate to Judge Richard Smith filing
on May 13, 2014 on his financial disclosure report that he is with the
"business/organization/entity
"Trustee".
as Mound City Christian Church where he holds the position as
The first time he mentions this position with the church is on his calendar year 2012
financial disclosure report that he filed on time on April 8, 2013 and mentions the position as
"Trustee" which is a violation because he collects funds for the church. This should violate Rule
3.12 Compensation for Extrajudicial Activities and it should also violate Rule 3.14
Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges COMMENT(l) where religious and
charitable organizations are mentioned.
Since he failed to mention his position as trustee on
the 2014 fina ncial disclosure he might have failed to properly show expenses since he did not
flle these on time by April 15, 2015 wh ich was tax day. This also violates Rule
3.15(A}(1){2)(3)(5}(6)(B)
Reporting Requirements and JE Opinion 1997 JE-73 says "Judge may
not serve as trustee for community organization which aims to improve qualify of life for
children and youth. Canon 4(A)(1), 4C(4). (Exhibit C) and (Exhibit
OJ JE 73 and JE77 opinion
10. All of the Defendants being served in this case including all six (6) of the
judges are being served for failing to perform Ministerial Acts, not
ri" judicial
district
a Judicial Act for Which
Immunity is available and therefore "Injunctive Relief' is demanded by all of the people who
signed the petition under K.5.A. 60-1206 to have the i i" judicial district judges investigated
and ousted forfailing
to honor Rule 2.11{A) and K,S.A. 20-311d.
Page13 of 15
..........
'.f>-
One test used to determine whether a clerk of a court is engaged in a judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial task is to see if a statute imposes a duty upon the clerk to act in a certain way
leaving the clerk no discretion. In Am.Jur.2d it is stated while "there is some conflict as to the
judicial or ministerial nature of certain specific duties of a clerk of a court; ... his duty is purely
ministerial when it is prescribed by statute."
15A Am.Jur.2d, Clerks Of Court Section 21, p. 156
gemphasis supplied).
The case of Cook v. City a/Topeka,
654 P. 2d 953 (Kan. 1982), the Supreme Court of Kansas
should also be used for attorneys Michael Gayoso, Stephen Phillips, Stanton Hazlett, and
Timothy Grillot forfailing to fulfill their ministerial duties of properly investigating cases and
Panel A and Panel B for failingto
allow the "Disciplinary Administrator Oversight Committee" to
investigate complaints on Robert Fleming who was their previous chair and failing to report
other attorneys and judges for misconduct under KRPC8,3(a)(b) and Rule. 2,15(A)(B)(C)(D)
Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct. The same case should be used for Panel A and
Panel B of KANSASCOMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONSfor failing to follow Rule 1.1
Compliance with Law, Rule 2.11(A} Dlsqualification, and Rule 2,15(A)(B)(C)(D}.
The case of Cook v. City
0/
Topeka, 654 P.2d 953, 957 (Kan. 1982) says "A clerk may not escape
liability for illegal or improper performance of a ministerial task imposed by statute, Id. At 958.
The court went on to explain that the "quasi-judicial exception is applicable to discretionary
duties of a judicial nature," Since Panel AJ Panel B, Michael Gayoso, Stephen Phillips, Stanton
Hazlett, and Timothy Grillot were not making judicial determinations of a judicial nature and
th ey all failed to properly carry out their ministerial tasks then no judicial immunity should
apply to any officer of the court when this happens and Petitioners are filing this verified
pleading in accordance with K.S.A.60-901 and would like to have an /lORDERn of an
I/INJUNCTION" under K.S.A.60-901 against Michael Gavoso, Stephen Phillips, Stanton Hazlett,
Timothy Grillot, Panel A, Panel B, and all
ri" judicial
district Judges to not be able to hear
anyone's case who signed the "GRAND JURY PETITION" due to conflict of interest under Rule
2.11(A) and K.S.A. 20-311d.
Petitioners are filing this case like the civil rights case of Monroe v. Pope. In Monroe, the
Supreme Court held that a police officer was acting "under color of state law" even though his
actions violated state law. This was the first case in which the Supreme Court allowed liability
to attach where a government official acted outside the scope of the authority granted to him
by state law. The element of this claim is that only "persons" under the statute are subject to
liability.
A state is not a person subject to the suit but a state officer can be sued in his official
capacity for prospective or injunctive relief despite the fact that a suit against a government
official in his official capacity represents nothing more than a suit against the government entity
itself. According to this a state may not be sued for damages, but may be sued for declaratory
Page 14 of1S
.. '.:.'
; :.....
.... ; ....
~~
or injunctive relief. Municipalities
and local governments
are persons subject to suit for
damages and prospective relief, but the United States Government is not. Individual
employees of federal, state, and local government
for damages, declaratory or injunctive relief.
may be sued in their individual capacities
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff class requests
(1) Declare} by way of permanent
themselves
this Court to:
injunction, that the defendants
from cases/complaints
be ordered to disqualify
where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The standard to be applied to a charge of lack of impartiality is whether the charge is grounded
in facts that would create reasonable
doubt concerning the Court's impartiality, not in the mind
of the Court itself} or even necessarily in the mind of the litigant filing the motion, but rather in
the mind of a reasonable
person with knowledge ofthe circumstances.
Smith v. Printup, 262
Kan. 587, 1997, at Syl. 8:

(2) Declare thatpending,
independent
and new ethical complaints filled by the petitioners
be investigated
oversight committees.
(3) Declare a thorough independent
review of all past ethical complaints filled by the
petitioners
to ascertain that all complaints were properly investigated and that appropriate
reprimands
were instituted.
(4) Grant Plaintiff class such other relief as may be just and equitable.
Dated July 22, 2015

Respectfully Submitted
by;
By: Is/Eric M. Muathe Eric Muathe, P. O. Box 224, Pittsburg, KS,66762.

By: Is/Noah
Day Noah Day, P. O. Box 224, Pittsburg, KS,66762.
By: Is/Kasey King Kasey King, P. O. Box 224, Pittsburg, KS,66762.

By: Is/James
Beckley Jr. James Beckley Jr., P. O. Box 224 Pittsburg, KS,66762.
By: Is/Travis Carlton Travis Carlton, P. O. Box 224, Pittsburg, KS,66762.

