August 8, 2018

The Attorney Generals Office

120 SW 10th St. Memorial Building 2nd Floor

Topeka Ks 66612

OUSTER COMPLAINT

Pursuant to KS.A. 60-1205 Grounds for Forfeiture of Office and Instituting Ouster Proceedings
against State Officers KS.A. 60-1206(a)(b). This is an Ouster Complaint against County
Attorney Michael Gayoso and Assistant County Attorney Steve Stockard of 111 E. Forest, Ste. A
Girard, Kansas 66743 under KS.A. 60-1205 and KS.A. 60-1206(a)(b). Proceedings to oust a state
officer shall be commenced only by the attorney general.

This complaint needs sent to the attorney generals office because of the "willfulness" county
attorney Michael Gayoso showed because I received a letter from Mr. Gayoso dated (MARCH 3,
2018) from a letter he received from me dated (APRIL 25, 2018) in which I request an ouster of
sheriff Dan Peak and detective Stu Hite and I would assume the March 3, 2018 was a typo error
and should have been May 3,2018. Mr. Gayoso tied to make excuses and explain that he is not
currently a member of Lady of Lourdes Church or a member of Crestwood Country Club and
that he has no conflicts of interest with detective Stu Hite. I noticed on Crawford County
Attorneys office of the County Attorney letter head that Steven A. Stockard is the assistant
county attorney in Crawford. It seems that he is a member of Crestwood Country Club and a
member of Lady of Lourdes Church with Stu Hite and sheriff Dan Peak and he has sang in the
band TEAM JESUS from the Lady of Lourdes Church with 11thdistrict judge Lori Fleming and
Michael Gayoso in the band as well. It would seem to me that it would be a conflict of interest
under rule KRPC Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest for Assistant County Attorney Steven Stockard
and Michael Gayoso to investigate an OUSTER COMPLAINT on Stu Hite and Dan Peak due to
conflicts of interest with social and political memberships together. I would think that it would
also be a conflict of interest for Steven Stockard or anyone from his office to prosecute the case
against Mr. Scholes in case number 2017CR287P State of Kansas vs. Muriece William Scholes
where detective Rite is a witness because of his economic conflicts of interest at Crestwood
Country Club and Lady of Lourdes Church where they both pay memberships and donate
money. Mr. Stockard has also represented Mr. Scholes in prior civil matters and that should be a
conflict of interest for anyone from his office to use information in the matter against Mr.
Scholes and should be a conflict of interest. Mr. Scholes has been in jail since 6/13/2017 and
had his first court appointed attorney on 6/16/2017 JoAnna Derfelt recuse for conflict of
interest because she was on the Cherokee Arts Association Board with county attorney Michael
Cayoso which caused a conflict of interest. Mr. Scholes trial is not set until November of 2018
which is one year and a half past his first appearance and way past (180 days speedy trial) due
to the ineffective assistance of counsel the conflict of interest caused.

I feel that according that attorneys Reina Probert, John Gutierrez, Christina Lloyd, and Michael
Gayoso should also be disqualified from investigating the ouster complaint I sent in on
detective Hite and sheriff Peak under KRPC Rule 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
and for them to prosecute the case of 2017CR287P under KRPC Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest and
KRPC Rule 1.10(a) Imputed Disqualification to represent the state of Kansas and prosecute the
case because of a conflict of interest with the witnesses Stu Hite and Dan Peak who is a member
of Lady of Lourdes Church as well. Mr. Michael Gayoso also was a (CO-DEFENDANT WITH
KURTIS LOY IN CASE NUMBERS 16-116284-A Eric Muathe et al vs. Honorable Kurtis Loy, et
al in the court of appeals and case number 15CV79P in Crawford County where Mr. Scholes
nephew James Scholes was on those cases from the grand jury petition in 2015MR2P and I feel
that is a conflict of interest against Mr. Scholes as well and that Judge Loy and attorney Gayoso
will retaliate.

Due to the fact that the county attorney's office is the place where an ouster proceeding is
supposed to be complained on according to K.S.A. 60-1206(a)(b) it should have been a conflict
of interest for the county attorney's office to represent the state of Kansas in a case where
detective Hite is the witness and he and his supervisor Dan Peak are the subject of an OUSTER
COMPLAINT investigation.

The county attorney' office can use that information against the Plaintiff in this case that
pertained to the ouster complaint (See, e.g., Monroe v. City of Topeka, 267 Kan. 440, 446, 988
P.2d 228 (1999).)

