Complaint Against AJ Wachter KCJQ August 3rd 2017

August 3,2017
Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications
301 SW. io- Avenue
Topeka Ks66612
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this complaint against Chief Judge AJ Wachter in the 11thJudicial District Court, Pittsburg,
--
Kansas. I cannot believe how the court system is running in Crawford County. I have included one court
transcript with my complaint against Judge Wachter in regards to the entire hearing I had back on
September 23,2013 and I was "EXTREMELYUNCOMFORTABLE"and the transcript shows right from the
start on page 3, line 9 where Judge Wachter says "You are pretty soft spoken and I'm going to ask you to
speak up." Judge Wachter then says on page 3, line 11 "I know who you are but just remember to speak
into the microphone because you are awful soft spoken."
Well, of course I am soft spoken! I am scared to speak and have a lot of anxiety because Judge Wachter
is the judge again and I had already had him "RECUSED"from case number 09DM341P for his
inappropriate comment about the "PEANUTGALLERY". He obviously was holding a grudge because he
says right from the start on page 3 line 11 "1 know who you are"!!! He then addresses on line 14, page 3
my "Motion for Change of Judge" and admits on page 5, line 7 that he did tell my husband to go sit in
the "PEANUT GALLERY". He also mentions on page 7, line 8 that I, Michael King, Kasey King, and Mr.
Muathe have all filed a lawsuit against Crawford County District Court which he is a part of and that is
why he can't hear that case. Why didn't Judge Wachter recuse from hearing my case?
On line 23, page 7 he admits that my father in-law Michael King, maybe Kasey King but his memory
doesn't strike on that, and Mr. Muathe all sued Judge A.J. Wachter in small claims court for rulings that
he made. House Bill 2491 was passed on March 17, 2014 which is after Michael King and Eric Muathe
sued A.J. Wachter in small claims court and they are two of the people that are the reason House Bill
2491 was passed!
I have included a copy of House Bill 2491 to show that on page 1 of that proposal it says "This means
that when a state employee is sued, that employee has to leave their job duties, sometimes travel some
distance to the courthouse, and personally appear in court. In addition to the inconvenience and
disruption, this is unfair to employees unfamiliar with legal practice, and who have difficulty explaining
to the judges that small claims courts lack jurisdiction over them under the KansasTort Claims Act.
Judge Wachter says on page 6, line 7, "I have no prejudice against you, have no prejudice against Kasey
King, have no prejudice against Mike King". This is a flat out lie, he has big time prejudice against me
and Michael and Kasey King, I have been at Ron's Supermarket on May 18, 2013 and Kasey and Judge
Wachter exchanged words in the parking lot when Judge AJ. Wachter was pushing his shopping cart up
and Kasey asked him "Hey, did you get any peanuts while you were shopping"? A.J. Wachter said
"What?" And Kasey said, "yeah, remember me, you told me to go sit in the peanut gallery and she is the
peanut gallery (because that is where I was sitting at the time) and Kasey pointed to me and I was still
sitting in the driver's seat of the car waiting for Kasey to pay a bill and come right back out". Judge
Wachter then got mad and snarled his lip and started pushing his shopping cart really hard and fast and
unloaded his groceries and then slammed the empty cart back in the cart holder.
I realize you may think that making remarks in public is childish, but had Kasey or I or Mike said anything
just as inappropriate in the courtroom, we would have been sanctioned or held in contempt of court.
What Judge Wachter did to my husband was childish and it was in his professional capacity. My
husband runs into Judge Wachter all the time. It is just by chance when he does, but they happen to
buy groceries in the same small supermarket in the same small town. If my husband embarrasses A.J.
Wachter every time he sees him in public and asks him if he has any peanuts, so be it! Judge Wachter
should have never said something as asinine in court that day or any day for that matter. I know Judge
Wachter gets mad and huffy during those encounters, but I feel he is definitely "PREJUDICED AGAINST
KASEY AND MICHAEL KING AND ME".
On page 8, line 5 Judge Wachter says "I refused to recuse myself from Mr. Muathe's case for the same
reasons". Well, I have included the "COURT ORDER" in case number 12LM356P Fifth Third Bank vs. Eric
Muathe on September 23,2013 where Judge Oliver Lynch ruled in a Motion for Change of Judge with
Affidavit against Judge Wachter from Eric Muathe, and Judge Lynch ruled that AJ. Wachter needed to
be "DISQUALIFIED" from the case.
So, if Judge Wachter says that he did not recuse from my case for the same reasons he did not recuse
from Mr. Muathe on a Motion for Change of Judge, but later was DISQUALIFIED on a Change of Judge
with Affidavit then I feel he has no business ruling anything in my case.
Judge Wachter says on page 6, line 15 "Now, I feel obligated as a judge to accept the cases assigned to
me". He then actually admits on the record on page 6, line 17 "some lawyers I like better than others,
I'm human." He says on line 21, page 6 that cases in the judicial district are pre-assigned by a written
document filed and the clerk assigns the cases, not the judges, and I don't feel comfortable in recusing
myself from a case unless I've got an awfully good reason."
Well, I think a previous reprimand Caution from Kansas Commission On Judicial Qualifications and
previous recusal from my father in-law's divorce case is a "AWFULLY GOOD REASON TO RECUSE". Judge
Wachter also has the right to re-assign a case and Judge Wachter has also violated Rules of the 111h_
Judicial District Rule No.2 (6) Reassignment(a)(b)(c)(d) since he chose to not reassign this case to
another judge even though he is aware of all the conflicts of interest between Judge Wachter and Julie
Stover-King. According to K.SA 20-311 change of judge and the code of judicial conduct Rule 2.11(A)
Disqualification he should have already disqualified/recused himself from this case prior to the
September 23 hearing.
Judge Wachter says on page 44, line 6 to 14 "I tell you what I will do now is take this under advisement, I
will write an opinion on all the issuesthat we have involved. I'm not going to get that done, we've been
a judge shy, one of our judges had to retire for medical reasons, and so we've got kind of double work
for the rest of us. Having said that, I'm not crying on anybody's shoulders, I'm just telling you that it
ain't going to happen for a couple weeks".
Judge Wachter did not rule in a "couple weeks" like he says on the court transcript instead he kept the
file in his chambers for over 3 Ya years when it was only allowed to be checked out for (5) days. He
removed a "dismissal hearing entry on Wells Fargo's claim against myself set for 3/28/14 that was on
the docket of 3/13/14 and shows the dismissal hearing was entered on 3/5/14. I have seen several
dockets where the court issues "Notice of Intent to Dismiss" and "Hearing Rescheduled for Dismissal"
numerous times. I have included a copy of Mike King's Divorce 09DM341P docket showing hearing
reschedules several times. There is a hearing rescheduled 1/19/2010 with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss
filed January 25,2010 for Lack of Prosecution and there is another Hearing Rescheduled for Notice of
Intent to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution on February 3,2010 AND there is another one on April 7, 2010.
Where are all of mine over the last 3-1/2 years? Shouldn't there be one automatically generated every
2-4 months? Mine were purposely deleted because Judge Wachter doesn't want me to win my case, of
which I should. Wells Fargo scammed so many accounts during the same timeframe of which my
account was established back in 2009. Look it up. If you or the judge is not familiar, then he or no judge
should be deciding anything in regards to my case and my case needs to be given to someone that has
researched all the criminal activity of Wells Fargo.
Don't you find it rather peculiar that Judge Wachter also did not dismiss my counterclaim which was
under advisement for 3 Ya years until my husband Kasey King's attorney filed a lawsuit in Crawford
County on June 26, 2017 against Judge Wachter's brother Bill Wachter of My Town Media, and his two
co-workers in the 11th judicial district Judge Kurtis Loy and judge Lori Fleming for ruining a radio
advertisement that my husband paid for that was supposed to be ran on a radio station for (30) days but
Lori Fleming sent an email to Bill Wachter and had it shut down after only 2 days and caused the
"BREACHOF CONTRACT"with My Town Media? Judge Wachter dismissed my counterclaim on June 27,
2017, one day after my husband filed the lawsuit ...that is when A.J. Wachter finally decided to rule
and take my case out of advisement after over 3-1/2 YEARS!!!! This is no coincidence and it isn't
peculiar at all. It is out of spite.
Judge Wachter violated Supreme Court Rule 166 and according to State Supreme Court Rule 166 if Judge
Wachter did not make a ruling within (90) days he was supposed to file a written report with the judicial
administrator to setting forth the title and the number of the case, the nature of the matter taken under
advisement, and the reasons why a judgment, ruling or decision has not been entered. Judge Wachter
also was supposed to file a written report for the motion for change of judge, motion for writ in the
nature of mandamus, and motion for relief in the form of Quo Warranto with the judicial administrator
as well since he did not rule for over 3 Y, years on the motion for change of judge and he "STILLHAS
NOT RULED" on the motion for writ in nature of mandamus, and motion for relief in the form of Quo
Warranto.
Judge Wachter has also violated rules of the eleventh judicial district Rule NO.4 "Records, Files and
Exhibits." This rule states that all files checked out to court officers, abstractors or members of the bar
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 106 shall be returned within (5) days unless and earlier return is
requested or a longer period is permitted by order of the court. Judge Wachter has had the court file for
over 3 ~ years on his desk. It seems that 11th district Chief Judge A.J. Wachter has "MANIPULATED" and
"DELETED" the court docket in case number 13CV32P Wells Fargo vs. Julie S. Brunksill by removing an
entry off of the docket that was there from 3/5/2014 until 3/13/2014 but was "DELETED"!!!!
I got a copy of the court docket in this case on 3/13/2014 which shows that this case was set for a
hearing on 3/28/2014 for "DISMISSAL" but a copy of the court docket on 3/28/2014 when I showed up
for court that day showed the entry from 3/5/2014 had been DELETED and removed from the court
docket and there had NOT been a "MOTION TO RETAIN CASE ON DOCKET" filed by the Plaintiff's
attorney. Judge Wachter has also had this file back at his desk for over (3) years but according to Rules
OfThe Eleventh Judicial District Rule No.4 all Records, Files, and Exhibits shall be returned within five (5)
days. There is no copy of the "DISMISSAL" hearing entry on 3/5/2014 that was set for 3/28/2014. I
have been up to the Clerk of the Court's Office numerous times to retrieve documents out of the case
file. Each and every time I went in to look at the case file, the court clerk always replied with "it is back
on the judge's desk". I went in on July 21,2017 to the Clerk of the Court's Office to file my Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and asked for the case file and it was miraculously available ...AFTER MY
COUNTERCLAIM WAS DISMISSED AND AFTER MY HUSBAND"S ATIORNEY FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST
BILL WACHTER OF MY TOWN MEDIA AND JUDGE LORI FLEMING AND JUDGE KURTIS LOY AND AFTER
THOMAS WALTERS AND FRED GRABLES FILED COMPLAINTS WITH YOUR COMMISSION AND THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR.
Judge Wachter has also violated rules of the eleventh judicial district Rule No. 10 "Assigned Files; Judge
in Different County. This rule says case files shall be maintained and remain in the office of the clerk of
the court where the case is filed. Judge Wachter has had the court file in his own office for over 3 Y2
years on his desk.
Judge Wachter has also violated rules of the eleventh judicial district Rule No. 13 "Public Records Search
Requests". This rule says the purpose of this rule is to guide the access of public records under control
of the courts in this district, to protect court records from damage and disorganization, to prevent
excessive disruption of court functions, to provide guidelines for requesting and obtaining information
and to ensure effective and timely action in response to requests for inspection of public records.
Rule No. 13 Public Information Officer. The Eleventh Judicial District Court Administrator shall be the
Public Information Officer for this judicial district.
Rule No. 13 "Hours of Inspection" says public records shall be open for inspection during the time the
district clerks offices are open to the general public. JUDGE WACHTER HAS HAD THIS FILE BACK ON HIS
DESK FOR OVER 3 Y, YEARS AND NO ONE CAN INSPECT ANYTHING IN THE FILE!!!
I also would like to know why on Friday July 7,2017 at 1:00 pm. Crawford County Courthouse violated
rules of the eleventh judicial district Rule NO.3 Clerks Office Hours. This rule says as a general rule the
district clerk's office s shall be open to the general public from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each working day.
The Chief Judge and/or the Court Administrator may, however, authorize the closing of any clerk's office
to accommodate emergencies, weather conditions, court house closings, personnel issues or to complete
accumulated filing, docketing and accounting records.
The courthouse closed down at 1:00 p.m. so that all the court personnel at the Pittsburg Judicial Center
at 602 N. Locust AND the Courthouse in Girard, Kansas(the county seat) could attend the "retirement
party in Parsons, Kansaswhich is 40 minutes away" for Judge Robert Fleming. I don't think a retirement
party counts as an "emergency, a weather condition, court house closing, personnel issues or to
complete accumulated filing, docketing and accounting records."
My thoughts on "personnel issues" and 99.999% of the general population probably thinks the same as I
would that "personnel issues" are things such as the courthouse employees had a breakout of chicken
pox or influenza, or some contractor spilled some waste material that's dangerous, or some other
disease that is contagious, a power outage, but not a "RETIREMENTSOIREE"for Robert Fleming who is
Chief judge A.J. Wachter's previous college roommate, previous co-business owner of the prestigious
Wilbert and Towner! Wow! I work in a public entity and anytime one retires, we have to have our big
shindig after contract hours because the public taxes do not pay us to have a party on their dime.
What about Julie Stover-King also signing a grand jury petition againstJudge Wachter in 15MR2P and
was part of the class action injunction with Michael King, Kasey King, Eric Muathe and others in 15CV79P
where Judge Wachter is a party along with the KansasCommission on Judicial Qualifications. I was also
a party in a federal lawsuit where I was represented by attorney Prince Adebayo Ogemeno of Kansas
City, Kansas in case number 16-cv-2108 along with (50) other people where we filed against A.J.
Wachter's brother Bill Wachter of the radio station "MY TOWN MEDIA". Not a conflict?!!!
Judge Wachter didn't recuse from my case until I had to spend many hours of my time typing up a
Motion for Change of Judge with Affidavit with numerous exhibits that I filed on Monday, July 17, 2017
requesting him to step down, recuse, disqualify himself from this casebecause he can not be impartial
and these are the "EXACTREASONS"a GRANDJURYPETITIONAND CLASSACTIONLAWSUIT,AND RADIO
ADVERTISEMENTTO OUSTTHEJUDGESWAS RAN ON MY TOWN MEDIA radio station because the n-
district judges fail to follow the rules of the code of judicial conduct, they fail to recuse, disqualify from
hearing their past law partners cases,they fail to recuse from hearing casesfrom their fellow members
of their church and organizations in the community which is usually the Catholic church.
Did you know that Judge Wachter already re-assigned my husband's caseto another out-of-district
judge? Which this does comply with K.S.A.20-311 Disqualification of judge to sit in certain casesand
K.S.A.20-311d(b)(c). What you probably also don't know is that he re-assigned it to his good buddy,
Honorable Daniel D. Creitz out of lola. Did you know that Honorable oetrzs son, Daniel S. Creitz works
at Wilbert & Towner, the prestigious law firm that Judge Wachter used to be part owner of and his
brother, Bill Wachter, is currently part owner of? CONFLICTOF INTEREST,point blank. How confident
do you think my husband feels going in front of a judge who's son got hired by his buddy in Crawford
County? When will this behavior stop? We aren't sheep, you can't pull the wool over our eyes!
This case has set for over four (4) years with no activity from the plaintifffrom the last hearing on
9/23/2013 and this case should have been dismissed on 3/28/2014 since I have included an example
from the 2014 Commission on Judicial Qualifications Annual Report "which is the last one I see online
that the commission has completed" and under "IMPROPER" it shows on the 3rd example that II A
judge, who was found to have violated Rule 2.5(A) by failing to take action in a matter for approximately
4 years, was cautioned regarding delay.
That example was against a judge who had never called the party "peanut gallery" which is the same as
an ignorant person and was cautioned prior, and the judge in that example case had never recused in a
prior case and had to have another judge reassigned to the case which AJ. Wachter has all previously
done. He also is used as an example for 2011 as IIIMPROPER" from his caution of the peanut gallery
comment and I have included that with this complaint as well.
A.J. Wachter instead of recusing, disqualifying himself in this case which he previously did in the divorce
case of Deborah King vs. Michael King 09DM341P where he was cautioned from the IIPEANUT GALLERY
COMPLAINTS" and used as an IIEXAMPLE AS IMPROPER" in 2011 by your committee and then he
"RETALIATED" and violated Rule 2.16(B) Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities in Wells Fargo vs. Julie
Brusnskill13CV32P by "DELETING A DISMISSAL HEARING" in 2013 to try to get even with Julie Stover for
getting him previously reprimanded for "peanut gallery" and "NEVER POSTING A DISMISSAL HEARING
AGAIN EVERY TWO - FOUR MONTHS" which happens in every other case in the 11th judicial district.
However, Judge A.J. Wachter did not know at that time that his "ENTIRE CASE LOAD" has been printed
off and researched for "POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST" and this case was a "CONFLICT OF INTEREST"
and that is why we have a copy of this docket from 3/13/2013 that shows on 3/5/2013 there is a
IIMISSING ENTRY ON THE DOCKET AND THIS IS SERIOUS BECAUSE THIS IS COURT MANIPULATION AND
FRAUD". Judge Wachter is the chief judge of the district and he has violated code of judicial conduct
Rule 2.12(A)(B) Supervisory Duties since this case has not been prompt and has been hanging in the
system for (4) years because he removed a dismissal hearing as the chief judge.
Please assign a "temporary commission" to investigate this matter since the Kansas Commission on
Judicial Qualifications are co-defendants with A.J. Wachter in 15CV79P in Crawford County and appeal
case 16-116284-A and this is the exact reason why over 400 people signed a grand jury petition and over
200 signed individual complaints on Judge Lori Fleming of the 11 th district and over 50 people sued A.J.
Wachter's brother, Bill Wachter of MY TOWN MEDIA because we are sick and tired of all the cheating
and the obvious conflicts of interest that keep Pittsburg, Kansas and Crawford County, Kansas a constant
circle of complaints. Had we had more time, more signatures would have been on the Petition. Had our
radio ad not been ordered to be shut down by Judge Lori Fleming on taxpayers dollars and the court's
emailletterhead, we would have had more signatures to change how judges are appointed in this
county. But, here we are. Someone needs to step it up and take control of this awful situation and
realize that the cheating and manipulation and conflicts of interest that most people don't realize
happen to them in this court system down here have to stop. Follow the rules...is that so hard?
Whatever happened to upholding the Oath of Office? Why do you think we want to oust our judges
down here? No matter the time, the trouble, the money, the agony ...we will not stop complaining until
justice is served. Judges should be voted in by the people, not appointed by their peers or good buddy
from higher up. We need out of town judges from across the state to be placed in our county and that is
why we have a House Bill in the works.
As for the transcript beginning on page 45, I don't appreciate Judge Wachter talking about fighting dogs.
Last I knew, fighting dogs was illegal. Have you ever read the book, Saving Audie? It is about one of the
pit bulls that was rescued from Michael Vick's dog-fighting operation ring and given to a new home. "If I
had some dog in the fight, I would recuse myself." That statement makes me sick.
Please look in to this ENTIREmatter,
~?!#fI!fr
303 S.Jefferson St
Frontenac, KS 66763
3
THE COURT: All right. This is Case No. 13CV32P,
2 Wells Fargo versus Julie S. Brunskill. Please
3 announce your appearances.
4 MS. DONNELLI: Good afternoon, Your Honor, this
5 is Jennifer Donnelli for the plaintiff, Wells Fargo,
6 which is also a counter-claimed defendant.
7 MS. STOVER: Your Honor, I'm Julie Stover and I'm
8 the defendant.
9 THE COURT: Okay. You are pretty soft spoken and
10 I'm going to ask you to speak up.
11 MS. STOVER: I've been sick so I'm sorry.
12 THE COURT: .rknowwpoyou are but just remember
13 to speak into the microphone because you are awful
14 soft spoken.
15 MS. STOVER: Okay.
16 THE COURT: All right. The first motion that I
17 wanted to address is a motion to ask me to recuse
18 myself. And I think the motion lays out pretty
19 clearly what Ms. Brunskill feels, and Ms. Brunskill,
20 apparently you have a relationship with Kasey King, I
21 believe; is that correct?
22 MS. STOVER: Yes, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: And you and he were in the courtroom
24 one day when his father Mr. King
25 MS. STOVER: Mike King.

