Kansas Commission On Judicial Qualifications Complaint Against Retired Kansas Judge Richard M. Smith May 19th, 2018

May 19, 2018
Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications
301 SW Tenth Ave., Room 115
Topeka, Ks 66612
Case Number: 13CV32P Wells Fargo vs. Julie Brunskill
This is a complaint against judge Richard Smith of Linn County District Court, P.O. Box 350,
Mound City, KS 66056, and recently resigned/retired Chief judge of the 11thdistrict A.J.
Wachter, and new chief judge of the 11thdistrict Oliver Lynch both of 602 N. Locust in Pittsburg
Kansas 66762. A.J. Wachter is not a Senior Judge and has intruded into case number 2017-CR-
287P State of Kansas vs. Muriece Scholes on 3/6/2018 without a judicial assignment on the
courtROA.
Greetings Ethic Committee:
I was previously involved in a class action civil lawsuit in case number 15-CV-79P Class
Action Petition For Injunctive Relief By Summary Judgment Group, By Eric Muathe, Noah Day,
Kasey King, James Beckley [r., Travis Carlton, et al., vs. Honorable Kurtis Loy, Andrew James
Wachter, Honorable Robert Fleming, Honorable Jeffry Jack, Honorable Oliver Kent Lynch,
Honorable Janice Russell, Honorable Riclulrd M. Smith, Honorable John E. Sanders, Kansas
Commission on Tudicial Qualifications, Stanton A. Hazlett, Michael Gayoso Jr., Tim Grillot, and
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt. I was one of the Plaintiffs in that case and one of the
Defendants in the case that was represented by counsel Stephen Phillips, Assistant Attorney
General was Riclulrd M. Smith which was filed on July 22, 2015 in (CLASS ACTION PETITION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF) 2015CV79P which a list of plaintiffs in the case include Judges
Kurtis Loy, AndrewWachter, Robert J. Fleming, Lori Fleming, Jeffry Jack, Oliver Lynch, Janice
Russell, Riclulrd M. Smith, John E. Sanders, Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications,
Stanton A. Hazlett, Michael Gayoso, Jr., Tim Grillot, and Kansas Attorney General Derek
Schmidt. This case was later appealed in the court of appeals of the state of Kansas appeal No.
16-116284-A Eric Muathe, et al, vs. Honorable Kurtis Loy, et al, from the civil case of
2015CV79P.
My husband Kasey King, along with Eric Muathe, James Beckley Jr.,Travis Carlton all
received filing restrictions from the motion for sanctions that Richard M. Smith's attorney
Stephen Phillips filed and was granted in the above case of 2015CV79P. My husband also has
made an ethic complaint against judge Smith with The Kansas Commission on [udicial Qualifications
dated [uh, 4, 2015 in case number 2015MR2P In The Matter of the Grand Jury Petition for Judge
Smith failing to properly fill out the yearly required judicial financial disclosure report and I
that Judge Smith would be biased and prejudiced against me for the complaint that my
husband filed previously against Judge Smith. I will be filing an objection to the judicial
assignment to judge Richard Smith, and a motion for change of judge to have Judge Smith
recuse himself in this case in accordance with KS.A. 20-311d. I will file the motion for change
of judge with affidavit under KS.A. 20-311d(b)(c) if the motion for change of judge filed by me
is not granted by judge Richard M. Smith. I will also file a motion for writ of mandamus or
motion for quo warranto to have judge Richard Smith recused if he does not voluntarily step
down. I filed a motion for change of judge in accordance with KS.A. 20-311e which prevents
judge Smith from any contempt punishment to me that the court might want to issue for filing
the motion for change of judge because I have sued him in the past and so has my husband and
my husband has made a past ethic complaint against him.
I feel that Judge Richard M. Smith would be biased and prejudiced against me because I
previously paid a civil filing fee in case number 15-CV-79P where Richard M. Smith had to retain
an attorney to file motions for him which was a motion for sanctions and filing restrictions
against my husband and I feel that the court would be biased and prejudiced against me for
suing Richard M. Smith civilly. Richard M. Smith was irritated enough with the civil lawsuit
we filed against him in the case, so he filed a motion for sanctions against Kasey King and Judge
Smith it was granted against my husband. This has caused my husband to have to file an
(AFFIDAVIT MOTION) for every case he files now in the state of Kansas which has been a big
inconvenience, nuisuance and economic inconvenience for myself and my husband since we
have had to retain a private attorney Prince Adebayo Ogemeno to represent us in lawsuits
instead of filing the case Pro Se in the federal case 16-cv-2108 titled Kasey King v. Lori Bolton-
Fleming, and Kurt Loy, and Bill Wachter, and My Town Media, Inc. and case number
2017CV72P Kasey King v. My Town Media, Inc., Lori Bolton Fleming, and Kurtis Loy filed in
Crawford County Civil Court.
I feel that Richard Smith would be biased and prejudiced against me for the civil lawsuit
and civil appeal filed against Judge Smith by myself and that Judge Richard Smith should
recuse himself from this case under code of judicial conduct Rule 2.7 Responsibility To Decide
and Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification due to a conflict of interest with me. I challenge judge
Richard Smith's jurisdiction to hear this case because Judge Richard M. Smith had a prior
relationship as a co-defendant with Chief Judge of the 11thjudicial district AI. Wachter in Eric
Muathe, et al vs. Honorable Kurtis Loy in case numbers 15CV79P and the appeal of 16-116284-A
Eric Muathe, et al, vs. Honorable Kurtis Loy, et al, from the civil case of 15CV79P and former
chief judge of the 11thdistrict received a private order of cease and desist in this case of
13CV32P Wells Fargo vs. Julie Brunskill. I feel that Judge Richard Smith would retaliate against
me for getting his co-defendant AJ. Wachter a violation of the code of judicial conduct from the
complaints in docket numbers 1331, In the Matter of AJ. Wachter by Fred Grable, 1332, In the
Matter of AJ. Wachter by Thomas Walters, 1334, In the Matter of AJ. Wachter by Julie Stover-
King. I also challenge the Richard Smith's jurisdiction because my husband has filed two
previous civil lawsuits against his former co-defendant and former judge in this case former
chief judge AI. Wachter's brother attorney Bill Wachter who owns My Town Media with
attorney Prince Adebayo Ogemeno in case number 16-cv-2108 in Federal Court titled Kasey
King v. Lori Bolton-Fleming, and Kurt Loy, and Bill Wachter, and My Town Media, Inc. and
case number 2017CV72P Kasey King v. My Town Media, Inc., Lori Bolton Fleming, and Kurtis
Loy filed in Crawford County Civil Court.
I feel that judge Richard Smith would be biased and prejudiced against me because my
husband has sued the former co-defendant of the court's brother Bill Wachter of My town
Media at Wilbert and Towner Law Firm. I also object to the fact that Honorable Wachter
"assigned" the "motion for change of judge with affidavit" filed on 7/17/2017 to Judge Daniel
D. Creitz when according to K.S.A 20-311d(b)(c) no district judge in the 11th district should be
qualified to hear the "motion for change of judge with affidavit" because all judges in the 11th
district were clients in case number 15CV79P along with Richard M. Smith where the "imposed filing
restrictions" were granted against 'ames Beckley 'r., Travis Carlton, Eric Muathe, and ml{ husband
Kasel{ King and I feel that all the judges in case number 15CV79P including Richard M Smith
should be disqualified from hearing a case of mine due to a conflict of interest from the filing of
the civil lawsuits against Richard M. Smith.
I feel that according to KS.A. 20-311d(b)(c) that the departmental justice should have
assigned a judge to rule on the "motion for change of judge with affidavit" which was filed on
7/17/2017 and has still not been answered that was assigned to fudge Daniel D. Creitz by chief fudge
A. T. Wachter who alreadll recused from the case because of a conflict of interest and therefore this
entire case has not had any judge with subject-matter jurisdiction that has signed orders in this
case and I feel the entire case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the court!!
I feel that if the chief judge of the 11thjudicial district A.I. Wachter is disqualified/ recused
from a case for a conflict of interest then the same judge should not have any subject-matter
jurisdiction to assign a case and it should have been up to the Departmental Justice to assign the
assignment order issued to judge Daniel Creitz. I also filed this complaint in accordance with
the code of judicial conduct Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, Harassment, Rule 2.7 Responsibility to
Decide, and Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification, and Due Process Gause of the Federal Constitution
and Kansas State Constitution.
Honorable Oliver Lynch had disqualified honorable Wachter in the case of 12LM356P Fifth
Third Bank vs. Eric Muathe on September 23, 2013 at 1;04 p.m. Judge Oliver Lynch ruled in a
motion for change of judge with affidavit that Judge Wachter was disqualified from Eric
Muathe's motion for change of judge with affidavit, and Judge Lynch ruled that A.J. Wachter
needed to be "DISQUALIFIED" from the case because Mr. Muathe filed a small claims suit
against Judge Wachter in 201OSC139P and he stated that "the court notes judge Wachter's noble
intentions to prevent burdening another judge with the case, however, this concern does not
override how an outside "reasonable person" would view the circumstances." Judge Wachter
knew on the date of September 23, 2013 when he was disqualified in 12LM356P Fifth Third
Bank vs. Eric Muathe's case that he also was disqualified from this case 13CV32P Wells Fargo
vs. Julie Brunskill as well.
All orders or judgment issued by a judge in a court of limited jurisdiction must contain the
findings of the court showing that the court has jurisdiction, not allegations that the court has
jurisdiction. Eric Muathe was also granted a second "ORDER GRANTING CHANGE OF
JUDGE" in case number 2012LM356P disqualifying Honorable Janice Russell because he had
sued her previously in class action case number 2013CV47P and 6th judicial district judge
Mark A. Ward stated that a disinterested person might reasonably doubt the
impartiality of TudgeRussell to preside over the instant case and therefore found that the
defendant's motion for disqualification oUudge was granted. Judge Mark A Ward also noted
the case of'Smith v. Printup, 262 Kan. 587,1997, at Syl. 8."
The same reasons that Judge Oliver Lynch and Judge Ward disqualified Judges AJ.
Wachter and Janice Russell in case numbers 2012LM356P due to civil lawsuits filed
against the court are the same reasons that judge Richard M Smith should
recuse/ disqualify himself from this case as well.
I have included the following case law for argument for this complaint:
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
The standard for review of rulings of disqualification of a judge are stated in Smith v.
Printup, 262 Kan. 587, 1997, at SyI. 8:
The standard to be applied to a charge of lack of impartiality is whether the charge is

