April 26, 2019

Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

301 SW Tenth Ave., Room 115

Topeka, Ks 66612

Case Number: 13CV32P Wells Fargo vs. Julie Brunskill in Crawford County

This is a complaint against Senior judge Richard Smith of Linn County District Court, P.O. Box
350, Mound City, KS 66056 who is hearing cases in Crawford County.

Greetings Ethic Committee:

The (TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCES) that was held on 4-2-2019 at 10:00 a.m.
started off with judge Richard Smith allowing attorney Linda Tarpley to address the court
instead of Judge Richard Smith does not comply with REPORT OF SUPREME COURT
STANDARDS COMMIITEE-GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DISTRICT
COURTS (8) which says "it is the duhj of the judge to the people to run the court and not abdicate the
responsibilihl to counsel." Attorney Tarpley states on page (1) line 2 that "the case scheduled on this
morning's docket is case no. 13CV32P. would counsel please enter her appearance"? This is Judge
Richard Smith's job to do not the attorney.

Judge Richard Smith says on page (6) of the court transcript that "I until late yesterdall was
scheduled to be in Beloit, Kansas, tomorrow morning and so I decided that in order to have the adequate
opportunity to truly consider and reflect on her motions and whatever argument she would like to add to
that I informed the parties that I was going to start the trial at 10:00 a.m. this morning - not the trial,
excuse me, but take up pretrial motions at 10:0 o'clock, allowing two hours to take up these motions".
He had to continue this hearing from the scheduled March 28,2019 hearing because he states on
page (3) and (4) of the court transcript that "that the court out of an ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION
and because of the DEFENDANTS OBVIOUS CONCERN WITH THE LACK OF A RECORD then
entered no other orders except to INFORMALLY suggest that anything that transpired during the course
of the telephone conference I would reiterate this morning or today on the record".

If the judge really was using an abundance of caution wouldn't he of just made the trial on 4-2-
19 a final pre-trial conference and continued the trial at least two weeks from the date of 4-2-19
to comply 'with Supreme Court Rule 140.

I can not believe that this judge just called anyone that represents themselves Pro Se a FOOL!!!!
On page 15 of the court transcript he states "I reiterate they have a constitutional right to represent
themselves but I just point out that there is a VALIDATION of the old adage that a person that
represents themselves in Court has a FOOL for BOTH a LAWYER and a CLIENT and that there's a
REASON FOR THAT EXPRESSION because Ieven recommend that lawyers not represent themselves
in Court, etc., etc. ".

Does Judge Smith think that every party in Kansas Small Claims Court chapter 61 is a Fool since
attorneys are not allowed? I would hope that he doesn't take Small Claims assignments since
he is biased and prejudiced against parties without attorneys.

I think that the Senior judge Smith needs to (PERMANENTLY RETIRE)and quit accepting
judicial assignments because he is BIASEDAND PREJUDICED against ALL Pro Se litigants or
any party that represents themselves in court because he thinks they are a FOOL!!This violates
Rule 1.1 and the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. It also violates Rule 1.2 Promoting
Confidence in the Judiciary because how can any Pro Se litigant have confidence in a judge who
thinks they are a FOOL for representing themselves. This also violates Rule 2.2 Impartiality and
Fairness because under COMMENT [1] it says "to ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties,
a judge must be objective and open-minded" .

Judge Smith is not objective and open minded when he states on the record with validation that
anyone that represents themselves in court is a FOOL. This also violates Rule 2.3 Bias,
Prejudice, and Harassment(A)(B)(C). Under Comment [1] it states that "a judge who manifests
bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceedings and brings the
judiciary into disrepute. COMMENT [2] says that examples of manifestations of bias or
II

prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs, demeaning nicknames."

I think the comment of FOOL is clearly a demeaning nickname just like "peanut gallery" which
the former judge in this case received a caution letter in the matter of A.J. Wachter 1114,1115,
and 1116 when he insulted my son.

I feel that Judge Richard Smith violated Rule 2.9(A) Ex Parte Communications(A) and Rule
2.6(A)(B)Ensuring the Right to Be Heard because he had this hearing when the party of Julie
Stover-King could not make it at the 10:00 a.m. pre-trial conference because he just expedited it
the day before to accommodate his schedule (which did not comply with 11thdistrict court rules
notice of hearings) to Beloit and the judge did not want to continue the case because it was for
the convenience of the judge to make his trip to Beloit on (1) day's notice.

The rules of the 1th district don't allow for hearings to be ruled on that are not properly noticed
and you can't schedule a hearing on motions before at least (5) days.

Judge Smith then goes on to state on page (4) and (5) of the court transcript that one of the other
II

issues was that apparently in a pleading the defendant makes some remark about how Iadmonished her
and the context in which she states it makes it seem quite critical and negative".
The admonishment was negative, that's why it is called an (ADMONISHMENT) and it was in
the court order from the March 24 and 25 hearing.

Judge Smith continues to show how dishonest he is and how unwilling he is to accept
responsibility when he admonishes someone and he states it on page (5) of the court transcript.
He says actuall1{, the admonishment, apparentll{ whether or not I ever gave it is not the issue.
II

Judge Smith doesn't even take responsibility for the mistaken admonishment and says "it's not
an issue".

Does he think that the admonishments that chief judge A.I. Wachter received when he received
a caution letter for peanut gallery and a private cease and desist in this case are not issues???? I
think the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications need to reprimand him on the
importance of an (admonishment) and that it being a very, very important issue!!!!

He goes on to state on page (5) of the court transcript that "but had to do with the fact that I like in
all ormy cases either did or did not suggest to her that it was not wise for an1{one to ever represent
themselves in Court, particularl1! someone who is not an attornel/, and I made a remark about that
admonishment in a prior order, she claims Inever told her that".

He states in page (5) "I would defer to her memory, if! didn't actually suggest like I do in 99.99percent
ofml/ cases with pro se litigants that it is usually frowned upon as prudent and wise for someone to
represent themselves. "

Why don't Judge Smith just read the court order from the March 24 and 25 hearing to see that
he actually does sign a court order that admonishes Miss Stover-King for not having counsel?
Why doesn't he just admit to the mistake he made by signing a court order on January 15 2018
(35) days after the motion with an (admonishment) reprimand from a December 11, 2018
hearing that actually never happened instead of" deferring" to Miss Stover-King that he did
sign the court order and he did admonish her not having counsel in the March 24 and 25
hearing. He failed to notify the departmental justice under Supreme Court Rule 166.

How could anyone possibly be prepared for a bench trial not a jury trial on April 2, 2019 in front
of a judge who thinks that all Pro Se litigants are FOOLS and he admonished her in an order
from March 24, 25 2018 for not having counsel in a prior court order signed January 15, 2018
from a hearing December 11, 2018 that did not comply with Supreme Court Rule 170, KS.A 60-
258 entry of judgment and should have been notified to the departmental justice because it did
not comply with Supreme Court Rule 166 because he did not rule on the motion to dismiss for
lack of prosecution until (35) days instead of (30)and the departmental justice should have been
notified on why the order had not been signed from the December 11, 2018 hearing but Judge
Richard Smith won't accept any accountability and won't admit it to his errors and omissions.

He goes on to state on page (6) of the court transcript that "I just want the record to reflect that if
there are any representations to anything being said other than what I just reiterated thel/re a lie and I'm
going to call it what the1{are because this case is frankl1{ getting a little out of control and I think anybody
could see that from the raft of motions. "

This case was out of control from the start of it in April of 2013 when A.J. Wachter accepted the
case instead of letting the departmental justice assign a judge and that is why there is a judge
who received a private cease and desist named A.J. Wachter, another judge Daniel Creitz who
seems to be the only one who is (ETHICAL AND FOLLOWS RULE 2.11(A)
DISQU ALIFICA TION), because he recused/ disqualified himself from this case after a motion
for change of judge was filed and he had less conflicts of interest with Miss Stover-King than
Judge Richard Smith does who denied the motion for change of judge with affidavit and has
now forced Miss Stover-King to have to file an original mandamus in Crawford County because
he refuses to follow Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification due to the fact that she made a complaint
because she and I had previously sued judge Smith in a class action suit in the case of Eric
Muathe, et al, vs. Honorable Kurtis Lay, et al in 15cv79p in Crawford County and made an ethic
complaint against him in May of 2018 and apparently he thinks we are all FOOLS because we
filed the case Pro Se. The case is getting out of control and that's obvious with a judge who calls
Pro Se litigants (FOOLS)!

Judge Smith goes on to show how unethical, dishonest, and deceiving he is when he states on
page (7) of the court transcript that HI ended the communication from my end early this morning
sometime around 7:00 a.m. with an e-mail that basically said - because she claimed in these
communications that now this is all being done for the convenience of someone else. I'm not sure who
that is because actuall1{ I'm doing this for her convenience so that her motions can be thoroughly
considered and I reiterated that (act and that this was for her convenience, no one else's, that I was going
to begin at 10:0 o'clock and everyone should govern themselves accordingly."

Judge Smith clearly states on page (6) line 19-25 that he is scheduled to be in Beloit Kansas and
he decided on his own which did not follow the 11th district court rules for notice of hearings to
have a pre-trial conference at 10:00 a.m. on 4-2-19 when the motions just got filed on 4-1-19 at
4:00 p.m. and the opposing parties attorney hasn't even read them which she admits on page (8)
line 1-7 of the court transcript.

This was done for Judge Smith's convenience not Julie Stover-King who had a pre-trial
conference at 10:00 am and the court and both parties did not have adequate opportunity to
truly consider and reflect on the motions or arguments that Julie Stover-King would like to add
which is exactly what he said on page (6) line 21 of the court transcript. What judge schedules a .
pre-trial conference at 10:00 a.m, on the same day 4-2-19 as the bench trial at 1:15 p.m.?

Only a judge who is clearly biased and prejudiced against Pro Se litigants, and completely
incompetent which is why this ethic complaint is being sent for your commission to investigate.
Judge Smith states on page (7) line 21 that "I've waited until 10:15, she's not here, and I told her that
I would take up these motions and rule on them". This violates Rules 2.9 Ex-parte Communication
and Rule 2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard.