44
~lB1T X
1 MS. STOVER: 678 a month, I was trying to remember
2 what that paper said.
3 THE COURT: Well, the paper I'm looking at says
4 665.
5 MS. STOVER: 665.
6 _.+ .:t~~hly()~ what I will do now is take

~~'~':?~~t~~~;::,.
7 thisund.eragrt~:~~m$bt,
. ...::.: ..-:
~--.~;- ..
I will write an opinion on all
8 the issues that we have involved. I'm not goif:1gto
9 get that done, we've 'been a Judge shy; one of our
10 Judges had to retire for medical reasons, and so we've
11 got kind of double work for the rest of us.
12 Having said that, I'm not crying on anybody's
13 shoulders, I'm just telling you that it ain't going to
14 happen f6r a couple weeks.

~
15 MS. DONNELLI: And, Your Honor --
16 THE COURT: So I'm going to write an opinion.
17 The aggrieved party can do whatever they think they
18 should do.
19 You were going to say something, I interrupted
20 you.
21 MS. DONNELLI: Your Honor, I would be happy to
22 prepare a proposed journal entry if the Court would
23 prefer.
24 THE COURT: No. I will -- we might differ on
25 what we think should be in the journal entry so I will

~tate of 1&.ansm~
([onUlri,nsi on on j!ttbicial Qft{[alif{catioJ1~

K~"s>\s Judicial Center
.lOI S.W. Tenlh Avenue Fncsimile 785-296-1028
Topeka, Kansus 660 12-1507
June 7, 201 I
MEMHlmSOF
PA:'-IF.L A
Kasey McCoy King

CHAIR; P. O. Box 101
Willialll 11.SW""f'Cf Opolis, Kansas 66760
L"wy~r MClllner
VICE-CHAIR: Re: Docket No.1 114, In the Matter of A. J. Wachter

Carolyn TillnL'1l11
l.aY MClIlhcr Dear Mr. King:
NIII">" S. I\n5111<11
l.awyer Memh~f The Commission met June J, 2011, at which time the above-captioned complaint
was cOl;sidcred.
J. l'alrick llmzil
Illdge Member
Judge Wachter acknowledged and expressed regret tor his use of the term
Theodore 13.I C~ "peanut gallery." 11was the consensus 01" the Commission that the judge's use of that
Judge Mcmha
fern;was inappr~ia!e, and it was tile decision of the Commission to caution Judge
Jerulifcr L. Jones Wachter regarding future word choices.. -
Judge Member
Christina Pannhackcr It was further the decision of the Commission that the remaining allegations
I.ay Mernber contalncd in your complaint contained no facts evidencing judicial misconduct as defined
in the Code of Judicial Conduct. .
Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of the Commission. This
Sf.;CRETARY; matter is now closed.
CHrol G. Groen
Kansas Jlfuieilll Center
301 S. W. 1' 11" Averill" Sincerely,
Topeka, KS 66fo 12-15117
William B. Swearer,
Chair
mill
AG-000284
j
I
i
I
!
i Q;:ommi.!3'.!3'ionon jJnhicial @tlalifirRti(Jlt~
I Tckphone n~-]9(,]~I ~1
KMStlS Judicia! CL11lcr
Jill S.W. Tenth Avenue
Tupck". Kansn,; 66612-1507
F."simile 7~.5-296-11128
MEMBERS OF
PAN'ELA June 7, 2011
CHAIR:
WilliHIll H. SWCHror Michael Lee King
l.awycr M,",h., r
['.0, Box 101
VICE-CHAIR: Opolis, Kansas 66760
C"wlT'uTillnts,',n
Lay Mcmh,,'
Re: Docket No. I I 16, r n the Matter III' A. J. Wachter
Nancy S. AnSllh:H.
l.nwycr Mcruber Dear Mr. King:
.I. I"urick Brazil
Judge Member The Commission met June 3, 2011, at which time the above-captioned complaint
wa~ considered .
.fh"o<l" r~ B. Ice
Judge Memher
Judge Wachter acknowledged and expressed regret tor his use of the term
Jennifer L. JflJI~." "peanut gallery." It was the consensus of the Commission that the judge's use of that
Judge M ember
term was inappropriate, and it was the decision of the Commission to caution Judge
Chnsiiua Punnhnckcr Wachter regarding future word choices.
Lay Member
It was further the decision (II' the: Commission that the remaining allegations
contained in your complaint contained no (acts evidencing judicial misconduct as defined
in the Code ofJudicial Conduct.
SF.CRETAnv;
Cnrol n. Green
Killlsas Judieinl Center Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention olthe Commission. This
301 S. W. Tettth Avenue matter is now closed.
Topeka, KS 6(.6121507
Sincerely.
William B. Swearer,
Chair
mrn
AG-000285
~tt1tt
e~
~-~~
of 1itanSfl.9'
~-
...."
.~.~",
([ontlnission on Jubicia[ <!flualifiwtions

Kansas Judicia1.ccmer
Telephone 785-2%-291 J 301 S. W. Tenth Avenue "Hcslmilc 785-296-1028
Topeku, KQ/lsu.~66612-1507
MEMBJ;RS OF
PANEL A June 7, 2011
CHAIR:
Willialll n Swearer Julie Stover
La wycT Memher
303 S. Jefferson Street
YICE-CUAIH: Frontenac, Kansas 66763
Carolyn TillOTson
Lay Member
Re: Docket No. 1115, In the Maller of A . .J. Wachter
Nancy S. Ansucu
Lawyer :',"mher Dear Ms. Stover:
J. Patrick IlTil7.il
J udgc Member 'l11C Commission met June 3, 2011, at which time the above-captioned complaint
was considered.
Theodore II. Ice
Judge Mell1h~'T
Judge -Wachter acknowledged and expressed regret for his use of the term
J~llflj(~r I.. Jones "peanut gilllery." -'1was the consensus of the Commission that the judge's use of that
Judge Member
term v;;a.~ imfPPI9prijlte, and it was the decision of the COllimissJon- tir'cauHon Judge
Christinu Pannoacker Wachtcrrcg~rdillg -fututf word choices.'
Lay Member
It was further the decision of the Commission that the remaining allegations
con lained in your complaint contained no facts evidencing judicial misconduct as defined
in thl) Code ufJudieial Conduct.
S~:CRF.TAR Y:
Carol G. Green
Kansas Judicial Center Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of the Commission. This
.101 S.W. Tcn!h Avenue matter is now closed .
Topeka. KS 66612-1507
Sincerely,
William B. Swearer,
Chair
mm
AG-000286
IN THE DISTRICT COURT ~C{~ uJtoY'o1,--_ ~OUNTY, KANSAS
._tn.i~~LK~~_..__ FIl_EO Plaintiff
VS. CaseNo.4/~C33'
ti n.4t:~ Lv q c. \d cr
'11 APR26 All:23
Defendant
'~LERK or O;S T. Cli\!n,
Subp~o COllHT'(
\ I' e +J'!:.I..._-.!
6a ('3." 11'1' ~--. ""'iT'-
"{ ( '-:.
~.~".!.ic., .r..~t:c
K5__".2.k.~._ _ _ . _
. -_.- . __ ._---- .._-_ _-----------_._--
.....
--_._----- ---
YOUARECOMMANDEDtoappcoratCn!W~...n:L CO.J/I~'1 JveH to;9 L...._
.c~~t.[
..J.lltlJY.J~t- on the 'b Lday aL_NJg.y.... .. ..., ._,
at J...."...~ e,m to testify on behalf of the_ ... 12L~:~...fJ~
~Il..... ..m the above entitled
cetion
o TO TAKE DEPOSITION o BRING WITH YOU THE FOLLOWING:
"J..-5-I/
~-r---
Dated:_'i ...
-, --
PI'(J s
~=========== _ ""'''''.-
' =======
,=_=_~
. ....
I rece~~nu~poeno
..-~~.4-~- ---.
-__
__
' ..
~ _. RETURN ON SERVICE
~tt?_.JL.
end se:ed it by _
.- ...- ...__
---_._--- ; or, 0 was unable to find the witness.
Nole: Affidavit required only if service is made by

person ot~er thon CI Sheriff or his deputy.
AG-000311
XHIBIT F
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS
ERIC M. MUATHE, et al., )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
VS. ) Case No. 15-CV-79P
)
HONORABLE KURTIS LOY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
--------------------------~)
REPLY OF DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Defendants Kurtis Loy, Andrew 1. Wachter, Robert 1. 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 Reply to Pro Se Plaintiffs Eric M. Muathe, Noah Day, Kasey
King, James Beckley, Jr., and Travis Carlton's Response to these Defendants' Motion for
. I
Sanctions.
Pro Se Plaintiffs' Response is a 102 page screed that mostly rehashes their allegations as
to why Defendant judges should have recused themselves in other cases. Those arguments have
I Pro Se Plaintiff's Response is untimely. These Defendants submit this Reply in the event that the Court considers
Pro Se Plaintiffs' untimely Response because they are pro se. (Defendants' Motion for Sanctions was filed on
September 28, 2015. Pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court Rule I33(b), Plaintiffs' R.esponse was due seven days later,
plus three days for mailing (K.S.A. 60-206(d)) or on Thursday October 8, 2015. Plaintiffs' certificate of service,
however, shows that it was served on October 31,2015, and the Court docket shows it was filed on November 2,
2015. )
been dealt with in these Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions and need not
be repeated here. The length, repetitive nature, and untimeliness of Pro Se Plaintiffs' Response
are further indications of the need for filing restrictions against Pro Se Plaintiffs.
Pro Se Plaintiffs argue that because they have filed complaints under the Code of Judicial
Ethics, they are entitled to immunity under Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.16(b), and because
they have filed complaints under Code of Professional Responsibility, they are entitled to
immunity under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 223. Rule 2. 16(b) provides: "Ajudge shall not
retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated
with an investigation of a judge or a lawyer." Rule 223 provides: "Complaints, reports, or testimony
in the course of disciplinary proceedings under these Rules shall be deemed to be made in the course
of judicial proceedings. All participants shall be entitled to judicial immunity and all rights,
privileges and immunities afforded public officials and other participants in actions filed in the courts
of this state." These rules have no applicability to these Defendants' Motion for Sanctions because
the basis and substance of Defendants' Motion for Sanctions is the utterly frivolous nature of Pro Se
Plaintiffs' case, along with the pattern of frivolous court filings by ProSe Plaintiffs. Defendants'
Motion for Sanctions has nothing to do with ethical complaints filed by Pro Se Plaintiffs.
Pro Se Plaintiffs also argue on page 84 that Defendants' Motion would impermissibly impose
"blanket" filing restrictions, as prohibited in Lynn v. Anstaett, No. 108,568,2013 WL 5422344, at *3
(Kan. Ct. App.. Sept. 27, 2013). Lynn v. Anstaett did not prohibit the type of filing restrictions
sought by these Defendants; it prohibited blanket restrictions which would have prohibited Lynn
from filing any pro se case in Shawnee County at all. The restrictions sought by these Defendants
are directly based on restrictions approved by the Court of Appeals in Stute ex ref. Stovull v. Lynn,
26 Kal1. App. 2d 79,81-81 (1999).
2
Pro 5,'(;Plaintiffs make much of the fact that they have, individually. been involved in a
few cases in which their positions were not frivolous. The point of Defendants' Motion is that
*":i~ase i~atel1tly trivolo~: intended for harassment of the Defendants. And as is
demonstrated by the cases involving the various Pro Se Plaintiffs discussed in Defendants'
Motion and exhibits attached to the Motion. . Pro Se Plaintiffs have individuallv and collectivelv .
demonstrated a pattern of abusive filing. Sanctions in the form of the requested tiling restrictions
are warranted.
Respectfully submitted,
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEREK SCHMIDT
Steph~ hillips.] o. 14130

Assistant Attorney General
Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor
120 SW loth Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597
Phone: (785) 296-2215
Facsimile: (785) 296-6296
Attorney for Defendants Loy, Wachter, Fleming,
Fleming, Jack, Lynch, Russell, Smith, Sanders,
Hazlett, Grillot and Schmidt.
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 4th day of November, 2015, 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 US. Mail, postage prepaid to:
Eric Muathe Noah Day

P.O. Box 224 P.O. Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762 Pittsburg, KS 66762
Kasey King James Beckley JI.