grounded in facts that would create reasonable doubt concerning the Court's impartiality, not
in the mind of the Court itself, or even necessarily in the mind of the litigant filing the motion,
but rather in the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances.
The issue is the appearance to a reasonable person with knowledge of all circumstances" .
II
Such a person might well question the ability of a Judge to be impartial under the
circumstances.
The Kansas Supreme Court noted in State v. Sawyer Case NO. 101, 624 (2013) that; there are
at least three possible substantive bases on which a Kansas litigant may argue that a judge's
recusal is required: the statutory factors listed in KS.A 20-311d(c)(1)-(5); the Kansas Code of
Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, Rule 2.11 Disqualification, and the Due Process Clause of the Federal
Constitution and Kansas State Constitution.
According to K.S.A. 60-265 and K.S.A. 60-266 Crawford County District Court should
have lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to sign an ORDER in case number 13CV32P and I
challenge the courts jurisdiction to sign any "ORDERS" in this case due to lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. A judge must be acting within hisjher jurisdiction as to
subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for hisfher
acts, Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P. 2d 689 (1938). When a judicial officer acts
entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites, he/ she
may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his/her act involved a
decision made in good faith that he/ she had jurisdiction. State use of Little v. U.S.
FidelihJ & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697. Judicial Immunity also should not
apply because Honorable Smith's duty to disqualify himself under Rule 2.11(A) is a
ministerial act that is not entitled to any form of judicial immunity. "The clerk, as an
officer of the court, is obliged to comply with the 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 damages
incurred as a result of his failure to perform those duties." Ward v. Fountain, 122 So. 2d
209,210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960) (emphasis added). Honorable Richard Smith is an officer of
the court as well and therefore no immunity should apply to Honorable Smith just like
the clerk of the court. In Cook v. CitJl of Topeka, 654 P.2d 953 (Kan. 1982), the Supreme
Court of Kansas analyzed the applicability of judicial immunity to the actions of the
clerk of court, and concluded that purely ministerial actions by the Clerk of Courts
undertaken pursuant to statutory directive 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 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.
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 II there is some conflict as to the judicial or ministerial nature of
certain specific duties of a clerk of court; ... his duty is purely ministerial when it
is prescribed by statute." 15A Am.Jur.2d, Clerks of Court § 21, p. 156 (emphasis
supplied).
Cook v. CitlJ of Topeka, 654 P.2d 953, 957 (Kan. 1982). A Clerk may not escape liability for
illegal or improper performance of a ministerial task imposed by statute. Id. At 958.
THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW SHOWS THAT A JUDGE CAN BE SUED WHEN HE
ACTS IN CLEAR ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION
All orders or judgments issued by a judge in a court of limited jurisdiction must contain the
findings of the court showing that the court has jurisdiction, not allegations that the court has
jurisdiction. In re Jennigs, 68 ll1.2d 125,368 N.E.2d 864 (1977).
1. It is clear that a judge who acts in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be held
liable for his judicial act. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,98 S. Ct. 1099,55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978) and
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872).
2. First a judge is not immune from liability for non judicial actions, i.e, (1988), Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349 (1978). Second, a judge is not immune for actions though judicial in nature, taken in the
complete absence of all jurisdictions. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347 (1872).
3. Subject matter jurisdiction is not dependent on consent or waiver of a party, and challenge to
subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time in the course of proceedings. Shaffer v. Jeffery,
Okla, 915 P.2d 910 (1996).
According to K.S.A.60-265 and K.S.A. 60-266 Crawford County District Court should have
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to reschedule the (FINAL PRETRIAL COURT HEARING

on 7/6/2018 and sign any ORDERS in case number 13CV32P due to lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction). A judge must be acting within his/her jurisdiction as to subject matter and
person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his/her acts, Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz.
220, 75 P. 2d 689 (1938). When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without
compliance with jurisdiction requisites, he/she may be held civilly liable for abuse of process
even though his/her act involved a decision made in good faith that he/she had jurisdiction.
State use of Little v. Us. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.
Judicial Immunity also should not apply to A.J. Wachter because Honorable Wachter
resigned from a cease and desist order in case number 13CV32P and officially retired on
12113/2017but rejoined the case of State of Kansas vs, Muriece Scholes 2017-CR-287P
without a judicial assignment on 3/6/2018. Judge Wachter was disqualified under K.S.A. 20~
311d and he did not follow K.S.A. 20-311d change of judge procedure and Rule 2.11(A)
Disqualification of code of judicial conduct which is a ministerial act that is not entitled to
anyfonn of judicial immunity. A.J. Wachter is not a Senior Judge and should not have been
able to have a (HEARING RESCHEDULED)(PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 04/24/2018 10:00)
and request that motions are due 14 days prior to pretrial in case number 2017-CR-287P
where Judge A.J. Wachter is listed to the side of the court ROA as the judge in the case on
3/6/2018 after he retired on 12113/2017!!
Please investigate to find out why Judge A.J. Wachter is able to come back into the case of
State of Kansas vs. Muriece Scholes 2017-CR-287P after he received a private cease and desist
and resigned from this case of 13CV32P.
Please investigate this matter and have Judge Richard M. Smith disqualify himself in
accordance with K.S.A. 20-311d, Rule 2.7 Responsibility To Decide, and Rule 2.11(A)
Disqualification of the code of judicial conduct from making any ruling on this case in
the interest of impartiality and fairness and also for judicial economy this case should be
assigned to another Judge that has never been sued by me and does not have any prior
conflicts of interest with me by the Department #4' s Department Justice.
It is also (UNETHICAL) of Judge Smith to try to schedule a (FINAL PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE) on the date of July 6, 2018 when he was just assigned this case on
January 10, 2018 because according to Rule 140 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
PROCEDURE(a) the final pre-trial conference shall be held before a judge with court
participation throughout. The final pretrial conference shall be held at least two (2) weeks
prior to trial. (b) The final pretrial conference is predicated upon discovery being completed and
the parties being prepared to complete the procedural steps recited herein.
There has only been two (2) hearings in this case and one was by Chief Judge A.I.
Wachter who recused after a motion for change of judge with affidavit and received a
private cease and desist order and the other was Judge Creitz who recused after a
motion for change of judge was filed. I am waiting to file a motion to vacate all orders in
this case once I actually get a judge assigned who has subject-matter jurisdiction without
any conflicts of interest because so far all three (3) judges have had conflicts of interest in
this case including Judge Richard Smith. There has not been (ANY) (DISCOVERY)
completed because we have never had a judge in this case who has been back for a
second hearing because they were disqualified after each hearing in this case. This case
needs to be (COMPLETELY VACATED AS A VOID JUDGMENT).
Chief Judge Oliver Lynch also needs investigated on why the court ROA on 9/6/2017
shows that there is (NO ENTRY ON 7ala017 FOR MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK
OF PROSECUTION FILED BY DEFENDANT) but yet the court ROA in the same case
dated 1/23/2018 shows on 7/21/2017 a (BACKDATED ENTRY OF MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION) which does not comply with K.S.A. 60-
2601(d). My motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution was filed on 7/21/2017 but could
not be heard on 9/6/2017 at that hearing because it was not even on the ROA.
According to RULES RELATING TO DISTRIC COURTS TIME STANDARDS, STANDARDS
RELATING TO JURY USE AND MANAGEMENT RULE 101 through RULE 187 under TIME
STANDARDS (4) the chiefiudge should report the reason for delay in disposition to the Judicial
Administrator when a case has been pending more than (2) years. Chief judge Oliver Lynch has
not made a report with the judicial administrator according to the court ROA in this case and
chief judge Oliver Lynch needs investigated why he has not made a report to the judicial
administrator when this case has been pending for more than (5) years and have had (3)
different judges who have not had any subject-matter jurisdiction to be in the case under Rule
2.11(A) Disqualification of the code of judicial conduct due to conflicts of interest.
Under TIME STANDARDS (5) it states that in every judicial district in the state, there slwuld 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 mt our form of government.
Chief judge Oliver Lynch needs investigated on why the 11thjudicial district (DOES NOT
HA VB A BENCH-BAR COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF JUDGES AND LAWYERS)!!
It has also came to my attention that Chair of Panel A Brenda Cameron and Panel A member
Robert Fairchild have recused from my husband Kasel' King's ethic complaints from
NovemberlDecember 2015 and Februant 2016 with the GJmmission on ludicial Qualifications on ludge
Richard M. Smith and Robert Fairchild recused from the complaints in 2015 and 2016 and he recentll{
recused from Kasel! King's complaints on the April 16, 2018 meeting. The Commission on Judicial
Qualifications members Brenda Cameron and Robert Fairchild have also recused from his
father Michael King's ethic complaints on ludge Richard M. Smith from November/December of
2015 and February of 2016. I think that under Rule 2.7 Responsibility to Decide, Rule 2.11(A)
Disqualification, and Kansas Supreme Court Ru1e 602(g) that Chair Brenda Cameron should
issue a temporary commission in order for the commission of judicial qualifications to not
violate Supreme Court Rule 602(g) which says "If the commission anticipates difficulty in
discharging its responsibilities due to the disqualification or unavailability of its members, the
Supreme Court, upon request of the chair or vice-chair of the commission, may appoint
temporary commission members to serve as specified. I think the fact that I was part of a civil
class-action lawsuit in case number 15CV79P in Crawford County and appeal 16-116284-A
against Panel A and Panel B would have been evidence of a need for a disqualification by all the
judges of Panel A and Panel B that were members in the year 2015 in accordance with Rule 2.7
Responsibility to Decide and Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification and grant a temporary commission
under Supreme Court Rule 602(g).
The following members of Panel A that were involved in the class action lawsuit of 15CV79P in
Crawford County along with Judge Richard M. Smith are Brenda Cameron, Robert Fairchild,
Valdenia C. Winn, Mary Thrower, Norman R. Kelly, and James Cooper. The following
members of Panel B were involved in the class action lawsuit of 15CV79P along with Judge
Richard M. Smith are Susan Lynn, Diane Sorensen, Allen Glendenning, Larry Hendricks, and
Nicholas St. Peter. I feel that all current members of the Kansas Commission on Judicial
Qualifications that were involved in the 2015 class action lawsuit in 15CV79P in Crawford
County and appeal 16-116284-A who were co-defendants with Richard M. Smith need to recuse
from this complaint like Brenda Cameron and Robert Fairchild have recused from my husband
Kasey King's prior ethic complaints in order to avoid violating Supreme Court Rule 602(g).
Thank you for your time reading this complaint and assigning a temporary commission in
accordance with Supreme Court Rule 602(g).
303 Jefferson
Frontenac, KS 66763
cJbl_5 C~/761?
Ex-t...)Io\-I-
15 JUl22 Pl :41 IA tA p tt')e. :1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT O~~~~~ ~~<t~~TY, KANSAS
BY -------- --
CLASSACTION PETITION
FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANT JUDGES;
LORI FLEMING, A. J. WACHTER, KURTIS LOY, ROBERT FLEMING, OLIVER LYNCH, JEFFRY JACK,
JANICE D. RUSSELL, RICHARD M. SMITH, JOHN E. SANDERS.
---'-
OTHER DEFENDANTS INCLUDE; KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS PANEL
"A" AND "B", STANTON A. HAZLETI, MICHAEL GAYOSO, JR., TIM GRILLOT, AND KANSAS
ATIORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT.
Case No. __ -----
K.S.A. Chapter 60
CLASSACTION PETITION AGAINST CORPORATED AND
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
RELIEFACCORDANCE WITH K.S.A. 60-223(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), K.S.A. 60-223b.,
K.S.A. 60-257, AND K.S.A 60-901.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
LIST OF PLAINTIFFS; ALL ATTACHED GRAND JURY PETITIONERS
LIST OF DEFENDANTS;
JUDGE KURTIS I. LOY
JUDGE ANDREW J. WACHTER
JUDGE ROBERT J. FLEMING
JUDGE LORI B. FLEMING
JUDGE JEFFRY L. JACK
JUDGE OLIVER KENT LYNCH
JUDGE JANICE D. RUSSELL
)( JUDGE RICHARD M. SMITH
JUDGE JOHN E. SANDERS
KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
STANTON A. HAZLETT
MICHAEL GAYOSO, JR.
TIM GRILLOT
KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT
Page 1 of15
IN THE DISTRICT COt:RT OF CRAWFORD COl:NTY, KANSAS
ERIC M. MUATHE, et at.
Plaintiff,
F~'1~~D
)
)
'"S. '16 JU~)5 Al~s'c ;\0. 15-CV-79P
)
HONORABLE KURTIS LOY, et al., J _
C,~;~:2,;,)~JJ~Il
:
Defendants.; r )
--:-) __ ~
JOCR.'\AL El"TRY DIS:\nSSI~G CASE