Judge Smith goes on to show how he does not show (ANY CAUTION) not to mention (NO
ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) when he states on page (8) line 8-25 when he says "The first one is
a motion to stay all proceedings and-or possibly consolidate the case. That Iuls to do with apparentll{ a
petition in the form ofa writ ofmandamus which I Iulve to presume - I Iulven't seen this yet because, I
believe, I'm the defendant and it's ml{ understanding tlult service of process was issued to Lynn Counh{./1

He shows how unethical he is (ml attempting humor) that he seems to think is funny by saying on
page (8) line 15-18 when he says "I'm looking forward to seeing the sheri(fanl{ dal{ now but it is a
reference to a new case, 19CV43P, and sIre's asking for a sial{ because o[tlult writ ofrnandamus action./1

The statement that "I'm looking fonoard to seeing the sheriff' seems to be another violation of Rule
2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment because (HE IS ATTEMPTING HUMOR) and he has
already made a reference that all Pro Se litigants are FOOLS. Maybe he thinks it's funny that he
got sued by a (FOOL) because it's a Pro Se litigant to create a new case of 19CV43P when he
simply should have done what Judge Daniel Creitz did and follow K.S.A. 20-311d change of
judge procedure and Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification of the code of judicial conduct and recuse
himself from the case.

The fact that he has acknowledged on record that he knows there is a case filed against him in
19CV43P seems to be a violation of Rule 2.4(B) External Influences on Judicial Conduct because
he is now even more biased and prejudiced against Julie Stover-King because she has sued
Judge Smith and he has to deal with it directly and he indicates this on page (8) line 24-25 of the
court transcript.

Judge Smith then goes on to show how biased and prejudiced he is against Eric Muathe by
referencing Mr. Muathe on page (8) line 19-25 and page (9) line 1-7. Judge Smith violates Rule
2.10(A)(B) Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases when he says "I haoe a - Miss
Stover-King seems to be for wlultever reason following tire footsteps of another litigant I Iulve in another
proceeding and this reads ven/ similar to and I'm assuming the mandamus petition is probably venl
similar to the one Mr. Muathe filed actualll{ in the Supreme Court, not her, so I didn't have to deal with
it directly, but I'm going to presume it's kind oflike that one. And, in {act, maybe it is an original action
before the supremes, I don't know, I Iulven't seen it vet, but I'm going to dem{ the request to stal{
proceedings and it says possibly consolidate. There will be no order of consolidation with this purported
mandamus tlult's been filed against me. /I

Judge Smith is clearly biased and prejudice against Eric Muathe or he would not make a public
statement on a court of record comparing a petition filed by Julie Stover-King to Mr. Muathe's
mandamus (when he hasn't even read it yet) which would impair the fairness of a matter pending
or impending in any court, that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing which is
what Judge Smith did.

Judge Smith seems to be annoyed that Mr. Muathe filed a mandamus against him and he is
using Mr. Muathe as an example as Judge Smith attempts humor about how he is "looking
forward to seeing the sheriff of Linn County any day now" when he is supposed to be served his
court summons which he has to deal with directly.

Why doesn't Judge Smith not use any caution and just simply continue the bench trial on 4-2-19
when he even admits that "well, I thought this would go to that you would be a witness in the current
action?" I will tell you why, because he is biased and prejudiced against Julie Stover-King
because she is Pro Se and a fool according to judge Smith and now the attorney Linda Tarpley's
law firm has been sued and she is needed as a witness in this case and Judge Smith is going to
side with attorney Tarpley because he thinks all Pro Se litigants are unwise, not prudent, and
are FOOLS and that is why he should have been disqualified from this case under K.S.A. 20-311.

That is why he should have used (AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) like Judge Daniel Creitz
did and simply follow Rule 2.11 (A) Disqualification of the code of judicial conduct!

He then goes on to show how he doesn't use any (ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) by stating on
page (10) line 20-25 of the court transcript that "the last is a motion to strike court orders on
January 15th and March 24th. This is the one that said request to strike the court order from the
decision because defendant was never admonished at the December 11, 2018, hearing. Yet the March
24, 25 decision indicated that defendant had been admonished prior for not having counsel. Aslso
sa1{Sdefendant has issues with the court orders from the December 11th hearing because Rule 170 wasn't
complied with and was not within 14 da1{So(the hearing and was filed on [anuan/2, 2019, bl{ the
plaintiffs attornel{, not signed until Tanuant 15th by the Court. The plaintiffs attorney even admits
II

on page (12) line 14 when she is addressing the court orders from the December 11th hearing
when she says "that would probabll/ be true but the problem is that there was no request for amI
discovent until March which there's not - in (act late March, I think around the 24th or something like
that, ml{ order speaks to that."

The fact that Julie Stover-King is Pro Se and Pro Se litigants are held to lesser standards by the
court and the fact that Judge Smith was not competent enough to sign a court order from a
December 11, 2018 hearing when he says that Discovery cutoff has to be completed by January
11,2019 even though he didn't even sign the order until January 15, 2019 which was (35) days
after the motion and he should have notified the departmental justice under Supreme Court
Rule 166 shows how incompetent and unprepared he has been and is a violation of Rule 2.5
Competence, Diligent, and Cooperation.

Judge Smith then goes on to read on the court record on page (13) line 6 about "the defendant's
cavalier attitude", and mentions it again on line 16-17 when he reads "had the nerve to state in
his record the defendant's cavalier attitude regarding the upcoming trial and her decisions to engage in
other activities rather than trial preparation concerned the court greatly from the standpoint that it
appears she fails to understand the severitl{ ofthe circumstances re-enforcing the courts prior admonition
that she would be better off represented by counsel." He then reads on line 24 "the definition of
cavalier is arrogant and defendant is not arrogant. Defendant was never admonished at the
December 11,2018, status hearing," which I think I've alread1/ addressed that because I think that's true
but she goes on to sat/, "judge Smith has also barred defendant from discoven/ because he sal{S defendant
was supposed to have it completed. "

Judge Smith makes absolutely no reference at all to the inappropriate word choice of (cavalier)
and the only reference he makes to the admonishment of Julie Stover-King was on page (13) line
25 when he reads that Miss Stover-King put "Defendant was never admonished at the
December 11, 2018, status hearing, and (14) line 2 when he says "which I think I've already
addressed that because I think that's true but she goes on to say,".

Judge Smith won't even admit for sure if he did admonish her or not as he says "which I think"
I've already addressed that because I think that's true but she goes on to savl!.

Why doesn't he just (MODIFY/ALTER) the court order from the March 24, 25 2019 hearing that
admonished Julie Stover-King like he states he will do at the continued March 28, 2019 hearing
which did not have a court of record/transcript?

Judge Smith then says on page (14)line 6 "this is repetitious of when the journal entry was done
so it's really basically the same argument, the fact that the journal entry wasn't filed until then."
"I think she's kind of missing the point that the order was effective when I entered it from the bench but, I
mean, that's a whole other question that I don't need to get into."

Judge Smith did not follow Kansas Supreme Court Rules 166, 170, and K.S.A. 60-258 Entry of
Judgment from the December 11, 2018 hearing, March 28, 2019 continued pre-trial conference,
and the pre-trial conference on 4-2-19 which states that nothing is effective until it is signed by
the judge. Judge Smith signed the court order from the bench trial on 4-2-19 at 1:115p.m. on_4-
25-19 but he still has not signed the court order from the pre-trial conference on the same day of
4-2-19 that was (3) hours earlier at 10:00 a.m.

How can a judge enter a court order for a trial on 4-2-19 but the pre-trial order on 4-2-19 was not
signed before the trial??

How can Pro Se litigant excuse me a (FOOL according to Judge Smith) possibly be prepared for
trial on 4-2-19 at 1:15 p.m. when there is no (COURT ORDER) from the pr-trial conference on 4-
2-19 and the continued pre-trial conference on March 28, 2019.

Why doesn't he admit like an honorable judge should and admit he made mistakes, did not
comply with Supreme Court Rules 166, Rule 170, K.S.A. 60-258,and did not admonish Julie
Stover-King for not having counsel at the December 11, 2018 hearing and the only reason that
he put in the March 24, 25 court order was because he is biased and prejudiced against Miss
Stover-King because he thinks she is a FOOL because she is Pro Se, she made a prior ethic
complaint against him, and filed a motion for change of judge with affidavit against him and
she is on his mind just like the other litigant judge Smith had on his mind, Mr. Eric Muathe who
he referenced in this case and should not have under Rule 2.10(A)(B)of code of judicial conduct.

Judge Richard Smith should have Judge Daniel Crietz teach him a lesson on an abundance of
caution and that is why Judge Crietz disqualified himself in this case in accordance with Rule
2.7 Responsibility to Decide, Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification, and KS.A 20-311d change of judge
procedure and saved the court time, myself time, the plaintiff time, Julie Stover-King time, and
the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications time who already had to issue a (PRN ATE
CEASE AND DESIST)in this case to judge AJ. Wachter and Judge Richard Smith has followed
right along in the footsteps of AJ. Wachter by not using any caution at all in this case by
refusing to disqualify himself when he has numerous conflicts of interest and instead is
attempting humor by calling Pro Se litigants (FOOLS).

Judge Smith goes on to show how he does not show any (ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) as he
continues to try to explain himself for the (ADMONISHMENT HE GAVE HER IN A COURT
ORDER). Judge Smith reads on page (14) line 19-24 that" defendant was stressed out, had anxiety,
and could not properly prepare for the March 28, 2019, telephonic conference because the defendant was
under the impression she had already been admonished by the court and was scared to proceed with a
proper defense at the March 28th hearing, and then the objections." He then states on page (14) line 25
in a response the statement that she was admonished m{ the court and was scared to proceed b1{sa1{ing
"1{OUcan onll[ have that one of two ways. I either admonished her or I didn't. In did admonish her it
would have been my standard admonishment and I try to present that in as {riendl1{a fashion as possible,
it's not meant to be mean or condescending.