P.O. Box 224 P.O. Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762 Pittsburg, KS 66762
Travis Carlton Jim Emerson

P.O. Box 224 Crawford County Counselor
Pittsburg, KS 66762 111 East Forest, 2nd Fl.
Girard, KS, 66713
Judge Jack Burr
Sherman County District Court
801 Broadway, Room 201,
Goodland, KS 67735.
and hand delivered to:
Steve R Fabert
Assistant Attorney General
Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor
120 SW io" Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597
Stephen Phillips ,-
4
fXJtlB.IT Q
FILED
13 SP23 AlY:04
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OO~<tta~Y1 KANSAS
SITTING Al"mW~UNT y'
IY
FlFTIf THIRD BANK, )---
Plaintiff, )
)
YS. ) Case No. 20 12-LM-356P
)
)
ERIC M. MUArnE, )
Defendant. )
)
ORDER
The defendant herein filed a motion for recusal and affidavit in support thereof
seeking recusal of the Hon. A. J. Wachter. The case bas been transferred to this court for
consideration.
At the heart of the defendant's request is the earlier ftling of a small claims suit
with this defendant as plaintiff and Judge Wachter as defendant, being case number 2010
SC 139P. His legal basis derives from the recusal procedure set out in K.S.A. 20-31 Id.
While he cites several of the "Rules Relating to Judicial Conduct" being Rules I.l, 2.1,
and 2.3 which are within Supreme Court Rule 6OtB, the more relevant rule is 2.11 (A):
..u A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the
7f judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned ...
-
As Judge Wachter indicated on the record in the proceedings of June 25,2013,
herein, he is satisfied that be can put aside any prejudice he may feel for the defendant
AG-000030
and decide the case impartially, He demonstrates the same in the proceedings transcribed
by patiently hearing out the defendant and allowing the defendant to make any and all
arguments he may have bad. Judge Wachter then fairly applied tlle law and rendered
appropriate rulings.
The standard of review of rulings on disqualification of a judge are stated in Smith
v. Printup, 262 Kan. 587,1997, at SyI. 8:
The standard to be applied to a charge of lack of impartiality is whether

the charge is grounded in facts that would create reasonable doubt
concerning the court's impartia1ity, not in the mind of the com itself or
even necessarily in the mind of the litigant filing the motion, but rather in
the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances.
This court is satisfied that a jurist of Judge Wachter's experience can easily put
aside any prejudice he may have against the defendant and decide the case only on the
law and the evidence. This court is satisfied that it could do the same under similar
circumstances. This court is satisfied that most if not all lawyers who practice before
Judge Wachter would be satisfied of the same.
However, Judge Wachter's or this court's satisfaction that he could rule
impartially does not resolve the case. The issue is the appearance to a "reasonable
person with knowledge of all of the circumstances". Such a person might well question
the ability of a judge to be impartial under the circumstances.
AG-000031
I
The court notes Judge Wachter's noble intentions to prevent burdening another
judge with the case, however, this concern does not override how an outside "reasonable
person" would view the circumstances.
The court finds that the motion for disqualification should be and is granted, .J(
BY TIlE COURT IT IS SO ORDERED.
~
~iICTJUDGE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DIVISIONU
AG-000032
K
101'1412016 District of Kansas
Query Reports ytilities Help Log Out

EJJ!lB1T
UaS. District Court
DISTRICT OF KANSAS (Kansas City)
CML DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:16-cv-02i08~JAR-GLR
Muathe et al v. Fleming et al Date Filed: 02/18/2016

Assigned to: District Judge Julie A. Robinson Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Eric M. Muathe represented by Adebayo LK. Ogunmeno
Ogunmeno Law Finn, LLC
155 South 18th Street, Suite 250
Kansas City, KS 66102-5654
913-233-2133
Email: aikogun@ogunmenolawfirm.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Julie Stover represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Plaintiff
Kasey Klag represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
LEAD ATTORNEY
Plaintiff
Noah Day represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
LEAD AITORNEY
Plaintiff
Lester MooR represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
LEAD ATTORNEY
plaintiff
RichardiDickersoHll represented by Adebayo LIK.Ogunmeno
il0I1412016 Disbict of Kansas

LEAf) ATTORNEY
PJaintiff
Patrick Dickersolll represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
LEADATTORNEY
ATI'ORNEY TO BE NOnCED
Plaintiff
Travis Carlton represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
LEAD A1TORNEY
Plaintiff
Dustin Blair represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmene
LEAD ATtORNEY
Plaintiff
Michael L. King represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
LEAD ATTORNEY
Plaintiff
Thomas J. Walters represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
LEAD AITORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOnCED
Plaintiff
Frederick Grable represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
LEAD ATTORNEY
Plaintiff
Stacy Stevens represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
LEAD ATTORNEY
Plaintiff
Zachary Walden represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
;1011412016 District of Kansas
Plaintiff
John ClothieIr represented by Adebayo I.K. Ogunmeno
LEAD ATTORNEY
A110RNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Brian Hamma represented by Adebay4J I.K. Ogunmenn
LEAD A TrORNEY
V.
Defendant
Lori B. Fleming represented by Stephen O. Phillips
Office of Attorney General - Kansas
120 SW 10th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Topek~KS 66612-1597
785-3(j~-8421
Fax: 19S-296-6296
Email: steve.phillips@ag.ks.gov
LEAD ATlORNEY
Defendant
Kurtis Loy represented by Stephell O. Phillips
LEAD AlTORNEY
ATTOn/EY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
My Town Media, IDe represented by Bernard J. Rhodes
Lathrop & Gage, LLP - KC
2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2200
Kansas City, MO 64108-2618
816-46()5508
Fax: 816-292-2001
Bmail: brhodes@lathropgage.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Joe Manns represented by Bernard J. Rhodes
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
,. '10/1412016 District of Kansas
, William Bill Wachter
Date Filed # Docket Text
02/18/2016 1 COMPLAINT with trial location of Kansas City ( Filing fee $400, Internet Payment
Receipt Number AKSDC-3690135.), filed by Thomas J. Walters, Patrick Dickerson, Julie
Stover, Jase Greenwood, Eric M. Muathe, Reggie Rhue, Jr., Stacy Stevens, Danny E.
Stevens, Richard Dickerson, Kasey King, Dustin Blair, Frederick Grable, Zachary Walden,
James Beckley, Jr., Travis Carlton, Noah Day, Michael L. King, Lester Moore.(Ogunmeno,
Adebayo) (Entered: 02/18/2016) -
02/19/2016 2- CIVIL COVER SHEET by Plaintiffs James Beckley, Jr., Dustin Blair, Travis Carlton,
Noah Day, Patrick Dickerson, Richard Dickerson, Frederick Grable, Jase Greenwood,
Itasey King, Michael 1.King, Lester Moore, Eric M. Muathe, Reggie Rhue, Jr., Danny E.
Stevens, Stacy Stevens, Julie Stover, Zachary Walden, Thomas 1. Walters. (Ogunmeno,
Adebayo) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
0211912016 NOTICE OF JUDGE ASSIGNMENT: Case assigned to District Judge Julie A. Robinson
and Magistrate Judge Gerald 1. Rushfelt for all proceedings. (This is a TEXT ENTRY
ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry) (ydm) (Entered: 02119/2016)
05/11/2016 .3. WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Thomas J. Walters, Patrick Dickerson,
Julie Stover, Jase Greenwood, Eric M. Muathe, Reggie Rhue, Jr., Stacy Stevens, Danny E.
James Beckley, Jr., Travis Carlton, Noah Day, Michael L. King, Lester Moore. Kurtis Loy
waiver sent on 4/2112016, answer due 6/20/2016. (Ogunmeno, Adebayo) (Entered:
0511112016)
05/1112016 4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Thomas J. Walters, Patrick Dickerson,
Julie Stover, Jase Greenwood, Eric M. Muathe, Reggie Rhue, Jr., Stacy Stevens, Danny E.
James Beckley, Jr., Travis Carlton, Noah Day, Michael L. King, Lester Moore. Lori B.
Fleming waiver sent on 4/2112016, answer due 6/20/Z() 16. (Ogunmeno, Adebayo)
(Entered: 05/11/2016)
05/13/2016 ~ AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Kandice Duncan, Trentin
Calton, Mandy Duncan, Patrick Dickerson, Julie Stover, Jase Greenwood, Robby Phillips,
Eric M. Muathe, Reggie Rhue, Jr., Danny E. Stevens, Chet Stover, Hannah Stover, Matt
Schwab, Whitney Coy, Tristin Cramer, Bo Coy, Zachary Walden, David Wilderman, Tony
Simons, Matt Moore, Leonard Mack, Ben James, Michael 1. King, Brian Hammn,
Thomas J. Walters, Joe Stover. Shawna Smutzler, Makaihlah Gibbs, Deni Melton, Drew
Christiansen, Kevin Seybold, Josh Moore, Stacy Stevens, Karen Calton, Steve Melton,
Richard Dickerson, Dallas Garner, Kasey King, Marc Doherty, John Clothier, Dustin Blair,
Frederick Grable, James Beckley, Jr., Jennifer Turnbough, Travis Carlton, Clark 1.
Anderson, John Mack, Lester Moore.(Ogunmeno, Adebayo) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
05/19/2016 Q CLERKS ORDER EXTENDING TIME until 7/5/16 for Defendants Kurtis Loy, Lori B.
Fleming to answer or otherwise plead. Signed by deputy clerk on 5/19116. (mm) (Entered:
05119/2016)
06/16/2016 SUMMONS ISSUED as to My Town Media, Inc. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There
is no.pdf document associated with this entry) (ydm) (Entered: 06116/2016)
06/16/2016 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Joe Manns. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf
'1011412016 District of Kansas
, document associated with this entry) (ydm) (Entered: ()6/16/2016)
06/29/2016 1 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Lori B. Fleming, Kurtis Loy (phillips, Stephen)
(Main Document 7 replaced on 6/29/2016) (hw). (Entered: 06/29/2016)
06/29/2016 s MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 1MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Lori B.
Fleming, Kurtis Loy (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Contract)(Phillips, Stephen) (Main
Document 8 replaced on 6/29/2016) (hw). (Entered: 06/29/2016)
06/29/2016 2 MOTION to Stay Discovery by Defendants Lori B. Fleming, Kurtis Loy (referred to
Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt) (phillips, Stephen) (Main Document 9 replaced on
6/29/2016) (hw). (Entered: 06/29/2016)
07/08/2016 10 CLERKS ORDER EXTENDING TIME until 7125116 for Defendants My Town Media,
Inc, Joe Manns to answer or otherwise plead. Signed by deputy clerk on 7/8116. (mm)
(Entered: 07/11/2016)
07114/2016 11 MOTION for extension of time to file response to Defendants' 1 Motion to Dismiss and 2
~ Motion to Stay Discovery. Response deadline 7/28/2016 by Plaintiffs Clark 1. Anderson,
James Beckley, Jr, Dustin Blair, Karen Calton7Trentin Calton, Travis Carlton, Drew
Christiansen, John Clothier, Bo Coy, Whitney Coy, Tristin Cramer, Noah Day, Patrick
Dickerson, Richard Dickerson, Marc Doherty, Kandice Duncan, Mandy Duncan, Dallas
Gamer, Makaihlah Gibbs, Frederick Grable, Jase Greenwood, Brian Hammn, Ben James,
Kasey King, Michael L. King, John Mack, Leonard Mack, Deni Melton, Steve Melton,
Josh Moore, Lester Moore, Matt Moore, Eric M. Muathe, Robby Phillips, Reggie Rhue, Jr,
Matt Schwab, Kevin Seybold, Tony Simons, Shawna Smutzler, Danny E. Stevens, Stacy
Stevens, Chet Stover, Hannah Stover, Joe Stover, Julie Stover, Jennifer Turnbough,
Zachary Walden, Thomas 1. Walters, David Wilderman (Ogunmeno, Adebayo) Modified
to change title on 7115/2016 (hw). Modified on 8/3/2016 (ydm). (Entered: 07114/2016)
07/2512016 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and For Failure to State a Claim by
Def~y Town Media, Inc (Rhodes, Bernard) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/2512016 12 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and
For Failure to State a Claim by Defendants Joe Manns, My Town Media, Inc{Rhodes,
Bernard) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/27/2016 14 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second against All Defendants, filed by Kandice Duncan,
Trentin Calton, Mandy Duncan, Patrick Dickerson, Julie Stover, Jase Greenwood, Robby
Phillips, Eric M. Muathe, Reggie Rhue, Jr, Danny E. Stevens, Chet Stover, Hannah Stover,
Matt Schwab, Whitney Coy, Tristin Cramer, Bo Coy, Zachary Walden, David Wilderman,
Tony Simons, Matt Moore, Leonard Mack, Ben James, Michael L. King, Brian Hammn,
Thomas 1. Walters, Joe Stover, Shawna Smutzler, Makaihlah Gibbs, Deni Melton, Drew
Christiansen, Kevin Seybold, Josh Moore, Stacy Stevens, Karen Calton, Steve Melton,
Richard Dickerson, Dallas Garner, Kasey King, Marc Doherty, John Clothier, Dustin Blair,
Frederick Grable, James Beckley, Jr, Jennifer Turnbough, Travis Carlton, Noah Day, Clark
1. Anderson, John Mack, Lester Moore. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)
(Ogunmeno, Adebayo) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
07/28/2016 12 MOTION to Strike 14 Amended Complaint", by Defendants Joe Manns, My Town Media,
Ine (Rhodes, Bernard) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
07128/2016 16 RESPONSE by Defendants Lori B. Fleming, Kurtis Loy re .2 MOTION to Stay Discovery
, II MOTION fOfextension of time MOTION for Extension of Time to File to file
response to1Jefundants' Motion to Dismiss and to Stay Discovery. as to .a Memorandum in
, ',10/1412016 District of Kansas
v
Support of Motion, 2 MOTION to Stay Discovery, 1 MOTION to Dismiss, 1 MOTION
to Dismiss (phillips, Stephen) (Entered: 07128/2016)
07/28/2016 11 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by Defendants Lori B. Fleming,
Kurtis Loy (Phillips, Stephen) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
07/29/2016 MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 11 MOTION for
extension of time MOTION for Extension of Time to Flle to file response to
r Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Stay Discovery. The motion will be resolved by
the District Judge.(ko) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
07/29/2016 18 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to
File Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay Discovery.
Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery was submitted to the Court on June 29, 2016.
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for extension of time on July 14, 2016. The Court
4 therefore denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants'
Motion to Stay Discovery as ,untimely. The Court ~1s Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension
of Time to File Response to Defenaailts' Motion to i5rSmlSs, and extends Plaintiffs'
deadline to respond until Jul~, 2016. PTamtiffs' motion did not state whether there had
been prior consultation with 0 er parties before the filing of the motion. The Court
therefore reminds Plaintiffs of their obligation to cOIDllywith the Local Rules. Signed by
District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 7/29/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is
no.pdfdocument associated with this entry.) (gt) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
08/0112016 12 MOTION for Leave to file Plaintiff's response to defendants Fleming and Loy out of time;
and a~<!itional time to file res~nse to defendant Mann and My Town Media Inc motion to
dismiss by Plaintiffs Clark J. Anderson, James Beckley, Jr, Dustin Blair, Karen Calton,
Trentin Calton, Travis Carlton, Drew Christiansen, John Clothier, Bo Coy, Whitney Coy,
Tristin Cramer, Noah Day, Patrick Dickerson, Richard Dickerson, Marc Doherty, Kandice
Duncan, Mandy iJilIican, Dallas Gamer, Makaihlah Gibbs, Frederick Grable, Jase
Greenwood, Brian Hammn, Ben James, Kasey King, Michael L. King, John Mack,
Leonard Mack, Deni Melton, Steve Melton, Josh Moore, Lester Moore, Matt Moore, Eric
M. Muathe, Robby Phillips, Reggie Rhue, Jr, Matt Schwab, Kevin Seybold, Tony Simons,
Shawna Smutzler, Danny E. Stevens, Stacy Stevens, Chet Stover, Hannah Stover, Joe
Stover, Julie Stover, Jennifer Turnbough, Zachary Walden, Thomas J. Walters, David
Wilderman (Ogunmeno, Adebayo) Modified on 8/3/2016 (ydm). (Entered: 08/0112016)
08/02/2016 MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 19 MOTION for
Leave to file Plaintiffs response to defendants Fleming and Loy out of time; and
addi@nal time to file response to defendant Mann and My Town Media Ine motion
to dismiss. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(ko) (Entered:
08/02/2016)
08/12/2016 20 RESPONSE by Defendants Lori B. Fleming, Kurtis Loy re 19 MOTION for Leave to file
Plaintiffs response to defendants Fleming and Loy out of time; and additional time to file
re.ponse to defendant Mann and My Town Media Ine motion to dismiss (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 1 Exhibit 3)(Phillips, Stephen) (Entered: 08112/2016)
21 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Clark 1. Anderson, James Beckley, Jr, Dustin Blair, Karen
I 08/14/2016
t Calton, Trentin Calton, Travis Carlton, Drew Christiarsen, John Clothier, Bo Coy,
Whitney Coy, Tristin Cramer, Noah Day, Patrick Dickerson, Richard Dickerson, Marc
Doherty, Kandice Duncan, Man'dYDiIDcan, Dallas Gamer, Makaihlah Gibbs, Frederick
Grable, Jase Greenwood, Brian Hammn, Ben James, Kasey King, Michael L. King, John
Mack, Leonard Mack, Deni Melton, Steve Melton, Josh Moore, Lester Moore, Matt
, i10/1412016 District of Kansas
Moore, Eric M. Muathe, Robby Phillips, Reggie Rhue, Jr, Matt Schwab, Kevin Seybold,
Tony Simons, Shawna Smutzler, Danny E. Stevens, Stacy Stevens, Chet Stover, Hannah
Stover, Joe Stover, Julie Stover, Jennifer Turnbough, Zachary Walden, Thomas 1. Walters,
David Wilderman re .2 MQTION to Stay Discovery, 1 MOTION to Dismiss, 12
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and For Failure to State a Claim
(Ogunmeno, Adebayo) (Entered: 08/14/2016)
08/1512016 22 MOTION for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc by Plaintiffs
Clark 1. Anderson, James Beckley, Jr, Dustin Blair, Karen Calton, Trentin Calton, Travis
Carlton, Drew Christiansen, John Clothier, Bo Coy, Whitney Coy, Tristin Cramer, Noah
..,....
pay, Patrick Dickerson, Richard Dickerson, Marc Doherty, Kandice Duncan, Mandy
DUncan, Dallas Gamer, Makaihlah Gibbs, Frederick Grable, Jase Greenwood, Brian
Hammn, Ben James, Kasey King, Michael L. King, John Mack, Leonard Mack, Deni
Melton, Steve Melton, Josh Moore, Lester Moore, Matt Moore, Eric M. Muathe, Robby
Phillips, Reggie Rhue, Jr, Matt Schwab, Kevin Seybold, Tony Simons, Shawna Smutzler,
Danny E. Stevens, Stacy Stevens, Chet Stover, Hannah. Stover, Joe Stover, Julie Stover,
Jennifer Turnbough, Zachary Walden, Thomas J. Walters, David Wilderman (Ogunmeno,
Adebayo) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
, 08/17/2016 23 REPLY to Response to Motion by Defendants Lori B. Fleming, Kurtis Loy re: 1 MOTION
to Dismiss (phillips, Stephen) (Entered: 08117/2016)
08117/2016 24 RESPONSE by Defendants Lori B. Fleming, Kurtis Loy re 22 MOTION for Leave to file
Second Amended Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc (phillips, Stephen) (Entered: 08117/2016)
? 08/18/2016 25 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER d~ 19 Motion for Leave to File. IT IS
\
THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiffs' Monon to File Response to
Defendants Fleming and Loy's Motion to Dismiss Out of Time (Doc. 19) is denied The
Court will not consider Plaintiffs' proposed response in ruling on DefendaritsFfeining and
Loy's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 8/18/16. (hI)
(Entered: 08118/2016)
0812912016 26 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION by Defendants Joe Manns, My Town Media, lne re
22 MOTION for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc ( Reply
~. deadline 9112/2016), REPLY to Response to Motion by Defendants Joe Manns-;1\ty Town
Media, me re: 1ZMOTIffiirroDismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and For Failure to State a
Claim (Rhodes, Bernard) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
10111/2016 MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 22 MOTION for
Leave to file Second Amended Complaint Nunc Pre Tunc, 11MOTION to Strike
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 15 MOTION to Strike 14 Amended
Complaint.j, , The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(ko) (Entered:
10/1112016)
I PACER Service Center I