Page 15 of 15
by
May 6, 2016
Hon. Jack 1. Burr
Senior Judge
801 Broadway
Goodland, Ks 66735
CASE NO. 15CV79P Not 15CV75P
Dear Judge Jack Burr:
I am writing in response to Stephen Phillips letter dated May 3, 2016 which said he objected to
Kasey King writing a letter and asking questions by himself since he is not an attorney. So now
I will write a letter basically stating the same thing Mr. King already stated in his letter dated
April 26, 2016. A motion for a continuance was properly filed, with a proper certificate of
service to continue the April 18, 2016 hearing in the above mentioned case of 15CV79P now that
we have an attorney representing us in retain.ed attorney Adebayo Ogunmeno of Ogunmeno
Law Firm of 155 S. 18th Street, Site 250 in KC Ks 66102 to represent Plaintiffs in federal case
number 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR against Respondents Lori Fleming and Kurt Loy. I since I can
only speak for myself according to attorney Stephen Phillips so I can say that a settlement offer
was sent to Stephen Phillips ready to "DROP EVERTHING IN THIS CASE" and the only case
be remaining would be the federal case of 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR against Respondents Lori
Fleming and Kurt Loy if he would just drop his filing restrictions. There would be no more
paperwork filed in this case which is all that Stephen Phillips seems to complain about us doing
even though I have not filed very many cases in Crawford County and I don't feel I deserve
filing restrictions at all and at the most, attorney Stephen Phillips should have filed a "timely
counterclaim" against the Plaintiffs in case number 15CV79P not "15CV75P case of AKCC .
Management LLC vs. Two Big Fish LLC where his "RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS LOY,
W ACIITER, FLEMING, FLEMING, JACK, LYNCH, RUSSELL, SMITH, SANDERS, HAZLETT,
GRILLOT AND SCffiv1IDT TO PLAINTIFFS' THREE MOTIONS" was improperly filed on
4/11/2016 with an "IMPROPER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE". The certificate of service says it
was mailed out on April 8, 2016 which is a Friday and if it was mailed out late on Friday the
envelope would show" 4-9-2016" instead of the enclosed envelope it came in which is dated 411-2016 which shows the certificate of service should have been 4-11-2016 and therefore the
response is ineffective according to K.5.A. 60-210(a). I don't understand
why there was
never a new "NOTICE OF HEARING" in accordance with Supreme Court Rule
131(a)(b)(c)(d) that changed the court cases of 15SC70P to 10:00 a.m. and 15SC71P and
15SC85P to 10:00 a.m. along with chapter civil case 15CV79P.
I did not appear
because there was a "motion for continuance"
that was filed appropriately
:in
accordance with K.S.A. 60-207(b)(2) K.S.A. 60-210(a), K.s.A. 60-211(a) in this case on
time and Defendant's
attorney Stephen Phillips filed "response to motion for
continuance"
in the wrong case which did not comply with K.S.A. 60-207(b)(2), K.S.A.
60-210(a), and KS.A. 60-211(a) because he filed it in case number 15CV75P in the wrong
case titled AKCC Management
LLC vs. Two Big Fish LLC where he not only filed the
response to our motion for cont:inuance but he filed 2 other responses to our motion for
Exhibit 2
change of judge and motion to withdraw motion to dismiss on 4-11-2016 according to

the court docket in that case with the wrong certificate of service.
The copy of the court transcriptfrom4-18-2016 shows that you heard our case on April 18, 2016
with 3 other small claims cases in 22 minutes from 10:00a.m. until 10:22a.m. even though the
other cases were not scheduled until 1:30p.m. and 2:30 p,m. I also read where you dismissed
case number 15CV79Pfirst, but then granted filing restrictions against us after you already
dismissed the case even though the response by Stephen Phillips was filed on 4-11-2016in
AKCC Management LLC vs. Two Big Fish LLC and the certificate of service is
improper.
It would seem to me that the order from 4-18-2016 should be vacated and void because
it seems to be a void judgment because it did not comply with "REPORT OF SUPREME
COURT STANDARDS COMMITTEE-GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES
FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS" which says "Justice is effective when it is: (A) Fairly
Administered Without Delay, (B) Competent Judges, (C) Operating in a Modem Court
System without overlapping jurisdictions or multiple appeals, (D) Under Simple and
Efficient Rules of Procedure. Number (3) under letter (D) says "The ultimate judicial
goal should be justice, not speed, in the disposition of cases. Cases should be
determined on an individual basis, not on an assembly line. It seems that since case
numbers 15CV75P, 15CV79P, 15SC70P, 15SC71P, and 15SC85P were all heard at 10:00
a.m. on 4-18-2016 that the hearing would be able to be vacated with a "motion to vacate
a void judgment".
I would like to file an "objection to the journal entry", "motion for reconsideration", "a motion
to vacate a void judgment, a "motion for change of judge with affidavit", and a "NOTICE OF
APPEAL" because I don't feel that we received due process with our chapter 61 case being
heard on an assembly line with 3 other chapter 60 small claims cases and I would like to
possibly appeal this case with the due process issues mentioned up above.
I don't want to file anything first without asking you to get permission first and get
contempt of court now that we have filing restrictions even though the "MOTION OF
DEFENDATNS LOY,WACHTER,FLEMING, FLEMING, JACK, LYNCH, RUSSELL,
SMITH, SANDERS,HAZLETT,GRILLOT,AND SCHMIDT FOR SANCTIONS WITH
MEMORANDUM INCORPORATED"was actually titled in case number 15CV75P
along with the "Response of Defendants Loy, Wachter, Fleming, Fleming, Jack, Lynch
Russell, Smith, Sanders, Hazlett, Grillot, and Schmidt To Plaintiffs Three Motion
DO?Iment" which is on the docket in the case of AKCC Management LLCvs, Two Big
Fish LLC with the wrong certificate of service so we don't see how you could grant any
filing restrictions against us for filing frivolously when the deputy attorney Stephen
Phillips appears to be the one filing frivolous filings as he has titled not one but "2"
different motions and responses in case number 15CV75P.
Another issue I would like to bring up is that I object to the fact that Stephen Phillips
addressed
the letter dated may 3, 2016 to your office address of 801 Broadway, Room
201, Goodland, Ks 67735 because Mr. Phillips had previously received your own private
address off the record according to the court transcript on 4-18-2016 and it does not
follow court rules and procedures to mail it to your own home address but list the office
to try to deceive the plaintiffs in case number 15CV79P.
I also would like to have access of your own private address like you gave attorney
Stephen Phillips off the record in an ex-parte conversation
before you left town early
after the 10:22 a.m, hearing according to court staff at Crawford County Courthouse so
that I can communicate with you quicker like attorney Stephen Phillips is allowed to do.
I also would like to object to attorney Stephen Phillips request that you direct the
Crawford County clerk to refile the motion of "RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS LOY,
W ACmER,
FLEMING, FLEM1NG, JACK, LYNCH, RUSSELL, SMITH,
SANDERS, HAZLETT, GRILLOT AND SCHMIDT TO PLAINTIFFS' THREE

MOTIONS" was improperly
filed on 4/11/2016 with an "IMPROPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE in 15CV79P that he filed incorrectly in 15CV75P because

attorney Phillips needs to re-do his "certificate of service" because 4-8-2016 was not
when it was mailed out and it was 4-11-2016 and I have included the envelope for proof.
I am also confused why Stephen Phillips even responded
to the letter Kasey King sent to
Judge Jack Burr dated April 26 2016 because according to attorney Stephen Philli ps' s
f
own filing restrictions he claims he and no one else has to respond to anything the
plaintiffs write or say unless
respond.
/I
ordered by the court" which he was not done by you to
None of this makes any sense and I would appreciate a timely response to
thiletter and a new hearing.

