Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ERIC M. MUATHE, and
}
JULIE STOVER, and
}
KASEY KING, and
}
Case No. 16-cv-2108
LESTER MOORE, and
}
RICHARD DICKERSON, and
}
PATRICK DICKERSON, and
}
SECOND AMENDED CIVIL
TRAVIS CARLTON, and
}
COMPLAINT
DUSTIN BLAIR, and
}
MICHAEL L. KING, and
}
THOMAS J. WALTERS, and
}
DESIGNATED PLACE OF TRIAL
FREDERICK GRABLE, and
}
STACY STEVENS, and
}
ZACHARY WALDEN, and
}
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
JAMES BECKLEY, JR., and
}
DANNY E. STEVENS, and
}
JASE GREENWOOD, and
}
REGGIE RHUE, JR., and
}
JOE STOVER, and
}
CHET STOVER, and
}
HANNAH STOVER, and
}
TONY SIMONS, and
}
BO COY, and
}
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
TRENTIN CALTON, and
}
KAREN CALTON, and
}
KANDICE DUNCAN, and
}
CLARK J. ANDERSON, and
}
MATT MOORE, and
}
MANDY DUNCAN, and
}
MATT SCHWAB, and
}
JOSH MOORE, and
}
MAKAIHLAH GIBBS, and
}
JENNIFER TURNBOUGH, and
}
TRISTIN CRAMER, and
}
DALLAS GARNER, and
}
DREW CHRISTIANSEN, and
}
BEN JAMES, and
}
SHAWNA SMUTZLER, and
}
KEVIN SEYBOLD, and
}
WHITNEY COY, and
}
MARC DOHERTY, and
}
ROBBY PHILLIPS, and
}
JOHN MACK, and
}
1

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 20

LEONARD MACK, and

STEVE MELTON, and
DENI MELTON, and
DAVID WILDERMAN, and
JOHN CLOTHEIR, and
BRIAN HAMM
Plaintiffs,
v.
LORI BOLTON FLEMING, and
KURT LOY, and
JOE MANNS, and
BILL WACHTER, and
MY TOWN MEDIA, INC., and
Defendants.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

COMES NOW Plaintiffs Erick Muathe, Julie Stover, Kasey King, Lester Moore,
Richard Dickerson, Patrick Dickerson, Travis Carlton, Dustin Blair, Michael King, and
Thomas Walters, Ferederick Grable, Stacy Stevens, Zachary Walden, James Beckley, Jr.,
Danny Stevens, Jase Greenwood, and Reggie Rhue, Jr., Joe Stover, Chet Stover, Hannah
Stover, Tony Simons, Bo Coy, Trentin Calton, Karen Calton, Kandice Duncan, Clark J.
Anderson, Matt Moore, Mandy Duncan, Matt Schwab, Josh Moore, Makaihlah Gibbs,
Jennifer Turnbough, Tristin Cramer, Dallas Garner, Drew Christiansen, Ben James,
Shawna Smutzler, Kevin Seybold, Whitney Coy, Marc Doherty, Robby Phillips, John
Mack, Leonard Mack, Steven Melton, Deni Melton, David Wilderman, John Clotheir,
and Brian Hamm, (hereinafter collectively referred to as plaintiffs), by and through
their attorney Prince Adebayo Ogunmeno of Kansas City, Kansas, and amends their
petition for their cause of action against the defendants state and allege as follows:
PARTIES
1. The plaintiffs are individual persons, adult citizens of the United States, and at all
times material to this complaint are resident of this district.
2

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 20

2. The defendant Lori Fleming (hereinafter referred to as Fleming) is an individual

person and at all times material is believed to be a resident of this district.
3. The defendant Kurtis Loy (hereinafter referred to as Loy) is an individual person
and at all times material to this complaint is believed to be a resident of this district.
4. The defendant William (Bill) Wachter (hereinafter referred to as Wachter), is an
individual person, and is believed to be a resident of this district.
5. The defendant Joe Mann (hereinafter referred to as Mann), is an individual person,
and is believed to be a resident of this district.
6. The defendant My Town Media, Inc., is a corporate entity organized by virtue of the
laws of the State of Kansas is believed to be a resident of this district.
7. At all times relevant to this action, the defendant Mann was defendant My Town
Media, Incs employee and/or agent, and was acting within the scope of, and in
furtherance of his employers business interest.
8. Further, at all times relevant to this action, the defendants Fleming and Loy were
acting under the color of state law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
10. This cause of action arises out of denial and/or impairment of plaintiffs
constitutional, civil rights, and political rights which occurred within this district.
11. Jurisdiction lies with this court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. 1331; 28 U.S.C. 1343(1)(2)(3)(4); and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985 the
First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 4 of 20

12. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 in that all the defendants
are resident of this district and all the acts or omissions which gave rise to this cause
of action occurred within this district.
13. The plaintiffs invoke the pendent and/or supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to
hear and decide claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
FACTS
14. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
15. On or about February, 2015, the plaintiffs formed a group named Summary Judgment
Group, an unregistered association, to advance their constitutional rights to freedom
of speech and the rights to petition the government as enshrined in the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, including expression of their
displeasure with perceive corruption, conflict of interests between local attorneys and
judges in handling cases in the Eleventh Judicial District of Kansas court system.
16. In pursuit of their constitutional and civil rights, plaintiffs began a signature drive
campaign to summon a grand jury to remove sitting judges in the Eleventh Judicial
District of Kansas, including defendant Fleming and Loy.
17. In pursuit of their goal and legal requirements of collection of sufficient registered
voters signatures, plaintiffs approached defendant My Town Media, Inc., who
operates a local radio station commonly known as 100.7 ESPN to purchase radio
advertisement spots.
18. On February 16, 2015, plaintiffs entered into a contractual agreement with defendant
My Town Media, Inc., for an advertisement spots on defendants F.M. 100.7 ESPN
radio station.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 5 of 20

19. The parties agreed plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign advertisement spot
will air during a popular morning sport show commonly known as Mike and Mike
at 7:55 a.m. each day for 30 days.
20. In exchange plaintiffs agreed and paid defendant My Town Media, Inc., the agreed
fees for airing plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign advertisement spots for
30 days.
21. In addition, the parties agreed that the defendant My Town Medical, Inc., will create
and produce the content of the plaintiffs signature drive advertisement spots based on
the information.
22. On February 16, 2015, the plaintiffs tendered full payment for the advertisement
purchase to defendant My Town Medical, Inc. (See Exhibit 1 hand written receipt
for the payment of the radio advert).
23. On or about February 17, 2015, the defendant My Town Media, Inc., created and
produced a sample advertisement spot for plaintiffs review and approval.
24. The plaintiffs relied entirely on defendant My Town Media, Inc., experience and
expertise in radio advertisement creation; and based on defendants suggestions and
recommendations, plaintiffs approved the advertisement spot the defendant My Town
Media, Inc., created and produced for publication.
25. On February 18, 2015, and February 19, 2016, the defendant My Town Media, Inc.,
ran plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign advertisement spots in
compliances with the parties agreement.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 6 of 20

26. Apparently, on or about February 18, 2015 and/or February 19, 2015, the defendant
Fleming and Loy became aware of the plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign
advertisement on FM 100.7 ESPN radio station.
27. On February 19, 2015, the defendant Fleming and Loy called a meeting to discuss
and agree on a plan on how to prevent and stop plaintiffs grand jury signature drive
campaign advertisement on FM 100.7 ESPN radio station; and how to use their
positions as judges of the Eleventh Judicial District of Kansas to achieve their goal to
stop plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign from been successful.
28. Plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign is a protected constitutional activities
under 42 U.S.C. 1985 and decided case laws.
29. The defendant Fleming and Loy succeeded in their plan and conspiracy to get the
plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert pulled off the radio
airwaves and plaintiffs radio advert contract unilaterally cancelled.
COUNT ONE
DEFENDANT FLEMING, LOY, WACHTER, AND MANN CONSPIRED
TO VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C 1985
30. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
31. Plaintiffs are members of a citizen class-based protected group involved in a
protected speech who were engaged in protected activities under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
32. In addition, plaintiffs are individual pro-se litigants who have been denied access to
court, mistreated and taken advantage off because of their pro-se litigant status.
33. The plaintiff then decided to invoke their First Amendment right to freedom of
speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances and organize