AND
IMPOSl.:"IG FILING RESTRICTIONS
No vy on this 18th day of April, 20 [6, this matter comes before the COUl1on all pending
motions.
Defendants Kurtis Lay, Andrew J. Wachter, Robert J. Fleming, Lori Fleming, Jeffry L
Jack, Oliver Kent Lynch (District Court Judges for the Eleventh Judicial District). Janice D.
Russell, Richard M. Smith, John E. Sanders (Senior District Court Judges), Stanton A.. Hazlett
(Disciplinary Administrator), Tim Grillot (assigned discipline complaint investigator), and
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt appear by and through counsel Stephen Phillips,
Assistant Attorney General.
Defendants Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications Panel "A" and Panel "B"
appear by and through Carey Barney, Assistant Attorney General.
Defendant Michael Gayoso appears by and through James Emerson, Crawford County
Counselor,
Plaintiffs do nor appear. The Court finds that Plaintiffs were given adequate and proper
notice of this hearing, with notice served February 24, 2016, with said :\otice stating that the
from filing further cases. Therefore, further sanctions are warranted and are hereby imposed as
follows against Pro Se Litigants (Muathe, King, Beckley, and Carlton):
1. With the sole exception of a Notice of Appeal in this matter, Pro Se

Litigants, individuaUy and collectively, are enjoined and may not,
proceeding pro se, file any pleading in this case or any new cases,
including small claims and limited action cases, in any district court of
the State of Kansas without express authorization of the undersigned
Judge as to filings in this case, the Chief Judge of the district where a new
case is to be filed, or such other Judge as shan be legally designated to
review the filings. New suits by Pro Se Litigants which are signed and
brought by a lawyer licensed to practice in this state or admitted pro hac
vice are not subject to this restriction.
2. Should Pro Se Litigants, proceeding pro se, seek to file further pleadings
in this case other than a Notice of Appeal, Pro Se Litigants shall submit
the pleadings to this Judge or such other Judge as may be legally
designated for review, and the clerk shall not file the pleadings unless and
until this Judge or designated Judge reviews them and certifies that they
are not frivolous and repetitive. Should further pleadings be filed in this
case, defense counsel shall not respond to them except upon order of the
court.
3, Should Pro Se Litigants, proceeding pro se Indtvidually or collectively,

seek to file any new case, including small claims or limited actions cases,
in any district court in this state. Pro Se Litigants must file an application
for leave to file a petition. The application shall be delivered to the Chief
Judge of the judicial district or such judge as shall be legalJy designated
to conduct such review and shall include:
a. a copy of this order or any subsequent orders related to filing

restrictions;
b. a copy of the proposed petition;
c. a notarized affidavit certifying that the claims have not been
previously asserted, the claims are not frivolous or made in
bad faith, and the claims comply with all civil and appellate
procedures and rules; and
d. a current list of all lawsuits currently pending or previously
filed with the court or any other Kansas court, including a list
of all parties in each case, a statement of the claims in each
case, and disposition of same if possible.
The Chief Judge or Designated Judge will then determine if the

petition or pleading is lacking in merit, is duplicative, or is
frivolous. H the petition or pleading is found to comply with the
above requirements, Pro Se Litigants will be granted leave to file
;~;I.~'~
•~1~
. ,
.,
~&.-
\~'!
.•..; - ..,
~i.;·:~(j(
"
the petition or pleading. A failure to comply with the rules and

orders of this court can subject them to sanctions and/or
punishment for contempt. Further, no party shall be required to
respond to anything filed by Pro Se Litigants unless a court of
competent jurisdiction has approved the petition or pleading for
filing and ordered parties to respond, or unless the petition or
pleading is filed by a Kansas-licensed attorney on Pro Se Litigants'
behalf.
4. The filing restrictions become effective as of the date Defendants filed this
Motion for Sanctions on September 28, 2015. AU pro se filings and cases
submitted by Pro Se Litigants after the date the Motion for Sanctions was
filed will be subject to court screening.
5. The Clerk of the Crawford County District Court is directed to serve a

