April 21, 2019

Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

301 SW Tenth Ave., Room 115

Topeka, Ks 66612

Case Number: 13CV32P Wells Fargo vs. Julie Brunskill in Crawford County

This is a complaint against Senior judge Richard Smith of Linn County District Court, p.o. Box
350, Mound City, KS 66056 who is hearing cases in Crawford County.

Greetings Ethic Committee:

I just got done reading the transcript from the (TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCES)
that was held on 4-2-2019 at 10:00 a.m. that started off with judge Richard Smith allowing
attorney Linda Tarpley to address the court instead of Judge Richard Smith which does not
comply with REPORT OF SUPREME COURT STANDARDS COMMITTEE-GENERAL
PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS (8) which says "it is the duty of
the judge to the people to run the court and not abdicate the responsibilih{ to counsel. " Attorney
Tarpley states on page (1) line 2 that "the case scheduled on this morning's docket is case no.
13CV32P. would counsel please enter her appearance"? This is Judge Richard Smith's job to do not
the attorney.

Judge Richard Smith says on page (6) of the court transcript that "1 until late yesterdall was
scheduled to be in Beloit, Kansas, tomorrow morning and so I decided that in order to have the adequate
opportunity to truly consider and reflect on her motions and whatever ar~ment she would like to add to
that 1informed the parties that 1was going to start the trial at 10:00 a.m. this morning - not the trial,
excuse me, but take up pretrial motions at 10:0 a'clock, allowing two hours to take up these motions".
He had to continue this hearing from the scheduled March 28,2019 hearing because he states on
page (3) and (4) of the court transcript that "that the court out of an ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION
and because of the DEFENDANTS OBVIOUS CONCERN WITH THE LACK OF A RECORD then
entered no other orders except to INFORMALLY suggest that anything that transpired during the course
of the telephone conference 1would reiterate this morning or today on the record".

If the judge really was using an abundance of caution wouldn't he of just made the trial on 4-2-
19 a final pre-trial conference and continued the trial at least two weeks from the date of 4-2-19
to comply with Supreme Court Rule 140.
I can not believe that this judge just called everyone that has ever been to small claims court in
Kansas a FOOLl!!! On page 15 of the court transcript he states "I reiterate they have a
constitutional right to represent themselves but I just point out that there is a VALIDATION of the old
adage that a person that represents themselves in Court has a FOOL for BOTH a LAWYER and a
CLIENT and that there's a REASON FOR THAT EXPRESSION because I even recommend that
lawyers not represent themselves in Court, etc., etc. ".

I think that the Senior judge Smith needs to (PERMANENTLY RETIRE)and quit accepting
judicial assignments because he is BIASEDAND PREJUDICED against ALL Pro Se litigants or
any party that represents themselves in court because he thinks they are a FOOLl! This violates
Rule 1.1 and the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. It also violates Rule 1.2 Promoting
Confidence in the Judiciary because how can any Pro Se litigant have confidence in a judge who
thinks they are a FOOL for representing themselves. This also violates Rule 2.2 Impartiality and
Fairness because under COMMENT [1] it says "to ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties,
a judge must be objective and open-minded" .

How can a judge be objective and open minded when he already states on the record with
validation that anyone that represents themselves in court is a FOOL. This also violates Rule 2.3
Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment(A)(B)(C). Under Comment [1] it states that "a judge who
manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceedings and brings
the judiciary into disrepute. COMMENT [2] says that" examples of manifestations of bias or
prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs, demeaning nicknames."

I think the comment of FOOL is clearly a demeaning nickname just like "peanut gallery" which
the former judge in this case received a caution letter in the matter of A.J. Wachter 1114, Tl l S,
and 1116.

I feel that Judge Richard Smith violated Rule 2.9(A) Ex Parte Communications(A) and Rule
2.6(A)(B)Ensuring the Right to Be Heard because he had this hearing when the party of Julie
Stover-King could not make it at the 10:00a.m. pre-trial conference because he just expedited it
the day before to accommodate his schedule (which did not comply with 11th district court rules
notice of hearings) to Beloit and because attorney Linda Tarpley had a witness scheduled for the
trial in the afternoon of 4-2-19 at 1:15 p.m. and the judge did not want to continue the case
because it was for the convenience of attorney Tarpley's witness and to accommodate the
schedule of the judge to make his trip to Beloit on (1) day's notice.

The rules of the nth district don't allow for hearings to be rules on that are not properly noticed
and you can't schedule a hearing on motions before at least (5) days.

Judge Smith then goes on to state on page (4) and (5) of the court transcript that "one of the other
issues was that apparently in a pleading the defendant makes some remark about how I admonished her
and the context in which she states it makes it seem quite critical and negative".
The admonishment was negative, that's why it is called an (ADMONISHMENT) and it was in
the court order from the March 24 and 25 hearing.

Judge Smith continues to show how dishonest he is and how unwilling he is to accept
responsibility when he admonishes someone and he states it on page (5) of the court transcript.
He says actuall1{, the admonishment, apparentll{ whether or not I ever gave it is not the issue.
II

Are you kidding me???? What judge would think the fact that he admonished someone in a
court order for not having counsel would not be an issue?????????

Does he think that the admonishment that chief judge A.J. Wachter received when he received a
caution letter for peanut gallery, and a private cease and desist in this case not an issue???? I
think the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications need to reprimand him on the
importance of an (admonishment) and that it being a very, very important issue!!!!

He goes on to state on page (5) of the court transcript that "but had to do with the fact that I like in
all ofm1{ cases either did or did not suggest to her that it was not wise for anl{one to ever represent
themselves in Court, particularll{ someone who is not an attorne1{, and I made a remark about that
admonishment in a prior order, she claims I never told her that".

He then goes on to show once again how dishonest, unhonorable, and how unwilling he is to
accept any responsibility when he makes a mistake and admonishes someone in a court order
that can clearly be read and seen that it was signed by Judge Smith.

He states in page (5) "I would defer to her memory, iU didn't actuall1{ suggest like I do in 99.99percent
ofm1{ cases with pro se litigants that it is usuall1{ frowned upon as prudent and wise for someone to
represent themselves. "

Why don't Judge Smith just read the court order from the March 24 and 25 hearing to see that
he actually does sign a court order that admonishes Miss Stover-King for not having counsel?
Why doesn't he just admit to the mistake he made by signing a court order with an
(admonishment) reprimand from a December 11, 2018 hearing that actually never happened
instead of "deferring" to Miss Stover-King that he did sign the court order and he did admonish
her not having counsel in the March 24 and 25 hearing.

How could anyone possibly be prepared for a bench trial not a jury trial on April 2, 2019 in front
of a judge who thinks that all Pro Se litigants are FOOLS and he admonished her in an order
from March 24,252018 for not having counsel in a prior court order signed January 15, 2018
from a hearing December 11, 2018 that did not comply with Supreme Court Rule 170, K.S.A 60-
258 entry of judgment and should have been notified to the departmental justice because it did
not comply with Supreme Court Rule 166 because he did not rule on the motion to dismiss for
lack of prosecution until (35) days instead of (30) and the departmental justice should have been
notified on why the order had not been signed from the December 11, 2018 hearing but Judge
Richard Smith won't accept any accountability and won't admit it to his errors and omissions.
He goes on to state on page (6) of the court transcript that I just want the record to reflect that if
If

there are any representations to anything being said other than what I just reiterated the1{'rea lie and I'm
going to call it what they are because this case is frankl1{getting a little out of control and I think an1{body
could see that .from the raft of motions. "

This case was out of control from the start and that is why there is a judge who received a
private cease and desist named A.I. Wachter, another judge Daniel Creitz who seems to be the
only one who is (ETHICAL AND FOLLOWS RULE 2.11(A) DISQUALIFICATION), because he
recused/ disqualified himself from this case after a motion for change of judge was filed and he
had less conflicts of interest with Miss Stover-King than Judge Richard Smith does who denied
the motion for change of judge and has now forced Miss Stover-King to have to file an original
mandamus in Crawford County because he refuses to follow Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification due
to the fact that she made a complaint because she and I had previously sued judge Smith in a
class action suit in the case of Eric Muathe, et al, vs. Honorable Kurtis Lay, et al in 15cv79p in
Crawford County and made an ethic complaint against him in May of 2018 and apparently he
thinks we are all FOOLS because we filed the case Pro Se.