Judge Smith did state that he had admonished her in a court order from March 24,252019
hearing for not having counsel at the December 11, 2018 hearing and I sent in that order and
evidence with my previous complaint sent to your office dated April 3, 2019 that is set for the
June 7, 2019 ethic meeting. The fact that he really didn't admonish her at the December 11, 2018
hearing just shows he retaliated against her and that according to KS.A 60-258 entry of
judgment that he had (ADMONISHED HER NOT HAVING COUNSEL)!!! It was in the court
order from the March 24, 252019 hearing where he stated he admonished her prior for not
having counsel. Why don't judge Smith just admit he messed up and made an error? How
does a judge admonish anyone in a friendly fashion which is not meant to be mean or condescending yet
he has called her nefarious, frankly naive, cavalier, admonished her for not having counsel, and has now
called her a fool because she is Pro Se?

Judge Smith goes on to show how he doesn't use any (ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) on page
(15) line 12-25 when he says "I don't know why she would have been terrified of me, I think the
statement that she has reasons to be afraid of me would run contranj to eoeruihing that's happened in this
action because we've been nothing but friendly. We even had an off the record conversation after the last
hearing that was real {riendll{ and kind oUoking around about some o[the stuffshe put in the motion
about me. And I was complementinz her for dizzinz thn.t information up because it was accurate because
I am an elder ofthe church or I was until recentl1{ so, I mean, it was an interestinz thinz but I did not
have a problem with any of thn.t.((

Judge Smith violated Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment again by attempting humor with
Miss Stover-King off the record?? He thought it was funny about someone putting the reasons
in a motion for change of judge with affidavit that he can't comment on that she thinks she has
conflicts of interest with the judge? She did research and found a conflict of interest about the
judge being an elder and he just suddenly is not an elder anymore. He seems to be mad at her
because Kasey King made a complaint about judge Smith being an elder and trustee at the
church and Judge Smith had to quit that position at a church in order to still accept judicial
appointments. Judge Smith thinks it's funny for someone to put the reasons they feel they have
conflicts with him in a motion for change of judge with affdiavit from a judge who has filing
restrictions against Miss Stover-King's husband Kasey King and Mr. Muathe who he mentions
in this case which I think is unethical.

Judge Smith seems to be mentally incompetent and can't remember anything correctly because
Julie Stover-King never had a conversation off the record that was joking around about the stuff
she put in a motion where Judge Smith was a church elder. The only time she mentions it is in a
(MOTION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE WITH AFFIDAVIT)that was filed on July 3, 2018 at 1:02
p.m. in statement 8 and included (exhibit AC) which was a July 4, 2015 ethic complaint against
Judge Smith and the motion for change of judge with affidavit was heard by Gunner Sundy and
Judge Smith was barred from commenting on a motion for change of judge with affidavit under
K.5.A. 20-311d(b)(c). Julie Stover-King filed with that motion an (exhibit AC) on statement (8)
from an ethic complaint filed by Kasey King her husband against Judge Smith dated July 4, 2015
where he complains on Judge Smith for possible violations of the code of judicial conduct for
Rule 3.15(A)(6)because he fails to list his position at Mound City Christian Church as "Elder"
when he was previously "Trustee". The complaint also alleged that he did not have his
financial disclosure report filled out by April 15, 2015 which showed he was hiding economic
information and alleged that he violated Rule 3.15(A)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(B)Reporting Requirements.

Why would Judge Smith think that there is anything funny and joking about trying to get him
recused/ disqualified from a case, trying to get him to step down from his church elder and
trustee position (which he did), and the fact that she and her husband had made prior ethic
complaints against him for what they thought were unethical actions by Judge Smith?

Judge Smith then shows that he is violating Rule 2.9 ex-parte hearings and having an ex-parte
conversation by collaborating with attorney Tarpley on page (17) line 21 when he says to her
"well, azain, she's raised a lot of issues, I don't know where we're zoinz to ZO with those."

Judge Smith must of not thought that Julie Stover-King was going to purchase the court
transcript for the 10:00a.m. hearing that she could not attend and must of forgot that he had a
court reporter typing away as he and attorney Tarpley are planning as a (WE'RE) like they are a
TEAM!! Judge Smith says he doesn't know where we're going to go with those??

Where is Judge Smith and attorney Tarpley going to go with the motions and objections that
Miss Stover-King filed?? I thought it needed to stay in the clerk of the court's office.

Judge Smith goes on to show how unprepared, incompetent, and unethical he is on page (18)
line 4-8 of the court transcript by concluding the ex-parte hearing at 10:00 a.m. that did not
follow any proper notice of hearings, or pre-trial or final-pre-trial conferences as he says
"an1{thing else to come before the court on this matter at this point? And attorney Tarpley shows
how incompetent she is as well since she relies with "nothing, your honor. Judge Smith replies
with a "thank you, court will be recessed and attorney Tarpley replies with thank you, judge".

Neither the attorney Tarpley nor Judge Smith ever stated that there would be an order entered
by Rule 170 or any other fashion after the pre-trial conference at 10:00 a.m. and that either
attorney Tarpley or Judge Smith would sign the order and this incompetence shows that now
none of the orders from the December 11, 2018 hearing, March 24,25,2019 hearing, the March
28,2019 continued pre-trial conference for not having a court report, and the April 2, 2019 pre-
trial conference have complied with Kansas Supreme Court Rules 166, 170 and K.S.A. 60-258
entry of judgment. The departmental justice should have been notified (5) days after a motion
goes past (30) days to rule like the December 11, 2018 hearing that was signed on January 15,
2019. I don't think Judge Smith has shown any competence in this case which violates Rule 2.5
Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation because he has not cooperated with Miss Stover-King
because he is prejudiced against her and that is why he scheduled a trial that was only 3 hours
after the only pre-trial conference in the case on 4-2-19!!! He also has not changed any of the
mistakes that he made in the prior court orders. He defers to Miss Stover-King about him
admonishing her but he never says that he is going to modify or alter the court order that
admonished her for not having counsel like he states at the continued March 28,2019 pre-trial
conference.

Please investigate this matter and give judge Smith a (CEASEAND DESIST)from this case and
a (CAUTION LETTER)because he tried to use an (ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) himself on 4-
2-19 but instead made more ethical errors and used more inappropriate word choices like the
validated statement he made that all Pro Se litigants are FOOLS. He showed he is not
honorable as he never would never actually admit on the court transcript if he ever admonished
Julie Stover-King or not. He said he thinks he addressed that and he thinks it's true what she
says but he never admits and says "yes it's true I made a mistake and admonished her when
she really wasn't admonished and I will have to amend the court order from the March 24, 25
2019 pre-trial conference". He then proceeds and has a pre-trial conference that was held 3
hours before bench trial before a judge who acknowledged that he had a mandamus filed
against him directly but he doesn't continue the bench trial but think's he is using an abundance
of caution even though he states on record that he thinks Pro Se litigants are (FOOLS).
 I

I have included the definition of 1 "FOOL" which says" a person without good sense or
judgment". The definition of 2 "FOOL" says "to speak or act in a playful way or in fun" JOKE

The definition of "FOOLISH" is "showing or resulting from lack of good sense" .

Judge Smith should be disqualified from hearing any Pro Se cases when he states on record that
only a fool represents themselves and he validates it as well and in his opinion he believes Pro
Se litigants are "without good sense" and "show or result from lack of good sense".

Judge Smith did not follow Supreme Court Rule 166 Matters Taken Under Advisement because
he had a hearing on December 11, 2018 on a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and the
order was not signed by him until January 15, 2019 which is (35) days after the motion was
filed. Supreme Court Rule 166 says the court has (30) days to rule on a motion and if it has not
ruled within (30) days then a report with the judicial administrator needs made within (5) days
which he did not do. According to Supreme Court Rule 170 no judgment is final until it is
signed by the judge in accordance with KS.A. 60-258 Entry of Judgment.

He also didn't follow Supreme Court Rule 170(b) at the 4-2-19 ex-parte hearing at 10:00 a.m.
because orders or other documents containing rulings of the judge other than judgments shall
be prepared in accordance with the directions of the judge. The court transcript shows (HE
MADE NO DIRECTIONS ABOUT HOW THE ORDER WILL BE DONE).

He also needs to follow Supreme Court Rule 165 Reasons For Decisions at the bench trial on 4-2-
19. How can he have a bench trial at 1:15 p.m. on 4-2-19 when the motions from the pre-trial
hearing at 10:00 a.m. on 4-2-19 did not have an ORDER signed by the judge so therefore none of
his rulings on the motions have been effective under KS.A. 60-258 entry of judgment.

Judge Smith is the one who says he is joking around off the record with Julie Stover-King about
her trying to get him disqualified as a judge about her husband trying to get him to step down
as a church (elder) which he did and (trustee) which he did and one of the definitions of FOOL
is "JOKE" "to speak or act in a playful way or in fun". That definition of FOOL seems to be
exactly what Judge Smith did off the record when he thought it was funny that Julie Stover-
King was trying to get him disqualified as a judge and he was joking with Julie Stover-King. A
person without good sense would seem to be one who can't follow Supreme Court Rule 140
Final pre-trial conference, KS.A. 60-216 pre-trial procedure, Supreme Court Rules 166 and 170
by notifying the departmental justice within (5) days after you don't sign a motion after (30)
days because KS.A. 60-258 entry of judgment was not complied with.

Please reprimand Judge Smith for his attempted humor, bias, prejudice, incompetence, and his
inappropriate word choices in which he has shown no remorse, no regret, and has accepted no
responsibility for his word choices as the court transcript from the 4-2-19 pre-trial conference on
the same day as bench trial shows.
 Maybe Judge Smith was making all his comments about (FOOLS) because it was April 2, 2019
which was just (1) day after April Fools Day and he was still in the mode of telling jokes and
making wise cracks from the day before which was April Fools Day.

Perhaps Judge Smith needs to retire permanently and quit accepting judicial assignments so
that he can pursue a career as a (STAND UP COMEDIAN) and he can tell his jokes about trying
to get him disqualified in motions and about Pro Se litigants which said:

"I reiterate they have a constitutional right to represent themselves but I just point out that there is a
VALIDATION of the old adage that a person that represents themselves in Court has a FOOL for BOTH
a LAWYER and a CLIENT and that there's a REASON FOR THAT EXPRESSION because I even
recommend that law1{ersnot represent themselves in Court, etc.! etc. ".