Any knowledge that county attorney Michael Gayoso used from the ouster complaint on
detective Hite to represent the State of Kansas, who detective Hite is a witness for was sent to
the county attorney's office to investigate as confidential information as the county attorney
pertaining to an ouster complaint The same place that the people are supposed to be able to
complain to for an ouster complaint investigation should not be the same people that represent
and defend the public officials that were complained on as this is a conflict of interest

Deputy Stu Hite has resigned from Crawford County Sheriffs Department and Dan Peak and
the undersheriff have resigned as well and are going to work at Watco. However, Stu Hite is
now a Pittsburg State Campus Police Officer but yet just two (2) weeks ago he was out in
Scammon Kansas investigating the case of State of Kansas vs. Muriece William Scholes
2017CR287P. Please find out how Stu Hite is working for Crawford County Sheriffs
Department and investigating this case when he resigned and is a campus cop now and
receiving a paycheck from Pittsburg State University and should not be allowed to double dip
on our taxpayers dime. Mr. Gayoso and Mr. Stockard also need investigated for failing to
follow KRPC Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor for FAlLING TO PROSECUTE:
FORMER PfITSBURG POLICE OFFICER ADAM HARRISON FOR POSSESSION OF
NARCOTICS WHEN HE FRAMED CARL POWELL JR. AND PUT DRUGS IN HIS CAR
WHICH WAS CAPTURED ON VIDEO WHERE OFFICER ADAM HARRISON LATER
RESIGNED BUT WAS NOT CHARGED WITH ANY DRUG CHARGES NOR WAS POLICE
CHIEF MINDY HULVEY WHO NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED AS WELL!! I WANT TO
KNOW WHERE HE GOT TIlE DRUGS!!! DID HE GET IT FROM POLICE CHIEF HULVEY?
DID HE GET IT OUT OF THE EVIDENCE ROOM AT THE POLICE STATION? PLEASE
INVESTIGATE WHY MICHAEL GAYOSO NEVER PROSECUTED THIS FORMER POLICE
OFFICER OR HIS POLICE CHIEF FOR POSSESSION OF DRUGS.

I have included the ROA from case number 2017CR287P to show that the case is way past 180
days. I have also included Rules Relating To District Courts Report of Supreme Court
Standards Committee which shows on statement (4) that no case should be permitted to float in
the system and under TIME STANDARDS it shows that Criminal Cases should be to trial Or
plea within 120 days which did not happen and he had ineffective assistant of counsel with
JoAnna Derfelt!!!! This case also needs investigated by the attorney generals office because
Crawford County Sherriff detective Chris Hall just investigated this case on 6-27-2018 and
Michelle Scott states that she already gave detective Stu Hite the text message and other
pictures that have not been admitted by detective Stu Hite. Someone in the attorney generals
office other than Orris Hall of Crawford County needs to investigate this matter. Please
investigate the county attorneys office of Crawford County for the above violations of their
duty to the public. I have included case law on why Michael Gayoso and the Crawford County
Attorneys Office should be disqualified form case number 2017CR287P for a conflict of interest.
The judge in this case Kurtis Loy should be disqualified for a conflict of interest with Michael
Gayoso and Steven Stockard because of current memberships at Crestwood Country Club with
Steven Stockard and prior memberships with Michael Gayoso and prior relationships as co-
defendant's in civil matters. Steve Stockard and his co-workers should be disqualified from this
case because he represented Mr. Scholes in a prior civil case and this violates KRPC Rule 1.9
Conflict of Interest Former Client.

POSSIBLE CASE LAW AND ARGUMENTS OF AUTHORITY

In 2004, Judge Rome ruled that the Bretz law firm must be disqualified from representing
Venters in this case because of Rice's employment at the Bretz firm after his mover from the
Gilliland firm. This disqualification of the Bretz law firm is known as "imputed
disqualification." See, e.g., Monroe v. City of Topeka, 267 Kan. 44.0,446, 988 P.2d 228 (1999).

This court has noted that "KRPC 3.7 prohibits a lawyer from being an advocate at a trial in
which the lawyer is a material witness on a contested issue." (Emphasis added.) Dimaplas, 267
Kan. at 71 (citing In re Harris, 261 Kan. 1063, 934 P.2d 965 [1997].

KRPC 3.7 provides that an attorney's testimony must not only be possible or likely but
necessary. (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 562); see LeaseAmerica Corp., 19 Kan. App. 2d at 747
(noting that the language in KRPC 3.7 "requires an even more specific showing of
necessity'TComment 4 to KRPC 3.7 explains that a judge should apply a balancing test rather
than automatically disqualify. (2009) Kan.Ct. R. Annot. 563); see Lansing-Delaware Water
District, 248 Kan. at 571.