Judge Smith goes on to show how unethical, dishonest, and deceiving he is when he states on
page (7) of the court transcript that I ended the communication from my end early this morning
/I

sometime around 7:00 a.m. with an e-mail that basically said - because she claimed in these
communications that now this is all being done for the convenience of someone else. I'm not sure who
that is because actualll{ I'm doing this for her convenience so that her motions can be thoroughl1{
considered and I reiterated that (act and that this was for her convenience, no one else's, that I was going
to begin at 10:0 0' clock and everyone should govern themselves accordingly."

Who is Judge Smith trying to fool??? Is he trying to fool Julie Stover-King because he thinks all
Pro Se litigants are fools???

Judge Smith clearly states on page (6) line 19-25 that he is scheduled to be in Beloit Kansas and
he decided on his own which did not follow the 11thdistrict court rules for notice of hearings to
have a pre-trial conference at 10:00 a.m. on 4-2-19 when the motions just got filed on 4-1-19 at
4:00 p.m. and the opposing parties attorney hasn't even read them which she admits on page (8)
line 1-7 of the court transcript.

This was clearly done for Judge Smith's convenience not Julie Stover-King who had a pre-trial
conference at 10:00 am and the court and both parties did not have adequate opportunity to
truly consider and reflect on the motions or arguments that Julie Stover-King would like to add
which is exactly what he said on page (6) line 21 of the court transcript. What judge schedules a
pre-trial conference on the same day 4-2-19 as the bench trial?

Only a judge who is clearly biased and prejudiced against Pro Se litigants, and completely
incompetent which is why this ethic complaint is being sent for your commission to investigate.
Judge Smith states on page (7) line 21 that "I've waited until 10:15, she's not here, and I told her that
I would take up these motions and rule on them". This violates Rules 2.9 Ex-parte Communication
and Rule 2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard.

Judge Smith goes on to show how he does not show (ANY CAUTION) not to mention (NO
ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) when he states on page (8) line 8-25 when he says "The first one is
a motion to stay all proceedings and-or possibly consolidate the case. That has to do with apparently a
petition in the form ora writ of mandamus which I have to presume - I haven't seen this 1Ietbecause, I
believe, I'm the defendant and it's ml{ understanding that service of process was issued to Lynn County."

He goes on to show how unethical he is by making a little cute remark that he seems to think is
funny by saying on page (8) line 15-18 when he says "I'm looking forward to seeing the sheriffanl!
dal{ now but it is a reference to a new case, 19CV43P, and she's asking for a stal{ because ofthat writ of
mandamus action. "

The statement that "I'm looking forward to seeing the sheriff" seems to be another violation of
Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment because (HE IS ATTEMPTING HUMOR) and he has
already made a reference that all Pro Se litigants are FOOLS. Maybe he thinks it's funny that he
got sued by a Pro Se litigant to create a new case of 19CV43P when he simply should have done
what Judge Daniel Creitz did and follow KS.A. 20-311d change of judge procedure and Rule
2.11(A) Disqualification of the code of judicial conduct and recuse himself from the case.

The fact that he has acknowledged on record that he knows there is a case filed against him in
19CV43P seems to be a violation of Rule 2.4(B) External Influences on Judicial Conduct because
he is now even more biased and prejudiced against Julie Stover-King because she has sued
Judge Smith and he has to deal with it directly and he indicates this on page (8) line 24-25 of the
court transcript.

Judge Smith then goes on to show how biased and prejudiced he is against Eric Muathe who
was my co-plaintiff in case number 15CV79P where Judge Smith was a defendant and Mr.
Muathe received filing restrictions along with Julie Stever-King's husband Kasey King from the
request of the defendants (including judge Richard Smith) by referencing Mr. Muathe on page
(8) line 19-25 and page (9) line 1-7. Judge Smith violates Rule 2.10(A)(B)Judicial Statements on
Pending and Impending Cases when he says "I have a - Miss Stover-King seems to be for whatever
reason following the footsteps oranother litigant I have in another proceeding and this reads vent similar
to and I'm assuming the mandamus petition is probabll{ very similar to the one Mr. Muathe filed actualll{
in the Supreme Court, not her, so I didn't have to deal with it directly, but I'm going to presume it's kind
oflike that one. And, in (act, maybe it is an original action before the supremes, I don't know, I haven't
seen it l{et, but I'm going to deny the request to stay proceedings and it says possibll{ consolidate. There
will be no order of consolidation with this purported mandamus that's been filed against me."

Judge Smith is clearly irritated with Eric Muathe or he would not make a public statement on a
court of record comparing a petition filed by Julie Stover-King to Mr. Muathe's mandamus
(when he hasn't even read it yet) which would impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending
in any court, that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing which is what he did.

He is mad that Mr. Muathe filed a mandamus against him and he is using Mr. Muathe as an
example as Judge Smith makes a cute little remark about how he is "looking forward to seeing
the sheriff of Linn County any day now" when he is supposed to be served his court summons
which he has to deal with directly.

Why doesn't Judge Smith not use any caution and just simply continue the bench trial on 4-2-19
when he even admits that "welt I thought this would go to that you would be a witness in the current
action?" I will tell you why, because he is biased and prejudiced against Julie Stover-King
because she is Pro Se and a fool according to judge Smith and now the attorney Linda Tarpley's
law firm has been sued and she is needed as a witness in this case and Judge Smith is going to
side with attorney Tarpley because he thinks all Pro Se litigants are unwise, not prudent, and
are FOOLS!!!!

That is why he should have used (AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) like Judge Daniel Creitz
did and simply follow Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification of the code of judicial conduct!

He then goes on to show how he doesn't use any (ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) by stating on
page (10)line 20-25 of the court transcript that "the last is a motion to strike court orders on
January 15thand March 24th. This is the one that said request to strike the court order from the
decision because defendant was never admonished at the December 11, 2018,hearing. Yet the March
24, 25 decision indicated that defendant had been admonished prior for not having counsel. Aslso
sa1{Sdefendant has issues with the court orders from the December 11th hearing because Rule 170 wasn't
complied with and was not within 14 da1{Softhe hearing and was filed on Tanuary 2, 2019, b1{the
plaintiffs attorney, not signed until Tanuary 15th b1{the Court. " The plaintiff's attorney even admits
on page (12)line 14 when she is addressing the court orders from the December 11thhearing
when she says" that would probablv be true but the problem is that there was no request foranv
discovery until March which there's not - in fact late March, I think around the 24th or something like
that, m1{order speaks to that. "

The fact that Julie Stover-King is Pro Se and Pro Se litigants are held to lesser standards by the
court and the fact that Judge Smith was not competent enough to sign a court order from a
December 11, 2018 hearing when he says that Discovery cutoff has to be completed by January
11,2019 even though he didn't even sign the order until January 15, 2019 which was (35) days
after the motion and he should have notified the departmental justice under Supreme Court
Rule 166 shows how incompetent and unprepared he has been and is a violation of Rule 2.5
Competence, Diligent, and Cooperation.

