April 29, 2019

Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

301 SWTenthAve., Room 115
Topeka, Ks 66612

Case Numbers: 13CV32P Wells Fargo Bank N.A., vs.Iulie Brunskill and 2014 CV 86P
Wilmington Trust N.A., vs. Eric M. Muathe 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.

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. in case number 13CV32P Wells
Fargo vs. Julie Brunskill and Judge Richard Smith says on page (6) of the court transcript
that "I until late yesterday 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 argument she would like to add to that I informed the parties that I
was 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 o'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 OFA
RECORD then entered no other orders except to INFORMALLY suggest that anything that
transpired during the course of the telephone conference I would reiterate this morning or
today on the record".

If the judge really was using an abundance of caution wouldn't he have made the trial on 4-
2-19 to a final pre-trial conference and continued the trial for at least two weeks to comply
with Supreme Court Rule 140(a) Timing. A final pretrial conference under K.S.A.60-216(e)
may be held when discovery is complete. The parties must be prepared to complete the
procedural steps stated in subsection (c). If a final pretrial conference is held, it must be
held at least 14 days before trial.

Ijwe cannot believe that this judge just called everyone that has ever represented
themselves Pro Se or have been to small claims court in Kansas a FOOL!!!! On page 15 of
the court transcript he states "I reiterate they have a constitutional right to represent
themselves but Ijust 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 LA WYER 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 BIASED AND PREJUDICED against ALL Pro Se litigants or
any party that represents themselves in court because he thinks they are a FOOL!! 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
1114,1115, and 1116.

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 and it was in the court order from the March 24 and 25
2019 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 "actually, the admonishment, apparently whether or not I ever gave it is
not the issue.

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?????????

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 ofmv cases either did or did not suggest to her that it was not wise for anyone to
ever represent themselves in Court. particularlv someone who is not an attorney. and I made a
remark about that admonishment in a prior order. she claims I never told her that".

He states in page (5) "1would defer to her memory, if[ didn't actuallvsuggest like I do in
99.99 percent of my cases with pro se litigants that it is usually frowned upon as prudent and
wise for someone to represent themselves. II

Judge Richard Smith never suggested to me that it is usuallyfrowned upon as prudent and
wise for someone to represent themselves" in my case of 2014 CV 86P Wilmington Trust N.A.,
vs. Eric M. Muathe.

I must have been that .00001 percent that he forgot to suggest that too when I filed my
motion for change of judge with affidavit against him and a mandamus with the Supreme
Court (ERIC M. MUATHE PETITIONER, V. RICHARD SMITH, SENIORJUDGE RESPONDENT-
J J

Kansas Supreme Court Case NO. 120296) that he is talking about or he is talking about the
music group with Diana Ross and Donna Summer (THE SUPREMES)!! Only an unethical
and disrespectful judge calls the Kansas Supreme Court "THE SUPREMES".

Does he think it's unwise for parties to represent themselves in Small Claims Court in
Kansas because attorneys are not allowed?

How could Julie Stover-King 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 for not having counsel in a court order but won't admit it?

Judge Richard Smith has not used (ANY CAUTION) let alone (AN ABUNDANCE OF
CAUTION) because ifhe used AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION he would have
RECUSEDjDISQUALIFED himself from this case under Rule 2.11(A) for not being able to be
impartial because he is prejudiced against all Pro Se litigants because he considers them to
be FOOLS!!

He goes on to state on page (6) of the court transcript that "1just want the record to reflect
that if there are any representations to anything being said other than what 1just reiterated
they're a lie and I'm going to call it what they are because this case is frankly getting a little
out ofcontrol and I think anybody could see that from the raft o/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 AJ. Wachter, another judge Daniel Creitz who seems to be
the only one who is (ETHICAL AND FOLLOWS RULE 2.11(A) DISQUALIFICATION), because
he recusedj 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 an ethic complaint against him in May of
2018 with the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications because she and I had
previously sued judge Smith in a class action suit in the case of Eric Muathe, et at vs.
Honorable Kurtis Loy, et al in 15cv79p in Crawford County where I received filing
restrictions along with her husband Kasey King 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 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 o/someone else.
I'm not sure who that is because actually I'm doing this/or her convenience so that her
motions can be thoroughly considered and I reiterated that fact and that this was for her
convenience. no one else's. that I was going to begin at 10:0 o'clock and everyone should
govern themselves accordingly. II

Who is Judge Smith 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 11th district 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. Judge Smith showed how incompetent he is by scheduling a pre-trial conference
on 4-2-19 at 10:00 a.m. the same day as the bench trial at 1:15 p.m. on 4-2-19.