"Our court in In re Estate of Koch, 18 Kan. App.2d 188, 215, 849 P.2d 977, rev. denied 253 Kan.
__ (June 18, 1993), held the determination of whether an attorney suffers under a conflict of
interest is a question of law, citing Miller and Haynes v. First Nat'l State Bk. Of N.J.,87 N.J. 163,
432 A.2d 890 (1981).

We hold the trial court's decision that MRPC 3.7 and DR 5-102 prohibited Kluge from acting as
trial counsel, subjecting him to automatic disqualification if Stewart intended to call him as a
*744 witness, is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. See Hutchinson
Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Brown, 12 Kan. App.2d 673, 674, 753 P.2d 1299, rev. denied 243 Kan. 778
(1988.)

In Cottonwood Estates v. Paradise Builders, 128 Ariz 99, 102, 624 P2d 2%, 299 (1981), for
example the court noted that even though the attorney is otherwise competent to testify, it is
generally considered a serious breach of professional etiquette and detrimental to the orderly
administration of justice for an attorney to take the stand in a case he is trying. 'See also
Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. American Gym, 546 F2d 530 (CA31976) (it is well settled that a
lawyer is competent to testify on behalf of his client); Robinhood Trails Neighbors v. Winston-
Salem Zoning Board of Adjustment, 44 NCApp 539, 261 SE2d 520 (1980); ABA Formal Opinion
50 (Dec. 14, 1931). " ABA/BNA Lawyer's Manual on Professional Conduct Section 61:503
(1984).

State ex reI. Neb. State Bar Ass'n v. Neumeister, 234 Neb. 47,449 N.W.2d 17 (1989) (discipline
lawyer who failed to withdraw from representation of client in nursing home whose relatives
had petitioned for conservatorship where lawyer knew he *748 would be material witness for
client as to her mental capacity). Compare KaImanovitz v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 610 F.
Supp. 1319 (D. Del. 1985) (DR 5-102(A) requires disqualification whenever lawyer's testimony
would corroborate client's accounts of events in question) with Cannon Airways, Inc. v.
Franklin Holdings Corp., 669 F. Supp. 96 (D. Del. 1987) (Rule 3.7(a) requires that the
corroborative testimony will be necessary and not merely cumulative).

"The burden in a motion to disqualify is on the moving party. "Field v. Freedman, 527 F. Supp.
935,941 (0. Kan. 1981). "The proof must be more than mere speculation and must sustain a
reasonable inference of a violation." Koch v. Koch Industries, 798 F. Supp.1525, 1530-31 (D.
Kan.1992).

Cottonwood Estates v. Paradise Builders, 128 Ariz 99, 105, 624 P2d 296, 302 (1981), in which the
court stated that '[when an attorney is to be called as a witness other than on behalf of his client,
a motion for disqualification must be supported by a showing that the attorney will give
evidence material to the determination of the issues being litigated, that the evidence is
unobtainable elsewhere, and that the testimony is or may be prejudicial to the testifying
attorney's client. 'See also J.P. Foley & Co. v. Vanderbilt, 523 F2d 1357 (CA21975); Freeman v.
Kulicke & Soffa Industries, 449 FSupp. 974 (EDPa 1978); Connell v. Clairol, 440 FSupp 17, 18 n. 1
(NDGa 1977); Miller Electrical Construction v. Devine Lighting Co., 421 FSupp 1020 (WDPa
1976); Brown v. DeRugeris, 92 CalApp3d 895, 15;; CalRptr 301 (1979)."

In Smithson v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 186 W. Va. 195, 201,411 S.E.2d 850 (1991), USF&G
contended the trial court erred by failing to disqualify plaintiff's counsel when USF&G
informed the court that it desired to call him as a witness. The Supreme Court of Appeals of
West Virginia adopted the law applicable under those cases governed by DR 5-102 and
extended it to situations falling under Ru1e 3.7 of the Ru1es of Professional Conduct and stated:
To support disqualification pursuant to K.RP.C. 3.7, "an attorney's testimony must not only be
possible or likely but necessary." Venters v. Sellers, 293 Kan. 87, 105,261 P.3d 538 (2011).

The trial court considered the State's authorities, but in a written ru1ing noted its concern over
the delay from October to May in the filing, held there was an appearance of impropriety, stated
prosecutorial discretion would be lacking, ruled the entire office was disqualified, and opined the court
had the right to do so under State v. McKibben, 239 Kan. 574, 581, 722 P,2d 518 (1986).

We invoke a de novo standard of review when disqualification is based upon disciplinary or

ethical rules. See Chrispens v. Coastal Refining & Mktg. Inc., 257 Kan, 745, 761, 897 P.2d 104
(1995) (disqualification of counsel under ethical rules adopted by court question of law); see also
State v. Dimaplas, 267 Kan. 65, Syl, 1,978 P.2d 891 (1999) (standard of appellate review on
whether disciplinary rule prohibits certain professional conduct question of law subject to
plenary review).