We even had an off the record conversation after the last hearing that was real friendll{ and kind ofioking
around about some oUhe stuffshe put in the motion about me. And I was complementing her for digging
that information up because it was accurate because I am an elder oUhe church or I was until recentll{ so,
I mean, it was an interesting thing but I did not have a problem with any oUhat. 11

Could you please have Judge Smith tell your committee what he said that was real friendly and
kind of joking around about some of the stuff she put in the motion about him so Ican
determine if it was as funny as his joke about Pro Se litigants being FOOLS or as funny as
former chief judge A.J. Wachters joke about going to the (peanut gallery).

Sincerely,

Michael King

P.O. Box 101

Pittsburg, Ks 66762 ~_
~~;t(~
 Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Page 10f7
Return xlail Operations
PO Box10368
Des Moines, IA 50306-03b8

April 15, 2019

Account Information
Online: wellsfurgo.corn
Fax: [-866-359-7363
Telephone: 1-800-416-1472
Correspondence: PO Box10:335
DCML1SDTMD 002466
D~s Moines, lA 50306
Hours of operation: Xlon - Thurs, 7 a.m. - 9 p.rn.,
1111111111111111111' 111111 111111111111111111111111" ,III'" 111'11 Fri, 7 a.rn. - 8 p.m.,
JULIE S BRUNSKILL Sat, 8 a.m. - 4 p.m., C1'
303 SOUTH JEFFERSON STREET
FRONTENAC, KS 66763 Loan number: 0215849183
Property address. :303 South Jefferson
Frontenac KS 6676::\

c:
(
<'
r
o
Subject: Important information about the mortgage and the Servicernembers Civil Relief Act c
<'
C
Dear Julie S Brunskill: c
c
>.
~
cr
z
Nos estamos poniendo en contacto con usted acerca de la cuenta de pr-estamo hipotecario z
z
porque queremos ayudarle. Llamenos aI1-800-416-1472 (marque 9 para recibir atencion z
2
2
en espafiol), Si tiene una discapacidad auditiva 0. del habIa, ateridemos llamadas de los 2
2
servicios de retransmision. Podemos hablar acerca de opciones para ayudarle a 2
2
z
permanecer en su casa. Si usted no. entiende esta carta, podemos brindarle servicios en 2
2
su idioma, 0 si 10. prefiere, puede hacer que se traduzca esta carta. 2
2
2
c
This is a legally required notice. \Ye are sending this notice to you because the mortgage payment is 3
c
c
behind on this account. We want to notify you of possible ways to avoid losing the home. We have a right <,

to invoke (proceed with) foreclosure based on the terms of the mortgage contract. Please read this letter
carefully. By reaching out to us when payment challenges first arise, more options to avoid a foreclosure
sale may be available to you.

The following information will help you understand some of the mortgage assistance options that may be
available to you, depending on your needs and financial situation,

Options to. keep the home

Reinstatement - Allows you to pay the total amount due, in a lump-sum payment, by a specific date. This
allows you to avoid foreclosure sale by bringing the mortgage current,

Forbearance plan - Temporarily suspends or reduces the amount of the regular monthly mortgage
payment when a severe or total income reduction occurs. For a specific period of time, this plan can
provide short-term mortgage payment relief until you're in a better financial situation.

Repayment plan - Brings the mortgage current. Overdue payments are divided into manageable amounts
that are added to the current monthly mortgage payment and spread out over a period of time. By having
the overdue mortgage payments divided into manageable amounts, you'll catch up sooner and keep a
temporary challenge from having longer-term effects.
------------- - --_._-_.-
Page Z of7

Account Information
Loan number: 0215849183

Property address: 30:3 South Jefferson

Frontenac 1(.')66763

Loan modification - The terms of the original mortgage (like the interest rate or number of years allowed
for repayment) may be changed, bringing the account up-to-date and making the payments more
manageable. By having certain terms of the mortgage modified, the monthly- payment may be lowered to
an amount that is more manageable for you,

~ Options to leave the home

T Short sale - Sell the home for less than a full payoff on the account. By doing this, it allows you to
transition out of the home without going through the foreclosure process. o
o
s::
f Deed in lieu of foreclosure (sometimes referred to as a Mortgage Release) - Voluntarily transfer !:
(f)
o
ownership of the home to us. By doing this, it allows you to transition out of the home without going -I
s::
o
t:::':'ug h the i_rec: \.sure prOCESS, o
o
.•..
ro

" ':--~.2--=a.s :
- =~_=:::-~e::
....~.
::-:e :;:-::::-.;;:-..:.:::'Save Y",~1:- H:!:1c" \';hi~h describes steps that may help you regain
0>
0">

Z
:::~-~
::.:...
:: -:::-:- ~:::: -~::
~::-:.:..
.:::::-:~~;f_..:::f;::. Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
eial information - let us help you today Z
Z
:..! .;:._-=-"7:;,-=.z.:~:~.',j;=- ~:-e ;::..•..•:.z.:::: _ !.);:i2:. ::-.:-:.'g:-: T::' Z
__ s e: :-.: :-.!:'_ 15 av, TOO a.m. to 9:00 Z
Z
;;:-~. :~ .: ~: s , - : ••::- 2.- -._ :.: 2.:)0 :: ::-.. ::- 52':"'~::-::~~
.. S:
tc J..:oo; r.... Central TIme. Right over the
02.-;:: Z
Z
- - - - - - :::,:=.:-:-_':.:: .--:..: _-;.: ~- :.:: -.:.- ~ :: .:-.=::: :-,~:-:_ ~-:::c,.',:-:,::-:::-:~-&;5e ;J2~>mentchallenges.W e'll Z
Z
- . ::: 3 -:-:: .:: :":"_::-.i..- :~-:.-:::-. _:':-. is - -::.:- .1. 0:: ;<e.:Ei: ::.c.' c :::2- i::::'-::::g La. rl: when you call: Z
o
o
f\)

-- - - -- -
..- .•. _....
._--.;;.. - - - - __-~t::--...
_---
o
...,
o

- .•
•.. .. ..
• :-:~::::- ..::"'"
::~:s:..:::

"\'c '0' d als ike 0 no "fy •.ou of tl e a "a' ability of homeownership counseling, and any rights you or
your dependents may have under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act if you are an active member of one
of the military agencies listed below. You may wish to discuss the account with a homeowners hip
counselor. .

Servicemembe.ls Chi} Relief.Act Xotice Disclosure

United States Department of Ho ing and rl"ban De,--elopment Office of Housing OMB
Approval #2502-0584 Exp. 0331' 2021

Legal Rights and Protections

• Servicernembers ::-. ".2.:-=.;:" ::_::-; ::- '~~."f S~. ice" or a spouse 0:- dependent of such a
servicemernbe !":'".2~;:-"2- =-:._~=~:: :t.:-....::.:.:: :fg&: protections and ieb: fe.ief _ ursuant to the
Servicernembers Cnf :--",::=:.%""': z:r: _-:'''''' _ :J.. Sections 3901--1-043) (SCK-\.).

. 10 May Be Entitled to Leg;iJ Prcteetions Under the SeRA?

 for
==t!:'~!1.lOi}having a light flex- green plants and used to build organic nu-
....,.lI, ••• w·•••point trients 3: organic materials formed by
_ , helter for sheep plants and used in their growth and activi-
. p) in a fold ties 4: solid food as distinguished from
.•.something over itself drink ~
<
,~g=~~~
3 : IEMBRACE 1 food chain n : a sequence of organisms in
led or laid over an- which each depends on the next and usually
: a bend produced in a lower member as a source of food Z
3: a crease made by tood-stutt n. : a substance with food value O·
II! _ - newspaper)
- lied by a specified
1fool n 1: a person without good sense or
judgment 2: JESTER 1
lectives and adverbs 2fool vb 1: to spend time idly 2: to med-
-
f-
dle or tamper with something 3: to speak
a
or act in a playful way or in fun: JOKE 4
: 2TRICK
fool-har-dy ad} focl-har-dl-er; focl-har-dl-
-
a
est: foolishly adventurous or bold
toot-tsh ad} : showing or resulting from lack
.. ; persons of a certain of good sense : SENSELESS - tool-tsh-ty
2 folks pi : people in adv - fool-lsh-ness n
- members of one's fool-proof ad} : done, made, or planned so
well that nothing can go wrong
ommon people 1foot n, pl feet 1: the end part of the leg of
an animal or person : the part of an animal

_.~ri
f~:~~~:j~j.efS' stories, and
~ down from gen-
who sings songs
y and long sung
?rople
e up and handed
people
me after or behind
. ~;.' : OBEY 3: to pro-
f] - in or at something
come after in time or
7 : to keep one's
- fol-low-er n -' tot-
a card that belongs to
~ tleafts or spades) as the
same thing someone
PH·''''''''''''"'ngjust after
,:;:::~~ of followers
" omplete an action
continued interest in
garding
k of good sense 2
foot. note n : a note at the bottom of a page
root-path n : a path for walkers
on which it stands or moves 2: a unit of
length equal to twelve inches (about ,3
meter) 3: something like a foot in position
or use - on foot: by walking
2foot vb 1: to go on foot 2: IpAY 2
toot-ball n 1: a game played with a blown
up oval ball on a large field by two teams of
eleven players that move the ball by kick-
ing, passing, or running with it 2: the ball
used in football
foot-ed ad} 1 : having a foot or feet 2
: having such or so many feet
toot-tau n : the sound of a footstep
foot-hill n : a hill at the foot of higher hills
toot-hold n : a place where the foot may be
put (as for climbing)
foot.ing n 1: a firm position or placing of
the feet 2: FOOTHOLD 3: position in re-
lation to others 4: social relationship
foot-liqbts n pi : a row of lights set across
the front of a stage floor
foot-man n, pl foot-men : a male servant
who lets visitors in and waits on table

~ i~5~~ .cIJing:
-in" to touch or
manner
wat;r for baptism
ontaining carbohy-
foot-print n : a track left by a foot
toot-sore ad} : having sore feet from walk-
ing a lot
toot-step n 1: a step of the foot 2: the
distance covered by a step 3: FOOTPRINT
teet-stool n : a low stool to support the
- and supplements (as feet
s) that is taken in by toot-work n : the skill with which the feet
_ body for growth and are moved (as in boxing)
of energy for aetivi- 1for prep 1: by way of getting ready 2
tances taken in by : toward the goal of 3: in order to reach 4
 Janet Vanleeuwen, C.S.R.
Certified Shorthand Reporter
602 N. Locust
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
(620) 231-3570

April 12, 2019

Ms. Julie Stover-King

RE: Wells Fargo Bank vs Julie Brunskill

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

"
 1

2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

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

19 Defendants.

20

21 TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

22 PROCEEDINGS had before the Honorable RICHARD M.

23 SMITH, Senior Judge Holding Court in the District

24 Court of Crawford County, Kansas,at Pittsburg,

~-
y
~ 25 Kansas, on the 2nd day of April, 2019.

c
 2

2 APPEARANCES:

3 The Plaintiff appearing by and through its

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

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

6 Overland Park, KS 66202.

7 The Defendant, Julie Stover-King, appeared

8 not.