Only a judge who is clearly biased, prejudiced, and completely incompetent would file a
pre-trial conference with only (1) day notice on the same day as trial. He knew he was
going to deny Miss Stover-King all her motions at the pre-trial conference and that he
would have trial NOMATTERWHAT!

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 apparentlv a petition in the form ola writ of mandamus which I have to presume-I
haven't seen this yet because. I believe. I'm the defendant and it's my understanding that
service of process was issued to Lynn County. /I

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 sheriffanv dav now but it is a reference to a new case. 19CV43P. and she's asking for a
stay because of that writ of mandamus action. /I

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 ofthe code of judicial conduct.

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 him 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 me Eric Muathe
who was a co-plaintiff in case number 15CV79P where Judge Smith was a defendant and I
received filing restrictions along with Julie Stover-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 of another litigant I have in another
proceeding and this reads very similar to and I'm assuming the mandamus petition is
probablv very similar to the one Mr. Muathe filed actually in the Supreme Court. not her. so I
didn't have to deal with it directlv. but I'm going to presume it's kind oflike that one. And, in
,fact. maybe it is an original action before the supremes, I don't know, I haven't seen it vet. but
I'm going to deny the request to stay proceedings and it says possibly consolidate. There will
be no order o/consolidation with this purported mandamus that's been filed against me. /I

Judge Smith is clearly irritated with me or he would not make a public statement on a court
of record comparing a petition filed by Julie Stover-King to the mandamus that I filed with
according to him "THE SUPREMES" 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 I filed a mandamus against him with The Kansas Supreme Court not "THE
SUPREMES"in case he forgot and he is using myself as an example as he smirks and makes
smirk remarks 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 because Julie Stover-King filed a mandamus a~ainst him in district court and mine
was filed with The Kansas Supreme Court which he has gave the inappropriate and
demeaning nickname of 1fTHE SUPREMES".

That is why he should have used (AN ABUNDANCEOF AUTION) like Judge Daniel Creitz
did and simply follow Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification of he code of judicial conduct and
disqualify himselffrom this case and he should have di qualified himself from my case as
well in 2014 CV86P Wilmington Trust N.A., vs. Eric M. uathe.

The fact that Julie Stover-King is Pro Se and Pro Se liti nts are held to lesser standards and
the court case of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 st tes this. "[P]ro se pleadings are to
be liberally construed to give effect to their content ra er than adhering to any labels and
forms used to articulate the pro se litigant's argument ". State v. Kelly, 291 Kan. 563, 565-
66,244 P.3d 639 (2010). The fact that Judge Smith wa not competent enough to sign a
court order from a December 11, 2018 hearing when e says that Discovery cutoff has to be
completed by January 11, 2019 even though he didn't ven sign the order until January 15,
2019 shows how incompetent and unprepared he has een and is a violation of Rule 2.5
Competence, Diligent, and Cooperation.

Judge Smith then goes on to read on the court record 0 page (13) line 6 about "the
defendant's cavalier attitude", and mentions it again 0 line 16-17 when he reads "had the
nerve to state in his record the defendant's cavalier a tude regarding the upcoming trial
and her decisions to engage in other activities rather t an trial preparation concerned the
court greatly from the standpoint that it appears she f ils to understand the severity of the
circumstances re-enforcing the courts prior admonitio that she would be better off
represented by counsel." He then reads on line 24 "th definition of caviler is arrogant and
defendant is not arrogant. Defendant was never admo ished at the December 11, 2018,
status hearin IIwhich I think I've alread addressed h t because I t ink tha 's true b t he
oe on to sa If'ud e Smith has also barred de endant om discove because he sa s
defendant was supposed to have it completed. II

Judge Smith just read on the record on the court recor of page (13) and (14) all the issues
that Miss Stover- King had with him calling her cavalie 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.
Instead he makes absolutely no reference at all to the comment of (cavalier) and the only
reference he makes to the admonishment of her 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 [think I've alreadv addressed that
because I think that's true but she goes on to say,
If.

He won't even admit for sure if he did admonish her or not as he says Ifwhich[think" I've
already addressed that because [ think that's true but she goes on to say".

Does he not know ifhe admonished her or not?? Ifhe 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 for not having counsel.

He 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 ofmissing the point that the order was effective when I entered it
from the bench but, ] mean, that's a whole other question that [ don't need to get into."

Judge Smith did not follow Kansas Supreme Court Rule 170 and K.S.A.60-258 Entry of
Judgment 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 Rule 170, K.S.A.60-258, and did not admonish her for not having counsel at
the December 11, 2018 hearing 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 FOOLbecause 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, which is (ME) (Mr. Eric Muathe) who he had the nerve to
reference in this case!!!!!!

Judge Smith goes on to show how he doesn't use any (ABUNDANCEOF CAUTION)on page
(15) line 12-25 when he says "l don't know why she would have been terrified of me, ] think
the statement that she has reasons to be afraid of me would run contrary to everything 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 friendly and kind oUoking around
about some ofthe stuffshe put in the motion about me. And [was complementing her for
digging that information up because it was accurate because] am an elder ofthe church or]
.
was until recentlv so. ] mean, it was an interesting thing but] did not have a problem with any
.
of 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? Why would Miss Stover-King think that Judge Richard Smith was funny at
an since he got filing restrictions against her husband- Kasey King and myself (ERIC
MUATHE) in case number 15CV79P?

1don't think Miss Stover-King made an ethic complaint against Iudge Richard Smith in May
of 2018 with The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications against him because she
thought that judge Ri-chard Smith was- "nothing but friendly to her and they had kind of
been joking around"! He retaliated against her for that ethic complaint she filed in May of
2018 which violates Rule 2.16 Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities.

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

That's because he didn't admonish her at the December 11,2018 hearing, he just retaliated
against her violated Rule 2.16 Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities and put it in a
court order from the March 24, 25 2019 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 opportunity to
be here, sorry I hadyou 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 10:00
a.m. because she told him that in the email that she could only be there at 1:15 because his
hearing at 10:00 a.m. did not comply with court rules.

I don't think Judge Smith has shown any competence in this case which violates Rule 2.5
Competence, Diligence, 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, and he uses me as an example
referencing a mandamus I filed with "THE SUPREMES" and calls me a "FOOL" because I
represent myself Pro Se.

Please investigate this matter and give judge Smith 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 all Pro Se litigants are FOOLS. He
showed he is not honorable as he never would never actually admit on the court transcript
ifhe ever admonished Julie Stover-King or not. He said he thinks he addressed that and he
thinks it's true what shesaysbut-does he say "yes it's true J made a mistake and
admonished her when she really wasn't admonished and Iwill have to amend the court
order from the March 24~25 2019 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 thinks' he is using an abundance of caution.

I have included the definition of ,'FOUL" which says "a person without good sense or
judgment". The definition of "FOOLISH" is "showing or resulting from lack of good sense".

Judge Smith should not hear any Pro Secases when he states (WITH VAUDATtON) on
record that only a fool represents themselves.

Thanks
Sincerely,
-.I1J0 NW~
Eric Muathe
1410 Bitner Terrace
Pittsburg, KS66762
4/29/2019 Clerk of the Appellate Courts· Case Search Result

KANSAS APPELLATE COURTS

Clerk of the AppellateCourts - Case 'Sear~h Result

QuerY-Attomey-s and/or Parties

Helpful filingJiJl.§

Appellate Case Number 120296

District Case #
-court TytJe SUPREME COURT
Case Type ORIGINAL
Case Sub-Type MANDAMUS ORG ACTION
County
Date Docketed 13-NOV-18
Case Caption ERIC M. MUATHE, PETITIONER, V. RICHARD SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE, RESPONDENT.

