Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

I

1 5 J UN-2 1\11 :51

1'l rt~t<l Of OlS·. 1

t ·

0

0,,',0'

' ,r . A'#r l l i\ :

~

.--r "J ' ~nU · L ! · '

\

u · , , · ·

~. \ . ;y. r; :

N T HE DI S TRICT COURT O F C RA W FO R D CO UN T Y, Kl ~ sA S

B'T _ - - - . - - - . 0 . - -. -

IN R E : R E Q UES T FOR GRAND JURY

Case N o . 15 MR 2 P

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR GRAND JUR Y

B y District Judge Richa r d M. Smith, assigned 11th Judicial District State of Kansas

Thi s matter comes b efore the und e r s ign e d District Judg e, a s s igned, for consid e ration o f

t h e f o rm o f a petit i on to summon a gr a nd jur y, p u r s uant to K . S . A . 22-3001 (c)( 3) , f i l ed in the

D i str i c t C ou rt o f Crawford Co un t y Ka n sas . As th e J u dge s of th e 11th di str i ct h ave rec u sed

them s el v es the Dep a rtm e ntal Justic e mad e appropr i a t e r e q ue s ts a nd the Chie f Justice then

a ss i g n e d th e und e rsigned as t he di s tri c t judge to con s ider s a id p e tition pur s u a nt t o KS.A . 22-

3001 (c) a n d to ente r a ll n e ce s sar y ord e rs re qui re d as a re s u lt of that co n si der a t i o n .

Fo r re aso ns s et f o rt h belo w t his cou r t finds that sa i d peti tion i s n o t i n the f o rm a s require d

b y la w a n d t h e pe titi o n fo r a gran d jur y i s t her e for e denied . F or fu r t h e r r easo n s d esc rib e d b e lo w

th e p et i t i on i s di s mi sse d a nd th e C l erk o f th e Di s tric t Co urt is directed t o re t ur n a ll ot h e r

d o cum e nt s a nd c he cks presented b y the p e t iti one r s.

N u mber of Si gn atures Present e d

A p e t i tion re qu e sting a g rand jur y w a s f iled in th e offic e o f th e Cler k o f th e d i s t r i c t c o u rt

of Cra w ford Count y, Kansas May 1 9, 2015. As required b y K a n sa s l aw, th e P e tit ion was

tran s mi t ted b y the Clerk o f the Di s trict CO U li to the Cr awf ord C o unt y C ommi ss i o n e r of

E l e ct io n s . On June 2 n d , 2015 , the C ommission e r of E lections f i l e d a Certi f icati o n w ith the Clerk

of the District Cour t in which he s t a t e d th a t the s ign a tur e s on th e Pet i t i on h a d be e n compa r ed

with those o n file in h is of f ice. Bas ed on this comp a ri s on , the Electio n s C o mmi s sioner found th a t

th e Petition requ e sting a G r a nd Jur y contained va lid si g n a ture s of 1 2 1 r eg i st er e d vo t e r s in

Cr aw ford C o unt y . In the la s t g e neral ele c tion 10 , 74 6 v otes w e r e c a st fo r th e o f fice o f G ov e rnor,

therefore 2% plus 100 of the total v otes ca s t for g o ve rn o r in th e l as t p r ecedin g g e n e ral e l e cti o n as

r eq uired b y K . S.A . 22-3001 ( 2) require s 31 5 v alid signatures to c a ll a grand jur y .

T h e p e ti t i o n f a il s f o r a wan t of va lid s i g n ature s.

N ature o f Al leg a tion s

Eac h signat ur e p age con t a in e d the fo llow in g sta t eme n t in att empte d co mpli a n ce w ith the

statutory r equirements ofK . S . A . 22 - 3001(c)(2) and (3) :

GRAND JU R Y PETITION*TO THE DISTRI C T C OURT CRA W F ORD COUNTY, KANSAS

The unders i gned qua l ified e l ectors of t he coun t y of Crawford, State o f Kansas h e r eb y re qu es t

t ha t t h e Di s trict C ourt of Craw fo r d C o u n ty, wi t hin 60 d ays afte r filin g this p e titio n c au se a gran d

ju r y to be su m mone d in t h e county t o investi ga t e a lleged violat i ons of l aw a nd t o p erfo r m such

other duti es a s ma y b e auth o ri z ed by l aw : 1. H ea r t est imo n y a nd in vest i gate a lle g ed v i o l ati o n s of Federal a n d K a n sas DUE PR OCESS const i t utio n a l l aw b y th e systematic an d bl a t a n t u s u r p atio n of judi c i a l o ff ic e and th e di s tu r bin g conflict s of i nteres t b e t wee n the Jud ges** and a t to r neys (esp .