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 7 of 20

a grand jury signature petition campaign to oust judges of the Eleventh Judicial
District of Kansas, including defendant Fleming and Loy.
34. In pursuit of plaintiffs constitutional right under the First Amendment to the
Constitution, plaintiffs began a grand jury signature drive campaign to gain
community support for their cause to oust judges of the Eleventh Judicial District of
Kansas, including defendant Fleming and Loy.
35. Prior to plaintiffs decision to engage in a grand jury signature drive campaign to oust
judges in the Eleventh Judicial District of Kansas, including defendants, some
plaintiffs had filed ethical complaint against defendant Fleming and Loy with the
Kansas Judicial Commission.
36. Among some of the plaintiffs complaint was the fact that defendant Fleming and Loy
after each become a judge continues to advert for legal business in local news media
as a practicing attorney creating apparent deception and conflict of interests.
37. Shortly after plaintiffs started their grand jury signature drive campaign, plaintiff
Kasey King on behalf of other plaintiffs contracted with defendant My Town Media,
Inc., to create and produce a radio advertisement to promote their cause. (See Exhibit
1 hand written receipt for the payment of the radio advert).
38. On February 18, 2015, the plaintiffs radio adverts began to run on defendants My
Town Media, Incs radio station airwaves.
39. Apparently the defendant Fleming and Loy heard plaintiffs a grand jury signature
drive campaign radio advert when it ran on defendant My Town Media, Incs radio
station airwaves on February 18, 2015 and February 19, 2015.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 8 of 20

40. On or about February 18, 2015 and/or February 19, 2015 the defendant Loy either
physically or by other means called a meeting to discuss the content, ramifications,
and consequences of the plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert
with defendant Fleming.
41. At the conclusion of the discussion between defendant Loy and Fleming over
plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert both defendant Fleming
and Loy apparently agreed they must use their position as sitting judges of Eleventh
Judicial District of Kansas to prevent and stop plaintiffs radio advert.
42. Among the agreement and decisions apparently reached during the conversation
between defendant Fleming and Loy was the need for defendant Fleming to invite
defendant Wachter to join the conspiracy to prevent and stop plaintiffs grand jury
signature drive campaign from been successful.
43. Another agreement and decision apparently reached during the conversation between
defendant Fleming and Loy was the need for defendant Fleming to use her position as
a sitting judge to persuade defendant Wachter join their conspiracy and pull plaintiffs
grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert off the airwaves.
44. Because, prior to coming to the bench, defendant Fleming was a member and
practicing attorney at Wilbert & Towner Law Firm with defendant Wachter.
45. Defendant Wachter is one of the owner and/or shareholders of the defendant My
Town Media, Inc.
46. Upon becoming a judge, defendant Fleming is believed to have been assigned and/or
designated criminal department judge in Crawford County, Kansas; and defendant

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 9 of 20

Wachter engages and continues to engage in extensive criminal law practice before
Judge Fleming less than five years after Judge Fleming became a judge.
47. Further, attorneys at Wilbert & Towner Law Firm, in particular, defendant Wachter
engages and continues to engage in extensive criminal law practice before Judge
Fleming.
48. Meanwhile, in furtherance of the agreement and conspiracy between Fleming and
Loy to infringe on plaintiffs constitutional rights, defendant Fleming on February 19,
2015, willfully and intentionally prepared wrote an email to defendant Wachter, and
for maximum effects, deliberately use her (Fleming) official court assigned e-mail
account, which essentially states as follows:
Bill Wachter, is this your station? Kurt is saying Eric Muathe and posse
cometaut (sic) have an ad on this station to oust all the judges. I would just like to
know since my kids were listening when I heard the ad this morning on my way
to work. If so, get it off. (See Exhibit 2 unofficial version of defendant Fleming
email to defendant Wachter).
49. Upon receipt of defendant Flemings email, defendant Wachter shortly thereafter
called defendant Fleming to discuss the content, ramification, and consequences of
plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign to oust judges of the Eleventh Judicial
District, Kansas, including defendant Fleming and Loy.
50. During the discussion between defendant Fleming and Wachter, both apparently
agreed on what actions needed to be taken to effectively chilled plaintiffs rights and
actions needed to stop plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign advert, which
includes but not limited to ultimately deny plaintiffs access to radio advertisement
outlet over My Town Media, Inc., radio airwave; denial of plaintiffs of their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech, the right to petition the government for
9

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 10 of 20

redress of grievances; and denial of plaintiffs equal privileges and immunities to

engage in the benefits of lawful contractual relations under the law.
51. After the agreement between defendant Fleming and Wachter, defendant Wachter
took concerted actions toward the fulfillment of the agreement and conspiracy to deny
plaintiffs of their constitutional when defendant Wachter immediately contacted
defendant Mann at the My Town Media, Inc., radio station to discuss steps needed to
be taken to pull plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign off the radio airwave
and to unilaterally terminate the existing radio advertisement contract between
plaintiffs and My Town Media, Inc.
52. At the end of the conversation between defendant Wachter and Mann, both
defendants agreed to take actions to terminate and deny plaintiffs access to radio
airwave; and the benefits of plaintiffs contractual radio advertisement agreement
with defendant My Town Media, Inc.
53. In furtherance of the agreement and conspiracy between Fleming, Loy, Wachter and
Mann to terminate and deny plaintiffs access to radio airwave; and the benefits of
plaintiffs contractual radio advertisement agreement with defendant My Town
Media, Inc., defendant Wachter apparently suggested to defendant Mann that he
(Mann) must concealed the real and actual reasons why plaintiffs grand jury
signature drive campaign radio advert was cancelled.
54. In addition, defendant Watcher apparently further suggested to defendant Mann that
he (Mann) must deceive plaintiffs, if plaintiffs should ask for the reasons behind the
cancellation of their grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert; that defendant
Mann should tell plaintiffs: the radio stations Federal Communication Commission

10

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 11 of 20

(FCC) Lawyer called and directed him (Mann) to cancel and pull plaintiffs grand
jury signature drive campaign radio advert off the airwave because the content
violated the FCC advertisement rules and regulations.
55. In furtherance of the agreement and conspiracy between defendant Wachter and
Mann, instigated by defendant Fleming and Loy, defendant Mann called one of the
plaintiffs, Kasey King on February 19, 2015 to discuss the termination of plaintiffs
grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert.
56. Apparently, as defendant Mann had previously agreed with defendant Wachter,
defendant Mann told plaintiff Kasey King that he (Mann) unilaterally cancelled
plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign contract because the radio station
FCC Lawyer called and directed him (Mann) to cancel and pull plaintiffs grand jury
signature drive campaign radio advert off the airwave because the content of
plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign violated the FCC advertisement rules
and regulations.
57. The plaintiff Kasey King asked defendant Mann if the radio stations FCC Lawyer
who called him (Mann) and directed him (Mann) to cancel and terminate plaintiffs
grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert was defendant Wachter.
58. The defendant Mann confirmed that defendant Watcher was the radio stations FCC
Lawyer who directed him (Mann) to cancel and terminate plaintiffs grand jury
signature drive campaign radio advert on February 19, 2015.
59. The defendant Fleming, Loy, Wachter, Mann, and My Town Media, Inc., concerted
efforts to actualize their agreement and conspiracy to deny plaintiffs of their
constitutional rights were motivated by defendant Fleming and Loy invidious

11

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 12 of 20

discriminatory animus against plaintiffs individually and as members of a protected

class who were engaged in protected activities as evidence in defendant Fleming and
Loys characterization of plaintiffs as members of Posee Cometaut (sic) a known
racists and violent group.
60. As a direct and proximate result of defendants wrongful actions and 1985
conspiracy, plaintiffs suffered chilling effects and deprivation of their civil rights
under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; plaintiffs suffered
denial of their rights to equal privileges and immunities under the law including
freedom of speech, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances; and
freedom to benefit from benefits of lawful contractual relationship made enforceable
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray the court for judgment against defendant Fleming,
Loy, Wachter, Mann, and My Town Media, Inc., for actual and punitive damages, for
plaintiffs costs, including reasonable attorney fees, and for all other reliefs the court find
just and proper.
COUNT TWO
DEFENDANT FLEMING, LOY, WACHTER, MANN
VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C 1981
61. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
62. Plaintiffs are members of a private citizen class-based protected group who were
engaged in protected speech and protected activities under the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.

12

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 13 of 20

63. On February 19, 2015, there was in existence a valid contract between plaintiffs and
defendant My Town Media, Inc. of which defendant Fleming and Loy possessed
knowledge of the existence.
64. By the actions of the defendant Fleming and Loy described in the preceding
paragraphs, the defendant Fleming and Loy willfully and intentionally interfere,
impede, and brought about the breach and termination of the existing radio
advertisement contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant My Town Media, Inc.
65. Further, defendant Fleming and Loy were acting within the color of state law when
willfully, intentionally, and deliberately conspired to interfere, impede, and brought
about the breach and termination of the existing grand jury signature drive campaign
radio adverts between the plaintiffs and the defendant My Town Media, Inc.
66. The defendant Fleming and Loy were not presiding as a judge over the contractual
relationship between plaintiffs and defendant My Town Media, Inc., when they
interfere, impede and brought about the breach and termination of the existing
contract between plaintiffs and My Town Media, Inc.
67. The defendant Wachter and Mann were equally liable because they were coconspirators in bringing about the wrongful termination of the lawful existing radio
advert contract between plaintiffs and My Town Media, Inc.
68. The defendants wrongful action was motivated by defendants invidious retaliatory
and discriminatory animus against plaintiffs individually and as members of a
protected class who were engaged in protected activities.
69. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants wrongful and intentional
interference with plaintiffs contractual relationship with defendant My Town Media.,

13

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 14 of 20

Inc., plaintiffs suffered harm and damages for which plaintiffs are entitled to recover
compensatory damages from the defendant Fleming, Loy, Wachter and Mann made
enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S.
Constitution.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray the court for judgment against defendant Fleming,
Loy, Wachter and Mann, for actual and punitive damages, for plaintiffs costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, and for all other reliefs the court find just and proper.
COUNT THREE
DEFENDANT FLEMING AND LOY
VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C 1983

70. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

71. Plaintiffs are members of private citizen class-based protected group who were
engaged in protected speech and protected activities under the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
72. The defendant Fleming and Loy were acting under color of state law.
73. The plaintiffs were exercising their rights under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution when the defendants acting in concert conspired and used the
color of their public office and position as judges to interfere with, and to cause
plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert to be withdrawn and
pulled off the air, and their contract with My Town Media, Inc., cancelled.
74. That the defendant Fleming and Loys actions were motivated by defendants
invidious retaliatory and discriminatory animus against plaintiffs individually and as
members of a protected class who were engaged in protected activities; and
defendants reckless and deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs constitutional rights.
14

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 15 of 20

75. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants wrongful conspiracy and
intentional interference with plaintiffs contractual relationship with defendant My
Town Media., Inc., the plaintiffs suffered harm and damages for which plaintiffs are
entitled to recover compensatory damages from the defendant Fleming and Loy.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray the court for judgment against defendant Fleming,
Loy, Wachter, Mann, and My Town Media, Inc., for actual and punitive damages, for
plaintiffs costs, including reasonable attorney fees, and for all other reliefs the court find
just and proper.
COUNT FOUR
BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANT MY TOWN MEDIA, INC.

76. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

77. On February 16, 2015, the plaintiffs individually and as member of an unregistered
association entered into a radio advertisement contract with the defendant My Town
Media, Inc., on behalf of, and for the benefit of all plaintiffs.
78. The defendant My Town Media, Inc., promised to create the content and produce a
radio advertisement for plaintiffs signature drive for a grand jury petition; in
exchange the plaintiffs promised to pay defendant its usual and customary charges for
such radio spot for a 30 days run.
79. In addition, the parties agreement imposes the general contractual duties and
obligations, including but not limited to a duty to act in good faith.
80. The plaintiffs have fully performed their obligations under the parties contract by
payment to defendant My Town Media, Inc., in advance, the agreed contract amount.

15

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 16 of 20

81. However, the defendant breached the parties contract when it withdrawn and refused
to continue to run plaintiffs signature drive radio campaign after it ran it for just two
days out of the 30 days agreed to in the parties contract.
82. The actions taken and/or not taken by the defendants constitute a breach of contract
under Kansas law.
83. As a result of the defendants breach of the parties agreement the plaintiffs suffered
injury for which plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages from the
defendant My Town Media, Inc.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray the court for judgment against the defendant
My Town Media, Inc., in an amount that is just and reasonable, for their costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, if appropriate, and for all other reliefs the court find just and
proper.
COUNT FIVE FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT MANN, WACHTER, AND MY TOWN MEDIA, INC
84. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
85. On February 19, 2015, the defendant Mann while acting within the scope of his
employment and/or as an agent of the defendant My Town Media, Inc., told the
plaintiffs that the defendant My Town Media, Inc., radio station FCC Lawyer
directed and ordered him (Mann) to withdraw and took off the air the plaintiffs grand
jury signature drive campaign radio spot airing on defendants radio because the
advertisement violated the FCC rules and regulations.
86. The defendant Mann while acting as defendant My Town Media, Inc., employee,
agent and/or ultra ego knew the representation that plaintiffs grand jury signature
drive campaign advertisement defendant My Town Media, Inc., created and produced
16

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 17 of 20

for plaintiffs violated FCC rules and regulation was false and untrue statement at
the time he made the statement and representation to plaintiffs.
87. The defendant Wachter had suggested and conspired with defendant Mann that
defendant Mann should make the false and untrue statement that plaintiffs grand jury
signature drive campaign radio advert violated FCC rules and regulation to the
plaintiffs.
88. That the defendant Mann and Wachter willfully and intentionally made the false and
untrue statement to the plaintiffs for the purpose of inducing plaintiffs to act and
relied upon the false and untrue statement and representation.
89. That the plaintiffs reasonably relied and acted upon the false and untrue
representation the defendant Mann and Wachter made to them to their detriment.
90. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendant Mann and Wachter wrongful
actions, the plaintiffs sustained damages for which plaintiffs are entitled to
compensatory damages from the defendant Mann and Wachter.
91. Further, the defendant My Town Media, Inc., is responsible and liable for the
wrongful actions of its employee and/or agent defendant Manns wrongful actions
under the respondeat superior doctrine.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray the court for judgment against the defendant
Mann, Wachter, and My Town Media, Inc., in an amount in excess of $75, 000.00,
punitive damages, for plaintiffs costs, and for all other reliefs the court find just and
proper.
COUNT SIX
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATION
CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT FLEMING, LOY, WACHTER,
MANN, AND MY TOWN MEDIA, INC.
17

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 18 of 20

92. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

93. On February 19, 2015, there was in existence a valid contract between plaintiffs and
defendant My Town Media, Inc.
94. The defendant Fleming, Loy, Wachter, and Mann possessed knowledge of the
existing grand jury signature drive campaign radio advertisement contract between
plaintiffs and defendant My Town Media, Inc.
95. By the actions described in the preceding paragraphs, the defendant Fleming, Loy,
Wachter, and Mann willfully and intentionally entered into an agreement and
conspiracy to bring about the breach of the existing grand jury signature drive
campaign radio advertisement contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant My
Town Media, Inc.
96. The defendant Fleming, Loy, Wachter, and Mann have no legal excuse or legal
justification to cause the breach of the existing contract between plaintiffs and My
Town Media, Inc.
97. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants wrongful and intentional
interference with plaintiffs contractual relationship with defendant My Town Media.,
Inc., plaintiffs suffered harm and damages for which plaintiffs are entitled to recover
compensatory damages from the defendant Fleming, Loy, Wachter, and Mann.
98. Further, the defendant My Town Media, Inc., is responsible and liable for the
wrongful actions of its employee and/or agent defendant Manns wrongful actions
under the respondeat superior doctrine.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray the court for judgment against the defendant
Fleming, Loy, Wachter, Mann, and My Town Media, Inc., in an amount in excess of $75,
18

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 19 of 20

000.00, award of punitive damages, for plaintiffs costs, for all other reliefs the court find
just and proper.

COUNT SEVEN DEFAMATION

CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT FLEMING
99. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
100.

By the actions described in the preceding paragraphs above, the defendant

Fleming made a false and defamatory statement that plaintiffs individually, and as a
group; are members of Possee Comitatus (sic) group, a known violent white
supremacist, right-wing, and anti-government group, when in fact the defendants
knew and/or have reasons to know that the statement is false and untrue.
101.

The defendants published and/or communicated the false and defamatory

statement to third persons.

102.

The defendant Fleming willfully and intentionally made the false and defamatory

statement with the intent to expose plaintiffs to public hatred, contempt and/or
ridicule.
103.

Further, the defendant Fleming willfully and intentionally made the false and

defamatory statement with the intent to deprive plaintiffs of the benefits of public
confidence and social acceptance.
104.

As a direct and proximate cause of the defendant Flemings wrongful and

egregious false statement, the plaintiffs suffered harm and damages to their individual
reputations in the community.

19

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 20 of 20

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray the court for judgment against defendant
Fleming in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, award of punitive damages, for
plaintiffs costs, and for award of all other reliefs the court finds to be just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands trial to the jury of all disputed issues in this cause.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Adebayo Ogunmeno
Prince Adebayo Ogunmeno KS # 14808
155 S. 18th Street, Suite 250
Kansas City, Kansas 66102-5654
Tel. (913) 233-2133
aikogun@ogunmenolawfirm.com
Attorney for the Plaintiff.

20