You are on page 1of 13

KANSAS JUDiCIAL CENTER

301 SW 101"1I AVB., ROOM 374

1!an~a~ QJ:ommi~~ion
on j ubitial <ftualifitation~

TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612


785-296-2913
judicialquaI@kscourts.org

COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGE.

The Commission only has authority to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct or disability by
persons holding state judicial positions .. The Commission has 119jurisgictiollover all? does not.
consider complaints against federal judges, lawyers, law enforcement-and detention center officers,
district court clerks, and court personnel.
The Commission does not act as an app~llate court and cannot review, reverse, or modify a legal
decision made by a judge ina court proceeding. Please review the accompanying _brochure which
describes the functions of the Commission. Note inparticular the examples of functions which the
Commission cannot perform.

Please Note:

Complaint form must be typed or legibly hand-printed, dated, and signed before it
will be considered. Complaint forms may be submitted by
Mail or scanned
and submitted by e-mail.

u.s.

I.

PERSON MAKING THE COMPLAINT


Eric Muathe
Full Name

Inmate Number, if applicable

1410 Bitner Terrace


Mailing Address

Pittsburg, Kansas, 66762

913-980-7286

City, State Zip Code

Telephone
Nu,?ber

muathedotcom@gmail.com

Preferred Method of Communication: __

U.S. Mail

V" E-Mail

E-mail address

II.

JUDGE AGAINST WHOM COMPLAINT IS MADE


Lori Bolton Fleming

Full Name

Type of JUdge(ehcckone):

County or City

__

Supreme Court Justice

tI
__

__

Court of Appeals Judge

District

__

District Magistrate

Pro Tempore

__

Other

__

Municipal
_

Page /1

III. COURT CASE INFORMATION


If the complaint involves a court case, please provide:
-Case Title: N/A
-Your

------------------------------Relationship to the Case: __


Plaintiff/Petitioner
t/

IV.

Other

Case Number:
__

DefendantIRespondent

-----------------------------------

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the following section, please provide all specific facts and circumstances which you believe
constitute judicial misconduct or disability. Include names, dates and places which may assist
the Commission in its evaluation and investigation of this complaint.
Kindly see attached documents ...

If additional space is required, attach and number additional pages.


Page

I2

v. ATTACHMENTS
Relevant documents: Please attach any relevant documents which you believe directly support
your claim that the judge has engaged in judicial misconduct or has a disability. Highlight or
otherwise identify those sections that you rely on to support your claim. Do not include
documents which do not directly support your complaint, for example, a copy of your complete
court case.
*Keep a copy of all documents submitted for your records as they become the property of the
Commission and will not be returned. *

In filing this complaint, I understand that:


~

The Commission's rules provide that all proceedings of the Commission,


including complaints flled with the Commission, shall be kept confidential
unless formal proceedings are filed, The confidentiality rule does not apply to
the complainant or the judge against whom a complaint is filed,

The Commission may fmd it necessary to disclose my identity and the existence
of this complaint to the involved judge. By filing this complaint, I expressly
consent to any such disclosure.

VI. SIGNATURE
I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above information is true, correct and
complete and submitted of my own free will.

June 8,2015
Date

Signature

Page

I3

Office Of The Attorney General

06/17/2015

Memorial Hall
120 SW 10th AVE.,2nd Floor
Topeka, Ks 66612

Dear D. Depew,
RE: Ouster Complaint and Bond Complaint under 5.4 Uniform Bonding Code
that was not mentioned

Please reconsider the June 10, 2015 letter that was sent from your office to Mr. Eric Muathe
and Mr. Noah Day and the Summary Judgment Group. The Summary Judgment Group
recently had a grand jury petition that was going around to oust all 11th judicial district
judges due to conflicts ofinterest between them and local 11th judicial district attorneys.
During the petition drive to try to get the signatures a radio ad was ran on 100.7 ESPN of
My Town Media which is owned by attorney Bill Wachter, Judge Andrew J.Wachter's
brother. After just 2 days of running the advertisement on the air Judge Lori Fleming took
it upon herself to use her power inappropriately as a judge and to usurp/intrude into a
private business contract between Summary Judgment Group and My Town Media and
have our ad breached on 2/19.2015 at 1:43 P.M. from her own judicial office with an email
of <lfleming @l1thjd.org> where she "WILLFULLY ENGAGEDIN MISCONDUCT WHILE
IN OFFICE, AND SHE IS COMMITTED AN ACT THAT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF A
PENAL STUATUTE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE'" just like you said in your letter
dated June 10, 2015 " which is set out in KS.A. 60-1205 where a public official must
engage in one of the following acts to forfeit his/her office and be ousted".
Please reconsider the Ouster Complaint that was dismissed since I have now included the
email from Lori Bolton's Judicial Office which shows her engaging in 1. Willfull
misconduct while in office and 4. She violated a penal statute by committing an act
which involved moral turpitude by usurping into a private contract and calling us
demeaning names like "posse comeat". I appreciate you taking the time to explain what
an ouster complaint needs to be investigated and I am looking forward to Lori Fleming
being investigated for moral turpitude and willful misconduct I would also like for you to
clarify on the "BONDTERMINATION OF LORI FLEMING"which your office failed to
mention anything about. Does your office hold the Insurance Bond on the judges in the
State of Kansas or does the Kansas State Insurance Commissioner? Can the Kansas State
Insurance Commissioner oust a judge itself by simply refusing to give a judge any insurance
and making him unable to work because the judge would be unbondable under Rule 5.4 of

The Uniform Bonding Code? I was under the impression that there was no more public law
and it was just public policy which is insurance and I just assumed that The Kansas State
Insurance Commissioner could basically oust a judge themselves and was just curious if I
was correct in my assumption or not Thank you for your time and I would really
appreciate you looking into this matter since I have included proof and evidence of moral
turpitude and willful misconduct while not only in office but "USURPINGINTO PRIVATE
CONTRACTS"which is a constitutional violation of Article 1 Section 10 "unlimited
right to contract" and not performing ministerial and judicial task while clocked in
on 2/19/2015 at 1:43 P.M.and talking inappropriately to the 11thdistrict Cbief Judge
A.f.Wachter's brother attorney Bill Wachter who should be investigated as well for
moral turpitude and willful misconduct.
Lori Fleming and Kurtis Loy received an informal letter for "supposedly" not knowing
about illegally running a phone book ad as an attorney on February 23, 2015 that I have
included with this complaint. It shows Lori Fleming and Kurtis Loy both retaliated against
me/us from previous complaints which violates Rule 2.16 Cooperation with Disciplinary
Authorities(B) which says "Ajudge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a
person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a judge
or a lawyer. There should be some kind of "FORMALPROCEEDING"if the Kansas
Commission on Judicial Qualifications plans to show any kind of consistency from previous
complaints because an email from a judicial computer at the 11th district on company time
to breach a private contract is way worse than "NAMESAND NUMBERS"running the ad for
Lori Fleming and Kurtis Loy as attorneys and they both "SUPPOSEDLY"knew nothing about
it!! Well Lori Fleming and Kurtis Loy did know about this email because Lori Fleming sent
it and Judge Kurt Loy collaborated just like he did in my previous cases with ex law partner,
attorney Mark Werner. What I also find to be either willful misconduct is the fact that Lori
Fleming faxes warrants from her own private fax number which she also uses for Lady of
Lourdes Church to conduct her judicial business on but she uses the computer from the
11 th judicial district with her addressed as Honorable Lori Fleming to usurp/intrude and
breach a private radio advertisement and willfully slandered me and The Summary
Judgment Group by calling us "Posse Comeat" which is a spelling error for Posse Comitatus
The detlnition of Posse Comitatus says it is also the name taken by a right wing, antitax extremist group founded in 1969 by Henry L. Beach a retired dry cleaner and one
time member of the silver shirt, nazi inspired organization that was established in
the United States after Adolph Hitler came to power in Germany. The group
operated on the belief that: the true intent of the founders of The United States was to
establish a Christian Republic where the individual was sovereign.
Please investigate this matter and check the computers of all three 11th district judges to
see just how many other demeaning and dirty nicknames they have called me because I

filed a "Motion for Quo Warranto" against them. There are other pictures from the 11th
judicial district computers which shows they have slandered me and talked ex-parte to
local area attorneys. Please investigate this matter as I intend to produce these emails at a
later date to see if you actually do your job like I did previously form my complaints back in
November and December of 2014 on Crestwood and Lady of Lourdes Conflicts of Interest
which everyone acted like I was crazy and then 'WE SEE THE EMAILFROM LORI FLEMING
TO ATTORNEYBILLWACHTER"just like I was saying the whole time!! Good ole boy
network, Go Colgan and Go Crestwood enjoy hogging 95% of the areas money while the
rest of us enjoy being the poorest county yet were the biggest town in the SEK!!!!!!!
Please investigate this matter and take the computer( s) from the 11th judicial district this
email came from or where this and other communications were sent to could have been
sentto!!!!
Sincerely yours,

-b'LcmUa
Eric Muathe
~ CCKansas Commission on judicial Qualifications
~ State Insurance Commissioner
~ Office of Disciplinary Administrator

/0 f.1 IS

---------------------

~tate of j!an~a~

QCommi~~ionon Jlubitial @ualiftcation~


KANSAS JUDICIAL CE1I.'TER

301 SWTE:NTII AVE., ROOM 374


TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612
785-296-2913
judicialqual@kscourls.org

MEMBERS

OF

PAl'rnLA
CHAIR:
William B. Swearer

February 23, 2015

Lawyer Member

Eric M. Muathe
muathedotcom@gmail.com

VICE-CHAIR:
Ckistina M. Pannbac'ker

Re:

Lay Member
Nancy S. Anstaett

Your complaint dated January 26, 2015, against District Judges


Lori Bolton Fleming and Kurtis I. Lay

Dear Mr. Muathe:

Lawyer Metnber

J. Patrick

Bratil

Judge Member
Brenda Cameron

Judge Member

The Commission met February 13, 2015, at which time the above-captioned
complaint was considered.
It was the decision of the Commission, regarding both Judge FJeming and
Judge Loy, to find no violation but to offer informal advice to both judges to take
affirmative action to rectify the appearance that they have an active law practice.

Mary Thrower
Judge Member

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention ofthe Commission.

Valdenia C. Winn

Sincerely,

LayM~mber

SECRETARY:
Heather L Stnith

William B. Swearer,
Chair .
mm

STATE
OFFICE
DEREK
AnORNEY

OF KANSAS

OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL.
MEMORIAL

SCHMIDT

HALL

120 SW 10TH AVE., 2ND FLOOR

GENERAL

TOPEKA,

June 10,2015

(785) 296-2215

KS 666121597
FAX (785) 2966296

WWW.AG.YS.GOV

Mr. Eric M. Muathe


Mr. Noah Day
Summary Judgment Group
r.o. Box 224
Pittsburg, KS 66762
Re: Ouster Complaint
Dear Mr. Muathe and Mr. Day:
We have had the opportunity to review the Ouster Complaint that you submitted to this
office. Our review included the complaint itself as well as the supporting documents you
provided, which consisted of a Grand Jury Petition and its supporting documents.
In reviewing applicable Kansas law, we find that the Kansas Constitution speaks directly
to removal of judges in Article 3, Section 15, which reads as follows:
"Justices of the Supreme Court may be removed from office by impeachment and
conviction as prescribed in Article 2 of this Constitution. In addition to removal by
impeachment and conviction, justices may be retired after appropriate hearing, upon
certification to the Governor, by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission that such
justice is so incapacitated as to be unable to perform adequately his duties. Other judges
shall be subject to retirement for incapacity, and to discipline and removal for cause by
the Supreme Court after appropriate hearing." (Emphasis added.)
To carry out the provisions of Article 3, Section IS, the Kansas Supreme Court created
the Commission on Judicial Qualifications and the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. The
members of the commission are appointed by the Kansas Supreme Court and the commissioners
are term limited pursuant to court rule so that there is regular turnover on the commission.
The Ouster Complaint cites K.S.A 60-1206(a) and (b). The portion of that statute that
would apply to this complaint is (b). District Judges are officers of the state as set forth in
K.S.A. 20-302. As set out in K.S.A. 60-1206(b), "Proceedings to oust a state officer shall be
commenced only by the Attorney General." (Emphasis Added.) As such, this office is tasked
with investigating an Ouster Complaint and determining if there is reasonable cause to institute
an Ouster Proceeding.

Mr. Muathe & Mr. Day


Re: Ouster Complaint
Page 2
. As set out in K.S.A. 60-1205, a public official must engage in one of the following acts to
forfeit hislher office and be ousted:
1. Willfully engage in misconduct while in office,
2. Willfully neglect to perform any duty enjoined upon such person by law,
3. Demonstrate mental impairment such that the person lacks the capacity to manage the
office held, or
4. Who shall commit any act constituting a violation of any penal statute involving moral
turpitude.
the supporting materials that were provided also allege as a basis for the complaint
K.S.A. 23-3001(c), K.S.A. 20-311d and Judicial Canon 2, Rule 2.1(A). K.S.A. 23-3001(c) is the
Grand Jury statute. While you included the Grand Jury petition and its supporting documents,
the filing of that petition is a separate legal proceeding from this Ouster Complaint and is being
adjudicated in that proceeding.
K.S.A. 20-311d concerns petitions for change of judge in cases that are pending. That
statute does not provide for a blanket disqualification of judges in all pending or future cases that
involve anyone who may have signed the Grand Jury petitions. That statute is applied on a case
by case basis and is not applicable to the Ouster Complaint.
Judicial Conduct Canon 2, Rule 2.l(A) is part of Supreme Court Rule 601B, which
establishes the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules 602-627, which establish the process to be
followed to implement Article 3, Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution. This process includes
the creation of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications and establishes the complaint and
hearing process that the commission and Supreme Court are required to follow in judicial
complaint cases.
After our review of the Ouster Complaint and all of the supporting materials that were
provided, we have determined that the allegations raised are all related to alleged violations of
the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Rules of Professional Responsibility for attorneys.
Allegations related to attorney conduct are handled by the office of the Disciplinary
Administrator and the Kansas Board of Discipline of Attorneys. The process used for alleged
attorney misconduct is used for attorneys, not sitting judges, and most of the rules for attorneys
are very similar to those found in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Weare not aware of any
docketed attorney disciplinary cases handled by the Disciplinary Administrator and Board of
Discipline that involved a sitting judge or judges.
Although the ouster statute is available, Kansas case law has set a high standard that must
be applied when determining if an ouster case should proceed. The high standard applicable to
ouster cases was stated by the Shawnee County District Court as follows:
"[0 Juster is not designed to remove an officer merely for improvement of public service

because he has been inefficient or acted with bad judgment. State v. Wilson, 108 Kan.
641 (1921). Not every oversight or omission within the strict letter of the law will entail
forfeiture of office. Ouster is to prevent persons from continuing to hold office whose
inattention to duty, either because of its habitualness or its gravity, endangers the public

Mr. Muathe & Mr. Day


Re: Ouster Complaint
Page 3
welfare. Hopkins v. Corwine, 113 Kan. 192, 213 P. 658, 659 (1923). The neglect
contemplated must disclose either willfulness or indifference to duty so persistent or in
affairs of such importance that the safety of the public interest is threatened. rd. Ouster is
a drastic action, one that should be invoked only when the evidence is clear and
convincing and the misdeeds flagrant. Tomasic v. Cahill, 222 Kan. 570, 576 (1977)."

State ex rel. Hecht v. Felker,2003 LW 22389087,

* 1 (Kan.

Dist. Ct., Oct. 17,2003).

The ouster statute requires "willfulness;" "the acts complained of must be willfully and
intentionally done." State ex rei. Stovall v. Meneley, 2000 WL 34001576 at * 28 (Kan. Dist. Ct.,
Feb. 24, 2000) (citing State ex rei. v. Scates, 43 Kan. 330, 23 P. 479 (1890); State ex reI. v.
Trinkle. 70 Kan. 396, 78 P. 854 (1904); State ex rei. v. Foley, 107 Kan. 608,193 P. 361 (1920);
State ex rel. v. Wilson, 108 Kan. 641,196 P. 758 (1921); State ex rel. v. Duncan, 134 Kan. 85,4
P.2d 443 (1931. Although the ouster statutes do not contain a definition of willfulness, the term
has been defined to mean an act "performed with a designed purpose or intent on the part of a
person to do wrong or to cause an injury to another." PIK Civ. 3d 103.04. The intention of
the officer is key. S. Gard and R. Casad, Kansas Code of Civil Procedure Annotated 3d 601205 (1997) (citing State ex rel. Hopkins v, Foley, 107 Kan. 608, 193 P. 361 (1920.
Based upon the standard set forth above, we believe that the allegations raised by the
Ouster Complaint are of the type that does not rise to the level required for this office to move
forward with an Ouster Proceeding against the District Judges of the 11 th Judicial District. We
believe that the allegations contained in the Ouster Complaint are allegations that are more
appropriately made to the Commission on Judicial Qualifications for investigation and any action
that is determined to be necessary by that body.
In conclusion, after our investigation of the Ouster Complaint submitted by your group,
this office declines to file an Ouster Proceeding against the District Judges of the
Judicial
District.

u"

Sincerely,
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY
DEREK SCHMIDT

GENERAL

~)J~
Dennis D. Depew
Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation
DDD/drw

cc: Martha Coffman, OJA