th e ir forme r L a w pa rt ne r s ) inclu d i n g in s t an c es of co n fo rm ed I s h oc k i n g eco n omic c o nfl ic t of in t e r ests . The reaso n a b le people o f t h is co u n ty ha v e de cided that there n eeds t o b e a n imm e di ate sto p to thi s pract i ce b y the i m pl ementa t io n of a n e w 11t h D is t rict l o c al ru l e t hat b ars all J udges

fr om h eari ng th e ir fo r mer l aw pa r t n er ' s cases . T h e p eo pl e h a v e NO CON F ID E NCE in t h e

judiciary when j u d g es ac t at ti m es i n a man ner th at d o e s NO T pr o m ote pu blic confi d e n ce in the

indepen d ence, i ntegr i ty, an d i mpa r t i a lity of t h e judiciary a n d be lieve i t i s i napp r o p r i a t e fo r a

J

ud ge to h ear c ase s w ith o p en l h id d e n c o n f l icts of i nt er est . 2 . Gu i l t y Jud ges part i es a tto rn eys

s

h ou l d b e in d i cted, o u s t e d f rom office, mo n eys e a rne d returned and a l l relat ed NO D UE

P R OCESS c ases v o i d e d , vacat e d and r ehea r d . At t o rn ey s w h o know in gl y p r a c t ice d l aw in f r o n t

o f a jud g e wi t h a conflict o f int ere st s h o uld face di sc i p lina r y acti on a n d res tit u tion o f c l ien t a nd

s t ate i nco m e f o r eve r y case.

*P u rsu a n t to K . S . A. 22 - 3 3 01(c ) and K . S.A . 60- 1 206(a ) ** A . J . WAC H T ER, KURTIS LOY, O LIVER LYNCH , JEFFRY JACK, RO B E RT FLEMING, & L O RI B . FLEMING (Bold pri nt, cap i ta li zation an d o th e r gr ammar as it a pp ears o n p e titio n )

T h e s t atute gove rn i n g t h e r e q u i red c onten t s of a pe titio n to s um mo n a gra nd jur y p rov id es

in pertin e nt p a rt :

(2) Th e p e tit i on , upon it s f a c e, s h all s t a t e the n a me, addre s s a nd ph o ne number o f t h e per s on f il i n g the p e t i tion , the subj e ct mat t e r o f the pr o s p e c t iv e g r a nd jur y, a r e a s on a bl y

s p ec i fic id en ti fic a ti o n o f a r eas to be inqu ire d in to a nd sufficie nt ge ne ra l a llega tio n s t o warrant a fin din g th at such inquir y may l ea d t o inf o rm a tio n w h ich , i f tru e, wo uld warr a n t

a tru e bi l l of indictm e n t .

(3) The p et i t i o n s h all be in s u bstantia l ly the fo llowi n g form :

T h e u n dersig n e d qua li fie d ele ctors o f t h e cou nt y o f

her eby requ est that th e d is tri c t co ur t of

t h e filing of this p e ti tio n , cause a gra nd j ur y to b e s u mmone d i n t h e c o u n ty t o investigate

a l leged v i o l a ti ons of l aw a nd t o pe r f or m s uc h o ther d ut ies as may be a ut horized b y l aw .

T h e sig n at ur e s t o th e p e ti t i o n need n o t a ll b e a ff i xe d t o o ne p a p er, b u t each pa p e r to

w hi ch signatures a r e affixed sha ll h a v e s ub sta nt ial ly the forego i ng fo r m writ ten or p ri nte d

at th e t o p ther e of

an d state o f K ansas co u nty, Kansas , with in 60 d a y s af t er

K .S . A . 22 - 3 0 0 1 . 2 014 , c h . 50, § 1 , e ff . J u l y 1 ,20 1 4

The petition, as p re s ented to th e C l erk oft h e dis t rict court req u i r e s additional d escr ip tion .

T h e above statem e n t in s up port appears ato p eac h of 4 8 p ages wh i c h in c l ude up t o 1 0 s i g n at u res,

n am e s a nd add resse s. As fil e d t he p e ti t i o n in c lu des a c o versheet en tit l ed " I n the Matte r of the

Gra n d Jur y P etition , " under w h ich p i ct u res an d na m es of t h e D i s trict J u dges of th e 11th Di strict

are th e n i mp o s e d, f o ll owe d b y th e s ub t itle(s) "G r a n d Ju ry Pe tit i o n t o I nvest i gate , Di s qu a lify an d

Ou st A ll A b ov e 11 t h D is tr i ct Judg e s" a nd "W e th e Pe o pl e D e m a n d a nd E th ica l , Fai r an d

Impartial Judici a r y . " Appended t o th e 48 pages of s i gnatu re s a b ov e d es cr i bed i s a n 11 p age

document e n titled " Damages, Declar a tor y or Injunctive Re l i ef Defendant s" which then lis ts the

11th Di s trict Judges, Judge Janice Russell, Judge John E . Sanders , " Commis s ion on Judicial