~~---
Sincerely,
Travis Carlton
__._.
---- ..
__ .
~_~
/0 C_~
c/o Summary Jud~
Group
P.O. Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762
Cc
James Emerson
County Counselor
Crawford County Courthouse
111 East Forest St.
Girard, Ks 66743
Stephen Phillips, No. 14130
Memorial Bldg., 2nd floor
120 SW 10th Avenue
Topeka, Ks 66612
Carrie Barney
Memorial Building, 2nd Floor
120 SW 10th Avenue
Topeka, Ks 66612
29L99 sesul":}[ '?J.lnqsllld

-f7Z:Z xOH Od
-J f i\a I)pag saurs]
L6S l-?l ":09 5)1 -\f)13dOl

~OOl.:l mlZ -lll'ri 1-'10 I N\S 02 l
llliH: -u'I~O!l!3 ~\I
j_;[l i II\J ~-J:JS >i '3 c130
~I"~,':!:J:=JI<~
3::J ..\.3
I\j
~::JC.~L
..~-\.:
r [28
IN THE DISTRICT
ERIC M. MUATHE,
COURT
OF CRAWFORD
et a1.,
COUNTY,
KANSAS
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
HONORABLE
) CASE NO.
15CV79P
KURTIS
LOY,
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
NOAH
IAN DAY,
7
Plaintiff,
)
)
8
vs.
) CASE NO.
15SC70P
MY TOWN MEDIA,
)
)
10
Defendant.
11
)
)
NOAH
IAN DAY,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
12
)
)
vs.
13
) CASE NO. 15SC71P

)
14
LORI FLEMING,
)
)
Defendant.
15
NOAH
DAY,
)
)
)
16
Plaintiff,
)
)
17
vs.
) CASE NO. 15SC85P

)
18
LORI FLEMING,
)
)
19
Defendant.
20
TRANSCRIPT
OF MOTIONS
21
PROCEEDINGS
had before
the Honorable
22
JACK BURR,
Senior
Judge,
assigned
to the District
23
Court
of Crawford
County,
Kansas,
at Pittsburg,
24
Kansas,
on the 18th day of April,
2016.
25
Exhibit 3
1
APPEARANCES:
2
The Plaintiffs
did not appear.
The Defendants
Kurtis
3
Loy, Andrew
Wachter,
4
Robert
Fleming,
Lynch,
Janice
Lori
Fleming,
Jeffry
Jack,
Oliver
Kent
Russell,
Richard
Smith,
John Sanders,
6
Stanton
Hazlett,
Tim Grillot
appearing
by and through
7
their
counsel,
Mr. Stephen
Phillips,
Assistant
8
Attorney
General,
Memorial
Bldg,
2nd Floor,
120 SW
9
10th Avenue,
Topeka,
KS 66612-1597.
10
11
The Defendants
Kansas
12
Qualifications
Panels
13
their
Ms. Carrie
14
Attorney
15
Topeka,
counsel,
General,
Judicial
A and B appearing
A. Barney,
by and through
120 SW 10th Avenue,
Assistant
2nd Floor,
KS 66612-1597.
16
17
The Defendant
18
by and through
19
Crawford
20
66743.
County
Michael
his counsel,
Counselor,
Gayoso,
Jr., appearing
Mr. James Emerson,

P.O. Box
68, Girard,
KS
21
22
The Defendant
23
though
24
Attorney
25
Topeka,
her counsel,
General,
Lori
Fleming
Mr. Dennis
D. Depew,
120 SW 10th Avenue,
KS 66612-1597.
appearing
by and
Deputy
2nd Floor,
THE COURT:
1
2
No. 15CV79P,
pronounced
My understanding
it would
MR.
MR. EMERSON:
THE COURT:
PHILLIPS:
plaintiffs
Kurtis
be entitled
is Case
Eric M. -- is that
I believe
Okay.
appear
Loy,
I believe
pro
it is Muathe.
so.
And
others,
and others,
10
Senior
Judge
11
I'm one of a long line
12
been
as listed
who has been
13
assignment
14
me, at least
involved,
and I'm here
Would
16
MR.
versus
is Jack Burr.
to this
I'm a
case and
apparently
from Goodland
Court,
Judge
in the caption.
assigned
of judges
of the Supreme
15
and those
se in this case,
Let me tell you that my name
this
Muathe?
is that
who have
by
so you are stuck
with
for a while.
you announce
PHILLIPS:
17
General,
18
Robert
Fleming,
19
Lynch,
Janice
20
Stanton
Steve
and I represent
21
THE COURT:
22
MS. BARNEY:
Phillips,
Kurtis
Lori Fleming,
Russell,
Hazlett,
your appearances,
Richard
please.
Assistant
Loy, Andrew
Jeffry
Jack,
Smith,
Attorney
Wachter,
Oliver
Kent
John E. Sanders,
Tim Grillot.
All right.
Your
Honor,
Carrie
Barney,
Assistant
23
24
THE COURT:
I'm having
25
MS. BARNEY:
I'm sorry.
trouble
hearing
you.
4
THE COURT:
1
2
number
I've got a cold,
two, I don't
MS. BARNEY:
hear
Honor,
here
on behalf
Attorney
General,
Judicial
Qualifications
THE COURT:
MR. EMERSON:
County
Counselor,
County
Attorney.
Thank
Your
here
All right.
11
MR. DEPEW:
Your
Attorney
General,
13
just here
I have
a little
THE COURT:
14
about
16
apparently
17
appears
18
of or the plaintiffs
19
anything,
of Defendants
Jim Emerson,
Crawford
of Michael
Dennis
Depew,
the afternoon
Gayoso,
Deputy
cases
so I'm
early.
Okay.
15
20
those
Honor,
Assistant
you.
on behalf
THE COURT:
Barney,
A and B.
Honor,
10
12
Carrie
Panels
Okay.
one; and,
very well.
Your
number
And
I may have
too when we finish

no appearances
in the courtroom
some questions
here but,
are made,
nobody
at least either
themselves.
in any event,
-- no one
on behalf
Have you heard
Mr. Phillips?
MR. PHILLIPS:
No,
21
checked
with my office
22
Clerk's
Office
Judge,
and we just checked
and nothing
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. PHILLIPS:
25
THE COURT:
we have not and I have
has been
with the
filed here.
Okay.
The
Well,
last
I have
not received
anything,
.,
nor have
I heard
anything.
MR. PHILLIPS:
2
3
Friday,
saying
continuance.
something
THE COURT:
We got a letter
Yeah,
I already
since
had this
have not been down here
corne down and see what
guess,
I don't
and correct
11
on file by both parties
dismiss
14
a response
15
by you, I believe,
16
don't
17
opinion,
18
correct?
the motion
to the motion
Mr.
MR. PHILLIPS:
reinstate
21
dismiss,
22
reinstate
it.
then when
but
and I
I decided
to
And my questions,
here,
I currently
have
by the plaintiffs
if -a motion
Phillips,
been
dismissed
Judge,
their
I opposed
to
I have
by the plaintiffs,
indicating
to talk about
filed
asking
on their behalf.
to dismiss
Yes,
They
cases,
the plaintiffs
to dismiss
but you want
to continue
to dismiss.
-- it has already
20
23
happened.
a motion
13
19
on these
me if I'm wrong,
I also have
-- this trip planned
have
10
12
they wanted
I got a motion
since
about
last Thursday,
that you
in your
sanctions;
is that
and then they moved

60-241 motion
to
to
it they said we want
to
it.
THE COURT:
No,
to me their
I understand
24
appeared
reasoning
25
don't want any sanctions.
that.
And
it
in that response
We don't mind
the
was we
dismissal,
we don't
MR. PHILLIPS:
THE COURT:
I want
sanctions,
Judge.
that, but they
don't.
MR. PHILLIPS:
THE COURT:
you asking
Yes.
Okay.
Now,
let me hear -- what
are
for in the way of sanctions?
MR. PHILLIPS:
8
9
sanctions.
No, I understand
want
restrictions,
Judge,
I'm asking
and I've patterned
10
requesting
11
restrictions
12
more
13
these plaintiffs
14
to be r.viewed
15
that
off of a reported
detail
Julge's
just like
in my motion,
could
the restrictions
case
these.
for filing
that approved
They
are set forth
but basically
file a new case,
before
to see whether
in
any of
it would
by the local Administrative
designee
I'm
Judge
have
or
it was
16
17
18
19
not be
20
authoriJy
21
,ocketed.
And
for that is State
In my motion
22
cases
23
were
24
case,
25
researcJ
the case
done,
on what
I cite a long list of
of these plaintiffs
abtli'eOyluhtaevleY
frivolous.
have
filed that
And if you look at this
obviously,
a class
I cite as
vs. Lynn.
for sanctions,
t1at various
I think
action
no meaningful
legal
is, or how you bring
it, and this
purposes
in this
of harassment
is set forth
I'm asking
are requesting
indication
MR.
So basically
of merit
PHILLIPS:
I wish
12
plaintiffs
13
attorney
14
but
15
Kansas,
16
either
17
Do you know whether
19
have
have
MR.
filed,
indicated
PHILLIPS:
as
what you
of at least
some
Judge.
The plaintiffs,
actually,
the
that they now have an
a name,
I don't
City.
know the name,
I assume
in Kansas
or are going
the attorney
City,
Kansas
and that they
to file a federal
that has been

The federal
City,
lawsuit.
filed?
lawsuit
has been
did file it.
Okay.
And
it apparently
indicates
if not all, of the same complaints?

