STATE

OFFICE
DEREK
AnORNEY

OF THE

OF

KANSAS

ATTORNEY

SCHMIDT

GENERAL
MEMORIAL

GENERAL

May 11,2016

HALL

120 SW 10TH AVE., 2ND FLOOR

TOPEKA,KS 6661 2-1 597
(785) 296-2215 FAX (785) 296-6296
WWW.AG.KS.GOV

Kate Baird
Deputy Disciplinary Administrator
701 SW Jackson Suite 1
Topeka, Kansas 66603
Dear Ms. Baird:
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, 2016, 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.

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

j4
~
'UiJl

1/J/

-tifL-

St . en Philli s
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
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762

Hand delivered copy to:

Noah Day
PO Box 224
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762 .

Carrie Barney
Assistant Attorney General
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
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
James Beckley Jr.
PO Box 224
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
Travis Carlton
PO Box 224
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762

"';'.

'.

---_._-----

15 JUL22 P 1 :41
IN THE DISTRICT COURTL~~~i~~~&u~NTY,

KANSAS

8Y

..

CLASSACTION PETITION
FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST THE FOLLOWING

LORI FLEMING,

DEFENDANT JUDGES;

A. J. WACHTER, KURTIS LOY, ROBERT FLEMING,

OLIVER LYNCH, JEFFRV JACK,

JANICE O. RUSSELL, RICHARD M. SMITH, JOHN E. SANDERS.

OTHER DEFENDANTS
"A" AND

"B",

ATTORNEY

INCLUDE; KANSAS COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS

PANEL

STANTON A. HAZLETT, MICHAEL GAVOSO, JR., TIM GRILLOT, AND KANSAS

GENERAL DEREK SCHM1DT.

Case No.
K.S.A.

Chapter

60

Exhibit 1

CLASS ACTION PETITION AGAINST CORPORATED AND

UNINCORPORATED

ASSOCIATIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY

RELIEF ACCORDANCE WITH K.S.A. 60-223(a)(b)(c)(d)(e},

K,S.A. 60-223b'

K.S.A. 60-257, AN D K.S.A 60-901.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LIST OF PLAINTIFFS; ALL AITACHED

GRAND JURY PETITIONERS

LIST OF DEFENDANTS;
JUDGE KURTIS I. LOY
JUDGE ANDREW J. WACHTER
JUDGE ROBERT J. FLEMING
JUDGE LORI B. FLEMING
JUDGE JEFFRY L. JACK
JUDGE OLIVER KENT LYNCH
JUDGE JANICE D. RUSSELL

JUDGE RICHARD M. SMITH

JUDGE JOHN E. SANDERS
KANSAS COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS

STANTON A. HAllEn
MICHAEL GAYOSO, JR.
TIM GRILLOT
KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT

Page 1 of 15

-.

'..

. -:.:

'.~'.:::.
....,.::- ..:..!

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
complainant

i'l

completely different letterto

tho

like the Travis Carlton order in case number 2014017P? The panel also needs to

be investigated as to why they allowed Honorable Robert Fleming to be the Chair ofthe 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 "wllbert, 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 H, 2013 against Honorable Goering and Honorable J. Patrick
Walters whe re "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 "LETTER OF CAUTION" in docket number 1114, 1115, and 1116 for his inappropriate

use

of the 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 vear old All Star
Baseball.
Judge Lay had previously recused himselffrom
involvement

case number 2011DM136P with Dustin Blair for

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 130147P 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-S 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 80 NDS, chose to defend the
Page 2 of1S

above mentioned judges instead of prosecuting them and their insurance BONOS so that all
judges in the 11thjudicial 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. 601205 and K.S.A. 60-1206(a)(b).
The thing that disturbs the people in the 11th judicial district is that the "KANSAS COMMISION
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 JUDICIAL QUALlFICATINES" 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 11th 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 620-231-1290.

This number conveniently

rings to her

former employer, Fred Spigarelll, and her husband Kyle Fleming of "Fleming's Law Firm" which
is housed inside the Spigarelli Law Firm!
Judge Lov was reprimanded
"appearance

for the same thing on February 23,2015 for having the

of a law firm" and for double dipping as "Loy 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 QUALIFICATIONS committee 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 "A judge 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
Page3 of 15

daughter-in-law

Lori Bolton Flemingto go in front of judges in the i i" judicial district along

with Candace Brewster Gayoso whose uncle and father are Daniel and David Brewster who
were former

11thjudicial judges and had a financial CD with Robert Fleming according to his

financial disclosure 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-11 says "Attorney's
recommendation

advice to clients upon being appointed to the bench,

of spouse/attorney.

Canon 2

II

How does this not relate to Lori Fleming

advertising in the phone book for her husband's law firm of "Fleming Law Firm" 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 Lay who owned the office building of "Lov 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
2014LMSSP and 2014LM409P. Judge Lay's father also previously had stock at "Loy and
Sagehorn".

Where did Judge Lay'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 Gavosc's 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 "PRIVATE CEASEAND 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"

SEtup by judge to administer proceeds due him upon his leaving practice. Canon

2; 3C(1), (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 11th district?

Kurtis Lay is still

hearing cases of Burton Harding and Kip Sagehorn, according to dockets on 4-28-2015 in
2014LM55P and 2014LM409P. April 28, 2015 wasjust last month!

Page4 of 15

In 1987, JE-21 says "Property of newly-appointed

former clients' revocable trust.

district judge remaining as co-trustee of

Canon SD How does this not pertain to Judge Kurtis Loyowning

99% of his stock at Lay 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
Carlton again st Kurtis Loy where "the 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-2S says "Judicial candidates' continuation

as weekend pastor".