Qu a li f ic a t ion s, " Stanton A . Hazlet t, Michal Ga y oso , Jr . , Tim Gril lot and Kan s as Att o rne y

General Der e k Schmidt . The ensuing 11 pages seems to both e x p l ain w h y these additi o nal

persons (in c luding Stephen Phillips, who is not in c luded in the pr e fator y lis t) require

inves t igation while apparently citing authorities in support of the petitioners' assertion these

persons and or entities (in the c a se of the Commission on Judicia l qualificatio ns r e fereed to,

p r e s umabl y, as " p a nels A and B " ) d o not ha v e imm u nity from actions for "dama g es , de c laratory ,

and injuncti v e " relief . As no cause of action is stated again s t these person s and or entities, the

reason for this port i on of the petition is , at best , a mystery.

The onl y reasonable interpretati on of his petition seem s to su g gest the petitioners are

praying for the summoning of a grand jur y pursuant to K . S.A . 22-3001 et. seq. , and action for

ou s ter pursuant to K . S . A . 60 - 1205 , et. seq . , a reque s t for injunctiv e relief pursuant to K . S . A . 60-

901 et . seq. and , possi bly , action(s) for other relief . But, as stated above, no cau se s of action are

actuall y pl e ad.

Whether the allegations of the petition meet the s t atutor y requirements w ill be determin e d

fr o m the 48 pa g es with signatu re s a s they are the only do c uments that h ave be e n v eri f ied as the

c ont a inin g the information officiall y " petitioned" b y the indiv i d ua l sign a tories. Th e re i s no

indicati o n an y o f th e indi v idual s w ho sig n e d the peti t i o n re a d and / o r ag re e d t o th e a lle g ation s s e t

forth on th e cove rshe e t or , m o re impo rta ntly , th e 11 pa ge d o cume nt att a ch e d b y t h e thre e

petitioners at the time of filing. Although there may be no wa y to be ass ured be y ond a n y doubt

that the peti t ion e r s so intentionally framed this action , the rea s onable cau s e s of a c tion di v ined

from these pleadings seems to best interpreted as a petition for a grand jur y , comprised by 48

signature p a g es combined with an action for other civil relief filed by the 3 petitioners .

T h e statutory threshold

of sufficient allegation by way of citizen petition compelli ng the

summoning of a grand jury can be distilled from the statute. In addition to the required language

and general accusation of "alleged violations of law" required b y subsection (3) o f K . S . A . 22-

330l(c) subsection (2) requires three elements. Required are (1) "the subject matter of the

prospective grand jury" (2) "a reaso n ab l y specific i de n tification of the a reas to be inquired into"

and (3) " sufficient general allegations to warrant a finding that such inquiry may lead to

information which, if true, would warrant a true bill of indictment. " These requirements may be

read in the context of what a grand jury can and cannot do. In point of fact the only thing grand

juries may do is indict . There are no other funct i ons. Grand juries have no powers or

responsibilities ot h er than those that flow from their role in the criminal justice system of brining

criminal charges.

The Founding fathers of the United States felt so strongl y about the virtues of the grand

jury system that it is protected b y our Bill of Rights . The Fifth A mendment to the U nited States

Con s titution states:

"No person s h a ll be he l d to answer for a capital or otherwise i nfamous "

crime, un l ess on a presentment or indictme nt of a gr a nd jur y

Ho w e v er, the United States Supreme Court has held t hat the Fi ft h Am e ndment right o f

indi c t m en t b y a Grand Jury is not bindin g on the ind iv idu a l s t a tes th r ou g h the Fourteenth

Amendment . See Hurtado v . Cal i fornia, 11 0 U . S . 516 (1884) . Notwithstanding, nearl y all of the

states continue to u s e Grand Juries a s a way to investigate criminal conduct and to comm e nce

crim i n a l pr ose cu t ion s . M o re ove r , in m os t s tates, G rand Ju r i es c o nt i nu e to b ea r a sig n i fi c a n t

r es embl an ce t o th ose which ex i s ted at comm o n l a w.

The U n it ed St a tes S upr e m e Co urt h as e xp l aine d the sc o p e of a gra n d jur y' s p o we r s as

fo l lows:

" Tradi t ionally t he g r and jury has been accorded w i de l a t i t ude t o inquire i nto v i olations

of criminal l aw . No j u dge p resides t o m oni tor its p roceedin gs . I t d e l iberates i n sec r e t and may de t ermine a l o n e t h e cou r se of i ts inqu i ry . Th e gran d j ur y may c o m pe l the produ c ti o n of evi d enc e o r t he t estimo n y of wit n esses as i t co n s i de r s ap pr o pri ate, and i ts operat i o n

g en e r a ll y is unr e str a in e d b y th e t e chnic al pr oce dural a nd e videntiar y r ul e s gov ernin g the

co n duc t of cr im ina l t ri a l s. ' It i s a g r a n d in q u es t , a body w i t h p owers of i nvest i gati o n an d inqui s iti o n, t he s c ope of whose i nqui ries i s n ot t o b e lim ite d n arr o w l y b y q u es t io n s of

p

ro p r i e t y o r f o reca s t s of th e pr o b a bl e r es ul t o f t h e in vest i g ati o n , o r b y d o ubt s w hethe r an y

p

a rti c ul ar ind iv idu a l w ill be f o u n d pr o p e rl y s ub jec t t o accu s ati o n . B lair v. U ni ted States,

250 U . S . 273 , 282 , 39 S . Ct . 468 , 471 , 63 L . E d. 979 ( 191 9) . " (Emph a si s

a dded . )

Unite d States v . Ca l andra , 4 14 U . S. 338, 3 4 3 ( 1 9 74 ) .

I n r evi e w in g th e d eve l op ment of th e Gran d Ju r y a t comm o n law , one of th e b es t

s ummari es w h i ch th i s Co urt ha s r ea d is f ound i n t h e S u pre m e Co urt of Rh ode I s l and's d ecis i on in

Op inio n t o t h e G o ve rno r , 62 R . I . 200 , 20 3, 4 A . 2 d 4 8 7 ( 1 9 3 9) . In its d e cisi on , the Rh o de I s l and

S upr e me C ourt w ro te :

" I t i s un n e cessary h e r e t o go at grea t l ength in to t h e history o f th e g r and j u r y . It was so

de f inite l y fi x ed a n d est a b l ish e d in th e law of E n g land th at its comp os iti o n , purpo se a nd scope o f p ow e r in ce r tai n crimina l m atters were u n i versa lly k n own and acce p ted , a nd

the y are no t no w op e n t o di s pu t e. A lmost fro m time imm e m o ri a l , th e gra nd jur y was

c o m posed of n ot m ore th a n t we nt y - th ree swor n m e m bers an d th e con curr ence o f a t l east

t we l ve of such m em b er s was alwa y s necessar y i n order to return a valid i n dict men t . One

of it s m a in p urpo s es w as t o pr o t e ct th e ri g h ts o f the i n di vi d ua l c iti zen aga in s t poss i b l e

oppressio n b y t h e crown or i ts agenc i es in t he p r osecu t ion of crimes; or

th e i n d iv idu a l 's ri g ht s aga in st pri vate malice, p a rty passion o r governme n tal a bu se . "

to safegua r d

Th e p ower s of the g r a nd jur y wer e ind eed br oa d a n d were n ot specif icall y limit e d mere l y

t o m a t ters p r e sen te d b y th e crown or t h e charge of the court. Certainly the common l aw

grand ju ry in E n g l a nd was not s o l i m ited . T h is r eadily appears f r om t he f orm of oath

a

dmini st er e d , und e r w hich i t co ul d in ves tig a te a nd ac t u p o n m att e r s w hi c h m i g ht co m e

p

roper l y be fo r e i t t h r o u gh s u ch k n ow l e d ge of a n y of i ts mem bers as was b a s ed up o n the i r

o wn ob s er va t i ons or e v id e nc e, but n o t on m er e rum o r or r e p o rt s . A g r an d jur y thu s

constituted f unct i one d i n this manne r in Eng l a nd w i thou t any s u bs t antial cha n ge for

se v eral hundred ye a r s prior t o t he adoptio n of o u r const i tuti o n . No ot h er ki n d of grand

j

u r y w a s known . "62 R.I . at 2 0 3.

The S upr e me Court of R hode I sland further stated:

" [ W ] e m u st kee p in mi n d th e fact

th at ev e ry gran d j u r y und er common l aw h ad the

p ow e r t o i n ve stigat e a l l ki nds of ind i cta bl e cr i m e s co mmi t t ed i n i ts cou nty a nd n o t m e rel y into certa in kin d s of such crimes or o nl y th ose ca l led to its attention b y a prosec ut i n g attor n ey or the court . Suc h broad powers were inh erent i n the nature of e v e r y gran d j u ry at com m on l aw and , therefor e , i n ou r op in ion, it f o llows that ' a g r an d j ur y' w i th in t h e

m ean i n g of th a t t erm supra .

mu st h ave the s a me f u l l po we rs as a co m m on l aw g r an d jur y . "

Ev en thou g h th e r e h as b een l eg i timat e c riti c i s m of t he g r a nd jur y sy st em t hr o u g h o ut th e

histo r y oft h e Un i ted States , it has w i thstoo d the test oftime . A lth o u g h Gran d J u r ies are th e

exce p t i on r a t her th an th e r ul e in Kansas , they h ave c on tinu e d t o be u sed o n vario u s occas i ons

thro u g h ou t th e h is t o r y of K ansas. Just as i t did in co l o n ial t imes, t he G r and Ju ry co n t in ues t o

give r eprese n tativ e s of th e commu n i t y a vo i ce i n d ec idin g w h o s h o u l d and sho ul d n ot be

pr osecut e d f or a v i o l a ti o n of o ur c rimin al l aws.