MR.
22
sanctions,
of them were here
somewhere
restrictions
to filing.
Correct,
in Kansas
THE COURT:
many,
prior
and they cite
I believe
20
21
one or more
but
your
Let me ask you this.
11
18
defendants
in my motion.
is a predetermination
THE COURT:
10
the various
for is filing
in more detail
THE COURT:
against
as for
case.
But what
case can only be described
23
federal
24
Lori
25
station.
PHILLIPS:
lawsuit
Fleming
lS
The major
complaint
in that
the e-mail
allegedly
sent by Judge
to one of the owners
That
federal
case
of the radio
is just against,
as I
remember
even
it, Judge
apparently
small
claims
about
now.
I don't
I don't
and their
10
know that
we are talking
cases
than
MR. PHILLIPS:
and Judge
think
more
there
federal
is much
I see.
case,
that
the federal
12
that
this be dismissed,
13
as in the Chapter
since
the
Judge,
this
case
included
60 case
here
15
THE COURT:
but
that's
16
MR. PHILLIPS:
That's
17
THE COURT:
18
MR. PHILLIPS:
Okay.
for whatever
23
to find that this case,
24
fact, been dismissed.
25
I am going
not the case.
case has not been
It has been
summons
Well,
or anyone
to deny
--
Judge.
federal
has not requested
the plaintiffs
the same complaints
not the case.
reason.
22
had asked
Well--
The
Yeah.
the assumption
the plaintiffs
yet,
THE COURT:
involving
between
I was under
Not
attorney
like.
it but
is correct,
overlap
MR. PHILLIPS:
20
I need
about
that
14
served
if you'd
one.
THE COURT:
19
and I can
we are the case we are talking
I believe
11
21
Loy,
give you a copy of the complaint

THE COURT:
Fleming
filed but the
be issued
no appearance
on their behalf.
in that.
is made by
I'm going
Case No. 15CV79P,
has, in
the reinstatement
requested
by
the plaintiffs
with their
parties
mentioned
the case.
that point,
will be dismissed.
8
9
request
request
-- in other
to dismiss.
brief,
It is simply
Now, insofar
obviously,
11
wrong,
12
is clearly
I think
a matter
there
why they
about
is nobody
shouldn't
made
So I'm going
14
Mr. Phillips.
15
you include
in there
16
necessarily
the Administrative
17
also a party
18
designee
19
Kansas,
20
want to leave enough
21
the determination
22
apparently
is acceptable
23
acceptable
to the defense,
24
happens.
25
request
to this
want
I don't
your
because
so his designee
of the State
to word
that somebody
-- and, of course,
to the plaintiffs
request,
sure
he's
or the
of
it, but
to grant
gets to make
somebody
and also
and we will see what
I'm going
for the sanctions.
or
it is not
Judge,
know how you want
But basically
right
and the request
and grant
system
leeway
but,
to -- I want to make
action,
that
I guess,
to tell me,
the fact that
of the judicial
it at
given.
to go ahead
I don't
that dismisses
are concerned,
be granted
and notice
it is
it now and the case
those,
here
away
if both
of recording
as the sanctions
concern
doing
and I think
Mr. Phillips,
and so I'm recording
have a little
words,
a case be dismissed,
in your
10
13
of their
your
who
10
Now,
let's
about
on file asking
any affidavit
did you?
this case.
They
that
I disqualify
MR. PHILLIPS:
as I understand
procedure.
the statute,
There
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
13
and so forth
And
I agree
MR. PHILLIPS:
And
responses
16
they were on notice.
17
THE COURT:
Right.
received
an affidavit
19
to send on to another
20
so; but,
21
itself
in any event,
indicates
24
point.
25
sanctions
first.
action
And this
is a reason
is granted.
to file an affidavit.
in one of my
in any event,
so I didn't
Judge
to disqualify
up at this hearing,
Well,
I mean,
I have not
have anything
if I was inclined
even
to do
I do not find that the motion

for me to disqualify.
was filed,
on that
case
the determination
I suggested
the reason
Since no affidavit
any further
is
is the proper
and I make
it be taken
18
23
that
to be a hearing
and then you have
15
22
and I think
at the hearing
I feel there
that
in this case,
Oh, yeah.
11
as to whether
but I did not receive
that
is supposed
MR. PHILLIPS:
12
Judge,
questions
in this case a motion
to that motion
No,
10
14
also have
attached
see if I have any other
and don't
is dismissed,
What
I have not taken

intend
to at this
the request
for
else do we need to talk
11
about in this case today?

MR. PHILLIPS:
Do I need to do a Rule 170 journal
entry, Judge?
THE COURT: I would -- yes, I do want you to do
4
5
the journal entry and I think, under the
circumstances, a Rule 170 probably would be the way to
go.
MR. PHILLIPS:
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
And you can forward that to me at --
10
probably better forward it to my house, that way --
11
I'm at the courthouse in Goodland reasonably regularly
12
but I'm not there all the time.
13
14
MR. PHILLIPS:
And my address is
How about we do that later off the
record?
15
THE COURT: That's fine, I will give it to you.
16
MR. PHILLIPS:
17
THE COURT: I will let you know.
18
Okay.
I want to ask a
couple questions of Mr. Depew, is it?
19
MR. DEPEW:
Yes, sir.
20
THE COURT:
Yeah.
I know these are scheduled for
21
this afternoon but I'm not sure we are going to be
22
able to do anything this afternoon anyway.
23
heard anything on either of these small claims cases?
24
MR. DEPEW:
25
who is the plaintiff.
Have you
I have had phone calls with Mr. Day,
12
THE COURT:
MR. DEPEW:
indicated
claims
recent
to dismiss
him.
He kind
Yes.
order
He indicated
of indicates
that in a more
And so what
of dismissal
that
he's
I did is I prepared
and I mailed
now living
it to
in Denver,
Colorado.
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. DEPEW:
Oh.
And
so I mailed
that to him back
in
February.
14
THE COURT:
Uh-huh.
15
MR. DEPEW:
And
I even
included
16
self-addressed
17
easy
18
And then when he filed
19
most
20
Mr. Day, I'm kind of confused
21
more
22
dismissal
23
it back to you and I said well,
25
the small
letter.
a stipulated
24
he
cases.
13
as early as February
to me that he wanted
MR. DEPEW:
10
And back
THE COURT:
Right.
envelope
back
to me so it would
for him to get it back.
recent
things
letters,
when
here
in very
And so he said that
heard
be very
anything.
late March
his
him, and I just said,