I Transaction Receipt I
I 10/141201620:15:37
I
PACER
Login:
Idm9251 IClient Code: I I
Search 2: 16-cv-021 08-JAR-
Description:
eport Criteria: GLR
, ~
Ii II Ii ,
;1011412016 District of Kansas
raw.
Pages: II
EXHIBIT H
Rule 166
TIME FOR RULING ON MOTION; MATTER TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT
(a) Ruling on Motion. Ajudge of the district court must issue a ruling on a civil motion not later than 30
days after the motion's final submission except for a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, which
must be issued not later than 60 days after final submission.
(Q)
.~ilnrO!e~~~~~~'{~I'i"~Yteqfi~=I*~nfai'1itj
d~BpiIJfQnofth~ J:.ll~tt.~r
taken under' advisement.and.mlisifumish copies of'all reportsreceived to the
apprHpriat~dep~rtfuerital justice.
Date:
L _ -.~
...:~..:.-:.. 3/13/2014 Crawford County DisfriCfOc{ul't'(Pltfsburg)

EXU/BfT
.. .
~
User: KV
Time: 11:30 AM ROAR(3port
Page 1 of 2 Case: 2013-CV-000032-P pa3e 1
Current Judge: A J Wachter
Wells Fargo Bank Na vs. Julie S Brunskill
Mortgage Foreclosure
Date Judge
4/18/2013 Petition Filed A J Wachter

Document 10 Number: 199432
Affidavit for Service by Publication A J Wachter
Document ID Number: 199433
Request for Service and Instruction Form A J Wachter
Summons Issued to Crawford County SO A J Wachter
4/25/2013 Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Julie Brunskill on April 22 A J Wachter
2013
Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Mary Doe On April 22201 A J Wachter
Summons Served/Returned Residental Service on John Doe on April 22 A J Wachter
2013
5/7/2013 Email Sent Date: 05/07/2013 12:14 pm To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
jcorbett@logs.com File Attached:
SUMMONSSERVEDPERSONALSERVICEONJULlEBRUNSKILL.pdf
Name of Document: Summons Served Personal Service on Julie Brunskill
Email Sent Date: 05/07/2013 12:14 pm To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
SUMMONSSERVEDPERSONALSERVfCEONMARYDOE.pdf Name of
Document: Summons Served Personal Service on Mary Doe
Email Sent Date: 05/0712013 12:15 pm To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
SUMMONSSERVEDRESIDENTALSERV/CEONJOHNDOE.pdf Name of
Document: Summons Served Residental Service on John Doe
5/10/2013 Answer To Petition/Counterclaim A J Wachter
5/13/2013 Affidavit of Publication Notice of Suit A J Wachter
5/17/2013 Email Sent Date: 05/17/201308:43 am To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
jcorbett@logs.com File Attached: ANSWERTOPETITION.pdf Name of
Document: Answer To Petition
5/28/2013 Entry of Appearance for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Wells Fargo Bank A J Wachter
Document to Number: 203834
Motion for Exetension of Time to Respond to Counterclaim A J Wachter
5/30/2013 Order A J Wachter
6/17/2013 Hearinf:) Rescheduled (Motion 08/12/2013 03:30 PM) A J Wachter
--:-=:=--;..:.,=;.
;'.-~~. ~.~,-.,
.;,.' ~.3 . :'2-0;.14.:.:-:.;." . G.~~~9~YC:9!1l1r.{P'J.m:c~G9urt{F~~':;'fE',
'~.'.':'.".-;
2: ,.;rVI ,.,' "R'bARt:port
Case: 2013~CV~000032-P
.. cs Fargo Bank Na VS, Julie S Brunskill
Date
6/18/2013 Notice Of Hearing A j '/Vachter

7/10/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/23/2013 11:30 AM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim
Filed By Fax: Amended Notice Of Hearing - September 23,2013 AT 11:30 A J Wachter
am
7/18/2013 Motion For Relief In The Form Of Quo Warranto A J Wachter
7/24/2013 Motion for Request for Discovery and Case Management Conference A J Wachter
Motion for Change of Judge A J Wachter
9/912013 Motion for Writ in the Nature of Mandamus A J Wachter
Notice Of Hearing on September 232013 at 11:30AM A J Wachter
Motion for Default judgment A J Wachter
3/19/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/23/201304:00 PM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim
Plaintiff Counterlaim Defendants Opposition to Defendants Motion for A J Wachter
Default Judgment
Motion for Continuance or Time of Hearing Change for Good Cause Shown A J Wachter
Amended Notice of Hearing A J Wachter
Document /0 Number: 216123
Amended Notice of Hearinq A J Wachter
Document /0 Number: 216125
124/2013 Notice per Rule 354 Shaun Higgins took notes of the Motion on Sept 23 A J Wachter
2013
0/2/2,013 ~en~rtpAonorClQ!E;Wa :'~/R.q!i.~,&iqver A J Wachter
OocumenWYNllmber: ' ..',. ,
15/20 14 ~ He~-ri~-g:;;1g$:5~etll~ci;:(LUj~~1$S~I
.,o@tgt~()(+4~@9;OQ'AM) A J Wachter
7{'\ ..
)ate: 3/28/20'14 Crawford County District cou., "
:-ime: 03:54 PM
)age 1 of 2
ROAReport
Case: 2013-CV-000032-P
fAHJB1T J
Current Judge: A J Wachter pa~ 1
Jate Judge

4/25/2013 Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Julie Brunskill on April 22 IIJ.. J Wachter
2013
Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Mary Doe On April 22 201 A J Wachter
2013
SUMMONSSERVEDPERSONALSERVICEONJULlEBRUNSKILL.pdf
Email Sent Date: 05107/2013 12:14 pm To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
jcorbett@/ogs.com File Attached:
SUMMONSSERVEOPERSONALSERVICEONMARYDOE.pdf Name of
Email Sent -Date: 05/07/201312:15 pm To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
SUMMONSSERVEDRESJDENTALSERVICEONJOHNDOE.pdf Name of
Document Summons Served Residental Service on John Doe
5/10/2013 Answer To PetitionlCounterclaim A J Wachter
5/13/2013 Affidavit of Publication Notice of Suit A J Wachter
5/17/2013 Email Sent Date: 05/17/201308:43 am To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
jcorbett@Jogs.com File Attached: ANSWERTOPETITION.pdf Name of
5/2812013 Entry of Appearance for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Wells Fargo Bank A J Wachter
Document fD Number: 203834
Document ID Number. 204127
Document lD Number: 204128
6/17/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 08/12/201303:30 PM) A J Wachter
PlaintifffCounterclaim Defendants Consolidated (1) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
r-,, onh:",..i,,,il'Yl ::>nrl (?) Mpmnr::mdum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
"::"'Cra'Wf6fifc(ftrttYDistrictc~~I_'__""""'_
ROA Report.
Page 2 of2 Case: 2Q:3-CV-000b32~P
c.:J~e'1tJudge: A J Wachter
Wells Fargo Bank Na vs. Julie S 8r;j!"S'<ii.
Judge
A J Wachter
"';':t-er: 206283
.... ,\~~Ied (Motion 09/23/201311:30 AM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
. im .
Fif~a&y Fax: Amended Notice Of Hearing - September 23, 2013 AT 11:30 A J Wachter
am
hiSi2013 '~I--',..---c'!g~~i~:~~~'
.'-~f;~.yq-~~~ff~mt9 A J Wachter
-J~if~,~~_ A J Wachter
9/912013 MatioR . amdamus A J Wachter

Dee~:;"''i:':-''i: .
Notice Of Hearing on September 232013 at 11 :30AM A J Wachter
Motion for Default Judgment A J Wachter
9/19/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/23/2013 04:00 PM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim
Default Judgment
9/24/2013 Notice per Rule 354 Shaun Higgins took notes of the Motion on Sept 23 A J Wachter
2013
10/2/2013 !;;~ft~trre~IAf.Qtl~tapleiWa~Ht~rJ.frfonijulie:
Stover A J Wachter
DocumenUO'Number: 217325
Date: 4/3/2014 Crawford County District Courf(PiUsburgj User: POLLY
Time: 01 :51 PM ROARepdrt
Page 1 of 2 Case: 2013-CV-000032-P
Current Judger A J Wachter
Date Judge
Docuhient 10 Number: 199435
4/25/2013 Summons Served/Returned Personal SeMce on Julie Brunskill on April 22 A J Wachter
2013
Summons Served/Return~d Personal Service on Mary Doe On April 22 201 A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 200366 .
Summons Served/Returned Residental Service on John Doe On April 22 A J Wachter
2013
5/7/2013 Email Sent Date: 05/07/201312:14 pm To: Imock@/ogs.com and A J Wachter
SUMMONSSERVEDPERSONALSERVICEONJULIEBRUNSKILL:pdf
Name of Document: Summons Served Persona! Service on Julie Brunskill
jcorbett@fogs.com File Attached:
SUMMONSSERVEOPER$ONALSERVICEONMARYDOE.pdf Name of
Document SummonsServed Personal Service on Mary Doe
Email Sent Date: 05/07/201312:15 pm To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
SUMMONSSERVEDRESfDENTALSERVICEONJOHNDOE.pdf Name of
Document: Summons Served Residenta! Service on John Doe
5/10/2013 Answer To Petition/Counterclaim A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 202053 i\;';
5/13/2013 Affidavit of Publication Noticeof Suit ~ A J Wachter
Document ID Number: 202229 ~
5/17/2013 Email,$ent Date: 05/17/201308:43 amTo: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
jcorbelt@logs.com File Attached: ANSWERTOPETITION. pdt Name of
Document Answer To Petition
5/28/2013 Entry of Appearance for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Wells Fargo Bank A J Wachter
6/:17/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 08/12/201303:30 PM) A J Wachter
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants Consolidated (1) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim and (2) Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
~.'
'~{~/3/2014 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: POLLY

Time: 01:51 PM ROAReport
Page 2 of2 Case: 2013~CV~000032~P
Date Judge
6/1812013 Notice Of Hearing A J Wachter

7/10/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/23/2013 11:30 AM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim
Filed By Fax: Amended Notice Of Hearing - September 23, 2013 AT 11 :30 A J Wachter
am
7/18/2013 Motion For Relief In The Form Of Quo Warranto A J Wachter
Notice Of Hearing on September 232013 at 11:30AM A J Wachter
9/19/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/23/201304:00 PM) Motion to Dismiss AJ Wachter
Counterclaim
Default Judgment
9/24/2013 Notice per Rule 354 Shaun Higgins took notes of the Motion on Sept 23 A J Wachter
2013
10/2/2013 ~!,;tter:;;t<)2~QnpraQle.::Wa(3nle.r~ffGrn.J.Yli~t$to..ver A J Wachter
Document ID Number: 217325 .
-
Date: 7/18/2014 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: DEBBIEF
Page 1 of 2 Case: 20 13-CV-OQ0032-P
Wells Fargo Bank Na VS. Julie S Brunskill
Jate Judge

4/25/2013 Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Julie Brunskill on April 22 A J Wachter
2013
Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Mary Doe On April 22 201 A J Wachter
2013
SUMMONSSERVEOPERSONALSERVICEONJUlIEBRUNSKtLL.pdf
SUMMONSSERVEDPERSONALSERVICEONMARYOOE.pdf Name of
SUMMONSSERVEDRESIDENTALSERVICEONJOHNDOE.pdf Name of
Document: Summons Served Residental Service on John Doe
i/10/2013 Answer To Petition/Counterclaim A J Wachter
;/13/2013 Affidavit of Publication Notice of Suit A J Wachter
';1712013 Email Sent Date: 05/17/201308:43 am To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
jcorbett@logs.com File Attached: ANSWERTOPETITION.pdf Name of
128/2013 Entry of Appearance for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Wells Fargo Bank A J Wachter
/30/2013 Order A J Wachter
117/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 08/12/201303:30 PM) A J Wachter
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants Consolidated (1) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
in SUDDortof Motion to Dismiss
r,..."ntQrf'l::.im ::>nrl f?\ I\IIAmnr;Jnrlllm
... ~.
"~Jate: 7/18/2014 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: DEBBIEF

Page 2 of 2 Case: 2013-CV-000032-P
~IBrr 1
';Veils Fargo Bank Na VS. Julie S Brunskill
p~e.'2..
Date Judge
618/2013 Notice Of Hearing A J Wachter

