IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

IN RE: REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY Case No. 15MR2P

MOTION TO DETERMINE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

+

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS

(Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-259 and Supreme Court Rule 133(c)(1)

+

REQUEST FOR PLEADINGS TO BE FILED IN CASE

By District Judge Richard M. Smith, assigned

11th Judicial District

State of Kansas

COMESNOW,thepeopleoftheGRANDJURYPETITIONinaccordancewithK.S.A.

60266JurisdictionandVenueandchallengesthiscourtsjurisdictionandstatesas

follows:

REALPARTIESOFINTEREST

Petitionersaretryingtounderstandwhotherealpartiesofinterestareincasenumber

2015MR2P.Petitionershaveadueprocessrighttoknowtherealpartiesofinterest

arebeforethiscasecanbedismissed.

SUBSTANTIVESYSTEMOFLAW

Petitionerscannotproceedwithcasenumber2015MR2PuntilPetitionershaveaclear

andpresentunderstandingwhetherthisCourtisproceedingundercontractlawortort

law.IfthiscourtisoperatingundercontractlawthendoesntRule3.15(B)stillexistand

hasnotbeenruledunconstitutionalandPetitionerswouldlikeajudicialdetermination

onthisstatuteandsubstantivesystemoflawCrawfordCountyCourtoperatesunder.

REMEDYDEMANDED

PetitionerdemandsthatthiscourtchangethejudgeinaccordancewithK.S.A.20311d

andscheduleahearingforPetitionerswithajudgelicensedinKansasthathas

subjectmatterjurisdictionbycomplyingwithRule3.15(B)ofTheCodeOfJudicial

ConductsothattheRespondentscancomeandanswerthequestionsunderpenaltyof

perjuryposedbyPetitionerssothatthenatureandcausecanbedeterminedandifthe

courtlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictiontosignanyORDERSincasenumber

2015MR2PandthatiswhyallORDERSinthiscasearesigned15MR2Pwhichis

notthesamenumberastheGRANDJURYPETITIONwhichwasfiledonMay19,

2015.

INVOKINGJUDGESOATHOFOFFICE

PetitionersherebyinvokestheoathoftheofficeofTheHonorableRichardSmithinthis

case,pursuanttoArticleVI,Clause3,oftheConstitutionfortheUnitedStatesof

America,andfullyincorporatesithereinbyreference,asiffullyincorporatedherein.

TakeNOTICE:anyjudgetakinganyactionsinthiscasewithouthavingjurisdictionin

personamandoversubjectmatterandwithouthavingauthorityconferredbyasigned,

valid,andcurrentoathofofficemaybeguiltyofusurpationofpoweraccordingtoK.S.A.

601202(1)andmaybeliableforprosecutionundertheClearfieldDoctrine.

NOTICEOFLACKOFUNDERSTANDINRE:VENUE

PetitionergivesthiscourtnoticethatPetitionerdoesnotunderstandhowthevenuein

whichtheabovenamedcourtisproceeding,anduntilPetitionerhasaclearandpresent

understandingofsuchvenue,thepetitionercannotproceedwithtrial.Isthiscourt

proceedingintherepublicstateorinthecorporatestate?AreallORDERSinthis

casejudicialordersoraresomeoftheORDERSinthiscaseadministrativeordersand

thatiswhytherearespacesinbetweenMR2PonthecasenumberORDERSand

notwrote2015MR2PliketheGRANDJURYPETITIONwasstampedfiled.Howcan

thiscourthaveVenueinCrawfordCountyDistrictCourtincasenumber2015MR2P

whenHonorableSmithhasnotproperlyfilledouthisfinancialdisclosurereportin

accordancewithRule3.15(B)ofTheCodeofJudicialConduct.