as to why you are filing
you the stipulated
and he said well,
with the mail
I never
I called
I sent
a stamped
I signed
of
that and I sent
I've not received
he had difficulty
at his apartment
order
it.
at times
so I sent him another
13
1
one along
envelope
and asked
Office.
I have
mail
with
another
self-addressed
him to please
not received
mail
that at a Post
it as of this morning's
in my office.
THE COURT:
stamped,
I was thinking
written
things
staff
Well,
about
let me suggest
this before
out a letter,
about being
and I don't
to type
to you.
I've
the hearing.
which
that's
one of the bad
a Senior
Judge,
I don't
type,
somebody
it for me but,
11
written
out a letter
12
parties
in the two small
13
what
14
to disqualify
15
filed
in any event,
and basically
is that
and that
have
any
so I will have to find
10
I'm saying
something
claims
addressed
I have
it to the
cases and basically
I'm aware
that he's
I was not aware
asked
me
that he has
an affidavit.
16
I didn't
17
he was asking
18
copy of the affidavit,
19
until
20
pointing
21
that he's advised
22
so forth,
23
hear
24
cases.
25
to whoever
I got a copy of a letter

me to disqualify
but he didn't
so I didn't
I saw it this morning

that out in this
me there
and I'm basically
they
I'm going
that
send me a
know there
was one
in the file and I'm

letter
but I also
is a Federal
telling
from him by May 3 if he wants

If not,
saying
take note
Court
him that
to dismiss
to forward
case and
I want to
these
the affidavit
tell me to for determination
and go
on
c'
14
from there.
MR. DEPEW:
2
3
KSA 20-311(f)
THE COURT:
MR.
there
a formal
seven days after
receiving
And
is a clear
in that
time
request
limit
statute
by which
it states
out
someone
that
must
for recusal
of a Judge
and that
the pretrial
or seven
days after
written
notice
Your appointment
small
claims
cases
13
THE COURT:
14
MR.
would
DEPEW:
object
of the Judge before
file
is
whom
the
17
procedural
18
notification.
19
MR.
in this
case
two
was made
Sometime
ago.
-- months
ago and so we would
So you are indicating
grounds
DEPEW:
I don't
-- we
That's
that -- I think
our position,
I think
21
March
22
want to dismiss
23
THE COURT:
That's
24
MR.
And so we would
30 letter
DEPEW:
filing
that on
even need to give him that
20
and dismiss
in these
to
THE COURT:
16
25
I would point
case is to be heard.
11
15
Honor,
Yeah.
DEPEW:
12
Your
--
10
Well,
Your Honor,
you can -- because
and
I read his
the same way you do, which
is I
this case.
the case.
the way it appears
to me.
ask that we go ahead
~.
15
THE COURT:
Well,
you
bad request
simply
some
he can show me why
that,
circumstances,
trying
to be quite
I suppose
11
around,
12
Office
13
there
14
haven't
16
to reconsider
And under
that
I don't
MR. DEPEW:
in fact, want
he's
to drive
Well,
18
MR. DEPEW:
I know.
19
THE COURT:
And
20
MR. DEPEW:
You could
21
THE COURT:
I don't
going
25
federal
feel the
to go along
to dismiss
lawsuit
you've
had and I certainly
Denver.
these
drove
blame
have
have
with
to show.
to me that he did not,
I almost
quite
from Denver.
him.
carpooled,
anything
a ways
the.same
Your Honor.
against
from where
you, Mr. Depew.
on the basis
including
in the Clerk's
to show up, and
I don't
it is just
for me to hang
happen
going
from
THE COURT:
24
aware
He indicated
17
I'm going
and I would
them
that
had any, that
23
I'm
this afternoon
see any reason
if Mr. Day does
is no indication
Pittsburg,
the
-- I guess what
I understand
and I will make
22
is
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
15
force
if there
I ought
do it.
not a
frank.
DEPEW:
same way,
10
the standpoint
I could
I don't
it is probably
to do is get out of town before
MR.
8
9
reason
from
know,
I live.
I'm just
that he's filed a

allegations.
He's
,
r- '
16
indicated
should
We will proceed
from there.
MR. DEPEW:
All right.
THE COURT:
MR. DEPEW:
that to me in his letter,
say, and I'm just
afternoon
going
that
MR. DEPEW:
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. DEPEW:
15SC85P
12
THE COURT:
Okay.
13
MR. DEPEW:
And there
is
--
small
there
18
talking
19
on the other
in this
claims
and 15SC71P.
Now,
one,
same thing.
22
they terminated
23
neglects
24
when
Now,
is also
realize
Yes.
--
My Town Media
that
that.
I thought
and I see what you are

me
I think.
It is basically
the radio
the advertising
they terminated
a suit against
can you tell -- enlighten
it is 70P,
to mention
--
on.
He is suing
THE COURT:
and
suit against
I didn't
about now.
MR. DEPEW:
Day vs. Lori Fleming.
Right.
were only two of them
21
25
are Noah
--
I am not here
17
20
--
Yeah.
THE COURT:
16
that
--
15
a dismissal.
The two cases
I'm involved
THE COURT:
separate
to note
maybe
Oh.
14
or letters
exactly
station,
contract.
in any of his paperwork

it they refunded
the
because
What
he
was that
--
It is a part of the same series
of
17
allegations.
MR. DEPEW:
2
3
defendant
THE COURT:
4
5
in the
15SC71P
It is and the radio

federal
I am going
and 15SC85P,
isn't
MR. DEPEW:
Yes,
THE COURT:
And
suppose
not involved
10
lawsuit
for the reasons
in, Mr. Depew,
but
THE COURT:
If you would
13
for the third
14
would
case
appreciate
since you have
that
happy
forward
16
THE COURT:
And if you would
point?
I will
MR. DEPEW:
22
MR. PHILLIPS:
about
24
limitation
25
make
about
21
23
20-311(f).
you aware
any of those
No, Your
step into chambers

of what my home
cases
join Dennis's
I do think
Yeah.
Are there
any
at this
Honor.
I would
in his motion
THE COURT:
in, I
do so.
is and how you can send that.
questions
form
it.
I will
20
the
me the same
you are not involved
MR. DEPEW:
other
to prepare' them.
15
19
Now,
to do so.
12
address
stated.
on the one that you are
I will
18
15SC70P,
sir.
MR. DEPEW:
afterwards,
cases
it?
11
17
is a
as well.
to dismiss
I can jot a dismissal
facilities
station
there
comments
is also a time
for recusal.
Well,
and I'm trying
to -- I
18
1
get one of these
picture
don't
every
it in my mind
have
a problem
MR.
MR. EMERSON:
THE COURT:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DEPEW:
once
in a while
and I think
with
No, Your
that.
and try to
you are right.