10

11

12

13
(" 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 3

1 APRIL 2, 2019

2 MS. TARPLEY: The case scheduled on this

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

4 please enter her appearance.

5 MS. TARPLEY: Linda Tarpley appearing on behalf

6 of Wells Fargo Bank, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: The record should reflect that it is

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

9 amount of time to see if the defendant would appear

10 and there are some addendums to the record that I

11 would like to make before we begin.

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

13 rescheduled the pretrial conference in this matter and

14 attempted to hold the pretrial conference by telephone

15 last week. That conference at least resulted in the

16 Court entering one order which was that the pretrial

17 questionnaires would be adopted by reference and

18 thereby incorpbrating the information that is

19 contained in those questionnaires in making it the

20 Court's pretrial order.

21 Approximately ten or 15 minutes into the

22 conference it became apparent to the defendant that

23 there was no record being maintained of the pretrial

24 conference. The Court out of an abundance of caution

25 and because of the defendant's obvious concern with

 4

1 the lack of a record then entered no other orders

2 except to informally suggest that anything that

3 transpired during the course of the telephone

4 conference I would reiterate this morning or today on

5 the record.

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

7 description would be obsessed with a single concept

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

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

10 admonishment for an ethical violation in a matter that

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

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

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

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

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

17 so I told the defendant that I would entertain motions

18 that she filed prior to trial and that we would

19 terminate the conference, again, with the suggestion

20 that I would reiterate whatever was stated during the

21 conference this morning, technically when we took up

22 the trial, because things have evolved somewhat since

23 then.

24 One of the other issues was that apparently in a

25 pleading the defendant makes some remark about how I

 5

1 admonished her and the context in which she states it

2 makes it seem quite critical and negative.

3 Actually, the admonishment, apparently whether or

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

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

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

7 anyone to ever represent themselves in Court,

8 particularly someone who is not an attorney, and I

9 made a remark about that admonishment in a prior

10 order, she claims I never told her that.

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

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

13 pro se litigants that it is usually frowned upon as

( 14 prudent and wise for someone to represent themselves.

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

16 an absolute believer in ones constitutional right to

17 represent themselves and I would defend that right to

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

19 that.

20 Now, that is basically the sum and substance of

21 my recollection of everything that happened in that

22 conference.

23 Miss Tarpley, have I left anything out that you

24 can think of?

25 MS. TARPLEY: No, Your Honor.

'--,
j
 6

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

2 there are additional pleadings filed that might

3 suggest that something else was said during that

4 conference or maybe more than one other something else

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

6 are any representations to anything being said other

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

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

9 frankly getting a little out of control and I think

10 anybody could see that from the raft of motions.

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

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

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

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

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

16 suggestions as to what she believed might be at issue

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

18 may not but it very certainly could.

19 I until late yesterday was scheduled to be in

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

21 in order to have the adequate opportunity to truly

22 consider and reflect on her motions and whatever

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

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

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

t~.
~-
 7

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

2 two hours to take up these motions.

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

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

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

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

7 vacation in order to be here this afternoon.

8 I ended the communication from my end early this

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

10 basically said -- because she claimed in these

11 communications that now this is all being done for the

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

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

r"

t 14 that her motions can be thoroughly considered and I

15 reiterated that fact and that this was for her

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

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

18 accordingly.

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

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

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

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

23 take up these motions and rule on them.

24 Miss Tarpley, do you have any response you want

25 to make to any of these?

L
 8

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

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

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

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

5 that they cannot be electronically filed, they have to

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

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

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

9 stay all proceedings and-or possibly consolidate the

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

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

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

13 defendant and it's my understanding that service of

r
I
\ 14 process was issued to Lynn County.

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

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

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

18 mandamus action.

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

20 whatever reason following the footsteps of another

21 litigant I have in another proceeding and this reads

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

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

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

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

t.•......
 9

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

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

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

4 deny the request to stay proceedings and it says

5 possibly consolidate. There will be no order of

6 consolidation with this purported mandamus action

7 that's been filed against me.

8 The second one is an objection to decision ruling

9 on defendant's pretrial motions and journal entry

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

11 an objection to whether or not-the journal entry

12 correctly reflects the Court's orders. It actually

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

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

15 nothing presented, s.othat objection will be overruled

16 in all of its regards.

17 Next, is a motion to disqualify you as a

18 potential -- becaus~ you're a potential witness in the

19 case. The motion alleges that you are licensed

20 attorney and you work under Shapiro &--

21 MS. TARPLEY: Kreisman.

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

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

24 is a new lawsuit and I don't know--

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

 10

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

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

3 it does not identify the property which she wants

4 titled cleared. She's alleging that Shapiro Kreisman

5 actually owns this loan that is being litigated.

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

7 later today.

8 MS. TARPLEY: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 cause level of proof that Miss Tarpley would be a

17 witness in the instant action. And, therefore,

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

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

20 The last lS a motion to strike court orders on

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

22 said request to strike the court order from the

23 decision because defendant was never admonished at the

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

25 decision indicated that defendant had been admonished

L
-ca. I
 11

1 prior for not having counsel.

2 Also says defendant has issues with the court

3 orders from the December 11th hearing because Rule 170

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

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

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

7 the Court.

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

9 that.

10 THE COURT: Sure.

11 MS. TARPLEY: Rule 170 requires that when the

12 Court authorizes or directs a party after a hearing to

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

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

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

16 very next day as is reflected by the certification on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 nowhere in the rule requiring that the Court sign the

25 order within 14 days of receiving such order.

,
l
 12

1 THE COURT: Absolutely. Counsel actually knows

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

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

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

5 everybody seems to believe it does and do.

6 "Defendant has been barred from discovery in the

7 case because defendant did not comply with the

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

9 status hearing. That defendant complete discovery by

10 January 11th because the journal entry from the

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

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

13 date for discovery."

F •

( 14 That would probably be true but the problem is

15 that there was no request for any discovery until

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

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

18 speaks to that.

19 "Defendant also has issues with the decision on

20 defendant's pretrial motions and journal entry

21 regarding the same electronically filed on Sunday,

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

23 defendant to have oral argument."

24 I will say that is something that reminds me that

25 I did address that briefly during the telephone

~-~
 13

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

2 that actually oral argument was within the discretion

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

4 would benefit the Court in any material fashion and

5 that's why I went ahead and ruled.

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

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

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

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

10 "Defendant also has issues with the decision

11 ruling on defendant's pretrial motions and journal

12 entry regarding same order electronically filed on

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

s:

( 14 the defendant to have oral argument but defendant is

15 quite upset and concerned that Judge Smith on his

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

17 record the defendant's cavalier attitude regarding the

18 upcoming trial and her decisions to engage in other

19 activities rather than trial preparation concerned the

20 Court greatly from the standpoint that it appears she

21 fails to understand the severity of the circumstances

22 re-enforcing the Courts prior admonition that she

23 would be better off represented by counsel.

24 The definition of caviler is arrogant and

25 defendant is not arrogant. Defendant was never

 14

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

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

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

4 has also barred defendant from discovery because he

5 says defendant was supposed to have it completed."

6 This is repetitious of when the journal entry was

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

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

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

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

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

12 to get into.

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

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

15 is not available in this kind of action.

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

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

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

19 "Defendant was stressed out, had anxiety, and

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

21 telephonic conference because the defendant was under

22 the impression she had already been admonished by the

23 Court and was scared to proceed with a proper defense

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

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

{
~
 15

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

2 would have been my standard admonishment and I try to

3 present that in as friendly a fashion as possible,

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

5 I reiterate they have a constitutional right to

6 represent themselves but I just point out that there

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

8 represents themselves in Court has a fool for both a

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

10 expression because I even recommend that lawyers not

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

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

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

r---'

( 14 of me.

15 I think that the statement that she has reasons

16 to be afraid of me would run contrary to everything

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

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

19 conversation after the last hearing that was real

20 friendly and kind of joking around about some of the

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

22 complementing her for digging that information up

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

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

'-, 25 interesting thing but I did not have a problem with

I
 16

any of that. I thought we were getting along actually

splendidly until apparently I didn't rule in her favor

but I'm going to deny this motion.

Is there anything you want to add before I do

that?

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

honestly you ever admonishing her. I think that

perhaps at the December 11th hearing which she was

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

questioned her at length about what discovery she

wished to complete and could she do that by January

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

believe that there was a general conversation between

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

that point you might have mentioned that she probably

should seek counsel. I don't recall anything ever

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

I hear it from judges every single day in cases with

pro se defendants.

THE COURT: Well, that would have been the

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

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

like she's having trouble finding the courthouse or

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

herself in a relatively adequate fashion.

 17

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

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

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

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

5 thought she would come and argue these motions.

6 I intend to actually begin the trial and I

7 anticipate her making some requests, absent

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

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

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

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

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

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

~
( 14 finish the trial today without keeping court personnel

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

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

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

18 should take about half an hour.

19 THE COURT: Okay.

20 MS. TARPLEY: Tops.

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

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

23 those.

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

25 they will be beyond the pretrial questionnaire and her

L
 18

1 pleadings.

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

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

4 Anything else to come before the Court on this

5 matter at this point?

6 MS. TARPLEY: Nothing, Your Honor.

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

8 MS. TARPLEY: Thank you, Judge.

9 (END OF PROCEEDINGS)

10

11

12

13

( 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 19

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

4 CERTIFICATE

5 I, Janet VanLeeuwen, a Certified Shorthand

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

7 Kansas, and the regularly appointed, qualified and

8 acting official Reporter for the Eleventh Judicial

9 District of the State of Kansas do hereby certify

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

11 reported in machine shorthand the above and

12 foregoing proceedings had on the date above set out

13 before the Honorable RICHARD M. SMITH, Senior Judge

'"
( 14 Holding Court in the Eleventh Judicial District of the

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

16 Crawford.

17 I further certify that pursuant to law my

18 shorthand notes were transcribed under my supervision

19 and that the foregoing is a true and correct

20 transcript of my notes in said case.

21 Electronically filed with the Clerk of the

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

23
/s/ Janet VanLeeuwen
24 JANET VANLEEUWEN, CSR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
25 Supreme Court #0854
L;
 IN THE DISTRlCi~OdhfoF.1CiAWFORD COUNTY,KANSAS
GtfR1\ Of atST. t:tK/FT
CRAWfORD COUHTY
131' )
Wells Fargo

PLAINTIFF, )

Vs. ) CASENO. 2013CV32P

Julie Brunskill et al )

DEFENDANTS. )

MOTION FOR CHANkE OF IUDGE \\11TH AFFiDAViT

Pursuant to K.SA 60-311dLhLChapter 60

COMES NOW, Defendant Julie Stover-King who was previously Julie Brunskill Pro Se and in
accordance with K.S.A 20-311d(b) and K.S.A.20-311e and states as follows:
 AFFIDAVIT

County: Crawford )

)SS

State: Kansas )

I, Julie Stover-King, Affiant herein, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
united states of America, that Affiant is competent to be a witness and that the facts
contained herein are true, correct, complete, and not misleading to the best of Affiant's first

Hand nersonal
~ knowledge.
~

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Pursuant to K.SA.20-311d(b)

1. Defendant previously filed a Motion for Change of Judge on June 11, 2018 to have
Honorable Richard Smith promptly view the motion informally before the next
court hearing on July 6,2018 in accordance with K.S.A 20-311d(a).
2. Defendant previously filed a Motion for Change of Judge on 12/21/2017 to have
Honorable Daniel Creitz promptly view the motion informally which he did and he
promptly disqualified himself from this case and a judicial Assignment No.9 was
issued on 1/10/2018 to have Honorable Richard M. Smith as being the new judge in
this case which was twenty (20) days after Defendant filed the motion for change of
judge. (Exhibit AX)
3. Defendant received a copy of the court ROA in this case on 7/2/2018 and Honorable
Richard M. Smith had not promptly ruled on the motion for change of judge that was
 filed on 6/11/2018 which is twenty one (21) days after Defendant filed her motion
for change of judge in accordance with K.S.A.20-311d(a). (Exhibit AX)
4. Defendant is filing this motion for change of judge with affidavit prior to the court
hearing on July 6, 2018 to save the plaintiffs attorney time, the defendant herself
time, and the court time and that is why Defendant is filing this motion for change of
judge with affidavit prior to the court hearing on July 6, 2018.
5. Defendant filed an Objection of Assignment to judge Richard M. Smith and in the
Alternative this is a Motion to Disqualify Judge Richard M. Smith on June 11,2018
which Defendant stated most of the reasons that Defendant felt that a change of
judge was needed in this case under K.S.A.20-311d change of judge procedure.
6. The Defendant previously was 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 Richard
M. Smith, Honorable John E. Sanders, Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications,
Stanton A. Hazlett, Michael Gayoso Jr., Tim Grillot, and Kansas Attorney General Derek
Schmidt The Defendant 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 Richard M. Smith which was filed on July 22, 2015 in (CLASSAL'l'ION 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, Richard 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. (Exhibit AA)
7. Defendant's husband Kasey King, along with Eric Muathe, James Beckley Jr., and Travis
Carlton all received filing restrictions from the motion for sanctions that Richard M.
Smith's attorney Stephen Phillips filed and was signed and granted in the above case of
2015CV79P by Judge Jack Burr on 06/13/2016. (Exhibit AB)
8. Defendant's husband also has made an ethic complaint against Senior Judge Richard M.
Smith with The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications dated July 4, 2015 in case
number 2015MR2P In The Matter of the Grand Jury Petition for failing to properly fill
out the yearly required judicial financial disclosure report and Defendant feels that the
court would be biased and prejudiced against her for the complaint her husband filed
previously against the court. (Exhibit AC)
9. Defendant's father-in-law Michael King made an ethic complaint with the Kansas
Commission on Judicial Qualifications against Senior Judge Richard M Smith where the
commission met on December 4, 2015 where the complaint was continued until
February 5, 2016 for lack of quorum because Judge Cameron recused. (Exhibit AD).
10. Defendant's husband Kasey King filed an ethic complaint with the Kansas Commission
on Judicial Qualifications against Senior Judge Richard M. Smith and received a letter
dated November 23, 2015 from the commission where they stated the complaint would
be heard on December 4, 2015. (Exhibit AE)
11. Defendant's husband Kasey King received letters from the Kansas Commission on
Judicial Qualifications dated December 22, 2015 and February 23, 2016 where the two (2)
complaints filed against Senior Judge Richard M. Smith were continued until April 1,
2016 for lack of quorum because Judge Cameron and Judge Fairchild recused. (Exhibit
AF, AG, AH, AI)
12. Defendant filed a motion for change of judge to have Judge S1I'Jth recuse himself in this
case on 6/11/2018 in accordance with KS.A. 20-311d and as now filed the motion for
change of judge with affidavit under KS.A. 20-311d(b)(c), and a motion for Writ of
Mandamus will be filed next by Defendant if the motion for change of judge with
affidavit filed by Defendant is not granted in this case.
13. Defendant filed a motion for change of judge in accordance with KS.A. 20-311e which
prevents the court from retaliating with any contempt punishment to Plaintiff that the
court might want to grant for filing the motion for change of judge and motion for
change of judge with affidavit in this case.
14. Defendant feels that Judge Richard M. Smith would be biased and prejudiced against
Defendant because Defendant previously paid a civil filing fee in case number 15-CV-
79P where Judge Richard M. Smith had to retain an attorney to file motions for him
 which was a motion for sanctions and filing restrictions against her husband and

Defendant feels that the court would be biased and prejudiced against Defendant for

suing Judge Smith civilly and judge Richard M. Smith felt damaged enough in the case

to file a motion for sanctions and get it granted which has caused Defendant's 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

Defendant and Defendant's husband since they have had to retain a private attorney

Prince Adebayo Ogemeno to represent them 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.

15. Defendant feels that judge Richard Smith would be biased and prejudiced against
Defendant for the civil lawsuit and civil appeal filed against Judge Smith by Defendant

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 Defendant.

16. Defendant challenges the court'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 A.J. Wachter in Eric Muathe, et al vs. Honorable Kurtis Loy in case numbers

15CV79P and the appeal of 1~116284-A Eric Muathe, et al, vs. Honorable Kurtis Loy, et

al, from the civil case of 15CV79P and former chiefjudge of the 11th district received a private
order of cease and desis: in this case of13CV32P !A/ellsFargo vs. J111ie Brunskill. Defendant
feels that the court would retaliate against Defendant for getting his co-defendant A.j.

Wachter a violation of the code of judicial conduct from the complaints in docket

numbers 1331 In the Matter of A.J. Wachter by Fred Grable, 1332 In the Matter of A.J.

Wachter by Thomas Walters 1334 and In the Matter of A.J. Wachter by Julie Stover-King.

(Exhibit AJ, AK, AL)

17. Defendant also challenges the court's jurisdiction because the Defendant's husband has

filed two previous civil lawsuits against the court's former co-defendant and former

judge in this case former chief judge A.J. 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 Defendant feels that the court would be biased and prejudiced against Defendant
because her husband has sued the former co-defendant of the court's brother Bill
Wachter of My town Media at Wilbert and Towner Law Firm.
18. Defendant also objects to the fact that Honorable Wachter assigned" the "motion for
11

change of judge with affidavit" filed on 7/17/2017 to Judge Daniel D. Creitz when
according to KS.A 20-311d(b)(c) no district judge in the 11thdistrict 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 judge Richard M. Smith where
the "imposed filing restrictions" were granted against James Beckley Jr., Travis Carlton,
Eric Muathe, and Defendant's husband Kasey King and Defendant feels that all the
judges that were defendants in case number 15CV79P including judge Richard M Smith
should be disqualified from hearing a case of the Defendants due to a conflict of interest
from the filing of the civil lawsuits against Richard M. Smith.
19. Defendant feels 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
Judge Daniel D. Creitz by chief Judge AJ. Wachter who already 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 Defendant feels the
entire case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the court.
20. Defendant feels that if the chief judge of the 11thjudicial district 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 #4 Departmental
Justice Lee Johnson to assign the assignment order issued to judge Daniel Creitz.
21. Defendant also files this motion for change of judge with affidavit to have Senior Judge
Richard Smith disqualify himself in accordance with the code of judicial conduct Rule
25. The court ROA on 8/2B/2017 and 9/6/2017 in this case 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 KS.A 60-2601(d). Defendant's 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 unti11/23/2018. (Exhibit
AS,AT,AU)
26. 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 Richard M. Smith should recuse/ disqualify
his self from this case as well. [Exhibit AM, AO, and Exhibit AN)
27. Former Grief Judge AJ. Wachter resigned from a cease and desist order in case number
13CV32P and officially retired on 12/13/2017 but 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 KS.A 20-311d and he did not follow KS.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 any form ofiudicial immunity. AJ. Wachter is
not a Senior Judge and should not have been able to have a (HEARING
RESCHEDULED) (PRETRIAL COI\.TFERENCE04/24/201810:00) and request that
motions are due 14 days prior to pretrial in case number 2017-CR-287P where Judge AJ.
Wachter is listed to the side of the court ROA as the judge in the case on 3/6/2018 after
he retired on 12/13/2017. (Exhibit AQ)
28. According to RULES RELATING TO DISTRIC COURlS 'IlME STANDARDS,
STANDARDS RELATING TO JURY USE AND MANAGEMENT RULE 101 through
RULE 187 under TIME STANDARDS (4) the chiefjudge should report the reason for
delay in disposition to the Judicial Administrator when a case has been pending more
than (2) years. Defendant has not seen anywhere on the court ROA in this case where
11thdistrict chief judge Oliver Lynch has made a report with the judicial administrator in
this case even though this case has been pending for more than (5) years and has had (2)
prior judges recuse from the case who have not had any subject-matter jurisdiction to be
 in the case under Rule 2.7 Responsibility To Decide and Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification of
the code of judicial conduct due to conflicts of interest. (Exhibit AR)
29. Defendant recently filed two (2) ethic complaint against Honorable Richard M. Smith on
May 14 and May 19 of 2018 with the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications and
. Defendant feels that Honorable Richard M. Smith would be biased and prejudiced
against Defendant and could retaliate against Defendant for the complaint that was filed
against Honorable Richard M. Smith that was dismissed by the commission on judicial
qualifications on June 18, 2018. (Exhibits AV and AW)

Defendant has included the following case law for argument and support with this
motion for change of judge with affidavit:

ARGUMENTS At'\JD At.JTHORlTfES

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" .
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 Gause of the Federal
Constitution and Kansas State Constitution.

According to KS.A. 60-265 and KS.A. 60-266 Crawford County District Court should

have lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to sign an ORDER in case number 13CV32P and
the Defendant challenges this courts jurisdiction to sign any "ORDERS" in this case 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.

U.S. Fidelity & 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. City 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 "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. City 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.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for Judge Richard M. Smith to disqualify himself in

accordance with ¥ ".A. 20-311d, Ru.le 27 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 civilly by Defendant and does not

have any prior conflicts of interest with Defendant by the Department #4' s

, Departmen

,j.,
V
Julie Stover-King

303 Jefferson

Frontenac, KS 66763

TAMARA BAKER
My Appointment Expires
December 20. 20 Q

Further Affiant s,ys not.

• V, v !~" .

J 1>.
ieSt~r'IDn~;::~~ /
 I hereby certify that on this 2ndLday ofJuly, 2018, AD. a woman appeared with
Proper identification, to attest and affirm that she is the woman executing the
foregoing AFFIDAVIT by her hand.

I, therefore, set forth my hand and seal in affirmation thereof of the execution
thereof.

rJ.WhfJ/fL
NOTARY PUBLIC Date

My commission expires on /2-h"'/1 CZ TAMARA BAKER

/1 My Appointment Expires
December 20, 2019

NOTICE OF HEARING

This motion for change of judge with affidavit will be set for hearing at the time of QOP.fI) .
on the date of July 6, 2018 at the next final pre-trial conference.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on July3~, 2018, I mailed the foregoing Motion For Change of Judge with
Affidavit to Petitioner's attorney via first class mail at the following addresses:

Linda Tarpley

Shapiro & Kreisman, LLC

4220 Shawnee Mission Parkway-Suite 418B

Fairway, Kansas 66205

 ~)D /:5 c ~/7£jf:>

E)C~~I0\+
15 JllL 22 P 1 :41 JA tA. p tt")e

IN THE DISTRICf COURT O~:~\j~f.)~~b

~
rCOijNTY, i(XA-.JSAS
~ r\'[T l. au"?; /'T
By ...

CLASS ACTION PETITION

FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANT JUDGI,E>;

LORI FLEMING, A. J. WACHTER, KURTIS LOY, ROBERT FLEMING, OLl"'ER LYNCH, JEFFRY JACK,
JANICE D. RUSSELL, RICHARD M. SMITH, JOHN E. SANDERS.
'-
OTHER DEFENDANTS INCLUDEj KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL Q.-.JALIFICATIONS PANEL
"A" AND "B", STANTON A. HAZLETr, MICHAEL GAVOSO, JR., TIM GR!iLa.OT, AND KANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT.

Case. No. _

K.S.A. Chapter 60
 CLASS ACTION PETITION AGAINST CORPORATED AND
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
RELIEF ACCORDANCE 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 of 15
 [:>eA(b ~.+
A8
IN THE DISTRICT COLRT OF CRAWFORD COt:NTY, KANSAS

ERIC l\I. MLATHE, et al.,

FH~J:O
Plaintiff. )
)
VS. '16 JUN)5 Al{Ci* .:\0. 15-CV-79P
)
HONORABLE KURTIS LOY, et al., J_,~..
Cb~~t)F~~~D:
;'"
Defendants. )
'; r __ ._-r) ---

JOURNAL El'TRY DISMISSr~G CASE

AND
IMPOSING FILING RESTRICTIONS

Now on this 18th day of April, 2016, this matter comes before the Court on all pending

motions.

Defendants Kurtis Loy, Andrew J. Wachter, Robert J. Fleming, Lori fleming, Jeffry L.

Jack, Oliver Kent Lynch (District Coun Judges for the Eleventh Judicial District), Janice D.

Russell, Richard M. Smith, John E. Sanders (Senior District Court Judges), Stanton A. Hazlett

(Disciplinary Administrat-or), 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 not appear. The Court finds that Plaintiffs were given adequate and proper

notice of this hearing, with notice served February 24, 2016. with said Notice 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, individually and collectively, are enjoined and may not,
proceeding pro se, me 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 ofthe 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, proceediugpro 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 indhidually 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 pennon. The application shall be delivered to the Chief
Judge of the judicial district or such judge as shall be legally designated
to conduct such review and shall include:

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

restrictions,
b. !! 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 duplicatlve, 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
 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 shan be required to
respond to anything filed by Pro Se Litigants unless a court of
competent jurisdiction has approved the petition or pleading for
flllng 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 tiling restrictions become effective as of the date Defendants moo this
Motion for Sanctions on September 28, 2015. All 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.

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

copy of this order on th~ 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~~k Bun', Senior District Judge (assigned)

 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. Box 350, Mound City, Ks 66056

I would like to make a complaint against Richard M. Smith for failing to foilow Supreme Court
rule 6018 Relating To Judicial Conduct Canon 3. Rule 3.15(B) (2013 Kan. Ct. R Annat 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 vioiate Ruie 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 Judiciai 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

Quaiificatlons. 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 responslble".

I also feel that since his financial disclosure report was not filled out by April 15, 2015 and that

he did not have "SUBJECT MA TIER 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-77 which says "Judge may serve as elder of church as long as judge

does not solicit funds. Canon 4C(4)(b)." How does this not relate to Judge Richard Smith filing on May
13,2014 on his financial disclosure report that he is with the "business/organization/entity as Mound
City Christian Church where he holds the position as "Trustee". The first time he mentions this posltlon
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 Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges COMMHn"(l) where religious
and charitable organizations are mentioned. Since he failed to mention his position as trustee on the
2014 financial disclosure he might have failed to properly show expenses since he did not file these on
time by April 15; 2015 which was tax day. This also violates Rule 3.15(A)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(B) Reporting
Requirements

!t would also seem to be a violation of the ethic code that he is with "tlnn County Community
Foundation" as a Board member/Secretary and he is also with the Kansas Sentencing Commission where
he holds the position of Chairman/Board Member. He falls 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
Kansas Sentencing 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}(1)(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) because the 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 referrats 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 "tlnn County Community

Foundation" as a Board member/Secretary and also with the Kansas Sentencing Commission where he
holds the position of Chairman/Board Member. This would also seem to be the same thing as JE
 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 JEOpinion 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 "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 fundralsing purposes. Canon 4C(4), In 2007 JE-152 says "A judge 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 legaf 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(8) because it seems he

also violated Rule 3.15(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 80x 101
1(
Opolis Kansas 66760
 j,tate of 1!ansas

~-
~ommisgion on ~ ubi rial ~ualifi(ation9'
KANSAS JUDICIAL 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
Opolis, Kansas 66760
Judge Member

VICE-CHAIR: Re: Your complaint against District Judge Kurtis 1. Loy, Chief Judge A. J.
·er6if
'-};-f/'i..
Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming, District Judge Robert J.
Fleming, District Judg~}e.ff.ry L. Jack, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
Nancy S. Anstaett
. ·L~i~~'f~Sliii11r; and Senior Judge John E. Sanders
Lawyer Member
Dear Mr. King: ,
James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member The Commission met December 4, 2015, at which time the above-captioned
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
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
 AE
~-
Qtommission on jf ubidal @uaIi-fications
KANSAS JuorCIALCENTER
301 SW TENTH AVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KAi'1SAS 66612
785-296-2913
CHAIR: judiciaJqual@kscourts.org
Mary B. Thrower
Judge Member

VICE-CHAIR: •
November 23,2015
Nicholas M. St. Peter
Judge-Member

Nancy S. Anstaett KaseyKiug

Lawyer Member
P. O. Box 101
Brenda M. Cameron Opolis, Kansas 66760
Judge Member
Re: Your complaint against District Judge Robert W. Fairchild,
James S. Cooper'
District Judge Jeffry 1. Jack, District Judge Kurtis I. Loy,
Non-Lawyer Member
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 Qualificatio~~ 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 J. 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

Rep. Valdenia C. Winn

Nori::Lawyer Member

SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith
mm
 ••

gs,tate of 1!ansas ifF

~-
~ommi~£1ionon jJubicial ~ualification~
KA ...
"l'SAS JUDICIAL CENTER
301 SWTENTH AVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org

MEMBERS OF December 22, 2015

PANEL A

CHAIR: Kasey King

Mary B. Thrower
P. O. Box 101
Judge Member
Opolis, Kansas 66760
VICE-CHAIR:
Re: Your complaint against District Judge Kurtis 1. Loy, Chief Judge A. 1.
Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming, District Judge Robert 1.
Fleming, District Judge Jeffry L. Jack, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
:...- ...
:~"'B~1it. and Senior Judge John E. Sanders

James S. Cooper Dear Mr. King:

Non-Lawyer Member
The Commission met December 4, 2015, at which time the above-captioned
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

Rep. Valdenia C. Winn

Thank you for your continuing patience as the Commission does its work.
Lay Member
Sincerely,

SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith

Heather L. Smith,
Secretary

mm
 ~tate of 1Ransas

~-
<Commission on ~ubicial ~ualification5
KA"ISAS JUDICIAL CENTER
301 SWTENTH AVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org

December 22, 2015

MEMBERS OF
PANEL A Kasey King
P. O. Box 101
Opolis, Kansas 66760
CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Re: Your complaint against District Judge Robert W. Fairchild,
Judge Member
District Judge Jeffry L. Jack, District Judge Kurtis 1. Loy,
Chief Judge A. J. Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming,
District Judge Robert J. Fleming, District Judge Oliver K. Lynch,
Senior Judge Janice D. Russell, ., 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
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
agenda.
Norman R. K~lIy
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
 ~tate of 1Sau1)t1s

•
<!tOlnnlh~~ionon 3'Jubinal ~ttaltfitation~
K\NS:\SJUDlCI.\L CL~TEH
301 SW TENTH AVE., ROOM 374
TOPEK.\, K..\~S,\S 66612 '
785·296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org

MEMBERS OF .Febrnary 23,2016

PANEL A

CIWR:
Kasey King
':\lary B. Thrower
Judge ~Iember P. O. Box 101
Opolis, Kansas 66760
VICE-CHAIR:
Brenda M. Came.t:0n
Re: Your complaint against District J~-Robert.W. Fairchild,
JUdge i\'fember
District Judge Jeffry L. Jack, District Judge Kurtis L Loy,
Nancy S. Ansraerr Chief Judge A. 1. 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
Senior Judge John E. Sanders
Non-Lawyer Member

RohettW.~ Dear Mr. King:

Judge Member
The Commission met February 5, 2016, at which time the above-captioned
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member complaint was listed on the meeting agenda. The matter was, however, continued due
to alack of quorum as Judge Cameron and Judge Fairchild recused. The matter will
Rep. Valdenia C. W'inn be placed on the Commission's April l, 2016, meeting agenda.
Lay Member
Thank you for your continued patience as the Commission does its work.
ACTING SECRETARY:
Douglas 1'. Shima Cordially,

Douglas T. Shima,
:;~
~
Acting S cretary

rnm
 i>tate of iftanSCll1

~-
~otnmisston on 1fubitial <latudifications
KANSAS JUDICL\L CENTER
301 SW TENTH AVE., ROOt>.f374
TOVEK,\, KA"'SAS 66612
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org

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 1. Loy, Chief Judge A. J.
Nancy S. Anstaerr Wachter, District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming, District Judge Robert J.
Lawyer Member Fleming, District Judge Jeffry L. 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
complaint was listed on the meeting agenda. The matter was, however, continued due
Norman R. Kelly
Lawyer Member
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. Winn
Lay Member Thank you for your continued patience as the Commission does its work.

ACTING SECRETARY: Cordially,

Douglas 1'. Shima

nun
 \."..,
••
~~=:~-!.

QConnnt~!iiolton 3TubidaI aualifications

K.-\~SAS ]CDIClAL CENTER
301 SW TENTHAVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, M"'IJSAS 66612
785~296-2913
judicialquaJ@kscourts.org

MEMBERS OF November 13, 2017

PANEL A

Fred Grable
CHAIR:
Brenda )1. Cameron
P. O. Box 101
.Tudge ;'Iember Opolis, Kansas 66760

VICE-CHAIR: Re: Docket No. 1331, In the Matter of A. J. Wachter

James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer :\lember
Dear Mr. Grable:
Terrence J. Campbell
Lawyer Xlember 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 WI. Fairchild
order of cease and desist regarding delay.
Judge Member

Norman R. Kelly The Commission's findings and conclusions are proposed findings and
Lawyer )'lember conclusions. Judge Wachter, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 61 I~has 20 days
after service of the order to either accept or refuse the order. If accepted, they become
:\Iary B. Thrower
Judge :'Iember
the Commission's findings and conclusions. If rejected, they will have no effect and a
:\ otice of Fonnal Proceedings will be filed.
Rep. \ "aldenia C. \'{'inn
Xon-Lawver :\lember 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.

~~!.~
Secretary
 ~-
~Omtnig'5ion on 31ttbicial ~ualifi[ation~
KANSAS JUDICIAL CENTER
301 SW TENTH A VE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org

MEMBERS OF :.;ovember 13, 2017

PANEL A
Thomas Walters
CHAIR:
213 E. Carlton
Brenda ::"1.Cameron
J udge ~lembe1: Pittsburg, Kansas 66762

VICE~CHAIR; Re: Docket No. 1332, In the Matter of A. J. Wachter

James S. Cooper
Non-Lawyer Member
Dear Mr. Walters:
Terrence J. Campbell
Lawyer )'lember The Commission met October
considered.
Robert \'i;r. Fairchild
.T udge ~retnber

x orman R. Kelly 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
Mary B. Thrower
the Commission's findings and conclusions. If rejected, they will have no effect and a
Judge Member
Notice of FormalProceedings will be filed.
Rep. Valdenia C. \Y'tpn
~on-Lawyer Member 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

mm
 ~tate of 1!ansas
ilL
~-
(!Commigsion on 31ubitial ~uahficatiJ)n5
KANSAS JUDICIAL CENTER
301 SW TENTH AVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KANSAS 666 J 2
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org

MEMBERS OF November 28, 2017

PANEL A

Julie Stover-King
CHAIR:
303 S. Jefferson
Brenda M. Cameron
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]. 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
] udge 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. Vaiderua C. Winrr 1J~ {,)) ....
A._~
Non-Lawyer Member Douglas 7l. Shima, L/
Secretary
SECRETARY:
Douglas T. Shima mm
 r THE DISTRICT COURT OF CR.I.\. WFOl<.D COUNTY, K -\~SAS

Wilmington Trust, National Association, )

as Successor Trustee to Citibank; N.A., )
CIS Trustee jor Structured Asset Mortgage )
Investments II Inc. Bear Stearns ARlvf • .-
Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate},:l
Series 2007-4,

vs.
:~~- ..•... -------..)~.-
Eric 1\11 Muathe, GB Home Equity, LLe, )
Citibdortgage, Inc., Mortgage Electronic )
Registration System. Inc. as nominee for )
GB Home Equity, LLC, Unknown Spouse of )
Eric Mauthe, Unknown Occupant, )
Do{imd&J71ts. )

ORDER

On June 1ih, 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
die assigned judge, 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 disqualif~d me based
on defendant's K.S.A. 20-311d(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 24th. 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 rr; 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 1011\ 2015. Because Judge Lynch disqualified me from this
case in September 0[2014, e~el1though I am Chief Judge of the 11tit Judicial District, l~
reluctant to rule on the defendant's current pending 20-311d(b) motion to disqualify Judge
Sinith. Accordingly, pursuant to 20·311 d(b) I refer defendant's motion and affidavit to the
Honorable Daniel Creitz, Chief Judge of the 31st Judicial District for determination of the legal
sufficiency "at defendant's affidavit.
 A.J. Wachter
District Judge

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
I hereby 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
parties on the \\ day of L>Q£exY\l,Qq 12 _,2015.
 FILED
13 S£P2] All:04
IN TIlE msrnrcr COURT OF SIf4~~WY, KANSAS·
SITTING AT'm~utH y
ty ~_..._.
FIFTII THIRD BANK. )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 2012-LM-356 P
)
)
BRICM.WArnE, )
Defendant. )
)

ORDER

The defendant hereln filed a monon for recusaJ and affidavit in support thereof

seeking recusal of the Hon. A. J. Wachter. The case has been transferred to this court for

consideration.

At the heart of the defendant's request is the earlier tiling of a small claims suit

with this defendant as pIainlifflUld Judge Wachter as dcf~t, being case number 2010

SC J39P. His lesal basis derives from the reousal procedwe set out in K.S.A. 20-311d.

While he cites several of the "Rules Relating to Judicial CondU' being Rules 1.1, 2.1,

ii1d 2.3 whic.1t are witl!i.n Suplllme Court Rule 6OlB, the more reIeVlllltrule is 2.11 (A):
~
..li A judge sball disqualify hiJnseif or neuelf in iiity pro:...aeding in wl!!ch the
7f judge's impllTliality might reasonabJy be questioned ••.

As Judge Wachter indicated on the record in the proceedings of June 2S, 2013,

herein. he is satisfied that he can put &aideany prejudic:e he may feel for the defendant
 6?< h:)(:1\ "I

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

argwnents he may have bad. Judge Wachter then .fairly applied the law and rendered

appropriate rulings.

The standanI of review orndinas on disqualification of a judge me stated in Smith

v. Printup. 262 KaD. 587. 1997, at 8yL 8:

I The standard to be applied to a charge of Jaclc of impartiality is whether

,
I
I
the charge is grounded in facts that would ~te reasonable doubt
I concerning the court's kupartiality, not in the mind of the cOlll't itse~ or
I even neccsaarily in the miDd of the litigant tiling the motion. but rather in
I the mind ofa reasonable person with knowledge oftbe c~es.

This court is satisfied ihit 6ju.'iJt of .fudge Wachter's experience can easily put

aside any prejudice he may have against the defendant and decide the case only on the

Jaw ~ the evidence. This court is satisfied that it could do the same Wlder similar

circumstances. This court is satisfied that most if not all lawyers who pr=:tice befure

Judge Wachter would be $atisfied of the same.

HO'P.ev!l!!". Judge Wachter's or this court's satist'aclion amt he could rule

impartially does n01 ~ive ta\c ease. 1"M issue is the appt:el/UICC to a "reasollllbJe

person witb knowledge of all of the clrc:ums1aDces". Such a person might weU question

the ability of a judge to be impartial under the circumstances.