Under KRPC 1.7 (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 354), the general rule for disqualification of an
attorney is that the burden of proof is on the party ~ho seeks disqualification. In deciding a
motion to disqualify counsel, the trial court must balance several competing considerations,
including the privacy of the attorney-client relationship, the prerogative of a party to choose
counsel, and the hardships that disqualification imposes on the parties and the entire judicial
process.

A lawyer is disqualified from acting as an advocate under KRPC 3.7 (2001) Kan. Ct. R Annot.
413) when there is a likely hood that the lawyer will be a "necessary" witness. This standard
requires the opposing party to bear a higher burden on a disqualification motion, permits the
court to delay ru1ing until it can be determined that no other witness could testify, and obviates
disqualification of the lawyer s testimony is merely cumulative.

"The burden in a motion to disqualify is on the moving party. "Field v. Freedman, 527 F. Supp.
935,941 (D. Kan. 1981). "The proof must be more than mere speculation and must sustain a
reasonable inference of a violation." Koch v. Koch Industries, 798 F. Supp. 1525, 1530-31 (D.
Kan.1992).

Sincerely,
Thomas Walters
213 E. Carlton
Pittsburg Ks 66762

P.S. I also think it is a conflict of interest for Steven Stockard to prosecute CINC cases and take
children out of their homes when his private law firm of Wilbert and Towner does adoption
cases. I have included the July 7, 2018 follow up letter to Michael Gayoso that his office has
never responded to and that is why I am making this ouster complaint on him and his office.
Dana Burns contacted Chris Hall of Crawford County Sherriffs office to investigate the Muriece
Bill Scholes case and the attorney generals office needs to investigate the matter due to all the
conflicts of interest between Crawford County Sheriffs Office and Crawford County Attorneys
Office and therefore someone outside of Crawford county needs to investigate this case and no
detective Chris Hall.
 CRAWFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
DETECTIVE'S NARRATIVE

06-27-2018 Chris Hall

Investigation Date(s) Detective

SUBJECT(S): SCHOLES, MURIECE WILLIAM "BILL"

VJCTIM(S): mu, WARREN EDWARD ~
INCIDENT(S): K.S.A. 21-5402(a)(1) MURDER IN THE 1 TDEGREE
ATIE TED
PLACE:

CRAWFORD COUNTY

RE: INVESTIGATIVE NARRATIVE

DETAILS:

On 06-26-2018 at approximately 1339 hours, Pittsburg Police Department Detective Jeff Woods
called me. Det. Woods told me that Dani Bums (08-14-1968) informed him of a Facebook post
that she took three screenshots of in which Warren Hill allegedly told Nana Hill that he shot
himself. Det. Woods emailed me the screenshots that Burnshad taken. I viewed the screenshots
and did not notice a date on any of them. The screenshots appeared to be a text message
conversation between someone that was named ''W' arren Hill" by one party, and an unknown
second party. It appeared that the unknown second party had taken screenshots of the
conversation that he/she had with "Warren Hill", In one of the screenshots, it appeared that
"WaITen Hill" stated "1 shot myself like a dumbass". "Warren Hill" went on to say "u fucking
dumb cunt I wanted to kill ur dumbass but u fucking didn't show up ..no one at county cares what
u say I have them wrapped around my finger u stupid bitch all I got to say is fucking bill did it
and they don't care about that old man they just want me to set dumb asses up for meth and Iget
off no charges bitch". Another screenshot had the name "Misty Hiller" attached to several
screenshots of text message conversations.

Iresearched ''Misty Hiller" on Facebook, and noticed several conversations in Misty's posts that
referenced Warren Hill in a foul and unsavory manner. I searched the photos that Misty had
posted in her various posts, and saw the screenshots that Burns had captured. The screen shots
were dated 11-10-2017, 11-13-2017, and 02-06~2018 to 02-15-2018. By the way Misty spoke
about her past relationship with Hill, ~.surmised that Misty Hiller was an alias for Michelle Scott.
--------------------------------------~
I called former Crawford County Sheriff's Office Detective Lt. Stu Hite and spoke to him about
the screenshots. Det. Rite told me that he had several conversations with Michelle Scott during
his investigation of the Hill shooting in which Scott claimed that Hill shot himself. He told me

1
 CRAWFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
DETECTIVE'S NARRATIVE
that he spoke to Hill as recently as May 2018> and during that conversation, Scott vehemently
defended Bill Scholes still claiming that Hill shot himself. Det. Hite told me that he was aware
of text messages that were allegedly from Hill in which he told Scott that he shot himself. He
told me that Scott never came forward with any text messages or other evidence that the gunshot
that Hill sustained was self-inflicted.

On 06-27-2018 at approximately 1420 hours, I went to d spoke to

Burns. Burns told me that she obtained the screenshots that she sent to Det, Woo from Nana
Hill's Facebook page. She told me that she sent the screenshots to Det. Woods because she
knew that Scholes was in jail for allegedly shooting Hill and thought that the matter needed to be
looked into further. I told Burns that Det. Hite had investigated the matter thoroughly, and that
probable cause was established to arrest Scholes. I told Burns that Scott has constantly alleged
that Hill shot himself, but that she never came forward with any evidence to support her claims.
I told Burns that the inessages that had been captured by screenshot could have easily been
created.
---------- -------,------p- -------- \
\ \
/ As Hill's and Scott's whereabouts are currently unknown, an examination of either person's
I

\ phone at the time of this narrative was not possible.

'~------------------------ ---' -------- .
... ~.
-~

NOTHING FURTHER.
 Date: 4/6/2018 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: KV
Time: 11:36 AM ROA Report
Page 1 of 4 Case: 2017-CR-000287-P Current Judge: Kurtis t Loy
Defendant: Scholes, Muriece William
State of Kansas vs. Muriece William Scholes

Felony

Jate Judge

3/13/2017 ComplainUlnformation PLE: ComplainUlnformation A J Wachter

6/13/2017 factual affidavit AFF: Probable Cause/Arrest Report A J Wachter
Document sealed
arrest warrant ORO: Warrant - Arrest Warrant Issued Bond $200,000 A J Wachter
Defendant: Scholes, Muriece William
6/15/2017 Notice of Hearing and Appointment of Attorney NOT: Notice - No Sheriff A J Wachter
Service Required
6/16/2017 Order Appointing Counsel ORO: Appoint - Counsel A J Wachter
Commitment to the County Jail ORO: Custody/Placement A J Wachter
Arrest Warrant Served/Returned Defendant: Scholes, Muriece William A J Wachter
Cancelled Warrant Report NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service Required A J Wachter
Fax Confirmation To Craw Co SO A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 364615
Warrant Returned Picked up by Cr Co So 6-14-17 A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 364800
6/19/2017 Application for Court Appointed Counsel A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 364854
First Appearance Journal Entry ORO: First Appearance A J Wachter
6/20/2017 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE INF: Entry of Appearance A J Wachter
MOTION FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY MOT: Motion (Generic) A J Wachter
ORDER OF DISCOVERY OIS: Discovery (Generic) A J Wachter '\

6/22/2017 ORDER OF DISCOVERY OIS: Discovery (Generic) A J Wachter

6/26/2017 Request to the Clerk of Court for Disclosure of Affidavit or Sworn A J Wachter
Testimony in Support of Arrest Warrant or Summons
Document 10 Number: 366160
Certificate of Service by Fax on JoAnna Oertelt A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 366161
Certificate of Service by Fax on Michael Gayoso A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 366162
Certificate of Service by Serving Elaine Bradshaw for Judge Wachter A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 366163
Certificate of Service by Fax to Stacy Mingori at Crawford County Jail to A J Wachter
Serve on Muriece (Called her and told her I would be faxing it over)
Document 10 Number: 366164
7/712017 7/7/2017 State's Respopnse to Request to Disclose PCA MOT: Motion A J Wachter
(Generic)
Document sealed
'/11/2017 ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE ORb: Order Originated by Judge A J Wachter
Ron,.."f"'\.r""- _ .•...
.£.: .•... - -- _t" -
 late: 4/6/2018 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: KV
'ime: 11 :36 AM ROA Report
'age 1 of 4 Case: 2017 -CR-000287 -P Current Judge: Kurtis I Lay
Defendant: Scholes, Muriece William
State of Kansas vs, Muriece William Scholes

Felony

late Judge

/13/2017 Complaint/Information PLE: Complaint/Information A J Wachter

6/13/2017 factual affidavit AFF: Probable Cause/Arrest Report A J Wachter
Document sealed
arrest warrant ORO: Warrant - Arrest Warrant Issued Bond $200,000 A J Wachter
Defendant: Scholes, Muriece William
/15/2017 Notice of Hearing and Appointment of Attorney NOT: Notice - No Sheriff A J Wachter
Service Required
116/2017 Order Appointing Counsel ORO: Appoint - Counsel A J Wachter
Commitment to the County Jail ORO: Custody/Placement A J Wachter
Arrest Warrant Served/Returned Defendant: Scholes, Muriece William A J Wachter
Cancelled Warrant Report NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service Required A J Wachter
Fax Confirmation To Craw Co SO A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 364615
Warrant Returned Picked up by Cr Co So 6-14-17 A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 364800
119/2017 Application for Court Appointed Counsel A J Wachter
Document ID Number: 364854
First Appearance Journal Entry ORO: First Appearance A J Wachter
120/2017 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE INF: Entry of Appearance A J Wachter
MOTION FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY MOT: Motion (Generic) A J Wachter
ORDER OF DISCOVERY DIS: Discovery (Generic) A J Wachter
/22/2017 ORDER OF DISCOVERY DIS: Discovery (Generic) A J Wachter
126/2017 Request to the Clerk of Court for Disclosure of Affidavit or Sworn A J Wachter
Testimony in Support of Arrest Warrant or Summons
Document ID Number: 366160
Certificate of Service by Fax on JoAnna Derfelt A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 366161
Certificate of Service by Fax on Michael Gayoso A J Wachter
Document ID Number: 366162
Certificate of Service by Serving Elaine Bradshaw for Judge Wachter A J Wachter
Document ID Number: 366163
Certificate of Service by Fax to Stacy Mingori at Crawford County Jail to A J Wachter
Serve on Muriece (Called her and told her I would be faxing it over)
Document ID Number: 366164
17/2017 7/7/2017 State's Respopnse to Request to Disclose PCA MOT: Motion A J Wachter
(Generic)
Document sealed
111/2017 ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE ORO: Order Originated by Judge A J Wachter
Reponse-motion-redirect-pca-pdf MOT: Response A J Wachter
 RULES RELATING TO DISTRICT COURTS

REPORT OF SUPREME COURT

STANDARDSCO~TTEE

The attached report, adopted by the Supreme Court Standards Committee on October 24,
1980, was adopted by the Supreme Court, effective December 11, 1980, as a statement of the goals
of the Kansas judicial system and of the general principles and time standards to be used as
guidelines for the processing of cases by the District Courts of this State.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELiNES

FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS
(1) We approve the credo of the Joint Committee for the Effective Administration of Justice
adopted in the 1960's as a general statement of the goals and purposes of the Kansas Judicial
System ..

Justice is effective when it is:

(A) Fairly administered without delay

With all litigants, indigent and otherwise, and especially those charged with crime,
represented by competent counsel,

(B) By Competent Judges

Selected through non-political methods based on merit,
In sufficient numbers to carry the load,
Adequately compensated, with fair retirement benefits,
With security of tenure, subject to an expeditious method of removal for cause,

(C) Operating in a Modern Court System

Simple in structure, without overlapping jurisdictions or multiple appeals,
Businesslike in management with nonjudicial duties performed by a competent
administrative staff,
With practical methods of equalizing the judicial workload,
With an annual conference of the judges for the purpose of appraising and improving
judicial techniques and administration,

CD) Under Simple and Efficient Rules of Procedure

Designed to encourage advance trial preparation,
Eliminate the element of surprise,
Facilitate the ascertainment of truth,
Reduce the expense of litigation,
And expedite the administration of justice.

(2) Litigation delay causes litigants expense and anxiety. Judges and lawyers have a professional
obligation to avoid misuse and overuse of discovery and to terminate litigation as soon as it is
reasonably possible to do so.

(3) The ultimate iudicial aoal should be iustice. not speed. in the disnosition of cases. Cases
 should be afforded a reasonable time to prepare and present their cases.

(4) No case should be permitted to float in the system. It is the responsibility of the trial judge
assigned the case to take charge of the case at an early date in the litigation and to control the
progress of the case thereafter until the case is determined.

(5) There should be time standards established as a guide for the disposition of cases, with the
understanding that the system must have flexibility to accommodate the differences in the
complexity of cases and the different problems arising in urban and rural judicial districts. A
certain amount of delay may be necessary in an individual case.

(6) Assuming adequate trial court staffing and facilities, trial court delay, i.e., unnecessary
waiting time, is not inevitable. The pace of litigation is not necessarily determined by court
size, individual case loads, or the percentage of cases that go to trial.

(7) The pace of litigation is often the result of "local legal culture" rather than court procedures,
case load, or backlog. Local legal culture consists of the established expectations, practices,
and informal rules of behavior of judges, attorneys and the public.

(8) The most effective way of combating court delay is to modify the local legal culture by the
adoption and use of a case management system. The basic concept of case management is
that the court, rather than the attorneys, should control the pace of litigation. It is the duty of
the judge to the people to run the court and not abdicate the responsibility to counsel.

(9) An effective case management system requires that specific steps be taken to monitor and
control the pace of litigation. Among these are the following:

(A) Early and continuous control of the court calendar by the judge;

(B) Identifying cases subject to alternative dispute resolution processes;

(C) Developing rational and effective trial-setting policies;

(D) Applying a firm continuance policy. Trial continuances should be few; good cause
should be required, and all requests should be heard and resolved by a judge;

(E) Older cases should be emphasized and ordinarily given priority in trial settings;

(F) A useful and efficient information system should be available to identify cases that
are at variance with the suggested time standards and to provide a continuing
evaluation of the system as a whole.

(10) The judges and the lawyers of Kansas should work together with interested citizens to
monitor the workings of the judicial system in the state and each judicial district. They
should explore methods of improvement, keep the public informed of the operation of the
courts, and seek public suggestions and support for the improvement of the judicial system.

TIME STANDARDS
 initial case management conference within forty-five (45) days of the filing of an answer to
explore prospects for settlement, a time schedule for completion of discovery, and the setting
of a date for a pretrial conference and for trial;

(2) Any civil case which has been pending for more than one-hundred-eighty (180) days shall be
of special concern to the trial judge and should ordinarily be given priority in all trial
settings.

(3) The trial judge to whom cases are assigned should be responsible for the disposition of those
cases and should, so far as reasonably possible, bring them to trial or final disposition in
conformity with the following median time standards:

Civil Cases

Chapter 61 Cases--to final disposition, within a median time of sixty (60) days from date of filing.

Chapter 60 Cases--
Non-Domestic Civil--to final disposition, within a median time of one-hundred-eighty (180)
days from date of filing.

Domestic Relations--to final disposition, within a median time of one-hundred-twenty (120)

days from date of filing.

Chapter 59 Cases--(Probate and administration of estates--to final disposition, within a median time
of one year from date of filing.

Criminal Cases

Felony--to trial or plea, within a median time of one-hundred-twenty (120) days from date of first
appearance.

Misdemeanor--( excluding traffic )--to trial or plea, within a median time of sixty (60) days from date
of first appearance.

Traffic--to trial or plea, within a median time of thirty (30) days from date offiling.

The term "median" as used in these time standards means that at least 50% of the cases
subject to judicial determination are tried or disposed of within the established time standards.

(4) When a report of the Judicial Administrator shows that a civil case has been pending for
more than two years, such case shall be given priority over all subsequently filed cases and
the chief judge should report the reason for delay in disposition to the departmental justice.
(5) In every judicial district in the state, there should be established a bench-bar committee
composed of judges and lawyers to monitor the operation of the courts in the district, to
develop programs for improvement of court services, and to formulate and carry on a
continuing educational program to inform the citizens in the district about the functions
and operations of the courts and the basic liberties and freedoms guaranteed by our form
of government.

(6) In the setting of cases for trial, a trial judge shall respect and accede to a prior prime or
firm setting of a case in another court involving the same attorney or attorneys. Trial
judges shall cooperate in resolving conflicts in trial settings as the interests of justice may
require. In resolving conflicts in trial settings, jury cases should ordinarily take
precedence over nonjury cases.
[History: New section (6) under Time Standards effective July 1, 1982; (1) Am. effective March
11, 1999; Am. effective September 8, 2006.]
 Office of the County Attorney
State of Kansas
County of Crawford
Michael Gayoso, Jr. Reina Probert
Crawford County Attorney Deputy County Attorney

(620) 724-6780 John Gutierrez

Assistant County Attorney
(620) 724-6790 (Fax)
Christina Lloyd
Assistant County Attorney
Girard Courthouse
111 East Forest, Ste. A Steven A. Stockard
. Assistant County Attorney
Girard, Kansas 66743

March 3, 2018

MR. THOMAS WALTERS

213 E. CARLTON
PITTSBURG, KS 66762

RE: REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE OUSTER/ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Dear Mr. Walters:

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 25, 2018 in which you are requesting an ouster of Sheriff Dan
Peak and Detective Stu Hite. You have attached correspondence between yourself and the Kansas
Attorney General's Office, 'Office of Disciplinary Administrator, Kansas Commission on Peace Officer's
Standards and Training, and the Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

At the conclusion of your letter, you stated that I "possibly" have a conflict of interest in this matter
because Detective Hite is a witness in a case my office is prosecuting, and Sheriff Dan Peak, Detective
Hite and myself" ... are good friends because they are private members at Lady of Lourdes church where
the Hite family are Eucharistic ministers and Crestwood Country Club where they to (sic] go parties
together and play golf together." You conclude, "(a]ny reasonable person would question that Mr.
Gayoso could not be impartial during his investigation of Stu Hite and Dan Peak and county attorney
Michael Gayoso would be biased and prejudiced for Stu Hite and Dan Peak which is not allowed under
Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct."

Lastly, you requested that your complaint be investigated by someone at the Crawford County Attorney's
Office that is not a member of any social organizations with Mr. Hite or Sheriff Peak. First, I am not a
member of OUT Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church. Second, I am not a member of the country club.
Third, I have never played golf with Detective Stu Hite or Sheriff Dan Peak. Although Stu Hite is a
witness in a case that we are prosecuting against Mr. Scholes, as you mentioned, this does not create a
conflict of interest.

I will thoroughly- review all of the information you have provided, and will make a determination, in due
course, as to whether your allegations rise to the level of reasonable cause that either Sheriff Peak or
Detective Hite (1) willfully engaged in misconduct while in office, (2) willfully neglected to perform any
duty enjoined upon such person by law, (3) demonstrated mental impairment such that the person lacks
oJ t -n·" ·s ~ 9

Mr. Thomas Walters

Request for Investigation of Ouster
Page 2 of2

the capacity to manage the office held, or (4) committed any act constituting a violation of any penal
statute involving moral turpitude as provided in K.S.A. 60-1205 and 60-1206.

Michael Gayoso, Jr.

Crawford County Attorney
July 72018

Michael Gayoso

Crawford County Attorney

111 E. Forest, Ste. A

Girard, Kansas 66743

Greetings County Attorney Gayoso:

I received a letter from you dated (MARCH3, 2018) from a letter you received from me dated (APRil 25,
2018) in which I request an ouster of sheriff Dan Peak and detective Stu Hite and I would assume the
March 3, 2018 was a typo error and should have been May 3, 2018. I appreciate you taking the time to
me to explain that you are not currently a member of Lady of Lourdes Church or a member of
Crestwood Country Club and have no conflicts of interest with detective Stu Hite. I would assume that
you were previously a member of Lady of Lourdes Church since you sang in the band TEAM JESUSwith
assistant county attorney Steven Stockard, who is a member of Crestwood Country Club and Lady of
Lourdes Church and 11"district judge Lori Fleming whose husband Kyle Fleming was your campaign
manager and was the guy in the picture with Stu Hite on the flyer at Crestwood Country Club drinking
alcohol.

I was just checking back to follow up on the ouster complaint I sent you April 25, 2018 with the attached
correspondence between myself and the Kansas Attorney General's Office, Office of Disciplinary
Administrator, Kansas Commission on Peace Officer's Standards and Training, and the Commission on
Judicial Qualifications to see if the ouster investigation on deputy Stuart Hite or sheriff Dan Peak has
been completed yet. I was checking to see if they had to write in a response to your investigation and if
there is a time I can meet with you and possibly go over the responses they turned in during the ouster
investigation.

Thank your for your time and I appreciate a response to this ouster complaint follow up letter.

Sincerely,

Thomas Walters

213 E. Carlton

Pittsburg, Ks 66762
 '. Will
.... , " ...

;_,{;(APPli
'
c;t;l'=
;g'We'$'

f G~~~~~~~~~\.~~~:~1%
~. Fe " ... '
':1.';" .:.--.":
;,~Free

ATTORNEYS (CO NT}

& FARMER,PA ". ..' '.'.' ' ....
. LARRY D NUSS· ROBERT l; FARII~ •. .
'5sY88I'SCombinedExperienct)
- . '.

. www~.Com·' • MOBILE" .
.......f,;~ Fi Scott KS ••." "..•..._ " ;,...• 223-0t5O
• T~/
.PCf:'.>:~' .- -
'~ TAX RELIEF _...•.•._ ; ,..•~"....•....866-91:3-4339
.'. {See our adv page 17, 27,,222) .' .
.P.atricKC Smith Attorney At Law 708 N loCust St PIIT .,;... 6i'0423s .
PHALEN THE LAWOFr=iCE·OF WJWAM l PHAt.EN PA
.·200 VI 4th St PITT , ; ; .. 235-1806
. (See our allY page 18) .
 No, 16-116284-A

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

ERIC M. MUATHE, ET AL,

Appellants- Plaintfffs

VS.

HONORABLE KURTIS LOV, ET AL,

Appellees-Defendants

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Appeal From the District Court of Crawford County

. .Honorable Jack L. Burr, Senior Judge,';
.. District Court Case No. 1S(:V79P .

. Eric Muathe
. ., James Beckley [r., .Kasey King,
P.O. Box 224, P.O. Box 224, P.O. Box 224,
.Pittsburg, Kansas, 66762 'Pittsburg, Kansas, 66762 . ,·PIttsburg, Kansas, 66762
. Phone: (913)980 7286 . Phone: (620) 249 2880 Phone: (620) 8756494

Travis Carlton,
P.O; Box 224,
Pittsburg, Kansas,
66762
Phone: (620) 875 4207

Appellants - Pro Se

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED