Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Case Numbers: 13CV32P Wells Fargo Bank N.A., vs.Iulie Brunskill and 2014 CV 86P
Wilmington Trust N.A., vs. Eric M. Muathe 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.
I just got done reading the transcript from the (TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL
CONFERENCES) that was held on 4-2-2019 at 10:00 a.m. in case number 13CV32P Wells
Fargo vs. Julie Brunskill and Judge Richard Smith says on page (6) of the court transcript
that "I until late yesterday 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 OFA
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 have made the trial on 4-
2-19 to a final pre-trial conference and continued the trial for at least two weeks to comply
with Supreme Court Rule 140(a) Timing. A final pretrial conference under K.S.A.60-216(e)
may be held when discovery is complete. The parties must be prepared to complete the
procedural steps stated in subsection (c). If a final pretrial conference is held, it must be
held at least 14 days before trial.
Ijwe cannot believe that this judge just called everyone that has ever represented
themselves Pro Se or have been to small claims court in Kansas a FOOL!!!! On page 15 of
the court transcript he states "I reiterate they have a constitutional right to represent
themselves but Ijust 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 LA WYER and a CLIENT and that
there's a REASON FOR THAT EXPRESSION because I even recommend that lawyers not
represent themselves in Court. etc .. etc.".
I think that the Senior judge Smith needs to (PERMANENTLY RETIRE) and quit accepting
judicial assignments because he is BIASED AND 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".
How can a judge be objective and open minded when he already 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 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.
Judge Smith then goes on to state on page (4) and (5) of the court transcript that" one of the
other issues was that apparently in a pleading the defendant makes some remark about how I
admonished her and the context in which she states it makes it seem quite critical and
negative".
The admonishment was negative and it was in the court order from the March 24 and 25
2019 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 "actually, the admonishment, apparently whether or not I ever gave it is
not the issue.
Are you kidding me???? What judge would think the fact that he admonished someone in a
court order for not having counsel would not be an 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 ofmv cases either did or did not suggest to her that it was not wise for anyone to
ever represent themselves in Court. particularlv someone who is not an attorney. and I made a
remark about that admonishment in a prior order. she claims I never told her that".
He states in page (5) "1would defer to her memory, if[ didn't actuallvsuggest like I do in
99.99 percent of my cases with pro se litigants that it is usually frowned upon as prudent and
wise for someone to represent themselves. II
Judge Richard Smith never suggested to me that it is usuallyfrowned upon as prudent and
wise for someone to represent themselves" in my case of 2014 CV 86P Wilmington Trust N.A.,
vs. Eric M. Muathe.
I must have been that .00001 percent that he forgot to suggest that too when I filed my
motion for change of judge with affidavit against him and a mandamus with the Supreme
Court (ERIC M. MUATHE PETITIONER, V. RICHARD SMITH, SENIORJUDGE RESPONDENT-
J J
Kansas Supreme Court Case NO. 120296) that he is talking about or he is talking about the
music group with Diana Ross and Donna Summer (THE SUPREMES)!! Only an unethical
and disrespectful judge calls the Kansas Supreme Court "THE SUPREMES".
Does he think it's unwise for parties to represent themselves in Small Claims Court in
Kansas because attorneys are not allowed?
How could Julie Stover-King 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 for not having counsel in a court order but won't admit it?
Judge Richard Smith has not used (ANY CAUTION) let alone (AN ABUNDANCE OF
CAUTION) because ifhe used AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION he would have
RECUSEDjDISQUALIFED himself from this case under Rule 2.11(A) for not being able to be
impartial because he is prejudiced against all Pro Se litigants because he considers them to
be FOOLS!!
He goes on to state on page (6) of the court transcript that "1just want the record to reflect
that if there are any representations to anything being said other than what 1just reiterated
they're a lie and I'm going to call it what they are because this case is frankly getting a little
out ofcontrol and I think anybody could see that from the raft o/motions."
This case was out of control from the start and that is why there is a judge who received a
private cease and desist named AJ. Wachter, another judge Daniel Creitz who seems to be
the only one who is (ETHICAL AND FOLLOWS RULE 2.11(A) DISQUALIFICATION), because
he recusedj 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 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 an ethic complaint against him in May of
2018 with the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications because she and I had
previously sued judge Smith in a class action suit in the case of Eric Muathe, et at vs.
Honorable Kurtis Loy, et al in 15cv79p in Crawford County where I received filing
restrictions along with her husband Kasey King and apparently he thinks we are all FOOLS
because we filed the case Pro Se.
Judge Smith goes on to show how unethical, dishonest, and deceiving he is when he states
on page (7) of the court transcript that "I 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 o/someone else.
I'm not sure who that is because actually I'm doing this/or her convenience so that her
motions can be thoroughly considered and I reiterated that fact 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. II
Who is Judge Smith trying to fool??? Julie Stover-King because he thinks all Pro Se litigants
are fools???
