10-10-15

Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

301 S.W. 10th avenue

Topeka Ks 66612

Re: 15CV04G,15CV79P, 15CR46-G, and 15CV79P in Crawford County

THIS COMPLAINT IS AGAINST lITH DISTRICT JUDGES, LOY,

WACHTER, Lori Bolton- FLEMING, Robert FLEMING, JACK, LYNCH,

RUSSELL, SMITH, SANDERS, HAZLETT, GRILLOT, AND SCHMIDT for

retaliation and requesting Sanctions against people that filed a class action

injunction petition in case number 15CV79P.

THIS COMPLAINT IS FOR RETALIATION UNDER CODE OF JUDICIAL

CONDUCT RULE Cooperation With Disciplinary Authorities 2.16(A)~P)(C), K.S.A.
60-311e, Supreme Court Rule 223 Immunity, Rule 2.7 Responsibility to Decide and
Rule 2.11(A) Disqualification, and K.S.A. 60-1202(1) Usurpation of Office

I have made several complaints with your organization because the 11th judicial
district down here has been cheating people but within the last (2) years
information has been revealed about numerous conflicts of interest between chief
judge A.J. Wachter and practically every attorney and judge in town!!! Travis
Carlton got cheated on October 5,2015 because he had signed a grand jury petition
against judge Wachter in case number 2015MR2P and sued him as a class-action in
2015CV79P where he filed for sanctions against Travis on September ofi 2015 prior
to October 5, 2015. Judge Robert Fleming's daughter in law Lori Fleming is
docketed in The Matter of Lori Fleming docket number 1269. There was no video of
the traffic stop in this case and there were two witnesses that testified\ that Mr.
Carlton did not drive the vehicle in question, only one police officer te~tified at the
stop, and "THERE WAS NO VIDEO OF THE STOP WHICH ACTUALLY WOULD
HAVE HELPED MR. CARLTON' and Judge Wachter ruled against Mr. Carlton.
It's one thing to cheat a guy in court but at least give him the appearance that it's
fair. Robert Fleming retaliated against Mr. Carlton as well in this case since he
signed a "motion for change of judge affidavit" that allowed Judge Wachter to stay
in this case even after his daughter-in-law Lori-Bolton-Fleming had already
"RECUSED" from the same case. This is an "EXTREMELY SERIOUS.
SITUATION' because now that Mr. Carlton lost his administrative DU! appeal in
case number 2015CV04G city of Pittsburg prosecuting attorney John Mazurek! city
judge of Cherokee has now retaliated under 2.16(B) and KRPC Rule 223 Immunity
by filing charges for a 2nd Dl.Il on October 9, 2015 and the case was already
previously "DISMISSED" by John Mazurek back on September 17, of ~014 in case
number docket number C14001832 and citation number K12965 where he had
court-appointed attorney Stephen Angermayer. How does this not pertain to The
Judicial Code of Conduct and K.S.A. 20-311d(b) and the court case of "ST. David's
Episcopal Church v. Westboro Baptist Church, Inc., 22 Kan. App. 2d 537,556,921
P. 2d 821 (1996). "Where a judge had signed a petition opposing picketing of
funerals, the appeals court removed her from a case in which the picketers were a
defendant and that it created a conflict between the judge and attorneys in that
case. According to K.S.A. 20-311d "Change of Judge" and Rule 2.11W
"Disqualification" "a Judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in
which the Judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned".

I went to court with Travis that day to watch the case because I know how Judge
Wachter likes to not have a transcript and then call people names and insult them
like he did to me in my divorce case in 2013 when I made a complaint on him and he
was given informal advice and used as an example by the Kansas Com~ission on
Judicial Qualifications. I have included the "ADVISORY EXAMPLE" from 2013 to
show that Judge A.J. Wachter has a history of inappropriate behavior.

The judges in the case of 15CV04G A.J. Wachter, Robert Fleming, recused judge
Lori Fleming, and the attorney Ted Smith then retaliated against Travis Carlton
which violates Rule 2.16(A)(B)(C) and Supreme Court Rule 223 Immunity because
he had filed ethic complaints previously on all 4 people so they had attorney John
Mazurek re-open case number C14001832 that was closed and dismissed over a
year ago on September 17, 2014 and there is no more evidence now than they had
before and Lori Bolton- Fleming is docketed in Travis Carlton's com~!aint in the
matter of Lori Bolton-Fleming 1269!!!!

John Mazurek did this is because his wife Dianne Mazurek is a Eucharistic
minister at the Ladv of Lourdes church with Robert Fleming. Lori FlellJing. Peggy
Fleming and this is a retah"ation and violation of Supreme Court Rule 2.P3
Immunitv. By trying to re-open this case John Mazurek has now violated KRPC
Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims And Contentions "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a
proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing
so that is not frivolous which includes a good faith argument for an extension,
modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in.a criminal
proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration,
may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the
case be established". John Mazurek is the city judge of Columbus and the head of
"KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS" and his religious relationship with the Fleming's and
Wachters at Lady of Lourdes Church violates Canon 3, Rule 3.7(A) Participation in
Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal, or Civic Organizations and Activities
says that "Subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1, a Judge may participate in
activities, sponsored by organizations or governmental entities concerned with the
law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, and those sponsored by or on
behalf of educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations not
conducted for profit, including but not limited to the following activities'(z)
soliciting contributions for such an organization or entity, but only from members of
the Judge's family ... "

If Judge Wachter had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear case number?015CV04G

then why isn't he the judge in the class-action injunctive petition in case number
2015CV79P? What's the difference? Judge Wachter or Robert Fleming might as
well be the judge in our class action case number 2015CV79P if they can hear other
cases of parties that sued them in case number 2015CV79P and the case is not even
over.