Anything
further?
Honor.
No.
Well,
Court
will be in recess,
guess.
(Whereupon
a.m., April
the proceedings
18, 2016.)
concluded
at 10:22
,
",
19
STATE
OF KANSAS)
CRAWFORD
)
COUNTY)
SS.
CERTIFICATE
I, Shaun
Higgins,
J.
a Certified
Shorthand
Reporter,
Kansas,
acting
District
of the State
of Kansas
do hereby
that as such official
reporter,
I was present
by virtue
of the laws of the State
and the regularly

official
Reporter
10
reported
in machine
11
foregoing
12
before
13
Judicial
14
and for the County
the Honorable
Judicial
certify
had on the date above

JACK
BURR,
Judge
of Kansas,
certify
that pursuant
to law my
17
and that the foregoing
is a true and correct
18
transcript
in said
transcribed
of my notes
20
the Clerk
21
__________ , 2016.
officially
of the District
under my supervision
case.
sealed,
Court
and filed with
this
day of
22
23
SHAUN J. HIGGINS,
KS CSR #0904
24
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
25
in
of Crawford.
were
Signed,
set out
Sitting
shorthand
19
at and
of the Eleventh
16
notes
and
the above and
of the State
I further
15
qualified
for the Eleventh
shorthand
proceedings
District
appointed,
of
RMR
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

ERIC M. MUATHE, et al.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HONORABLE KURTIS LOY, et al.,

Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15-CV-75P
------------------------~)
RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS
LOY, WACHTER, FLEMING, FLEMING, JACK, LYNCH, RUSSELL, SMITH,
SANDERS, HAZLETT, GRILLOT AND SCHMIDT TO PLAINTIFFS' THREE
MOTIONS
Defendants
Kurtis Loy, Andrew J. Wachter, Robert J. Fleming, Lori Fleming, Jeffry L.
Jack, Oliver Kent Lynch (District COUItJudges for the Eleventh Judicial District), Janice D.
Russell, Richard M. Smith, John E. Sanders (Senior District Court Judges), Stanton A. Hazlett
(Disciplinary
Administrator),
Tim Grillot (assigned discipline complaint investigator), and
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, by and through counsel, Stephen Phillips, Assistant
Attorney General, submit this response to Plaintiffs' most recent three motions: "Motion to
Withdraw Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss,"
"Motion for Change of Judge," and "Motion for
Continuance. "
Plaintiffs' Petition is dismissed.
"[W]hen a document seeking dismissal is filed within
the time frame set out in K.S.A. 60-241 (a)(I), it will operate as an automatic dismissal ofthe
action upon filing." Smith v. State, 22 Kan. App.2d 922, 926 (1996). Defendants' Motion to
Withdraw is but a further example oftheir frivolous court filings that warrant filing restrictions.
Exhib-it 4
.'
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, however, and in order to promote finality in
this case, Defendants do not oppose reinstatement of Plaintiffs' case provided that it be reinstated
on the condition that Defendants pending motions-Defendants'
Dismiss; Defendants'
September
28,2015,
September 8,2015, Motion to
Motion for Sanctions; and Defendants'
November
23, 2015, Motion for Extension of Time To File Response to Pro Se Plaintiffs' Motion For
Sanctionshearing.
be deemed to remain pending be taken up at the previously scheduled April 18

Defendants, therefore, oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Continuance.
This case has been
pending since August 7, 2015

Defendants'
after Defendants'
Motion for Change of Judge changes nothing.
It is only now filed, months
Motion to Dismiss and is nothing more than a delaying tactic. K.S.A. 20-311
provides for a hearing on the motion. That can easily be accomplished at the April 18 hearing
along with consideration
of Defendants' motions.
Respectfully submitted,
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEREK SCHMIDT
/s/ Stephen Phillips

Stephen Phillips, No. 14130
Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor
120 SW 10th Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597
Phone:
(785) 296-2215
Facsimile: (785) 296-6296
Attorney for Defendants Loy, Wachter, Fleming,
Fleming, Jack, Lynch, Russell, Smith, Sanders,
Hazlett, Grillot and Schmidt.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 8th day of April, 2016, the above and forgoing document was
filed with the Clerk of the Court of the District of Crawford County, Kansas via U.S. Mail. I
further certify that a copy was served via first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to:
Eric Muathe
P.O. Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762
Noah Day
P.O. Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762
Kasey King
P.O. Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762
James Beckley Jr.

P.O. Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762
Travis Carlton
P.O. Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762
Jim Emerson
Crawford County Counselor
III East Forest, 2nd Fl.
Girard, KS, 66713
Noah Day
960 I Iliss Ave., Apt. 1527
Denver, CO 80231
Judge Jack Burr
Sherman County District Court
801 Broadway, Room 201,
Goodland, KS 67735
and hand delivered to:
Carrie Barney
Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor
120 SW 10th Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612- 1597
/s/ Stephen Phillips

Stephen Phillips
J+t1of" sr b~(
.J ( e U)5-eJ. FrOJV' ,;,i'\\/ct~l~V '1. )~ <If Ie~ ~rS

011. 1~K6-)6i{ "l1 ~
~s vf\i>-h~JJ Itf-kv l\\
..
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS
ERIC M. MUATHE, et al.,

Plaintiff,
vs.
HONORABLE
KURTIS LOY, et aI.,

Defendants.
p-e~~CI\
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15-CV-75P
oc Rvle
~d-J
:t m lYlu/lr,,;.7
~
MOTION OF DEFENDANTS
LOY, WACHTER, FLEMING, FLEMING, JACK, LYNCH, RUSSELL, SMITH,
SANDERS, HAZLETT, GRILLOT AND SCHMIDT FOR SANCTIONS
WITH MEMORANDUM INCORPORATED
Defendants Kurtis Loy, Andrew J. Wachter, Robert J. Fleming, Lori Fleming, Jeffry L.
Jack, Oliver Kent Lynch (District Court Judges for the Eleventh Judicial District), Janice D.
Russell, Richard M. Smith, John E. Sanders (Senior District Court Judges), Stanton A. Hazlett
(Disciplinary Administrator), Tim Grillot (assigned discipline complaint investigator), and
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, by and through counsel, Stephen Phillips, Assistant
Attorney General, pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-211, move for sanctions in the form of
filing restrictions against Eric M. Muathe, Noah Day, Kasey King, James Beckley, Jr., and
Travis Carlton.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Muathe, Day, King, Beckley, and Carlton (hereinafter collectively Pro Se Litigants),
either acting on behalf of an unincorporated association known as Summary Judgment Group, or
acting on their own behalves, purported to bring this case as a class action on behalf of signators
of a grand jury petition against Defendants Kurtis Loy, Andrew J. Wachter, Robert J. Fleming,
Lori Fleming, Jeffry L. Jack, Oliver Kent Lynch (District Court Judges for the Eleventh Judicial
District), Janice D. Russell, Richard M. Smith, John E. Sanders (Senior District Court Judges),
Stanton A. Hazlett (Disciplinary Administrator), Tim Grillot (assigned discipline complaint
investigator), Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, and Kansas Commission on Judicial
Qualifications Panel A and Panel B (represented by separate defense counsel).
As is stated in these Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Defendants' Response to various
motions, Pro Se Litigants' Petition and subsequent pleadings in this matter are utterly frivolous.
They have obviously not done even a modicum of meaningful legal research, and have utterly
failed to attempt to meet any of the pleading or procedural requirements for a class action. This
case is for the sole purpose of harassing the defendants. But for most of the plaintiffs, this is not
their first venture into harassing litigation. Below is a summary of some of the more abusive
cases involving these litigants. Copies of some pleadings from these cases are attached as
Exhibit 1. These cases contain frivolous pleadings, repeated motions to disqualify judges, and
references to the UCC and sovereign citizenship. When several of the cases were resolved, the
judges imposed sanctions, including filing restrictions within those individual cases. Several
were stricken from the public record due to abusive content. Many of Muathe's pleadings
contain "sovereign language." If the Court will examine the case files, it will find that Muathe
on at least two occasions filed suit against a judge who was presiding over a case, then used that
suit as grounds to seek recusal of the judge. These Defendants ask this Court to take judicial
notice pursuant to K.S.A. 60-904 of the cases below filed in Crawford County District Court:!
Cases involving Eric M. Muathe:
lOSC134P, Muathe v. Routhmeir Sterling Inc.: Muathe sued the company for
violating debt collection practices, but voluntarily dismissed after a "voluntary out
This is not an exclusive list of all cases filed by or against Pro Se Litigants.
i :
of court settlement" was reached. Muathe included language in his voluntary