Judge Smith then goes on to read on the court record on page (13)line 6 about "the defendant's
cavalier attitude", and mentions it again on line 16-17 when he reads "had the nerve to state in
his record the defendant's cavalier attitude regarding the upcoming trial and her decisions to engage in
other activities rather than trial preparation concerned the court greatll{ from the standpoint that it
appears she fails to understand the severinI of the circumstances re-enforcing the courts prior admonition
that she would be better off represented by counsel." He then reads on line 24 "the definition of
caviler is arrogant and defendant is not arrogant. Defendant was never admonished at the
December 11, 2018, status hearing," which I think I've already addressed that because I think that's
true but she goes on to sal/, "judge Smith has also barred defendant from discovent because he salIS
defendant was supposed to have it completed."

Judge Smith just read on the record on the court record of page (13) and (14) all the issues that
Miss Stover-King had with him calling her cavalier and admonishing her and he never says he's
sorry for his inappropriate comments or the fact that he admonished her in a court order for not
having counsel but really never even admonished her. He also states at the March 28, 2019 pre-
trial conference that had to be continued because he had not court of record that if he did
admonish her by mistake he would change it, which he did not do because he denied her
motion to strike that order on 4-2-19 at 10:00a.m.

Instead he makes absolutely no reference at all to the comment of (cavalier) and the only
reference he makes to the admonishment of Julie Stover-King was on page (13) line 25 when he
reads that Miss Stover-King put "Defendant was never admonished at the December 11, 2018,
status hearing, and (14)line 2 when he says "which I think I've alreadlf addressed that because I think
that's true but she goes on to sa1{,".

Judge Smith won't even admit for sure if he did admonish her or not as he says "which I think"
I've already addressed that because I think that's true but she goes on to sa1/".

Does Judge Smith not know if he admonished her or not?? If he think's he admitted he didn't
admonish her then why doesn't he go modify or alter the court order from the March 24, 25
hearing which says she was admonished at a prior hearing for not having counsel like he states
at the March 28,2019 pre-trial conference that got continued because he had no court of record?

Judge Smith then says on page (14)line 6 "this is repetitious of when the journal entry was done
so it's really basically the same argument, the fact that the journal entry wasn't filed until then."
"I think she's kind of missing the point that the order was effective when I entered it from the bench but, I
mean, that's a whole other question that I don't need to get into."

Judge Smith did not follow Kansas Supreme Court Rules 166, 170, and K.S.A. 60-258Entry of
Judgment from the December 11, 2018 hearing, March 28, 2019 continued pre-trial conference,
and the pre-trial conference on 4-2-19 which states that nothing is effective until it is signed by
the judge.

Why doesn't he admit like an honorable judge should and admit he made mistakes, did not
comply with Supreme Court Rules 166, Rule 170, K.S.A. 60-258,and did not admonish her for
not having counsel at the December 11, 2018hearing and the only reason that he put in the
March 24, 25 court order was because he had a Freudian Slip against Miss Stover-King because
he thinks she is a FOOL because she is Pro Se and she made a prior ethic complaint against him,
and filed a motion for change of judge with affidavit against him and she is on his mind just like
the other litigant judge Smith had, Mr. Eric Muathe who he referenced in this case?

Judge Richard Smith should have Judge Daniel Crietz teach him a lesson on an abundance of
caution and that is why Judge Crietz disqualified himself in this case in accordance with Rule
2.7 Responsibility to Decide, Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification, and K.S.A 20-311d change of judge
procedure and saved the court time, myself time, the plaintiff time, and the Kansas Commission
on Judicial Qualifications time who already had to issue a (PRIVATECEASE AND DESIST)in
this case to judge AJ. Wachter and Judge Richard Smith has followed right along in the
footsteps of AJ. Wachter by not using any caution at all in this case.

Judge Smith goes on to show how he does not show any (ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) as he
continues to try to explain himself for the (ADMONISHMENT HE GAVE HER IN A COURT
ORDER). Judge Smith reads on page (14) line 19-24 that" defendant was stressed out, had anxiety,
and could not properly prepare for the March 28, 2019, telephonic conference because the defendant was
under the impression she had alreadv been admonished b1{the court and was scared to proceed with a
proper defense at the March 28th hearing, and then the objections." He then states on page (14) line 25
in a response the statement that she was admonished b1{the court and was scared to proceed by sa1{ing
uyou can only have that one of two wa1[s. I either admonished her or I didn't. In did admonish her it
would have been m1{ standard admonishment and I try to present that in as friendly a fashion as possible,
it's not meant to be mean or condescending.

Judge Smith did state that he had admonished her in a court order from March 24, 25 2019
hearing for not having counsel at the December 11, 2018 hearing and I sent in that order and
evidence with my previous complaint sent to your office dated April 3, 2019 that is set for the
June 7, 2019 ethic meeting. The fact that he really didn't admonish her at the December 11, 2018
hearing just shows he retaliated against her and that according to K.S.A 60-258 entry of
judgment that he had (ADMONISHED HER NOT HAVING COUNSEL)!!! It was in the court
order from the March 24, 25 2019 hearing where he stated he admonished her prior for not
having counsel. Why don't judge Smith just admit he messed up? How does a judge admonish
anyone in a friendly fashion which is not meant to be mean or condescending yet he has called her
nefarious, frankly naive, cavalier, admonished her for not having counsel, and has now called her a fool
because she is Pro Se?

Judge Smith goes on to show how he doesn't use any (ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) on page
(15)line 12-25 when he says "I don't know why she would have been terrified of me, I think the
statement that she has reasons to be afraid of me would run contrary to eoervthing that's happened in this
action because we've been nothing but friendly. We even had an off the record conversation after the last
hearing that was real friendlv and kind ofjoking around about some oUhe stuffshe put in the motion
about me. And I was complementing her for digging that information up because it was accurate because
I am an elder of the church or I was until recentll{ so, I mean, it was an interesting thing but I did not
have a problem with anv o{that. "
Why is Judge Smith violating Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment again by attempting
humor with Miss Stover-King off the record?? What could possibly be funny about someone
putting the reasons that she thinks she has conflicts of interest with the judge about as funny?
She did research and found a conflict of interest about the judge being an elder and he just
suddenly is not an elder anymore. He seems to be mad at her because her husband made a
complaint about him being an elder and trustee at the church and had to quit that position at a
church in order to still accept judicial appointments. What could possibly be funny from a
judge who has filing restrictions against Miss Stover-King's husband Kasey King and Mr.
Muathe who he mentions in this case?