Judge Wachter has already failed to follow Rule 2. 12(A)(B) Supervisory Duties as he
continues to let Lori Fleming work as a judge under him without sanctioning her at
all or suspending her for sending the inappropriate e-mail to his brother attorney
Bill Wachter. A.J. Wachter should have done his own "IN HOUSE
INVESTIGATION" to see if the e-mail was sent and she should have admitted or
lied to A.J. Wachter over the email by now if there was a proper in house
investigation. Does A.J. Wachter think sending inappropriate e-mails from the 11th
district computer is ok and not a violation of the code of judicial conduct? He also
violated Rules of the 11th district assignment of cases as he assigned ca~e number
15CR46-G State of Kansas vs. Matthew Grotheer to Lori Bolton-Fleming and the
attorney is J. Gordon Gregory which was a conflict of interest. You can get away
with murder in this town as long as you have money just like Matthew Grotheer did
in case number 15CR46-G. This DUI thing is all messed up!!!! Travis Carlton was
not driving and there is no video of him driving and not one person wa~ injured.
Matthew Grotheer leaves the scene of an accident where they were in a BAR
drinking alcohol. He drives over my friend Steve Melton not once but twice and he
only gets 18 months probation and the DUI was "DISMISSED" how can that
be????????? It's very easy to figure out when J. Gordon Gregory is the attorney,
along with Michael Gayoso who was Lori Bolton-Fleming's band partner in "TEAM
JESUS" and Lori Bolton-Fleming's former law partner just in 2012 was none other
than J. Gordon Gregory!!!! I have included a picture of2012 Wilbert and Towner to
show this conflict of interest.

LOY, WACHTER, FLEMING, FLEMING, JACK, LYNCH, RUSSELL,

SMITH, SANDERS, HAZLETT, GRILLOT, AND SCHMIDT have all

retaliated by filing a motion for sanctions which violates Rule 2.16W(B)(C)

by requesting Sanctions against people that filed a class action injunction

petition in case number 15CV79P.

I used my constitutional right and signed a grand jury petition under

2015MR2P and class action injunction in case number 15CV79P. All the

above mentioned judges have an attorney Stephen Phillips who is retaliating

for his clients by asking for "SANCTIONS AND FILING RESTRICTIONS"

against people in case number 15CV79P.

Robert Fleming, A.J . Wachter, Lori Fleming and all of the 11th district judges

need a "CEASE AND DESIST' from hearing any case of anyone who signed

the petition against them as they will just retaliate like they did against

Travis Carlton in 15CV04G.

Please reprimand all of the above mentioned judges and attorney Stephen

Phillips for violation of Rule 2. 16(A)(B)(C) and Supreme Court Rule 223

Immunitvwhich says "Complaints, reports, or testimony in the course of

disciplinary proceedings under these Rules shall be deemed to be made in the

 course of judicial proceedings. All participants shall be entitled to judicial

imm unity and all rights. privileges and imm unities afforded public officials

and other participants in actions filed in the courts of this state'~

Please investigate the above mentioned issues and please issue "FORMAL
1
PROCEEDINGS" against the judges in the 11thjudicial district. What an

embarrassment it is for three (3) judges of the 11th district to all be docketed

at the same time. 1242 to 1285 in the matter of Lori Bolton- Fleming, 1286 in

the matter of Robert Fleming, and 1278 and 1279 in the matter Of Kurtis Loy.

I just can't figure out how A.J . Wachter is the chief judge and he has not been

docketed????? He has failed to obviously train his employees and has done a
I

horrible job in my opinion of supervising them according to Rule 2.12(A)(B).

P.S. I have been working on this complaint since October 10, 20..15five (5)

days after Mr. Carlton's hearing where he did not receive any due process in

15CV04G with A.J. Wachter as a judge since A.J. had filed motions for

sanctions against Travis.

Lester Moore ~.~

508 E. Viener, Lot Al

Frontenac, Ks 66763
 Crawford County Altercation Leads to
Hit and Run
Published 11/18201402:21 PM Updated 11/182014 02:33PM PITTSBURG, KS. --- Around
3:20am Sunday, November16, Crawford County Sheriffs Deputies were called to Lightning Creek
Restaurant and Bar at 134 S. US HWY in regards to a vehicle versus pedestrian accident in the
parking lot.

Authorities·says upon an investigation, Matthew Grotheer, 25, the driver of the vehicle involved got
into an altercation with Steven Melton, 45, of Pittsburg. Both parties were inside Grotheer's truck.
Reports indicated that the initial altercation ended and Melton was walking away from the truck
when Grotheer put the truck in reverses and accelerated toward Melton, runninq over him. Grotheer
then put the truck in drive and again struck Melton before leaving the scene.

Melton was transported by Crawford County EMS to Via Christi in Pittsburg with possible internal
injuries.

After the incident Grotheer later returned to the scene where he was placed into custody by law
enforcement and transported to the Crawford County Jail. He was booked for Aggravated Battery,
Aggravated Assault, Criminal Threat and Driving Under the Influence. Bond has been set for
$25,000.

The incident is still under investigation at this time.

Copyright 2015 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or
redistributed .

...., •...
Crawford County District Court, Search - Case Display

Case Number: 46

Case Year: 2015 Case UID: 2015-CR-000046-G

Case Type: CR Filed: 2015-04-30
Case Sub-type: Felony Last Updated: 2015-09-01 at 16:49:06
Advisement Date: Remand Date:
Appealed: N Appealed :Date:
Status Code: 2 Status Date: 2015-08-27
Status Description: Disposed

Defendants

Party

·IDefendant Number: 1 . .

Last Name (or Business Name): Grotheer

First Name: Matthew IMiddle: I ISufrtx:

Description

Sex: M Race: White

Height: 5 feet, 07 inches Weight: 180 pounds

.Adjudication 1

p.ttps:llwww.kansas.gov/countyCourts!searchlrecords?execution=els6
[112/2015 Office of Judicial Administration - Kansas District Court Records Search

Disposition

Disposition Date: 2015-08-27 Disposition Type:

Finding: Dismissal ~.

Indefinite Suspension Term: N Suspension Type: None

License Suspension Date: License Suspension Duration:
Sentencing Date: Sentencing Defer Date:
.•.
Modified: Sentence: N Modified Sentence Date:
Other Finding:

Defense Attorney
I ~
c //"[\ ,
( 'i Pol yeS
.
Last Name: Gregory
.-1-
l /-f "--"1 First: J Middle: Gordon V
Primary Attorney: Y Court Appointed: N Conflict Attorney: N ~ .:
Withdrawn: N SendNotices: Y
Practice or Office:

Registry of Actions

Action 1

(I
*
Action Date: 2014-11-21 IAction Type: BOND
Action Agent: Lori A Bolton Fleming v¥
Description: Bond received ~ $25,000 AGB Document ID number: 173226

Action 2

-~~ion Date: 2014-12-05 Action Type. EOA

~g~nt: Lori A Bolton Fleming
 FERN & ANGERMAYER, L.L.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

107 West Fourth Street

MARKE.FERN STEPHEN B. ANGERMAYER
P.O. BOX 686
mfem@femangermayer.com sangermayer@femangermayer.com
PITTSBURG, KANSAS 66762-0686
TELEPHONE (620) 231-7300
TELEFACSIMILE (620) 231-1033

September 18, 2014

Travis Carlton
1410 N Smelter
Pittsburg, KS 66762

RE: City of Pittsburg vs Travis Carlton

Docket Nos. C14001832

Dear Travis:

Enclosed with this correspondence is a copy of the Motion and Order to Dismiss
the referenced matter for your records.

Thank you for your attention to this.

Stephen B. Angermayer
Fern & Angermayer, LLC.

SBAgid
Ene.
 CITY OF PITTSBURG MUNICIPAL COURT
LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER
201 N. PINE, P.O. BOX 611
PITTSBURG, KANSAS 66762-0611

CITY OF PITTSBURG, KANSAS PLAINTIFF

Vs
DEFENDANT
CARLTON,TRA VIS RYMMER
c/o STEPHEN B. ANGERMAYER
PO BOX 686
PITTSBURG, KS 66762
DOCKET NO: C14001832
CITATION NO: K12965

MOTION TO DISMISS

The City of Pittsburg, Kansas, by and through its City Prosecutor moves for an
order from the Court dismissing this matter without prejudice.

D Proof Provided
DInsurance DRegistration ODrivers License DLamp DOther
D Diversion Completed
D Payment of Court Costs
DRequest by Victim
rgJ Other

Complainant

rov d~ .... .'

/ .,'
/ .'

, / /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Now, on the 17th day of September 2014 the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss is
hereby granted and this matter is dismissed without prejudice

ATTORNEY: ANGERMAYER,STEPHEN B
 ~..L "I .l..l..l.LI .1.Y.1.U.L"'I.1.,"-,~~ fU.J ,"-,VUl.'-.l. VI.' 1.I1D v1.l 1 vr
PITTSBURG, CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS
THE CITY OF PITTSBURG, KANSAS M C- MC42428X
-vS.-
CARLTON,TRAVIS
Docket No. ---------
1410 N SMELTER, PITTSBURG KS 66762

DOB/ OS/25/82 SEX! M RAC/ W

28TH JULy 14
The undersigned, complains that on or about the day of------------20 .
in the City of Pittsburg, Crawford County, State of Kansas, _TRA
__ V_I_S_C_ARL
__ T_O_N _
did th d th' 1 full commit the following violations while operating or attempting to operate a motor vehicle:
1 en an ere un aw y -------=------...:.....--:;;...--~---"--=---------
Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Drugs 2NDOffense: TRA VIS CARL TON OPERA TED A 1999

CADILLAC DISPLAYING KS PLATE 781FDL, UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL TO A DEGREE THAT

RENDERED HIM INCAPABLE OF SAFELY DRIVING A VEHICLE.

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 2NDOFFENSE IS A CLASS "A" VIOLATION

PLACE OCCURRED 300 E 15TH, PITTSBURG 1<.S TIME OCCURRED APPROX 2144

in violation of Ordinance No. G1149 30

------, Section,-----
Print Complaintant Name, Address & City
JOHN G. MAZUREK, PROSECUTOR'
201 N. PINE
PITTSBURG, KS 66762
Print Officer Name, Address & City
42 STEPHEN ARONHOLT
201 N Pine onze to ster oa s
Pittsburg. Kansas 66762 (* This complaint is not require 'RUSKiOK signed by
a law enforcement officer.) NotIry PubliC
NOTICE TO APPEAR
Stateof Ka~.
My Appt. ExP.'1jt 5
The Citv of Pittshurs. Kansas To The Above-Named 'Person.
You are hereby summoned to appear before the Municipal Court of Pittsburg, Kansas at 201 N. Pine on the 28TH
--.;;..,;;,...:;.,::~----

day of Oc:fi.bt:.v" ,20_1_5_ at ",16 o'clockpz;_m

__ m., to answer the above complaint. If you fail to appear
a warrant will be issued for your arrest.
RETURN
The undersigned hereby certifies that on the ---2.{-· __ day of IJ& 20 16" the complaint was.
V served, *mailed or delivered.

*
Address Mailed To
Law Enforcement Officer
or Municipal Court Clerk
P.P.D. Case No. P14003229
---~~--------
SUMMONS
 ~-
<!Commi~~ionon ~ ubitial <!aualifitation~
KANSASJUDICIAL CENTER
301 SWTENTHAVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612
.785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourls.org

MEMBERS OF
PANEL A August 28,2015

CHAlR:
Mary B. Thrower Travis Carlton
Judge Member
1410 N. Smelter
VICE-CHAIR:
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
Brenda M. Cam.eron
Lay Mexnber Re: Docket No. 1269, In the Matter of Lori A. Bolton Fleming

Nancy S. Anstaett Dear Mr. Carlton:

Lawyer Member
The Commission met August 7, 2015, at which time the above-captiom
Captain Jhn Cooper
complaint was considered. It was the decision of the Commission to docket yo
Non-Lawyer Mem.ber
complaint and make further inquiry. The matter will be placed on the Commissior
Robert W. Fairchild October 2,2015, meeting agenda.
Judge Member
Sincerely,
Donald F. Hofhnan
Lawyer Member