dismissal notice, "Comes now, Plaintiff, Eric M. Muathe@ WITH ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE-UCC 1-207 (KSA 84-1-207) UCC 1-308
(similar to KSA 84-1-308) and UCC 1-103.6, Sui Juris ..."
10SC139P, Muathe v. AJ Wachter: Muathe sued Judge Wachter for
"incompetency as a judge" for $3,242.72. 1. Wachter had allowed a debt collector
judgment against Muathe. Dismissed on judicial immunity.
10SC140P, Muathe v. John Gutierrez (local attorney): Muathe sued for
"wrongful arrest" when Muathe was named in a child support warrant. Gutierrez
did child support collection. The petition refers to the court as a "kangaroo
court." The case was dismissed on 4-21-11 when Muathe failed to appear; the
Court found estoppel, lack of venue.
10SC151P, Muathe v. Berman & Rabin: Muathe sued collection attorneys for
"making false and misleading representations." The case was originally
dismissed on 12-2-10 by Pro Tern Judge Fielder for lack of jurisdiction. Then, on
12-6-10 Muathe wrote a letter to 1. Fielder, alleging conflicts of interest and
threatening judicial complaint. On the same day, Muathe filed a motion for
disqualification. The case was reopened and reassigned. On 5-31-11 there was a
court trial; however, Muathe refused to be sworn in. Also on 5-31-11, Muathe
filed an objection to "assembly line scheduling" using the language Eric M.
Muathe@ WITH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, etc. "a sovereign conscious free
being" with the UCC citations again. On 6-23-11, the Court issued a
memorandum opinion finding "Mr. Muathe had filed his claim against the law
firm in bad faith and for the purposes of harassment." The Court awarded
$2,397.50 in attorney fees to defendants.
11SC60P, Muathe v. Young, Williams CSE: Muathe sued the child enforcement
agency for "damages caused by frivolous claims leading to financial injury,
character defamation, public humiliation and more importantly, undue emotional
stress and mental anguish" seeking $3,900 damages. Muathe used a UCC
signature again. On 6-9-11 both parties appeared and the case was dismissed with
prejudice. Muathe wrote a letter to Judge Nuss on 6-10-11 re: Pro tern Judge Rick
Smith.
12LM356P, Fifth Third Bank v. Muathe: Muathe was sued for debt related to a
vehicle. This case had multiple judges due to motions to disqualify from Muathe.
Below is a timeline, showing the repeated frivolous motions by Muathe to avoid

final judgment:
Case was transferred from Johnson County, KS to Crawford County, KS.
9-6-13 Muathe Motion to Disqualify Judge Wachter
9-23-13 Order granting Motion for Disqualification
9-26-13 Assigned to Division 5.
11-19-13 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge
1-3-14 Order denying Motion for Disqualification. Judge Loy remains on case.
1-16-14 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge and Affidavit in Support
1-21-14 Letter Order denying Motion for Disqualification. Judge Loy remains on case.
1-31-14 Muathe Second Motion for Disqualification of Judge Due to New Information
1-31-14 Muathe Objection to All Proposed Scheduling
2-6-14 Muathe Second Motion (really fourth) for Disqualification of Judge Due to New
Information Plus Affidavit in Support
2-7-14 Muathe Motion to Vacate All Orders and Rulings
2-11-14 Memorandum and Order Denying Motion for Disqualification
2-24-14 Muathe Notice of Appeal
3-13-14 Muathe "Letter Pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court Rule 162:, to Justice Nuss,
Justice Johnson"
4-1-14 Muathe Motion for Change of Venue
5-5-14 Muathe Notice of Hearing/Notice of Commencement of a Federal Quiet Title
Action
7-10-14 Memorandum and Decision disposing of multiple pending motions, denying
Defendant's motions and granting Plaintiffs replevin/possession.
7-18-14 Muathe Motion to Strike Memorandum and Decision
7-18-14 Muathe Objection to Memorandum and Decision
7-18-14 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge (fifth motion to disqualify Loy,
sixth overall)(alleges he sued Lay the day before in 14CV75P) Loy recuses.
8-11-14 Assigned to Judge Lynch
8-21-14 Muathe Motion to Object to Judicial Assignment
10-6-14 Muathe "Mandatory Judicial Notice" requesting judicial notice of various
records concerning conflicts of interest (Judge Loy)
10-9-14 Muathe Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment
11-21-14 Memorandum and Ruling by Judge Lynch that denies multiple pending motions
of Defendant.
11-26-14 Muathe Motion for Reconsideration, Request for Oral Arguments, Stay of
Enforcement of Judgment
12-1-14 Muathe Objection to Memorandum and Ruling
12-1-14 Muathe Second Motion for New Trial Due to New Evidence
12-1-14 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge (seventh overall)
12-3-14 Muathe Motion to Vacate All Judge Lynch Orders and Rulings
12-11-14 Muathe letter to Judge Lynch, accusing him of various ethical violations, copies
to Chief Judge Wachter, Departmental Justice #4, Commission on Judicial Ethics, Chief
Justice Lawton Nuss, Mark Werner
1-26-15 Muathe Second Motion to Vacate All Judge Oliver Kent Lynch Orders
1-26-15 Muathe Motion for Plaintiff to Post Bond or in the Alternative to Return the
Subject Matter Vehicle
1-26-15 Muathe Objection to Writ of Execution Order and Procedure
1-26-15 Muathe Motion for Determination of Economic Conflict of Interest (requesting
ruling that attorney Mark Werner and Judge Lay have economic conflicts of interest)
Lynch recuses.
2-20-15 Judge Russell assigned.
4-29-15 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge (eighth overall)
5-7-15 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge Plus Affidavit in Support (ninth
overall)
6-5-15 Motion for Disqualification Granted.
6-17-15 Judge Smith assigned.
7-1-15 Journal Entry on Post-Trial Motions, denying all Defendant's motions, and
ordering sanction of filing restrictions in that case.
7-9-15 Muathe Post-Void Order Motion for Reconsideration
7-10-15 Order Denying Post-Trial Relief and Limiting Further Pleadings in that case.
12SC90P, Muathe v. Berman & Rabin: Muathe sued collections attorneys for
violation ofFDCPA2. Muathe wrote to Pro Tern Judge Maradeth Frederick
wanting a new judge. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and
improper venue.
13CV47P, Kasey King, Noah Day, Mike King, Eric Muathe, Julie Stover, Lester
Moore v. Crawford County District Court: Muathe and others sued the Court for
public humiliation and embarrassment, slander, libel, age discrimination, equal
protection, due process, false advertising, political discrimination. Page 3 of the
complaint contains "sovereign citizen" language. Monetary demand was for
$500,000. The case was dismissed on 7-31-13.
14CV28P, Muathe v. Wells Fargo BankNA: This small claims appeal was
dismissed by Judge Smith and lots of post-trial motions were filed by Muathe.
The Court eventually restricted filing of future pleadings in the case as a
sanction.
14CV75P, Muathe v. Lay, Wachter, Fleming, Fifth Third Bank, Law Office of
Mark Werner, Thompson Coburn LLP, Mark A. Werner, David Mangian: 22
page petition and attachments for relief in the form of quo warranto. Allegations
were of various conflicts of interest and requested a restraining order that
Wachter, Loy and Fleming can never hear his cases, and that the vehicle replevin
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
action in 12LM356P be stayed. On 5-13-15 the case was dismissed without