Judge Smith seems to be mentally incompetent and can't remember anything correctly because
Julie Stover-King never had a conversation off the record that was joking around about the stuff
she put in a motion where Judge Smith was a church elder. The only time she mentions it is in a
(MOTrON FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE WITH AFFIDAVrT) that was filed on July 3, 2018 at 1:02
p.m. in statement 8 and included (exhibit AC) which was a July 4, 2015 ethic complaint against
Judge Smith and the motion for change of judge with affidavit was heard by Gunner Sundy and
Judge Smith was barred from commenting on a motion for change of judge with affidavit under
K.S.A. 20-311d(b)(c). Julie Stover-King filed with that motion an (exhibit AC) on statement (8)
from an ethic complaint filed by Kasey King her husband against Judge Smith dated July 4, 2015
where he complains on Judge Smith for possible violations of the code of judicial conduct for
Rule 3.15(A)(6)because he fails to list his position at Mound City Christian Church as "Elder"
when he was previously "Trustee". The complaint also alleged that he did not have his
financial disclosure report filled out by April 15, 2015 which showed he was hiding economic
information and alleged that he violated Rule 3.15(A)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(B)Reporting Requirements.

Why would Judge Smith think that there is anything funny and joking about trying to get him
recused/ disqualified from a case, trying to get him to step down from his church elder and
trustee position (which he did), and the fact that she and her husband had made prior ethic
complaints against him for what they thought were unethical actions by Judge Smith?

The attorney Tarpley then states how unethical Judge Smith is on page (16)line 6-19 when she
says "your honor, I don't remember honeetlu you ever admonishing her."

That's because he didn't admonish her at the December 11, 2018 hearing, he just retaliated and
put it in a court order from the March 24,252019 hearing and has never modified or amended
the order.

Judge Smith then states on page (17)line 3-5 that "on the record she had the opportunitv to be here,
somj I had you here so early, counsel. I really thought she would come and argue these motions."

Judge Smith knew that Miss Stover-King was not going to come argue the motions at 10:00a.m.
because she told him that in the email that she could only be there at 1:15because his hearing at
10:00 a.m. did not comply with court rules.
Judge Smith then shows that he is violating Rule 2.9 ex-parte hearings and having an ex-parte
conversation by collaborating with attorney Tarpley on page (17) line 21 when he says to her
"well, again, she's raised a lot o,fissues, I don't know where we're going to go with those. "

Judge Smith must of not thought that Julie Stover-King was going to purchase the court
transcript for the 10:00a.m. hearing that she could not attend and must of forgot that he had a
court reporter typing away as he and attorney Tarpley are planning as a (WE'RE) like they are a
TEAM!! Judge Smith says he doesn't know where we're going to go with those??

Where is Judge Smith and attorney Tarpley going to go with the motions and objections that
Miss Stover-King filed?? I thought it needed to stay in the clerk of the court's office.

Judge Smith goes on to show how unprepared, incompetent, and unethical he is on page (18)
line 4-8 of the court transcript by concluding the ex-parte hearing at 10:00a.m. that did not
follow any proper notice of hearings, or pre-trial or final-pre-trial conferences as he says
"anl{thing else to come before the court on this matter at this point? And attorney Tarpley shows
how incompetent she is as well since she relies with "nothing, l/our honor. [udge Smith replies
with a "thank 1{OU, court will be recessed and attorney Tarpley replies with thank 1{OU, judge".

Neither the attorney Tarpley nor Judge Smith ever stated that there would be an order entered
by Rule 170 or any other fashion after the pre-trial conference at 10:00a.m. and that either
attorney Tarpley or Judge Smith would sign the order and this incompetence shows that now
none of the orders from the December 11, 2018 hearing, March 24, 25, 2019 hearing, the March
28,2019 continued pre-trial conference for not having a court report, and the April 2, 2019 pre-
trial conference have complied with Kansas Supreme Court Rules 166, 170 and K.S.A 60-258
entry of judgment. The departmental justice should have been notified (5) days after a motion
goes past (30) days to rule like the December 11, 2018 hearing that was signed on January 15,
2019. I don't think Judge Smith has shown any competence in this case which violates Rule 2.5
Competence, Dilegence, and Cooperation because he has not cooperated with Miss Stover-King
because he is prejudiced against her and that is why he scheduled a trial that was only 3 hours
after the only pre-trial conference in the case on 4-2-19!!! He also has not changed any of the
mistakes that he made in the prior court orders. He defers to Miss Stover-King about him
admonishing her but he never says that he is going to modify or alter the court order that
admonished her for not having counsel like he states at the continued March 28, 2019 pre-trial
conference.

Please investigate this matter and give judge Smith a (CEASEAND DESIST)from this case and
a (CAUTION LETTER)because he tried to use an (ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) himself on 4-
2-19 but instead made more ethical errors and used more inappropriate word choices like the
validated statement he made that all Pro Se litigants are FOOLS. He showed he is not
honorable as he never would never actually admit on the court transcript if he ever admonished
Julie Stover-King or not. He said he thinks he addressed that and he thinks it's true what she
says but he never admits and says "yes it's true I made a mistake and admonished her when
 she really wasn't admonished and I will have to amend the court order from the March 24, 25
2019 pre-trial conference". He then proceeds and has a pre-trial conference that was held 3
hours before bench trial before a judge who acknowledged that he had a mandamus filed
.against him directly but he doesn't continue the bench trial but think's he is using an abundance
of caution.

I have included the definition of 1 "FOOL" which says" a person without good sense or
judgment". The definition of 2 "FOOL" says "to speak or act in a playful way or in fun" JOKE

The definition of "FOOLISH" is "showing or resulting from lack of good sense" .

Judge Smith should be disqualified from hearing any Pro Se cases when he states on record that
only a fool represents themselves and he validates it as well and in his opinion he believes Pro
Se litigants are" without good sense" and "show or result from lack of good sense".

Judge Smith did not follow Supreme Court Rule 166 Matters Taken Under Advisement because
he had a hearing on December 11, 2018 on a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and the
order was not signed by him until January IS, 2019 which is (35) days after the motion was
filed. Supreme Court Rule 166 says the court has (30) days to rule on a motion and if it has not
ruled within (30) days then a report with the judicial administrator needs made within (5) days
which he did not do. According to Supreme Court Rule 170 no judgment is final until it is
signed by the judge in accordance with KS.A. 60-258Entry of Judgment.

He also didn't follow Supreme Court Rule 170(b) at the 4-2-19 ex-parte hearing at 10:00 a.m.
because orders or other documents containing rulings of the judge other than judgments shall
be prepared in accordance with the directions of the judge. The court transcript shows (HE
MADE NO DIRECTIONS ABOUT HOW THE ORDER WILL BE DONE).

He also needs to follow Supreme Court Ru1e165 Reasons For Decisions at the bench trial on 4-2-
19. How can he have a bench trial at 1:15 p.m. on 4-2-19when the motions from the pre-trial
hearing at 10:00a.m. on 4-2-19 did not have an ORDER signed by the judge so therefore none of
his rulings on the motions have been effective under KS.A. 60-258entry of judgment.

What seems kind of ironic is that Judge Smith is the one who says he is joking around off the
record with Julie Stover-King about her trying to get him disqualified as a judge about her
husband trying to get him to step down as a church (elder) which he did and (trustee) which he
did and one of the definitions of FOOL is "JOKE" "to speak or act in a playful way or in fun".
That definition of FOOL seems to be exactly what Judge Smith did off the record when he
thought it was funny that she was trying to get him disqualified as a judge and he was joking
with Julie Stover-King. A person without good sense would seem to be one who can't follow
Supreme Court Rule 140 Final pre-trial conference, KS.A. 60-216pre-trial procedure, Supreme
Court Rules 166 and 170 by notifying the departmental justice within (5) days after you don't
sign a motion after (30) days because KS.A. 60-258entry of judgment was not complied with.
Please reprimand Judge Smith for his bias, prejudice, incompetence and his inappropriate word
choices in which he has shown no remorse, no regret, and has accepted no responsibility for his
word choices as the court transcript from the 4-2-19 pre-trial conference on the same day as
bench trial shows.

