Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page 1of4
statements
hearing attorney Meek's, Battitori's and even Michael Gayoso's cases while you were receiving
payments from them for the buyout of your former law firm Meek, Lynch and Battitori, See attached
exhibits. You clearly had a demonstrated and vested financial interest in the financial stability of
your former law partner's law practice since you were receiving ongoing payments between 2005 2008 while you sat and ruled on their cases. Do you think the unknown number oflitigants in those
cases knew of these economic conflicts of interests? Do you think you afforded the litigants due
process?
Here is a sample of 5 Cherokee County cases out of many that you remained
involved attorney Edward Battitori in the time period immediately after you left the business
partnership and became judge and also within the time period your were receiving financial
compensation from him; 2005CR114, 2007CR172, 200SDM248, 2005DM299, and 2006DM240.
Here is a sample of 5 Cherokee County cases out of many that you remained as the Judge that
involved attorney Christopher Meek in the time period immediately after you left the business
partnership and became judge and also within the time period your were receiving financial
compensation from him; 2005CR1S0, 200SCV168, 2005CV168, 2005DM215, and 2007DM202.
Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action is: (a) ... unreasonable, t.e., ifno reasonable person
would have taken the view adopted by the trial court. City of Neodesha v. BP, Corp. 295 Kan. 298,
287 P.3d 214 (2012).
As a show of inconsistent actions taken by you and as prima facie 'abuse of discretion' evidence that
you know you should not have listened to your former law partners cases you recused yourself
from the following sample of attorney Battitori's Cherokee County cases while you were receiving
financial compensation from him; 2003CV150, 2004CV8P, 200SDM20, 2006CV86, and 2006CV87.
Here is a sample of attorney Meek's Cherokee County cases that you recused; 2005DM40,
2005DM116, 2005DM136, 2005DM228, and 2006DM254.
The Preamble to the Kansas' Code of judicial Conduct reminds judges they "must respect and honor
the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal
system." Rule 601A (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 535). Because public trust is essential to an effective
judicial system and one judge's conduct may have a significant impact upon the public's perception
of the entire judicial system, "[a] judge must avoid all impropriety
and appearance
of impropriety.
judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore
restrictions
accept
"[I]t would be very difficult to establish public confidence in the judicial [decision]-making
when there's been such a severe lapse in ... judgment."
(2005).
Page 2 of4
In re Robertson,
capacity
You clearly should have recused yourself from ruling on whether a judge can hear his former law
partners' cases since you too are grossly guilty of the same unethical actions that would cause the
general public to question the integrity of the judicial system.
I think it is very unethical for a judge to lie and it is even more unethical for a judge to lie and the lie
to be able to be "PROVEN AS A FACT"!!!! According to Rule 2.11(A)(B) Disqualification which says
"A judge shall keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make
a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judges spouse or
domestic partner and minor children residing in the judge's household."
Under COMMENT (6) under Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification it says "Economic Interest," as set forth in
the Terminology section, means ownership of more than a de minimis legal or equitable interest"
which is what you had between 2005 and 2008 with attorneys Meek, Battitori and Gayoso as you
were still hearing his court cases.
Under the Commentary for the old Canon 4(D) which is the Financial Activities section under "A
Judge Shall so Conduct the Judge's Extra-judicial Activities as to Minimize the Risk of Conflict with
Judicial Obligations" it states that "A judge must avoid financial and business dealings that involve
the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with persons likely to come
either before the judge personally or before other judges on the judge's court."