" I n Kan s as, a grand j ur y is a cr eatu r e of statu te and no t of t he c ons t itu tion. I ts f un cti on i s

in ves t iga to ry a nd a cc u s a t o ry in c ont ra st to a pe tit jur y, whi c h d e t erm in es th e gu ilt or inn oce nc e

of an acc u sed . " State v . Snodgras s, 267 Ka n. 1 85, 1 90,979 P.2d 664 (1999) (Emphasis

s u p pli e d ) . T h e role o f a gra nd jur y i n K a n sas "is to inquir e i n t o crimes cogn i z a bl e b y i t an d , upon

the concu rrence of 12 or more jurors, an in di ctment may be found and prese n ted to the district

cou r t fo r f i li ng." 26 7 Kan. at Syl . ~ 1.

H i stor ic a l l y, the gr a nd jur y funct i oned pr imarily a s a pro t ection a gainst arbitrary prosecution b y th e State:

I t frequent l y s tood a s a barri e r ag a inst roy al persecutio n , until at l en g th it was r egarde d as

a n i n s t i tution that sec ur e d the King' s s ubject s ag ain s t th e o ppre s s io n o f unfound e d

prosecutio ns by t h e Crown. A l t h o u g h that r easo n m ay n ot h ave bee n t h e moti vatin g factor in t h i s country , t he fact rema i ns th at t h e g r and ju r y sy s tem was a d op t ed he r e and

f o r c o n s ider a t io ns quite sim ilar to those of the m o ther countr y . O u r ado p t i on o f th e

s y stem wa s f oun de d on t h e t he or y not o nl y of br i n gin g wrongdoers to j us tice, but al s o of providing pro t ecti o n ag a inst unfounded a nd unreal a c cu s a ti on s , whether these ha d t he ir o rigi n i n government a l s ou r c es or were fo un ded o n pr i v a t e p assio n

o r enmit y. ' 38 Am . Jur . 2 d at 1 9 3 .

Gran d Ju ry § 2, pp 94 7 - 98. " (E mp h a s is suppl ied. ) , 26 7 Kan.

I n S n o d g r ass, The K a n sas Supreme Cour t found that "the fundamental purpose of a gra nd

j ury ' is to obtain a g roup of m e n and w omen w h o represent a fair a n d i mpartial c r o ss sectio n of

ci tizens of the co u n t y, each w i t h his or her o w n indiv idu a l thoughts , e x periences , an d reactions ."

, 26 7 Kan . a t 195 ( quot i n g 3 8 A m . Jur . 2 d Grand Jur y § 4 , pp . 948 - 49). Furtherm o re , "a gr an d

j ur y has th e right and obli g ation t o a ct on its o w n informa tion , ho wev er a cquired " a nd " the o at h

required to b e t a ken b y g r a nd juror s

requires them to inquire diligently into the commission

of crimes

" 267 Ka n . a t 195 (q u o ti ng 38 AmJu r . 2d Grand Jur y § 7 , pp. 95 1 -52 , empha s i s

supplied) .

A

lthough once imp a n e l e d the in ves tig ati v e r o le of th e g r a nd jur y mu s t b e liber a l ly

c o n s tru e d , th i s i s not sug g est that o ne should be summon e d a t a mer e w him, fanc y o r f o r an y

subversi v e male vo l ent purpose . Th e s t a tute presume s a demonstration that if the all egations are

deemed tr u e they wi ll " warrant a true bill of indictment. " K.S.A . 22 - 300 1 (c)(2 ). There are , thus,

rea s onable a nd a ppropri a t e limitation s. Ob v iou s l y th e re mu s t b e a lle gati o n s, th a t if pr ov ed t r u e ,

so m eo n e c o u l d be char g ed w ith a crime. In oth e r wo rds g rand j u rie s ar e limited to con si d era ti o n

of criminal ma t t e r s. The y are n o t to b e c alled to a ddr e ss civ i l or a dm i n is tr a tiv e m atters th at do

not r ise to the l e ve l of the commi ssion of a crime . Furthe r gr a nd j u r ies s hould n ot b e c a l l ed o n

me re un s uppor t ed suspi c ion or u sed in a c a l c ulated a ttempt t o h arass other s . Gr and j uries s hould

no t e n gag e in , a nd ther e f o r e pr esum ab l y s hould not b e c a lle d f or th e purpo se of a m e r e fi s hing

e xp edition in th e h o p es th at s om e criminal v iola tion migh t be di sc o ve red . In t e rm s c o i ned b y the