eopy of this order on the Chief .Judge of each of the 31 Judicial Districts
in Kansas.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions against Defendants is denied, All other motions pending
in the case are moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J~ck Burr, Senior District Judge (assigned)
'~tt/
1'/
l 5/'7... C I b
July 4,2015
Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications
301 S.W. Tenth Avenue
Topeka Ks 66612
Case Number 2015MR2P
COMPLAINT AGAINST RICHARD M. SMITH of Linn County District
Court, P.O. 80x 350, Mound City, Ks 66056
I would like to make a complaint against Richard M. Smith for failing to follow Supreme Court
rule 6018 Relating To Judicial Conduct Canon 3. Rule 3.15(8) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 748)
because he did not file his "Judicial Financial Disclosure Report" for 2013 until May 13, 2014
and he did not fill out his 2014 "Judicial Financial Disclosure Report" until May 19, 2015 which
both violate Rule 3.15(8) of Rules Relating To Judicial conduct. According to Canon 3 Rule
3.15(8) a judge is supposed to have his financial disclosure report filled out by April 15 of every
calendar year and his failure to file his 2013 and 2014 financial disclosure reports on time is a
violation of The Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 3. 15(8) says "A judge shall report annually the
information listed above in (A) (1) through (7) on a form provided by the Commission on Judicial
Qualifications. The judge's report for the preceding calendar year shall be filed as public
document in the office of the Clerk of the Appellate courts on or before April 15 of each year.
He also violated Rule 3.15(A}(6) because his 2014 financial disclosure report fails to list his
position that he holds at "Mound City Christian Church 212 Spruce Mound City Ks, 66056,
Elder" when his 2013 financial disclosure report shows that he was the "Trustee" at Mound City
Christian Church and the people need to know if he still holds this position as "Trustee" and his
failure to list his position is a violation of The Code of Judicial Conduct. The fact that he did not
file his financial disclosure report until after April 15, 2015 which is the last day to file your taxes
looks like he's hiding economic information which is a violation of the code of judicial conduct.
On page 29 of The Examples of Conduct found To Be Improper it states that "a judge was
informally advised that payment of taxes is a legal obligation for which judges are responsible".
I also feel that since his financial disclosure report was not filled out by April 15, 2015 and that
he did not have "SUBJECT MATIER JURISDICTION" to hear the Grand Jury Petition in case
number 2015MR2P. It also would seem to be the exact same thing that ethic advisory opinion
shows as an example in 1997 JE-77which says "Judge may serve as elder of church as long asjudge
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 for the
church. This should violate Rule 3.12 Compensation for Extrajudicial Activities and it should also violate
Rule 3.14 Reimbursement of Expensesand Waivers of Feesor ChargesCOMMENT(1)where religious
and charitable organizations are mentioned. Since he failed to mention his position astrustee on the
2014 financial disclosure he might have failed to properly show expenses since he did not file these on
time by April15 2015 which was tax day. This also violates Rule 3.1S(A)(1){2)(3){S){6){B)Reporting
j
Requirements
It would also seem to be a violation of the ethic code that he is with "Linn County Community
Foundation" as a Board member/Secretary and he is also with the KansasSentencing Commission where
he holds the position of Chairman/Board Member. He fails to mention either one of these two (2) board
member positions on his financial disclosure report for calendar year 2014 that he did not file in time on
May 19, 2015. Judge Smith first mentions the positions with Linn County Community Foundation and
KansasSentencing Commission on his calendar year 2010 financial disclosure report that he did file on
time on April 11, 2011. He also files the same positions on his calendar year 2011 financial disclosure
report that he filed on time on January 30, 2012. This should violate Rule 3.12 Compensation for
Extrajudicial Activities and Rule 3.1S(A}(l)(2)(3)(S)(6)(B) Reporting Requirements for these 2
organizations as well. It also would seem to be a violation of Canon SA(2) becausethe page Examples
of Conduct found To Be Improper says that "A judge was found to have violated Canon 5A(2) by
filing for a position on the school board while holding the position of judge. The same page
shows another example where a judge was informally advised that service on a board with
judicial referrals to that board was inappropriate because the judge's impartiality could have
been called into question. This would seem to be the same thing as "Linn County Community
Foundation" asa Board member/Secretary and also with the KansasSentencing Commission where he
holds the position of Chairman/Board Member. This would also seem to be the same thing asJE
Opinion 1995 JE-56 which says 'Full-time municipal court judge serving as a member of the local board
of education. Canon 5A(2). JE Opinion 1996 JE-70 says "District Judge may not serve on police
department community advisory board". JE Opinion 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)(1),
4C(4), another JE Opinion is 1999 JE-90 which says "Newly appointed judge may complete a term on a
local school board; better practice of voluntary resignation suggested", JE Opinion 2001 JE- 104 says II A
district judge may serve on the board of directors of the local United Way but should not solicit funds or
use his/her office for fundraising purposes. Canon 4C(4), In 2007 JE-152 says "Ajudge may serve on an
Alumni association Board of Directors so long as he does not solicit funds or offer legal advice. Canon
4C(4) and Canon 4G. See JE-77, 104, and 134. In 2007 JE-154 says "Ajudge may serve on the Board of
Trustees of the Kansas Bar Foundation so long as he does not solicit funds or offer legal advice. Canon
4C(4) and Canon 4G. Je-77, 104, 134, and 152. It seems that Judge Smith violated these opinions as
well and should be reprimanded for his violations of the code of judicial conduct.
Please reprimand Judge.Smith for his failure to comply with Judicial Financial Disclosure
Reporting which is open to the public and that is why it needs to be filled out correctly in case
there are any violations of Rule 2.11 (A) Conflict of Interest. He also fails to mention on his
financial disclosure report if he is a municipal, full-time, or part-time judge. He also fails to
mention if he is a Senior, Hearing Officer, or Pro-Tempore Judge on his Calendar Year 2014
report and this should be a violation of Rule 3.15(8) as well since it is not properly filled out.
P.S. It seems Judge Smith has a problem complying with Rule 3.15(B) because it seems he
a/so violated Rule 3.1S(8} in the years of 1999 on June 17, 1999, in 1996 on May 20, 1996,
and 2002 on May 14, 2002.
Very truly yours,
Kasey King
PO Box 101
Opolis Kansas 66760

~tate of 1kansas
~-
Qi:ommission on jf umnal ~ualificatiolu~
KA..t"JSASJUDICIAL CENTER
301 SW TENTH AVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org
December 22,2015
MEMBERS OF
PANEL A
Michael King
CHAIR: P. O. Box 101
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
Opolis, Kansas 66760
VICE-CHAIR: Re: Your complaint against District Judge Kurtis 1. Loy, Chief Judge A. J.
Brenda M. Cameron Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming, District Judge Robert J.
Judge Member Fleming, District Judge Jeffry L Jack, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
Senior Judge Richard-M, Smith, and Senior Judge John E. Sanders
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
Dear Mr. King:
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member The Commission met December 4, 2015, at which time the above-captioned
R()bert W.-Fairchild
complaint was listed on the meeting agenda. The matter was, however, continued due
Jiidge Member to a lack of quorum and will be placed on the Commission's February 5, 2016, meeting
agenda.
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member Thank you for your continuing patience as the Commission does its work.
Rep. Valdenia C. Winn
Lay Member Sincerely,
SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith
Heather L Smith,
Secretary
mm
Judge Cameron recused.

· __
... .. .. _- -- --- .. -----. --- --- _ .. _- _. - --_.-. ..
~tate of ]Sans·tIs
~-
(!Commission on jJ unina! @uaIifirations
KANSAS JuDICIAL CENTER
TOPEKA, KAi~SAS 66612
785-296-2913
CHAIR: judicialqual@kscourts.org
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
VICE-CHAIR: • November 23,2015

Nicholas M. St. Peter
Judge Member
Nancy S. Anstaett Kasey King

Lawyer Member
P. O. Box 101
Brenda M. Cameron Opolis, Kansas 66760
Judge Member
Re: Your complaint against District Judge Robert \V. Fairchild,
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
District Judge Jeffry L. Jack, District Judge Kurtis 1. Loy,
Chief Judge A. J. Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming,
Dr. Mary E. Davidson District Judge Robert J. Fleming, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
Non-Lawyer Member
Senior Judge Janice D. Russell, Senior Judge Richard M. Smith, and
Robert W. Fairchild Senior Judge John E. Sanders
Judge Member
Dear Mr. King:
Allen G. Glendenning
Lawyer Member
The Commission on Judicial Qualifications considers and investigates
Larry D. Hendricks . complaints of alleged unethical conduct of state court judges under the Code of
Judge Member Judicial Conduct.
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member The above-captioned complaint will be referred to the Commission and will
be placed on the Commission's December 4, 2015, meeting agenda.
David 1. King
Judge Member
The Commission does not have jurisdiction over attorneys. If you wish to
Susan Lynn file a complaint against an attorney, you will need to contact the Office of Disciplinary
Non-Lawyer Member Administrator. Enclosed is a brochure regarding complaints about lawyer services.
Diane H. Sorensen
Lawyer Member Sincerely,
Non-Lawyer Member J.I~/(]~
SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith, I
Secretary
Heather L. Smith
mm
~tate of 1!ansas ifF
([outmiSi1ion on jf ubicial ~uahfi(ation9'
KA1"iSASJUDICIAL CENTER
301 SWTENTHAvE.,ROOM374
785-296-2913
MEMBERS OF December 22, 2015

PANEL A
CHAIR: Kasey King

Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
P. O. Box 101
VICE-CHAIR:
Brenda M. Cameron _ Re: Your complaint against District Judge Kurtis 1. Loy, Chief Judge A. J.
J.u.dge Member Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming, District Judge Robert J.
Fleming, District Judge Jeffry L. Jack, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member 'Senior Judge RicHard M. Smith, and Senior Judge John E. Sanders
James S. Cooper Dear Mr. King:

Non-Lawyer Member
Robert W.- Fairchild

The Commission met December 4, 2015, at which time the above-captioned
Judge Membei' complaint was listed on the meeting agenda. The matter was, however, continued due
to a lack of quorum and will be placed on the Commission's February 5, 2016, meeting
Norman R. Kelly agenda.
Lawyer Member
Thank you for your continuing patience as the Commission does its work.
Rep. Vaidenia C. Winn
Lay Member
Sincerely,
SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith
Heather L. Smith,
Secretary
mm
Jildge Cameron recused.

~tate of 1k.ansas
KANSAS JUDICIAL CENTER

785-296-2913
December 22, 2015
MEMBERS OF
PANEL A Kasey King
P. O. Box 101
CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
Re: Your complaint against District Judge Robert W. Fairchild,
District Judge Jeffry L. Jack, District Judge Kurtis 1. Loy,
VICE-CHAtR: Chief Judge A. J. Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming,
Brenda M. Cameron ~ District Judge Robert J. Fleming, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
: l:ldg~Member Senior Judge Janice D. Russell., nio.r JuageRkhard M, Srni1j1, and
Senior Judge John E. Sanders ..~ ,(
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
Dear Mr. King:
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member The Commission met December 4, 2015, at which time the above-captioned
RobertW. Fairchild
Judge ember to a lack of quorum and will be placed on the Commission's February 5, 2016, meeting
agenda.
Norman R. Ke.1ly
Lawyer Member Thank you for your continuing patience as the Commission does its work.
Lay Member Sincerely,
SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith
Heather L. Smith,
Secretary
mm
Judge Cameron recused.