Thomas Walters

213 E. Carlton

Pittsburg, Ks 66762

P. 5, B~ J~(, SrW~ ~ill3 -tv ru.n 3 rre,~J CiJn~~

~ ~~ d~ 30.a be.nch 1riJ, 1 on 04 -D2 -/ ~., he has
}l~ ~.v;nJuh'{S-lvwr~0~~ ~ to \'_~~ with
PlaIntiff Wclk faJw> ~ &YJt ha a ~ of{&-
~'S ~s d~ benth +riJ
'fk!I1,~~iaJ/ Jak1 04-/5-/9
\))iJcl-) rVCfllcfu~ With fu3 CDnApl3ivU-:
------ - ~------- -

\Yells Fargo Home Xlortgage Pago t of7

Return Mail Operations
PO Box 10368
Des Moines, IA 50:306-°368

Account Information
April 15, 2019 Online: wcllsfurgo.com
Fax: 1-866-~.'i9-7:1ti:l
Telephone: 1-800-416-1472

DCML 1SDTMD 002466

11111111111111111111111
JULIE S BRuNSKILL
303 SOL'TH .JEFFERSO~ STREET
FR00;TE~AC, KS 66763
I Correspondence: PO Box 10335
Des Moines, L'\ 50306
Hours of operation: Mon - Thurs, 7 a.m. - 9 p.m.
J 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Fri. 7 a.m - 8 p.m.,
Sat, 8 a.m. - 4 p.rn., CT
Loan number: 0215849183
Property address: 303 South .Iefferson
Frontenac K..S6676:

o
o
s:
r::
Subject: Important information about the mortgage and the Servicernernbers Civil Relief Act (f;

c
s:
o
Dear Julie S Brunskill: o
o
...
1\)

<J)
<J)

z
Nos estamos poniendo en contacto con usted ace rea de la cuenta de prestamo hipotecario z
z
porque queremos ayudaele, Llamenos a11-8oo-416-1472 (marque 9 para recibir atenci6n z
z
z
en espafiol), Si tiene una discapacidad auditiva 0 del habla, atendemos llamadas de 10s z
z
servicios de retransmisi6n. Podemos hablar acerca de opciones para ayudarle a z
z
z
permanecer en su casa. Si usted no entiende esta carta, podemos brindarle servicios en z
z
su idioma. 0 si 10 prefiere, puede hacer que se traduzca esta carta. z
z
z
o
This is a legally required notice. "-e are sending this notice to you because the mortgage payment is ~
o
o
behind on this account. \\-e want to notify you of possible ways to avoid losing the home. We have a right '"
to invoke (proceed \·vith) foreclosure based on the terms of the mortgage contract. Please read this letter
carefully. By reaching out to us when payment challenges first arise, more options to avoid a foreclosure
sale may be available to you.

The following information will help you understand some of the mortgage assistance options that may be
available to you, depending on your needs and financial situation.

Options to keep the home

Reinstatement - Allows you to pay the total amount due, in a lump-sum payment, by a specific date. This
allows you to avoid foreclosure sale by bringing the mortgage current.

Forbearance plan - Temporarily suspends or reduces the amount of the regular monthly mortgage
payment when a severe or total income reduction occurs. For a specific period of time, this plan can
provide short-term mortgage payment relief until you're in a better financial situation.

Repayment plan - Brings the mortgage current. Overdue payments are divided into manageable amounts
that are added to the current monthly mortgage payment and spread out over a period of time. By having
the overdue mortgage payments divided into manageable amounts, you'll catch up sooner and keep a
temporary challenge from having longer-term effects.
 Page 2 Of?

Account Information
Loan number: 0215849183

Property address. :303South Jefferson

Frontenac KS 6676.'3

Loan modification - The terms of the original mortgage (1ikethe interest rate or number of years allowed
for repayment) may be changed, bringing the account up-to-date and making the payments more
manageable. By having certain terms of the mortgage modified, the monthly payment may be lowered to
an amount that is more manageable for you.

Options to leave the home

Short sale - Sell the home for less than a full payoff on the account. By doing this, it allows you to
transition out of the home without going through the foreclosure process. o
o
;;:
Deed in lieu of foreclosure (sometimes referred to as a Mortgage Release) - Voluntarily transfer ~
(JJ

ownership of the home to us. By doing this, it allows you to transition out of the home without going ~
s:
through the foreclosure process. o

..
o
g
<Jl
We have also enclosed the pamphlet "Save Your Home" which describes steps that may help you regain (j)

Z
financial control and bring the mortgage current. Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Request for financial information - let us help you today Z
Z
Z
Call us at 1-800-416-1472 immediately. We are available Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 Z
Z
p.m., Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., or Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m .. Central Time. Right over the Z
Z
phone we'll determine what option is best to help overcome the mortgage payment challenges. We'll Z
Z
Z
need some additional information from vou, so please have the following handy when you call: o
o
'"8
• The mortgage loan number ...•
• Monthly gross income (before taxes) for each borrower
• Information about any financial hardship
• Monthly expenses
'"
We would also like to notify you of the availability of horneownership counseling, and any rights you or
your dependents may have under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act if you are an active member of one
of the military agencies listed below. You may wish to discuss the account with a homeowners hip
counselor.

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act Notice Disclosure

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Housing OMB
Approval #2502-0584 Exp. 03/31/2021

Legal Rights and Protections under the SCRA

• Servicemembers on "active duty" or "active service," or a spouse or dependent of such a
servicemember may be entitled to certain legal protections and debt relief pursuant to the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 USC App. Sections 3901-4043) (SCRA).

Who May Be Entitled to Legal Protections Under the SCRA?

 Account Information
Loan number: 021584918:3

Property address: 303 South Jefferson

Frontenac KS 66763

• Regular members of the U.S. Armed Forces (Arrnv, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard).

• Reserve and National Guard personnel who haw been activated and are on Federal active duty.

• National Guard personnel under a call or order to active duty for more than 30 consecutive days
under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, for purposes of responding to a national
emergency declared by the President and supported by Federal funds.
o
o
• Active servicemembers of the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and the National s:
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ~
(f)
o
~
o
• Certain Lriited States citizens serving with the armed forces of a _ation with which the United States o
o
is allie in the prosecution of a war or military action. ..::..
""
cr>
m
Z
What Legal Protections Are Senicememhers Entitled To "Cnderthe SeRA? Z
Z
Z
• The SCR.-\states that, a debt incurred by a servicemernber. or se: iCfmember and spouse jointly, Z
Z
prior to entering military service shal not bear interest at a rate above 6% during the period of Z
Z
Z
military: service and one year thereafter. in the case fan obligati: n r iability consisting of a Z
Z
mortgage, trust deed, or other securi _- in the nature of a iortgage, 0 during the period of military Z
Z
service in the case of any other obliga '0 or liability. Z
Z
Z
o
o
• The seRA. states that, in a legal action to enforce a debt agai st real estate that is filed during, or w
o
o
within one year after the servicernernbers military service, a court nay stop the proceedings for a ~
period of time, or adiust the debt. In a ition. he sale. foreclos. re, ' r seizure 0: real es ate shall not
be valid jf it occur- during. or within one year after t e servicemernbers ni itarv service unless the
creditor has obtained a valid court or er approving the sale. foreclos re, or seizure of he real estate.