New Case QuerX

Judicial Branch Home Pag~
&!pMfilingJiP.§

Case Event Detail

jJ)ai01 Description m
117-JAN-19 !/SUPREME COURT ORDER 1 Corrected Order: Denied: PetIWrit of Mandamus( 1/16/19). Justice Johnson recused. I
DENIED-ORIGINAL KCTION/DCT REINSTATEMENT IDenied:PetlWrit of Mandamus. Denied as moot: Mtn to Stay, Eric
116-JAN-19! Muathe.
I
lS-NOV-
18
!CLERK NOTE WITH DOCUMENT(S) 1Resent Notice to Honorable Richar-d Smith

13-NOV- I
I CLERK NOTE WITH DOCUMENT(S) I-Notice to all parties.
18

li~-NOV- I CLERK NOTE WITHOUT DOCUMENT ICD FROM PETITIONER IN CLERKS HOLD FILE

113-NOV- ] PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ERIC M. MUATHE
18 1....-. .

New Case Query

Judicial Branch Home Pag~
:lk1p..ful..:filinglip.§
 Janet Vanleeuwen, C.S.R.
Certified Shorthand Reporter
602 N. Locust
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
(620) 231-3570

April 12, 2019

Ms. Julie Stover-King

RE: Wells Fargo Bank vs Julie Brunskill

Case No. 13CV32P
Motions hearing held on 04/02119 $66.00

;,-,.! .

.PAIDIN;PULL
 1

2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

3
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,
4
Plaintiff,
5
vs. CASE NO. 13CV32P
6
JULIE S. BRUNSKILL;
7 JOHN DOE (Real Name
Unknown); Mary Doe (Real
8 Name Unknown); and the
unknown heirs, executors,
9 administrators, devisees,
trustees, creditors and
10 assigns of such of the
defendants as may be
11 deceased; the unknown
spouses of the defendants;
12 the unknown officers,
successors, trustees,
13 creditors and assigns of
such defendants as are
( 14 existing, dissolved or
dormant corporations; the
15 unknown guardians and
trustees of such of the
16 defendants as are minors
or are in anywise under
17 legal disability, and all
other persons who are or may
18 be concerned,

19 Defendants.

20

21 TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

22 PROCEEDINGS had before the Honorable RICHARD M.

23 SMITH, Senior Judge Holding Court in the District

24 Court of Crawford County, Kansas, at Pittsburg,

,
{
, 25 Kansas, on the 2nd day of April, 2019.
L·
 2

2 APPEARANCES:

3 The Plaintiff appearing by and through its

4 counsel, Ms. Linda Tarpley, of Shapiro & Kreisman,

5 LLC, 6811 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite #309,

6 Overland Park, KS 66202.

7 The Defendant, Julie Stover-King, appeared

8 not.

10

11

12

13
{
14
"-

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
~,
 3

1 APRIL 2, 2019

2 MS. TARPLEY: The case scheduled on this

3 morning's docket is Case No. 13CV32P. Would counsel

4 please enter her appearance.

5 MS. TARPLEY: Linda Tarpley appearing on behalf

6 of Wells Fargo Bank, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: The record should reflect that it is

8 now 15 minutes after 10:00. The Court has waited this

9 amount of time to see if the defendant would appear

10 and there are some addendums to the record that I

11 would like to make before we begin.

12 First, on -- let me start this way. The Court

13 rescheduled the pretrial conference in this matter and

( 14 attempted to hold the pretrial conference by telephone

15 last week. That conference at least resulted in the

16 Court entering one order which was that the pretrial

17 questionnaires would be adopted by reference and

18 thereby incorporating the information that is

19 contained in those questionnaires in making it the

20 Court's pretrial order.

21 Approximately ten or 15 minutes into the

22 conference it became apparent to the defendant that

23 there was no record being maintained of the pretrial

24 conference. The Court out of an abundance of caution

25 and because of the defendant's obvious concern with

~
 4

1 the lack of a record then entered no other orders

2 except to informally suggest that anything that

3 transpired during the course of the telephone

4 conference I would reiterate this morning or today on

5 the record.

6 Frankly, the defendant was, I think, the best

7 description would be obsessed with a single concept

8 and that was how the case could go forward in light of

9 Judge Wachter's actions on the case and his subsequent

10 admonishment for an ethical violation in a matter that

11 .is apparently related to the defendant's husband, if I

12 understand the facts correctly, but wasn't part of

13 this case or maybe even was part of this case, I'm not
.
( 14 sure.

15 But in any event wasn't part of the issues and we

16 really couldn't get passed that with the defendant and

17 so I told the defendant that I would entertain motions

18 that she filed prior to trial and that we would

19 terminate the conference, again, with the suggestion

20 that I would reiterate whatever was stated during the

21 conference this morning, technically when we took up

22 the trial, because things have evolved somewhat since

23 then.

24 One of the other issues was that apparently in a

25 pleading the defendant makes some remark about how I

l
,~,
 5

1 admonished her and the context in which she states it

2 makes it seem quite critical and negative.

3 Actually, the admonishment, apparently whether or

4 not I ever gave it is not the issue, but had to do

5 with the fact that I like in all of my cases either

6 did or did not suggest to her that it was not wise for

7 anyone to ever represent themselves in Court,

8 particularly someone who is not an attorney, and I

9 made a remark about that admonishment in a prior

10 order, she claims I never told her that.

11 I would defer to her memory, if I didn't actually

12 suggest like I do in 99.99 percent of my cases with

13 pro se litigants that it is usually frowned upon as

( 14 prudent and wise for someone to represent themselves.

15 But I did represent to Miss Stover-King that I am

16 an absolute believer in ones constitutional right to

17 represent themselves and I would defend that right to

18 the last of my breath and that she had the right to do

19 that.

20 Now, that is basically the sum and substance of

21 my recollection of everything that happened in that

22 conference.

23 Miss Tarpley, have I left anything out that you

24 can think of?

25 MS. TARPLEY: No, Your Honor.

~~
 6

1 THE COURT: Now, I'm given to understand that

2 there are additional pleadings filed that might

3 suggest that something else was said during that

4 conference or maybe more than one other something else

5 and I just want the record to reflect that if there

6 are any representations to anything being said other

7 than what I just reiterated they're a lie and I'm

8 going to call it what they are because this case is

9 frankly getting a little out of control and I think

10 anybody could see that from the raft of motions.

11 Now, let me explain why we're here this morning.

12 As I stated to Miss Stover-King that she would have

13 the right to file motions and I would take it up.

( 14 We're scheduled for trial this afternoon at 1:15.

15 I am concerned based upon Miss Stover-King's

16 suggestions as to what she believed might be at issue

17 that this trial might take most of the afternoon. It

18 may not but it very certainly could.

19 I until late yesterday was scheduled to be in

20 Beloit, Kansas, tomorrow morning and so I decided that

21 in order to have the adequate opportunity to truly

22 consider and reflect on her motions and whatever

23 argument she would like to add to that I informed the

24 parties that I was going to start the trial at 10:00

25 a.m. this morning -- not the trial, excuse me, but

l'..,~
 7

1 take up pretrial motions at 10:00 o'clock, allowing

2 two hours to take up these motions.

3 Now it is stated in an e-mail initially that I

4 think first that she could not be here because she has

5 to work and the second e-mail that says she would have

6 to use up sick time, she's already taken a half a day

7 vacation in order to be here this afternoon.

8 I ended the communication from my end early this

9 morning sometime around 7:00 a.m. with an e-mail that

10 basically said -- because she claimed in these

11 communications that now this is all being done for the

12 convenience of someone else. I'm not sure who that is

13 because actually I'm doing this for her convenience so

14 that her motions can be thoroughly considered and I

15 reiterated that fact and that this was for her

16 convenience, no one else's, that I was going to begin

17 at 10:00 o'clock and everyone should govern themselves

18 accordingly.

19 That is the e-mail that I sent out and we can put

20 that in the record later if you want to but that's the

21 sum and substance of that e-mail. I've waited until

22 10:15, she's not here, and I told her that I would

23 take up these motions and rule on them.

24 Miss Tarpley, do you have any response you want

25 to make to any of these?

~¥
 8

1 MS. TARPLEY: Your Honor, I haven't seen them

2 because they were filed approximately 4:00 o'clock

3 yesterday evening is my understanding. That's 4:00

4 o'clock the day before trial and in light of the fact

5 that they cannot be electronically filed, they have to

6 be scanned, they are still not available to me to have

7 any idea what she has filed or what she's alleging.