~tate of 1Ran»a»
·~~~::-:·::
G ~-
::;;'
~onnlli»»iott on jfubitial ~ttalification~

K\?\:s.\s ]l'D1Cl.\L CE:\!TER
301 SW TENTI 1 A \'E., ROOl\1 374-
TOl'ET:-:.-\,K\"S.\s 66612
785-296-2913
juclicialqual@kscourrs.org
MEMBERS OF February 23, 2016

PANEL A
CHAIR:
Kasey King
~\lary B. Thrower
Judge Member P. O. Box 101
VICE-CHAIR:
Brenda .M. Cameron Re: Your complaint against District Judge Robert W _Fairchild,
Jtidge Member
District Judge Jeffry L. Jack, District Judge Kurtis L Lay,
::-':anc)' S.• Ansraerr Chief Judge A. J. Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming,
Lawyer Member District Judge Robert 1. Fleming, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
Senior Judge Janice D. Russell, Senior Judge Richard M. Smith, and
James S. Cooper
::-':on-Lawyer :\lember
Senior Judge John E. Sanders
RobertW.~. Dear Mr. King:

Judge Member
The Commission met February 5, 2016, at which time the above-captioned
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer ?\lember complaint was listed on the meeting agenda. The matter was, however, continued due
to a lack of quorum as Judge Cameron and Judge Fairchild recused. The matter will
Rep. v aldenia C. \Xiinn be placed on the Commission's April 1,2016, meeting agenda.
Lay Meruber
Thank you for your continued patience as the Commission does its work.
ACTING SECRETARY:
Douglas T. Shima Cordially,
Douglas T. Shima,
:J~
.r:':
Acting Secretary
mm
~tate of lkansas
'~~~:::):i:~;.
~'
:'>;;: -
•
~-
QIotnmission on ~ubicial ~ualifirations
KY'\iS,\SJUDlCL\L CENTER
301 SW TENT![ AVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKr\, K,\:-<S;\S 66612
785-296-2913
MEMBERS OF
PANEL A February 23, 2016
CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
Kasey King
P. O. Box 101
VICE-CHAIR: Opolis, Kansas 66760
Brenda M. Cameron
Judge Member
Re: Your complaint against District Judge Kurtis I. Loy, Chief Judge A. J.
Nancy S. Anstaerr Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming, District Judge Robert 1.
Lawyer Member Fleming, District Judge Jeffry 1. Jack, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
Senior Judge Richard M. Smith, and Senior Judge John E. Sanders
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
Dear Mr. King:
Robert W. Fairchild
Judge Member The Commission met February 5, 2016, at which time the above-captioned
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer l\fernber
to a lack of quorum as Judge Cameron and Judge Fairchild recused. The matter will be
placed on the Commission's April 1,2016, meeting agenda.
Rep. Valdenia C. Wlnn
Lay Member Thank you for your continued patience as the Commission does its work.
AcrING SECRETARY: Cordially,

Douglas 1'. Shima
mm
state of J!.ansas
~-
QConnni~s'ion 011 JJttbiciaI <lllualifications
KASSAS JCmCIAL CENTER
301 SWTENTHAVE.,RoOM374
TOPEKA, M'lSAS 66612
785-196-2913
j udicialqual@kscourts.org
MEMBERS OF November 13, 2017

PANEL A
Fred Grable
CHAIR:
Brenda ~f. Cameron
r. O. Box 101
J udge ~IembeI Opolis, Kansas 66760
VICE-CHAIR: Re: Docket No. 1331, In the Matter of A. 1. Wachter

James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer :\fember
Dear Mr. Grable:
Terrence J. Campbell
Lawyer :\lember The Commission met October 6, 2017, at which time the above-captioned
complaint was considered. It was the decision of the Commission to issue a private
Robert\V.Falichild
order of cease and desist regarding delay.
Judge Member
::--;orrnan R. KeD\" The Commission's findings and conclusions are proposed findings and
Lawyer Member conclusions. Judge Wachter, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 611, has 20 days
after service of the order to either accept or refuse the order. If accepted, they become
\la1')' B. Thrower
.r udge .\lember the Commission's findings and conclusions. If rejected, they will have no effect and a
Notice of Formal Proceedings will be filed.
Rep. \"aldenia C. \'\'inn
=" on-Lawyer :'Iember Once a response to the proposed cease and desist order has been received from
Judge Wachter, you will be notified. ThaIL.~you for your continuing patience as the
SECRETARY: Commission does its work.
Douglas T. Shima
Cordially,
'2~/.~
Secretary
~tate af 1!anSag
QCommi~gion on 3'1ttbirial ~ualification5

KANSAS JUDICIAL CEl\TER
785-296-2913
MEMBERS OF ~o\'ember 13,2017

PANELA
Thomas Walters
CHAIR:
Brenda :\1. Cameron
213 E. Carlton
Judge Xlernber Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
VICE~CHAIR: Re: Docket No. 1332, In the Matter of A. J. Wachter

james S. Cooper
~on-Lawyer :\Iembel'
Dear Mr. Walters:
Terrence J.
Campbell
Lawyer Xlember The Commission met October 6, 2017, at which time the above-captioned
considered. ' ,.', '-~': ::: ..'~' : < .:l\'''~.'" A
Robert \\!. Fairchild

J udge ~Iernber
~ orman R. Kelly The Commission's findings and conclusions are proposed findings and
Lawyer :'Iember conclusions. Judge Wachter, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 611, has 20 days
after service of the order to either accept or refuse the order. If accepted, they become
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member
the Commission's findings and conclusions. If rejected, they will have no effect and a
Notice of FormalProceedings will be filed.
Rep. Valdenia C. \'hpn
~on-Lawyer :\Iember Once a response to the proposed cease and desist order has been received from
Judge Wachter, you will be notified. Thank you for your continuing patience as the
SECRETARY: Commission does its work.
Douglas T. Shima
Cordially,
~~7~
Secretary
rnm
~tate of Jkan~a~
J4L
~Ommig5ion on 31ubitial ~ualification~
KANSAS JUDICIAL CENTER
785-296-2913
MEMBERS OF November 28, 2017

PANEL A
Julie Stover-King
CHAIR:
Brenda M. Cameron
303 S. Jefferson
Judge Member Frontenac, Kansas 66763
VICE-CHAIR: Re: Docket No. 1334, In the Matter of A. 1. Wachter

James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
Dear Ms. Stover-King:
Terrence J. Campbell
Lawyer Member Pursuant to my letter to you dated November 13,2017, it was the Commission's
decision on October 6, 2017, to issue a private order of cease and desist regarding delay.
Robert W. Fairchild
Please be advised Judge Wachter accepted the Commission's order and same was filed
Judge Member
on November 27, 2017.
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member The Commission's file is now closed in this matter.
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member Cordially, . G~
Rep. Valdenia C. Wino
Non-Lawyer Member Pu~:'O~~
Secretary
SECRETARY:
Douglas T. Shima mm
[- THE DISTRICT COURT OF CR.'\.WFOl<.D COt':\lTY, K -\:-~SAS
Wilmington Trust, National Association, )

as Successor Trustee to Citibank, NA., )
as Trustee for Structured Asset Mortgage )
Investments 11Inc. Bear Stearns ARAf' • c: (.:-:) :t1 ~
Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate}? DEe 11 ")
Series 2007-4, ,) ,
rPla'fn~rr,(1:-" ..,,) "

, ' "'F'JJi \ { , .,
vs. l,i~,;;',:, \. r',',/ -, . [Case No. 14CV86P
Eric }.{lvIuathe, GB Home Equity, LLe, )

CitiMortgage, Inc. Mortgage Electronic )
Registration System, Inc. as nominee for }
GB Home Equity, LIe, Unknown Spouse of )
Eric Mauthe, Unknown Occupant, )
n"f(mdm~t.?, )
ORDER
On June 1ill, 2015, the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court assigned the
Honorable Richard Smith, a Kansas Senior Judge, to hear this case. That assignment was
necessitated because the Honorable Mark A. Ward sustained defendant's motion to disqualify
theassignedjudge, the Honorable Janice Russell by Order dated June 5th, 2015. The case was
initially assigned to myself as a routine assignment, but Judge Kent Lynch disqualified me based
on defendant's K.S.A. 20-311 d(b) motion, so the case was assigned to Judge Lynch, who -
recused himself after handling the case from September 2014 to December 2014. The case was
then assigned to the Honorable Janice Russell.
On July 241h, 2015, defendant filed a motion to disqualify Judge Richard Smith.
Judge Smith considered defendant's motion to disqualify him as a K.S.A. 20-311d(a)
motion (even though defendant did not follow the required procedure) and issued an order on
July 27t\ 2015 refusing to recuse himself.
The above caption recently came to this court's attention, as Chief Judge of the 11th
Judicial District, on defend;-t'SMotion for Disqualification of Judge Smith supported by
defendant's affidavit filed August 10th, 2015. Because Judge Lynch. disqua!i1ied me from this
case ill September of2014, even though I am Chief Judge of the 11th Judicial District, ~
reluctant to rule on the defendant's current pending 20-311d(b) motion to disqualify Judge
Sinith. Accordingly, pursuant to 20-311d(b) I refer defendant's motion and affidavit to the
Honorable Q!niel Creitz, Chief Judge of the 31st Judicial District for determination of the legal
sufficiency of defendant's affidavit.
Copy to:
Hon Daniel D. Creitz Charles Bush Eric Muathe