7~Oi2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/2312013 11 :30 AM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim
Filed By Fax: Amended Notice Of Hearing - September 23, 2013 AT 11 :30 A J Wachter
am
7118/2013 Motion For Relief In The Form Of Quo Warranto A J Wachter
Notice Of Hearing on September 232013 at 11 :30AM A J Wachter
3/19/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/23/2013 04:00 PM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim
Default Judgment
'2412013 Notice per Rule 354 Shaun Higgins took notes of the Motion on Sept 23 A J Wachter
2013
)/2/2013 Letter to Honorable Wachter from Julie Stover A J Wachter
XHIBJI & ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2017 Jun 26 PM 2:59
CLERK OF THE CRAWFORDPITTSBURG DISTRICT COURT
CASE NUMBER: 2017-CV-000072-P
IN THE CRAWFORD COUNTY DISTRiCT, KANSAS

CIVIL DEPARTMENT
KASEY KING
Plaintiff,
}
}
Case No. 2DJ1--e v- 6{fJ)72- P
v. }
} JURYTRlALDE~ED
MY TOWN MEDIA, INC., }
LORI BOLTON FLEMING, and }
KURTISLOY }
______________ ~D=e=fu=n=d=M=~~.~}
PETITION FOR DAMAGES

(Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60)
COMES NOW Plaintiff Kasey King, by and through his attorney Prince Adebayo
Ogunmeno, and for his cause of action against the defendants My Town Media, Inc., Lori
Bolton Fleming, and Kurtis Loy states and alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. The plaintiff Kasey King is an individual person, and a resident of Crawford County,
Kansas,
2. Defendant My Town Media, Inc., is a corporation organized by virtue ofthe laws of
the State of Kansas and doing business in Crawford County, State of Kansas.
3. Defendant Lori Bolton Fleming (hereinafter referred to as "Fleming") is an individual
person and a resident of Crawford County, Kansas.
4. The defendant Kurtis Loy (hereinafter referred to as "Lay") is an individual person
and a resident of Crawford County, Kansas.
5. Jurisdiction and venue is proper in this court pursuant to K.S.A. 60-603 and K.S.A.
60-604 in that all the defendants are resident of Crawford County and all the acts or
omissions which gave rise to this cause of action occurred within Crawford County,
Kansas.
COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANT MY TOWN MEDIA. INC.
6. The allegations contained in the above paragraphs are incorporated herein by
reference.
7. On February 16, 2015, the plaintiff entered into a radio advertisement contract with
the defendant My Town Media, Inc.
8. The defendant My Town Media, Inc., promised to create the content and produce a
radio advertisement for plaintiff's signature drive for a grandjury petition; in
exchange the plaintiff promised to pay defendant its usual and customary charges for
such radio spots for a 30 days run.
9. In addition, the parties' agreement imposes the general contractual duties and
obligations, including but not limited to a duty to act in good faith.
10. The plaintiff fully performed his obligations under the parties' contract by payment to
defendant My Town Media, Inc., in advance, the agreed contract amount.
11. However, the defendant breached the parties' contract when it unilaterally cancelled,
withdrew and refuses to continue to run plaintiff's signature drive radio campaign for
30 days agreed to in the parties' contract without any just cause or legal excuse to do
so.
2
12. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant My Town Media, Inc. 's breach of
the parties' contract, plaintiff suffered damages for which he is entitled to recover
compensatory damages from the defendant My Town Media, Inc.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays the court for judgment against the defendant My
Town Media, Inc., in an amount provable at trial that is just and reasonable, for his costs,
including reasonable attorney fees, if appropriate, and for all other reliefs the court find
just and proper.
COUNTn
TORT10US INTERFERENCE WIm CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT FLEMING AND LOY
13. The allegations contained in the above paragraphs are incorporated herein by
reference.
14. On February 19,2015, there was in existence a valid contract between plaintiffs and
defendant My Town Media, Inc.
15. Defendant Fleming and Loy possessed knowledge of the existing grand jury signature
drive campaign radio advertisement contract between plaintiff and My Town Media,
Inc.
16. Defendants Fleming and Loy willfully and intentionally interfered and brought about
the breach and termination of the existing radio advertisement contract between the
plaintiff and My Town Media, Inc.
17. The defendant Fleming and Loy have no legal excuse or legal justification to interfere
and to cause the breach or termination of the existing contract between plaintiff and
My Town Media, Inc.
3
18. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants' wrongful and intentional
interference with plaintiff's contractual relations with My Town Media., Inc., plaintiff
suffered damages for which he is entitled to recover compensatory damages from
defendants Fleming and Lay.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays the court for judgment against the defendant
Fleming and Lay in an amount in excess of $75, 000.00, award of punitive damages, for
plaintiff's costs, and for all other reliefs the court fmdjust and proper.
DE~FORJURY~
Plaintiff demands trial to the jury of all disputed issues in this cause pursuant to
K.S.A. 60-238.
Respectfully submitted,
Isl Prince Adebayo Ogunrneno

Prince Adebayo Ogunmeno KS # 14808
155 S. 18th Street, Suite 250
Kansas City, Kansas 66102-5654
Tel. (913) 233-2133
aikogun@yahoo.com
.aikogun@ogunmenolawfirm.com
Attorney for the Plaintiff.
4
4
EXHIBIT W
1 THE COURT: Mike King was representing himself in
2 a divorce, and during that it was a pretrial
3 conference, and Mr. King came up or Kasey King came to
4 sit at the table there, the counsel table, with his
5 father, and I thought he should go back and sit where
6 everybody else sits, the spectators sit behind the
7 bar. And I thought that because he's not a licensed
8 attorney, that's why I did that.
9 Earlier I had him in a case management conference
10 and allowed him to sit there -- if my memory is
11 correct, it was a case management conference, because
12 that was rather an informal affair and we were just
13 arranging to set time parameters and that sort of
14 thing.
15 What I dd.d t houqh , I got -- I was surpris-ed
16 because I got information from the Judicial
17 Qualifications folks that a complaint had been made
18 against me for perceived things that happened in that
19 particular hearing.
20 You were there at that hearing, and apparently,
21 as you reflect in the transcript at a later hearing, I
22 didn't remember your name. And I apologize for that
23 but I didn't remember your name.
24 But, at any rate, ybtir~elf, and Kasey King, and
25 Michael King took iss~e with some of the things that I

R-
5
tXHIBIT
1 did, reporte<lmEF_~~~::f~u~_Judicial Qualifications
2 Committee and I prepared a response to that report.
3 And what I -"':"-~.l:t!t;:a;qmoniihmerif, if you want to
4 call it that, ~t:h2rt-tne-J.u:dicial

Qualifications folks
5 sent back on the letter wiiis that I had told you to
6 return told-Mr. Ki:r1grKasey King to go back and sit
7 in the "peanut; -gal:;l,:ery"

.
8 And when I said that, I thought gosh, I didn't
9 say that, I don't that word is not in my vocabulary
10 really. So I had a transcript printed out and, sure
11 enough, it was, and that was inappropriate.
12 I should have said "go back and sit in the
13 spectator section because I can't let you up here",
14 and so forth.
15 And so I acknowledged that to the Judicial
16 Qualifications Board, and excuse me for breaking up,
17 I've got a bad cold but, anyway, I acknowledged that,
18 and they wrote back and indicated that -- "thank you
19 for acknowledging that that would be inappropriate to
20 use that t~f',rti'J, I a.greed to that, that's why I said
21 that, and "we find no other fault".
22 Now, while that was pending, however, Mr. King's
23 divorce final hearing was corning up, and so when I
24 found that he -- you and he and his son, the two Kings
25 and yourself, had complained to the Judicial

6
1 Qualifications Council, I thought while that was
2 I -"':'--If' -f 'stepped
pending, ir--WEn;l:rq::::pe"-2fpp~GPFi-ateif
3 dQw!$~:aPd'recusetrrtiY$,~4i:'Ji"~omth-at:lawsuit atidI,.did.
4 And in the transcript that you -- I've got the
5 whole transcript and in the partial transcript you
6 sent there, noticed I indicated in there that I don't
7 know that I should, simply because I have no prejudice
8 against you, have no prejudice against Kasey King,
9 have no prejudice against Mike King.
10 Arif>'d;f:~:I' hada.fiy-p'rejiJdiceagainst you, I believe
11 that I carreet; tha.taslcl~. And I will tell you as
12 I've told to other folks, that if you prove by
13 evidence, facts that say you should win this case or
14 any issues in this case, I will so hold.
15 Now, I feel obligated as a Judge to accept the
16 cases assigri'edto me. Some cases are harder than
17 others, some lawyers' I like better than others,I'm
18 human. Some people I might like better than others,
19 but in your particular case, ] am not going to recuse
20 myself because I don't feel I should be able to pick
21 and choose the cases that come my way. They are
22 prejudged -- preassigned by a written document filed
23 and the clerk assigns the cases, not the Judges, and I
24 don't feel comfortable in recusing myself from a case
25 unless I've got an awfully good reason.

!EXHIBIT N
RULES OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE OF KANSAS
~e.l
JUDGES
A.J. WACHTER, Division 1, Crawford County Judicial Center,
602 North Locust, Pittsburg, Kansas 66762; (620) 231-3570; Fax:231-0584.
OLIVER KENT LYNCH, Division 2, Cherokee County Courthouse, 100 West Maple
Street, P. O. Box 189, Columbus, Kansas 66725-0189; (620) 429-3518;
Fax (620) 429-1130.
ROBERT J. FLEMING, Division 3, Labette County Judicial Center, 201 South Central
Street, Parsons, Kansas 67357; (620) 421-1410; Fax (620) 421-3633.
DONALD R. NOLAND, Division 4, Crawford County Courthouse, P. O. Box 69,
Girard, Kansas 66743; (620) 724-6213; Fax (620) 724-4987
JOHN C. GARIGLIETTI, Chief Judge, Division 5, Crawford County Judicial
Center, 602 North Locust, Pittsburg, Kansas 66762; (620) 231-3570; Fax (620) 231-
0584.
JEFFRY L. JACK, Division 6, Labette County Judicial Center, 201 South Central
Street, Parsons, Kansas 67357; (620) 421-3216; Fax (620) 421-3633.
BILL W. LYERLA, District Magistrate Judge, Cherokee County Courthouse, 100 West
\
Maple Street, P. O. Box 189, Columbus, Kansas 66725; (620)429-3877;
Fax (620) 429-1130 \ .,
/
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
CLINTON L. HURT, Crawford County Judicial Center, 602 NorthLocust, Pittsburg,
Kansas 66762; (620) 231-0310; Fax (620) 232-5646
PREFACE
The following rules have been adopted by the Judges of the Eleventh Judicial District
of Kansas pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 105. The 11th Judicial District is composed of
Cherokee, Crawford and Labette counties. Copies are on file in the office of each Clerk
of the District Court in this district.
The requirements imposed by these rules upon "counsel" or "attorney" apply equally
to parties appearing without counsel.
Any rule shall be subject to such modification as the presiding judge may deem
appropriate and necessary to meet emergencies or to avoid injustice or undue hardship.
These rules may be amended by the judges of this judicial district. These rules and
any amendments thereto shall be effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of Kansas pursuant to Supreme Court Rule No, 105.
JULIE S, STOVER
No~ry Pub/!c, State of Kansas ~ Nutar JULl~ S. STOVER
v ApP<>lrnment Expires
~{..J... MY PUbl!C, State of Kansas
"'" I, ,
---=~
~:(!!lr~
..
y ~omtmeflt Expires
EXJ.t1 EsIT N
GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
~2-
RULE NO. 1
[Deleted]
.;,aflJ:U,N:o . 2.
:t:iiiii:()f'Cas~s. ::'!'.;"""":' .' .
1.. . Generally. Assignment of cases shall ~~i~~J!!~~j~!lg~sin this district shall

aaree
1:1"i,: ...
}~~4.;-.-:~:.~-".~,.~.~~~~~.
P 2. Percentage Assignment Selection Process. When assignments are to be made

.
on a percentage basis, the clerk shall establish a system that will provide for the random
selection of a judges on the appropriate percentage basis. The selection and assignment
shall not be made until after the case is flied.
3. Refiled Cases. Any case dismissed and refiled shall be assigned to the same
judge to whom it was previously assigned.
4. Assignro.en! of Consolidated Cases. Companion cases shall be assigned to the
judge having the case with the lowest number.
5. Unavailability of Judge. When a judge is unavailable, any case assigned to that
judge may be tried and any pending motion heard by any other available judge in this
district on the consent and agreement of the available judge. Ex parte orders and agreed
orders may be similarly granted when an assigned judge is unavailable.
"':)hen any judge has occasion to ask that a case or cases be
reassign 19nnlent shall be: a) first, by consultation and agreement between
the judges who sit in t4lt unty; b) by the method of random assignment set forth
iJ:J. paragrapJJ,Z abqye;'"'' en!,:~~t\eeIt:the.assignedjudgeand anyotherjudge
'~~~~~:~~~~~~t;#h,9~,.
_., (. -' .
RULE NO. 5
Disposal of Subpoenaed Business Records. When business records are subpoenaed
into the clerk's office pursuant to K.S.A. 60-245a, records not introduced into the record
or made part of the record will be disposed of upon termination ofthe case. Ifretum of
the records has not been requested by the record custodian, the clerk will destroy said
2
EX1111Sif N
records, or they may be released to counsel of record with the written consent of the
p~3
record custodian.
RULE NO. 6
Jury Questionnaires. Jury questionnaires shall be confidential. JuIYquestionnaires will
be available to counsel prior to trial dates. Copies may be checked out but are to be
returned to the court at the conclusion of the trial. Neither counsel nor the parties shall
make any copies of juror questionnaires and all information contained therein shall
remain confidential.
RULE NO. 7
Funds Held By Clerks. A judge of the District Court may order moneys that are
deposited with a Clerk of the District Court pending final determination of an action filed
in this district, be deposited in an interest bearing account in any federally insured
financial institution in this district. When the action has been resolved by settlement or
judicial determination, said funds shall be paid out only upon order of the court providing
for distribution, division or apportionment thereof and of any interest accumulated
thereon. Unless otherwise ordered, interest shall be payable to the person found to be the
owner of the principal fund deposited, or if more than one owner, proportionately on the
basis of the division of the principal amount.
RULE NO. 8
Preparation of Papers. Except as otherwise specifically directed by statute, attorneys
appearing in this district shall be required to complete all summons, garnishment orders;
and subpoenas. Blank forms will be provided by the clerks on request. Foreign service
process papers shall be accompanied by a check in the appropriate amount payable for the
fees and charges of the foreign process server. Subpoenas shall be accompanied by a
check for the statutory witness and mileage fees.
RULE NO. 9
Probable Cause Hearings During Non-business Hours. A probable cause hearing
shall, when applicable, be held in person, by telephone or facsimile with any judge in this
district during non-business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 10;OO p.m., as to any person being
held and entitled to such hearing within 48 hours of arrest, by contacting the judge at his
home.
"...
' ,~~I.!~J~N~'
';-":
'A~r' , udge in Different County. ; "_:::.'.]y'e~mllintall.1e~bm~ren:iam
m?M!, .: ;;~.',,:>~:,.:~;4!~!~~f.i1P~h~~~~~~i~tJ.?,~~~i~~f '."When a file is assigned to a
jtidgesitfilig ill a county other thitii''the''cofulty where the case is filed, the assigned judge
will be mailed a copy of all pleadings in the file to the date of assignment. It will be
counsel's responsibility to direct a bench copy of every item thereafter filed in the case to
the assigned judge so that he can be advised of the progress of the case. All bench copies
and correspondence concerning the case shall be directed to the assigned judge at the
assigned judge's address.
-
~.
Em/BIT N
RULE NO. 11
~t
Security of Court Facilities. Anyone or anything entering a county courthouse or
judicial center within this Judicial District shall be subject to search. No person, other
than a law enforcement officer or other person or official as authorized and described in
K.S.A. 21-4218, shall possess a firearm while on courthouse or judicial center grounds in
this Judicial District. Conspicuously placed signs clearly stating this policy shall be
placed in the courthouses and judicial centers in this district.
RULE NO. 12
Media Coordinator. The Court Administrator is designated as Media Coordinator for
purposes of working with the chief judge, the trial judge and the media in implementing
Kansas Supreme Court Rule 100 I with respect to electronic and photographic media
coverage of judicial proceedings in this district.
&\.. -.~Vi~;c;~;~amupfi9t>!!:r:::~~:!t!::
for requesting and obtaining information' and to ensure effective and timely action in
response to requests for inspection of public records. [K.S.A. 45-215 et seq., K.S.A. 28-
170, Kan~~~,Supr,~lI1~~Ptlf:tA~mjnistrative Order No. 156.J ... " .
Rtibli~mt6r;aiiij1f4}:ffi~f;'The Eleventh Judicial District QQ~t _~~.,.
shall be the P . n Officer for this judici@.ldistrict.
theJ~i,s.~~gi~~~~~~~~~~~' ;. '~''3~~~~I~{o~~pe~tion.;~~J~g;!!~:J~e
- Accessl<YReCoids. Irispectitfli requests should be made in writing on a form to be
provided by the Clerk. The use of the form is encouraged but not mandatory in all
circumstances. The Clerks of the Courts in this district have designated all trial court
clerks as additional persons to be custodians of the records for the purposes of the Open
Records Act.
Fees. The fee to be paid for a copy of any record shall be 25 cents per page and
$1.00 per certification. An access fee of$12.00 per hour maybe assessed for employee
time when concentrated attention of a custodian of the records is required. Payment in
advance of the custodians estimated fees may be required.
Clerks Authority. No district court employee may conduct a search that requires
the making of a legal judgment or determination.
Criminal Records. Requests for criminal record searches for employment, credit
or the like shall be referred to the executive branch agency most likely to have centralized
reference files, e.g., the Kansas Bureau of Investigation or the Division of Vehicles.
Confidential Records. Certain court records are confidential and are excepted
from public examination and disclosure under the Kansas Open Records Act. The
disclosure of these records is specifically prohibited or restricted by federal law, state law
or by Kansas Supreme Court Rule. Confidential records include, but are not limited, to
the following:
4
45
1 prepare my own.
2 MS. STOVER: Thank you, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Do you have any questions?
4 MS. STOVER: Not at this time, sir.
5 THE COURT: You fully understand now that I
6 didn't recuse myself because I don't think I'm I'm
7 not against you, that is what I feel.
8 If you feel I'm against you, you, obviously, know
9 that KSA 20-311 I think it is, isn't it, gives you the
10 right to file an affidavit and precisely say why I
11 shouldn't be on this case.
12 MS. STOVER: No, sir, I just assumed --
13 THE COURT: You have that right. You know that,
14 don't you?
15 MS. STOVER: Yes, sir. But whenever Janice
16 Russell was assigned my case, I just assumed that you
17 had recused yourself so
18 THE COURT: I did not.
19 MS. STOVER: So I appreciate you clearing that up.
20 THE COURT: I did not. I feel that I have got to
21 handle the cases that are put in front of me, whether
22 I like or not, or get off the bench. That is the way
23 I do it.
24 MS. STOVER: Thank you.
25 THE COURT: And if I felt I was prejudiced,

. -
I
46
V.
1
2
would recuse myself.
. If I had som~og
- - in the fight,
I would recuse roysel.!'- I don't in th"is case ~and y~u

-
,7l\:
3 are going to have to file a prejudice affidavit if you
4 want me to -- if you want that to be considered
5 further.
6 MS. STOVER: Okay, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: I want to make sure you understand
8 that.
9 MS. STOVER: Yes, sir, I do, thank you.
10 THE COURT: All right. Having said that, have a
11 great trip. Are you living in Frontenac?
12 MS. STOVER: Yes, sir.
13 THE COURT: Have a great trip back to Frontenac.
14 MS. STOVER: Thank you.
15 THE COURT: You have a great trip back to Kansas
16 City.
17 MS. DONNELLI: Yes, thank you, Judge.
18 (Whereupon the proceedings concluded at 5:12
19 p.m., September 23, 2013.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fax Server 8/12/2011 3:24:01 PM PAGE 4/005 Fax: Server
FILED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF eRA wmm~~1AlO~SAS
JPMORG~'J CHASE BANK, N.A. AS t:lRK OF mst GOUt:l.x11lFF

CRAWFORDCOt1mn
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO EMC IY ...
MORTGAGE CORPORATION
vs. Case No. 1OCV0021 8P

Div, No.
K.S.A.60
Mortgage
Foreclosure
ERIC MUATHE. et al, DEFENDANTS
o ER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOW ON this \S'~y of 2011, the above entitled matter
comes on for hearing on the motion of the plamtiffto dismiss this action without
prejudice. Plaintiff appears by its attorney, Linda S. Mock. The defendants appear not.
There are no other appearances.
The Court. being well and fully advised in the premises. finds that the plaintiff is
not ready to proceed with the foreclosure action at this time and therefore plaintiff has
agreed to dismiss this action without prejudice. The Court further finds that the motion
of the plaintiff to dismiss without prejudice should therefore be sustained and the costs
assessed against the cost deposit.
IT IS SO ORDERED .
r- case sho~J~ d~+ld~~_

/JeeJ) dislYti$sJ
r 5 One- ~ 1Wne- is b~k ripe, .r;dis~
ITbfl\ 3/'l8/l4. 08112/2011 FRI 15:27 [TX/RX xo 5594J 141004
Fax Server 8/12/2011 3:24:01 PM PAGE 5/005 Fax Server
Jf'Mergun Chase Bank- N.A. as successor by merger 10 EMC Mortgage COrp(11 ation
v, Eric Muathe
Case No. IOCV00218P
Order of Dismissal
APPROVED:
SHAP1RO & ~lOCK, LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff
63 J () Lamar - Suite 235
OVerland Park. KS 66202
(913)8313000
Fax: No. (913)831-3320
OU! file No. !O-OU09U2/dkb
By:
U:--':DAl';. 10rK, #147-40
- WEND M. GREEN. #.19505
08/1212011 FRI 15: 27 [TX/RX NO 5594] @005

Date: 7/28/2017 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: KV
Time: 08:07 AM ROA Report
Page 1 of 3 Case: 2009-DM-000341-P
Current Judge: Out of District Judge
Deborah L King, Petitioner vs. Michael L King, Respondent
Marriage DissolutionlDivorce
Date Judge

Domestic Relations Affidavit A J Wachter
No summons issued at this time A J Wachter
9/22/2009 Entry of Appearance and waiver of srvc A J Wachter
9/30/2009 Answer to petition for divorce A J Wachter
Domestic Relations Affidavit of Michael A J Wachter
1/19/2010 7f'Hearing Resche~uled (Notice of Intent to Dismiss 02/18/2010 09:00 A~ A J Wachter
1/25/2010 :::,.p Notice of intent to dism. Cpy to Katherine Morin & Michael King A J Wachter
-~ Document 10 Number: ~3252
2/112010 Notice of servc of Petitioner's interrogs and req for production of doc's to A J Wachter
respondent
Motion to retain case on docket A J Wachter
2/3/2010
4/7/2010
~
-* Hearing Rescheduled
Hearing Rescheduled

(Notice of Intent to Dismiss 03/18/2010 09:00 AM)
(Notice of Intent to Dismiss ib 05/07/201009:00 AM)
A J Wachter
A J Wachter
4/8/2010 Hearing Rescheduled (Check Status 06/08/201009:00 AM) A J Wachter
6/29/2010 Notice Of Hearing A J Wachter
7/112010 Motion to expedite case on docket A J Wachter
7/2/2010 Answer to JE and Decree of Divorce A J Wachter
8/12/2010 Order (pretrial conf 8-30-10 at 1:30 pm) A J Wachter
8/26/2010 Affidavit A J Wachter
9/112010 Notice of notes by Higgins A J Wachter
9/23/2010 Journal Entry and decree of divorce A J Wachter
11/2/2010 Letter from Defendant to Plaintiffs atty A J Wachter
Motion for proposed settlement A J Wachter
12/20/2010 Motion for cant. A J Wachter
~ \Mh.pYI. ,~ NJ J rlic.'\Jic.~~ ~nt\ 3/~/'A 12 - \ . .L, ? /1. I

Page 2 of 3 Case: 2009-DM-000341-P
Date Judge

12/27/2010 Objection to cont. A J Wachter
Motion to dismiss case on docket due to lack of prosecution A J Wachter
Letter to atty A J Wachter
12/28/2010 Order Final settlement hearing 4-18-11 at 1:30 pm A J Wachter
Notice of notes by Higgins A J Wachter
12/29/2010 Motion and order for transcripts A J Wachter
1/13/2011 Letter to Judge asking for cpy of transcripts free of charge A J Wachter
Letter from Judge denying request A J Wachter
2/11/2011 Motion to allow telephone of video appearance and for expedited hearing A J Wachter
2/15/2011 Notice Of Hearing A J Wachter
Objection to allow telephone or video appearance and for expedited hearing A J Wachter
2/17/2011 Motion to Stay or Dismiss Proceedings in Small Claims Court & to A J Wachter
Consolidate Proceedings.
2/23/2011 Objection to motion to stay or dismiss proceedings in small claims court A J Wachter
and objection to consolidate proceedings
2/25/2011 Objection to allow telephone or video appearance and for expedited hearing A J Wachter
Objection to motion to stay or dismiss proceedings in small claims court A J Wachter
and objection to consolidate proceedings
2/28/2011 Notice of notes by Higgins A J Wachter
3/3/2011 Complaint filed by Michael King A J Wachter
3/9/2011 Response to Mike King by Clerk's office A J Wachter
3/14/2011 Letter From Clerk of the Court to Mr. King A J Wachter
3/21/2011 Motion to Dismis Case on Docket A J Wachter
'"'-_..~~~, In "I, ,,,,,h,,,r' 1 ') 1 Lion
Page 3 of 3 Case: 2009-DM-000341-P
Date Judge
3/22/2011 Transcript of Pretrial A J Wachter

3/25/2011 General Durable Power of Atty A J Wachter
3/28/2011 Letter From def to atty A J Wachter
Letter From def to judge A J Wachter
3/30/2011 Order allowing Petitioner to appear by phone. A J Wachter
4/612011 Objetion to order A J Wachter
Motion for judge to disqualify himself due to conflict of interest A J Wachter
Motion for continuance A J Wachter
4/13/2011 Letter From Mr. King to Judge Gariglietti accompanied by letter from A J Wachter
Commission on Judicial Qualifications.
4/18/2011 Transcript of motion to cont. A J Wachter
Transcript of Pretrial A J Wachter
Work History of Mr. king A J Wachter
4/20/2011 Notice of notes by Higgins A J Wachter
4/29/2011 Transcript of proceedings A J Wachter
5/912011 Motion to withdraw as counsel A J Wachter
5/11/2011 consent to withdraw of counsel (Katherine Morin) A J Wachter
5/23/2011 Letter From Mr. King to Judge Gariglietti A J Wachter
5/25/2011 Assignment of Judge Russel to case 09DM341 P A J Wachter
3/212011 Letter From from Elaine advising the Judge Russell has been assigned A J Wachter
3/3/2011 Order permitting withdrawal (Kathrine Morin) A J Wachter
3/20/2011 Judge: Administrative Reassign Out of District Judge
Copy of account Transcript from IRS. Cpy sent to Judge Russell Out of District Judge
Date: 7/28/2017 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) NO. 0376401
Time: 08: 11 AM Receipt Page 1 of 1
Received of: King $ 2.25

--~--------------------------------------------------------- --------
Two and 25/100 Dollars
Case: 2009-DM-000341-P Defendant: Deborah L King, Petitioner vs. Michael L King, Responc Amount
Photocopies 2.25
Total: 2.25
Payment Method: Cash

Amount Tendered: 2.25
By:
Clerk / Deputy Clerk
'10 .IAN 25 A 9 :16
\~\J~ ;:,"',, :;':T}5~f!r;"

CRAW-
tl'i .,-",
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS
SITTING IN PITTSBURG
Deborah L King, Petitioner Plaintiff
VS. Case No.2009-DM-000341-P
Michael L King, Respondent Defendant
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS
TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD:
, b ve entitled case will be dismissed on.

You are hereby notified that the a 0 I be shown for not doing so:
2118/2010 at 9:00 AM for the following reason. un ess cause
X Lack of Prosecution tilL "I
Journal Entry has not been~ Jtt.)~

Date: 1119/2010 District Court Judge
Copies to:
Katherine M Morin Michael L King

PO Box 1343 801 Lakehurst Ave.
Pittsburg, KS 66762 National Park, N.J. 08063
I.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was
deposited in the United States Mail, post e prepaid and properly addressed to the above
party or parties on the r-
;;, day of , 20jQ.
Judge Wachter's incompetence also does not comply with "REPORT OFSUPREMECOURT STANDARDS
COMMITlEE-GENERAl PRINCIPLESAND GUIDELINES FOR THE DISTRICTCOURTS" which says that:
Justice is effective when it is:
(A) Fairly Administered Without Delay
(B) By Competent Judges
(C) Operating in a Modern Court System
Businesslike in management with nonjudicial duties performed by a competent administrative staff
(0) Under Simple and Efficient Rules of Procedure
Designed to encourage advance trial preparation,
Eliminate the element of surprise,
Facilitate the ascertainment of truth,
Reduce the expense of litigation,
And expedite the administration of justice
(2) Litigation delay causes litigants expense and anxiety. Judges and lawyers have a professional
obligation to avoid misuse and overuse of discovery and to terminate litigation as soon as it is
reasonably possible to do so.
(4) No case should be permitted to float in the system. It is the responsibility of the trial judge assigned
the case to take charge of the case at an early date in the litigation and to control the progress of the
case thereafter until the case is determined.
(5) There should be time standards established as a guide for the disposition of cases, with the
understanding that they system must have flexibility to accommodate tile differences in the complexity
of cases and the different problems arising in urban and rural judicial districts. A certain amount of
delay may be necessary in an individual case.
(6) Assuming adequate trial court staffing and facilities, trial court delay, i.e., unnecessary waiting time,
is not inevitable. The pace of litigation is not necessarily determined by court size, individual case loads,
or the percentage of cases that go to trial.
(7) The pace of litigation is often the result of "local legal culture" rather than court procedcures, case
load, or backlog. Local legal culture consists of the established expectations, practices, and informal
rules of behavior of judges, attorneys and the public.
(8) The most effective way of combating court delay is to modify the local legal culture by the adoption
and use of a case management system. The basic concept of case management is that the court, rather
than the attorneys, should control the pace of litigation. It is the duty of the judge to the people to run
the court and not abdicate the responsibility to counset.
(9) An effective case management system requires that specific steps be taken to monitor and control
the pace of litigation. Among these are the following:
(A) Early and continuous control of the court calendar by the judge
(8) Identifying cases subject to alternative dispute resolution processes;
(C) Developing rational and effective trial-setting policies;
(D) Applying a firm continuance policy. Trial continuances should be feq; good cause should be
required, and all requests should be heard and resolved by a judge;
(E) Older cases should be emphasized and ordinarily given priority in trial settings;
.(F) A useful and efficient information system should be available to identify cases that are at variance
with the suggested time standards and to provide a continuing evaluation of the system as a whole.
TIME STANDARDS
(l) All Chapter 60 civil cases, except domestic relations cases, should ordinarily be set for an initial
discovery conference within forty-five days of the filing of an answer to explore prospects for
settlement, a time schedule for completion of discovery, and the setting of a date for a pretrial
conference and for trial;
(2) Any civil case which has been pending for more than one-hundred (1BO) days shall be of special
concern to the trial judge and should ordinarily be given priority in all trial settings.
(3) The trial judge to whom cases are assigned should be responsible for the dispositioin of those cases
and should, so far as reasonable possible, bring them to trial or final disposition in conformity with the
following median time standards:
Civil Cases
Non-Domestic Civil-to final disposition, with in a median time of one-hundred-eighty (180) days from
date of filing.
My chapter 60 civil case has been floating in the system since April 18, 2013 for approximately one
thousand five hundred and twenty (1520) davsllll I!! Supreme Court Rule 166 Matters taken under
advisement states that Judge Wachter should have filed a written report with Judicial Administrator five
(5) days after the 90 days he took the case under advisement on September 23, 2013 which is
approximately one thousand three hundred and seventy (1370) days ago and is one thousand two
hundred and eighty days (12BO) past the 90 days the report with the judicia' administrator should have
been filed. Judge Wachter should have filed a report with the judicial administrator back on December
23, 2013 which was ninety (90) days after the case was taken under advisement on September 23, 2013.
SUPREME COURT RULES
REPORT OF SUPREME COURT STANDARDS

COMMITTEE-GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND
GUIDELINES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS
The attached report, adopted by the Supreme Court ; (2) jtigatiop. . delay cai1~es..litigants ekp..e.nse,~.;
Standards Committee on October 24, 1980, is hereby ~ma~tyfJu<!gg~'all:~'!gWyel's-have ilpr6fessional obli--,
adopted by the Supreme COUlt, effective December gauo.nJo aVoid)n~i!se and overuse of discovery andN<c
11, 1980, as a statement of the goals of the Kansas tl'rfiiIna:tttitig~tigli. as
sodn as' iris reasonably poss:i!'i}
judicial system and of the general principles and time to-do:so. - -- - ,.-.-.
standards to be used as guidelines for the processing (3) The ultimate judicial goal should be justice, Il{Jit,'-
of cases by the District Courts of this State. speed, in the disposition of cases. Cases should.!:le'>'
The report shall be published in the Kansas Reports determined on an individual basis, not on an assembly!,
as a part of the Supreme Court Rules 'Relating to line. Litigants and counsel should be afforded a'X
District Courts. reasonable time to prepare and present their cases, i
~. ,~- ~
.~,- -.'" " ..,~~,.;
(1) We approve the credo of the Joint Committee _(.4)(No. caseehould cbe permitted to:,flo~t In ..t' ,
for the Effective Administration of Justice adopted in -of. tl~e trial jUag?'.:
t>ystem.. :;,Wis -th~.;:t~,sP..Qm;ibiliJy
the 1960's as a general statement of the goaJs and asslg'l!etl'=tbe ca:se.to Jak~, eh~ilge' Q.{ the ca-s~,(iFfu;i-
purposes of the K~~sas Judicial System. ei!ily {late.in th~litig~t!Q,Jign(Lto :contr61.:.the.Pl'O~'
.Justice;;-effect1ve 10k~niti.~.0:.:
of the' case tnereafter until the case is detel'mine&-'~,
'=-~:"-:-:::-. :'":.:" .(5) There shoUJ.4be time ~t:!l;lali!.\$ establJilheg q:s.r.':
(A) Fairly-Adm:iniste1'ed WitJrout:.Del{PY: gUi(je' for the d!spositioI)..of-cases, with:".1;ne-und&-",.
Witna1l'iftigants: -indig~nt' ~nd
;;thel'\\is~; and espe- standing' that the-system must have f1~xibilitytt:<.
cially those charged with crime, represented by com- accommodate the differences in the complexity d)
petent cOlJ.!!~e!~
_ cases and the different problems arising in urban anti <~
rural judicial districts. A certain amount of delay:'
(B) ,By C6?np~tent Judges may be necessary in an individual case. -
Selected "through -n~n-political methods based on (6) , Assl.tl11ingadgquatetrial COUltstaffing and facu~'
merit, ities;';malcoUl!j; d.~l~Y;
i,~" unnecessary waiting tinif-,;.
In sufficient numbers to carry the load, is not inevitable. The pace of litigation is not neCK'"','"
sarily determined by court size, individual case loads..
Adequately compensated, with fair retirement bene- or the percentage of cases that go to trial. ..:;
fits,
(7) The pace of litigation is often the result of "lo~ ':If
With security of tenure, subject to an expeditious legal culture" rather than court procedures, case loa!i;/;':i[
method of removal for cause,
or backlog. Local legal culture consists of the estate ";~~If-
(C) Opemting in. a Modern Court System lished. expe~tations, practices, and info~al rulesO,',r::,.,:.:,'.+,;"".:
Simple in structure, without overlapping jurisdic- behavior of Judges, attorneys and the public, "S,;
tions or multiple appeals, (8) The most effective way of combating court d'; \;jt
)3uSinessllke,~, m~nagement\~'itb.:.~o!I.iucli~ialduties lay is to mOdify,.the l,ocallega,I,culture by theadOPti~-.'.:...;.'
:~;i,;
peffo.pned.bya-,coinpet!:lnt admifii~tJ:'atives~f, . " al;c!_use ofa case management system, T~e ,,:;L
.r;-----4,.... ".,. " .... '"". concept of case management is that the:cburtT l'lt <i~
,Wi~h practical .methods of eqitiillzi.ng the 'judicial
woF~oftd, '
t~an the .atorn~y!>,shoul~ ~con~!Or
t}i.e;:Ra~~Qf",' :i;,{4
tion, Lt 1S -tlle duty of the Jugge:.to~t.ne:,p$op!a't(}, ,.';.:'i;~
With an annual conference of the judges for the the court aha' not abdicate the ~'esporisil:lilityt6'co\m.";,:;~
purpose of appraising and improving judicial tech- ~A
niques and administration, (9) An effective case management system req~;::i~i
(D) Under 'Simple and Efficient Rules of Proce- that specific steps be taken to monitor and control iliF..id
di{1'e ., '. . ,'- . pace of litigation. Among these are the followmg:_~>~
,', ",/
Designed to encourage advance trial preparation, (Ae) Early.andcontinuous control ofJ;he courtc~~::;:;J
darby the judge; , '::' ':J
.E~~tE!, th~JlJement ofsurprise,
(B) Identifying cases subject to alternative disp:r-~:;l
f~cijitate the ascertainment of truth, resolution processes;!
".,j
~eiu~e~the .expense of Jitigatfo!), (C) Developing rational and effective trial-setG:;-,i:;
And expedite the administration of justice. policies;
.:i
470 ',
DISTRICT COURTS
n Applying a firm C0n:;j:ZI'~-;"'C;2 policy. Triill con- Domestic Relatio;;.,--;.,~DW disposition, within
tinuances should be fe*,'gr,,-:~" cause should be re- a median time I~f(,,,e-olind!'ed-twenty (120)
quired, and all requestst<:lrr: ce heard and resolved days from date of ili4'lg:. .' .'.
by a judge; .... Chapter 59 Cases-(Probate GI,:i:odrtrinistration of
estates-uncontested, a..'1G ,iit~nofederal es-
(E) Older cases.shi . tate tax return requirecll-c(,nrtit1di.sposition,
j1 'given prlOfity41Ji\t. within a median time of one ;:eE fr(jrn date of
(Ff A' '~seful .and emdent information system filing.
should be available to identifv cases that are at vari- Criminal Cases
ance with the suggested time ~tandards and to provide Felony-to trial or plea, within a median time of
a continuing evaluation of the system as a whole. one-hundred-twenty (120) days TrOD date of
(10) The judges and the lawyers of Kansas should flrst appearance.
work together with interested citizens to monitor the Misdemeanor-Cexcluding traffic)-to trial or plea,
workings of the judicial system in the state and each 'within a median time of sixty (60) days from
judicial district, They should explore methods of date of first appearance.
improvement, keep the public informed of the opera- Traffic-to trial or plea, within a median time of
tion of the courts, and seek public suggestions and thirty (30) days from date of filing.
support for the improvement of the judicial system. The term "median" as used in these time standards
TIME STANDARDS means that at least 50% of the cases subject to judicial
determination are tried 01' disposed of within the
(1) All Chapter 60 civil cases, except domestic rela- established time standards.
tions cases, should ordinarily be s~tj for an initial .~.-~~:wnen.;;,-a
report of the Judicial AdnJirrist.rator
a
I discovery conference within forty-fiv8"(45) days of the
filing of an answer to explore prospects for settlement,
a time schedule for completion of discovery, and the
- _~cWi.l;c::!se.h,a~
been pe'pdltigJ~i',wqre tlj~}l
_ . ,. $ll~Pc~e Ell:ullt,be-"giv~n""priq.nt@:~QVElJ'
subseqltently filed cases and the adminis1'litive:judge
all
I I,
setting of a date for a pretrial conference and for trial;
(~) Any civil casew..trich has been pending for more
.'sh9:i!i~~poit; t~~reason fOl:delayin dispo~ition.to the
dep~me~till justice.
f thair'o:rie~hunlfredr,i:!!ghtN.(189~day,s-shal1-'beofspeailil (5) In every judicial district in the state, there
concern to the ~tl:i1ir'judge apd should 'ordinarily" be
I given. priority- fu all trial settings.
should be established a bench-bar committee com-
posed of judges and lawyers to monitor the operation
of the courts in the district, to develop programs for
J
5.:" (3) The trial judge to whom cases are assigned
improvement of court services, and to formulate and
should be responsible for the disposition of those cases carry on a continuing educational program to inform
and should, so far as reasonably possible, bring them the citizens in the district about the functions and
to trial or final disposition in conformity with the
operations of the courts and the basic liberties and
following median time standards: freedoms guaranteed by our form of government.
Civil Cases (6) In the setting of cases for trial, a trial judge
shall respect and accede to a prior prime or firm
Chapter 61 Cases-to final disposition, within a setting of a case in another court involving the same
median time of sixty (60) days from date of att~rney or. attorneys. Ti~al.jugges '~h~ll cqop~r!lte;in
filing, resolving' copflicts in hial"settihgipas'tne,interest"Qf
Chapter 60 Cases- justicf.imiy ieqtiu'e. in .pesolving,conpietsiiI~:~trial
Non-Domestic Civ:il-tofinal dispositionf-wi1!h~ setgngsi"j,!ll~Yeases- slioma- ordinarilytake precedence
~ .::~;median~ time. of: one,himdied"eignty over;nonjul'Y cases. ..' .
(180) days from date of filing. [Amended effective March 11, 1999,]
.thei1
1.Q('~,S_
no
471
New Legislation to Put Kansas Court Rulings on Time Limit 3/12/14 12:35 PM
INSURANCE JOURNAL I INSURANCE JOURNAL TV I ACADEMY OF INSURANCE I MYNEWMARKETS.COM I CARRIER MANAGEMENT [_. J (~J
Featured stones Site Partner
Property Claims Satisfaction Continues
Improving Building Codes With Better Data
Kansas Lawsuit Damages Cap Debated
Claims Conference
Tennessee Candle Fires Calise $'14fvl in ... &Insuranc:e Sorvlces Expo
Front Page News Topics Magazines Jobs Events Resources Podcasts Subscribe
Most Popular National International East Midwest South Central Southeast West
Sign up to get news!

New legislation to Put Kansas Court
Email Address
Rulings on Time Limit
By JOHN MILBURN I January 28,2014 Follow@cjournal ,; 7,784 followers
Email This Print Newsletters
Have 3 news tip? Tell us.

Tweet 1
A key Senate leader is pushing passage of a measure that would restrict the amount of time
judges in the Kansas court system could take before issuing opinions.
Senate Vice President Jeff King said the bill would set a deadline for district courts, the
Kansas Court of Appeals and the Kansas Supreme Court to issue an opinion once a case
has been heard for argument. The measure has been introduced in the Senate Judiciary
Committee, chaired by the Independence Republican.
A word from our sponsor:
WSI
WSI, the professional division of The Weather Company and
(, innovation engine of The Weather Channel, provides weather data
and tools to help your team prevent claims, mitigate risk,
communicate with policyholders, respond to catastrophe and
make intelligent business decisions before, during and after a
storm. Learn More!
Legislators have been waiting on the Supreme Court to issue its ruling on a school finance
lawsuit that was heard on appeal by the justices in October. No date was mentioned when
Chief Justice Lawton Nuss pronounced at the close of the hearing that court would "take the
matter under advisement."
lttp://W\vw .claimsjournal.com/ news/ midwest/2 0 14 /0 1/28/243482 .htm Page 1 of 4

.'Legislation to Put Kansas Court Rulings on Time limit 3/12/1412:35 PM
King said he wants those who go before the courts - district or appeals - to have a
reasonable expectation that the case will be resolved quickly.
"What we've seen in courts across the nation is there is a move to see that justice is carried
out in a timely fashion," King said. "We have seen cases that have taken more than three
years to go from argument to ruling, and that's a concern."
~..
The bill follows a similar model in

California with its time limits and
procedures for notifying attorneys.
( Distrlctcourts would have 120 days to

S'~ui3:~.~lfh9
on J1i~!i?r;M4i,onj!1iy -.
trials.-'AIIattorneys-in the case would then
" i!c:.. ,. ,:' .'; .... ";''---: '. : ",
tilfa r~ldest wittith~'qpt:JrtWitf)irf~ Wq~ys
s~~~[119~t6get~ d~ci~i5~withQLJt f~'tih~r -. --'-C'T~;70~""~'--- ",
delay, T~:e.judge would tfwn have 30 .d,~y~,foissYe ~ c:le9isjQh,,dI'llvtf'I~y.,ritten statement
regari:ting-\"'hen the~ase ~OU!d be decid1q.F'~iling't6 r~c~ivE{aaeci~i6n, the attorneys GE1THEANSWERSIN THIS' ':
would then file a request with the chief judge of the judicial district to establish when a ruling
would be made.
~R.Eumsri(iAnplt
The Kansas Court of Appeals and the Kansas Supreme Court would have 180 days to rule fORftlSlC EllGlllEERUiG
CAIASlROPH ~ESPqIIS
on matters it has heard. The attorneys in those cases would also have the ability to file
requests to determine when a ruling would be made, CALL 855.822;1966 ~-'----,'., '-'-"
"We're not imposing a hard limit," King said. "If it's been six months and the court hasn't
ruled, and there's a good reason for that, they can explain why they have ruled, give an
estimated time and the parties and the public will know when justice is likely to be ... -,
administered,"
..
Lisa Taylor, spokeswoman for the judicial branch, said Kansas already has standards in
MOST POPULAR
place, by rule and by practice, for timely rulings, established by the authority given to the
court in the state constitution. Now ,~-.---This Week Commented
.. -.--.- --- ..._ .... _ ..... _ .._.
..... --.'~.--.--~
The Difference Between a Hurricane,
According to Taylor, the Office at Judicial Administration began emphasizing resolution of
Cyclone and Typhoon
civil and criminal cases that had been pending at the district court level. Lists of the cases
are compiled and sent to the chief judges of each of the 31 districts for explanation. The Five Years Since Hurricane Ike Hit
Galveston, Texas
process has helped produce timelier decisions, Taylor said. The appellate courts are also
conducting similar reviews of their cases in effort to address high-priority matters and When is A Vehicle Considered a Total
develop time standards for reviewing and disposing of the cases. Loss?
PG&E Worker Wins $1M Whistle blower

Rep. Jan Pauls, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill raised Lawsuit
questions about the separation of powers and whether the Legislature would be stepping
WeatherChannel, DirecTV Fight Rages On
too far in establishing court rules.
More Top Stories

"We certainly make changes in the civil procedure, and you can regard this as perhaps a
change in civil procedure," said Pauls, a Hutchinson attorney.
There is no punitive mechanism in the proposal, but King said it would be up to the public to
~..-,
" ,,,,.l>:.'p.~
".'
decide what should be the recourse, such as how voters decide in retention elections for
judges or pushing legislators to enact more measures to put teeth in the time limits .
. ". \;'1.'1" -";"'1;' .:t.': . I. ...
I'
.o:llwww.claimsjournal.com/news/midwest/2014/01/28/243482.htm Page 2 of 4
i
STATE OF KANSAS
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
1998 ANNUAL REPORT

EXAMPLES OF CONDUCT
FOUND TO BE IMPROPER
A judge was cautioned not to refer to one of the attorneys in a case by his first name and
the other by his last name, thus creating an appearance of partiality.
A private cease and desist order was issued to a judge for permitting clerks to stamp the
judge's name on warrants without first personally reviewing the warrants.
Judges were cautioned regarding writing character reference letters in an attorney

disciplinary matter.
A small claims judge received informal advice in a situation in which the judge angrily
informed the litigant that he had no right to consult an attorney prior to going to small
claims court.
A judge was cautioned that prehearing conferences may be misconstrued when litigants
are not present. [The judge and counsel were in chambers, while the complainant sat
outside chambers.]
A judge, whose previous practice it was to refer inmates to the law library for 60-1507
forms, will in the future inform the clerk and staff to forward the forms to inmates upon
request.
*
EXAMPLES OF CONDUCT
FOUND TO BE IMPROPER
A judge was found to have violated Rule 2.5(A) by failing to rule on a motion for
appointment of counsel for approximately one year. The judge was cautioned regarding
the importance of disposing of issues promptly and efficiently. The departmental justice
and chief judge were advised of the Commission's concern regarding delay.
A judge was found to have violated Ru1es 1.2 and 1.3 by throwing a cell phone not
belonging to the judge into the street and/or attempting to use the judge's position to gain
deferential treatment to prevent the filing of charges. The judge was privately ordered to
cease and desist from activities which lead to impropriety and the inappropriate use of the
prestige of judicial office.
A judge, who incarcerated a respondent for contempt without the respondent having
representation, was cautioned that counsel must be appointed before incarceration for
indirect contempt. Johnson v, Johnson, 11 Kan. App. 2d 317, Syl. ~7 (1986) was cited.
~ w..~..o
~Aj~.~dg~., g?ig...~omm~nt ab~~t co~oom
itia..L;.- ~is.>.Pata.-. spectato~~.dWJiig a4~3iin~
Il-c.wlUch ;W.;ls::.ac1Qlowle~g4<hythe Jlldge .and reflected m the transcript, was caufioned
~eanut- .lxiut futuril word cIiOicis. _.... . ..
2~_, A judge, who consulted with law enforcement and discussed subject documents in a case
~ I with one of the attorneys involved in the case, was cautioned regarding independent
\ investigations and ex parte communications. Rules 2.9(A) and (C) were cited.
,A .judge, - . ~"'. -'. - -.
who failed to ru1e on -it {)O=1507 motion for approximately 15 months, was
. .'
cautioned regarding delay. '-
A judge, who admitted to using language occasionally which society might fmd
offensive, was cautioned on the use of offensive or inappropriate language and reminded
of the importance of considering the public's perception of the system. Rule 1.2 and
Comment [3] were citel\ 6e,t re h \.CUfu a 1/
\\d~- -f1thti 11 ~ ~ ~Jl
\\L~'ow~ ~()ll are- 1/ n,:S. ~
\\
F ga\\~ 0/ J~~TI ~ ~
22 y. 2011 Annual Report
~~~
r
\n(c\,
~ "v.I>\ "i('l\
I IMPROPER I
A judge was found to have violated Rule 2.4 by dismissing, out of professional
courtesy, a traffic ticket for a known attorney appearing before the judge without the
district attorney's consent or knowledge. The judge was cautioned not to permit external
influences to affect the judge's judicial conduct or judgments.
A judge was found to have violated Rule 2.3(B) by making improper comments of
a sexual nature to a female attorney appearing before the judge. While th~ judge sent a
letter of apology to the female attorney and opposing counsel present at the time, the
judge was privately ordered to cease and desist from making inappropriate comments.
A judge, who ~~ found to have violated Rule 2.5(A) by failing. to rule <in a .
motion forapproxitnately thirty-onemonths, was cautioned regarding-delay..
A judge, who was found to have violated Rule 1.2 by making an inappropriate
gesture and comment during a court hearing that could have been construed as a religious
reference, was privately ordered to cease and desist from improper conduct which creates
the appearance of impropriety.
A judge was found to have violated Rule 4.1(A)(4) and Comment [7] by running
an untrue radio advertisement referencing the judge's opponent. The judge was
cautioned to be scrupulously fair and accurate in future campaign statements.
A judge, who was found to have violated Rule 1.2 by making inappropriate
comments in court regarding the Kansas Appellate Courts, was privately ordered to cease
and desist from improper conduct which creates the appearance of impropriety.
0-----------2013 ANNuAL
REpORT 23)-0---------00
~PAGE
COMMISSION
ON
JUDICIAL QUAlJFICATIONS
..ANNUAL REPORT
No violation was found when it was alleged a judge failed to issue a ruling on a matter
taken under advisement for approximately 13 months. The judge acknowledged that an order
should have been more timely issued and implemented a plan to avoid future instances of delay.
The judge was informally advised on the issue of delay and the importance of a judge to dispose
of matters promptly and efficiently.
IMPROPER
A Notice of Formal Proceedings was filed against a judge alleging harassment by making
inappropriate and offensive comments; ex parte email communication that exhibited bias and
prejudice; and using the prestige of judicial office to secure a job for the judge's spouse. After a
public hearing, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court with a recommendation of public
censure.
A judge, who was found to have violated Rules 1.2 and 2.8(8) by exhibiting undignified
and discourteous conduct by engaging in name calling in open court during a trial, was cautioned
regarding future language choices and the importance of considering public perception of
judicial conduct.
~A.iw~ha:yvas-fOltijd-to qave- vioI~tedJ{ule::25(A) O)h failing.ts take action in a matter

for appt<o~eIf,- 4,y~rs, wa~;~utjo,!~ttr.egat:aiDgr_q~Jay. -,
A judge, who was found to have violated Rules 1.2 and 2.8(B) by cursing and making
improper comments, was cautioned about future word choices.
A judge, who was found to have violated Rules 1.1 and 2.9 by obstructing a party's effort
to pursue criminal non-support charges, was cautioned to comply with the law and to avoid ex
parte communications.
A judge, who was found to have violated Rule 2.1 1(A)(5)(a) for being involved in a case
as an attorney and later presided over the same case as a judge, was cautioned regarding future
recusal choices. The recusal should have been based, not on the limited involvement of the
judge, but on the association of another attorney whose participation was substantial.
A judge, who was found to have violated Rule I. I by smoking in restricted areas and
parking illegally and Rule 2.5(b) by failing to follow administrative directives of the chief judge,
was cautioned to comply with the law and to comply with the directives of the chief judge.
A judge, who was found to have violated Rule 2.9(8) by conducting independent
investigation and considering evidence outside the record of a pending case, was cautioned that,
upon discovery of information, should have promptly notified the parties and provided them with
an opportunity to respond.
2014 ANNUAL REPORT PAGE 24

8/4/2017 Screen Shot 2017-08-03 at 5.01.22 PM.png
Account name Account number Recent balance Date opened

e WELLS FARGO HOME
MORTGAGE'
708021584 .... $160.506
07/0712'011
as of 0712009
Status
ForeClosure pro-
ceedings started.
~~p~~~~~~
$60,714 past due as

of Ju12017.
back to top
~i~{\r~7:tt':;.':;:~~~~:y"~"'f_7~:":-::;F~:~,:~:~~"'~~:/:'~ ..::?~":-c.-,
,,":",;";"'-"c:'" "-""~';v<~~,~~r':;--'-1~':-,:'l~'::,- ..;!,~~~:~/,''''c '. "-.""" -:.'" "":,
,~:;;~.;{~:i:~:"/':'" :, ..' ,'<,,' ", ... , ~Accountsingood-sta'1ding ..... ,. .' . __ "

'fMi:;\;::'.~;';/ ":..f_;f",~-~_. "".:;:;',,-~':';:;'1.},;.-;"':~\."~' ~ , > 'h ,~ '-,,"'~' 1~. ~". ';'~',t !.
... . ... , .._~, . ',' :;'.. " -':, ''::
Account 'lame Account number Recent' balance bate opened . . Status . ~~Rli['~l;:~
0 BNC NATIONAL BANK 3000 ..... /'M.repoded 0712009 Paid.Clo~edINe1Jer
late,
Account name Account number Recent balance Date opened Status. ,;~j~E~~i
0 CAPITAL ONE 517805890677 .... $2,183 as of
0712612017
1212015 Open/Never late.
Account name Accio.tJnt number Recent b.al;ince Date opened -status ;f;,q!~~~~'
0 CITIMORTGAGE INC 77143 ..... Not reported 11j2005 transferred,tlosedlNe
ver late.
Account name Account number Recent balance Date opened Status fQ.ls~ut~'
-;t.,"':"- ';".,~.
0 CREDIT ONE BANK 444796231310 .... $473 as of

07104/2017
OM2016 OpenlNever late.
~~ 10 Jl1dge Wachter ~~ ihr ~edYSin

hrlaklL d deti~l~ 6Yl ~s Case) I O~),~ DWed
~!D(,y44Io.CO 011 '-ffie hDU2{,) bvJ- hDlU he, -1DDk 1WlJ(
3vd ~tj showI 0 WG $, IoD)vDb dVl& + ~s
J6iVij lAp 4o~artds of dblbrs e3ch fnom-h
dC(1)nli ~ 1r> uH[~5rs6.
httos.z Imail. oooqle .com/rna illu/Of?tab=wm#i nboxl15dae867 c3380b 12? projector= 1 1/1
Account History:
Foreclosure pro~eedir:gs started as of Jul 2017
180 days past due as of Jul 2017, May 20H, Apr 2013 to Apr 2017
150 days past due as of Mar 2013
120 days past due as of Feb 2013
90 days past due as of Jan20i3
60 days past due as of Oct 2012 to Dee 2012
30 cays past due as of Sep 2012
Balance History - The following data will appear in the follO'.vingformat

eccoun: balance / date payment received / scheduled payment amOl1nt I actual amount paid
JU112017: $157,223 f November 17,.20121 S1,026 I' Unkno'l'.'n
., .. < May 2017: $156,689 i November 17, 20121 $1,026l Unknown
:::i;.:. i Apr 2017: $155,229 / Nove""'" 17, 2012 / $1,026 / Unknown
~01
'c, T: $106,4461 November 17,20121 $1,0261 Unknown
,0 >; Feb 2017: $106,4461 November 17; 20121 $1.0261 UnKriown
~ r,.;;;.; Jan 2017: $106,446 f November 17, 2012l $1,026 f Unknown
"'';'/1 Dee 2016: $106,446 f November 17, 2012 f $1,026 f Unknown
'--":..', Nov 2016: $106,446 l November -17,20121 $1,0261 Unknown
Oet 2016: $106,4461 November 17,20121 $1,0261 Unknown
:.'.:.:''::~';':.'...'.,'!i!.:
Sep 2016: $105,446 f November 17, 2012/51,0261 Unknown
.....
,.:._'~
...
"....
,: Aug 2016: $106,446 f November 17,20121 $1,0261 Unknown
( Ju12016: $106,4461 November 17,2012/51,0261 Unknown
';:';.1 Jun 2046: $106,4461 November 17,20121 S1.026 1 Unknown
,"";1
._.. j May 2016: $106,4461 November 17, 20121 $1,0261 Unknown
Apr 20'16: $106,446/ November 17,2012 i $1,0261 Unknown
Mar 2016: $106,446/ November 17, 20121 $1,0261 Unknown
Feb 2016: $106,4461 November 17, 20121 $1,026/ Unknown
Ja112016: $106,4461 November 17, 2012/ $1,0261 Unknov.'n
Dee 2015: $106,446 f November 17, 2012l 51,0261 Unknown
Nov 2015: $'105,446 (November '17,20121 $1,0261 Unknown
Oct 2015: $106,4461 November 17,2012 J $1,0261 Unknown
Sep 2015: $106,4461 November 17, 20121 51,0261 Unknown
Aug 2015: $106,4461 November 19,20121 $1,026 f Unknown
Limit High Balance History;

The original amount of this account was 5110,953
https:llmaii.googie.comlma illu/0I?tab=wm#inboxJ15dae867 c3380b 12?projector==1 1/1

Status' i'i,DI~p,,"e_
r "~
.,.',:"1j.;.),.- ,
Foreclosure pro-
ceedingsstarted.
$59,616 past due as
of J.un 2Q17:.
PO BOX 10335 Type Crium limit or origi- Date of:status Comment
DES MOINES, lA 50306 FHA Mortgage nal amount . o9i2016 Account lnformafion disputed by,
8002883212 TermS $11G,953 First reported consumer (Meets.requirement of the
Address identification number H9 a anee 1112009 FairCredit Reporting Acf).
30 Years
0137011166 $0 Responsibility COrTmlent
On record until Foreclosureproceedinqs started.
M.onthly payment Individual
May 2019 Reinvestigation Information
$1,026
Receiltpayment This item waslipdated fromour pro-
amount cessing of your dispute in Jim 2013:
$0
Account history
*,/J.~~,-r~Y.
M~ Mar.~~.~/a?
201\
2016
~ec
-, .:,- ~~~.. ~~~~.,:~~ --~~~.'~~~~;t,
2013
2015
J~;':-.~!~L-~~:~-_-~-5H{:
-~r~:"~~-2'"
~~_~~~~i'~~~-\}t~~~1~f-:,-~t.
~p.: . .p-,~ . ~b . J.B!, Dee
'._~~.."-. - . :.:':., :.._.~' -' :~~C
No"
.. "", ~:k~~~~h~~~-J-~l.~-/:f!~~.
~~~~!~tf~ ~?:~
.-t-~~:~;~~:::~~f~~wJ:,,:.:~
'~~0~~-';~
~!.;~i~~i~~;,:tlH{l_:~I.~iz!~~~t::.
~~~~~
Payment .historygulde
Foreclosure proceedings started as of Jun 2017. May 2017. Apr 2017. ~'ar.
2017, Feb 2017, Jan 2017. Dec 2016;Nov 2016, Oct 2016, Sep
2016, Jul2016, Jun 2016, May 2016, Apr 2016. Mar 2016, F,eo 2016, J~n2p16,.De<2.01S, No\! 2015, Qcl2Q15, Sep >10.15,Aug 2015,.Ju12015,
~~~ ~0:5, ~~~y.2?.15, !:p.r.2~1~, ~~~r,20.15,:~e.b.2~15. ~~~~2~!5, ~~~~20~~. }J~~~?14, E.~t}014. SaP 2014, Aug 20'14, Jui2014, Jun'2014,May ,
k .
https:llmail.google .com/maillu/OI?tab=wm#inboxl15dae867 c3380b 12?projector= 1 1/1

Account nanie Account number Date' opened St~tIJS

WELLS FARGO HOME 708021584 .... 07/2009 foreclosureprci.
MORTGAGE ceedlnqs siarted.
$~O,714 past due as
of Ju12017.
PO BOX 10335 Type CreditHmit or origi- Date. of status Commeht
DES MOINES, IA 50306 FHA Mortgage '.1al amount 07f2017 Cqrripleled investigation of FCRA
8002883212 $110,9.53 dispute: consumer dis.agrees.
Terms First reported
Address identification number Highballince Cori'llnent
NA 08l201(i
0137011166 $0 F9rEicl~sureproceedin9s .started.
Responsibility
On record until
MOlJthly payment rndividual Reinyestigatlon info~mation
May2019
$1,026 Tblsltsm ~v9s~pdatei;l from our pro-
Recent p.ayment cesslngof YO{Jfdispulein Jun:2013,
amount
$0
https://mail.google .com/maillu/01?tab=wm#inboxl15dae867 c3380b 12?projector= 1

1/1

Complaint Against AJ Wachter KCJQ August 3rd 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Against AJ Wachter KCJQ August 3rd 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

August 3,2017

Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

301 SW. io- Avenue

To Whom It May Concern:

Please look in to this ENTIREmatter,

THE COURT: All right. This is Case No. 13CV32P,

2 Wells Fargo versus Julie S. Brunskill. Please

3 announce your appearances.

4 MS. DONNELLI: Good afternoon, Your Honor, this

5 is Jennifer Donnelli for the plaintiff, Wells Fargo,

6 which is also a counter-claimed defendant.

7 MS. STOVER: Your Honor, I'm Julie Stover and I'm

9 THE COURT: Okay. You are pretty soft spoken and

10 I'm going to ask you to speak up.

11 MS. STOVER: I've been sick so I'm sorry.

12 THE COURT: .rknowwpoyou are but just remember

13 to speak into the microphone because you are awful

15 MS. STOVER: Okay.

16 THE COURT: All right. The first motion that I

17 wanted to address is a motion to ask me to recuse

18 myself. And I think the motion lays out pretty

19 clearly what Ms. Brunskill feels, and Ms. Brunskill,

20 apparently you have a relationship with Kasey King, I

21 believe; is that correct?

22 MS. STOVER: Yes, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: And you and he were in the courtroom

24 one day when his father Mr. King

25 MS. STOVER: Mike King.

2 what that paper said.

3 THE COURT: Well, the paper I'm looking at says

5 MS. STOVER: 665.

6 _.+ .:t~~hly()~ what I will do now is take

8 the issues that we have involved. I'm not goif:1gto

9 get that done, we've 'been a Judge shy; one of our

10 Judges had to retire for medical reasons, and so we've

11 got kind of double work for the rest of us.

12 Having said that, I'm not crying on anybody's

13 shoulders, I'm just telling you that it ain't going to

14 happen f6r a couple weeks.

16 THE COURT: So I'm going to write an opinion.

17 The aggrieved party can do whatever they think they

19 You were going to say something, I interrupted

21 MS. DONNELLI: Your Honor, I would be happy to

22 prepare a proposed journal entry if the Court would

24 THE COURT: No. I will -- we might differ on

25 what we think should be in the journal entry so I will

([onUlri,nsi on on j!ttbicial Qft{[alif{catioJ1~

Kasey McCoy King

VICE-CHAIR: Re: Docket No.1 114, In the Matter of A. J. Wachter

([ontlnission on Jubicia[ <!flualifiwtions

Nole: Affidavit required only if service is made by

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

ERIC M. MUATHE, et al., )

REPLY OF DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Disciplinary Administrator), Tim Grillot (assigned discipline complaint investigator), and

"blanket" filing restrictions, as prohibited in Lynn v. Anstaett, No. 108,568,2013 WL 5422344, at *3

26 Kal1. App. 2d 79,81-81 (1999).

*":i~ase i~atel1tly trivolo~: intended for harassment of the Defendants. And as is

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Steph~ hillips.] o. 14130

Eric Muathe Noah Day

Kasey King James Beckley JI.

Travis Carlton Jim Emerson

and hand delivered to: