"Self Reporting" Letter of Ethical Violations By Kansas Assistant Attorney General - Stephen...

8/16/2019 "Self Reporting" Letter of Ethical Violations By Kansas Assistant Attorney General - Stephen Phillips, [ May 11th, 2…

1/45

STATE OF KANSAS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEREK SCHMIDT

A nORN EY GE NE RA L

May 11,2016

MEMORIAL HALL

120 SW 10TH AVE., 2N D

FLOOR

TOPEKA ,K S 6 661 2 -1 597

(78 5) 296-2 2 1 5 •

FA X

(78 5) 2 96 -6 2

WWW.AG.KS.GOV

Kate Baird

Deputy Disciplinary Administrator

701 SW Jackson Suite 1

Topeka, Kansas 66603

Dear Ms. Baird:

I am writing to you to self-report allegations against me of possible ethical violations.

A copy of a letter that I was cc' d on is attached. The plaintiffs in this case are pro se individuals

who have been attempting to challenge the authority of Kansas judges in the Eleventh Judicial

District. A copy of their Petition (absent exhibits) is enclosed as Exhibit 1. You will note that

Stan Hazlett is a defendant whom I represent.

Attached as Exhibit 2 is the letter sent by Travis Carlton, one of the Pro Se Plaintiffs, to

senior judge Burr who is presiding over the case. Carlton makes several allegations that might

lead Pro Se Plaintiffs to file an ethical complaint against me. First he suggests that I engaged in

an ex parte conversation with Judge Burr at a April 18, 2016, hearing in Crawford County.

Plaintiffs did not appear at that hearing, thereby waiving their right to participate. I did suggest

that Judge Burr not state his home address in public record, but that request does not constitute

an ex parte contact. Pro Se Plaintiffs were not excluded from any conversation. A copy of the

transcript of hearing is attached as Exhibit 3.

Carlton implies that I have sent materials to Judge Burr's home address. I have not done

so. I have only sent them to him in care of the Sherman County Courthouse, as is indicated in

my certificates of service.

Finally, Carlton alleges that one of my responses to a motion showed a certificate of

service date of April 8, 2016, but they were not postmarked until April 11. A copy of the

Response is attached as Exhibit 4. After reading Carlton's letter, I reviewed my records

regarding the Response he discussed. I found that on Monday, April 11, I emailed to my

Administrative Assistant the Response that inadvertently included the date of April 8, which was

the date I drafted the Response. No subterfuge was intended. Also, no harm was suffered by

Pro Se

Plaintiffs. The hearing was not until April 18, and all parties were well aware that I

objected to any continuance.


2/45

Kate Baird

May 11,2016

Page 2

Finally, Carlton complains that my Response contained an incorrect case number. This is

true, but is was merely a typographical error. The case caption is correct, all parties are

identified correctly, and the Response was obviously to motions filed by Plaintiffs.

Sincerely,

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEREK SCHMIDT

~

j

1/J/

Ui

Jl

tifL

St . en Philli s

Assistant Attorney General

SP/drw

Enclosures

cc:

Judge Jack Burr

Sherman County District Court

801 Broadway, Room 201

Goodland, Kansas 67735

Jim Emerson

Crawford County Counselor

111 East Forest, 2nd Floor

Girard, Kansas 66713

Eric Muathe

PO Box 224

Pittsburg, Kansas 66762

Hand delivered copy to:

Noah Day

PO Box 224

Pittsburg, Kansas 66762 .

Carrie Barney

Assistant Attorney General

Kansas Attorney General

120 SW 10th, 2nd Floor

Topeka, Kansas 66612

Noah Day

9601 Hiss Ave., Apt. 1527

Denver, CO 80231

Kasey King

PO Box 224


James Beckley Jr.

PO Box 224


Travis Carlton

PO Box 224



3/45

';'.

.

_ _

. .

1 5 J U L 2 2 P 1 :4 1

IN THE DISTRICT COURTL~~~i~~~&u~NTY, KANSAS

8 Y ..

L SS TION PETIT ION

FOR

INJUN TIVE REL IEF

AGAINST THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANT JUDGES;

LORI FLEMING, A.

J.

WACHTER, KURTIS LOY, ROBERT FLEMING, OLIVER LYNCH, JEFFRV JACK,

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

OTHER DEFENDANTS INCLUDE; KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS PANEL

A AND

B ,

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

ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHM1DT.

Case No. _

K.S.A.

Chapter

60

Exhibit 1


4/45

CLA SS A CT ION PE TIT ION AGA IN S T CORPORATED AND

UN IN CORPORA TE D A SS OC IA TION S FOR IN JUN CT IV E A ND D ECLA RA TORY

RE LIE F A CCORD AN CE W ITH K.S .A .

60-223(a)(b)(c)(d)(e},

K,S.A .

60-223b

K.S.A .

60-257,

AN

D

K.S .A

60-901.

JU RY TR IA L D EM AN DED

L IS T OF P LA IN T IF FS ; A LL A IT ACH ED GRA ND JURY PE TIT ION ERS

LIS T OF D E FE N DA N TS ;

JUD GE KURT IS I. LOY

JU DG E A N DRE W J. W ACH TER

JU D GE R OB ER T J. FLEMIN G

JUD GE LORI B . FLEMING

JU DG E JE FFRY L. JACK

JUDGE OLIV ER KEN T LYNCH

JUD GE JAN ICE D . RUSSE LL

JUD GE R ICH ARD M . SMITH

JUDGE JOH N E . S A NDER S

K AN S A S C OMMIS S ION ON JUD IC IA L QUA LIFICA T ION S

S TAN TON A . H A llE n

M IC HA EL G AY OS O, JR .

T IM GRILLOT

K ANS AS A T TORN EY GEN ERA L D EREK SCHM ID T

Page 1 of 15


5/45

-.

.. .

: : .~.:::.

...,.::-...

Reasons that 'PANEL A' AND 'PANEL B' OF THE KANSASCOMMISSION ON JUDICIAL

QUALIFICATIONS need to be served as well as investigated are as follows:

Why send judges who have been complained on one

type

of letter advising the judge what

they need to correct or use caution on and send

i'l

completely different letterto

tho

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

be investigated as to why they allowed Honorable Robert Fleming to be the Chair ofthe Kansas

Commission on Judicial Qualifications when he himself was violating the rules of THE KANSAS

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS by being a youth preacher and having his wife

collect money for

th e

pARISH . Judge Robert Fleming is also hearing his past law partners

cases while recusing himself from ethic complaints on Donald Noland by Kasey King, Michael

King, and Kolby King back on July 25of 2003, recusing himself from Lester Moore's DOCKETED

complaint #1179 on March 11, 2013 on A .J , Wachter who was Fleming's former college

roommate, member of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church, teammate at Colgan, and former

owner of

wllbert,

Towner, Lassman,

Toburen,

fleming, and Wachter .

Judge Robert Fleming failed to recuse himself from complaints filed by Julie Stover against

Timothy Fielder on May

11/ 2011

and he failed to recuse himself from complaints filed by Kasey

King and Julie Stover on March H, 2013 against Honorable Goering and Honorable J. Patrick

Walters whe re Judge Walters was recused from the case out of Wichita. Kasey King, Julie

Stover, and Michael King all got Judge Fleming's former law partner, A.J.Wachter, reprimanded

with a LETTER

OF

CAUTION in docket number 1114, 1115, and 1116 for

his

inappropriate use

of the term peanut gallery made on June 7, 2011 which was two years before the above

mentioned complaint. Robert Fleming also should have never heard any complaint made by

Kasey King or Michael King because Kasey King played league and All-Star Baseball with

Michael Fleming who was coached by Michael King when he played

14

and 15

vear

old All

Star

Baseball.

Judge Lay had previously recused himselffrom case number 2011DM136P with Dustin Blair for

involvement in All Star Baseball with his son Kris lay when he was the coach and this

inconsistency with recusing under Rule 2 .11{A )

is

why this investigation is needed.

The wrongful acts of Crawford County District Court employees led to

a

class action lawsuit

filed by Kasey King, Michael King, Lester Moore, Julie Stover, Eric Muathe, and Noah Day in

Crawford County case number 130147P that was filed against Crawford County District Judges

including the relief judge, Honorable Senior Judge Janice Russell, for wrongful acts and omission

of employees. Janice Russell also had a Writ of Mandamus filed against her in the State

Supreme Court in Appellate Case No. 12-108867-S and since the attorney general's office in

Topeka chose to represent the above mentioned judges in court cases before where they were

sued civilly or perhaps had ouster complaints filed against their

80

NDS, chose to

defend

the

Page

2

of1S


6/45

above mentioned judges instead of pros uting them and their insurance BONOSso that all

judges in the 11thjudicial district, including Janice Russell, Richard Smith and John Sanders,

would become UNBONDABlE by any insurance agent in the state of Kansas under K.S.A.60-

1205 and K.S.A. 60-1206(a)(b).