8 THE COURT: Okay. The first one is a motion to

9 stay all proceedings and-or possibly consolidate the

10 case. That has to do with apparently a petition in

11 the form of a writ of mandamus which I have to presume

12 -- I haven't seen this yet because, I believe, I'm the

13 defendant and it's my understanding that service of

r -

\ 14 process was issued to Lynn County.

15 I'm looking forward to seeing the sheriff any day

16 now but it is a reference to a new case, 19CV43P, and

17 she's asking for a stay because of that writ of

18 mandamus action.

19 I have a -- Miss Stover-King seems to be for

20 whatever reason following the footsteps of another

21 litigant I have in another proceeding and this reads

22 very similar to and I'm assuming the mandamus petition

23 is probably very similar to the one Mr. Muathe filed

24 actually in the Supreme Court, not here, so I didn't

25 have to deal with it directly, but I'm going to

I.
""-
 9

1 presume it's kind of like that one. And, in fact,

2 maybe it is an original action before the supremes, I

3 don't know, I haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to

4 deny the request to stay proceedings and it says

5 possibly consolidate. There will be no order of

6 consolidation with this purported mandamus action

7 that's been filed against me.

8 The second one is an objection to decision ruling

9 on defendant's pretrial motions and journal entry

10 regarding the same. This does not seem to read like

11 an objection to whether or not the journal entry

12 correctly reflects the Court's orders. It actually

13 would probably be more along the lines of som~ form of

( 14 a motion for reconsideration. It's nothing new,

15 nothing presented, so that objection will be overruled

16 in all of its regards.

17 Next, is a motion to disqualify you as a

18 potential -- because you're a potential witness in the

19 case. The motion alleges that you are licensed

20 attorney and you work under Shapiro &--

21 MS. TARPLEY: Kreisman.

22 THE COURT: Kreisman, thank you, LLC Firm, listed

23 as a defendant in Case No. 19CV44P which I'm guessing

24 is a new lawsuit ~nd I don't know--

25 MS. TARPLEY: Your Honor, I have had an

'"--
 10

1 opportunity to read that case. It is a quiet title

2 action, however, on its face it is defective because

3 it does not identify the property which she wants

4 titled cleared. She's alleging that Shapiro Kreisman

5 actually owns this loan that is being litigated.

6 THE COURT: Well, I suppose that will be an issue

7 later today.

8 MS. TARPLEY: Yes.

9 THE COURT: Well, I thought this would go to that

10 you would be a witness in the current action. It may

11 actually kind of be in here in a left-handed sort of

12 way but there's a lot of stuff in. here about the loan

13 and I think we've kind of hashed through some of this

(
14 but I'm going to make the specific finding that the
"
15 defendant has failed to demonstrate even a probable

16 cause level of proof that Miss Tarpley would be a

17 witness in the instant action. And, therefore,

18 there's no reason to believe that she is a witness and

19 so the motion to disqualify is going to be denied.

20 The last is a motion to strike court orders on

21 January 15th and March 24th. This is the one that

22 said request to strike the court order from the

23 decision because defendant was never admonished at the

24 December 11, 2018, hearing. Yet the March 24, 25,

25 decision indicated that defendant had been admonished

l
 11

1 prior for not having counsel.

2 Also says defendant has issues with the court

3 orders from the December 11th hearing because Rule 170

4 wasn't complied with and was not within 14 days of the

5 hearing and was filed on January 2, 2019, by the

6 plaintiff's attorney, not signed until January 15th by

7 the Court.

8 MS. TARPLEY: Your Honor, I'd like to address

9 that.

10 THE COURT: Sure.

11 MS. TARPLEY: Rule 170 requires that when the

12 Court authorizes or directs a party after a hearing to

13 prepare an order it can be prepared under Rule 170 in

( 14 which case it is prepared and sent to opposing counsel

15 for their objections. That was, in fact, done the

16 very next day as is reflected by the certification on

17 the Court's order that I sent it to Miss Brunskill the

18 12th of December. I did not receive a response from

19 her and under the rule we allow 14 days for her to

20 submit an objection to either me or to the Court as to

21 the entry of that order, therefore, after the 14 days

22 and no response, I did submit it to the Court.

23 The fact that the Court did not sign the order is

24 nowhere in the rule requiring that the Court sign the

25 order within 14 days of receiving such order.

t~,
 12

1 THE COURT: Absolutely. Counsel actually knows

2 how the rule is supposed to work because part of that

3 rule does not include in sending a copy of the order

4 initially to the Court to sit on for 14 days like

5 everybody seems to believe it does and do.

6 "Defendant has been barred from discovery in the

7 case because defendant did not comply with the

8 statements from the judge at the December 11, 2018,

9 status hearing. That defendant complete discovery by

10 January 11th because the journal entry from the

11 December 11, 2018, hearing was never entered with the

12 Court until January 15th which was after the cut off

13 date for discovery."

( 14 That would probably be true but the problem is

15 that there was no request for any discovery until

16 March which there's not -- in fact late March, I think

17 around the 24th or something like that, my order

18 speaks to that.

19 "Defendant also has issues with the decision on

20 defendant's pretrial motions and journal entry

21 regarding the same electronically filed on Sunday,

22 March 24, 2019, where there was no hearing for

23 defendant to have oral argument."

24 I will say that is something that reminds me that

25 I did address that briefly during the telephone

 13

1 conference, that I pointed out to Miss Stover-King

2 that actually oral argument was within the discretion

3 of the Court and I didn't think that oral argument

4 would benefit the Court in any material fashion and

5 that's why I went ahead and ruled.

6 "The defendant's cavalier attitude regarding" --

7 here we go, regarding defendant's -- I'm sorry, I'm

8 kind of mumbling, makes a court reporter crazy, pardon

9 me, okay, here we go let me read this.

10 "Defendant also has issues with the decision

11 ruling on defendant's pretrial motions and journal

12 entry regarding same order electronically filed on

13 Sunday, March 24, 2019, where there was no hearing for

/'

{ 14 the defendant to have oral argument but defendant is

15 quite upset and concerned that Judge Smith on his

16 order March 24, 2019, had the nerve to state in his

17 record the defendant's cavalier attitude regarding the

18 upcoming trial and her decisions to engage in other

19 activities rather than trial preparation concerned the

20 Court greatly from the standpoint that it appears she

21 fails to understand the severity of the circumstances

22 re-enforcing the Courts prior admonition that she

23 would be better off represented by counsel.

24 The definition of caviler is arrogant and

25 defendant is not arrogant. Defendant was never

 14

1 admonished at the December 11, 2018, status hearing,"

2 which I think I've already addressed that because I

3 think that's true but she goes on to say, "Judge Smith

4 has also barred defendant from discovery because he

5 says defendant was supposed to have it completed."

6 This is repetitious of when the journal entry was

7 done so it's really basically the same argument, the

8 fact that the journal entry wasn't filed until then.

9 I think she's kind of missing the point that the order

10 was effective when I entered it from the bench but, I

11 mean, that's a whole other question that I don't need

12 to get into.

13 This also raises the fact that -- there's an

( 14 objection because she wants a jury trial which we know

15 is not available in this kind of action.

16 She's also suggesting that I'm expediting the

17 case, turning it into some kind of an assembly line

18 action, I think is the language she's using.

19 "Defendant was stressed out, had anxiety, and

20 could not properly prepare for the March 28, 2019,

21 telephonic conference because the defendant was under

22 the impression she had already been admonished by the

23 Court and was scared to proceed with a proper defense

24 at the March 28th hearing," and then the objections.

25 You can only have that one of two ways. I either

L
 15

1 admonished her or I didn't. If I did admonish her it

2 would have been my standard admonishment and I try to

3 present that in as friendly a fashion as possible,

4 it's not meant to be mean or condescending.

5 I reiterate they have a constitutional right to

6 represent themselves but I just point out that there

7 is a validation of the old adage that a person that

8 represents themselves in Court has a fool for both a

9 lawyer and a client and that there's a reason for that

10 expression because I even recommend that lawyers hot

11 represent themselves in Court, etc., etc., but if I

12 didn't give that to her which apparently she said I

13 didn't I don't know why she would have been terrified

(" 14 of me.

15 I think that the statement that she has reasons

16 to be afraid of me would run contrary to everything

17 that's happened in this action because we've been

18 nothing but friendly. We even had an off the record

19 conversation after the last hearing that was real

20 friendly and kind of joking around about some of the

21 stuff she put in the motion about me. And I was

22 complementing her for digging that information up

23 because it was accurate because I am an elder of the

24 church or I was until recently so, I mean, it was an

25 interesting thing but I did not have a problem with

 16

1 any of that. I thought we were getting along actually

2 splendidly until apparently I didn't rule in her favor

3 but I'm going to deny this motion.

4 Is there anything you want to add before I do

5 that?

6 MS. TARPLEY: Your Honor, I don't remember

7 honestly you ever admonishing her. I think that

8 perhaps at the December 11th hearing which she was

9 present at, which she agreed to all of the dates. You

10 questioned her at length about what discovery she

11 wished to complete and could she do that by January

12 11th to which she agreed but afterwards as you said I

13 believe that there was a general conversation between

( 14 you, me, and Miss Stover-King just about life and at

15 that point you might have mentioned that she probably

16 should seek counsel. I don't recall anything ever

17 being said on the record but it would not be unusual.

18 I hear it from judges every single day in cases with

19 pro se defendants.

20 THE COURT: Well, that would have been the

21 standard thing. If I didn't do it I should have

22 probably but that's not a requirement and it's not

23 like she's having trouble finding the courthouse or

24 how to file pleadings so, I mean, she's representing

25 herself in a relatively adequate fashion.

l
 17

1 The motion the last thing I'm going to do is

2 deny the motion to strike orders on January 15, 2019.

3 On the record she had the opportunity to be here,

4 sorry I had you here so early, counsel. I really

5 thought she would come and argue these motions.

6 I intend to actually begin the trial and I

7 anticipate her making some requests, absent

8 demonstration for really good cause, that I'm not

9 aware of so far, that she has not brought to my

10 attention, I do not intend to go back and revisit

11 these motions. I'm going to inform her that I ruled

12 on them and we're going to do the trial.

13 I don't know if -- I would like to be able to

( 14 finish the trial today without keeping court personnel

15 hete after hours so that's why we like to get started

16 on it because I do not know how long this will take.

17 MS. TARPLEY: Your Honor, presentation of my case

18 should take about half an hour.

19 THE COURT: Okay.

20 MS. TARPLEY: Tops.

21 THE COURT: Well, again, she's raised a lot of

22 issues, I don't know where we're going to go with

23 those.

24 MS. TARPLEY: I'll be objecting to them because

25 they will be beyond the pretrial questionnaire and her

\

•
 18

1 pleadings.

2 THE COURT: We'll address those issues as we get

3 to them. All right. Thank you very much counsel.

4 Anything else to corne before the Court on this

5 matter at this point?

6 MS. TARPLEY: Nothing, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Thank you. Court will be recessed.

8 MS. TARPLEY: Thank you, Judge.

9 (END OF PROCEEDINGS)

10

11

12

13
.
( 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 19

1
STATE OF KANSAS)
2 ) SS.
CRAWFORD COUNTY)
3

4 CERTIFICATE

5 I, Janet VanLeeuwen, a Certified Shorthand

6 Reporter, by virtue of the laws of the State of

7 Kansas, and the regularly appointed, qualified and

8 acting official Reporter for the Eleventh Judicial

9 District of the State of Kansas do hereby certify

10 that as such official reporter, I was present at and

11 reported in machine shorthand the above and

12 foregoing proceedings had on the date above set out

13 before the Honorable RICHARD M. SMITH, Senior Judge

,.,
f
\ 14 Holding Court in the Eleventh Judicial District of the

15 State of Kansas, Sitting in and for the County of

16 Crawford.

17 I further certify that pursuant to law my

18 shorthand notes were transcribed under my supervision

19 and that the foregoing is a true and correct

20 transcript of my notes in said case.

21 Electronically filed with the Clerk of the

22 District Court this 16th day of April, 2019.

23
/s/ Janet VanLeeuwen
24 JANET VANLEEUWEN, CSR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
25 Supreme Court #0854
{