Canon SA and 58(2).

How does this not relate to Robert Fleming the 11th judicial district judge and chair for
numerous years ofthe "KANSAS COMMIS(ON ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATION"? 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-2S???
In 1988, JE-26 Recusal due to relationship disqualification

under Canon 3C(l)(d)(iv}; procedure

for remittal of such relationship under Canon 3D? Why are

n" 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 13." How does this not relate to previous Ethic Chair Judge
Robert Flem ing?
In 1993, JE-42 says "Judge presiding at docket call wherein 50n or son's law firm represents a
party."

Canon 3C(1)(d){i}, (ii), (Hi). 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 Lay 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 58,"
How does this not relate to Oliver Lynch of the Kansas Arts Board? And this also should relate
to Kurtis Lay 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 Fleming, and son of
Honorable Robert Fleming, are the two attorney/committee

Page5 of 15

members who agreed on the

.........

;:1

,I,

request from Kurtis Lay 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 Hazlett and The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

In 1997, JE-72 r:;ays"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 Gavcso 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 of church as long as judge does not solicit funds.
Canon 4C(4}(b)."

How does this not relate to Judge Robert Fleming when his wife Peggy

collects money for the "PARISH" 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 should 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 40(1)(6),"

in ownership interest in a law firm

How does this not relate to Judge Kurtis tov still hearing Kip

5agehorn's cases when Judge Lay owns the building of the law firm
to still make judicial determinations
made a complaint

7 How was Judge Lay able

and stay in case number 2014CV7P when Travis Carlton

for this and Mr. Carlton got one letter saying it was dismissed and Judge Lay

got another letter telling him to get his financial affairs in order? Why was there at least not a
Page6 of 15

:::1

I ,

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-l02 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 3B(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
kitchen sponsored by a local church and open to the public daily. Canon 4C(4)"

soup

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 are always volunteering/raising
"PARISH"?!!!

money for Our Lady of Lourdes

!!

In 2005, JE-126 says "Judges should not attend or participate in

presented by a law enforcement

a conference sponsored or

agency which would in effect train judges to consider these

matters in future cases. See JE-121. Canon 2A and Canon 3B(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, 1E-130 says "An adverse ruling, standing alone, is not grounds for disqualification
judge who is being sued by a pro se counterclaimant.

of a

Canon 3" 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 toy, A.J. Wachter, and deceased Chief Judge John
Gariglietti all playing Golf together at Crestwood and paying rnembershlp fees? How does this
not apply to Stanton Hallett'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 200S, JE-135 says "A judge may bid for land at a public auction a rising out of foreclosu re
action if the judge has nothing to do with the foreclosure action, since it would not exploit his
Page7 of 15

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 lay's wife Cindy Loy and Judge
Garigliettie's wife Eunice went in on all the property far the new Crestwood Estates Edition out
by the private "Crestwood Country Club" which they are a/l 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-1Sl says A district judge participating
II

as a player and/or auctionee r in his or her

country club's fundraising member guest tournament

prohibits fundraising.

How does this not relate to Judge Lov, Judge Robert Fleming, Judge Lori

Fleming, former deceased judge John Gariglletti,

and Judge A.J. Wachter when they play golf at

"Crestwood Country Club"? They are all participating

throughout

clearly violates Canon 4C{4)(b) which

in the fundraisers that happen

the 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 2014LM55P on 4/.28/2015 and 2014LM409P still show Kurtis Loy 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 Lay will take care of this once he learns of it". That was in November of 2014 and it
is now 4/28/2015
garnishment

and yet the docket in case number 2014lM55P shows on 2/13/2015

order was signed by Judge Loy. The opinion of JE171 in 2011 says "Ajudge

that a
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 onlv periodically. See Rules 1.2, 2.1, 2.11, 3.11.
Since the "KANSAS COMMISISON ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS" has failed to be consistent
with their handling of ethic complaints and since they claim they have no jurisdiction
recuse/disqualify

to

a judge yet Rule 2.11(A) requires Disqualification under their rules and they

have the power to issue a "CEASEAND DESISTORDER PUBLICOR PRIVATE" and this is confusing
Page B of 15

~ ..

! .....:

and that is why the KANSASCOMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS needs to be

investigated

as well. It also is very disturbing that Robert Fleming has violated several examples

of advisory annotation opinions of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications yet he was
still able to be their Chair person for the ethic committee
The above mentioned

for numerous years.

examples of advisory case annotations that were not followed by "THE

JI

KANSASCOMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS Panel A, Panel B

DIsciplinary Administrator,

Stanton Haz.lett

Michael Gayoso County Attorney's Office, and Stephen Phillips

Attorney General's Office, Timothy Grillot which have now led to the claim against them for
injunctive relief from negligent and wrongful acts and omissions of employees by falling to carry
out their ministerial tasks which are the following:

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Stanton Hazlett refusing to give complaints filed against himselfto

The Disciplinary Oversight

Committee or to any other body and chooses to basically ignore complaints against himself.
2. Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications failing to follow their own advisory opinions
and failing to properly investigate case number 2014CV7P and 2014CCV53PA and failing to give
Honorable Lay a Private Cease and Desist Order even though the "ORDER" filed by Judge
Wachter in August 2014 in this case shows that a violation of Advisory opinion of 2011JE-171
and yet no reprimand was done.
3. Stanton Hazlett failed to address attorney/Judge

Kurtis Loy for hearing case number

2014LM55P which is the 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 stili violating the Advisory Opinion of 2011 JE-171 since Stanton Hazlett and The
Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications failed to properly carry out this investigation
which led to a wrongful act of Stanton Hazlett, Panel A and Panel B, by failing to properly
reprimand Judge Lay.
4. Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications failed to reprimand Robert Fleming for a
violation of 1988 JE-2S and 1997 JE-n for his involvement as a youth preacher at Our Lady of
Lourdes Catholic Church, yet his wife collects money for the "PARISH". They have also failed to
reprimand Robert Fleming for recusing from I<aseyKing and Michael King's ethic complaints
back in July 25, 2003, but yet failed to recuse from Kasey King's complaint against Honorable
Goering and Honorable Walters In Wichita on March 13, 2011 after Kasey King, Michael King,
and Julie Stover all got Robert Fleming's former law partner and former college roommate, AJ.
Wacther, reprimanded

with a letter of caution on June 7, 2011. Robert Fleming also failed to

recuse himself from Julie Stover's May 11, 2011 complaint against Timothy Fielder who was a
city/pro-tempore

judge in the

ri" judicial

district and Judge Robert Fleming should have

Page9 of 15

.'~.'.

recused from that complaint like he did with complaints against Honorable Donald Noland and
Honorable A.J. Wachter.
people of the 11th

This inconsistency with Rule 2.11{A} and K.S.A. 20-311d has led to the

judicial district not receiving due process of law from the previous ethic chair

person himself.
S. 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

Lov, and Jeffry Jack for a violation of 1987 JE-19 even though they hea rd 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.SA 50-1205(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 KRPC Rule
1.7 as well since he has previously represented 11thjudicial 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 i i" 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 2014(V53P to
investigate the complaint 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/dlsqualifv

attorneys that receive credits at his golf tournaments

himself from investigating cases of

which is a violation of 2005 JE-131 and

2007 JE-151.
10. Janice Russell has failed to honor the ministerial task of following Rule 2.11(A) of Rules
Relating to Judicial Conduct and K.S.A. 20-311d as she stated that basically Oliver lynch's
Page10 of 15

disqualification

of A.J. Wachter in case number 2012LM356P 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
that a judge should only recuse if the family is related. Janice Russell has shown

determination

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 offollowing
amendment

the 14th and

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"

prejudice" which was later overturned and dismissed "without

by dismissing the case "with

prejudice".

John Sanders has

shown that he is biased and prejudiced against "Pro Se" litigants and therefore an "injunctive
re!ief" 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 ofTimothy

Fielder"

DA12, 1811/which has been going on since October 31,2014" in case numbers 2014CV7P and
2014CV53PA where the judges are Kurtis Loy and Robert Fleming. Timothy Grillot was a codefendant

in case number 12-3177SAC Ozell Pouncil vs. Labette County District Court et aI.,

Robert Flerning, Timothy Grillot. Timothy Grillot is biased and prejudiced for Robert Fleming
who has been complained on several times by Mr. Carlton in case number 20l4CVS3PA 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 i i" 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. Annat. 748) 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{B) 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 of The Code or Judicial
Conduct. Ru le 3.15(B) says I'A judge shall report annually the information
Page 11 of 15

listed above in (A)(I)

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 OHSMV under Section
3.1815(I)(a)

is a ministerial

act that is not entitled to any form of judicial immunity in case

number16-203-CA-005890.

If

The clerk, an officer of the court, is obliged to comply with rules of

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 a result of his failure to perform those duties."

Ward v.

Fountain, 122 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. i" DCA 1960) (emphasis added).

ARGUMENT
1. Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications conduct in reprimanding judges for violations
of Rules Relating To Judicia! 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
quo warranto

nth

judicial judges for violations from ouster

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 ofthe
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

Page 12 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.SA 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 2014-CV-28-P AFTERshe had been recused.
9. John Sanders has a ministerial duty to follow the due process clause ofthe 14th and
amendment

s"

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 forthe
3.12 Compensation for Extrajudicial
Reimbursement

church. This should violate Rule

Activities and it should also violate Rule 3.14

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 financial disclosure he might have failed to properly show expenses since

he did not

file these on time by April IS, 2015 wh ich was tax day. This also violates Rule
3.1S(A)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(8}
not

Reporting Requirements and JE Opinion 1997 JE-73 says "Judge may

serve as trustee for community organization which aims to improve qualify of life for

children and youth. Canon 4(A)(l}, 4((4). (Exhibit C) and (Exhibit 0) JE 73 and JE 77 opinion
10. All of the Defendants being served in this case including all six (6) of the 11thjudicial district
judges are being served for failing to perform Ministerial Acts, not 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.S.A. 60-1206 to have the

nth

judicial district judges investigated

and ousted for failing to honor Rule 2.11(AI and K.SA 2.0-311d.

Page13 of 15

I ...

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.
judicial or ministerial

In Am.Jur.2d it is stated while "there is some conflict as to the

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 of 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 for failing to fulfill their ministerial duties of properly investigating cases and
Panel A and Panel B for failing to allow the "Disciplinary Administrator

Oversight Committee"

to

investigate complaints on Robert Fleming who was their previous chair and falling 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 2.1l(A} Disqualification, and Rule 2.15(A)(B)(C)(D}.

The case of Cook

v.

City

oj 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 A, Panel B, Michael Gayoso, Stephen Phillips, Stanton

Hazlett, and Timothy Grillot were not making judicial determinations

of a judicial nature and

they 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 "ORDER" of an

"INJUNCTION" under K.S.A. 60-901 against Michael Gayoso, Stephen Phillips, Stanton Hazlett,
Timothy Grillot, Panel A, Panel B, and aI/11th judicial distrtctjudges

to not be able to hear

anyone's case who signed the "GRAND JURY PETITION" due to conflict of interest under Rule
2.1l(A) and K.SA 20-311d.
Petitioners are filing this case like the civil rights case of Monroe v. Pape. 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
itself

entity

According to this a state may not be sued for damages, but may be sued for declaratory

Page14 of1S

relief. Municipalities

or injunctive

damages

and prospective

and local governments

are persons subject to suit for

relief, but the United States Government

of federal, state, and local government

for damages, declaratory or injunctive rellef.
employees

is not. Individual

may be sued in their individual

capacities

PRA YER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiff class requests

(1) Declare, by way of permanent

themselves
The standard

from cases/complaints

this Court to:

injunction, that the defendants

where their impartiality

to be applied to a charge of lack of impartiality

be ordered to disqualify

might reasonably

be questioned.

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 ofthe litigant filing the motion, but rather in
the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances. Smith v. Printup, 262
Kan. 587, 1997, at Syl. 8:
(2) Declare thatpending,

independent

reprimands

filled by the petitioners

independent

review of all past ethical complaints

to ascertain that all complaints

were properly investigated

filled by the
and that appropriate

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,

By: Is/Noah

be investigated

oversight committees.

(3) Declare a thorough

petitioners

and new ethical complaints

P. O. Box 224, pittsburg,

KS, 66762.

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 L. 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
T 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 retained 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-0210S-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 LaY,
W ACHIER, FLEMING, FLEMING, JACK LYNCH, RUSSELL, SMITH, SANDERS, HAZLETT,
GRILLOT AND SCHMIDT TO PLAINTIFFS' THREE MOTIONS" was improperly filed on
4/11/2016 with an "llvfPROPER 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 KS.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 KS.A. 60-207(b)(2) KS.A. 60-210(a), KS.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 KS.A. 60-207(b)(2), KS.A
60-210(a), and K.S.A. 60-211(a) because he filed it in case number 15CV75P in the wrong
case titled AKCC Manag-ement LLC vs. Two Big-Fish LLC where he not only filed the
response to our motion for continuance 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

the court docket in that case with the wrong certificate of service.

to

The copy of the court transcript from 4-18-2016 shows that you heard our case on April 18, 2016
with 3 other small claims cases in 22 minutes from 10:00 a.m. until 10:22 a.m. even though the
other cases were not scheduled until 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. I also read where you dismissed
case number 15CV79P first, but then granted filing restrictions against us after you already
dismissed the case even though the response by Stephen Phillips was filed on 4-11-2016 in
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 COMI'v1ITTEE-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 Modern 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.
II

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
Document" which is on the docket in the case of AKCC Management LLC vs. 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.TILhearing according to court staff at Crawford County Courthouse
that I can communicate

so

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

WACHTER,
SANDERS,
MOTIONS"

FLEMING,
HAZLETT,

FLEMING,
GRILLOT

was improperly

CERTIFICATE

JACK, LYNCH,
AND SCHMIDT

filed on 4/11/

OF DEFENDANTS

LOY,

RUSSELL, SMITH,
TO PLAINTIFFS'

THREE

2016 with an "IMPROPER

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 Phillips's

own filing restrictions he claims he and no one else has to respond to anything the
plaintiffs write or say unless
respond.

II

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.

.__._-

--

.i->

Sincerely,
Travis Carlton

/}~'

/I

c/o Summary JUd&l~roup

r.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
Assistant Attorney General
Memorial Bldg.,

2nd

floor

120 SW 10th Avenue

Topeka, Ks 66612

Carrie Barney
Assistant Attorney General
Memorial Building, 2nd Floor
120 SW

io- Avenue

Topeka, Ks 66612

-<-:?'~'_

C
----------

Z9L99 SeSU1:}! 'ElJnqsH!d

'pZZ x08 Od
'Jf i\ClI)PClg saure]

L6S I'Z 199 5)1 'V}13dOl

~OOij ONZ "] J\'rj 1-'10!.MS OZ I
llliH; 'u'ltJO"'!3~\!
LCj~tl\J:-l:::JS :;.j3c130 -r"-:/~=11"~37)

..\.3\\jCJC;1J....~.\=
.

!6f!.5W~f~(~\

:l,,\..Jli

1"1,

\~~."~;~~j
-i".,\:.p

I 128

IN THE

DISTRICT

ERIC M. MUATHE,

COURT

OF CRAWFORD

COUNTY,

KANSAS

et al.,
Plaintiffs,

3
4

vs.

HONORABLE

KURTIS

LOY,

CASE

NO.

15CV79P

CASE

NO.

15SC70P

CASE

NO.

15SC71P

CASE

NO.

15SC85P

et al.,

Defendants.

6
NOAH

IAN DAY,

7
Plaintiff,
8

vs.
9

MY TOWN

MEDIA,

10
Defendant.
11

NOAH

IAN DAY,
Plaintiff,

12
vs.

13
14

LORI

FLEMING,

NOAH

DAY,

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff,
17
vs.
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

2
1
APPEARANCES:
2
The Plaintiffs

did not

The Defendants

Kurtis

appear.

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

Assistant

120 SW 10th Avenue,

2nd Floor,

KS 66612-1597.

16
17

The Defendant

18

by and through

19

Crawford

20

66743.

Michael

his counsel,

County

Counselor,

Mr.
P.O.

Gayoso,
James
Box

Jr.,

appearing

Emerson,

68, Girard,

KS

21

22

The Defendant

23

though

24

Attorney

25

Topeka,

her

counsel,

General,

Mr.

Lori

Fleming

Dennis

D. Depew,

120 SW 10th Avenue,

KS 66612-1597.

appearing

2nd

by and

Deputy
Floor,

3
1

THE COURT:

No.

15CV79P,

pronounced

My understanding

it would

MR.

MR. EMERSON:

THE COURT:

Kurtis

I believe
Okay.

appear

Loy,

pro

Eric

is Case

M. -- is that

Judge

Senior

11

I'm one of a long

12

been

13

assignment

se in this

who has been

14

me,

line

and

I'm here

15

Would

16

MR.

from

Court,

versus

Judge

in the caption.
is Jack

assigned

of judges

and those

case,

as listed

of the Supreme

at least

others,

you that my name

10

involved,

it is Muathe.
so.

And

and others,

Let me tell

I believe

PHILLIPS:

plaintiffs

be entitled

this

Muathe?

is that

Burr.

to this

case

apparently
Goodland

I'm a
and

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
Lori

21

THE COURT:

22

MS. BARNEY:

appearances,

Phillips,
Kurtis

Fleming,

Russell,

Hazlett,

your

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.

THE COURT:

number

two,

I've

I don't

MS. BARNEY:

got a cold,
hear

Honor,

here

on behalf

Attorney

General,

Judicial

Qualifications

THE COURT:

MR. EMERSON:

County

Counselor,

County

Attorney.

here

THE COURT:

All

11

MR.

Your

DEPEW:

12

Attorney

13

just here

General,

about

those

16

apparently

17

appears

18

of or the plaintiffs

19

anything,

20

MR.

Assistant

of Defendants

Jim Emerson,

Crawford

of Michael

Gayoso,

right.
Honor,

Dennis

Depew,

the afternoon

Deputy

cases

so I'm

some

questions

early.

too when

And

I may have

we finish

no appearances

in the courtroom

Mr.

Barney,

you.

on behalf

Okay.

15

and,

A and B.

Honor,

I have

a little

THE COURT:

14

Thank

Your

10

Carrie

Panels

Okay.

one;

well.

Your

very

number

here

are made,
at least

but,

nobody

either

themselves.

in any event,

Have

-- no one

on behalf

you heard

Phillips?

PHILLIPS:

No,

21

checked

with my office

22

Clerk's

Office

23

THE COURT:

24

MR.

25

THE COURT:

Judge,

we have

and we just

and nothing

has been

not and

checked
filed

with

I have
the

here.

Okay.

PHILLIPS:

The

Well,

last

I have

not

received

anything,

nor have

MR.

I heard
PHILLIPS:

Friday,

continuance.

anything.

saying

We got a letter

something

THE COURT:

Yeah,

I already

since

have

not been

down

come

down

see what

guess,

since

10

and correct

11

on file by both

12

dismiss

14

a response

15

by you,

16

don't

17

opinion,

18

correct?

on these
happened.

have

parties

have

a motion

the motion

Mr.

MR.

20

reinstate

21

dismiss,

22

reinstate

but

you want

PHILLIPS:
it.

then when

appeared

25

don't

cases,

but

and

I decided

to

And my questions,
here,

I currently

have

if -a motion

by the plaintiffs
on their

Phillips,
been

to talk

filed

their

I opposed

I have

that

you

in your

sanctions;

and then
60-241

it they

to

by the plaintiffs,

dismissed

Judge,

behalf.

indicating

about

asking

is that

they moved

motion

to

to

said we want

to

it.

THE COURT:

24

trip planned

to dismiss

Yes,

They

to continue

the plaintiffs

to dismiss

to the motion

I believe,

wanted

to dismiss.

-- it has already

19

23

here

-- this

me if I'm wrong,

I also

13

had this

I don't

they

I got a motion

and

about

last Thursday,

No,

to me their

want

I understand
rea50ning

any sanctions.

that.
in that

We don't

And

it

response

mind

the

was we

dismissal,

we don't

MR.

THE COURT:

PHILLIPS:

MR.

THE COURT:

I want

No,

PHILLIPS:

you asking
MR.

8
9

sanctions.
sanctions,

I understand

Judge.

that,

but

they

don't.

want

Okay.

Judge,

PHILLIPS:

requesting

11

restrictions

12

more

13

these

14

to be reviewed

15

that

16

essentially

17

After

just

like

Judge's

could

frivolous
that

docketed

19

not be docketed.

20

authority

24

case,

if the Judge
And

for that

25

research

have

on what

They

I'm

approved

are set forth

before

in

any of

it would

Administrative

to see whether

Judge

have
or

it was

or not.
it could

go ahead

and be

approved

it, otherwise,

it could

the case

I think

as

is State

of these

frivolous.
done,

that

a new case,

I cite

a long

list

plaintiffs

have

filed

And

look

at this

obviously,

a class

I cite

vs. Lynn.

for sanctions,

various

absolutely
they

file

screening,

In my motion

were

are

for filing

but basically

by the local

designee

18

that

-- what

the restrictions

case

these.

in my motion,

plaintiffs

23

I'm asking

off of a reported

detail

cases

let me hear

and I've patterned

10

22

Now,

for in the way of sanctions?

restrictions,

21

Yes.

action

if you

no meaningful

of

that

legal

is, or how you bring

7
1

it, and this

purposes

in this

in more

are requesting

indication
MR.

of merit

plaintiffs

13

attorney

14

but

15

Kansas,

16

either

have

17

Do you

know whether

have

22

somewhere

PHILLIPS:

if not all,

23

federal

24

Lori

25

station.

PHILLIPS:
lawsuit

Fleming

were

you
some

that

The plaintiffs,

here
they

actually,
now have

City.

I assume
City,

to file

that has been

The federal
did file
And

the
an

know the name,

Kansas

and that

a federal

City,
they

lawsuit.

filed?

lawsuit

has been

it.

it apparently

of the same

indicates

complaints?

The major

complaint

in that

is the e-mail

allegedly

sent by Judge

to one of the owners

That

as

Judge.

in Kansas

Okay.

what

of at least

I don't

or are going

the attorney

MR.

sanctions,

a name,

in Kansas

THE COURT:
many,

indicated
cite

restrictions

to filing.

of them

and they

I believe

20
21

one or more

filed,

your

Let me ask you this.

12

19

defendants

in my motion.

Correct,

I wish

MR.

detail

prior

PHILLIPS:

but

for is filing

So basically

11

18

as for

the various

is a predetermination

THE COURT:

10

against

I'm asking

THE COURT:

be described

case.

is set forth

can only

of harassment

But what

4
5

case

federal

case

of the radio

is just

against,

as I

remember

even

it, Judge

give

you a copy

apparently

small

claims

about

now.
MR.

I don't

and their

10

think

more

I believe

there

federal

is much

I see.
case,

11

that

the federal

12

that

this be dismissed,

13

as in the Chapter

60 case

but

16

MR.

That's

17

THE COURT:

18

MR.

PHILLIPS:

to find that

24

fact,

been

this

case

had asked
complaints

--

not the case.

case has not been

It has been
summons

Well,

or anyone
case,

the assumption

not the case.

reason.

Yeah.

this

between

Judge,

Well--

has not requested

23

the

is correct,

the same

The federal

for whatever

the plaintiffs

involving

Judge.

that's

Okay.

PHILLIPS:

22

25

Not yet,

PHILLIPS:

THE COURT:

like.

it but

the plaintiffs

here

THE COURT:

21

that

included

15

attorney

about

overlap

since

MR.

20

if you'd

I need

I was under

14

served

and I can

one.

THE COURT:

19

that

Loy,

than we are the case we are talking

PHILLIPS:

know

we are talking
cases

and Judge

of the complaint

I don't

THE COURT:

Fleming

Case

be issued

no appearance

on their
No.

filed

behalf.
15CV79P,

but

the

in that.

is made

by

I'm going
has,

in

dismissed.

I am going

to deny

the reinstatement

requested

by

the plaintiffs of their -- in other words, doing away

with their request to dismiss.

parties request a case be dismissed, and I think it is

mentioned in your brief, Mr. Phillips, that dismisses

the case.

that point, and so I'm recording it now and the case

will be dismissed.

It is simply a matter of recording it at

Now, insofar as the sanctions are concerned, I

8
9

I think if both

have a little concern about those, I guess, but,

10

obviously, there is nobody here to tell me, right or

11

wrong, why they shouldn't be granted and the request

12

lS

13

clearly made and notice given.

So I'm going to go ahead and grant your request,

14

Mr. Phillips.

15

you include in there the fact that it is not

16

necessarily the Administrative

17

also a party to this action, so his designee or the

18

designee of the judicial system of the State of

19

Kansas, I don't know how you want to word it, but I

20

want to leave enough leeway that somebody gets to make

21

the determination that -- and, of course, somebody who

22

apparently is acceptable to the plaintiffs and also

23

acceptable to the defense, and we will see what

24

happens.

25

request for the sanctions.

I don't want to -- I want to make sure

Judge, because he's

But basically I'm going to grant your

10
Now,

let's

about

this

on file asking

any affidavit

did you?

MR.

see if I have

case.

They

that

PHILLIPS:

as I understand

procedure.

the statute,

MR.

11

THE COURT:

PHILLIPS:

as to whether

13

and so forth

And

I agree

I feel

MR.

15

responses

that

16

they

on notice.

17

PHILLIPS:

And

Right.

received

an affidavit

19

to send

on to another

20

so; but,

21

itself

in any event,

indicates

23

any

24

point.

25

sanctions

in this

I think

case,

that

is

is the proper

I make

first.

action

And this

is a reason

is granted.

to file an affidavit.

have

if I was

I do not

was

find

I mean,

I have

anything

inclined
that

not

even

to do

the motion

for me to disqualify.
filed,

I have

and don't

is dismissed,
What

in one of my

in any event,

so I didn't
Judge

to disqualify

up at this hearing,

Well,

on that

case

the determination

I suggested

the reason

no affidavit

further

and

there

18

Since

receive

at the hearing

it be taken

THE COURT:

22

I did not

to be a hearing

and then you have

14

were

and

a motion

Oh, yeah.

THE COURT:

10

but

that

is supposed

questions

in this case

to that motion

No, Judge,

There

12

have

I disqualify

attached

also

any other

else

not

intend

taken

to at this

the request

do we need

for

to talk

11

about

2
3

in this
MR.

entry,

case

PHILLIPS:

Do I need

the journal

circumstances,

go.

I would

entry

MR.

THE COURT:

and

And

probably

11

I'm at the courthouse

12

but

I'm not
MR.

14

you to do

the

would

be the way

to

that

it to my house,

in Goodland

How about

to me at --

that

reasonably

way

regularly

And my address

we do that

--

later

is
off the

record?
THE COURT:

16

MR.

17

THE COURT:
couple

That's

PHILLIPS:

questions

19

MR.

20

THE COURT:

DEPEW:

I will

Yes,

22

able

to do anything

23

heard

MR.
who

DEPEW:

give

it to you.

but

Depew,

I know

I'm not
this

on either
I have

is the plaintiff.

know.

I want

to ask a

is it?

sir.

Yeah.

afternoon

24

I will

let you

of Mr.

this

anything

fine,

Okay.

21

25

170 journal

sir.

all the time.

PHILLIPS:

15

18

under

you can forward

forward

there

I do want

170 probably

Yes,

PHILLIPS:

better

-- yes,

I think,

a Rule

10

13

to do a Rule

Judge?

THE COURT:

today?

sure

these

are

scheduled

we are going

afternoon

anyway.

for

to be
Have

of these

small

claims

had phone

calls

with

you

cases?

Mr.

Day,

12

THE COURT:

MR.

indicated

claims

DEPEW:

to me that

he wanted

as February

to dismiss

he

the small

He kind

of indicates

that

in a more

letter.

MR.

Yes.

DEPEW:

a stipulated

him.

order

And

so what

of dismissal

He indicated

that

he's

I did is I prepared

and

now

I mailed

living

it to

in Denver,

Colorado.

11

THE COURT:

12

MR.

13

February.

Oh.

DEPEW:

And

so I mailed

14

THE COURT:

Uh-huh.

15

MR.

And

16

self-addressed

17

easy

18

And

19

most

20

Mr.

21

more

22

dismissal

23

it back

24
25

as early

cases.

recent

10

And back

THE COURT:

Right.

I even

envelope

included

back

then when
recent
Day,

he filed

letters,

I'm kind

things

when

here

in very

of confused

him,

the mail

that

anything.

late March
and

be very

I just

his
said,

as to why you are filing

I signed

to you and I said well,

so he said

heard

you the stipulated

and he said well,

in

a stamped

I never

I called

I sent

to him back

to me so it would

for him to get it back.

And
with

DEPEW:

that

that

and

of

I sent

I've not received

he had difficulty

at his apartment

order

it.

at times

so I sent him

another

13

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

out a letter,
about

and

being

I don't

I've

the hearing.

that's

one of the bad

a Senior

Judge,

I don't

type,

so I will

somebody

11

written

out a letter

12

parties

in the two small

13

what

14

to disqualify

15

filed

I'm saying

to you.

which

10

to type

before

something

it for me but,

have

and that

claims

addressed

cases

I'm aware

any

to find

in any event,

and basically

is that

have

I have
it to the

and basically

that he's

I was not aware

that

asked

me

he has

an affidavit.

16

I didn't

I got a copy

17

he was asking

me to disqualify

18

copy

19

until

20

pointing

21

that

22

so forth,

23

hear

24

cases.

25

to whoever

of the affidavit,

he's

out In this

advised

me there

and I'm basically

from him by May

If not,
they

in the
letter

file and
I also

is a Federal
telling

that

send me a

know there

but

3 if he wants

I'm going

saying

but he didn't

so I didn't

I saw it this morning

that

of a letter

was one

I'm
take

Court

note

case

him that

I want

to dismiss

these

to forward

the affidavit

tell me to for determination

and go

and
to

on

14

from

there.

MR.

DEPEW:

KSA 20-311(f)

THE COURT:

MR.
there

a formal

seven

receiving

10

case

11

12

after

limit

by which

claims

someone

the pretrial

or seven

notice

cases

DEPEW:

object

out

of the Judge

that

must

and that
days

file
is

after

before

whom

the

procedural

18

notification.
MR.

20

I think

21

March

22

want

DEPEW:

in these

two

ago.

-- months

So you

to dismiss

That's

filing
this

ago and so we would

-- we

THE COURT:

That's

24

MR.

And

the case.

indicating
even

need

our position,

that

on

to give

him

that

Your

Honor,

and

you can -- because

I read

his

the same way

you do, which

is I

case.

23

DEPEW:

are

I don't

-- I think

30 letter

and dismiss

case

was made

Sometime

grounds

that

in this

to

THE COURT:

17

25

it states

of a Judge

appointment

MR.

19

point

is to be heard.

14

16

statute

for recusal

written

THE COURT:

would

I would

in that

time

request

13

15

And

is a clear

Your
small

Honor,

Yeah.

DEPEW:

days

Your

--

Well,

the way

so we would

it appears

to me.

ask that we go ahead

15

THE COURT:

bad

request

some

that,

circumstances,

trying

to be quite

8
9

reason

simply

you

from

know,

I could
I don't

it is probably

the standpoint

he can show me why

I suppose

do it.
force

And

around,

Your

12

Office

13

there

14

haven't

and
that

15

MR.

16

in fact,

I don't

I will make
if Mr.

any,

DEPEW:
want

them

he's

that

He indicated
from

the

20

MR.

You

could

21

THE COURT:

Well,

to show.

to me that he did not,

I almost

I don't

to go along

lawsuit

in the Clerk's

drove

from

Denver.

I know.

it is just

to dismiss

for me to hang

Denver.

I don't

DEPEW:

reason

aware

going

And

federal

feel

had and I certainly

THE COURT:

25

I would

you've

19

going

afternoon

that

to drive

DEPEW:

24

this

I'm

to show up, and

MR.

I'm going

what

happen

18

23

the

Day does

THE COURT:

Pittsburg,

before

and

see any

17

22

under

Honor.

is no indication
had

to reconsider

-- I guess

I understand

THE COURT:

11

is

frank.

DEPEW:

same way,

not a

if there

I ought

to do is get out of town

MR.

10

Well,

these

blame

have

have

quite
with

carpooled,

anything

a ways
you,

Mr.

on the basis

including

the

him.

same

Your

Honor.

against

from where
Depew.

I live.

I'm just

that he's
allegations.

filed

He's

16

indicated that to me in his letter, or letters maybe I

should say, and I'm just going to note a dismissal~

We will proceed from there.

MR. DEPEW:

THE COURT: Oh.

MR. DEPEW:

All right.

The two cases that --

that I'm involved in this

afternoon --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. DEPEW:

-- are Noah Day vs. Lori Fleming.

10

THE COURT: Right.

11

MR. DEPEW:

15SC85P and 15SC71P.

12

THE COURT:

Okay.

13

MR. DEPEW:

And there is also a suit against -- a

Now, and --

14

separate small claims suit against My Town Media that

15

is -- I am not here on.

16

THE COURT:

I didn't realize that.

I thought

17

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

18

talking about now.

19

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

20

MR. DEPEW:

Now, can you tell -- enlighten me

Yes.

It is basically exactly the

21

same thing.

22

they terminated the advertising contract.

23

neglects to mention in any of his paperwork was that

24

when they terminated it they refunded --

25

He is suing the radio station, because

THE COURT:

What he

It is a part of the same series of

17

allegations.

MR.

defendant

in the

15SC71P
MR.

THE COURT:

suppose

not

DEPEW:

isn't

Yes,
And

involved

facilities

12

THE COURT:

13

for the third

14

would

it?

Depew,

stated.

Now,

on the one that

but

MR.

16

THE COURT:

since

you are

you have

the

afterwards,

18

address

19

other

20

point?

that

I will
And

I will

make

about

21

MR.

DEPEW:

22

MR.

PHILLIPS:

20-311(f).

you are not

them.

me the same

involved

form

in, I

No,

do so.
step

you aware
can send

Your

that.

my horne

Are

cases

chambers

there

any

at this

Honor.

I would

join

I do think

Yeah.

into

of what

any of those

in his motion

THE COURT:

forward

if you would

is and how you

questions

to prepare

it.

DEPEW:

17

happy

If you would

case

15

limitation

15SC70P,

sir.

I will

appreciate

24

cases

to do so.
DEPEW:

about

is a

as well.

for the reasons

in, Mr.

MR.

23

station

to dismiss

I can jot a dismissal

11

25

lawsuit

I am going

and 15SC85P,

10

federal

THE COURT:

4
5

It is and the radio

DEPEW:

Dennis's

there

is also

comments
a time

for recusal.
Well,

and I'm trying

to -- I

18

get one of these

picture

don't

every

it in my mind

have

a problem

MR.

MR. EMERSON:

THE COURT:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

and
with

No, Your

in a while

I think
that.

and

you are
Anything

try to
I

right.
further?

Honor.

No.
Well,

Court

will

be in recess,

guess.
(Whereupon

8
9

DEPEW:

once

a.m.,

April

the proceedings

18, 2016.)

concluded

at 10:22

19

STATE

CRAWFORD

OF KANSAS)
)

SS.

COUNTY)
CERTIFICATE

3
J.

I, Shaun

4
5

Reporter,

Kansas,

acting

District

that

by virtue

Higgins,

of the laws

and the regularly

official

Reporter

of the State

as such

10

reported

11

foregoing

12

before

13

Judicial

14

and

official

in machine

15
shorthand

17

and that

18

transcript

19

notes

21

__________ , 2016.

and

above

BURR,

of the Eleventh

Judge

of Kansas,

set out

Sitting

that

under

is a true
in said

officially

of the District

pursuant

24
25

in

my supervision

and correct

case.

sealed,

Court

to law my

this

and filed

with

day of

22
23

at and

on the date

transcribed

of my notes

the Clerk

I was present

certify

the foregoing

20

certify

of Crawford.

were

Signed,

reporter,

JACK

I further

16

do hereby

the above

and

Judicial

of Kansas

of the State

for the County

of

qualified

for the Eleventh

had

the Honorable

Shorthand

of the State

appointed,

shorthand

proceedings

District

a Certified

SHAUN J. HIGGINS, RMR

KS CSR #0904
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

ERIC M. MUATHE, et aI.,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)
)

vs.

Case No. lS-CV-7SP

HONORABLE

KURTIS LOY, et ai.,

)
)
)

Defendants.

----------------------------)
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 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, 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 of the
action upon filing."

Smith v. State, 22 Kan. App.2d 922, 926 (1996). Defendants'

Motion to

Withdraw is but a further example of their frivolous court filings that warrant filing restrictions.

Exhibit 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'
23,2015,

28,2015,

Motion for Sanctions; and Defendants'

Motion to
November

Motion for Extension of Time To File Response to Pro Se Plaintiffs' Motion For

Sanctionshearing.

September

September 8,2015,

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.

along with consideration

That can easily be accomplished

of Defendants'

at the April 18 hearing

motions.

Respectfully

submitted,

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY
DEREK SCHMIDT

GENERAL

Isl Stephen Phillips

Stephen Phillips, No. 14130
Assistant Attorney General
Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor
120 SW to" Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597
Phone:
(785) 296-2215
Facsimile: (785) 296-6296
Attorney for Defendants Lay, 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
111 East Forest, 2nd FI.
Girard, KS, 66713

Noah Day
9601 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
Assistant Attorney General
Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor
120 SW
Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597

io"

/s/ Stephen Phillips

Stephen Phillips