The thing that disturbs the people

in

the 11th judicial district is that the KANSAS COMMISION

ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICIATIONS does not even follow their own Advisory Opinion

Annotations when it means they have to rule against their own religious members, family,

former law partners, and friends that should be disqualified from hearing a case for a conflict of

interest

under

Rule 2.11(A)

of

RULESRELATINGTO JUDICIALCONDUCT.

Judge Robert Fleming's daughter-in-law, Lori Bolton Fleming has already been NOTED on

December 13, 2012 by the KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIALQUALlFICATINES for her

husband being the treasurer/campaign manager for county attorney Michael Gayoso.

Somehow, Judge Lori Fleming thinks even after being noted by the committee after a complaint

by Lester Moore in December 13, 2012, she is still hearing the cases of Mr. Gayoso. Even

though they are members in the church band Team Jesus , apparently there are no conflicts

Lori Fleming also just recently got reprimanded with an informal letter of advice on February

23,2015 for the appearance of practicing law even though she

is

an 11th judicial district judge

because she was listed in the NAMES AND NUMBERS 2013 and 2014 phone book as an

attorney with the phone number of 620-231-1290. This number conveniently rings to her

former employer, Fred Spigarelll, and her husband Kyle Fleming of Fleming's Law Firm which

is housed inside the Spigarelli Law Firm

Judge Lov was reprimanded for the same thing on February 23,2015 for having the

appearance of a law firm and for double dipping as Loy and Sagehorn and still hearing their

cases and not recusing himself, even after complaints had been filed against him in case

number 2014LM55P and 2014LM409P where he heard the case of Burton Harding and Kip

Sagehorn

and

is

still listed as

the

current judge.

There are numerous reasons why there should be an investigation into Panel A and Panel B of

the KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONScommittee to see why these judges

are able to violate their own rules and still be a judge when they have obviously violated the

oath of office to be called 'Your Honor' when they have shown they have been ANYTHING

AND EVERYTHING

EX EPT

HONORABLE and have failed to follow Rule 1.1 of Rules Relating to

Judicial Conduct Compliance with the Law, which says A judge shall comply with the law and

the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct .

The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications Advisory Opinion Annotations which shows

obvious cases where Robert Fleming should have not allowed his son Kyle Fleming or his

Page3 of 15


7/45

daughter-in-law Lori Bolton Flemingto go in front of judges in the

ii

udicial district along

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

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

financial disclosure report.

In

1984, JE-8 says Appearance of attorney who is judge's daughter before other judges in

district, Canon

3(

How does this not relate to Lori Fleming, Kyle Fleming,

and

Candace

Brewster Gayoso as attorneys when they go, or went, in front of judges in the

11th

judicial

district?

In 1984, JE-11 says Attorney's advice to clients upon being appointed to the bench,

recommendation of spouse/attorney. Canon

2

How does this not relate to Lori Fleming

advertising

in

the phone book for her husband's law firm of Fleming Law Firm and Judge Loy

advertising for Loy and Sagehorn ?

In 1984, JE-12 says Appearance of firm members before former partner, now district judge,

who is also owner/landlord of firm's office building and son oHormer partner who is retired

and receiving an annuity form the firm and whose name remains on firm letterhead. Canons 2B

and 3c''' How does this not relate to Kurtis Lay who owned the office building of Lov and

Sagehorn and still owned 99% stock of Lay and Sagehorn and Kip Sagehorn and Burton

Harding go in front of him and still currently are according to the docket in case number

2014LMSSP and 2014LM409P. Judge Lay's father also previously had stock at Loy and

Sagehorn .

Where did Judge Lay's stock go?

In 1985,

JE-13

says Attendance of judge's spouse at political gatherings; political contributions

by judge's spouse form spouse's business income maintained in separate account. How does

this not relate to Lori Fleming's husband Kyle Fleming being Michael

Gavo sc' s

campaign

manager and Lori Fleming and Kyle fleming donating money to Michael Gayoso's campaign?

The Lester Moore Complaint in December

13,

2012 should have been

a

reprimand resulting in

a

letter of caution, informal advice with

a

PRIVATE CEASEAND DESIST from Lori Fleming ever

being able to hear Michael Gayoso's cases.

In

1987, JE-19 says Involvement of judge in cases handled

by

judge's former law firm'; effect of

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

2; 3C(1), (2),

and

(3);

and

3D.

All the Judges in the judicial district heard their law partners'

cases within

5

years after becoming a judge, especially Judge Oliver Lynch, Jeffry

Jack,

and

Kurtis Loy. So, how does this not pertain

to the

judges in the 11th district? Kurtis Lay is still

hearing cases of Burton Harding and Kip Sagehorn, according to dockets on 4-28-2015 in

2014LM55P and 2014LM409P. April 28, 2015 wasjust last month

Page

4

of

15


8/45

In 1987, JE-21 says Property of newly-appointed district judge remaining as co-trustee of

former clients' revocable trust. Canon SDHow does this not pertain to Judge Kurtis Loyowning

99% of his stock at Lay and Sagehorn and owning the building at 112 W.

4th

in Pittsburg Kansas?

The ORDER in case number 2014CV7P from August 2014 in the complaint filed by Travis

Carlton again st Kurtis Loy where the information was for his eyes only but Chief Judge

Wachter filed it publicly clearly should have been a reprimand with a letter of caution,

informal advice with a Private Cease and Desist to leave the case because of s amendment

right of Due Process Of Law.

In 1988, JE -2S says Judicial candidates' continuation as weekend pastor . Canon SA and 58(2).

How does this not relate to Robert Fleming the 11th judicial district judge and chair for

numerous years ofthe KANSAS COMMIS(ON ON JUDICIALQUALIFICATION ? How, to this day,

is Robert Fleming, Kyle Fleming, and his wife Peggy Fleming still youth ministers and Judge Lori

Fleming

a lecturer

at Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church and it does not violate JE-2S???

In 1988,

JE -26

Recusal due to relationship disqualification under Canon 3C(l)(d)(iv}; procedure

for remittal of such relationship under Canon 3D? Why are n district judges, and retired

senior Judges Janice Russell, Richard Smith and John Sanders not all clear on when to recuse

and when not to ?

In 1992, JE-37 says Judge's spouse as campaign manager in partisan county-wide election .

How does this not relate to attorney Kyle Fleming being Michael Gayoso's campaign manager

when his wife Lori Fleming is a judge? Lester Moore's complaint on December 13, 2012 that

was NOTED by committee should have been a reprimand.

In 1992,

JE-38

states, Judge as member of KansasCommission on Governmental Standards and

Conduct, Kan. Const., art. 3 Section 13. How does this not relate to previous Ethic Chair Judge

Robert Flem ing?

In 1993, JE-42 says Judge presiding at docket call wherein 50n or son's law firm represents

a

party.

Canon 3C(1)(d){i}, (ii), (Hi). How does this not relate to Judge Robert Fleming with Kyle

Fleming and Lori Fleming as attorneys before him and Candace Brewster Gayoso in front of

Daniel or David Brewster and Kurtis Lay in front of his father Kurtis Loy for numerous years?

In 1994, JE-47 says Judge as member of non-profit corporation board of directors, Canon 58,

How does this not relate to Oliver Lynch of the KansasArts Board? And this also should relate

to Kurtis Lay of THE STILLWELLFOUNDATION where Kurtis Lay received over $200,000.00 of

forgivable loans from the City of Pittsburg economic committee where his former law partner,

Mark A. Werner, and attorney Kyle Fleming, spouse of Judge Lori Fleming, and son of

Honorable Robert Fleming, are the two attorney/committee members who agreed on the

Page5 of 15


9/45

. . .. . . .. . ;· :1

I

,

request from Kurtis Lay and gave the FREE money? How is this not a demonstrated conflict of

interest?

In 1994/

JE-49

says Part-time city attorney serving as part-time municipal judge for a different

city , How does this not relate to Pittsburg city prosecutor and city judge in Cherokee County,

John Mazurek? The complaints of Jim Willard filed in February of 2015 that were dismissed by

Stanton Hazlett and The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

In 1997, JE-72 r:;ays Municipal judge who is also assistant county attorney may serve as

prosecutor under-certain conditions, How did John Mazurek get away with being a municipal

judge in Cherokee County and was the assistant county attorney under Michael Gayoso for

years? Is it because Michael Gayoso's wife is Candace-Brewster Gavcso and had ties to n

judicial former judges, Daniel and David Brewster? The complaint of Jim Willard on February of

2015

should have been a reprimand.

In 1997, JE-77 says Judge may serve as elder of church as long as judge does not solicit funds.

Canon 4C(4}(b). How does this not relate to Judge Robert Fleming when his wife Peggy

collects money for the PARISH at Our Lady Of Lourdes Catholic Church where he, their son

Kyle, and Peggy are youth ministers? The complaint filed by Eric Muathe back in December of

2014 to

February of

2015

against Robert Fleming for his ties to Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic

Church should have been a reprimand.

In 1988, JE-81 says Judge should not purchase property from an estate pending in the judge's

court even though the transaction was at

a rm 's

length and in good faith. Canons 1 , 2 A , 4A (1 )

and 4D(1). How does this not relate to Judge Loy and Judge Gariglietti whose wives are realtors

in this county?

In

1988,

JE-B4

says Judge may serve on

a

land purchase committee for his church if he will do

no legal work or fund raising. How does this not relate to Robert Fleming because the Catholic

Diocese of Wichita, which

is

over all the Catholic churches in this area, previously owned

Craw for d

County Judicial Center

a t 602 N ,

Locust, Pittsburg, Kansas Robert Fleming's wife

collects money for the PARISH and has a retirement account from the Catholic Diocese

according to his financial disclosure reports since she was a teacher at ST . Mary's Colgan, which

is the private Catholic school in Pittsburg, Kansas.

In

2000, JE-95

says Judge must cease all participation in ownership interest in a law firm

building.

Canon 40(1)(6), How

does this not relate to Judge Kurtis

tov

sti ll hearing Kip

5agehorn's cases when Judge Lay owns the building of the law firm

7

How was Judge Lay able

to still make judicial determinations and stay in case number

2014CV7P

when Travis Carlton

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

go t

another letter telling him to get

his

financial affairs in order? Why was there at least not

a

Page6 of 15


10/45

··: ·:··· ·· ·· :1

I· ,

letter of caution for this???? How can a judge stay in a caseafter a complaint makes them

change their Articles of Incorporation and the judge not be biased?

In 2001, JE-l02 says District magistrate judge may release log or written record of all closed

casesto the media as long as the judge does not comment on pending cases. Canon 3B(9)

Why does Janice Russell comment on pending cases of Eric Muathe to other attorneys against

him???

In

2003,

JE-112 says Judges may volunteer to cook and serve meals at

a

community soup

kitchen sponsored by a local church and open to the public daily. Canon

4C (4)

How does this

not apply to Robert Fleming since Our Lady of Lourdes is a private church and not a public one

and he and his wife are always volunteering/raising money for Our Lady of Lourdes

PARISH ?

In 2005, JE-126 says Judges should not attend or participate in a conference sponsored or

presented by

a

law enforcement agency which would in effect train judges to consider these

matters in future cases. SeeJE-121. Canon 2A and Canon 3B(7) How does this not relate to

Judge Lori Fleming since she sits drinking wine with Crawford County Deputy Stu Hite and his

wife Amy as Stu Hite himself explains law enforcement techniques to her husband, attorney

Kyle Fleming as Mr. Fleming drinks wine himself

in

the picture at Crestwood County Club which

is PRIVATE j How can Lori Fleming hear cases that involve Stuart Hite as the arresting

officer, which she does when he is a youth minister at her church, private member at

Crestwood, and good family friend?

In 2005, 1E-130 says An adverse ruling, standing alone, is not grounds for disqualification of a

judge who is being sued by

a

pro se counterclaimant. Canon

3£

How does this not relate to the

class action lawsuit in case number 13CV47P that involves Janice Russell? Just because she was

sued alone does not require disqualification, but this ruling disagrees with her ruling when a

judge should recuse or not recuse.

In 2005, jE-131 says Ajudge may attend an open house sponsored by a law firm; however, a

judge should not accept a golf and poker invitation from a l aw firm since it would create a

perception of impropriety due to the expense. Canon

2.

How does this not relate to Judge

Robert Flem ing, Lori Fleming, Kurtis toy, A.J. Wachter, and deceased Chief Judge John

Gariglietti all playing Golf together at Crestwood and paying rnembershlp fees? How does this

not apply to Stanton Hallett's Golf Charity with attorneys where they get credits for attending

his workshop? This is why Stanton Hazlett should not be able

to

investigate any complaint

against an attorney due to his economic conflicts of interest.

In 200S, JE-135 says A judge may bid for land

a t

a public auction

a

rising out of foreclosu

re

action if the judge has nothing to

do

with the foreclosure action, since it would not exploit his

Page7 of

15


11/45

position or give an appearance of impropriety. Canon 40(1) and Canon 2A. How does this not

have to do with Judge Kurtis Lay's wife Cindy Lay being a realtor and deceased John Gariglietti's

wife Eunice Gariglietti being a realtor as well??? Judge lay's wife Cindy Loy and Judge

Garigliettie's wife Eunice went in on all the property far the new Crestwood Estates Edition out

by the private Crestwood Country Club which they are a /l members. Cindy lay and Eunice

Gariglietti are the first to hear of any foreclosures when it becomes property for sale. Seems

like that is a huge impropriety.

In 2007, JE-1Sl says

A district judge participating a s a player and/or auctionee r in hi s or her

country club's fundraising member guest tournament clearly violates Canon 4C{4)(b) which

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

Fleming, former deceased judge John Gar iglletti , and Judge A.J. Wachter when they play golf a t

Crestwood Country Club ? They are all participating in the fundraisers that happen

throughout the year. When a fundraising event happens at the country club, you can count on

any, if not all, of these to attend. There are pictures to prove

it.

In 2009, JE-167 says A judge is required to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in

which the partner of the judge's spouse represents a party before the judge. See Canon, 2,

Rule 2.11{A) and Canon 1, Rule 1.2. How does this not relate to Robert Fleming when he was

hearing cases of

J .

Gordon Gregory from Wilbert and Towner as his son and daughter-in-law

worked

for Wilbert and Towner

an d

Spigarelli Law Firm where he accepted both assignments

from those law firms. This should also apply to Oliver Lynch when he heard cases of Candace

Gayoso when Michael Gayoso was still paying Oliver Lynch money from the buyout of his law

firm.

And last but not least,

how

does 2011 JE-171 not affect Judge Kurtis loy who according to the

dockets in case number 2014LM55P on 4/.28/2015 and 2014LM409P still show Kurtis Loy as the

current judge when the attorneys are Burton Harding and Kip Sagehorn of Lay and Sagehorn

even after a complaint was filed with Stanton Hazlett on this matter and Mr. Hazlett said he's

sure Judge Lay will take care of this once he learns of it . That was in November of 2014 and it

is now 4/28/2015 and yet the docket in case number 2014lM55P shows on 2 13 2015 that a

garnishment order was signed by Judge Loy. The opinion of JE·171 in 2011 says Ajudge and

his or her spouse who owns an office building may lease the building to attorneys or law firms

who practice and appear in the judge's district as long as the attorneys appear before other

judges in the district and the conflicts appear

onlv

periodically. See Rules 1.2,

2.1,

2.11, 3.11.

Since the KANSAS COMMISISON ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS has failed to be consistent

with their handling of ethic complaints and since they claim they have no jurisdiction to

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

have the power to issue a CEASEA N D DESISTORDERPUBLICORPRIVATE and this isconfusing

Page of 15


12/45

and that is why the KANSASCOMMISSION ONJUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONSneeds to be

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

of advisory annotation opinions of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications yet he was

still able to be their Chair person for the ethic committee for numerous years.

The above mentioned examples of advisory case annotations that were not followed by THE

KANSASCOMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONSPanel A, Panel B

JI

, Stanton Haz.lett

DIsciplinary Administrator, Michael Gayoso County Attorney's Office, and Stephen Phillips

Attorney General's Office, Timothy Grillot which have now led to the claim against them for

injunctive relief from negligent and wrongful acts and omissions of employees by falling to carry

out their ministerial tasks which are the following:

ST AT EM E NT O F FA CT S

1. Stanton Hazlett refusing to give complaints fi led against himselfto The Disciplinary Oversight

Committee

or

to any other body and chooses

to

basically ignore complaints against himself.

2. Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications failing to follow their own advisory opinions

and failing to properly investigate case number 2014CV7P and 2014CCV53PA and failing to give

Honorable Lay a Private Cease and Desist Order even though the ORDER filed by Judge

Wachter in August 2014 in this case shows that a violation of Advisory opinion of 2011JE-171

and yet no reprimand was done.

3. Stanton Hazlett failed to address attorney/Judge Kurtis Loy for hearing case number

2014LM55P which is the case of his past law partner Kip Sagehorn. Mr. Hazlett stated that he

was sure Judge Lay will take care of this once

he

learns of it, but the court docket of 4-28-2015

shows he is stili violating the Advisory Opinion of 2011 JE-171 since Stanton Hazlett and The

Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications failed to properly carry out this investigation

which led to a wrongful act of Stanton Hazlett, Panel A and Panel B, by failing to properly

reprimand Judge Lay.

4. Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications failed to reprimand Robert Fleming for a

violation of 1988 JE-2Sand 1997

JE-n

for his involvement as a youth preacher at Our Lady of

Lourdes Catholic Church, yet his wife collects money for the PARISH . They have also failed to

reprimand Robert Fleming for recusing from I


13/45

recused from that complaint like he did with complaints against Honorable Donald Noland and

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

people of the 11th j u d i c i l d i s t r i c t not receiving due process of law from the previous ethic chair

person himself.

S. Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications has failed to reprimand Lori Fleming and

Michael Gayoso for allowing Michael Gayoso to practice law in front of Judge lori Fleming when

her husband was M r. Gayoso's campaign manager and her church band partner in T EAM

JESUS

which is an obvious violation of Rule 2.11(A}.

6. The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications failed to reprimand Oliver Lynch, Kurtis

L ov, and Jeffry Jack for a v iolation of 1987 JE-19 even though they he a rd numerous cases of

their former law partners within a

5

year window.

7. Michael Gayoso is being served for failing to follow Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest by failing to recuse himself from cases that involve attorneys he has

previously worked with and for litigating cases in front of judges that he is friends and private

members of Our Lady Of Lourdes Catholic Church. He has also failed

to

investigate complaints

under K.SA 50-1205(a) that were filed against Judge A.J. Wachter because he is a member of

the same church as Judge A.J. Wachter.

8.

Attorney General's Office and Derek Schmidt are being served for failing to follow KRPCRule

1.7 as well since he has previously represented 11thjudicial judges as clients then went in front

of the same judge later on to represent another client. He has also failed to investigate

complaints filed against i

i

udicial judges under K.S.A.60-1206(a)(b) and that is why he needs

investigated as well for committing

a

negligent act by failing to conduct a thorough

investigation.

9. Stanton Hazlett has allowed Timothy Grillot in case numbers 2014CV7P and 2014(V53P to

investigate the complaint on Judge Timothy Fielder even though the complaint has to do with

Robert Fleming signing an Ex-Parte Order with Timothy Fielder and Timothy Grillot and Robert

Fleming were co-defendants in case number 12-3177-SAC Ozell Pouncil

vs.

Labette County

District Court et

al.,

Robert Fleming, Timothy Grillot and both are members of

the

Catholic

Church and have known each other for years and this is a violation of KRPCRule 1.7 Conflict of

Interest as a neutral unbiased investigator should have been assigned to investigate these

cases. Stanton Hazlett has also failed to recuse/dlsqualifv himself from investigating cases of

attorneys that receive credits at his golf tournaments which is a violation of 2005 JE-131 and

2007 JE-151.

10. Janice Russell has failed to honor the ministerial task of following Rule 2.11(A) of Rules

Relating to Judicial Conduct and

K.S .A .

20-311d as she stated that basically Oliver lynch's

Page10 of 15


14/45

disqualification of A.J. Wachter in case number 2012LM356P was wrong since A.J. Wachter and

a pro se litigant are not related and Judge A.J. Wachter was still ORDEREDout of that case.

11. Robert Fleming recently recused from case number 2012LM356P as well on May 20, 2015

just one day after a grand jury petition was filed In case number 2015MR2P and Robert Fleming

and myself are not related as well and this would contradict Janice Russell's judicial

determination that a judge should only recuse if the family is related. Janice Russell has shown

biased and prejudiced against Pro Se litigants and therefore an injunctive relief is needed

against JaniceRussell,

12. John Sanders has failed to honor the ministerial task offollowing the 14thand

s

amendment of the United States Constitution by failing to give due process in case number

201414CV57P Petition For Relief In The Form Of Quo Warranto by dismissing the case with

prejudice which was later overturned and dismissed without prejudice . John Sanders has

shown that he is biased and prejudiced against Pro

Se

litigants and therefore an injunctive

re ief is needed against John Sanders.

13. Timothy Grillot failed to follow the ministerial ta sk of KRPCRule 1 . 7 Conflict of Interest and

ha s failed to disqualify himself from the investigation of In The Matter ofTimothy Fielder

DA12, 1811/which has been going on since October 31,2014 in case numbers 2014CV7P and

2014CV53PA where the judges are Kurtis Loy and Robert Fleming. Timothy Grillot was a co-

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

Robert Flerning, Timothy Grillot. Timothy Grillot is biased and prejudiced for Robert Fleming

who has been complained on several times by Mr. Carlton in case number 20l4CVS3PA for

signing an Ex-Parte Order when the attorney was Timothy Fielder who is a pro-tempore city

judge in Crawford County a i udicial district which should have been

a

conflict of Interest

under Rule 2.11(A) of Rules Relating To Judicial Conduct. Injunctive relief is needed against

Attorney/Office O f Disciplinary Administrator Investigator Timothy Grillot so that an unbiased

out of

i

i district attorney can complete the investigation of uDA12, 1811n The Matter of

Timothy Fielder .

14. Judge Richard M.Smith should have lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear case number

2015MR2P for failing to follow Supreme Court rule 601B Relating To Judicial Conduct Canon 3.

Rule 3.15{B) (2013 Kan.

Ct.

R. Annat.

7 48)

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 unti l May 19, 2015 which both violates Rule 3.15{B) of Rules

Relating To Judicial conduct. According to Canon 3 Rule 3.15(B) a judge is supposed to have his

financial disclosure report filled out by April 15 of every calendar year and his failure to file his

2013 and 2014 financial disclosure reports on time is a violation of The Code or Judicial

Conduct. Ru

le

3.15(B) says I'A judge shall report annually the information listed above in (A)(I)

Page 11 of 15


15/45

through (7) on a form provided by the Commission on Judicial Qualifications. The judge's

report for the preceding calendar year shall be filed as public document in the office of the

Clerk of the Appellate courts on or before April 15 of each year. (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B) 2013 and

2014 calendar year financial disclosure report.

All of the above 14 claims have been a result of failing to perform their ministerial acts of

properly investigating and preceding

over

cases without conflicts of interest. An example of a

ministerial act is the clerk of the court's duty to report drivers to the OHSMV under Section

3.1815(I)(a) is a ministerial act that is not entitled to any form of judicial immunity in case

number16-203-CA-005890. If The clerk, an officer of the court, iso bliged to comply with rules of

procedure governing his duties. When delinquent or derelict in such performance,

appropriate legal measures are available to enforce compliance, as well as to secure redress

by way of da mages incurred as a result of his failure to perform those duties. Ward v.

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

ARGUMENT

1. Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications conduct in reprimanding judges for violations

of Rules Relating To Judicia Conduct is a Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which Immunity

is Available.

2. Stanton Hazlett's conduct in reprimanding attorneys for violations of Kansas Rules of

Professional Conduct is a Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which Immunity is Available.

3. Michael Gayoso's conduct in failing to disqualify himself form cases that are a conflict of

interest is a Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which Immunity is Available.

4. Stephen Phillips conduct in failing to reprimand

nh

udicial judges for violations from ouster

quo warranto complaints filed under K,S.A. 60-1206(a} is a Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for

Which Immunity is Available.

5. Timothy Grillot's conduct in failing to disqualify himself from a complaint that had to do with

an Ex-Parte violation of Rule 2,9 between Robert Fleming and Timothy Fielder of Rules Relating

To Judicial Conduct and failed to reprimand attorney Timothy Fielder in docket number

DA12,181In the Matter of Timothy l Fielder.

6. The same case of

Cook

v.

City of Topeka,

654 P. 2d 953 was used to show that clerk ofthe

courts are not subject to the doctrine of judicial immunity. At its core, the court's analysis

involves a determination as to whether the clerk was engaged in a judicial, quasi-Judicial, or

Page 12 of 15


16/45

ministerial task. See id. At 957. If the complained of actions of the clerk are ministerial, judicial

immunity does not apply. See id. At 958.

7. Failing to disqualify from an investigation under KRPCRule 1.7 Conflict of Interest is a

Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which Immunity is Available.

8.

Janice Russell has a ministerial duty under K.SA 20-311d and Rule

2.11(A)

to recuse herself

from cases where there

is

an appearance of not being able to be impartial and she has failed to

do so and this is a Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which Immunity is Available. Judge

Russell has a ministerial duty to not take any further action in any cases she had already been

recused asseen by her deliberate decision to sign orders in Crawford County District Court

cases number 2012-LM356-P and 2014-CV-28-P AFTERshe had been recused.

9. John Sanders has a ministerial duty to follow the due process clause ofthe 14th and s

amendment which he has failed to do and this is a Ministerial Act, not a Judicial Act for Which

Immunity is Available.

10. It seems to be a violation ofThe Code Of Judicial Conduct according to Judicial Ethic

Advisory Opinion 1997 JE-77 which says Judge may serve as elder of church as long as judge

does not solicit funds. Canon 4C(4)(b). How does this not relate to Judge Richard Smith filing

on May 13, 2014 on his financial disclosure report that he

is

with the

business/organization/entity

as

Mound City Christian Church where he holds the position as

Trustee . The first time he mentions this position with the church is on his calendar year 2012

financial disclosure report that

he

filed on time on April 8,

2013

and mentions the position as

Trustee which is a violation because he collects funds forthe church. This should violate Rule

3.12 Compensation for

Extra ju dicia l

Activities and it should also violate Rule 3.14

Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges COMMENT(l) where religious and

charitable organizations are mentioned. Since he failed to mention his position as t rustee on

the 2014 financial disclosure he might have failed to properly show expenses since he did not

file these on time by April IS, 2015 wh ich was tax day. This also violates Rule

3.1S(A)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(8} Reporting Requirements and JEOpinion 1997 JE-73 says Judge may

not serve as trustee for community organization which aims to improve qualify of life for

children and youth. Canon 4(A)(l}, 4((4). (Exhibit C) and (Exhibit

0)

JE73 and JE77 opinion

10. All of the Defendants being served in this case including all six (6) of the 11thjudicial district

judges are being served for failing to perform Ministerial Acts, not a Judicial Act for Which

Immunity is available and therefore Injunctive Relief' is demanded by all of the people who

signed the petition under K.S.A. 60-1206 to have the

nh

udicial district judges investigated

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

Page

13

of

15


17/45

I .. .

One test used to determine whether a clerk of a court is engaged in a judicial, quasi-judicial or

ministerial task is to see if a statute imposes a duty upon the clerk to act in a certain way

leaving the clerk no discretion. In Am.Jur.2d it is stated while there is some conflict as to the

judicial or ministerial

nature

of certain specific duties of a clerk of

a

court; .. . his duty

is

purely

ministerial when it isprescribed by statute. 15A Am.Jur.2d, Clerks Of Court Section 21, p. 156

gemphasis supplied).

The case of Cook v City of Topeka, 654 P. 2d 953 (Kan. 1982), the Supreme Court of Kansas

should also be used for attorneys Michael Gayoso, Stephen Phillips, Stanton Hazlett, and

Timothy Grillot for failing to fulfi ll their ministerial duties of properly investigating cases and

Panel A and Panel

B

for failing to

allow

the Disciplinary Administrator Oversight Committee to

investigate complaints on Robert Fleming who was their previous chair and falling to report

other attorneys and judges for misconduct under KRPC8.3(a)(b) and Rule. 2.15(A)(B)(C)(D)

Responding to Judicial and lawyer Misconduct. The same case should be used for Panel A and

Panel

B

of KANSASCOMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONSfor failing to

follow

Rule 1.1

Compliance with law, Rule 2.1l(A} Disqualification, and Rule 2.15(A)(B)(C)(D}.

The case of

Cook

v City

oj Topeka

654 P.2d 953, 957 (Kan. 1982) says A clerk may not escape

liability for illegal or improper performance of a ministerial task imposed by statute. Id. At 958.

The court went on to explain that the quasi-judicial exception is applicable to discretionary

duties of a judicial nature. Since Panel

A ,

Panel

B ,

Michael Gayoso, Stephen Phillips, Stanton

Hazlett, and Timothy Grillot were not making judicial determinations of a judicial nature and

they all failed to properly carry out their ministerial tasks then no judicial immunity should

apply to any officer of the court when this happens and Petitioners are fil ing this verified

pleading in accordance with

K.S.A. 60-901

and would like to have

a n

ORDER of an

INJUNCTION under K.S.A. 60-901 against Michael Gayoso, Stephen Phillips, Stanton Hazlett,

Timothy Grillot, Panel A, Panel B , and aI/11th judicial distrtctjudges to not be able to hear

anyone's case who signed the GRAND JURY PETITION due to conflict of interest under Rule

2.1l(A) and K.SA 20-311d.

Petitioners are filing this case like the civil rights case of Monroe v. Pape. In Monroe, the

Supreme Court held that a police officer was acting under color of state law even though his

actions violated state law. This was the first case in which the Supreme Court allowed liability

to attach where a government official acted outside the scope of the authority granted to him

by state law, The element of this claim is that only persons under the statute are subject to

liability.

A

state is not a person subject to the suit but a state officer can be sued in his off icial

capacity for prospective or injunctive relief despite the fact that a suit against a government

official in his official capacity represents nothing more than a suit against the government entity

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

Page14 of1S


18/45

or injunctive

reli ef. M u nicipa li ti es and loca l gove rnments a re persons s ub jec t to s u it for

damages and prospectiv e rel ief, bu t the U nited Sta tes Government is n ot. Individual

employees

of

federal, state, and local government may be sued in

the i r

individual capacities

for damages , declara tory or in ju ncti ve

rellef.

P RA Y ER FO R RE LIE F

W HERE FORE ,

Pla intif f

class

re qu ests

this

Cour t to:

(1)

D ec la re, by w ay of pe rm anen t in ju nct io n , th a t the defendants be ordered to d isqua l i fy

them selves from ca s es /compla int s where their im pa rtiali ty might re a son ab ly be qu estion ed.

T he s ta nda rd to be applied to a charge of la ck of impa rt ia li ty is whether the cha rge is gr ou nded

in fa cts tha t wou ld crea te

reasonable

dou b t concern ing the Cou rt's im pa rt ia li ty, not in the m ind

of the Cou rt it s el f, or even nec es s a ri ly in the m ind ofthe li tig an t fi li ng the motion , bu t ra ther in

th e mind of a rea s onab le pe rs on w i th kn ow ledge of th e cir cums t ances . Smith v. Printup 262

Kan .

587, 1997,

a t

Syl. 8:

(2)

Decla re th a tp end ing, and new ethica l compla in ts fil led by the petit ioners be inve stiga ted by

indep endent over s ight comm ittees .

(3)

D ecl a re a tho rou gh inde pen dent review of a ll p a s t ethica l compla ints fi lled by th e

pe ti ti oner s to a scerta in th a t a ll compla in ts w er e pr operly in ve s tiga ted and th a t app ropria te

repr im ands were in s ti tu ted .

(4)

G rant P la in tif f cl a s s s u ch oth er rel ief a s may be ju s t and eq u itable.

D a ted J u ly

22, 2015

Respec tfu lly Su bmi tted by;

B y: I s /E ric M . M u a the E ric M u a the, P. O . B ox 224 , pi tt s bu rg, KS,

66762.

B y: Is /N oah D ay N oah D ay, P . O . B ox

224,

Pitt s b u rg,

KS,66762.

B y: I s /Kas ey K in g Ka sey K in g, P. O . Box 224, Pi tts bu rg, KS, 66762.

B y: Is /James B eckley Jr. Jam es B eckley J r., P . O. B ox 224 Pi t t sbu rg, KS , 66762.

By':

Is/T ra v is Carlton T ravis C a rl to n , P .

O .

Box

22 4,

P itts bu rg ,

KS,

66762.

Page

15

of

15


19/45

May 6, 2016

Hon. Jack L. Burr

Senior Judge

801 Broadway

Goodland, Ks 66735

CASE NO. 15CV79P Not 15CV75P

Dear Judge Jack Burr:

I am writing in response to Stephen Phillips letter dated May 3, 2016which said he objected to

Kasey King writing a letter and asking questions by himself since he is not an attorney. Sonow

T

will write a letter basically stating the same thing Mr. King already stated in his letter dated

April 26, 2016. A motion for a continuance was properly filed, with a proper certificate of

service to continue the April 18, 2016hearing in the above mentioned case of 15CV79P now that

we have an attorney representing us in retained attorney Adebayo Ogunmeno of Ogunmeno

Law Firm of 155 S. 18

th

Street, Site 250 in KC Ks 66102 to represent Plaintiffs in federal case

number 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR against Respondents Lori Fleming and Kurt Loy. I since I can

only speak for myself according to attorney Stephen Phillips so I can say that a settlement offer

was sent to Stephen Phillips ready to DROP EVERTHING IN THIS CASE and the only case

be remaining would be the federal case of 2:16-cv-0210S-JAR-GLR against Respondents Lori

Fleming and Kurt Loy if he would just drop his filing restrictions. There would be no more

paperwork filed in this case which is all that Stephen Phillips seems to complain about us doing

even though I have not filed very many cases in Crawford County and I don't feel I deserve

filing restrictions at all and at the most, attorney Stephen Phillips should have filed a timely

counterclaim' against the Plaintiffs in case number 15CV79P not 15CV75P case ofAKCC

Management LLCvs. Two Big Fish LLCwhere his RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS LaY,

WACHIER, FLEMING, FLEMING, JACK LYNCH, RUSSELL, SMITH, SANDERS, HAZLETT,

GRILLOT AND SCHMIDT TO PLAINTIFFS' THREE MOTIONS was improperly filed on

4/11/2016 with an llvfPROPER CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE . The certificate of service says it

was mailed out on April 8, 2016 which is a Friday and if it was mailed out late on Friday the

envelope would show 4-9-2016 instead of the enclosed envelope it came in which is dated 4-

11-2016 which shows the certificate of service should have been 4-11-2016 and therefore the

response is ineffective according toKS.A 60-210(a). I don't understand why there was

never a new NOTICE OF HEARING in accordance with Supreme Court Rule

131(a)(b)(c)(d) that changed the court cases of 15SC70P to 10:00 a.m. and 15SC71P and

15SC85P to 10:00 a.m. along with chapter civil case 15CV79P. I did not appear

because there was a motion for continuance that was filed appropriately in

accordance with KS.A. 60-207(b)(2) KS.A. 60-210(a), KS.A. 60-211(a) in this case on

time and Defendant's attorney Stephen Phillips filed response to motion for

continuance in the wrong case which did not comply with KS.A. 60-207(b)(2), KS.A

60-210(a), and K.S.A. 60-211(a) because he filed it in case number 15CV75P in the wrong

case titled

AKCC

Manag-ement LLC vs. Two Big-Fish LLC where he not only filed the

response to our motion for continuance but he filed 2 other responses to our motion for

Exhibit 2


20/45

change of judge and motion to withdraw motion to dismiss on 4-11-2016 according to

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

The copy of the court transcript from 4-18-2016 shows that you heard our case on April 18, 2016

with 3 other small claims cases in 22minutes from 10:00a.m. until 10:22a.m. even though the

other cases were not scheduled until 1:30p.m. and 2:30 p.m. I also read where you dismissed

case number 15CV79P first, but then granted filing restrictions against us after you already

dismissed the case even though the response by Stephen Phillips was filed on 4-11-2016 in

AKCC Management LLC vs. Two Big Fish LLC and the certificate of service is

Improper.

It would seem to me that the order from 4-18-2016 should be vacated and void because

it seems to be a void judgment because it

did

not comply with REPORT OF SUPREME

COURT STANDARDS COMI'v1ITTEE-GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES

FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS which says Justice is effective when it is: A) Fairly

Administered Without Delay, (B) Competent Judges, (C) Operating in a Modern Court

System without overlapping jurisdictions or multiple appeals, (D) Under Simple and

Efficient Rules of Procedure. Number (3) under letter (D) says The ultimate judicial

goal should be justice, not speed, in the disposition of cases. Cases should be

determined on an individual basis, not on an assembly line. It seems that since case

numbers 15CV75P, 15CV79P, 15SC70P, 15SC71P, and 15SC85P were all heard at 10:00

a.m. on 4-18-2016 that the hearing would be able to be vacated with a motion to vacate

a void judgment .

I would like to file an objection to the journal entry , motion for reconsideration , a motion

to vacate a void judgment, a motion for change of judge with affidavit , and a NOTICE OF

APPEAL because I don't feel that we received due process with our chapter 61case being

heard on an assembly line with 3 other chapter 60 small claims cases and I would like to

possibly appeal this case with the due process issues mentioned up above.

I don't want to file anything first without asking you to get permission first and get

contempt of court now that we have filing restrictions even though the MOTION OF

DEFENDATNS LOY, WACHTER, FLEMING, FLEMING, JACK, LYNCH, RUSSELL,

SMITH, SANDERS, HAZLETT, GRILLOT, AND SCHMIDT FOR SANCTIONS WITH

MEMORANDUM INCORPORATED was actually titled in case number 15CV75P

along with the Response of Defendants Loy, Wachter, Fleming, Fleming, Jack, Lynch

Russell, Smith, Sanders, Hazlett, Grillot, and Schmidt To Plaintiffs Three Motion

Document which is on the docket in the case of AKCC Management LLCvs. Two Big

Fish LLC with the wrong certificate of service so we don't see how you could grant any


21/45

filing restrictions against us for filing frivolously when the deputy attorney Stephen

Phillips appears to be the one filing frivolous filings as he has titled not one but 2

different motions and responses in case number 15CV75P.

Another issue I would like to bring up is that I object to the fact that Stephen Phillips

addressed the letter dated may 3, 2016 to your office address of 801 Broadway, Room

201, Goodland, Ks 67735 because Mr. Phillips had previously received your own private

address off the record according to the court transcript on 4-18-2016 and it does not

follow court rules and procedures to mail it to your own home address but list the office

to try to deceive the plaintiffs in case number 15CV79P.

I also would like to have access of your own private address like you gave attorney

Stephen Phillips off the record in an ex-parte conversation before you left town early

after the 10:22 a.TILhearing according to court staff at Crawford County Courthouse so

that I can communicate with you quicker like attorney Stephen Phillips is allowed to do.

I also would like to object to attorney Stephen Phillips request that you direct the

Crawford County clerk to refile the motion of RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS LOY,

WACHTER, FLEMING, FLEMING, JACK, LYNCH, RUSSELL, SMITH,

SANDERS, HAZLETT, GRILLOT AND SCHMIDT TO PLAINTIFFS' THREE

MOTIONS was improperly filed on 4/11/ 2016 with an IMPROPER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE in 15CV79P that he filed :incorrectly in 15CV75P because

attorney Phillips needs to re-do his certificate of service because 4-8-2016 was not

when it was mailed out and it was 4-11-2016 and I have :included the envelope for proof.

I am also confused why Stephen Phillips even responded to the letter Kasey King sent to

Judge Jack Burr dated April 26, 2016 because according to attorney Stephen Phillips's


22/45

own filing restrictions he claims he and no one else has to respond to anything the

plaintiffs write or say unless

ordered by the court which he was not done by you to

respond. None of this makes any sense and I would appreciate a timely response to

thiletter and a new hearing. .__._- --

i >

Sincerely, /}~'

-


23/45

Z9L99 SeSU1:} 'E lJnqsH d

'pZZ

x08

Od

J f

i\ClI)PClg saure]

L6SI'Z 199 5)1 'V}13dOl

~OOij

O N Z ] J\ rj

1-'10 .MS

O Z

I

llliH;

'u 'ltJO ' 3~\

LCj~tl\J:-l:::JS

:; j3c13

·-r -:/~=11 ~37) ...3\\jCJC;1J

6 f . 5 W ~ f ~ ~ \

:l,,\··..Jli

1 1 ,

\~~ ~ ;~~

·-i . \: .p· ·

I

128


24/45

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I N THE DI STRI CT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

ERI C M MUATHE, et al . ,

Pl ai nt i f f s,

vs. CASE NO. 15CV79P

HONORABLE KURTI S LOY, et al . ,

Def endant s.

NOAH I AN DAY,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

vs.

CASE NO. 15SC70P

MY TOWN MEDI A,

Def endant .

NOAH I AN DAY,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

vs.

CASE NO. 15SC71P

LORI FLEM NG,

Def endant .

NOAH DAY,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

vs. CASE NO. 15SC85P

LORI FLEM NG,

Def endant .

TRANSCRI PT OF MOTI ONS

PROCEEDI NGS had bef or e t he Honor abl e

J ACK BURR, Seni or J udge, assi gned t o t he Di st r i ct

Cour t of Cr awf or d Count y, Kansas, at Pi t t sburg,

Kansas, on t he 18t h day of Apr i l , 2016.

Exhibit 3


25/45

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

APPEARANCES:

The Pl ai nt i f f s di d not appear .

The Def endant s Kur t i s Loy, Andr ew Wacht er ,

Robert Fl em ng, Lori Fl em ng, J ef f r y J ack, Ol i ver Kent

Lynch, J ani ce Russel l , Ri chard Sm t h, J ohn Sander s,

Stant on Hazl et t , Ti m Gr i l l ot appear i ng by and t hr ough

t hei r counsel , Mr . Stephen Phi l l i ps, Assi st ant

At tor ney Gener al , Memor i al Bl dg, 2nd Fl oor , 120 SW

10th Avenue, Topeka, KS 66612- 1597.

The Def endant s Kansas J udi ci al

Qual i f i cat i ons Panel s A and B appear i ng by and t hr ough

t hei r counsel , Ms. Car r i e A. Barney, Assi st ant

At t or ney General , 120 SW 10t h Avenue, 2nd Fl oor ,

Topeka, KS 66612- 1597.

The Def endant M chael Gayoso, J r . , appear i ng

by and t hr ough hi s counsel , Mr . J ames Emer son,

Cr awf or d Count y Counsel or , P. O. Box 68, Gi r ard, KS

66743.

The Def endant Lor i Fl emng appear i ng by and

t hough her counsel , Mr . Denni s D. Depew, Deput y

At t or ney General , 120 SW 10t h Avenue, 2nd Fl oor ,

Topeka, KS 66612- 1597.


26/45

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: My under st andi ng i s t hat t hi s i s Case

No. 15CV79P, i t woul d be ent i t l ed Er i c M - - i s t hat

pr onounced Muat he?

MR. PHI LLI PS: I bel i eve i t i s Muat he.

MR. EMERSON: I bel i eve so.

THE COURT:

Okay. And other s, and those

pl ai nt i f f s appear pr o se i n t hi s case, ver sus J udge

Kur t i s Loy, and other s, as l i st ed i n t he capt i on.

Let me t el l you t hat my name i s J ack Bur r . I m a

Seni or J udge who has been assi gned t o t hi s case and

I m one of a l ong l i ne of j udges appar ent l y who have

been i nvol ved, and I m her e f r om Goodl and by

assi gnment of t he Supr eme Cour t , so you ar e st uck w t h

me, at l east f or a whi l e.

Woul d you announce your appear ances, pl ease.

MR. PHI LLI PS: St eve Phi l l i ps, Assi st ant At t or ney

General , and I r epr esent Kur t i s Loy, Andr ew Wacht er ,

Rober t Fl emng, Lor i Fl em ng, J ef f r y J ack, Ol i ver Kent

Lynch, J ani ce Russel l , Ri char d Sm t h, J ohn E. Sanders,

Stanton Hazl et t , Ti m Gr i l l ot .

THE COURT: Al l r i ght .

MS. BARNEY: Your Honor , Car r i e Barney, Assi st ant

THE COURT: I m havi ng t r oubl e hear i ng you.

MS. BARNEY: I m sor r y.


27/45

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: I ve got a col d, number one; and,

number t wo, I don t hear very wel l .

MS. BARNEY: Your Honor , Car r i e Bar ney, Assi st ant

At t orney Gener al , her e on behal f of Def endant s

J udi ci al Qual i f i cat i ons Panel s A and B.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. EMERSON: Your Honor , J i m Emer son, Cr awford

Count y Counsel or , her e on behal f of M chael Gayoso,

Count y At tor ney.

THE COURT: Al l r i ght .

MR. DEPEW Your Honor , Denni s Depew, Deput y

At t orney General , I have t he af t ernoon cases so I m

j ust her e a l i t t l e ear l y.

THE COURT:

Okay. And I may have some quest i ons

about t hose t oo when we f i ni sh her e but , i n any event ,

appar ent l y no appear ances ar e made, nobody - - no one

appear s i n t he cour t r oom at l east ei t her on behal f

of or t he pl ai nt i f f s t hemsel ves.

anythi ng, Mr . Phi l l i ps?

MR. PHI LLI PS: No, J udge, we have not and I have

Have you hear d

checked w t h my of f i ce and we j ust checked w t h t he

Cl er k s Of f i ce and not hi ng has been f i l ed her e.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PHI LLI PS: The l ast

THE COURT: Wel l , I have not r ecei ved anyt hi ng,


28/45

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

nor have I hear d anyt hi ng.

MR. PHI LLI PS: We got a l et t er l ast Thur sday,

Fri day, sayi ng somet hi ng about t hey want ed a

cont i nuance.

THE COURT: Yeah, I got a mot i on t o cont i nue but

si nce I al r eady had t hi s - - t hi s t r i p pl anned and I

have not been down her e on t hese cases, I deci ded t o

come down and see what happened. And my quest i ons, I

guess, si nce I don t have t he pl ai nt i f f s her e, i f - -

and cor r ect me i f I m wr ong, I cur rent l y have a mot i on

on f i l e by bot h par t i es t o di sm ss.

I al so have a mot i on by t he pl ai nt i f f s aski ng t o

di sm ss t he mot i on t o di sm ss on t hei r behal f .

I have

a r esponse t o t he mot i on t o di sm ss by t he pl ai nt i f f s,

by you, I bel i eve, Mr . Phi l l i ps, i ndi cat i ng t hat you

don t - - i t has al r eady been di sm ssed i n your

opi ni on, but you want t o t al k about sanct i ons; i s t hat

correct?

MR. PHI LLI PS: Yes, J udge, and t hen t hey moved t o

r ei nst at e i t .

They f i l ed t hei r 60- 241 mot i on t o

di smss, t hen when I opposed i t t hey sai d we want t o

r ei nst at e i t .

THE COURT: No, I under st and t hat . And i t

appear ed t o me t hei r r ea50ni ng i n t hat r esponse was we

don t want any sanct i ons. We don t m nd t he


29/45

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

2

13

14

15

16

17

18

9

20

2

22

23

24

25

di smssal , we don t want sanct i ons.

MR. PHI LLI PS: I want sanct i ons, J udge.

THE COURT: No, I under st and t hat , but t hey

don t .

MR. PHI LLI PS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, l et me hear - - what ar e

you aski ng f or i n t he way of sanct i ons?

MR. PHI LLI PS:

J udge, I m aski ng f or f i l i ng

res t r i ct i ons, and I ve pat ter ned t he r est r i ct i ons I m

r equest i ng of f of a r epor t ed case t hat appr oved

r est r i ct i ons j ust l i ke t hese. They ar e set f or t h i n

mor e det ai l i n my mot i on, but basi cal l y bef or e any of

t hese pl ai nt i f f s coul d f i l e a new case, i t woul d have

t o be r evi ewed by t he l ocal Admni strat i ve J udge or

t hat J udge s desi gnee t o see whet her i t was

essent i al l y f r i vol ous or not .

Af t er t hat scr eeni ng, i t coul d go ahead and be

docket ed i f t he J udge appr oved i t , ot herw se, i t coul d

not be docket ed. And t he case I t hi nk I ci t e as

aut hor i t y f or t hat i s St at e vs ynn

I n my mot i on f or sanct i ons, I ci t e a l ong l i st of

cases t hat var i ous of t hese pl ai nt i f f s have f i l ed t hat

wer e absol ut el y f r i vol ous. And i f you l ook at thi s

case, t hey have done, obvi ousl y, no meani ngf ul l egal

resear ch on what a cl ass act i on i s, or how you br i ng


30/45

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

2

3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2

22

23

24

25

i t , and t hi s case can onl y be descr i bed as f or

pur poses of har assment agai nst t he var i ous def endant s

i n t hi s case.

But what I m aski ng f or i s f i l i ng r est r i ct i ons as

i s set f or th i n more det ai l i n my mot i on.

THE COURT: So bas i cal l y your sanct i ons, what you

are request i ng i s a pr edet erm nat i on of at l east some

i ndi cat i on of mer i t pr i or t o f i l i ng.

MR. PHI LLI PS:

Cor r ect , J udge.

THE COURT: Let me ask you t hi s. The pl ai nt i f f s,

I w sh one or mor e of t hem wer e her e act ual l y, t he

pl ai nt i f f s have i ndi cat ed t hat t hey now have an

attor ney and t hey ci t e a name, I don t know t he name,

but I bel i eve i n Kansas Ci t y.

I assume Kansas Ci t y,

Kansas, but somewher e i n Kansas Ci t y, and t hat t hey

ei t her have or ar e goi ng t o f i l e a f eder al l awsui t .

Do you know whet her t hat has been f i l ed?

MR. PHI LLI PS:

The f eder al l awsui t has been

f i l ed, t he at t or ney di d f i l e i t .

THE COURT: Okay. And i t appar ent l y i ndi cat es

many, i f not al l , of t he same compl ai nt s?

MR. PHI LLI PS: The maj or compl ai nt i n t hat

f eder al l awsui t i s t he e- mai l al l egedl y sent by J udge

Lor i Fl em ng t o one of t he owner s of t he r adi o

st at i on. That f eder al case i s j ust agai nst , as I


31/45

8

1

2

3

6

7

8

9

10

11

2

13

4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

r emember i t , J udge Fl em ng and J udge Loy, and I can

even gi ve you a copy of t he compl ai nt i f you d l i ke.

THE COURT:

I don t know t hat I need i t but

appar ent l y we ar e t al ki ng mor e about i nvol vi ng t he

smal l cl ai ms cases t han we ar e t he case we ar e t al ki ng

about now.

MR. PHI LLI PS:

I bel i eve t hat i s cor r ect , J udge,

I don t t hi nk t her e i s much over l ap between t hi s case

and t hei r f eder al one.

THE COURT: I see. I was under t he assumpt i on

t hat t he f eder al case, si nce t he pl ai nt i f f s had asked

t hat t hi s be di sm ssed, i ncl uded t he same compl ai nt s

as i n t he Chapt er 60 case here - -

MR. PHI LLI PS: Not yet , J udge.

THE COURT:

but t hat s not t he case.

MR. PHI LLI PS: That s not t he case.

THE COURT:

Okay. Wel l - -

MR. PHI LLI PS: The f eder al case has not been

ser ved f or what ever r eason.

I t has been f i l ed but t he

at t or ney has not r equest ed summons be i ssued i n t hat .

THE COURT: Yeah. Wel l , no appear ance i s made by

t he pl ai nt i f f s or anyone on t hei r behal f . I m goi ng

t o f i nd t hat t hi s case, Case No. 15CV79P, has, i n

f act , been di sm ssed.

I am goi ng t o deny t he r ei nst at ement r equest ed by


32/45

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

t he pl ai nt i f f s of t hei r - - i n ot her wor ds, doi ng away

w t h t hei r r equest t o di sm ss. I t hi nk i f bot h

par t i es r equest a case be di sm ssed, and I t hi nk i t i s

ment i oned i n your br i ef , Mr . Phi l l i ps, t hat di smsses

t he case. I t i s si mpl y a mat ter of r ecor di ng i t at

t hat poi nt , and so I m r ecor di ng i t now and t he case

w l l be di sm ssed.

Now, i nsof ar as t he sanct i ons ar e concer ned, I

have a l i t t l e concer n about t hose, I guess, but ,

obvi ousl y, t her e i s nobody her e t o t el l me, r i ght or

wr ong, why they shoul dn t be gr ant ed and t he r equest

cl ear l y made and not i ce gi ven.

So I m goi ng t o go ahead and gr ant your r equest ,

Mr . Phi l l i ps.

I don t want t o - - I want t o make sur e

you i ncl ude i n t her e t he f act t hat i t i s not

necessar i l y t he Adm ni st r at i ve J udge, because he s

al so a par t y t o t hi s act i on, so hi s desi gnee or t he

desi gnee of t he j udi ci al syst em of t he St at e of

Kansas, I don t know how you want t o wor d i t , but I

want t o l eave enough l eeway that somebody get s t o make

the determ nat i on that - - and, of cour se, somebody who

appar ent l y i s accept abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f s and al so

acceptabl e t o the def ense, and we w l l see what

happens.

But basi cal l y I m goi ng t o gr ant your

r equest f or t he sanct i ons.


33/45

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Now, l et s see i f I have any ot her quest i ons

about t hi s case. They al so have i n t hi s case a mot i on

on f i l e aski ng t hat I di squal i f y but I di d not r ecei ve

any af f i davi t at t ached t o t hat mot i on i n t hi s case,

di d you?

MR. PHI LLI PS: No, J udge, and I t hi nk t hat i s

as I under st and t he statut e, t hat i s t he pr oper

procedure. Ther e i s supposed t o be a heari ng f i r st .

THE COURT:

Oh, yeah.

MR. PHI LLI PS: And at t he hear i ng

THE COURT: I agr ee and I make t he det erm nat i on

as t o whet her I f eel t her e i s a r eason t o di squal i f y

and so f or t h and t hen you have t o f i l e an af f i davi t .

MR. PHI LLI PS: And I suggest ed i n one of my

r esponses t hat i t be t aken up at t hi s hear i ng, I mean,

t hey were on not i ce.

THE COURT: Ri ght . Wel l , i n any event , I have not

r ecei ved an af f i davi t so I di dn t have anyt hi ng even

t o send on t o anot her J udge i f I was i ncl i ned t o do

so; but , i n any event , I do not f i nd t hat t he mot i on

i t sel f i ndi cat es t he r eason f or me t o di squal i f y.

Si nce no af f i davi t was f i l ed, I have not t aken

any f ur t her act i on on t hat and don t i nt end t o at t hi s

poi nt . And t hi s case i s di sm ssed, t he r equest f or

sanct i ons i s gr ant ed. What el se do we need t o t al k


34/45

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

about i n t hi s case t oday?

MR. PHI LLI PS: Do I need t o do a Rul e 170 j our nal

entry, J udge?

THE COURT: I woul d - - yes, I do want you t o do

t he j our nal ent r y and I t hi nk, under t he

ci r cumst ances, a Rul e 170 pr obabl y woul d be t he way t o

go.

MR. PHI LLI PS:

Yes, si r .

THE COURT: And you can f or war d t hat t o me at - -

pr obabl y bet t er f or war d i t t o my house, t hat way - -

I m at t he cour t house i n Goodl and r easonabl y r egul ar l y

but I m not t her e al l t he t i me. And my addr ess i s

MR. PHI LLI PS: How about we do t hat l at er of f t he

r ecor d?

THE COURT: That s f i ne, I w l l gi ve i t t o you.

MR. PHI LLI PS: Okay.

THE COURT: I w l l l et you know.

I want t o ask a

coupl e quest i ons of Mr . Depew, i s i t ?

MR. DEPEW Yes, s i r .

THE COURT: Yeah.

I know t hese ar e schedul ed f or

t hi s af t er noon but I m not sur e we ar e goi ng t o be

abl e t o do anyt hi ng t hi s af t er noon anyway. Have you

hear d anyt hi ng on ei t her of t hese smal l cl ai ms cases?

MR. DEPEW

I have had phone cal l s w t h Mr . Day,

who i s t he pl ai nt i f f .


35/45

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: Ri ght .

MR. DEPEW And back as ear l y as Febr uary he

i ndi cat ed t o me t hat he want ed t o di sm ss t he smal l

cl ai ms cases.

THE COURT: He ki nd of i ndi cat es t hat i n a mor e

r ecent l et t er .

MR. DEPEW

Yes. And so what I di d i s I pr epared

a st i pul at ed or der of di sm ssal and I mai l ed i t t o

hi m He i ndi cat ed t hat he s now l i vi ng i n Denver ,

Col or ado.

THE COURT: Oh.

MR. DEPEW And so I mai l ed t hat t o hi m back i n

Febr uary.

THE COURT: Uh- huh.

MR. DEPEW And I even i ncl uded a st amped

sel f - addressed envel ope back t o me so i t woul d be ver y

easy f or hi m t o get i t back. I never hear d anyt hi ng.

And then when he f i l ed her e i n ver y l at e March hi s

most r ecent l et t er s, I cal l ed hi m and I j ust sai d,

Mr . Day, I m ki nd of conf used as t o why you ar e f i l i ng

mor e t hi ngs when I sent you t he st i pul at ed or der of

di sm ssal and he sai d wel l , I si gned t hat and I sent

i t back t o you and I sai d wel l , I ve not r ecei ved i t .

And so he sai d t hat he had di f f i cul t y at t i mes

w t h t he mai l at hi s apar tment so I sent hi m anot her


36/45

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

one al ong w t h anot her st amped, sel f - addressed

envel ope and asked hi m t o pl ease mai l t hat at a Post

Of f i ce.

I have not r ecei ved i t as of t hi s mor ni ng s

mai l i n my of f i ce.

THE COURT: Wel l , l et me suggest somet hi ng t o you.

I was t hi nki ng about t hi s bef or e t he hear i ng.

I ve

wr i t t en out a l et t er , whi ch t hat s one of t he bad

t hi ngs about bei ng a Seni or J udge, I don t have any

st af f and I don t t ype, so I w l l have t o f i nd

somebody t o t ype i t f or me but , i n any event , I have

wr i t ten out a l et ter and basi cal l y addr essed i t t o t he

par t i es i n t he t wo smal l cl ai ms cases and basi cal l y

what I m sayi ng i s t hat I m awar e t hat he s asked me

t o di squal i f y and t hat I was not awar e t hat he has

f i l ed an af f i davi t .

I di dn t I got a copy of a l et t er sayi ng t hat

he was aski ng me t o di squal i f y but he di dn t send me a

copy of t he af f i davi t , so I di dn t know t her e was one

unt i l I saw i t t hi s mor ni ng i n t he f i l e and I m

poi nt i ng t hat out I n t hi s l et t er but I al so t ake not e

t hat he s advi sed me t her e i s a Federal Cour t case and

so fo r th, and I m bas i cal l y t el l i ng hi m t hat I want t o

hear f r om hi m by May 3 i f he want s t o di sm ss t hese

cases.

I f not , I m goi ng t o f or war d t he af f i davi t on

t o whoever t hey t el l me t o f or det erm nat i on and go


37/45

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

f r om there.

MR. DEPEW Wel l , Your Honor , I woul d poi nt out

KSA 20- 311( f ) - -

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. DEPEW And i n t hat st at ut e i t st at es t hat

t her e i s a cl ear t i me l i m t by whi ch someone must f i l e

a f ormal r equest f or r ecusal of a J udge and t hat i s

seven days af t er t he pr et r i al or seven days af t er

r ecei vi ng wr i t t en not i ce of t he J udge bef or e whom t he

case i s t o be hear d.

Your appoi nt ment i n t hi s case

smal l cl ai ms cases was made

i n t hese t wo

THE COURT: Somet i me ago.

MR. DEPEW

- - mont hs ago and so we woul d - - we

woul d obj ect t o

THE COURT: So you ar e i ndi cat i ng t hat on

pr ocedur al gr ounds I don t even need t o gi ve hi m t hat

not i f i cat i on.

MR. DEPEW

That s our posi t i on, Your Honor , and

I t hi nk t hat - - I t hi nk you can - - because I r ead hi s

Mar ch 30 l et t er f i l i ng t he same way you do, whi ch i s I

want t o di sm ss t hi s case.

THE COURT: That s t he way i t appear s t o me.

MR. DEPEW And so we woul d ask t hat we go ahead

and di sm ss t he case.


38/45

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: Wel l , you know, i t i s pr obabl y not a

bad r equest si mpl y f r om t he st andpoi nt i f t her e i s

some r eason he can show me why I ought t o r econsi der

t hat , I suppose I coul d do i t . And under t he

ci r cumst ances, I don t force - - I guess what I m

t r yi ng t o do i s get out of t own bef or e t hi s af ternoon

t o be qui t e f r ank.

MR. DEPEW

I under st and and I woul d f eel t he

same way, Your Honor .

THE COURT: I don t see any r eason f or me t o hang

ar ound, and I

w l l

make

them awar e i n t he

Cl er k s

Of f i ce t hat i f Mr .

Day does happen

t o

show

up,

and

t her e i s no i ndi cat i on

t hat you ve

had and I cer t ai nl y

haven t had any,

t hat

he s goi ng

t o

show.

MR. DEPEW

He

i ndi cat ed

t o

me

t hat

he

di d not ,

i n f act , want t o dr i ve f r om Denver .

THE COURT: Wel l , I al most dr ove f r om Denver .

MR. DEPEW I know.

THE COURT: And I don t bl ame hi m

MR. DEPEW You coul d have car pool ed, Your Honor .

THE COURT: I don t have anyt hi ng agai nst

Pi ttsburg, i t i s j ust qui t e a ways f r om wher e I l i ve.

I m goi ng t o go al ong w t h you, Mr . Depew.

"Self Reporting" Letter of Ethical Violations By Kansas Assistant Attorney General - Stephen...

Documents

Transcript of "Self Reporting" Letter of Ethical Violations By Kansas Assistant Attorney General - Stephen...