• The SCRA contains many other protections besides those applicable to home loans.

How Does a Senricemember or Dependent Request Relief Under the SeRA?

• In order to request relief under the SCRA from loans with interest rates above 6% a servicemernber
or spouse must provide a written request to the lender. together with a copy of the servicernernber's
military orders.

'Wells Fargo Bank

Attn: Special Loans/SCRA
l\1AC T7416-OlC
PO Box 659810
San Antonio, TX 78265-9110
Telephone: 1-866-936-7272
Fax: 1-877-658-4585

• There is no requirement under the SeRA, however, for a servicernember to provide a written notice
- .. .: --- 1-.__ ,~ ~;1;t_..,,..,, r.rrlAr" to tJ1P jpnopr in connection with a foreclosure or other
 Page 4 of?

Account Information
Loan number: 0215849183

Property address: 30:3 South Jefferson

Frontenac ](.<; 66763

the military status of a person by searching the Department of Defense's Defense Manpower Data
Center's website, contacting the servicemember, and examining their files for indicia of military
service. Although there is no requirement for servicemernbers to alert the lender of their military
status in these situations, it still is a good idea for the servicernember to do so.

How Does a Servicemember or Dependent Obtain Information About the SCRA?

• Servicernembers and dependents with questions about the SCRA should contact their unit's Judge
Advocate, or their installation's Legal Assistance Officer. A military legal assistance office locator for o
o
all branches of the Armed Forces is available at S
S.
http://legalassistance.law.af.mil/content/locator.php. (f)

o
-I
S
o
• "Military OneSource" is the 1:. S. Department of Defense's information resource. If you are listed as o
o
entitled to legal protections under the SCRA.(see above), please go to i')
.t.
<1l
<1l
~-\'w.militarvonesource.mil/iegal or call 1-800- 342-9647 (toll free from the United States) to Z
Z
find out more information. Dialing instructions for areas outside the United States are provided on Z
Z
the website. Z
Z
Z
Z
z
We're here to help z
z
If you have any questions or need additional assistance, please contact us at the number listed in the z
z
account information section of this letter. z
z
z
o
o
.e,
o
Wells Fargo Bank, X.A. o
---J

Enclosure

Contact us
If you'd like to request information, notify us of an error, or share any concerns you may have about the
servicing of this account, please contact us at P.O. Box 10335, Des Moines, L\ 50306. Please include the
account number with all correspondence.

Beware of Foreclosure Rescue Scams.

To report a scam, call1-888-995-HOPE (4673) and tell the counselor about your situation and that you
believe you were scammed or know of a scam. Or go to https://V\\v\A;.consumerfinance.go\,/complaint/
to submit a complaint and get information on how to fight back.

Additional resources
For additional information about preventing foreclosure, avoiding scams and accessing approved
counseling at no cost to you; visit our website listed in the account information box above.

Get free counseling to help manage expenses and avoid foreclosure. Reach out to a local HUD-approved,
non-profit housing counseling agency if you're struggling to keep up with monthly expenses, or want
help to avoid foreclosure. At no cost, a counselor will work closely with you, providing the information
and assistance you need. To find an agency near you, go to www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hcc/fc. Or call
_ •...• "'_ ._<>_ r ••.•r-c r-c _ 0 __ 0 __ 0 \ "\7_•• 1 11 UfYDV U·_+l: •.•" •..•
+ ,_QQQ_f\f\~_U(YDk' (Ahl"7t))
 Page.5 of7

Account Information
Loan number: 0215849183

Property address: 303 South Jefferson

Frontenac KS 66763

Be sure you avoid anyone who asks for a fee for counseling or a loan modification, or asks you to sign
over the deed to your home, or to make your mortgage payments to anyone other than Wells Fargo
Home Mortgage.
\\'here appropriate. \\'ells Fargo Home Mortgage is required to inform you that, as your UCCOUllt servicer, we are attempting to collect a debt and
any information obtained will be used for that purpose,

We may report information about your account to consumer reporting agencies, Late payments, missed payments, or other defaults on your
account may be retlected in your credit report.
o
o
s:
Wells Fargo Home Xlortgage is a division of\YL:lls Fargo Bank, ):,A. (C)2018 Wells Fargo Bank, '\.A An rights reserved. 1\;"'ILSRm :199801 r:
(f)

o
-;
s:
o
o
o
ro
A
oJ)
m
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
o
o
U1
o
C)
--.j
 Page 6 of7

o
(J
s:
~
rn
~
s:
o
a
a
I\)
~
cr>
a>
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
Z
Z
Z
Z
/~~ Z
·.\~":"G .... \ H(l~D.\ If Z
! SXS-C)'l'i·' lOP[ a
a
cr>
a
HUD- 2008-5-FHA a
.....,
;,pnI2012

I\)
 UvlVIL IvU IIVIU VV'::'''tUO ''4,'4''11'11I1''''',,,,,,,,,, ..• ''',,, •.• , .•.•.•...• _. __ •

t-
'C
t-
o,
0()

c,"

Ii ELI" I CANT fv\AKL M)' vVtJAl OPTIONS WILL HELP Mt milY,lb" indude all amount toroluce your ,~islillg 10al1
!xltH"":: by "l' to 31')t!,1. 'I he rnitllcd lcan Iulan« will then
MOI~ H.JACit PAYMl:.NT, KErr MY IIOJ\.:E"? . ' 1)(' ll~?dil;..:J IX) lowj" )0111 n~olllhly lljOf'lg.'ge p:~,ymerH h)
h't'I'\' d'II' d'l\\I\,llld, of 1'(01'11' like you h.II'C trouble ['I-lJIi prol' ide'", ;), 1),\1'1'II its insuran ••." contnur wilh :ill :llIo)'dablc level.' A~ <.icscnhnl"h"vl'. Ih~ p:1I'Ilai claim
making lhe nex: mortgage p,IYITl('nl, Thougl. Thing, lender", 10,'" Inhil\,llioll ~(fi()I1,~ lill- lender nlll" evnlu.u; 1<I,lllil. inn-rest .fre~.1lbl1l must bt, r"paid when )'011 P"Y oil'
nt.l), S,'''''ll'l hopc'less, help i,\ 3I'.,ilahk. However, Yoll. .ind t.ikc, \1'''''1\ ::"pJ'Ol'fiarc', ro reduce Ijo:lIlLbll()~,c'\ nil }our fir,t mOrtgage, or 'I'll yOlll' hC)Il\c,
Ileed 10 lak" ti", firs! stC'1'1 If ),()Il ignnr<' I he prohlem IOJI1S ill dJ1I1.1i. VO"I' \(-"d",,' IIlnl, inf;,,'111;lIioll f,,)1ll )'1\11
to full; C\,ilt',ilC dIC"I(' 0ptloJt,. If' YOll \\'.1111 It) k\.'t;p \'f~lIr
'I,) qualify 1,)(, "n}1~"'he~eo!'ti()lls. fl1U will need In
)'Illl m.l)' lost, your horne 10 1~'l'cd(}Slllt'. I""cihll
!lr\)l~dt' your kn.d~T wi: h (I,m'ell!. iulonn.uion "holll y0111'
.dfcCling 10m "hi lily to <'ill.tldy lor crcdu ()I' 10 rent b0l111', t.ill, lo yllill 1~,'l1di'f .d'(HIl ,IV.H\.lhh' Wf,lIl,.olH 01'1,11\1'11,
HII ""11~ ;Il1d l"xpcnl'j.'" Ab(l, j("Jt 1"lId",. 1'11;1)'1\'(1'lII'l' 1'1,.11
.mot lur I)tHIil'. 1<lr IHHl1l' t\ IClltil'li. \'-:'hi\...· fll\" npd"H·,li.,ll·t! hlTC .ll1,.,till'
Villi •.t~.tl\T t(~.1 pa)l.rl1cnt pl.Ul ttlr dlll'f (II" II"lOIl: ruomh-. to
h"r1"('\I\'''' wul: 1;11/\ ill\l"",II",III" 11\(''.1It "dl'''. "il"1
tI( tlH)JI',tI.IIC VOIll· <,':'Ulllllif.lIh'lli 1)1'101"(.'Y0l! ,\h::tppro\.r/,xJ
VVlli\! ,,,11(1l1LD! l)\) ..;il11ittl' \\1 "kclllI pl.in-, (k,i~(,Ji(:d in 11t'lp 'Ptl k,'cp ynlll
11)1 ;1 11'lndiJic.Hion (II' 1,.ln i;ll ....
.l.rim.
horne.
]. COlll.lC'1 your kllder righl ,1"'''Y' Yon <:;11'find:l
com.« t number on }our Jllon~:lgt' stau-mcut . When Special 'Fol'hc<lr;\1I":I~ Your it-llci('I' 111;11pl'I'\'ld" 1;)1 ,I 1('''' W/IAI OPTIUNS no I HAVL II' I
pOl~l1T l'nirlllioll "I' ',11"1"'11\1\11101 )Ullr ",I.),II\('nl' Ln,.!I",\' CAN", KtF.I'r vn' LH)MU '
)'011 tall. he prep,lr,'d 10 ,'xl'lain:
i'OIi lil11<'to (O\'cl'wllwilw I"ohlelll ih,u I'('dnn:d y"lII'
'" \Vh)' rOll ,.Ire 1I11.,hlc to make vour income. I hen I'<ln 111.1\'h" olkn:d ,11"'YI111'O( phn '" Vol! II )'UUI 1I)«'Ill," or Co'P"lt""' h,IY" ('hr\lIg~d ,0 much that
I'J vrn« u l. can 1',1) luck !Ill' IIli",'d 1''';'111''''1\ ,I link <11" um. 1I1l1.! )'1" 1 .11'\'.IWI .iblc to ,'11111im« payil'l!\ lhemong:lgc even
" \Xlh"lhcr the prohlcrn is ll'tnpor.ll'y YUlIpn." ~llighl up. I\n <;xll-ndt:'d fCU+W.1mll".l.'jh:riod BUY 1111<1,'1',I I", WltoUI pJ.lIll,Jkrcd by YOllr lender, you ~I){)uld
he proviclcd ro 1t1ll'IllI'I"ycd horfllW,',.,\ who .irc acrivclv ,,,"'ider 11)('opriqns h(,low,
or pL"nnalltllL

'" Delaib .Iholll yom il1,'lII11e. ('>:1"'I1'e,. :lnd

s('ck~J)!h l'llIpJoynll'lll. 1'I'~-f()r exlosure $I~e,
With .1'0111'k)lCkr:~ p~rII.lili.'>ic)))you
other ass,,'ls like cush in 11.<,h.uik. I'vtorlgagc Modi/kiltion. 1\ 1l1Odili',llil)1I i,.1 !,CrllI,IIWnl <'.111{)/\(.r your htll*1;11'd",:mcl ~II it JI t;\irJn:~rke:1value

2. If pHI arc uncomlon ahlc lalkin!, 10 your kmkr, ,I

chal1!-!,l' to your loan dlfOUgh which rlu; uV"·If.hH..' p.lyml.'tH,' ,r
('V e 11 the amOll~t you reu-rve rrl)Jl1 the I>all:1~ lessthan
may he .IJdcd 10 ~'c,,"'lo;JI1I.:d,lIlll" rhc illll'r\"1 r,IIC 1II,Iy ilK'al1101l1"1Iyou (/J'e, IfyoUIlIU'1 certain conditions, ynu
H Un-approved homing uIl1l1s<,ling agellCY c.in help
he CL""!.;l'" or the III 11111X;l' l)fYl'.lI'S you h"w 10 I"')' 011'till' 111:1)' b(' 1·ligible io I";ccivc rcloculou ('Xp"n~~:"
YOIl understand YOllr options. "lhe«: services .11\' I'rec'
,,(charge, loan 1ll.1)' be 1:~~e!1d"ll. Deed-in-lieu ndqreclosurc. fI~"\,')l resort, you m,lY be
Partial Cla.im.ln a I'clnial C\.tin, .. i borrowcr Jxcei\'(~;l .lbk 10 v<llunlarUt\;ivc pwp<'ny back It) you)' lender,
1,'<1111'
3. Open all of [he mail vou rn'civ, [rom your Irml.-I',
,,'cond lo.in ill au aJlH)IIIH IK'C<'"'''"Y to bring Ihe dclin- tJ'Y<>lllt\IW the PfOl'crI), clc.rn .md IInd~n1:\!,cd you may
II conrain-, valuable iulorm.uiou about rq>:lyll'll'llI
qlle~'1l 10,,11current '11", 10,In b illt",'':'l 1rc,' ,1I~ddOt',<11111 h,' diglbk 10 receive relocuiou CXI'"nses,
options. Later ""lil m.iv liuve import.uu legal
1l()I;CeS, F;tilil1g to rc.ld lhe' 1I1.1ilwill 1101 I'r<:V('1l1 nee to he rep"id I'1l1Iil)~)ll ray nlt'Yllllr li,." I1hJrlg"j'C' ",. Th~:r<:,(Hold be hj4oll1e I,IX cousequcnccs to '.lily plan [!I:ll
a torecloxure anion, "dl 'Olll' house, -I hi, "prinn is c)llly clv"il:thk 10 borrowers r"dll\~r,' Ihe ,IIl104,H or
debt )'OH owe so check wilh .Lrax
wiclj FH,\-ilhl1l'cd lo:ltl.<, 1'loWl'WI; If yt'," 1"lVc "(011 :IJvtllll' hd,)l'(~ a . '(iPlillg d,(:.~t· workoin (11'LiollS,
4. Look JlH wavs 10 incn':l\,' Ihl' .unouut vou han' veminll<1i lo.in, ,,,k vc IIII-kn<iC'r if rhev "fI'·,. ,III "~d,,:tn(':
available to 1I1:.ik•..your ll10rlgagc 1'''1'11'''''''S, (:,111 yOIl claim," ' , COflW':1 FHA!
cancel cable: IV. pack lunches. or g<:1a p.ur-umv job) SIlClIl;%lillg home 11"1ll'1'1< wnh n lA-insured loans can
\X'hik Ih,,,c .u.rions ruav Ilill !'('I'bel' ..11ofyonr lovt ,FHA-Home Affc)f'(iablc Modihcanon Pt'()gt~UII !\,'r ""isbnct' by 'nt:lclill~ HUt)\ Nauonal Scrvidng
j!l\.,,0I11l', ihcv send a srronu rnl'SS~'lgt.--'10 YOllr k·IH..I1..:1' (FI-IA-HAMP), 'I his option combines all cnlunccd (;('I1ICI ar (877) F-S5~5, Ib'I"" with 1tt<lring or speech
1hat YOII ~ln.~1 scrio liS a},olll'''kt'q 'ill~ yotlr 11\.)111<:. pilrui:ll claim wuh .1 In311 moditicarion. LInd", rhe FilA· illll':lilmenl$ll1 .• ;r(';.I(\1 Ihi, 11UInbcr via TDDrrrV by
Ht\Mt~ tI,l' l'a('lkll claim loan will not only include any ,.,lii,,!; (ROO)8 -8339,
NOTHING IS WORSE HMN DOING NOTHING! am'l'unrs nc,'''SS:I1-,I'ro bring your rnortgage curren I hUI
+.... •. , .~ ~.. .... ...••_••_._.-.----~.
B~wal'c of Scamsl If I« SeundsIoo GUtid 'J() He'Jj .It UsuaUy Is~ lc..
Report mvrt~~ge fraud. Call '!SO()-31 ~;}73S.
I'
 for
green plants and used to build organic nu-
trients 3: organic materials formed by
plants and used in their growth and activi-
ties 4: solid food as distinguished from
drink
>-
0::::
food chain n : a sequence of organisms in
which each depends on the next and usually
<C
lower member as a source of food Z
food.stuff II : a substance with food value
11001 n 1: a person without good sense or
judgment 2: JESTER 1
o-
21001 vb 1: to spend time idly 2: to med- f-
dle or tamper with something 3: to speak
C2
or act in a playful way or in fun : JOKE 4
:2TRICK
tocl-har.dy ad} fool.har.di.er; fool.har.di.
-
c
est: foolishly adventurous or bold
toot-Isn ad} : showing or resulting from lack
of good sense : SENSELESS - fool.ish.ly
adv - toot-rsh-ness n
tocl-proot ad} : done, made, or planned so
well that nothing can go wrong
1foot n, pl feet 1: the end part of the leg of
an animal or person : the part of an animal
on which it stands or moves 2: a unit of
length equal to twelve inches (about .3
meter) 3: something like a foot in position
or use - on foot : by walking
2foot vb 1: to go on foot 2: IpAY 2
toot-ban n 1: a game played with a blown
up oval ball on a large field by two teams of
eleven players that move the ball by kick-
ing, passing, or running with it 2: the ball
used in football
foot-ed ad} 1 : having a foot or feet 2
: having such or so many feet
toot-tau n : the sound of a footstep
foot.hill n : a hill at the foot of higher hills
foot-hold n : a place where the foot may be
put (as for climbing)
foot.ing 11 1: a firm position or placing of
the feet 2: FOOTHOLD 3: position in re-
lation to others 4: social relationship
foot.lights 11 pI : a row of lights set across
the front of a stage floor
toot-man 11, pl teet-men : a male servant
who lets visitors in and waits on table
foot. note n : a note at the bottom of a page
foot. path n : a path for walkers
foot. print 11 : a track left by a foot
toot-sora ad} : having sore feet from walk-
ing a lot
toot-step n 1: a step of the foot 2: the
distance covered by a step 3: FOOTPRINT
toct-stoor 11 : a low stool to support the
feet
toot-work 11 : the skill with which the feet
are moved (as in boxing)
1for prep 1: by way of getting ready 2
: toward the goal of 3: in order to reach 4
 "'-0
FIt ~_r..J