Kan s a s S u pr e me Court , a distr i ct court must assure itse l f " that the g r and j u r y has not eng a g e d in

a n a rbi t r a r y f i s hing e x pedi t i o n and th a t the targ e ts w er e not s e lec t e d

ou t o f mal ice or wi t h

int e nt to h a ras s . " Al so" The in ve stigator y p ow e r s of a gr an d jur y are n o t unlimit e d . G rand

j uri e s a re no t l ice n s e d to e n ga g e in a r bit rar y f i s hing e x p edi tio ns, no r ma y th ey s elect

t arget s of in v estigation out of malice or w i t h an intent to harass. " Tiller v . Corrig a n, 286

K a n. 30 , 46 , S y ll . ~ 5 , 182 P.3d 7 19 , 72 9 (2008) ( emphasis supplied ) .

Outside the required form lan g u a ge and th e requests for relief that must be deemed mere

surplusage , the only language on the petition which liberally may be construed or divined to

meet the requirements amounting to allegations of a crime are as follows: " Hear testimon y and

in v estigate alleg e d violations of Federal and Kansas DUE PROCESS constitutional law b y . the

s y stemic and blatant usurpation of judicial office and the disturbing conflict s of interest between

Jud ge s* * and att o rne y s ( e s p . th e ir f o rm e r l aw partners) in c luding in s tances of confirmed /

shockin g economic c o n f li c t o f int e r est s ."

open / hidd e n con f licts o f intere s t

"

it is inappropriate for a judg e to h e ar ca s e s w ith

Th e st a ndard this court will impose is that no w generall y r ecognized r eg arding pro se

liti g ants and their pleadings. "Any cause of action that might be di v ined. " In other word s, this

court is not emplo y ing s ome hyper technical or even technic a l or , ar g uably , sub - technical

r e quirement in determinin g if the petition m e ets the statutor y threshold. The stand is an y crime

thi s c o urt m a y di v ine fr o m th ese a l l eg a t ions. As w ill be seen , e ven w ith that st a ndard , as low a s it

m

a y be , th e p e t itio n f a il s to m e e t t h e n e c essary r e quirements . F ir s t the c o ncept o f " Fed e r a l" du e

pr

oces s i s w h o ll y i rr e l e v ant . A K ansa s s t a t e g r a nd ju ry c ann o t bri n g f ed e r a l c h a r ges, plain a n d

s impl e . Furth e r t her e ar e n o c r imin a l st a tutes th at s p e ak to a denia l of due pro cess in th e K ansas

Criminal code ( K.S.A. c h a pter 21 ) . C learly th e re may be g round s fo r a civil action, but there are

no s uch g r ou nd s for a c ri m i na l a ction . As d e m o n st r a ted b y t h e auth o r i tie s abo ve, the onl y

concer n of a Ka nsas grand jur y i s w hether or not to brin g criminal char ges.

While it is diffi c ul t t o perceive of a realit y w here a n y re aso n a b l e pers o n w ould di sa g re e

w ith th e co n c ep t that ju s tice s hould be dispens e d without the influ e nce o f inapprop r i a te con fl ict s

o f interes t , ju s t a s the prece di ng discussion delineates the difference betw een civil and criminal

actions there i s no crimin a l s tatue w hich c a n reason a ble be construed to b e a pplicable t o the

conflict of intere s t com p laints of the dr af ters o f this instant petition.

In p oi nt of f act, out s ide the parameters ofK . S . A . 20-311d ( Cha ng e of judge-dealin g w ith t h e

case b y cas e determinations of disqualification ) the onl y entit y which is able to legally determine

a con f l i ct s of int e re s t and appropri a te sanctions regard i ng a tr i al court judge is the Kansas

Supreme Court or it s designated authorit y the Kans a s Commis sion on Judicial Qu a lific ati o n s

(KCJQ) . Ironic a ll y that entity is the primar y s ubject of the 11 page a ddendum to the petition as

filed w ith the district court. No district court either embodied as a grand jur y , a petit jur y, a judge

or tribunal of jud g es h as an y a uthorit y to dete rmine a conflict of in t er e st of a district court jud g e

or to impo s e an y sancti o n onc e one h a s been de termined. Th e r e i s n o crime in the K a ns as

criminal code which is pre c ipitated e v en if a c o nflict exists. That i s the e xc lu s i v e province of the

Supreme C ourt . Under Arti c le 3 section 15 of the Kansas Constituti o n Supreme Court has

empowered th e KCJQ to ass ist in judicial dis c iplin a r y matters. Under rule 605 , POWE R S OF

C OM M IS S I ON, th e c o mmi ssi o n has all p ow ers nec e ssar y t o i n s t i tute , c onduct a nd d isp os e of

proceedin g s re g ardin g th e al l qual if i c atio ns of jud g e s to s it o n indiv id u al c as e s as w ell a s th e ir

fitn e ss t o se r v e g en e r a ll y . Inh e rent in this e x pre s s dele g a tio n o f the Sup reme C o urt 's e x clu s i ve

jurisd i cti o n , powe r a n d a uthorit y i s th e po we r to determin e conflicts of inter e st a nd the

app r op ri ate sanc t ion s fo r any vio l a t io n of the ru les regard in g th e same. N o g ra n d j ury c o n vened

for any imagina b le r e ason wo uld h ave this authority.

No ot h e r s up posed cr im e ca n be d iv i ne d fr o m t hi s petiti o n .

If this c o urt were to c onsid e r the 1 1 pag es a ppended to the di str ict court filin g despite the

a part lack o f pre sen t a tion to th e required qu a lifi e d v oters w h o s i g ned t he petition , the d e ni a l o f

t h e p etit i o n b e com e s e v en more ne cessa r y . W ith th e a llega tion s of th e s i g ned peti tio n the

p et iti o n e r s h ave th e b e nef i t of t he ge n e ral na tu re of th e all ega tion s. W i t h th e a dd e ndum a dd e d

aft e r th e v ot e rs si gn e d th e ir p et ition s th e s pecif i c ity p rov i d ed in th e 11 pa ge attac hm e nt makes it

c l ear th a t th e co mplaint s rel a te no t onl y to conc e rns wi thin the e xc lus iv e p r o v ince of entitie s

such as th e K C JQ a nd th e Sta t e Di s ciplinar y A dmini s trator ( A tto rn ey Di s ciplin e), but that

apparentl y man y of th e s e ve r y c o ncerns hav e be e n in v estig ate d b y thes e a g encie s . Wh a t i s

cl e arl y i mplied if not overtl y m a nifest i s that some per s ons are dissatis fied w i th the fact that

comp l ain t s made to these agencies did not re s ult in a desired outcome . The n a tural con c lu s ion b y

an y one fami l iar with th e se ag encies a nd their processes is th a t un sa tis fied b y the a ction and o r

in a c t ion of these a genci es p a rti e s no w s ee k a n a lte r nativ e w heth e r o r n o t the law so pr ov id es .

Kan s as la w d o es not provide the g rand jur y proc es s a s a n a v enue to either visit o r r ev i s it

i ss u es o f t h ese ty pe s.

N a ture o f Grand Jur y Pro c e e dings

I n Ka n sas , K . S . A . 22 - 30 1 2 gover n s t he s e c recy of Gra nd Jur y proceed i ngs an d t h e

d

i s c l os u re of in f o r m a ti on . O th e r t ha n limit e d di s c l os u res made t o t he Co un ty At torne y f or the

u

se i n t h e p e r fo rm a n ce of h e r o ffi c i a l du ty , a j uro r , attor ne y, inte r preter, r e p o r ter or t y p is t w h o

t ran s cribes re co rd e d te st i m o n y i s p erm i t t ed to " di sc lose m atters occ u r rin g bef o r e the Gr a nd J ury

. o nl y w h en so direc ted

b y th e C o u r t pr e liminar i ly to or i n co nnection w ith the j udici a l p r o c ee di ng

or w h e n per mitted b y t he Co u rt a t t he requ e s t of the defend a nt u pon a s h owing t h e gro un ds may

exist fo r a m otion to dismiss t h e in d i ctmen t b ecau s e of matters occ u rr in g before t h e G r a n d Jur y. "

Li k ewise, the Co urt m ay " di rect a n i ndic tmen t s hall be k ep t s e cr et until th e d efe nd ant i s in

cu

s tod y o r h as been g i v en b a il

."

T

he U nit e d S tat es S uprem e Co u r t h as h e ld th at " the pr o p e r functio nin g of o ur Gr a nd Ju ry

sy

stem d e pends upon the secrecy of G r and Jur y proceedin g s ." D o uglas Oil C o . v P e trol Sto c k s

No r t h wes t , 4 4 1 U . S. 211 , 2 18 ( 197 9) . S ome o f the v ita l interes ts w hich a re prot ec t e d b y the

r eq uir e m en t of sec recy i nc lud e : ( 1 ) P r ese r v in g th e w illin g n ess a nd c a nd o r of w i t ne s s es c a lle d

befor e th e Gra nd Jur y; (2) No t a l te rin g th e t arge t of a n in v e s tiga tio n w h o migh t o th e r w i se fl e e ,

i ntim i d ate w itn ess es and / or har ass t he G rand Jur o r s ; a nd ( 3 ) Pre s e rv ing the ri g h ts of the citizen

w ho i s e x onerated by the Gr a nd Jury. 441 U . S . at 2 1 9. Thus i n or d er t o prot e ct the inte g rity of

t h e Gra n d J ur y syst e m , c ou r ts " ha ve c o ns istentl y s tood rea d y t o defe nd [ G r a nd Jur y sec r e c y ]

again s t un war ran te d intru s i o n. In t he a b se n c e of a c l ear i n d i cati on in a statute

[ t h e Co urt] mu s t

a l way s b e rel u ct a n t to co n c lude th at a b r e ac h o f sec r ecy h as b e en a u t h o ri z ed ." U n ite d Sta t es v

S e lls E n g in ee rin g , I n c. , 463 U.S . 418 , 425 (1 9 83) (citin g Illin o i s v Abb o tt and Ass o c iates , Inc . ,

460 U . S. 557, 5 72 -5 7 3 [1 9 8 3] . )

" D esp it e th e f ac t th a t n ews g a t h e rin g m ay b e hamp e red , the pr e s s i s re g ular l y e x cluded

f r o m Gra nd J ur y pr oceed i n gs . " B randon b urg v H ayes, 40 8 U . S . 665 , 6 84 - 68 5 ( 1 9 7 2) .

F u r t he r mo r e, t h e U ni ted Stat e s S up reme Co u rt h a s we n t so far as to d escri b e Gra n d Jur y sec r ecy

(1943). T hu s, it i s c l ear th a t th e G r a n d J ury " o c cupies a hi g h place as a n in s tr u m e nt of j ustice i n

our s y ste m of c ri mina l l aw - so m uch so th a t i t i s e n shr i n ed in th e C o n s t itut i o n ." Sells, 4 63 U . S.

at 4 1 8 ( 1 983) (c i ting P ittsburg P late G l ass , Co . v United States, 360 U . S . 395 , 399 ( 1 9 5 9) a n d

Costello v United States, 350 U . S . 359, 36 1 -362 ( 1 956) .

In a ddi t ion t o the s e sec recy i ss u es ano th e r a s p e ct o f gra n d jur y p r o c e ed i ngs b e ar s o n t h e

u l ti m ate di spositi o n of t hese pl ea din gs. O n ce a pe t ition fo r a g r an d ju ry i s f ile d th e invo l vement

of the pe r sons f il i n g th e sam e, wi t h th e e n tire pr o c ess ceases. " H owev er , upon t h e s u bmis s ion

o f t he petition, t h e ro l e o f t h e c iti zen r y i n th e gra nd ju ry p rocess cea s es." Tiller v.

Corrigan, 2 86 Kan . 3 0 , 18 2 P . 3 d 719 ( 20 08) ( e mphasis s upplied) . In a case that is not

c ontrolling authorit y as i t is unpublished and yet is the onl y a ut hority of which this

co urt isaware the Kans as Court of Appeals has held that a p e ti t ioner lacks standing to

f il e an a p peal from a n o rder den y ing a grand ju r y when the si g natures are deem e d

insuf f ici e nt as t h e ir r ol e ce a s es upo n p r es e nt at i o n of th e p e tition. See I n re G rand Jury

Filed by R eardon , 260 P .3d 1 249 (Ka n . Ct. A p p. 2 0 1 1 ).

T h e matte r fil e d b y peti t io n e r s i s c l ear l y lab e l e d a pe titio n f or gra n d jur y an d th e mat t e r

was a p propriate l y fi l ed as such w i t h t he des i g n ati o n cons i s tent with a Misce l lan eous Fi lin g . T h e

fact that grand j ury proceeds, as clearl y held in the auth orities cit e d above, are u nique creatures

of sta t ute, gove r ned by the stat u es providing t h e r efo r e t here is no statutory p roced u re which

al l ows s u c h a p et i t i o n to be j oine d wit h a n y other ca u se of ac tion. In addit i o n t o this fact t he

g r an d ju ry sec re cy r e qu ire m e n ts m a k e j oi nd er w i t h any other actio n i m prac t ica l if no t

impossibl e .

This court is aw a r e that petitioners ha v e pro v ided summo n s and s er v ice fees to t h e Clerk

of t he D ist r i c t c o urt for ser vi ce of summons o n m a n y p a rtie s alth o ugh th e s tat utes con cer nin g

g r a nd juri e s mak e no such pro vis ion. T he court h e r e b y dir e c t s th e C l e rk o f the Court to re tu rn

the s e do c um e n t s and check s to the p erson s from w h o m th ey w e re r ece i ve d.

IT I S TH E REFORE CO NSI DERED, ORDERED, ADJ UD G E D A N D DECR E ED;

Ba s ed upon the abo v e and forgoing t he petition for a grand jur y to be summoned filed M ay 19 th ,

2015 in the District Court of Cra w ford County Kansas should be and i s herby denied. The

Petition is di s missed . This order is final. A c o py of this order shall be gi v en to petitioners. The

f ile will then be sealed and access will be permitted only uponfurther order of the court.

IT I S SO ORDERED.

M. ", " 'U u , w " U

District Judge, as si g ne d