Rep. Valdenia C. Winn

Lay Mexnber
{:~;(Q.(
Secretary

SECRETARY: mm
Heather L. Sm.ith
 ~-
([ommigsion on 3f ubicial <lilualifications
KANSAS JUDICIAL CENTER
301 SWTENTHAvE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org

MEMBERS OF
PANEL A October 22,2015

CHAIR:
Mary B. Thrower
Kasey King
Judge Member
P. O. Box 101
VICE-CHAIR: Opolis, Kansas 66760
Brenda M. Cameron
Judge Member Re: Docket No. 1278, In the Matter of Kurtis 1. Loy
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member Dear Mr. King:

James S. Cooper The Commission met October 2, 2015, at which time the above-captioned
Non-Lawyer Member complaint was considered. It was the decision of the Commission to docket your
complaint and make further inquiry. The matter will be placed on the Commission's
Robert W. Fairchild
Judge Member December 4,2015, meeting agenda.

Norman R. Kelly Sincerely,

Lawyer Member

Rep. Valdenia C. Winn /!ttVMAL~

Lay Member
Heather L. Smith, (
Secretary
SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith
mm
 ~-
qcommission on 3Jutnnal ~ualifications
KANSAS JUDICIAL CENTER
301 SW TENTH AVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org

MEMBERS OF October 22,2015

PANEL A

CHAIR: Noah Day

Mary B. Thrower
P. O. Box 224
Judge Member
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
VICE-CHAIR:
Brenda M. Cameron Re: Docket No. 1285, In the Matter of Lori A. Bolton Fleming
Judge Member
Dear Mr. Day:
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member
The Commission met October 2, 2015, at which time the above-captioned
James S. Cooper complaint was considered.
Non-Lawyer Member
With regard to your complaint against Judge Fleming dated September 9, 2015,
Robert W. Fairchild
Judge Member it was the decision of the Commission to docket your complaint and make further
inquiry. The matter will be placed on the Commission's December 4, 2015, meeting
Norman R. Kelly agenda.
Lawyer Member
With regard to letter dated September 22, 2015, please be advised the
Rep. Valdenia C. Winn
Lay Member Commission does not get involved in the merits of pending litigation.

Sincerely,
SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith
IIt~L~
Heather L. Smith, (
Secretary

mm
 ~tate of 1!ansas

~-
([ommission on 3J tibicial <!aualifications
KANSAS JUDICIAL CENTER
301 SW TENTH AVE., ROOM 374
TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourts.org

MEMBERS OF October 22,2015

PANEL A

CHAIR: James Beckley, Jr.

Mary B. Thrower
302 W. McKay
Judge Member
Frontenac, Kansas 66763
VICE-CHAIR:
Brenda M. Cameron Re: Your complaint against District Judge Lori A. Bolton Fleming and
Judge Member Docket No. 1286, In the Matter of Robert J. Fleming
Nancy S. Anstaett
Lawyer Member Dear Mr. Beckley:

James S. Cooper The Commission met October 2, 2015, at which time the above-captioned
Non-Lawyer Member complaint was considered.
Robert W. Fairchild
Judge Member With regard to your complaint against Judge Lori Fleming, it was the decision
of the Commission that your complaint did not contain any new information evidencing
Norman R. Kelly judicial misconduct as defined in the Code of Judicial Conduct and was dismissed.
Lawyer Member
With regard to your complaint against Judge Robert Fleming, it was the
Rep. Valdenia C. Winn
Lay Member decision of the Commission to docket your complaint and make further inquiry. The
complaint was assigned Docket No. 1286, and the matter will be placed on the
Commission's December 4,2015, meeting agenda.
SECRETARY:
Heather L. Smith
Sincerely,

IIt~L~
Heather L. Smith, (
Secretary

nun
 ~tate of ]kansas

Qtommission on jf umnal @uaIifications

Kansas JudicialCenter
Telephone 785-296-2913 301 S.W. Tenth Avenue Facsimile 785-296-1028
Topeka, Kansas 66612- 1507
judicialqual@kscourts.org

MEMBERS OF
PANELB March 11,2013

CHAIR:
Jeffery A. Mason Lester Moore
Lawyer Member P. O. Box 1861
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
VICE-CHAIR:
Dr. Mary Davidson Cohen
Lay Member Re: Docket No. 1179, In the Matter of A. 1. Wachter
Bruce Buchanan
Lay Member Dear Mr. Moore:

Robert J. Fleming
The Commission met March 1, 2013, at which time the above-captioned
Judge Member
complaint was considered. It was the decision of the Commission to docket your
David J. King complaint and make further inquiry. The matter will be placed on the Commission's
Judge Member
May 3, 2013, meeting agenda.
Nicholas St. Peter
Judge Member Cordially,
Diane S. Worth
Lawyer Member

SECRETARY: Secretary
Carol G. Green
Kansas Judicial Center
301 S.W. Tenth Avenue
Topeka, KS 66612-1507
 ADVISORY

l/,q 1/) ,he rl'4#~r" cE- A.'j.~d,Jp~

No violation was found when it was alleged a judge advised parties in a divorce matter
they were required to have attorneys at the next hearing. While the judge denied the allegation,
the judge could not provide a corroborating transcript because a hearing was not made. The
judge was informally advised on the importance of preserving a record of all court proceedings.

No violation was found for delay when it was alleged a judge failed to rule on a motion
taken under advisement. The judge indicated there was not a mechanism in place to help
monitor case loads, acknowledged the delay, and took remedial steps to resolve' future issues.
The judge was informally advised on the importance of monitoring matters taken under
advisement.

A Notice of Formal Proceedings was filed alleging a judicial candidate violated Rule
4.l(A)(4) by posting false or misleading campaign statements and/or endorsements on the
candidate's campaign website. The candidate denied knowingly or recklessly making any false
or misleading statements but, in an abundance of caution, removed the misleading information
and clarified the endorsement. A stipulation was entered that there was insufficient, clear, and
convincing evidence to establish a violation of Rule 4.1(A)(4), but the Respondent was advised
to be more careful in restating endorsements, should the decision be made to run again for
elected office.

No violation was found when it was alleged a judge appeared late for a hearing, called a
recess, never returned, and instructed a deputy to clear the courtroom as a ruling would be
mailed. The judge was informally advised to review hearing procedures. The judge's attention
was directed to K.S.A. 38-2243(b)and (d), K.S.A. 38-2232,and 38-2233authorizing placement
of children in DCF Custody. .

No violation was found when it was alleged a judge made a female litigant feel
humiliated and traumatized by ordering the removal of her hat which was worn to cover baldness
due to a medical condition. While the judge acknowledged ordering the removal of the hat, in
compliance with courtroom rules, the judge denied that the comments were intended to
humiliate. The judge was informally advised to refrain from commenting on personal
appearance in accordance with Rule 2.8(B)and Comment [1].

•.•
----------2013 ANNuAL REpORT. PAGE 22~------_--+.
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

ERIC M. MUATHE, et al., )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. lS-CV-7SP
)
HONORABLE KURTIS LOY, et aI., )
) J(({PCR vIe
)
Defendants.
;)~J
t: m lflullr~7

~
MOTION OF DEFENDANTS
LOY, WACHTER, FLEMING, FLEMING, JACK, LYNCH, RUSSELL, SMITH,
SANDERS, HAZLETT, GRILLOT AND SCHMIDT FOR SANCTIONS
WITH MEMORANDUM INCORPORATED

Defendants Kurtis Loy, Andrew 1. Wachter, Robert 1. Fleming, Lori Fleming, Jeffry L.

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

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

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

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, by and through counsel, Stephen Phillips, Assistant

Attorney General, pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-211, move for sanctions in the form of

filing restrictions against Eric M. Muathe, Noah Day, Kasey King, James Beckley, Jr., and

Travis Carlton.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Muathe, Day, King, Beckley, and Carlton (hereinafter collectively Pro Se Litigants),

either acting on behalf of an unincorporated association known as Summary Judgment Group, or

acting on their own behalves, purported to bring this case as a class action on behalf of signators

of a gran jury petition against Defendants Kurtis Loy, Andrew 1. Wachter, Robert J. Fleming,

1
Lori Fleming, Jeffry L. Jack, Oliver Kent Lynch (District Court Judges for the Eleventh Judicial

District), Janice D. Russell, Richard M. Smith, John E. Sanders (Senior District Court Judges),

Stanton A. Hazlett (Disciplinary Administrator), Tim Grillot (assigned discipline complaint

investigator), Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, and Kansas Commission on Judicial

Qualifications Panel A and Panel B (represented by separate defense counsel).

As is stated in these Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Defendants' Response to various

motions, Pro Se Litigants' Petition and subsequent pleadings in this matter are utterly frivolous.

They have obviously not done even a modicum of meaningful legal research, and have utterly

failed to attempt to meet any of the pleading or procedural requirements for a class action. This

case is for the sole purpose of harassing the defendants. But for most of the plaintiffs, this is not

their first venture into harassing litigation. Below is a summary of some of the more abusive

cases involving these litigants. Copies of some pleadings from these cases are attached as

Exhibit 1. These cases contain frivolous pleadings, repeated motions to disqualify judges, and

references to the UCC and sovereign citizenship. When several of the cases were resolved, the

judges imposed sanctions, including filing restrictions within those individual cases. Several

were stricken from the public record due to abusive content. Many of Muathe's pleadings

contain "sovereign language." lfthe Court will examine the case files, it will find that Muathe

on at least two occasions filed suit against a judge who was presiding over a case, then used that

suit as grounds to seek recusal of the judge. These Defendants ask this Court to take judicial

notice pursuant to K.S.A. 60-904 of the cases below filed in Crawford County District Court;'

Cases involving Eric M. Muathe:

lOSC134P, Muathe v. Routhmeir Sterling Inc.: Muathe sued the company for
violating debt collection practices, but voluntarily dismissed after a "voluntary out

I This is not an exclusive list of all cases filed by or against Pro Se Litigants.

2
of court settlement" was reached. Muathe included language in his voluntary
dismissal notice, "Comes now, Plaintiff, Eric M. Muathe@ WITH ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE-UCC 1-207 (KSA 84-1-207) UCC 1-308
(similar to KSA 84-1-308) and UCC 1-103.6, Sui Juris ..."

10SC139P, Muathe v. AJ Wachter: Muathe sued Judge Wachter for

"incompetency as a judge" for $3,242.72. J. Wachter had allowed a debt collector
judgment against Muathe. Dismissed on judicial immunity.

10SC140P, Muathe v. John Gutierrez (local attorney): Muathe sued for

"wrongful arrest" when Muathe was named in a child support warrant. Gutierrez
did child support collection. The petition refers to the court as a "kangaroo
court." The case was dismissed on 4-21-11 when Muathe failed to appear; the
Court found estoppel, lack of venue.

10SC151P, Muathe v. Berman & Rabin: Muathe sued collection attorneys for
"making false and misleading representations." The case was originally
dismissed on 12-2-10 by Pro Tern Judge Fielder for lack of jurisdiction. Then, on
12-6-10 Muathe wrote a letter to J. Fielder, alleging conflicts of interest and
threatening judicial complaint. On the same day, Muathe filed a motion for
disqualification. The case was reopened and reassigned. On 5-31-11 there was a
court trial; however, Muathe refused to be sworn in. Also on 5-31-11, Muathe
filed an objection to "assembly line scheduling" using the language Eric M.
Muathe@ WITH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, etc. "a sovereign conscious free
being" with the UCC citations again. On 6-23-11, the Court issued a
memorandum opinion finding "Mr. Muathe had filed his claim against the law
firm in bad faith and for the purposes of harassment." The Court awarded
$2,397.50 in attorney fees to defendants.

11SC60P, Muathe v. Young, Williams CSE: Muathe sued the child enforcement
agency for "damages caused by frivolous claims leading to financial injury,
character defamation, public humiliation and more importantly, undue emotional
stress and mental anguish" seeking $3,900 damages. Muathe used a UCC
signature again. On 6-9-11 both parties appeared and the case was dismissed with
prejudice. Muathe wrote a letter to Judge Nuss on 6-10-11 re: Pro tern Judge Rick
Smith.

12LM356P, Fifth Third Bank v. Muathe: Muathe was sued for debt related to a
vehicle. This case had multiple judges due to motions to disqualify from Muathe.

3
Below is a timeline, showing the repeated frivolous motions by Muathe to avoid
final judgment:
Case was transferred from Johnson County, KS to Crawford County, KS.
9-6-13 Muathe Motion to Disqualify Judge Wachter
9-23-13 Order granting Motion for Disqualification
9-26-13 Assigned to Division 5.
11-19-13 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge
1-3-14 Order denying Motion for Disqualification. Judge Loy remains on case.
1-16-14 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge and Affidavit in Support
1-21-14 Letter Order denying Motion for Disqualification. Judge Loy remains on case.
1-31-14 Muathe Second Motion for Disqualification of Judge Due to New Information
1-31-14 Muathe Objection to All Proposed Scheduling
2-6-14 Muathe Second Motion (really fourth) for Disqualification of Judge Due to New
Information Plus Affidavit in Support
2-7-14 Muathe Motion to Vacate All Orders and Rulings
2-11-14 Memorandum and Order Denying Motion for Disqualification
2-24-14 Muathe Notice of Appeal
3-13-14 Muathe "Letter Pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court Rule 162:, to Justice Nuss,
Justice Johnson"
4-1-14 Muathe Motion for Change of Venue
5-5-14 Muathe Notice of HearingiNotice of Commencement of a Federal Quiet Title
Action
7-10-14 Memorandum and Decision disposing of multiple pending motions, denying
Defendant's motions and granting Plaintiffs replevin/possession.
7-18-14 Muathe Motion to Strike Memorandum and Decision
7-18-14 Muathe Objection to Memorandum and Decision
7-18-14 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge (fifth motion to disqualify Loy,
sixth overall)(alleges he sued Loy the day before in 14CV75P) Loy recuses.
7-18-14 Muathe Notice of Appeal
8-11-14 Assigned to Judge Lynch
8-21-14 Muathe Motion to Object to Judicial Assignment
10-6-14 Muathe "Mandatory Judicial Notice" requesting judicial notice of various
records concerning conflicts of interest (Judge Loy)
10-9-14 Muathe Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment
11-21-14 Memorandum and Ruling by Judge Lynch that denies multiple pending motions
of Defendant.
11-26-14 Muathe Notice of Appeal
11-26-14 Muathe Motion for Reconsideration, Request for Oral Arguments, Stay of
Enforcement of Judgment
12-1-14 Muathe Objection to Memorandum and Ruling
12-1-14 Muathe Second Motion for New Trial Due to New Evidence
12-1-14 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge (seventh overall)
12-3-14 Muathe Motion to Vacate All Judge Lynch Orders and Rulings
12-11-14 Muathe letter to Judge Lynch, accusing him of various ethical violations, copies
to Chief Judge Wachter, Departmental Justice #4, Commission on Judicial Ethics, Chief
Justice Lawton Nuss, Mark Werner

4
 1-26-15 Muathe Second Motion to Vacate All Judge Oliver Kent Lynch Orders
1-26-15 Muathe Motion for Plaintiff to Post Bond or in the Alternative to Return the
Subject Matter Vehicle
1-26-15 Muathe Objection to Writ of Execution Order and Procedure
1-26-15 Muathe Motion for Determination of Economic Conflict of Interest (requesting
ruling that attorney Mark Werner and Judge Loy have economic conflicts of interest)
Lynch recuses.
2-20-15 Judge Russell assigned.
4-29-15 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge (eighth overall)
5-7-15 Muathe Motion for Disqualification of Judge Plus Affidavit in Support (ninth
overall)
6-5-15 Motion for Disqualification Granted.
6-17 -15 Judge Smith assigned.
7-1-15 Journal Entry on Post-Trial Motions, denying all Defendant's motions, and
ordering sanction of filing restrictions in that case.
7-9-15 Muathe Post-Void Order Motion for Reconsideration
7-10-15 Order Denying Post-Trial Relief and Limiting Further Pleadings in that case.

12SC90P, Muathe v. Berman & Rabin: Muathe sued collections attorneys for
violation ofFDCPA2. Muathe wrote to Pro Tern Judge Maradeth Frederick
wanting a new judge. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and
Improper venue.

13CV47P, Kasey King, Noah Day, Mike King, Eric Muathe, Julie Stover, Lester
Moore v. Crawford County District Court: Muathe and others sued the Court for
public humiliation and embarrassment, slander, libel, age discrimination, equal
protection, due process, false advertising, political discrimination. Page 3 of the
complaint contains "sovereign citizen" language. Monetary demand was for
$500,000. The case was dismissed on 7-31-13.

14CV28P, Muathe v. Wells Fargo Bank NA: This small claims appeal was
dismissed by Judge Smith and lots of post-trial motions were filed by Muathe.
The Court eventually restricted filing of future pleadings in the case as a
sanction.

14CV75P, Muathe v. Loy, Wachter, Fleming, Fifth Third Bank, Law Office of
Mark Werner, Thompson Coburn LLP, Mark A. Werner, David Mangian: 22
page petition and attachments for relief in the form of quo warranto. Allegations
were of various conflicts of interest and requested a restraining order that
Wachter, Lay and Fleming can never hear his cases, and that the vehicle replevin

2 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

5
action in 12LM356P be stayed. On 5-13-15 the case was dismissed without
prejudice on merits.

14CV86P, Wilmington Trust Company v. Muathe et al.: This is a pending

foreclosure action of Muathe's home. Due to Muathe motions to disqualify, the
case has been assigned to judges Wachter, Lynch, Russell, and Richard Smith. A
current motion for disqualification of Judge Richard Smith is pending that alleges
Muathe has sued Judge Smith now in this case (15CV79P), which was filed
shortly after Judge Smith was assigned. The Motion also alleges Smith filed his
financial disclosure late, and other ethical complaints related to church, boards,
etc.

14SC2P, Muathe v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al: Muathe sued for clouding his
title related to mortgage. Dismissed on 2-14-14 in favor of defendant after
hearing.

15MR2P, Muathe, Day and King v. Loy, et al. Petition against many of the
defendants in this case making many of the same allegations. Petition sought a
grand jury. Case sealed after being dismissed.

Federal D. Kan. 14-2207, Muathe v. Fifth Third Bank, et al. Muathe, in a fifty-
page Complaint, sued twenty-two defendants over the repossession of his car.
The federal court dismissed for failure to meet pleading requirements, stating:

Plaintiff's disjunct and rambling complaint spans fifty pages and

two hundred and thirty-nine paragraphs directing his claims at
various combinations of the twenty-two defendants. Much of
plaintiff's shotgun approach states only conclusions. Where it does
allege facts, it fails to connect them to valid legal claims. The
complaint frequently states that certain defendants have violated
certain statutes without pleading any associated factual allegation
of conduct. Throughout the complaint, plaintiff consistently fails to
either adequately allege conduct or to match alleged conduct with a
cognizable cause of action.

A copy of the federal district court's decision, 2014 WL 5341984, is attached as

Exhibit 1 to this Motion. Muathe has appealed to the Tenth Circuit, 15-3019.

6
Cases involving Kasey King (in addition to 13CV47P and 15MR2P):

IISCI48P, King v. Experian: In small claims court, King sued Experian, a

consumer credit reporting agency, after opting out of a class action lawsuit. As
part of his case King filed various letters/motions to disqualify Judge Pro Tern
Rick Smith and Senior Judge Janice Russell. The case was dismissed on 3-29-12
finding no proof of damages and granting statute of limitations defense.

12CV79P King v. Experian: appeal from 11SC148P. As part of his appeal, King
filed for writ of mandamus against Judge Russell and Small Claims Court and
filed an "Objection in the Nature of a Writ of Error." Case was dismissed with
costs against King. The Court noted, "Plaintiff is once again urged by the Court
to seek legal advice from competent counsel before filing cases pro se. "

12SC130P, King v. Corporation Service Company: sued for emotional

stress/mental anguish caused by negative credit reporting. On 3-27-13 the case
was dismissed by Plaintiff.

Cases involving Noah Day (in addition to 15MR2P):

12CVI03P, Day v SRS et al: Day sued Crawford County District Court and SRS
claiming he was sexually abused while in foster care as a child many years ago.
Case dismissed on 8-28-12. Objection to Journal Entry overruled. 9-25-12

15SC71P, Day v. Fleming: Day sued Judge Lori Fleming for "breach of contract"
over an email she allegedly sent from her office to a radio station concerning ads
run by the station. Day was not the person who contracted for the ads. Case
pending.

15SC85P, Day v. Fleming: Day sued Judge Lori Fleming for slander over an
email she allegedly sent from her office to a radio station concerning ads run by
the station. Day was not the person who contracted for the ads and he was not
mentioned in the emails. Case pending.

Cases involving James Beckley Jr.:

15CV38P, Community National Bank v. James Beckley Jr.: Home foreclosure

case by bank with multiple motions/affidavits by Beckley for change of judge,
Motion for Writ in Nature of Mandamus and Stay of Hearings, Motion for
Assignment of ease to Departmental Justice, Motion to Vacate all orders pending.

7
Cases involving Travis Carlton:

15CV4G, Carlton v. KS Dept of Revenue: Petition for judicial review of driver's

license suspension. Motions for change of judge filed on 5-26-15, 6-19-15, 9-10-
15. Carlton also filed Motion for Writ in Nature of Mandamus. To date, motions
for change of judge denied, and case is pending.

14CV7P, Carlton v. Toby Miller et al: Carlton sued over lost profits from Vapor
Stop business. Carlton has filed multiple pleadings that were held to be "a nullity,
and inappropriate as they contained vile, abusive and threatening statements."
Pleadings stricken from record and public file.

114448, Carlton v. Wachter, et al., This is an original mandamus action Carlton

filed before the Kansas Supreme Court seeking to prevent Judge Wachter from
presiding over 15CV45. The case is pending, with no order for response yet.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY

K.S.A. 60-211 provides, in relevant part:

(b) Representations to the court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written

motion or other paper, whether by signing, filing, submitting or later advocating
it, an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's
knowledge, information and belief formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances:

(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to

harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses and other legal contentions are warranted
by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after
a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the
evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on
belief or a lack of information.

(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court
determines that subsection (b) has been violated, the court may impose an
appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm or party that violated the statute or
is responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate or employee. The

8
 sanction may include an order to pay to the other party or parties that reasonable
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred because ofthe filing of the pleading,
motion or other paper. A motion for sanctions under this section may be served
and filed at any time during pendency of the action, but must be filed not later
than 14 days after the entry of judgment.

The purpose of Rule 60-211 is to deter repetition of conduct. Wood v. Groh, 269 Kan.

420,430, 7 P.3d 1163 (2000). Courts should take the following factors into consideration when

determining whether to sanction a party and what kind of sanction to impose:

(1) whether the improper conduct was willful or negligent;

(2) whether it was part of a pattern of activity or an isolated event;
(3) whether it infected the entire pleading or only one particular count or defense;
(4) whether the person has engaged in similar conduct in other litigation;
(5) whether it was intended to injure;
(6) what effect it had on the litigation process in time or expense;
(7) whether the responsible person is trained in the law;
(8) what amount, given the financial resources of the responsible person, is
needed to deter that person from repetition in the same case; and
(9) what amount is needed to deter similar activity ,by other litigants.

Id. at 431. "The district court has the discretion to determine what type of sanctions are

appropriate in a given case." Id.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides a right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith,430

U.S. 817 (1977). This right is neither absolute nor unconditional. A litigant has "no

constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious."

Holt v, State, 290 Kan. 491, 500,232 P.3d 848 (2010). Yet, "[l]itigiousness alone will not

support an injunction restricting filing activities." Tripati v. Beamani, 878 F.2d 351,353 (lOth

Cir. 1989). Federal courts have recognized a court's inherent power to control the actions of

abusive litigants "by imposing carefully tailored restrictions in appropriate circumstances." Ford

v. Pryor, 553 FJd 1174, 1180 (lOth Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Citing these Tenth Circuit

decisions, the Kansas Supreme Court has held that Kansas district courts have inherent power to

9
impose carefully tailored restrictions on abusive litigants in appropriate circumstances and has

authority to direct a district court clerk to refrain from filing pleadings in such cases. Holt, 290

Kan. at 500-02.

The right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional and there is
no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is
frivolous or malicious. The goal of fairly dispensing justice ... is compromised
when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of
repetitious and frivolous claims. No one, rich or poor, is entitled to abuse the
judicial process. We recognize that filing restrictions are a serious sanction and
that litigiousness alone is not a sufficient reason to restrict access to the court.
However, where, as here, a party has engaged in a pattern of litigation activity
which is manifestly abusive, restrictions are appropriate. Abusive and repetitive
filings cannot be allowed to strain the resources ,of the Kansas courts.

State ex rei. Stovall)'. Lynn, 26 Kan. App, 2d 79, 81-82 (1999) (internal quotations and citations

omitted).

While filing restrictions as to this case would be clearly appropriate here, as can be seen

from other cases in which they were imposed, such restrictions would be insufficient alone to

stop Pro Se Litigants from filing further cases. Further sanctions are warranted.

These Defendants suggest the Court impose sanctions against Pro Se Litigants as follows

in order to achieve the effect of Rule 60-211 to deter repetition of conduct:

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,
file any pleading in this case or any new cases, including small claims and
limited action cases, in any district court of the State of Kansas without
express authorization of the undersigned judge or another judge of this court.
(New suits by Pro Se Litigants which are signed and brought by a lawyer
licensed to practice in this state or admitted pro hac vice are not subject to this
restriction. )

2. Should Pro Se Litigants, proceeding pro se, seek to file further pleadings in
this case other than a Notice of Appeal, Pro Se Litigants shall submit the
pleadings to this Judge for review, and the clerk shall not file the pleadings
unless and until this Judge reviews them and certifies that they are not
frivolous and repetitive. Should further pleadings be inadvertently filed in this

10
 case without this Judge's review, defense counsel shall not respond to them
except upon order of the court.

3. Should Pro Se Litigants, proceeding pro se individually or collectively, seek

to file any new case, including small claims or limited actions cases, in any
district court in this state, Pro Se Litigants must file an application for leave to
file a petition. The application shall be delivered to the chief judge of the
judicial district or the judge's designee and shall include:

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

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

The chief judge, or the judge's designee, will then determine if the
petition or pleading is lacking in merit, is duplicative, or is frivolous.
lfthe petition or pleading is found to comply with the above
requirements, Pro Se Litigants will be granted leave to file it3. A
failure to comply with the rules and orders of this court can subject
them to sanctions andlor punishment for contempt. Further, no party
shall be required to respond to anything filed by Pro Se Litigants that
has not been approved by a court of competent jurisdiction or filed by
a Kansas-licensed attorney on Pro Se Litigants' behalf.

4. The filing restrictions become effective as of the date Defendants filed this
Motion for Sanctions. All pro se filings submitted by Pro Se Litigants filed
after the date this Motion for Sanctions is filed will be subject to court
screening when sanctions are entered.

CONCLUSION

Although Muathe, Day, King, Beckley, and Carlton are pro se and their pleadings are

arguably entitled to some deference, in this and other cases they have, with no justification,

squandered both the courts' resources and the resources of defendants. Their conduct has been a

substantial burden on everyone involved. What they have filed in this and other cases is so

3 Lynn, 26 Kan App'd at 81

11
deeply flawed and so frivolous that frling restrictions should be imposed. Unless filing

restrictions are imposed, the Pro Se Litigants will continue to use the courts of Kansas to harass

the current defendants as well as others for the foreseeable future. The only way to stop the Pro

Se Litigants is the imposition of the requested filing sanctions.

Respectfully submitted,

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEREK SCHMIDT

Stepliefi Phillips, No. 14130

Assistant Attorney General
Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor
120 SW io" Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597
Phone: (785) 296-2215
Facsimile: (785) 296-6296
Attorney for Defendants Loy, Wachter,
Fleming, Fleming, Jack, Lynch, Russell,
Smith, Sanders, Hazlett, Grillot and
Schmidt.

12
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Ihereby certify that on this 25th day of September, 2015, the above and forgoing
document was filed with the Clerk of the Court of the District of Crawford County, Kansas via
U.S. Mail. I further certify that a copy was served via first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to:

Eric Muathe Noah Day

P.O. Box 224 P.O. Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762 Pittsburg, KS 66762

Kasey King James Beckley Jr.

P.O. Box 224 P.O. Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762 Pittsburg, KS 66762

Travis Carlton Jim Emerson

P.O. Box 224 Crawford County Counselor
Pittsburg, KS 66762 111 East Forest, 2nd FI.
Girard, KS, 66713

Judge Jack Burr

Elaine J. Bradshaw
Administrative Assistant to the Chief Judge
Eleventh Judicial District
602 N. Locust
Pittsburg, KS 66762

and hand delivered to:

Steve R Fabert
Assistant Attorney General
Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor
120 SW io" Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597

StePhen Phillips

13