IN THE DISTRICil~odhroFlc=rlAwFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

Wells Fargo 0 ( -----_.)

PLAINTIFF, )

Vs. ) CASENO. 2013CV32P

Julie Brunskill et al )

DEFENDANTS. )

MOTION FOR CIJANGE OFJUDGE WITH AFFIDAVIT

Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-311d(h) Chapter 60

COMES NOW, Defendant Julie Stover-King who was previously Julie Brunskill Pro Se and in
accordance with K.S.A.20-311d(b) and K.S.A.20-311e and states as follows:
 8. Defendant's husband also has made an ethic complaint against Senior Judge Richard M.

Smith with The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications dated July 4, 2015 in case

number 2015MR2P In The Matter of the Grand Jury Petition for failing to properly fill

out the yearly required judicial financial disclosure report and Defendant feels that the

court would be biased and prejudiced against her for the complaint her husband filed
previously against the court. (Exhibit AC)

9. Defendant's father-in-law Michael King made an ethic complaint with the Kansas

Commission on Judicial Qualifications against Senior Judge Richard M. Smith where the

commission met on December 4, 2015 where the complaint was continued until

February 5, 2016 for lack of quorum because Judge Cameron recused. (Exhibit AD).

10. Defendant's husband Kasey King filed an ethic complaint with the Kansas Commission

on Judicial Qualifications against Senior Judge Richard M. Smith and received a letter

dated November 23, 2015 from the commission where they stated the complaint would

be heard on December 4, 2015. (Exhibit AE)

11. Defendant's husband Kasey King received letters from the Kansas Commission on

Judicial Qualifications dated December 22, 2015 and February 23, 2016 where the two (2)

complaints filed against Senior Judge Richard M. Smith were continued until April 1,

2016 for lack of quorum because Judge Cameron and Judge Fairchild recused. (Exhibit

AP, AG, AH, AI)

12. Defendant filed a motion for change of judge to have Judge Smith recuse himself in this

case on 6/11/2018 in accordance with KS.A. 20-311d and as now filed the motion for

change of judge with affidavit under KS.A. 20-311d(b)(c), and a motion for Writ of

Mandamus will be filed next by Defendant if the motion for change of judge with
affidavit filed by Defendant is not granted in this case.

13. Defendant filed a motion for change of judge in accordance with KS.A. 20-311e which
prevents the court from retaliating with any contempt punishment to Plaintiff that the

court might want to grant for filing the motion for change of judge and motion for

change of judge with affidavit in this case.

14. Defendant feels that Judge Richard M. Smith would be biased and prejudiced against

Defendant because Defendant previously paid a civil filing fee in case number 15-CV-

79P where Judge Richard M. Smith had to retain an attorney to file motions for him
 July 4,2015

Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

301 S.W. Tenth Avenue

Topeka Ks 66612

Case Number 2015MR2P

COMPLAINT AGAINST RICHARD M. SMITH of Linn County District

Court, P.O. Box 350, Mound City, Ks 66056

I would like to make a complaint against Richard M. Smith for failing to follow Supreme Court

rule 6018 Relating To Judicial Conduct Canon 3. Rule 3.15(8) (2013 Kan, Ct. R. Annot. 748)

because he did not file his "Judicial Financial Disclosure Report" for 2013 until May 13, 2014

and he did not fill out his 2014 "Judicial Financial Disclosure Report" until May 19, 2015 which

both violate Rule 3.15(8) of Rules Relating To Judicial conduct. According to Canon 3 Rule

3.15(8) a judge is supposed to have his financial disclosure report filled out by April 15 of every

calendar year and his failure to file his 2013 and 2014 financial disclosure reports on time is a

violation of The Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 3.15(8) says "A judge shall report annually the

information listed above in (A)(1) through (7) on a form provided by the Commission on Judicial

Qualifications. The judge's report for the preceding calendar year shall be filed as public

document in the office of the Clerk of the Appellate courts on or before April 15 of each year.

He also violated Rule 3. 15(A)(6) because his 2014 financial disclosure report fails to list his

position that he holds at "Mound City Christian Church 212 Spruce Mound City Ks, 66056,

Elder" when his 2013 financial disclosure report shows that he was the "Trustee" at Mound City

Christian Church and the people need to know if he still holds this position as "Trustee" and his
failure to list his position is a violation of The Code of Judicial Conduct. The fact that he did not

file his financial disclosure report until after April 15, 2015 which is the last day to file your taxes