JURISDICTION

PetitionersarefamiliarwithK.S.A.60266whichisstatutorylawinKansasand

PetitionersarefamiliarwithArticleIIIoftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesof

America,theRepublic,andtheinLaw,equity,andadmiraltyJurisdictionsofthe

Courtsthereunder.Petitionersdonotunderstandhowthiscourthasanyjurisdiction

overPetitionerswhenHonorableSmithdidnotcomplywithRule3.15(B)ofTheCode

ofJudicialConduct.Petitionershaveunalienablerights,reservedabinitio,andwantto

knowhowthiscourtcanexercisejurisdictionoverPetitionerwithoutPetitionersexplicit

grantofsuchjurisdiction.Inshort,Petitionerschallengethiscourtsjurisdiction

becausePetitionersrefusetogivethiscourtjurisdictionsincePetitionershavenothad

ajudgeinthiscasethathascompliedwithRule3.15(B)ofTheCodeofJudicial

Conductandthereforenosubjectmatterjurisdictionshouldhavebeengrantedto

HonorableSmith.Noassumptionofjurisdictioncanbemade,especiallyinthefaceof

squarechallenge.Afternoticeofjurisdictionchallenge,assumptionofjurisdiction

withoutverifiedproofisausurpationofpower.Petitionerscannotproceedincase

number2015MR2Puntilthiscourtcanshowthatthiscourthasjurisdictionover

Petitioners.

ARGUMENTS+AUTHORITIES

AccordingtoK.S.A.60265andK.S.A.60266CrawfordCountyDistrictCourtshould

havelackedsubjectmatterjurisdictiontohearcasenumber2015MR2Pandthepeopleofthe

GrandJuryPetitionchallengethiscourtsjurisdictiontosignanyORDERSinthiscasedueto

lackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.Ajudgemustbeactingwithinhis/herjurisdiction

astosubjectmatterandperson,tobeentitledtoimmunityfromcivilactionfor

his/heracts,Davisv.Burris,51Ariz.220,75P.2d689(1938).Whenajudicial

officeractsentirelywithoutjurisdictionorwithoutcompliancewithjurisdictionrequisites,

he/shemaybeheldcivillyliableforabuseofprocesseventhoughhis/heractinvolveda

decisionmadeingoodfaiththathe/shehadjurisdiction.StateuseofLittlev.U.S.

Fidelity&GuarantyCo.,217Miss.576,64So.2d697.JudicialImmunityalsoshould

notapplybecauseHonorableSmithsdutytofillouthisfinancialdisclosureform

correctlybyApril15,2015andcomplywithRule3.15(B)ofisaministerialactthatis

notentitledtoanyformofjudicialimmunity.Theclerk,asanofficerofthecourt,is

obligedtocomplywiththerulesofproceduregoverninghisduties.Whendelinquentor

derelictinsuchperformance,appropriatelegalmeasuresareavailabletoenforce

compliance,aswellastosecureredressbywayofdamagesincurredasaresultofhis

failuretoperformthoseduties.Wardv.Fountain,122So.2d209,210(Fla.1stDCA

1960)(emphasisadded).HonorableSmithisanofficerofthecourtaswelland

thereforenoimmunityshouldapplytoHonorableSmithjustliketheclerkofthecourt.

InCookv.CityofTopeka,654P.2d953(Kan.1982),theSupremeCourtofKansas

analyzedtheapplicabilityofjudicialimmunitytotheactionsoftheclerkofcourt,and

concludedthatpurelyministerialactionsbytheClerkofCourtsundertakenpursuantto

statutorydirectivearenotsubjecttothedoctrineofjudicialimmunity.Atitscore,the

courtsanalysisinvolvesadeterminationastowhethertheclerkwasengagedina

judicial,quasijudicial,orministerialtask.Seeid.At957.Ifthecomplainedofactionsof

theclerkareministerial,judicialimmunitydoesnotapply.Seeid.At958.

One test used to determine whether a clerk of a court is engaged in a judicial,

quasijudicial or ministerial task is to see if a statute imposes a duty upon the clerk to

act in a certain way leaving the clerk no discretion. In Am.Jur.2d it is stated while there

is some conflict as to the judicial or ministerial nature of certain specific duties of a clerk

of courthis duty is purely ministerial when it is prescribed by statute. 15A Am.Jur.2d,

ClerksofCourt21,p.156(emphasissupplied).

Cookv.CityofTopeka,654P.2d953,957(Kan.1982).AClerkmaynotescape

liabilityforillegalorimproperperformanceofaministerialtaskimposedbystatute.Id.

At958.

WhenajudgedoesnothaveSubjectMatterJurisdictionandhehearsacaseanywayheisnotfunctioningundercontract,notinsured,notbonded,andisactingonlyaprivatemanwithUNLIMITEDLIABILITYandisLIABLEACCORDINGLY.ThecourtlosesjurisdictionasafunctionofitsownselfdefiningrulesbecauseunderitsrulestheCOURTMUSTPROCEEDACCORDINGLYTOLAWORSTATUTE:Thefollowingareapartiallistofelementswhyajudgeiswithoutsubjectmatterjurisdictionandallofitsorders/judgmentsarevoid:

(1)Ajudgedoesnotfollowstatutoryprocedure,Armstrongv.Obucion,300Ill.140,143(1921),

(2)Unlawfulactivityofajudge,CodeofJudicialConduct,

(3)Violationofdueprocess,Johnsonv.Zerbst,304U.S.458,58S.Ct.1019(1938)PureOilCo.V.CityofNorthlake,10Ill.2d241,245,140N.E.2d289(1956)Hallbergv.GoldblattBros.,363Ill.25(1936),

(4)Ifthecourtexceededitsstatutoryauthority,Rosenstielv.Rosenstiel,278F.Supp.794(S.D.N.Y.1967),

(5)Wherethejudgedoesnotactimpartially,Braceyv.Warden,U.S.SupremeCourtNo.966133(June9,1997),

(6)Whenthejudgeisinvolvedinaschemeofbribery(theAlemanncases,Braceyv.Warden,U.S.SupremeCourtNo.966133(June9,1997),(14)whereasummonswasnotproperlyissued.

JudgeSmith,signedORDERinacasethathedidnothaveSUBJECTMATTER

JURISDICTIONtohearincasenumber2015MR2PforfailingtocomplywithRule

3.15(B)ofTheCodeofJudicialConductwhichisthesameastheabovementioned

statementtwo(2)whichisUnlawfulactivityofajudge,CodeofJudicialConduct.

ThereforeforthefollowingStatementsofFactsthisCourtLackedSubjectMatter

JurisdictioninCaseNumber2015MR2P:

STATEMENTSOFFACTS

1.HonorableRichardM.Smithshouldhavelackedsubjectmatterjurisdictiontohearcasenumber2015MR2PforfailingtofollowSupremeCourtrule601BRelatingToJudicialConductCanon3.Rule3.15(B)(2013Kan.Ct.R.Annot.748)becausehedidnotfilehisJudicialFinancialDisclosureReportfor2013untilMay13,2014andhedidnotfillouthis2014JudicialFinancialDisclosureReportuntilMay19,2015whichbothviolatesRule3.15(B)ofRulesRelatingToJudicialconduct.AccordingtoCanon3Rule3.15(B)ajudgeissupposedtohavehisfinancialdisclosurereportfilledoutbyApril15ofeverycalendaryearandhisfailuretofilehis2013and2014financialdisclosurereportsontimeisaviolationofTheCodeofJudicialConduct.Rule3.15(B)saysAjudgeshallreportannuallytheinformationlistedabovein(A)(1)through(7)onaformprovidedbytheCommissiononJudicialQualifications.Thejudgesreportforthe

precedingcalendaryearshallbefiledaspublicdocumentintheofficeoftheClerkoftheAppellatecourtsonorbeforeApril15ofeachyear.