prejudice on merits.
14CV86P, Wilmington Trust Company v. Muathe et al.: This is a pending
foreclosure action of Muathe's home. Due to Muathe motions to disqualify, the
case has been assigned to judges Wachter, Lynch, Russell, and Richard Smith. A
current motion for disqualification of Judge Richard Smith is pending that alleges
Muathe has sued Judge Smith now in this case (15CV79P), which was filed
shortly after Judge Smith was assigned. The Motion also alleges Smith filed his
financial disclosure late, and other ethical complaints related to church, boards,
etc.
14SC2P, Muathe v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al: Muathe sued for clouding his
title related to mortgage. Dismissed on 2-14-14 in favor of defendant after
hearing.
15MR2P, Muathe, Day and King v. Loy, et al. Petition against many of the
defendants in this case making many of the same allegations. Petition sought a
grand jury. Case sealed after being dismissed.
Federal D. Kan. 14-2207, Muathe v. Fifth Third Bank, et al. Muathe, in a fiftypage Complaint, sued twenty-two defendants over the repossession of his car.
The federal court dismissed for failure to meet pleading requirements, stating:
Plaintiff's disjunct and rambling complaint spans fifty pages and
two hundred and thirty-nine paragraphs directing his claims at
various combinations of the twenty-two defendants. Much of
plaintiffs shotgun approach states only conclusions. Where it does
allege facts, it fails to connect them to valid legal claims. The
complaint frequently states that certain defendants have violated
certain statutes without pleading any associated factual allegation
of conduct. Throughout the complaint, plaintiff consistently fails to
either adequately allege conduct or to match alleged conduct with a
cognizable cause of action.
A copy of the federal district court's decision, 2014 WL 5341984, is attached as
Exhibit 1 to this Motion. Muathe has appealed to the Tenth Circuit, 15-3019.
Cases involving Kasey King (in addition to 13CV47P and l5MR2P):

11SC 148P, King v. Experian: In small claims court, King sued Experian, a
consumer credit reporting agency, after opting out of a class action lawsuit. As
part of his case King filed various letters/motions to disqualify Judge Pro Tern
Rick Smith and Senior Judge Janice Russell. The case was dismissed on 3-29-12
finding no proof of damages and granting statute of limitations defense.
12CV79P King v. Experian: appeal from I1SC148P. As part of his appeal, King
filed for writ of mandamus against Judge Russell and Small Claims Court and
filed an "Objection in the Nature of a Writ of Error." Case was dismissed with
costs against King. The Court noted, "Plaintiff is once again urged by the Court
to seek legal advice from competent counsel before filing cases pro se. "
12SC130P, King v. Corporation Service Company: sued for emotional
stress/mental anguish caused by negative credit reporting. On 3-27 -13 the case
was dismissed by Plaintiff.
Cases involving Noah Day (in addition to 15MR2P):
12CV103P, Day v SRS et al: Day sued Crawford County District Court and SRS
claiming he was sexually abused while in foster care as a child many years ago.
Case dismissed on 8-28-12. Objection to Journal Entry overruled. 9-25-12
15SC71P, Day v. Fleming: Day sued Judge Lori Fleming for "breach of contract"
over an email she allegedly sent from her office to a radio station concerning ads
run by the station. Day was not the person who contracted for the ads. Case
pending.
15SC85P, Day v. Fleming: Day sued Judge Lori Fleming for slander over an
email she allegedly sent from her office to a radio station concerning ads run by
the station. Day was not the person who contracted for the ads and he was not
mentioned in the emails. Case pending.
Cases involving James Beckley Jr.:
l5CV3 8P, Community National Bank v. James Beckley Jr.: Home foreclosure
case by bank with multiple motions/affidavits by Beckley for change of judge,
Motion for Writ in Nature of Mandamus and Stay of Hearings, Motion for
Assignment of Case to Departmental Justice, Motion to Vacate all orders pending.

Complaint [ Part 1 ] Against Kansas Attorney Generals Office, Derek Schmidt, [Judge] Robert Fleming, [Judge] A.J. Wachter, Stanton Hazlett, Kimberly Knoll, Kate Baird, Deborah Hughes, Michael Serra, Derek Schmidt, and Stephen Phillips

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Complaint [ Part 1 ] Against Kansas Attorney Generals Office, Derek Schmidt, [Judge] Robert Fleming, [Judge] A.J. Wachter, Stanton Hazlett, Kimberly Knoll, Kate Baird, Deborah Hughes, Michael Serra, Derek Schmidt, and Stephen Phillips

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THIS IS THE COVER SHEET TO THE

ATTACHED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE

of Revenue, and lSCV38P Community

Crawford County District Court"

National Bank vs. James Beckley Sr. et el all in

BECAUSE AJ. WACHTER AND ROBERT FLEMING BOTH HAD

This is also a complaint against Robert Fleming of

t p0t/SO,?S /(5 ~? '357

Office of the Disciplinary Administrator

James Beckley, SR.deceased

James A. Beckley, Jr.,

Michael Andrew Edwards,

Unknown Spouse of Michael Andrew

Edwards, Unknown Tenant(s)

Kansas Department of Revenue,

Board of County Commissioners For

Crawford County et al.

of any law of this state is at issue and when so directed shall

n". of 2016 and he chose to coward down

and take a plea bargain

and texts off his phone together to send them in as /I ANOTHER

She states that she is friends with and co-worker of his

use of obscenities, threatening,

She made an incident checklist of "name-

harassing phone calls" which is exactly the same thing

a grand jury petition and being considered domestic terrorists

Travis Carlton PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762~

Julie Stover-King PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762

Tom Walters PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762

Lester Moore PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762

THIS IS THE COVERSHEET TO THE

THE OCTOBER 21,2015 RESPONSEFROM KATE BAIRD DEPUTY DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR TO

KATE BAIRD "SHOULD HAVE NEVER INVESTIGATEDTHE COMPLAINT IN lSCV79P" BECAUSESTANTON

DISCIPLINARYADMINISTRATOR IS A CO-DEFENDANT WITH DEREKSCHMIDT IN 15CV79P

It was a violation of KRPC

Office of the Disciplinary Administrator

Dennis Depew of Memorial Bldg., 2

CASE NO. 15CV38P

James Beckley, SR. deceased

Statute K.S.A. 75-702 states "Duties and responsibilities;

authority to prosecute. The attorney general

of any law of this state is at issue and when so directed shall

and he chose to coward down and take a plea bargain

NUMBER 15CV79P" but he has harassed and intimidated

Kasey King on several different occasions

720-696-1643 and his numerous "RESTRICTEDIJcalls

which we plan to "SUBPOENA THE BUSINESSRECORDSOF NOAH DAY'S CELLPHONERECORDSFROM

Kasey King on the morning after the presidential election

and texts off his phone together to send them in as "ANOTHER

and that is why we have included a court

She states that she is friends with and co-worker of his

harm to the family home or the home of another.

use of obscenities, threatening,

She made an incident checklist of "name-

harassing phone calls" which is exactly the same thing

of character from what Noah Day is

in case number 15MR2P for being

Kasey King, PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762

Eric Muathe PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762

Travis Carlton PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762~

James Beddey Jr. PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762./

Julie Stover-King PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762

lester Moore PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762

Tom Walters PO Box 224 Pittsburg Ks 66762