It also says under Commentary for Canon 4(D) "Participation by a judge in financial and business
dealings is subject to the general prohibitions in Section 4A against activities that tend to reflect
adversely on impartiality, demean the judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of
judicial duties. Such participation is also subject to the general prohibition in Canon 2 against
activities involving impropriety or the appearance of impropriety and the prohibition in Section 2B
against the misuse of the prestige of judicial office. In addition, a judge must maintain high
standards of conduct in all of the judge's activities, as set forth in Canon 1. See Commentary for
Section 4B regarding use of the phrase "subject to the requirements of this code." I would think
that by hearing Edward Battitori's, Christopher Meek's and Michael Gayoso's cases between 2005 2008 (especially)
I am also bothered by the fact that according to a letter (attached) you sent to then Chief Judge John
C. Gariglietti on May 24th, 2007 you successfully ask to recuse you're yourself from Cherokee County
Case numbers 2006CV86 and 2006CV87 because you "sit on a board with one of the Binghams" yet
your financial disclosures statements don't show any such board. How are litigants and the general
public to know what other personal and economic conflicts of interests you continue to have or
could have had in the past if you are not accurately reporting your financial disclosure statements?
Iwould like to add that as of late November 2014 you are the sitting Judge in about 14 of 19 of
former business partner attorney Edward Battitori's pending cases while Kurtis Loy is the Judge in
11 of14 of his former business partner
should be the last person called upon to decide ifJudge Loy's conflict of interest is ethical or not.
I think the fact that you had a proven irrefutable
became a judge and the fact that you stated that a judge can hear a past law partners case as long as
five (5) years have passed which you clearly did not follow yourself would also violate "THE RULES
RELATINGTO JUDICIALCONDUCT"and therefore you should have not had any subject-matter
jurisdiction to hear any of the related cases or any of my cases for that matter.
I have filed an ethic complaint against you for the above mentioned violations of "THE RULES
RELATINGTO JUDICIALCONDUCT"and the Committee was supposed to meet on December 5, 2014
to discuss the allegations of my complaint. I am also planning to file yet another detailed complaint
with new found evidence.
I have already filed a motion for you to recuse yourself form this case and a motion for any orders
you signed in Crawford County Case No. 2012LM356P to be vacated and ask to see if you wanted to
grant this motion ex-parte without a hearing to avoid me having to waste my time, the court's time,
and your time by filing an appeal for "LACKOF SUBJECT-MATTERJURISDICTION".
I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter to help with the due process and equal protection
under the 5th and 14th amendments that all litigants are allowed.
I kindly ask that you recuse, or be recused, from hearing any of my cases and to vacate any order
you have entered in any of my court cases currently before you.
Sincerely,
&r.~ Ntv~
Eric M. Muathe
1410 Bitner Terrace, Pittsburg, Kansas. 66762.
Page 4of4
FILED
IN THE DISTRICTl~~mr~RD
COUNTY, KANSAS
m~~u.fP~BURG
;:
"
Plaintiff,
)
)
--)
vs.
CaseNo.-2012=LM-J56 p.
)
ERIC M. MUATHE,
Defendant.
--------------------------~)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes on for determination -of the Motion for Disqualification of
Judge Loy filed by Defendant. The court has reviewed the Motion and Affidavit, Judge
Ley's response, and the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. For the reasons set out below,
the motion is denied.
Defendant argues that Judge Loy should be disqualified because of his previous
-
relationship with Mark Werner who has now entered an appearance in the case.
His first allegation that Werner and Judge Loy were law partners does not create a
showing of prejudice, impropriety, or an appearance of impropriety.
This partnership
ended in 1994. After 20 years this prior relationship cannot be said to have an effect on
Judge Loy's impartiality. It is not uncommon for Judges to hear cases in which former
-
~U
~~
~\\)\~
1
~ \\~
~~
partners appear as attorneys in as little as five years after leaving the partnership to
become a judge.
His second allegation is that Werner represented Judge Loy in litigation during the
same period. Here Defendant is mistaken as the client in that case was Kenneth I. Loy,
not Judge Loy (Kurt 1. Loy). Even if Werner had represented Judge Loy almost 20 years
ago, thatrelationship is so distant as to have-no effect upon Judge Loy's impartiality.
Finally, Defendant claims that both Werner and Judge Loy donated to the same
political campaign. Numerous people appear to have donated to the same campaign. The
coincidence of both Werner and Judge Loy donating to the same campaign is not
indicative of a relationship that would disqualify Judge Loy from hearing this case.
Defendant next claims that Judge Loy should be disqualified from hearing any
cases "with allegations of forged, altered or fraudulent notes or retail installment
contracts" because of allegations in Deere and Co. v. Loy, 872 F. Supp. 867 (D. Kan,
1994). This is the case discussed above wherein Kenneth 1. Loy was sued and Werner
and Judge Loy acted as counsel for him. There is no factual basis -to support this claim as
--- --Defendant-is -confused--aboutwho-was the-Defendant-in -that-case-.There -is-no-legalbasis ---to support this claim because even if Judge Loy had been a party in a lawsuit wherein
such allegations occurred, it would not disqualify him from hearing cases 20 years later
with the same subject matter.
~~/
//
<--
~-----.
The Honorable
C. Gariglietti
Chief Judge
Judicial
ter
PittSb , KS 66762
FILED
MAY 2 {9 2007
WITH THE COURT .
Kara Moore vs. Ellis Ray Bryant and Bingham Transportation, Inc.
Case No. 2006-CV-86
.
Kenny Lodwick vs. Ellis Ray Bryant and Bingham Transportation, Ine.
Case No. 2006-CV-87
Enclosure
cc:
JUDICIAL
~oo
by ~r.mae
TIt RIm1le OOlAJlte~
1tD J.mn
Cmttf!m,1
Canon 4, Subsections D, E, and H (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 551 - 557)
re,pmmt
Return
OB
=-
_
_
I. COMPENSATION
[reporting individual (1) and spouse (S); for Honoraria, reporting
individual (I) only;, see Section I of Instructions and Canon 4H(1)]
Name of Payor
Payee (I or S)
LawPradice
2004
Nature of Activity
2004
Teaching
II. FEES AND COMMISSIONS [reporting individual (I) and spouse (S); see Section ITof
Instructions and Canon 4H(2)]
__
Address
Payee (I or S)
I
m. OWNERSIIIP INTJnlFSTS
4H{3}]
__
Type of Business
Desaiptioo oflntl:n:sts
Law Practice
Partner's Share
Held
Held by Whom
a.S.,DC)
I
~
J
Partnerbip (Real
Partner's Share
I,S
Estate)
See Section Vll. for further inIen:sts
IV. GIFTS, BEQUESTS, OR FAVORS [reporting individual (I), spouse (8), dependent child
or dependent step child (DC); see Section IV of Instructions and Canons 4D(5)(a-h) and
4H(4)]
~NO:NEQII{{p
GijiJ" ~
OT FIilD'JOn)
Recipient (L S, DC)
Description
RqiY.!M1t~
I. COMPENSATION [reporting individual (I) and spouse (S); for Honoraria, reporting
individual (l) only; see Section I of Instructions and Canon 4H(1)]
Name of Payor
Jan. - Dee, 2005
Payee (I or S)
Nature of Activity
rr '"'. ,"}"'
Return
....-
T~
1~
Kansas66612
'The ~
~
this form arc a ~
to be :fuBowed in ~
'yom ammal
financial disclosure report. Please read the instructions before completing the form. Complete all
parts, chec~ "NONE" wherever you have no reportable information. This report must be typed
but may be completed online at -.:.-'-.~~~~_~~.,
printed and mailed. Sign on the last page.
I. COMPENSA nON [reporting individual (I) and spouse (S); for Honoraria, reporting
individual (1) only; see Section I of Instructions and Canon 4H(1)]
__
Jan.-Dec., 2006
Jan.-Dec., 2006
Galena Schools
Payee CI or S)
Nature of Activity
iF ill):,'
E-C" ,t:l~
01' part-time}:-A_c_fu_re
I. CO,MPENSATION [reporting individual (1) and spouse (S); for Honoraria, reporting
individual (1) only; see Section I of Instructions 8tidCano1i4H(1)]
,
__
Jan.&. Feb.
Payee (I or S)
Nature of Activity
Buyout of law practice