Chief Judge Attorney at Law 1410 Bitner Terr.
1 North Washington Ave. Fairway Corporate Center Pittsburg, KS 66762
Iola, KS 66749 4210 Shawnee Mission Pkwy.,
Ste.203A
Fairway, KS 66205
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ihereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was
deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed to the above party or
partiesonthe \\ day of DQ,celm\QLR _,2015.
rILED
13 SEP2J All:04
IN TOE DlSTRICT COURT OF ~~~~Y, KANSAS
SITTING A"lfXW~uNf y.
IV
FlFTII THIRD BANK. )---
Plaintiff, )
)
\IS. ) Case No. 2012-LM-356 P
)
)
ERIC M. MUATtlE, )
Defendant. )
)
ORDER
The defendant herein filed a motion for recusal and affidavit in support thereof
seeking recusal oftb.e Hon. A J. Wachter. The case bas been transferred to this court for
consideration.
At the heart of the defendant's request is the earlier ruing of a small claims suit
with this defendant as plaintiff and Judge Wachter as defendant, being case number 20 lO
SC 139P. His legal basis derives from the reousal procedure set out in ItS.A. 20-311d.
While he cites several of the "Rules Relating to Judicial Conduct" being Rules 1.1,2.1.
.ll A judge shall disqualifY himself or herself in IWY proceeding in which the
7f judge's Impartiality might reasonabJy be questioned •..
-
and 2.3 which are within Supreme Court Rule 601B. the more relevant role is 211 (A):
As Judge Wachter indicated on the record in the proceedings of June 2S, 2013,
herein. be is satisfied that he can put aside any prejudice he may feel for the defendant
Gt<h\~\tAo
f4,e '),
and decide the case impanially. He demonstrates the same in the proceedings transcribed
by patiently hearing out the defendant and allowing the defendant to make any and all
arguments he may have bad. Judge Wachter then fairly applied the law and rendered
appropriate ruliogs.
The standard of review of rulings on disqualification of a judge are stated in Smith
v. Printup. 262 Kan. 587. 1997. at Sy1. 8:
The standard to be applied to a cbaIge of Iaclc of impartiality is whether

the charge is grounded in facts that would create reasonable doubt
concerning the court's impartiality, not in the mind of the court itsel~ or
even necessarily in the mind of the litigant tiling the motion. but rather in
the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances.
This court is satisfied that a jurist of Judge Wachter's experience can easily put
aside any prejudice he may have against the defendant and decide the case only on the
Jaw a,nd the evidence. This court is satisfied that it could do the same under similar
circumstances. This court is satisfied that most if not all lawyezs who practice before
Judge Wachter would be satisfied of the SIQI1e.
However, Judge Wachter's or this court's satisfaction that he could rule
impartially does not resolve the case. The issue is the appearance to a "reasonable
person with knowledge of all of the circumstances". Such a person might weJJquestion
the ability of a judge to be impartial under the circumstances.
2
Gx"·.b~,+b
I P~'5~'3
I
I The court notes Judge Wachter's Doble intentions to prevent burdening another
I
i
judge with the case, however, this concern does not override hOw an outside ''reasonable
person" would view the cireumstances.
The court finds that the motion for disqualitkation should be and is gmnted. -K'
BY nm COURT IT IS SO ORDERED.
~
~ciJUDGE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICI'
DlVISIONU
3
15 JUN-5 A9 :41
C l. I f~K \~:.~ U. ~~i. . :~.~.!'.

CRAWFJi?D COLS j "
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD ~UNTY, KANSAS
FIFTH THIRD BAND, PLAINTIFF,
VS. CASE NO. 2012-LM-356 P
ERIC M. MUATHE, DEFENDANT.
ORDER GRANTING
CHANGE OF JUDGE
The Defendant herein filed a Motion for Disqualification of Judge
with Affidavit pursuant to K.S.A. 20·311 d. The Motion has been
assigned to this Court by the departmental justice pursuant to K.S.A.
20-311 d(b) for consideration.
The Defendant's affidavit sets forth the basis for the Motion and
the Court hereby finds as follows:
1. The Defendant is requesting that Judge Janice Russell be
disqualified from presiding over this case;
2. The Defendant was a Co-Plaintiff in a class action, Case No.
2013 CV 47 P, In the District Court of Crawford County,

" .. ,'...•. ,.
Kansas, wherein he alleges dissatisfaction with Judge
Russell;
3. The Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct, adopted by Kansas
Supreme Court Rule 601S, provides in Rule 2.11(A) that: "A
judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in
which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned
...n.,
4. The standard of review of rulings on disqualification of a
Judge are found in Smith v. Printup, 262 Kan. 587 (1997). In
Smith, at Syl. 8, the Kansas Supreme Court reveals that, "The
standard to be applied to a charge of lack of impartiality is
whether the charge is grounded in facts that would create
reasonable doubt concerning the court's impartiality, not in
the mind of the court itself, or even necessarily in the mind of
the litigant filing the motion but rather in the mind of a
reasonable person with knowledge of all the circumstances.";
5. A disinterested person aware of the allegations by Mr. Muathe
against -Judge Russell in the prior case might reasonably

doubt the impartiality of Judge Russell to preside over the
instant case; and
6. The Court finds the Defendant's Affidavit to be legally
sufficient.
IT IS THEREFORE, the FINDING and ORDEROF THE COURT, that
the Defendant's Motion for Disqualification of Judge is hereby granted.
IT IS BY THE COURT SO ORDERED.

~~
Dated this L day of June, 2015.
~ ar
'-A. Ward
District Judge
Sixth Judicial District
(e) Any party challenging a support order of the court or facts contained in the
Domestic Relations Affidavit shall file a similar affidavit at the time of filing the party's
response, answer, or motion for modification.
(f) A party filing a motion to modify an existing order of support shall serve a copy
of the Domestic Relations Affidavit along with the motion on the adverse party. Any
person challenging a motion to modify an existing support order or the facts contained in
the movant's affidavit shall file and serve a similar affidavit prior to the hearing on the
motion to modify.
Cg) Where child support is required. a Child Support Worksheet shall accompany
the Domestic Relations Affidavit.
Rule 140
FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE PROCEDURE
(a) The final pretrial conference contemplated by K.S.A. 60-216 shall be held before
a judge with court participation throughout. The final pretrial conference shall be held at
least two (2) weeks prior to trial.
(b) The final pretrial conference is predicated upon discovery being completed and
the parties being prepared to complete the procedural steps recited herein. If additional
witnesses or evidence is discovered after the final pretrial conference, the discovering
party shall immediately make this known to aHparties and the court in writing.
(c) Parties may be present at the final pretrial conference and shall be present
when ordered by the court.
(d) The final pretrial conference will be conducted by an attorney who will participate
in the trial of the case.
(e) The court shall prepare the pretrial order or designate counsel to do so.
(f) Should counsel object to the pretrial order, he counsel shall state his or her
objections in writing and forward nts the objections and the pretrial order to the court within
ten (10) days.
(g) The final pretrial conference will be conducted substantially in conformity with
the following procedural steps:
(1) Plaintiff will state concisely his factual contentions and the theory of
his action.
(2) Defendant will state concisely his factual contentions and the theories
of his defenses and claims for relief.
(3) The court will rule upon any proposed amendments.
39
Date: 4/6/2018 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: KV
rime: 11:36 AM ROAReport
Jage 3 of 4 Case: 2017-CR-000287-P Current Judge: Kurtis I Lay
Defendant: Scholes, Muriece William
State of Kansas vs. Muriece William Scholes
Felony
)ate Judge
10/17/2017 Preliminary Hearing JE ORO: Order (Generic)

10/27/2017 Transcript of Preliminary Scholes 100417 OIS: Transcript
endorsement INF: Information (Generic)
state's jury instructions INF: Jury Instructions - Proposed
Hearing Rescheduled (Jury Trial-12 05/14/201809:00 AM)
Hearing Rescheduled (Pretrial Conference 04/06/2018 01 :30 PM)
motions due 14 days prior to pretrial
~g,.~.~~::ruCfge~
R'etiT Q
Commitm-enfto the County Jail
Document 10 Number: 387841
Fax Confirmation To the jail of the NOH Kurtis I Lay
Fax Confirmation To jail on the NOH of jury trial Kurtis I Lay
notice of hearing NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service Required Kurtis I Lay
Jury Notice NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service Required Kurtis 1 Lay
211412017 Notice per Rule 354:12-13-17/PTC and jury trial continued/jv Kurtis I Lay
2/16/2017 Minutes Entry Hearing type: PTC and Continuance of Trial Hearing date: Kurtis I Lay
12/16/2017 Time: 11:35 am
2/21/2017 Motion for bond reduction filed by the def. and to release atty JoAnna Kurtis I Lay
Dertelt as attorney
Document ID Number: 389073
/23/2018 Application for court appt attorney Kurtis I Lay
Headn§Resehedul fI (PretriafConference 04/24/201810:00 AM)
motidnsaue 14-days. prior'to pretrial'" ~
- ~
Motion for Specific Discovery MOT: Motion (Generic) Kurtis 1 Lay
Commitment to the County Jail Kurtis I Lay
MOTION FOR DEFENDANT TO APPEAR IN PLAIN CLOTHES MOT: Kurtis I Lay
Motion (Generic)
MOTION TO APPOINT CO-COUNSEL MOT: Motion (Generic) Kurtis I Lay
1712018 Notice of Hearing NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service Required Kurtis I Lay
'9/2018 Notice per Rule 354: 03/06/18-status/SH Kurtis I Lay
'16/2018 motion for material witness bond MOT: Motion (Generic) Kurtis I Lay
'2012018 Hearing Scheduled (Motion 03/21/201803:00 PM) Kurtis I Lay
'21/2018 subpoena ashbaugh ORO: Subpoena - Clerk Signed Kurtis I Lay
2006 SC 65
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
ORDER
RULES RELATING TO DISTRICT COURTS

TIME STANDARDS
STANDARDS RELATING TO JURy USE AND MANAGEMENT
RULE 101 through RULE 187
The attached Supreme Court Rules Relating to District Courts are hereby
amended, effective September 8, 2006.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT this 8th day of September, 2006.
KAY McFARLAND
Chief Justice
DOCKET CALLS
A court may hold a call of pending cases to determine case status and to set
matters or eases for hearing, pretrial or trial. The call may be scheduled at the
opening of a term or otherwise as determined by the court. If a court schedules a
eall, seven (7) days notice of the call shall be given to counsel of record or to pro se
parties. In lieu of personalappeaf8nce at the call, a counselor party may ad~'isethe
court in 'f;riting, with copies to other counselor parties, prior to the date of the call
as to case status and submit requests for the scheduling of hearings, pretrials and
tri8!s:-
Rule 105
LOCAL RULES
The judge or judges of each judicial district may make rules that are found
necessary for the administration of the affairs of the district court, and of all courts
of limited jurisdiction in the district, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the
applicable statutes and rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.
District courts will not reproduce Supreme Court Rules in publishing their local
rules. Local rules promulgated by the district courts shall be clear and concise and
shall be effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Local rules shall
be made accessible to the public and posted on the Judicial Branch website.
Rule 106
CUSTODY OF COURT RECORDS
No file or record of the court shall be permitted to be outside of the physical

possession and control of the clerk or judge except on the signed receipt of an
attorney or of an abstracter '~'fhoseplace of business is '9'ifithinthe county, and
subject to being returned immediately upon request. No file or record shall be taken
outside of the county of the clerk's office except with the knowledge and consent of
the clerk or by order of the judge.
Rule 107
DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHJEf JUDGE
In every judicial district the Supreme Court shall designate an administrt!ltive

chief judge who shall have general control over the assignment of cases within said
district under supervision of the Supreme Court. Assignment of cases shall be
designed to distribute as equally as is reasonably possible the judicial work of the
8
district. The administrative chief judge of each district shall be responsible for and
have general supervisory authority over the clerical and administrative functions of
the court.
At least once a month in single-county districts and at least once every three
months in multiple-county districts the administrative chief judge shall call a meeting
of all judges within the district for the purpose of reviewing the state of the dockets
within the district and to discuss such other business as may affect the efficient
operation of the court. Within guidelines established by the Supreme Court, by the
judges of the judicial district, or by statute, the administrati'V'echief judge shall have
the following responsibilities.
(a) Personnel Matters. The administfati've chief judge shall have supervision
over recruitment, removal, compensation, and training of nonjudicial employees of
the court. He Shall prepare and submit to the judges for approval rules and
regUlations governing personnel matters to ensure that employees are recruited,
selected, promoted, disciplined, removed, and retired appropriately.
(b) Trial Court Case Assignment. Cases shall be assigned under the
supervision of the administrative chief judge. Under his the chief judge's
supervision, the business of the court shall be apportioned among the trial judges
as equally as possible and he the chief judge shall reassign cases as necessity
requires. He The chief judge shall provide for the assignment of cases to any
special division established in the court. A judge to whom a case is assigned shall
accept that case unless he the judge is disqualified or the interests of justice require
that the case not be heard by that judge.
(c) Judge Assignments. The administrative chief judge, with the approval of
the other judges, shall provide for the assignment and reassignment of judges to
any specialized division of the court. The sdministfsti'o'e chief judge shall prepare an
orderly plan for vacations. The plan shall be approved by the judges of the court and
shall be consistent with statewide guidelines.
(d) Information Compilation. The administrative chief judge shall have

responsibility for development and coordination of statistical and management
information.
(e) Fiscal Matters. The administrati've chief judge shall supervise the fiscal
affairs of the court,
(f) Committees. The administf8ti'o'e chief judge may appoint standing and
special committees necessary for the proper performance ofthe duties ofthe court.
9
Datt;;. Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: LINDSAY
Time: 08:40 AM ROAReport
Page 1 of 3 Case: 2013-CV-000032-P
Wells Fargo Bank Na vs. Julie S Brunskill

Current Judge: Out of District Judge
eXk,bi+
Mortgage Foreclosure
AS
Date Judge
4/18/2013 Petition Filed A J Wachter

Affidavit for Service by Publication A J Wachter
Request for Service and Instruction Form A J Wachter
Summons Issued to Crawford County SO A J Wachter
4/25/2013 Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Julie Brunskill on April 22 A J Wachter
2013
Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Mary Doe On April 22 201: A J Wachter
Summons Served/Returned Residental Service on John Doe on April 22 A J Wachter
2013
5/7/2013 Email Sent Date: 05/07/2013 12:14 pm To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
jcorbett@logs.com File Attached:
SUMMONSSERVEDPERSONALSERVICEONJULIEBRUNSKILL.pdf
Name of Document: Summons Served Personal Service on Julie Brunskill
Email Sent Date: 05/07/2013 12:14 pm To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
SUMMONSSERVEDPERSONALSERVICEONMARYDOE.pdf Name of
Document: Summons Served Personal Service on Mary Doe
SUMMONSSERVEDRESIDENTALSERVICEONJOHNDOE.pdf Name of
Document: Summons Served Residental Service on John Doe
5/10/2013 Answer To Petition/Counterclaim A J Wachter
5/13/2013 Affidavit of Publication Notice of Suit A J Wachter
5/17/2013 Email Sent Date: 05/17/201308:43 am To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
jcorbett@logs.com File Attached: ANSWERTOPETITION.pdf Name of
Document: Answer To Petition
5/28/2013 Entry of Appearance for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Wells Fargo Bank A J Wachter
Motion for Exetension of Time to Respond to Counterclaim A J Wachter
5/30/2013 Order A J Wachter
6/17/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 08/12/201303:30 PM) A J Wachter
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants Consolidated (1) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim and (2) Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Counterclaim
Date: 8/28/2017 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: LINDSAY
Page 2 of3 Case: 2013-CV-000032-P
Wells Fargo Bank Na VS. Julie S Brunskill
Date Judge
6/18/2013 Notice Of Hearing A J Wachter

7/10/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/23/2013 11 :30 AM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim
Filed By Fax: Amended Notice Of Hearing - September 23, 2013 AT 11 :30 A J Wachter
am
7/18/2013 Motion For Relief In The Form Of Quo Warranto A J Wachter
7/24/2013 Motion for Request for Discovery and Case Management Conference A J Wachter
Motion for Change of Judge AJ Wachter
9/912013 Motion for Writ in the Nature of Mandamus A J Wachter
Notice Of Hearing on September 23 2013 at 11:30AM A J Wachter
Motion for Default Judgment AJ Wachter
9/19/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/23/2013 04:00 PM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim
Plaintiff Counterlaim Defendants Opposition to Defendants Motion for A J Wachter
Default Judgment
Motion for Continuance or Time of Hearing Change for Good Cause Shown A J Wachter
Amended Notice of Hearing A J Wachter
Amended Notice of Hearing AJ Wachter
9/24/2013 Notice per Rule 354 Shaun Higgins took notes of the Motion on Sept 23 A J Wachter
2013
10/2/2013 Letter to Honorable Wachter from Julie Stover A J Wachter
6127/2017 MEMORANDUM ORDER ORO: Order Originated by Judge AJ Wachter
7/11/2017 Attorney of Record Linda S Tarpley
Entry of Appearance INF: Entry of Appearance AJ Wachter
7/14/2017 Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service A J Wachter
Required
7/17/2017 Motion for Change of Judge with Affidavit Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-311 d(b) A J Wachter
Chapter 60
Date: 8/28/2017 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: LINDSAY
Page 3 of 3 Case:2013-CV-000032-P
Date Judge
7/18/2017 Email SentDate:07/18/201708:12amTo:jadonnelli@bryancave.com AJ Wachter

File Attached: NOTICEOFWITHDRAWALOFCOUNSEL.pdf Name of
Document: Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel
Affidavit of Non-Military Service AFF: Affidavit (Generic) AJ Wachter
7/27/2017 Out-Of-District Assignment Order INF: Judge Signed Order Out of District Judge
8/912017 Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution Out of District Judge
PLE: Response - Answer
8/14/2017 Hearing Scheduled (Status Conference 09/22/2017 01 :30 PM) Out of District Judge
8/23/2017 Notice of Hearing NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service Required Out of District Judge
Date: 1/23/2018 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg) User: WENDYW
Time: 08:34 AM ROA Report
Page 1 of 3 Case: 2013-CV-000032-P
Current Judge: Richard M Smith
Wells Fargo Bank Na VS. Julie S Brunskill
Date Judge
4/18/2013 Petition Filed A J Wachter
Affidavit for Service by Publication A J Wachter
Request for Service and Instruction Form A J Wachter
Summons Issued to Crawford County SO A J Wachter
4/25/2013 Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Julie Brunskill on April 22 A J Wachter
2013
Summons Served/Returned Personal Service on Mary Doe On April 22 201 A J Wachter
Summons Served/Returned Residental Service on John Doe on April 22 A J Wachter
2013
5/7/2013 Email Sent Date: 05/07/2013 12:14 pm To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
SUMMONSSERVEDPERSONALSERVICEONJULlEBRUNSKILL.pdf
Name of Document: Summons Served Personal Service on Julie Brunskill
SUMMONSSERVEDPERSONALSERVICEONMARYDOE.pdf Name of
Document: Summons Served Personal Service on Mary Doe
SUMMONSSERVEDRESIDENTALSERVICEONJOHNDOE.pdf Name of
Document: Summons Served Residental Service. on John Doe
5/10/2013 Answer To Petition/Counterclaim A J Wachter
5/13/2013 Affidavit of Publication Notice of Suit A J Wachter
5/17/2013 Email Sent Date: 05/17/201308:43 am To: Imock@logs.com and A J Wachter
jcorbett@logs.com File Attached: ANSWERTOPETITION.pdf Name of
Document: Answer To Petition
5/28/2013 Entry of Appearance for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Wells Fargo Bank A J Wachter
Motion for Exetension of Time to Respond to Counterclaim A J Wachter
i/30/2013 Order A J Wachter
,/17/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 08/12/2013 03:30 PM) A J Wachter
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants Consolidated (1) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim and (2) Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Counterclaim
Page 2 of 3 Case: 2013-CV-000032-P
Date Judge
6/18/2013 Notice Of Hearing A J Wachter

7/10/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/23/2013 11:30 AM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim
Filed By Fax: Amended Notice Of Hearing - September 23, 2013 AT 11:30 A J Wachter
am
7/18/2013 Motion For Relief In The Form Of Quo Warranto A J Wachter
Document 10 Number: 209272 .
7/24/2013 Motion for Request for Discovery and Case Management Conference A J Wachter
Motion for Change of Judge A J Wachter
9/912013 Motion for Writ in the Nature of Mandamus A J Wachter
Notice Of Hearing on September 232013 at 11:30AM A J Wachter
Motion for Default Judgment A J Wachter
3/19/2013 Hearing Rescheduled (Motion 09/23/201304:00 PM) Motion to Dismiss A J Wachter
Counterclaim
Plaintiff Counterlaim Defendants Opposition to Defendants Motion for A J Wachter
Default Judgment
Motion for Continuance or Time of Hearing Change for Good Cause Shown A J Wachter
12412013 Notice per Rule 354 Shaun Higgins took notes of the Motion on Sept 23 A J Wachter
2013
0/2/2013 Letter to Honorable Wachter from Julie Stover A J Wachter
'27/2017 MEMORANDUM ORDER ORO: Order Originated by Judge A J Wachter
'11/2017 Attorney of Record Linda S Tarpley

Entry of Appearance INF: Entry of Appearance A J Wachter
1412017 Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service A J Wachter

Required
17/2017 Motion for Change of Judge with Affidavit Pursuant to K.S.A 60-311 d(b) A J Wachter
Chapter 60 .
Page 3 of 3 Case: 2013-CV-000032-P
Date Judge
7/18/2017 Email SentDate:07/18/201708:12amTo:jadonnelli@bryancave.com A J Wachter

File Attached: NOTICEOFWITHDRAWALOFCOUNSEL.pdf Name of
Document: Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel
Affidavit of Non-Military Service AFF: Affidavit (Generic) A J Wachter
7/21/2017 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution ~ Out of District Judge
Document 10 Number: 368872 .~
7/27/2017 Out-Of-District Assignment Order INF: Judge Signed Order Out of District Judge
8/912017 Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution Out of District Judge
8/14/2017 Hearing Scheduled (Status Conference 09/22/201701:30 PM) Out of District Judge
8/23/2017 Notice of Hearing NOT: Notice - No Sheriff Service Required Out of District Judge
8/30/2017 Letter From Julie King Out of District Judge
9/612017 Motion For Continuance Out of District Judge
9/12/2017 Minutes Entry Hearing type: Judge Minutes Hearing date: 9/12/2017 Time: Out of District Judge
2:00 pm
Document sealed
3/14/2017 Hearing Rescheduled (Status Conference 09/25/201704:00 PM) Out of District Judge
3/15/2017 Notice of Hearing NOT: Notice - No Sheriff service Required Out of District Judge
3/17/2017 Response to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack Out of District Judge
of Prosecution Document Number: 376799
3/25/2017 Hearing result for Status Conference held on 09/25/2017 04:00 PM: Out of District Judge
Hearing Held
Hearing Scheduled (Motion 01/17/201701:30 PM) Out of District Judge
10/12/2017 Letter to Julie King Out of District Judge
Document sealed
0/24/2017 Letter From Julie King Daniel Creitz
1/6/2017 Letter to Julie King Daniel Creitz
2121/2017 Motion for Change of Judge Daniel Creitz
Objection of Assignment of Judge Daniel Creitz and in the alternative this is Daniel Creitz
a motion to disqualify Judge Daniel Creitz
110/2018 Assignment NO.9 Copy mailed to Defendant. Richard M Smith
112/2018 Hearing Rescheduled (Check Status 01/30/2018 05:00 PM) Out of District Judge
Letter to Counsel and Defendant INF: Correspondence Richard M Smith
------- ._---_._---
Date. 9i6/2017 Crawford County District Court (Pittsburg)
Time: 08: 19 Afvl
Page 3 of 3 Case. 2C~ 3-CV-:CGG32-P
\Neils Fargo Bank Na vs Jul.e S Brl;;isk:ii
Date J\..;cge
------------------------------=--------_.
7i18i2'J~7 Emau Sent Da:e C7iI8!20~7 08 12 ani To. ;ac::;rf'e'!I~Oryarcave com AJ \j"/a:r-~e;
Fi'e Attacr ed NOT!CEOF\I\jITHDRAWALOFCOUNSELpd~ Name c:
Docurrer-t N:;:ice of Witr,dra\'J2 0" Cc , -·52:
Affioavit of Non-Mnnary Servce AFF ,,,,fr,oa'.': (Gene:'c; A J Wachter
7127/2017 Out-Of-District Assignment Order INF. Judge Signed Order Out of District JUdgE
8.'9i2017 Resporse to Defendant's Moton to Dismiss f-:;' t.ack of P-ose;:,iZ\cn
8/14/2017 Hearing Scheduled .Status COf1fere~ce C9222Ci7 C~ 3C Piv1.,
8/2312017
~ \ ~ ~ I
' ,.1c C'\:• ~( ~\

\ U -I/' r:
'J '/1 -' rv
I
\
<::
f\.) 0 rI\ ~i-}d N 4- b cA:~ 11'-; S.s
f6 (' Lt{c,k of p(65e C<./J-v6,J.

Kansas Commission On Judicial Qualifications Complaint Against Retired Kansas Judge Richard M. Smith May 19th, 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kansas Commission On Judicial Qualifications Complaint Against Retired Kansas Judge Richard M. Smith May 19th, 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

May 19, 2018

Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

301 SW Tenth Ave., Room 115

Case Number: 13CV32P Wells Fargo vs. Julie Brunskill

Greetings Ethic Committee:

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

The standard to be applied to a charge of lack of impartiality is whether the charge is

subject-matter jurisdiction. A judge must be acting within hisjher jurisdiction as to

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 damages

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

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to reschedule the (FINAL PRETRIAL COURT HEARING

3/6/2018 after he retired on 12113/2017!!

conflicts of interest with me by the Department #4' s Department Justice.

It is also (UNETHICAL) of Judge Smith to try to schedule a (FINAL PRETRIAL

needs to be (COMPLETELY VACATED AS A VOID JUDGMENT).

dated 1/23/2018 shows on 7/21/2017 a (BACKDATED ENTRY OF MOTION TO

Case No. __ -----

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LIST OF PLAINTIFFS; ALL ATTACHED GRAND JURY PETITIONERS

JUDGE KURTIS I. LOY

JUDGE ANDREW J. WACHTER

JUDGE ROBERT J. FLEMING

JUDGE LORI B. FLEMING

JUDGE JEFFRY L. JACK

JUDGE OLIVER KENT LYNCH

JUDGE JANICE D. RUSSELL

)( JUDGE RICHARD M. SMITH

JUDGE JOHN E. SANDERS

KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS

MICHAEL GAYOSO, JR.

KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT

ERIC M. MUATHE, et at.

JOCR.'\AL El"TRY DIS:\nSSI~G CASE

(Disciplinary Administrator), Tim Grillot (assigned discipline complaint investigator), and

Assistant Attorney General.

appear by and through Carey Barney, Assistant Attorney General.

follows against Pro Se Litigants (Muathe, King, Beckley, and Carlton):

1. With the sole exception of a Notice of Appeal in this matter, Pro Se

3, Should Pro Se Litigants, proceeding pro se Indtvidually or collectively,

a. a copy of this order or any subsequent orders related to filing

The Chief Judge or Designated Judge will then determine if the

the petition or pleading. A failure to comply with the rules and

5. The Clerk of the Crawford County District Court is directed to serve a

in the case are moot.

J~ck Burr, Senior District Judge (assigned)

Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

301 S.W. Tenth Avenue

Case Number 2015MR2P

COMPLAINT AGAINST RICHARD M. SMITH of Linn County District

Court, P.O. 80x 350, Mound City, Ks 66056

financial disclosure report if he is a municipal, full-time, or part-time judge. He also fails to

and 2002 on May 14, 2002.

Very truly yours,

Opolis Kansas 66760

Judge Cameron recused.

VICE-CHAIR: • November 23,2015

Nancy S. Anstaett Kasey King

MEMBERS OF December 22, 2015

CHAIR: Kasey King

James S. Cooper Dear Mr. King:

Robert W.- Fairchild

Jildge Cameron recused.