2.HonorableSmithalsoseemstohaveviolatedTheCodeofJudicialConductRule3.15(A)(6)becausehis2014financialdisclosurereportfailstolisthispositionthatheholdsatMoundCityChristianChurch212SpruceMoundCityKs,66056,Elderwhenhis2013financialdisclosurereportshowsthathewastheTrusteeatMoundCityChristianChurchandthepeopleneedtoknowifhestillholdsthispositionasTrusteeandhisfailuretolisthispositionisaviolationofTheCodeofJudicialConduct.ThefactthathedidnotfilehisfinancialdisclosurereportuntilafterApril15,2015whichisthelastdaytofileyourtaxeslookslikeheshidingeconomicinformationwhichisaviolationofthecodeofjudicialconduct.Onpage29ofTheExamplesofConductfoundToBeImproperitstatesthatajudgewasinformallyadvisedthatpaymentoftaxesisalegalobligationforwhichjudgesareresponsible.IalsofeelthatsincehisfinancialdisclosurereportwasnotfilledoutbyApril15,2015andthathedidnothaveSUBJECTMATTERJURISDICTIONtoheartheGrandJuryPetitionincasenumber2015MR2P.

3.ItseemstobeaviolationofTheCodeOfJudicialConductaccordingtoJudicialEthicAdvisoryOpinion1997JE77whichsaysJudgemayserveaselderofchurchaslongasjudgedoesnotsolicitfunds.Canon4C(4)(b).HowdoesthisnotrelatetoJudgeRichardSmithfilingonMay13,2014onhisfinancialdisclosurereportthatheiswiththebusiness/organization/entityasMoundCityChristianChurchwhereheholdsthepositionasTrustee.Thefirsttimehementionsthispositionwiththechurchisonhiscalendaryear2012financialdisclosurereportthathefiledontimeonApril8,2013andmentionsthepositionasTrusteewhichisaviolationbecausehecollectsfundsforthechurch.ThisshouldviolateRule3.12CompensationforExtrajudicialActivitiesanditshouldalsoviolateRule3.14ReimbursementofExpensesandWaiversofFeesorChargesCOMMENT(1)wherereligiousandcharitableorganizationsarementioned.Sincehefailedtomentionhispositionastrusteeonthe2014financialdisclosurehemighthavefailedtoproperlyshowexpensessincehedidnotfiletheseontimebyApril15,2015whichwastaxday.ThisalsoviolatesRule3.15(A)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(B)ReportingRequirements.

4.HonorableSmithwouldalsoseemtolacksubjectmatterjurisdictionbecauseofaviolationoftheethiccodethatheiswithLinnCountyCommunityFoundationasaBoardmember/SecretaryandheisalsowiththeKansasSentencingCommissionwhereheholdsthepositionofChairman/BoardMember.Hefailstomentioneitheroneofthesetwo(2)boardmemberpositionsonhisfinancialdisclosurereportforcalendaryear2014thathedidnotfileintimeonMay19,2015.JudgeSmithfirstmentionsthe

positionswithLinnCountyCommunityFoundationandKansasSentencingCommissiononhiscalendaryear2010financialdisclosurereportthathedidfileontimeonApril11,2011.Healsofilesthesamepositionsonhiscalendaryear2011financialdisclosurereportthathefiledontimeonJanuary30,2012.ThisshouldviolateRule3.12CompensationforExtrajudicialActivitiesandRule3.15(A)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(B)ReportingRequirementsforthese2organizationsaswell.ItalsowouldseemtobeaviolationofCanon5A(2)becausethepageExamplesofConductfoundToBeImpropersaysthatAjudgewasfoundtohaveviolatedCanon5A(2)byfilingforapositionontheschoolboardwhileholdingthepositionofjudge.Thesamepageshowsanotherexamplewhereajudgewasinformallyadvisedthatserviceonaboardwithjudicialreferralstothatboardwasinappropriatebecausethejudgesimpartialitycouldhavebeencalledintoquestion.ThiswouldseemtobethesamethingasLinnCountyCommunityFoundationasaBoardmember/SecretaryandalsowiththeKansasSentencingCommissionwhereheholdsthepositionofChairman/BoardMember.ThiswouldalsoseemtobethesamethingasJEOpinion1995JE56whichsaysFulltimemunicipalcourtjudgeservingasamemberofthelocalboardofeducation.Canon5A(2).JEOpinion1996JE70saysDistrictJudgemaynotserveonpolicedepartmentcommunityadvisoryboard.JEOpinion1997JE73saysJudgemaynotserveastrusteeforcommunityorganizationwhichaimstoimprovequalifyoflifeforchildrenandyouth.Canon4(A)(1),4C(4),anotherJEOpinionis1999JE90whichsaysNewlyappointedjudgemaycompleteatermonalocalschoolboardbetterpracticeofvoluntaryresignationsuggested,JEOpinion2001JE104saysAdistrictjudgemayserveontheboardofdirectorsofthelocalUnitedWaybutshouldnotsolicitfundsorusehis/herofficeforfundraisingpurposes.Canon4C(4),In2007JE152saysAjudgemayserveonanAlumniassociationBoardofDirectorssolongashedoesnotsolicitfundsorofferlegaladvice.Canon4C(4)andCanon4G.SeeJE77,104,and134.In2007JE154saysAjudgemayserveontheBoardofTrusteesoftheKansasBarFoundationsolongashedoesnotsolicitfundsorofferlegaladvice.Canon4C(4)andCanon4G.Je77,104,134,and152.ItseemsthatJudgeSmithviolatedtheseopinionsaswellandshouldbereprimandedforhisviolationsofthecodeofjudicialconduct.

5.HonorableSmithalsofailstomentiononhisfinancialdisclosurereportifheisamunicipal,fulltime,orparttimejudge.HealsofailstomentionifheisaSenior,HearingOfficer,orProTemporeJudgeonhisCalendarYear2014reportandthisshouldbeaviolationofRule3.15(B)aswellsinceitisnotproperlyfilledout.

6.PetitionersdonotunderstandwhytheORDERDENYINGGRANDJURYPETITIONISINALLCAPITALLETTERSandOrderDenyingVariousRequestsandOrderLimiting

FurtherFilingsisinupperandlowercaselettersandwouldlikeajudicialdeterminationonthisissue.

7.PetitionersdonotunderstandwhytheGRANDJURYPETITIONwasfiledunder2015MR2PandwouldliketoknowiftheORDERDENYINGGRANDJURYPETITIONISINALLCAPITALLETTERSandOrderDenyingVariousRequestsandOrderLimitingFurtherFilingsareinfactADMINISTRATIVEORDERSandnotJUDICIALORDERSsincetherearespacesbetweenthe5Rand2anditlacks2015.

6.ThePeopleoftheGrandJuryPetitionwouldlikearulingonthisMOTIONTODETERMINESUBJECTMATTERJURISDICTIONtoseeifthiscaseshouldbevacated/voidedduetolackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.

WHEREFORE,thepeopleofGRANDJURYPETITIONpraystothecourtfor

anOrdervacatingandvoidingtheORDENYINGGRANDJURYPETITIONANDOrder

DenyingVariousRequestsandOrderLimitingFurtherFilingsmadeHonorableRichard

M.Smithforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionandtransferthiscasetoanoutofthe

11thjudicialdistrictjudgewithsubjectmatterjurisdictiontohearthiscase.

RespectfullySubmittedby:

By:/s/sEricMMuatheP.O.Box224,Pittsburg,KS,66762

By:/s/sNoahDayP.O.Box224,Pittsburg,KS,66762

By:/s/sKaseyKingP.O.Box224,Pittsburg,KS,66762

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE

IcertifythatonJuly8th,2015theforegoingwasmailedviafirstclasscertifiedmailtothefollowingaddresses:

JUDGERICHARDM.SMITH

LINNCOUNTYDISTRICTCOURT,

P.O.BOX350,

MOUNDCITY,KS66056