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 clearly 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. Judge Smith showed how incompetent he is by scheduling a pre-trial conference
on 4-2-19 at 10:00 a.m. the same day as the bench trial at 1:15 p.m. on 4-2-19.
Only a judge who is clearly biased, prejudiced, and completely incompetent would file a
pre-trial conference with only (1) day notice on the same day as trial. He knew he was
going to deny Miss Stover-King all her motions at the pre-trial conference and that he
would have trial NOMATTERWHAT!
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 has to do
with apparentlv a petition in the form ola writ of mandamus which I have to presume-I
haven't seen this yet because. I believe. I'm the defendant and it's my understanding that
service of process was issued to Lynn County. /I
He goes on to show how unethical he is by making a little cute remark 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 sheriffanv dav now but it is a reference to a new case. 19CV43P. and she's asking for a
stay because of that writ of mandamus action. /I
The statement that "I'm looking forward 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 Pro Se litigant to create a new case of 19CV43P when he simply
should have done what Judge Daniel Creitz did and follow KS.A. 20-311d change of judge
procedure and Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification ofthe code of judicial conduct.
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 him 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 me Eric Muathe
who was a co-plaintiff in case number 15CV79P where Judge Smith was a defendant and I
received filing restrictions along with Julie Stover-King's husband Kasey King from the
request of the defendants (including judge Richard Smith) 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 have a - Miss Stover-King
seems to be for whatever reason following the footsteps of another litigant I have in another
proceeding and this reads very similar to and I'm assuming the mandamus petition is
probablv very similar to the one Mr. Muathe filed actually in the Supreme Court. not her. so I
didn't have to deal with it directlv. but I'm going to presume it's kind oflike that one. And, in
,fact. maybe it is an original action before the supremes, I don't know, I haven't seen it vet. but
I'm going to deny the request to stay proceedings and it says possibly consolidate. There will
be no order o/consolidation with this purported mandamus that's been filed against me. /I
Judge Smith is clearly irritated with me or he would not make a public statement on a court
of record comparing a petition filed by Julie Stover-King to the mandamus that I filed with
according to him "THE SUPREMES" 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 he did.
He is mad that I filed a mandamus against him with The Kansas Supreme Court not "THE
SUPREMES"in case he forgot and he is using myself as an example as he smirks and makes
smirk remarks 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 because Julie Stover-King filed a mandamus a~ainst him in district court and mine
was filed with The Kansas Supreme Court which he has gave the inappropriate and
demeaning nickname of 1fTHE SUPREMES".
That is why he should have used (AN ABUNDANCEOF AUTION) like Judge Daniel Creitz
did and simply follow Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification of he code of judicial conduct and
disqualify himselffrom this case and he should have di qualified himself from my case as
well in 2014 CV86P Wilmington Trust N.A., vs. Eric M. uathe.
The fact that Julie Stover-King is Pro Se and Pro Se liti nts are held to lesser standards and
the court case of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 st tes this. "[P]ro se pleadings are to
be liberally construed to give effect to their content ra er than adhering to any labels and
forms used to articulate the pro se litigant's argument ". State v. Kelly, 291 Kan. 563, 565-
66,244 P.3d 639 (2010). The fact that Judge Smith wa not competent enough to sign a
court order from a December 11, 2018 hearing when e says that Discovery cutoff has to be
completed by January 11, 2019 even though he didn't ven sign the order until January 15,
2019 shows how incompetent and unprepared he has een and is a violation of Rule 2.5
Competence, Diligent, and Cooperation.
Judge Smith then goes on to read on the court record 0 page (13) line 6 about "the
defendant's cavalier attitude", and mentions it again 0 line 16-17 when he reads "had the
nerve to state in his record the defendant's cavalier a tude regarding the upcoming trial
and her decisions to engage in other activities rather t an trial preparation concerned the
court greatly from the standpoint that it appears she f ils to understand the severity of the
circumstances re-enforcing the courts prior admonitio that she would be better off
represented by counsel." He then reads on line 24 "th definition of caviler is arrogant and
defendant is not arrogant. Defendant was never admo ished at the December 11, 2018,
status hearin IIwhich I think I've alread addressed h t because I t ink tha 's true b t he
oe on to sa If'ud e Smith has also barred de endant om discove because he sa s
defendant was supposed to have it completed. II
Judge Smith just read on the record on the court recor of page (13) and (14) all the issues
that Miss Stover- King had with him calling her cavalie and admonishing her and he never
says he's sorry for his inappropriate comments or the fact that he admonished her in a
court order for not having counsel but really never even admonished her.
Instead he makes absolutely no reference at all to the comment of (cavalier) and the only
reference he makes to the admonishment of her 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 [think I've alreadv addressed that
because I think that's true but she goes on to say,
If.
He won't even admit for sure if he did admonish her or not as he says Ifwhich[think" I've
already addressed that because [ think that's true but she goes on to say".
Does he not know ifhe admonished her or not?? Ifhe think's he admitted he didn't
admonish her then why doesn't he go modify or alter the court order from the March 24, 25
hearing which says she was admonished for not having counsel.
He 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 ofmissing the point that the order was effective when I entered it
from the bench but, ] mean, that's a whole other question that [ don't need to get into."
Judge Smith did not follow Kansas Supreme Court Rule 170 and K.S.A.60-258 Entry of
Judgment which states that nothing is effective until it is signed by the judge.
Why doesn't he admit like an honorable judge should and admit he made mistakes, did not
comply with Rule 170, K.S.A.60-258, and did not admonish her 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 had a Freudian Slip against Miss Stover-King because he thinks she is
a FOOLbecause she is Pro Se and 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, which is (ME) (Mr. Eric Muathe) who he had the nerve to
reference in this case!!!!!!
Judge Smith goes on to show how he doesn't use any (ABUNDANCEOF CAUTION)on page
(15) line 12-25 when he says "l don't know why she would have been terrified of me, ] think
the statement that she has reasons to be afraid of me would run contrary to everything 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 friendly and kind oUoking around
about some ofthe stuffshe put in the motion about me. And [was complementing her for
digging that information up because it was accurate because] am an elder ofthe church or]
.
was until recentlv so. ] mean, it was an interesting thing but] did not have a problem with any
.
of that,"
Why is Judge Smith violating Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment again by attempting
humor with Miss Stover-King off the record?? What could possibly be funny about
someone putting the reasons that she thinks she has conflicts of interest with the judge
about as funny? Why would Miss Stover-King think that Judge Richard Smith was funny at
an since he got filing restrictions against her husband- Kasey King and myself (ERIC
MUATHE) in case number 15CV79P?
1don't think Miss Stover-King made an ethic complaint against Iudge Richard Smith in May
of 2018 with The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications against him because she
thought that judge Ri-chard Smith was- "nothing but friendly to her and they had kind of
been joking around"! He retaliated against her for that ethic complaint she filed in May of
2018 which violates Rule 2.16 Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities.
The attorney Tarpley then states how unethicalludge Smith is on page (16)line 6-19 when
she says "your honor, I don't remember honestly you ever admonishing her."
That's because he didn't admonish her at the December 11,2018 hearing, he just retaliated
against her violated Rule 2.16 Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities and put it in a
court order from the March 24, 25 2019 hearing and has never modified or amended the
order.
Judge Smith then states on page (17) line 3-5 that "on the record she had the opportunity to
be here, sorry I hadyou here so early, counsel. I really thought she would come and argue
these motions."
Judge Smith knew that Miss Stover-King was not going to come argue the motions at 10:00
a.m. because she told him that in the email that she could only be there at 1:15 because his
hearing at 10:00 a.m. did not comply with court rules.
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, and he uses me as an example
referencing a mandamus I filed with "THE SUPREMES" and calls me a "FOOL" because I
represent myself Pro Se.
Please investigate this matter and give judge Smith 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 all Pro Se litigants are FOOLS. He
showed he is not honorable as he never would never actually admit on the court transcript
ifhe ever admonished Julie Stover-King or not. He said he thinks he addressed that and he
thinks it's true what shesaysbut-does he say "yes it's true J made a mistake and
admonished her when she really wasn't admonished and Iwill have to amend the court
order from the March 24~25 2019 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 thinks' he is using an abundance of caution.
I have included the definition of ,'FOUL" which says "a person without good sense or
judgment". The definition of "FOOLISH" is "showing or resulting from lack of good sense".
Judge Smith should not hear any Pro Secases when he states (WITH VAUDATtON) on
record that only a fool represents themselves.
Thanks
Sincerely,
-.I1J0 NW~
Eric Muathe
1410 Bitner Terrace
Pittsburg, KS66762
4/29/2019 Clerk of the Appellate Courts· Case Search Result
13-NOV- I
I CLERK NOTE WITH DOCUMENT(S) I-Notice to all parties.
18
li~-NOV- I CLERK NOTE WITHOUT DOCUMENT ICD FROM PETITIONER IN CLERKS HOLD FILE
113-NOV- ] PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ERIC M. MUATHE
18 1....-. .
;,-,.! .
.PAIDIN;PULL
1
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
,
{
, 25 Kansas, on the 2nd day of April, 2019.
L·
2
2 APPEARANCES:
8 not.
10
11
12
13
{
14
"-
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~,
3
1 APRIL 2, 2019
5 the record.
13 this case or maybe even was part of this case, I'm not
.
( 14 sure.
23 then.
6 did or did not suggest to her that it was not wise for
19 that.
22 conference.
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
18 accordingly.
18 mandamus action.
'"--
10
7 later today.
12 way but there's a lot of stuff in. here about the loan
7 the Court.
9 that.
23 The fact that the Court did not sign the order is
12 Court until January 15th which was after the cut off
18 speaks to that.
12 to get into.
5 that?
19 pro se defendants.
23 those.
•
18
1 pleadings.
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
16 Crawford.
23
/s/ Janet VanLeeuwen
24 JANET VANLEEUWEN, CSR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
25 Supreme Court #0854
{